The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMarch 5, 2018CLQ 6/ DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, March 5, 2018 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. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 Iroberts@pickering.ca DICKERING cd Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, March 5, 2018 Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean (I) Part `A' Information Reports Pages Subject: Information Report No. 03-18 1-12 Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/16(R) Revised Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP -2016-04(R) Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, now Parts 1 to 12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) (11) Part `B' Planning & Development Reports 1. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 04-18 13-19. Request to Establish a Stormwater Management Pond in the City of Pickering to accommodate Stormwater from Lands in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA17.001 11731 10TH Line Development Limited (Fieldgate Developments) Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Recommendation 1. That Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA 17.001 submitted by Malone Given Parsons and Fieldgate Developments for lands in the southeast quadrant of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville to facilitate the development of 738 dwelling units, be received for information and comment; For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 Iroberts a(�,pickering.ca GLg o6 DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, March 5, 2018 Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean 2 That Pickering Council endorse in principle the proposal for Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 to establish a stormwater management pond within the geographic boundaries of the City of Pickering for a subdivision in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, subject to an appropriate agreement between the Owner of the subdivision lands, the Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville, and the City of Pickering; 3. That the City of Pickering advise the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville that it has no objection to the approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)= 17.001,. subject to the imposition of the following condition of draft approval: "That prior to registration of any part of the plan tributary to a stormwater facility in the City of Pickering, the Owner of lands subject to Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 and the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville enter into an agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering respecting various matters including: a) that the Owner and the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville indemnify the City of Pickering with respect to any liability arising from any aspect of locating the stormwater management pond in Pickering; b) that the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville assume the stormwater pond regardless of whether it owns the lands; and c) that the Owner provide appropriate financial compensation to the City of Pickering, including if required, any external legal fees;" 4. That the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, and the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to negotiate the agreement and bring it back for Council's approval; 5. That the Owner of Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA 17.001 and the Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville be advised that they are obliged to ensure that the installation of the stormwater management pond complies with all relevant planning and development approvals including the Federal equivalents of satisfactory completion of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and Phase 2 if required, and cultural and heritage resource inventories and impact assessments and mitigation if required; and city DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, March 5, 2018 Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean 6. That a copy of Report PLN 04-18 of the Director, City Development & CBO be forwarded to the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, 11731 10th Line Developments Limited, Transport Canada, and the Rouge National Urban Park. 2. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 06-18 20-40 Zoning. By-law Amendment Application A 09/17 City Initiated Amendment to Zoning By-law 2511: Maximum Building Height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones Recommendation That City initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/17 to add maximum building height provisions for lands zoned "R3" and "R4" within Zoning By-law 2511, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 06-18, be endorsed; and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward the implementing Zoning By-law Amendment to Council for enactment. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 05-18 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP -2017-03 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26, Plan 350 Recommendation 41-61 That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP -2017-03, submitted by Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. on lands being Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26, Plan 350, to establish a residential plan of subdivision consisting of 7 lots for detached dwellings as shown on Attachment #3 to Report PLN 05-18 and the implementing conditions of approval as set out in Appendix I, be endorsed. 4. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 07-18 Future Reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway 1331301 Ontario Inc. In Trust 1450 Pickering Parkway Recommendation 62-74 Obi of DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, March 5, 2018 Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean That City of Pickering Council supports a future reduction in the Pickering Parkway right-of-way width to a minimum of 22.0 metres to accommodate a maximum 7.0 metre widening of Highway 401 into the City's right-of- way, should the Ministry of Transportation widen Highway 401 in the future and that the City accepts responsibility for the future reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway and associated impacts; and 2. That the Site Plan Control Agreement for Site Plan Application S 07/17 contain provisions obligating the landowner to convey the required 2.0 metre road widening along the entire frontage of Pickering Parkway to the City, at no cost to the City, in the event that Highway 401 is widened; and 3. That a copy of this Report PLN 07-18 and Council's resolution on the matter be forwarded to appropriate staff at the Ministry of Transportation and 1331301 Ontario Inc. (111) Other Business (IV) Adjournment G4 602 DICKERING Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 03-18 Date: March 5, 2018 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/16(R) Revised Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP -2016-04(R) Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, now Parts 1 to 12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) 1. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding revised applications for Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Condominium, submitted by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., to permit a residential. condominium development. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies, and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the revised applications, ask questions of clarification and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision is to be made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. Property Location and Description The subject lands are located on the east side of Brock Road, south of Usman Road and north of Finch Avenue within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands have a total area of approximately 5.2 hectares and consist of a developable portion having an area of approximately 1.3 hectares and valleylands having an area of approximately 3.9 hectares (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2). The surrounding land uses include: north the Pickering Islamic Centre; and a residential subdivision consisting of detached and townhouse dwellings, and a Village Green which are presently under construction east East Duffins Creek and associated valleylands, and the TransCanada Trail network Information Report No. 03-18 Page 2 south west West Duffins Creek and associated valleylands, and further south are large lots containing detached dwellings fronting onto the north side of Finch Avenue across Brock Road, are detached residential dwellings and the Brock Ridge Community Park 3. Background In 2010 Council approved a site specific rezoning application, submitted by 2143087 Ontario Ltd. (Palwinder), subject to an "(H)" Holding provision to facilitate the development of the westerly portion of the developable lands, referred to as `Phase 1 Lands', for a mixed use development consisting of a 3 -storey office building with ground floor retail and 12 live -work townhouse units. The valleylands associated with the Duffins Creek were rezoned from a Greenbelt Zone "G" to an Open Space — Hazard Lands Zone "OS -HL" and were to be conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Subsequently, the subject lands were sold to Fortress Munir 2013 Ltd. In 2016 a site plan agreement between the City and the new landowner was executed, the "(H)" Holding Symbol was removed and building permit applications were submitted for the Phase 1 Lands. However, the building permit applications were later abandoned by Fortress Munir 2013 Ltd. Also in 2016, Fortress Munir 2013 Ltd. submitted applications for zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of condominium to facilitate the development of the rear developable portion ('Phase 2 Lands') of the subject lands for a common element condominium consisting of 25 townhouse units fronting onto an internal private road. Following the statutory public information meeting, held on November 14,2016, the subject lands were acquired by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., and the processing of the applications for the Phase 2 Lands was put on hold. In July 2017, Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., submitted a revised proposal for the all of the developable lands. 4. Applicant's Proposal The applicant proposes a 59 unit residential condominium on the developable portion of the subject lands. The concept plan illustrates 7 townhouse blocks consisting of 39 townhouse units with parking at the front of the units fronting onto an internal private road, and 20 rear lane townhouse units (11 units front onto Brock Road and 9 units front onto Usman Road) with parking at the rear of the dwelling units. All buildings are proposed to be 3 storeys in height, approximately 9.0 metres. The townhouse block proposed on the easterly portion of the site is proposed to have walkout basements and a 4 -storey rear building elevation, approximately 10.0 metres. Two vehicular accesses to the development will be provided from the Usman Road (see Submitted Conceptual Plan, Attachment #3, and Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations, Front and Rear, Attachments #4 and #5). 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 in three areas within the development for a total of 16 parking spaces. The concept plan also includes a community mailbox area, a water meter room, a transformer, and a pedestrian walkway connection to Brock Road. 2 Information Report No. 03-18 Page 3 The applicant has also submitted a revised Draft Plan of Condominium Application changing the condominium tenure from a common element condominium to a standard condominium. In accordance with Council Policy and Delegation By-law 7306/13, the Director, City Development has the authority to grant draft plan approval for plans of condominium. Therefore, no further approvals are required from City Council. The Draft Plan of Subdivision Application submitted by Fortress Munir 2013 Ltd. for this proposal to facilitate a common element condominium has been closed as it is no longer required for the revised condominium proposal. The development will be subject to site plan approval. 5. Policy Framework 5.1 Pickering Official Plan The subject lands are within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood and are designated "Urban Residential Areas — Medium Density". This designation is intended primarily for residential uses and permits a maximum net residential density of over 30 and up to and including 80 units per net hectare. The permitted maximum floor space index (FSI) is up to and including 2.5 FSI. The proposal will result in a net residential density of 45 units per net hectare, which falls within the permitted density range of the Urban Residential Areas — Medium Density. The Brock Ridge Neighbourhood policies encourage a variety of housing forms. The policies also state that in the review of development applications situated north of the West Duffins Creek, east of Brock Road, City Council shall acknowledge the landowners' interest in maximizing the developable area of the property. Through the processing of the previous development applications the precise limits of development have been determined in consultation with the previous landowners, the City, and TRCA. 5.2 Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines The Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines provide direction for detailed land use, transportation network, community design objectives and servicing arrangements for the Precinct. The design objectives indicate that development in the Precinct must provide: • a range of housing types including detached, semi-detached, townhomes, and multi -unit dwellings • streetscape and architectural designs that are aesthetically pleasing, diverse, encourages social interaction within a neighbourhood, and supports safe environments • development that embraces the natural environment The Precinct is divided into five Development Areas with the intent to establish development of a varied scale throughout the Precinct. The subject property is delineated as Development Area 5 on the Tertiary Plan. Area 5 is intended to accommodate multi -unit, multi -floor buildings. Building heights permitted in Area 5 ranges from a minimum of 4 storeys to a maximum of 8 storeys. Variations to minimum and maximum building heights may be considered if it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the guidelines will be achieved. 3 Information Report No. 03-18 Page 4 Detailed floodplain mapping by TRCA subsequent to Council's adoption of the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood Plan and the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines has resulted in realignment of the "top of. bank" or development limit for the East Duffins Creek Valley closer to Brock Road in certain areas. This realignment of the development limits, among other matters, affects the proposed road pattern in the Precinct and the access to the lands subject of this report. The Duffins Precinct Tertiary Plan also shows future School and Park sites. The Durham District School Board and the Durham Catholic District School Board have indicated that the future School site is not needed. The location of the future Park site has been shifted to the residential subdivision presently under construction to the north of the subject lands. The Neighbourhood Plan and the Development Guidelines require amendment to reflect these changes. The applicant's proposal will be reviewed in detail to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood policies and the relevant Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines. 5.3 Duffins Precinct Environmental Servicing Plan In 2013, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update, Final Report (ESP Update) dated November 2012, prepared by Sernas Associates (now GHD). The ESP Update recommends detailed technical strategies to address water resource issues including the protection of wetland features, hydrogeology and water balance, erosion sensitivity, aquatic habitat and headwater conditions, stormwater management strategies, phasing of stormwater facilities, and required monitoring. The applicant's proposal will be reviewed in detail to ensure compliance with the technical requirements and recommendations of the ESP Update. 5.4 Zoning By-law 3036 The subject lands are zoned, "RH/MU-3" — Multi Residential/Mixed Use, "OS -HL" — Open Space Hazard Lands, and "G" - Greenbelt Conservation, within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. Mixed commercial, office, and multiple residential uses are permitted within the "RH/MU-3" Zone. The "OS -HL" and "G" Zones restrict the use to recreational uses, preservation and conservation activities, and/or buildings or structures designed to be used for flood and erosion control, resource management, pedestrian trail, and parks and recreation purposes. The applicant has requested that the developable portion of the subject lands be rezoned to an appropriate residential zone category in order to facilitate the proposal. As part of this rezoning lands zoned "G" will be rezoned to "OS -HL" to ensure that all of the valleylands that are to be conveyed are in an appropriate open space category. 4 Information Report No. 03-18 Page 5 6. Comments Received 6.1 Public Comments Davies Howe LLP, on behalf of Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation, the developer of the adjacent lands to the north, submitted comments requesting that the City impose a condition of development approval requiring Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. to enter into the cost sharing agreement for the Duffins South Community or otherwise reimburse Kindwin for its proportionate share of development related costs including the installation of below ground services, stormwater drainage infrastructure, road "works, related land dedications and associated soft costs that directly benefit the Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. lands. 6.2 Agency Comments Region of Durham Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Durham District School Board Durham Catholic District School Board • as of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received • as of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received • no objection to the development proposal • approximately 30 elementary students could be generated from the proposed development • the proposed development is within the boundary areas of Lincoln Avenue Public School and Pickering High School; both schools are located in Ajax • no objection to the development proposal • students generated from the proposed development will attend St. Wilfrid Catholic Elementary School and St. Mary Catholic Secondary School 6.3 City Departments Comments As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received. 7 Planning & Design Section Comments The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: • ensuring conformity with the City's Official Plan and Neighbourhood policies, Development Guidelines, and the Environmental Servicing Plan (ESP) Update • ensuring that the limit of development, building setbacks and other technical requirements are to the satisfaction of TRCA • evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed site layout • evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed 3 and 4 -storey building heights against the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines requirement of a minimum of 4 storeys to a maximum of 8 storeys. 5 Information Report No. 03-18 Page 6 • reflecting the entirety of the valleylands to be conveyed in an "OS -HL" — Open Space Hazard Lands Zone • ensuring that adequate resident and visitor parking is provided to support this development • ensuring the landowner pays its proportionate share of the development related costs • 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. 8. Information Received Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for online viewing at pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the office of the City of Pickering, CityDevelopment Department: • Building Elevations, Perspective View and Floor Plans prepared by Kohn Partnership Architects Inc., dated 26 April 2016 • Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by YCA Engineering Limited, dated December 2014 (revised October 2017) • Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated November 27, 2014 (revision of report dated September 3, 2014) • Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated December 18, 2014 • Functional Service and Stormwater Management Implementation Report, prepared by Burnside, dated June 2016 (revised June 2017) • Geotechnical Investigation — Preliminary Assessment prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated June 8, 2016 and Letter of Reliance for a Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Soil Engineers. Ltd., dated September 5, 2017 • Grading Plan prepared by Burnside dated June 3, 2016 • Landscape Master Plan, prepared by Marton Smith Landscape Architects, dated May 29, 2017 • Planning Justification Report, prepared by MHBC, dated July 2017 • Servicing Plan, prepared by Burnside, dated June 3, 2016 • Site Plan, prepared by Kohn Partnership Architects Inc., dated May 06, 2017 • Soil Investigation — Final, prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated July 2016 • Stages 1 and 2 Archaeological Report, prepared by A.M. Archaeological Associates, dated July 8, 2009 (revised February 2011) • Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment and 4 Archaeological Mitigation Reports, prepared by Archaeological & Cultural Heritage Services, dated October 4, 2016 and April 20, 2017 (respectively) • Transportation Considerations, prepared by BA Group, dated June 8, 2017 Information Report No. 03-18 Page 7 9. Procedural Information 9.1 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 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 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 10. Owner/Applicant information The owner of the property is Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. and is represented by Dana Anderson, MacNaughton Hemson Britton Clarkson Planning. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Concept Plan 4. Submitted Conceptual Front Building Elevation 5. Submitted Conceptual Rear Building Elevations Prepared By: Deborah W ie, MCIP, RPP Princip::I Planner, Development Review Nilesh •urti,'MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design DW;Id Date of Report: February 14, 2018 Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner 7 Attachment #,=to (nformPtinr, 111 tiL,11IV Or a 0 w 0 z w U 0) w U 2 MAJOR OAKS ROAD i .u) w JADE STREET w 1 0) w m USMAN ROAD 11111111111 ME C.NIMINEMEIIMINOIMINEMIMEIIME MENNMI IN=1MN1111 0 0 w O 0) 1111/1111 RAYLEEN CRESCENT PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT VALLEY LANDS TO BE CONVEYED TO. TRCA w a z 0 IL w u. a BLUEBIRD CRESCENT FINCH AVENUE 0 0 Ct 0 J 8 PICKERING City Development Department Location Map File: CP -2016-04(R) & A 11/16 (R) Applicant:Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Property Description:Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Parts 1-12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) The Corporation of the City of Plckenng Produced (In part) under Ecense from:00ueers Porter, Ontario Rin slry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;0 Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Canada, Oep admert of Natural Resources.A9 rights reserved.; Teraxi Enterprises Inc. and Its suppliers elf rights reserved.; 0 MoNcipel Prop erty Assessment ComoraEon and its suppEers a9 dolts reserved,; Date: Feb. 12, 2018 SCALE: 1:5,000 THIS IS IOTA PLAN OF SURVEY. Ati:ach! {' eni 2ranor r- 1,-.0;: F -7'P ci J?` (%3-/ err ^51 011 11106,9r4 0.004 44,04000i Li:. 160; ! ha IestL i p- r rr litalliNgLy - 1+.1 iro'N:gijitia GRESCEN} ll PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE '•k'1 ; t ' DEVELOPMENT„ ill t:. VALLEY LANDS TO BE CONVEYED TO TRCA rw V C4 11- PICKERING City Development Department Air Photo Map File: CP -2016-04(R) & A 11115 (R) Applicant:Brock Road Duffins Forest inc. Property Description:Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Parts 1-12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) 0 The Corp ..en or the city of P1cre nnp Produced cin pan! wafer license kerma v Orders Aereer, Ortan. Mrnsyd Padre] Re s, AiryD [..... eat Hlr Map try gm Oueein RAMer clnlee.Olasder rrnu.l RCS... Al deHf rese.a: re renal ENry eda..sesIx. aas suppliers. all dplds reamed.; lMunicip.1pal Properly/nsesmrt Lorporatlon ark 1!s srppden at Pp. resumed.; Date: Feb. 12, 2018 SCALE: 1:5,000 THIS IS IIOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. _ 9 TOWNHO SES BLOCK C 3 Storeys, ill Units c e� PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Concept Plan FILE No: CP -2016-04 (R) and A 11/16 (R) APPLICANT: Brock Road Dufns Forest Inc. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Parts 1-12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Dec. 22, 2017 Blocks A, B, C & D 044 PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Conceptual Front Building Elevation FILE No: CP -2016-04 (R) and A 11/16 (R) APPLICANT: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Parts 1-12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb. 15, 2018 11 NM 1111111111 111111111111111 IMONIESSEMS 11111 111111111311 q NNIN 1111.110111 qi PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Conceptual Rear Building Elevations u FILE No: CP -2016-04 (R) and A 11/16 (R) APPLICANT Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Parts 1-12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb. 15, 2018 Cdy of DICKERING Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 04-18 Date: March 5, 2018 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Request to Establish a Stormwater Management Pond in the City of Pickering to accommodate Stormwater from Lands in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA17.001 11731 10th Line Developments Limited (Fieldgate Developments) Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville City of Pickering File: A-2400-007 Recommendations: 1. That Draft Plan of. Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA 17.001 submitted by Malone Given Parsons and Fieldgate Developments for lands in the southeast quadrant of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville to facilitate the development of 738 dwelling units, be received for information and comment; 2. That Pickering Council endorse in principle the proposal for Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 to establish a stormwater management pond within the geographic boundaries of the City of Pickering for a subdivision in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, subject to an appropriate agreement between the Owner of the subdivision lands, the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, and the City of Pickering; 3. That the City of Pickering advise the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville that it has no objection to the approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001, subject to the imposition of the following condition of draft approval: "That prior to registration of any part of the plan tributary to a stormwater facility in the City of Pickering, the Owner of lands subject to Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 and the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville enter into an agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering respecting various matters including: a. that the Owner and the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville indemnify the City of Pickering with respect to any liability arising from any aspect of locating the stormwater management pond in Pickering; b. that the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville assume the stormwater pond regardless of whether it owns the lands; and c. that the Owner provide appropriate financial compensation to the City of Pickering, including if required, any external legal fees;" 4. That the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, and the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to negotiate the agreement and bring it back for Council's approval; 13 Report PLN 04-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Stormwater Pond in Pickering to Serve Whitchurch-Stouffville Page 2 5. That the Owner of Draft Plan of Subdivision` 19T(W)-17.001 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA 17.001 and the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville be advised that they are obliged to ensure that the installation of the stormwater management pond complies with all relevant planning and development approvals including the Federal equivalents of satisfactory completion of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and Phase 2 if required, and cultural and heritage resource inventories and impact assessments and mitigation if required; and That a copy of Report PLN 04-18 of the Director, City Development & CBO be forwarded to the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, 11731 10th Line Developments Limited, Transport Canada, and the Rouge National Urban Park. Executive Summary: The City received a request for comments on applications for a proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment for lands located in the southeast corner of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, adjacent to the City of Pickering (see Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Location Map, Attachment #1). The proposal is for 738 dwelling units. An unusual aspect of this proposal is the request to build the stormwater management pond for the proposed subdivision, on lands located within the City of Pickering (see Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Map Showing Location of Proposed Stormwater Pond in Pickering, Attachment #2). The pond in Pickering would be along the same watercourse that the subdivision drains to but meanders across the York -Durham boundary (York Regional Road 30). It is also understood that it may allow decommissioning of an existing stormwater pond directly north of the proposed subdivision with that stormwater redirected to the new facility in Pickering. The new pond would be approximately 4 hectares in size, and is proposed on lands currently owned by Public Works Canada (as part of Transport Canada's holdings), that are earmarked to be transferred to the Rouge National Urban Park. The location of the pond in Pickering would allow the development to accommodate approximately 50 to 80 additional lots. Senior staff from the City and the Town met along with representatives for the Owner and concluded there was merit and agreement in principle to pursue the stormwater pond location in Pickering, providing the critical matters have been adequately addressed, including indemnification for the City with respect to liability, the Town's assumption of the pond regardless of who owns the land, and appropriate compensation to the City. Accordingly, this Report recommends that Council: endorse locating the stormwater management pond in Pickering; authorize staff to negotiate an appropriate agreement between the City with the Owner of the subdivision lands and the Town, and bring the agreement back to City Council for approval; and request the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville to impose a condition of draft approval on the subdivision to address the requirement for the agreement to be registered on title to the subdivision lands prior to the registration any lands within of the Plan draining to the stormwater facility in Pickering. Financial Implications: The exact amount of compensation is subject to negotiation of the agreement between the parties. 14 Report PLN 04-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Stormwater Pond in Pickering to Serve Whitchurch-Stouffville Page 3 Discussion: 1.0 The City received circulation of applications from the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville On April 11, 2017, the City received a circulation notice and request for comments from the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville regarding proposed applications Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 17.001 (see Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Location Map, Attachment #1). The applications were submitted to Whitchurch-Stouffville, by Malone Given Parsons and Fieldgate Developments on behalf of the property Owner 11731 10th Line Developments Limited. The applications were submitted to facilitate the development of 665 detached dwellings, 56 townhouses, 16 live -work townhomes, and the protection of an existing heritage home on lot (for a total of 738 dwelling units). The lands subject of the applications have an area of 36.9 hectares, and are located in the southeast corner of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. The south boundary of the development abuts the City of Markham. The east boundary of the development abuts York -Durham Townline Road (York Regional Road 30) with the City of Pickering to the east of Townline Road. 2.0 An uncommon stormwater management strategy is proposed Local municipalities have jurisdiction for stormwater management and the local storm sewer system. Once constructed and functioning properly, stormwater ponds are usually assumed by, and conveyed to, the local municipality so they can operate and maintain the pond. However, the applications from 11730 10th Line Developments Limited propose that the stormwater management pond to handle the stormwater from the eastern portion of the site be located on lands physically located with the City of Pickering (see Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Map Showing Location of Proposed Stormwater Pond in Pickering, Attachment #2). This location is within the drainage shed of the watercourse the eastern portion .of the subdivision is tributary to. A similar arrangement was entered into by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and the City of Markham to enable optimization of another subdivision to the west of the subject lands. Additionally, we understand there has been dialogue on abandoning the storm pond which abuts the subdivision to the north from the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, and rehabilitate the land for park purposes. The stormwater that was treated in the northerly pond would flow through the new subdivision to the new pond in Pickering. On May 17, 2017, staff provided preliminary comments to the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville on the applications. The comments identified a number of planning matters to be addressed to justify the location of the stormwater pond in Pickering, and acknowledged a number of practical matters that would need to be addressed should the pond location in Pickering proceed. 15 Report PLN 04-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Stormwater Pond in Pickering to Serve Whitchurch-Stouffville Page 4 Initially, the proposed pond location was on privately -owned lands east of the subdivision. This location has challenges including compliance with zoning, the Pickering Official Plan, and the Greenbelt/Oak Ridges Moraine Plans. Subsequently, another site was identified nearby on lands currently owned by the Public Works Canada for which the Memorandum of Agreement with Parks Canada et al., accommodates certain permitted infrastructure uses. This property is part of the Transport Canada assembly that is being conveyed to the Rouge National Urban Park. This is now the preferred location for the pond in Pickering. As a result of discussions between senior staff from the municipalities and the developer, it was concluded that there is merit and agreement in principle to pursue the stormwater pond location in Pickering. 3.0 Council's concurrence and agreement between the parties will be required The City of Pickering has no interest in assuming the long term operation and maintenance responsibility for a stormwater pond that is handling stormwater from an adjoining municipality. The pond will need to be assumed by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville regardless of who owns the land (Public Works Canada or Parks Canada). Accordingly, should Council concur there is merit is allowing the pursuit of a stormwater pond in Pickering, an agreement between 11730 10th Line Developments Limited, the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and the City must be entered into indemnifying the City from any liability arising from any aspect of locating the stormwater management pond in Pickering. The agreement should also require the Town to assume the pond. By locating the stormwater pond in Pickering (and not in the subdivision), there is greater ability to accommodate growth within the Stouffville's urban boundary. The City should receive some financial compensation for agreeing to locate the pond in Pickering. Therefore, the agreement mentioned above should also include a clause that the Owner provide financial compensation in an amount satisfactory to the City of Pickering, including if required, external legal fees. Staff recommends that Council advise the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and the Owner of the subdivision lands that Pickering Council concurs there is merit in allowing the, developer to pursue a stormwater pond in Pickering. It is recommended that Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, and the Director, Finance & Treasurer to negotiate the agreement and bring it back to Council for approval. 4.0 The City needs to impose a condition on Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 Staff has no other concerns or comments respecting the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment. However, to secure the agreement mentioned above, the City needs to impose a condition of draft approval for application 19T(W)-17.001. 16 Report PLN 04-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Stormwater Pond in Pickering to Serve Whitchurch-Stouffville Page 5 Staff recommends that Council advise the Town that it has no objection to the draft approval of the plan of subdivision subject to the inclusion of a condition of draft approval requiring the above -noted agreement to be finalized to the satisfaction of the City and registered on title to the Owner of the subdivision lands. Staff also recommends that Council advise the Owner of the subdivision lands and the Town that they are obliged to ensure that the installation of stormwater pond complies with all relevant planning and development approvals, given its proposed location on Federally -owned lands earmarked to be transferred to the Rouge National Urban Park. It is understood that the City of Pickering, as a party to the Memorandum of Agreement with Parks Canada et al., (which sets out various matters including the permitted infrastructure uses in the Park), may need to be the applicant for the infrastructure request. Lastly, staff recommends that a copy of this Report and Council's resolution on the matter be forwarded to the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, 11731 10}" Line Developments Limited, Transport Canada and the Rouge National Urban Park. Attachments: 1. Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Location Map 2. Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Map Showing Location of Proposed Stormwater Pond in Pickering Prepared By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner CR:Id Approved/Endorsed By: /5/t//fe-i'2,-- Kyle Bentley, P.Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 7'- '412'!8 17 ATTACHMENT # / _TO REPORT # c)(4 -I3 T. Mt a- 5 1 ti fre i'� NMI II mill 4' 'Stuaa} eeler_eresc in lima -.LoriuAvenue'- 11. 1 in -.z 1/ 1111 1 ' .44 111 j atson!Diive Loral r 11 11 lou. i/ Gai.. L aoBouleva 1 Bethesda -Road • � t escent �r—f +, ti CreN i ai SOI O. N [l 1 L td - _' Jacob Way c resin. J • Ali 1" --7-1M11?1 41111115 () Ir;� Hoover-Parka.Drive=-:_ I 1 111 11 1 MINION 0 = mm 11ll1ilgt11/ =11111111111,1, ,•. j. 41111;: -11 anki2a e I a- eine i In IMP ISA ACM= JonasoMlliwayE ;f 1T1i111111111II1 l I I I) l l i r 1' N 1 Gec!' .. W ti'a danelg411' 7-11111111111111-5 tt�ir m1i1i1 a`eRaxlinoS 00 v�_.7 uu■ r if fIM1I_UII R E iebankaCrescen 1 11 �: I'' 1111 1 u ml 1, 0 antle,p MIN P e n 9 11/ � Acer Gre, 11 tlit.11l-m: ue! n City of Markham fri L'' 0 co 0 o re �- ------ �19th�Avenue,-- le __ 1 Region of Durham 18 Town of. Whi.t,c:hurch-St.o.uffville Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment 11731 Tenth Line Lot 32, Concession 10 File Nos. 19T(W)-17.001 & ZBA 16.017 . 0 70 140 280 420 in Produced By: Development Services, 2017 ® Copyright, Town of Whitchurch-Stoullvllle ©copyright, The Regional Municipality 01 York 11731 TENTH LINE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED - CONTEXT PLAN i.;. .--bnsnnc = acssvnu - - lin EDI c. • STREET 'V Weer": r,. 1a .1 r 57557 r Or r 1•11. Y • Part of Lot 32 Concession 10, Geographic Township of WhAchurch Now In Tha Town of Whit hurch•Stoufville Regional Municipality of York AGRICULTURAL CITY OF MARKHAM 79th AVENUE r. Subject Lands ITIS Scale: 0 50 100 150 200m Prepared by: MALOEE GIVEN PARSONS LTD, lea. Renee, Wee Sum201 Mrrqun0 Omm., OR 553 Te[ [005] 5139570 .wn.rryo.c+ pnm: Feb %TaIe Nerd N0:141555 Cf�od DICKERING Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 06-18 Date: March 5, 2018 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/17 City Initiated. Amendment to Zoning By-law 2511: Maximum Building Height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones Recommendation: 1. That City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/17 to add maximum building height provisions for lands zoned "R3" and "R4" within Zoning By-law 2511, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 06-18, be endorsed; and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward the implementing Zoning By-law Amendment to Council for enactment. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to seek final Council approval of the City initiated amendment to Zoning By-law 2511, as set out in Appendix I, to add a maximum building height of 9.0 metres for all lands zoned "R3" and "R4" that are not 'subject to a site specific by-law; and to add a site specific exception allowing a maximum building height of 9.5 metres for lands within Draft Plan of Subdivision SP -2017-03. Through focus group discussions with the community, maximum building height was identified as one of the key criteria in ensuring compatibility of new infill and replacement housing in established neighbourhoods. Homes in the Rosebank, West Shore and Bay Ridges Neighbourhoods were built over a range of years. However, most were built between the 1970s and 1990s. These neighbourhoods have been experiencing a shift over the last several years as a result of new larger and taller homes built through infill and replacement housing. Consequently, local residents have starting raising concerns that these new homes are not compatible with the predominant character of these neighbourhoods. Zoning By-law 2511 currently does not regulate maximum building height for parts of the established neighbourhoods of Rosebank, West Shore and Bay Ridges: The draft implementing Zoning By-law Amendment, set out in Appendix 1, provides an interim measure until further policy, zoning and other tools are developed through the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study to address transition between existing older housing stock and new contemporary housing development. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this report. 20 Report PLN 06-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: City Initiated Amendment to Zoning By-law 2511: Page 2 Maximum Building Height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones Discussion: 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject lands are zoned "R3" — Residential Third Density Zone and "R4" — Residential Fourth Density Zone within the Rosebank, West Shore and Bay Ridges Neighbourhoods, as identified in Attachments #1, #2 and #3 respectively. The Rosebank, West Shore and Bay Ridges Neighbourhoods are located within the South Pickering Urban Area. 1.2 Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Amendment Draft amendments to Zoning By-law 2511, as set out in Appendix I, add a maximum building height of 9.0 metres to the "R3"and "R4" Zones; and add a site specific exception to the "R4" Zone allowing a maximum building height of 9.5 metres for lands within the Draft Plan of Subdivision SP -2017-03. All other properties within the "R3" and "R4" Zones that have a site specific by-law regulating maximum building height will continue to have that provision regulated by their site specific by-law. 2. Public Consultation and Comments 2.1 October 30, 2017 Open House and November 6, 2017 Public Meeting Notice of an Open House and Public Meeting was placed on the City's website and on the Community Page of the News Advertiser in the October 11, 2017 and October 18, 2017 editions. Notice was also mailed to all interested parties that attended the September 5, 2017 meeting of the Planning & Development Committee when Report PLN 15-17 on "Infilland Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods" was considered. The Open House meeting was held on Monday, October 30, 2017 to inform area residents and the public about the proposed amendments to Zoning By-law 2511 and receive feedback: Approximately 25 people attended the Open House. On November 6, 2017, approximately 50 people attended the Statutory Public Information Meeting, at which 10 residents spoke or made a presentation regarding the proposed amendments to Zoning By-law 2511. 2.2 Written Submissions Sixteen written submissions were also.received. Attachment#4 outlines the.written submissions and staff's response. 2.3 Summary of Public Comments The following is a summary of the key comments provided at the Open House, Public Meeting and through written submissions. 21 Report PLN 06-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: City Initiated Amendment to Zoning By-law 2511: Page 3 Maximum Building Height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones 2.3.1 Maximum Height Support for setting a 9.0 metre maximum building height: Most of the comments support a 9.0 metre maximum building height. Comments cited concern over shadowing caused by larger, taller homes on adjacent existing homes and the negative impact that these larger homes could have on the existing character of established low-rise neighbourhoods. Comments were also made that the 9.0 metre maximum building height should be applied beyond the "R3" and "R4" Zones, including applying the standard to semi-detached and linked dwellings and replacing the 10.5 metre maximum building height in Zoning By-law 2520 with 9.0 metres so that it is in keeping with most of the existing homes in the area. There were also some comments that the method for measuring height should be reviewed. Many people noted that implementing a 9.0 metre maximum building height is a good start and that they are eager to have the City undertake the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study so that other matters related to compatibility can be comprehensively addressed. Requests to consider a 10.5 metre maximum building height: Some people noted that a 10.5 metre maximum building height is more appropriate to accommodate the type of housing product that consumers want, specifically homes with 2.7 and 3.0 metre (9 and 10 foot) ceilings. It was also noted that a 9.0 metre maximum building height may restrict certain architectural styles and the achievement of various roof types. There was some concern that establishing a maximum building height of 9.0 metres would decrease property values and that it would be more appropriate to establish a 10.5 metre maximum building height until the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study is complete. 2.3.2 Compatibility and Character Several comments made regarding other matters impacting neighbourhood character are outside the scope of this Zoning By-law Amendment and will be addressed through the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. These comments ' include: concern regarding how building height is measured; concern that grading of new lots result in an established grade that is higher than that of adjacent properties; support for the preservation of existing trees; and lack of support for reducing setbacks. 2.3.3 Other Matters Other key comments made that are outside the scope of this Zoning By-law Amendment include: a request to Council to consider Durham Region's Age -Friendly Community Plan; concern that the development of larger homes affects housing affordability and property values; a request to consider not having basements in areas prone to flooding; and concern with the high density proposal on Wharf Street and the future development at the base of Liverpool Road. 22 Report PLN 06-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: City Initiated Amendment to Zoning By-law 2511: Page 4 Maximum Building Height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones 3 City Departments and Agency Comments 3.1 City of Pickering Engineering Services Department Engineering Services had no objection to the proposed amendment. Lot grading plans in support of building permits and planning, applications are reviewed by the Water Resources & Development Services Division to ensure the Development Control Design Standards and the Stormwater Management Design Guidelines are met. 3.2 Region of Durham The Region of Durham noted that applicable designations in the Regional Official Plan for the subject lands include "Living Areas", "Waterfront Areas", and "Waterfront Places — Frenchman's Bay". They also noted that the proposed amendment appears to conform to the Regional Official Plan. 3.3 Enbridge Gas Enbridge Gas had no objection to the proposed amendment. 3.4 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) The TRCA had no comments or concerns with the proposed amendment. 4. Planning Analysis 4.1 Proposal Conforms to Pickering Official Plan The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Areas" within the Rosebank, West Shore, and Bay Ridges Neighbourhoods. Lands within this designation are intended primarily for housing. Official Plan policies with regard to community design encourage developments that are designed to fit their contexts by considering matters such as massing, height, and scale. Also, specific policies for the Rosebank Neighbourhood encourage new development to be compatible with the character of existing development. The uses permittedin the "R3" and "R4" Zones of By-law 2511 are limited to detached dwellings. The draft implementing Zoning By-law Amendment conforms to the policies of the Pickering Official Plan. 4.2 The Need to Implement a Zoning By-law Amendment Over the past several decades, the size and height of houses have increased due to changes in building construction techniques, engineering practices for lot grading, market trends and consumer preferences for higher interior ceiling heights. Image 1 illustrates this general trend. This has resulted in situations, experienced by many municipalities, where the height and scale of new homes in mature, established low-rise neighbourhoods can be considerably taller than adjacent existing homes. 23 24 Report PLN 06-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: City Initiated Amendment to Zoning By-law 2511: Page 5 Maximum Building Height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones Image 1: Trend in Changes to Building Heights (Source: City of Edmonton) PRE 1970 1970 .2000 8'-1" Second Floor 8'-1" Main Floor Basement 8'-1" Second Floor 8'-1" to 9'-1" Main Floor 2000 - PRESENT 8'-1" to 9'-1" for Upper Floors 9'-1" to 10'-1" for Main Floor Height i\\/\T/� Basement _ 7 iii\`/i\``i/\`/) Developed Basement /�x&A,,,/ \x\//A// /}/i`/i iNii` ,,;,/ x ,,\,< /\/\ , ,\,\/< <- Comments provided at the Open House and Public Meeting as well as written submissions strongly identify building height as a chief concern with respect to the impact larger homes have on the character of a neighbourhood. Zoning By-law 2511 currently does not regulate maximum building height for parts of the established neighbourhoods of Rosebank, West Shore and Bay Ridges. The introduction of a maximum building height provision is an important step as an interim measure to address this deficiency in Zoning By-law 2511 and to address resident concerns. Maximum building height provisions, among other matters, will be further reviewed through the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study which will examine neighbourhoods in the South Pickering Urban Area. Many noted at the Open House and Public Meeting that they are anxious for the City to undertake the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study to address the impacts new housing has on the character of established neighbourhoods, and agree that adding an interim maximum building height provision is a step in the right direction. 4.2A Proposing a Maximum Building Height Staff considered all of the comments expressed through the Open House, Public Meeting and written submissions, as well as comments received from the agency circulation. Staff also reviewed site specific amendments establishing a maximum building height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones of Zoning By-law 2511 passed since the year 2000, and found that many were for 9.0 metres or less. Most of the individuals who provided comments at the Open House, Public Meeting and through written submissions support a maximum building height of 9.0 metres, indicating it will provide a reasonable transition between new contemporary housing development and older existing residential development. There were also concerns expressed that a maximum building height of 9.0 metres is too restrictive considering modern construction methods and that 10.0 or 10.5 metres would allow some flexibility to address local conditions and would facilitate homeowner desires to have higher interior floor to ceiling heights. Report PLN 06-18 Revised March 5, 2018 Subject: City Initiated Amendment to Zoning By-law 2511: Page 6 Maximum Building Height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones Based on staffs research and in Tight of public feedback, staff continue to recommend that a 9.0 metre maximum building height is appropriate and can accommodate the development of a moderate two-storey home while providing an appropriate transition in height to adjacent existing homes that were predominantly built prior to 2000. A 9.0 metre maximum building height would permit bungalows, bungaloft-style and two --storey dwellings, but will largely preclude three-storey dwellings. The proposed maximum building height provision will help manage redevelopment within established residential neighbourhoods and address compatibility matters. 4.3 Effect of Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Amendment on Active Planning Applications As of the writing of this Report, there is one active planning application in the subject area that is pending approval. A Draft Plan of Subdivision SP -2017-03 for Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. is proposing seven Tots for detached dwellings fronting onto the extension of Frontier Court (see PLN 05-18 which recommends approval of the Draft Plan of Subdivision). Marshall Homes is proposing building heights that range between 9.0 and 9.5 metres. The Planning Act indicates that no new zoning by-law shall prevent the erection of any building or structure from being established where a building permit has been issued prior to the date of the passing of the new by-law. This means that when Marshall Homes applies for building permits, they would have to comply with the zoning in force at the time which, should Council pass this Zoning By-law Amendment, will limit the maximum building height to 9.0 metres. As such, Marshall Homes would either need to redesign some of the detached dwellings to ensure they all meet the 9.0 metre maximum building height limit, or submit a minor variance application and proceed through the minor variance process. Although, under the current zoning, Marshall Homes could have proposed dwellings that are considerably higher than 9.0 to 9.5 metres, they have attempted to meet the proposed 9.0 metre maximum building height. However, due to the grades of some lots, a 9.0 metre height limit could not be achieved without a substantial redesign of these dwelling units. Staff acknowledge that applicants incur a substantial expense to prepare drawings and background reports as part of their complete application submission to the City. As such, it is recommended that a site specific exception be made to the "R4" Zone in By-law 2511 to permit a maximum 9.5 metre building height for the proposed, Marshall Homes development on Frontier Court. 25 Report PLN 06-18 No Change March 5, 2018 Subject: City Initiated Amendment to Zoning By-law 2511: Page 7 Maximum Building Height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones 4.4 Staff Recommend an implementing Zoning By-Iaw Amendment be Forwarded to Council for Enactment Staff recommend the Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Appendix I, that will amend Zoning By-Iaw 2511 to add a maximum building height provision of 9.0 metres to the "R3" Zone and the "R4" Zone, and provide a site specific exception for the Marshall Homes development an Frontier Court, be brought before Council for enactment. Appendix: Appendix I Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Amendment Attachments: 1. Subject Lands — Rosebank Neighbourhood 2. Subject Lands — West Shore Neighbourhood 3. Subject Lands — Bay Ridges Neighbourhood 4. Staff Response to Written Submissions Prepared By: 26 Stev Andis, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics SA:JB:Id Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner -/A:4 Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Fng, Chief Administrative Officer /5,z0/463 Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Amendment Appendix I to Report PLN 06-18 27 The Corporation o t : 1 of Pickering i B - aw No. XXXX118 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham (A 09/17) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering initiated an application to regulate maximum building height within the "R3" and "R4" Zone categories within Zoning By-law 2511; And whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it advisable to amend By-law 2511 to regulate the maximum building height within the "R3" and "R4" Zone categories; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands designated "R3" — Residential Third Density and "R4" — Residential Fourth Density by By-law 2511, 3. Text Amendments Section 9.2 and 10.2, are hereby amended, by incorporating the following subparagraphs to the Area Requirements of "R3" and "R4" Zones as follows: (1) 9.2. 7 Building Height: Maximum — 9.0 metres (2) 10.2.7 Building Height: Maximum — 9.0 metres (3) New Subsection 10.3.6 is hereby added to provide a site specific exception as follows: 10.3.6 Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 & 26, Plan 350 (Now Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4 of Plan 40R-29501) 28 Bylaw No. XXXX118 Page 2 Notwithstanding the provision for maximum building height in Subsection 10.2.7, lands as shown on Schedule Ito By-law XXX/18 shall have a maximum building height of 9.5 metres. 4. By-Iaw 2511 By-law 2511, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this 13y -law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-Iaw 2511, as amended. 5. Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-Iaw passed this XX day of XXXX, 2018. DRAFT David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk 29 Lytton Court 30 Rougemount Drive rn 42.11m Frontior Court m r 1 Toynovale Roast Schedule 1 to By -Law XXXX Passed This Day of Mayor Clerk Oakwood Drive r Rosebank - Lands Zoned R3 & R4 JIHIIIPImI =:6.41Vi1II1IIit 1111 �!I IIIIIIII1111I Rosebank Neighbourhood R3 Zone ' R4 Zone 0 125 I 1 1 1:10,000 250 500 Metres I 1 1 w West Shore - Lands Zoned R3 & R4 111 iiiiir111111111 11111111111111111 s r II1111111.IIr111111i If11111EIIIIEIIIEISIG1111lI 611111111I1II11II11I11I111@IIE!III ISrIL� 11+x1% 1111111 -r =%1! am►lam E1: 111 r �F1111 : i 1*Illlllla= '2111111:-.mmairimmilginimm1 IIlI 111111M1111W MOIflhI 1111111N1111i11[Illarrrrrrr Irrlil-•rl11l1mg= :1111 111111111 �L=1� r -IM ..11111 rgi I;� 1.� r:iptiunrn � ti.=a aIIF�s = � — �a==-!111111111 flliatI, =.= -= —0-1111111111 1111111► A �� =f w111111 r ..y�y,,_Fs. �/In1111iI111un1►►��r IL 7== ==—�'llllllllll! 111111111►Ij. It= pimm�i 11 mit.5.� -.__ -- Ie_ 111111111111 uumrII = = 11 !f nir l 1+ 11f11f ' 'p 11111-iilrnlrrfl ►�• = ==i__ == — =1�►r► Cauk -� �� Ste- -� r ��► `►s ` "�„E11i 11fr�� Immo r!•`� r ►= I►I►' ; ��ji _= nn 111!1111 ��■ i n► _ I w� 1111111/1 ��!"' `i1► .. I _/IIIIIiAlllllln= +�'+' fll�llr—;= Ill ■� �, 1111111111111111f11� —�' �= r �r �� 1 n� ��, �11�Ar11= �� _1r1► X11= :iii : �1 �Illllllllllllllllllllfllflllll 7.r._�` „�,,,;,�,.,.�.� �Illllllllll[III[IIIII[II�IIIlRfilrNr nuns ��'��-�� .rd illl"1.11■■ima• talL_U101 npa► VP' 4 001 fte Mei I. 11!11 illiplik.mi ril �a+rsri fmetiat ngig 1II1JJ gill 8111" s, = film- m ~Zi = = _s~� L.IIiya_ Mal =Mr .min....s— —1- iII I1I1►►= • �111r11 aii tiii 11I111111IIlhI �� Hiking !VJ �.- � =1•.; le-th `AIM_ It.X111111 bAiimillIlfllit Gkmnp.m Dr! II Ill Illn1ilil 1121.11111111111 *.rn74.r.. 111111111111111H IIII+11IIIIn! 111112 61-411111111111111111. Il _111fllly//�� rlsr U4gip/� _ 11111 q./.. - :if • �i� 1111111 a _=l=: c -.4. ►di_ M. =I11unN G1= =`3-� 91,.1 �3= _ :111111FEllfli111!! - '•�' amin1ue111�1� lid ►y, L,, 1111111,/' %vim "- Rimy ■111x11lIxIxlrl{illllill<i1 r�� +:err._ �iiri�i�lxili i�►: 1F11r+�? Ilr�y+� ��• y��+*+++ +:1+ 1 II►►� x1111x EtIIIitHIr1►r� Oro �► mili `11111► �S Illilill11111 � � ,� ==r,=`7.y° :11`11= m r. -11► °1n�mm.iull 1I11IIIIIIIIIIIII = 111111111111111111 I1� =11IIIlll111111r. Iill� gIlllllrllli111a nfl_t_= _ �a1♦-� 111 Ilk 11111111 -- 111111111 111111en" ` - FIIni11 : _ ` = ....~"1111T - ,. '�nnm1- �llllplll •111= 111llill1111111111d 1111111 Frenchman's Bay ■II 11111I1I- � 1111 r 111111111 West Shore Neighbour R3 zone 1:15,000 R4 zone 0 125 250 500 Metres 1 1 1 1 1 1 III Bay Ridges - Lands Zoned R3 & R4 1111111 E�g3 .p A�► 111111 '� 1� jt�►►� v111,10, el* 10Fr: RUE•1111 1.nr :1.11.11i QlN13ai11111111u u11111r y�l i1Rr11r11r1 1111116111111111 i111nIIWI11E1 rr11111Ulllllr11rl 111r r EIIIIIAIIIIr.i- 11 111runrlslr► w Ellr[turlrrT uninominal% C= —= unir uiuullss ' rinnl"mrmimmI"i I2 11111 :il • - IL r -1rxsElnrrlu� C 2111As11111s11rr 2 J_ 1111r 1Y lir' .744 ler i W rrlrlrin '4 e. dl VH1■.r :11t 1� ►1 1 —Mini. -:- -wi4►ta. J! jiIIItfl!hI4 ;1-ya 111111 M 11111 MI 11111111111111111 a 111111111111111111 ;� mllrrmiliiuir 111111111IWa a.yir stwvI any! y Sty llil� E—�=l� E: W; 4 .14 411mn11nm Ifnitl�a I1E..:, .,,,,m_ ., 111 nnmrnlm1nrrnnluu =MI111111111=i II dd- -ESTBIS y/11murlt►► %AS . mum t ors .#000, ey4: ==N11an11llnunun -lllrllIl1i1Mu11lI1Jl1IlrIl1'1lIlI1lI1Il 1i: u,111111tr1111 A �tei.— �n Sr �rtriiii11I1uI�e1rui tliilllll 1i111111f1 i ' is ! — 1111111111 1111111f1 __ �Qrn� a:rsr• ulunmfljlri= UI1 . 11111 _ 1ILII1II 11 — m - _ Gash ! 1WI111411E=11- 1 OM - 11 MI 1111111111r1nllln111 =� % r11111u11r -�1, X11111111111 F-1 Bay Ridges Neighbourhoo R3 Zone w' j R4 Zone 1:15,000 0 125 250 500 Metres 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Staff Response to Written Submissions Commenter Written Submission Staff Response 1. Marshall Homes a) 9.0 metres is not sufficient when considering modern construction methods; the maximum height should be 10.5 metres. b) Between building code changes, raised heels for better insulation, basement heights for flooding, and homeowner preference, an additional 1.5 metres can be expected on new construction. c) A new two-storey home will be approximately 10.5 metres in height. d) The home value of properties in Bay Ridges and West Shore had been steadily increasing until September 2017, when the Amending By-law was announced; a height limit of 9.0 metres will substantially reduce property values. a) Based on staffs research a 9.0 metre maximum building height can accommodate a modern two-storey dwelling. b) See staff response a) above. c) See staff response a) above. d) A correlation cannot be conclusively made between the initiation of establishing a maximum building height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones of By-law 2511 and housing prices in the Bay Ridges and West Shore neighbourhoods. Other influences, such as market forces, rising interest rates and Ontario's Fair Housing Plan may be contributing factors. 2. Resident — Timmins Gardens a) Concerned that some areas not covered by the proposed zoning amendment. a) Staff research showed that only properties zoned "R3" and "R4" under By-law 2511, not already subject to site specific building height limits, had no restriction on maximum building height. 3. Resident — Essa Crescent a) Why is the area west of Frenchman's Bay excluded from -the zoning amendment? Several three-storey houses are being built in that area. a) The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment only applies to lands zoned "R3" and "R4" under Zoning By-law 2511 which have no maximum height provisions. Lands west of Frenchman's Bay are within Zoning By-law 2520 which has a maximum building height limit of 10.5 metres for all residential zones. Commenter Written Submission Staff Response 4. Resident — Annland Street a) Strongly against many new proposals in Bay Ridges that are not in keeping with neighbourhood, remove trees, are too tall and will have parking issues. b) Does not like the three-storey dwelling at 663 Pleasant Street. c) A two-storey, 9.0 metre tall dwelling would be acceptable. a) The Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study will examine the broader issues of character and transitioning neighbourhoods. b) Comment noted. c) Comment noted. 5. Resident - Pleasant Street a) Very happy with a maximum height of 9.0 metres. b) Many homes have been built that look out of place and infringe on neighbours' privacy. a) Comment noted. . b) The Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study will examine the broader issues of character and transitioning neighbourhoods. 6. Resident - Front Road a) Does not want a height restriction placed on her property, as it may impact resale value along Front Road. a) The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is an interim measure until the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study either confirms that 9.0 metres is an appropriate building height limit or recommends a different building height limit. 7. Resident - Victory Drive a) Disappointed that the City has not done statistical studies to determine optimum building height for individual neighbourhoods. b) Concerned that the way height is measured (to the mid-point of the roof) does not capture how height will impact neighbourhood perspective. a) Analysis regarding building heights for neighbourhoods in the South Pickering Urban Area will be undertaken through the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. b) The definition of height will be reviewed through the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. # 1N3WH3V11V Commenter Written Submission Staff Response c) Height should be measured to the peak of the house, rather than the mid-point of the roof. d) Roof ornaments or mechanical equipment should be covered by the maximum height requirement. c) See staff response b) above. d) See staff response b) above. 8. Resident — Pleasant Street a) Approves of adding a building height.limit along Pleasant Street. a) Comment noted. Pleasant Street is zoned "R4" in By-law 2511 and would be subject to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment that would limit building height to 9.0 metres. 9. Resident — Leaside Street a) Would like to see maximum height standardized between Zoning By-laws; the proposed height restriction of 9 metres should also apply to lands under By-law 2520, not just By-law 2511. b) Concerned about some homes with above grade cellars/basements. a) The Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study will examine the South Pickering Urban Area, which encompasses By-law 2520. Currently, By-law 2520 has a maximum building height of 10.5 metres. b) See staff response a) above. 10. Resident — Front Road a) Concerned that builders will get around the proposed height restriction because the restriction will only apply to detached dwellings. Builder will build "attached" dwellings instead to get around the height limit. a) The "R3" and "R4" Zones only permit detached dwellings. They do not permit "attached" dwellings. 11. Resident — Cliffview Road - a) Uncertain what the rationale is for measuring building height to the mid-point and not the peak of the roof. a) Measuring building height as the vertical distance between the established grade to the mid-point of peaked roof is common in municipal zoning by-laws. The rationale is that that even though a peaked roof would extend higher than a flat roof of the same height the mass of the two buildings would be approximately equal. Measuring to the midpoint also encourages a variety of roof styles. Commenter Written Submission Staff Response • b) Concerned about grading changes for new b) Grading of lots for new homes is undertaken to • dwellings. facilitate proper overland storm drainage from the lot to the street without impacting adjacent properties. The effect of the lot grading increases the relative difference in height between a new and existing building and will be concidered in the broader context of neighbourhood character through the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. c) Are there enough building inspectors to ensure c) The City currently has sufficient staff to ensure that compliance on all new dwellings? new buildings comply with ail applicable regulations. 1€2. Pickering a) Supportive of the amendment to add a maximum a) Comment noted. West height of 9.0 metres. Shore Community b) Would support additional height if warranted to b) The proposed Zoning -By-law Amendment does Association accommodate a legal walkout basement with not preclude the ability to apply for a minor legal sized basement windows. variance to request additional height. The request would be considered, and a decision made, by the Committee of Adjustment. c) Not supportive of the use•of "reductions in c) The matter of building setbacks and other setbacks toimprovethe streetscape" as a tool to development standards that affect neighbourhood manage infill development. character will be examined through the Infill and. Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. d) The methodology used to measure building height d) The method for how building height is measured should be reviewed. will be evaluated through the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. Commenter Written Submission Staff Response 13. Resident — a) Supportive of the proposal fora maximum height a) Comment noted. Cecylia of 9.0 metres. Court b) Would like to see the 9.0 metre height limit added b) The Infill and Replacement Housing in Established to Zoning By-law 2520 as well. Neighbourhoods Study will examine the South Pickering Urban Area which encompasses By-law 2520. Currently, By-law 2520 has a maximum building height of 10.5 metres. c) The City should reach out to residents in other c) The Infill and Replacement Housing in Established zones for their input. Neighbourhoods Study will examine neighbourhoods in the South Pickering Urban Area. The City will reach out to residents in these neighbourhoods to participate in the Study. d) The City should consider a freeze on rebuilds that d) Staff are recommending a 9.0 metre maximum exceed 9.0 metres while it is being considered. building height for lands zoned "R3" and "R4" in Zoning By-law 2511. e) Concerned about how the height limit will be e) Building heights are reviewed through planning enforced. applications and/or building permit applications. Adherence to regulated building heights are enforced initially though the review of plans by Zoning Examiners and then onsite by Building Inspectors. _ f) Height should be calculated only to a 45 degree f) The method for how building height is measured roof pitch; any higher degree is out of character will be evaluated through the Infill and and dangerous for roofers. Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. Commenter Written'Submission Staff Response g) Land should not be raised so as to increase absolute height. h) The City Development Department should review all rebuilds and infills. g) Grading of Tots for new homes is undertaken to facilitate proper overland storm drainage from the lot to the street without impacting adjacent properties. The effect of the lot grading increases the relative difference in height between a new and existing building and will be considered in the broader context of neighbourhood character through the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. h) All development is reviewed by the City Development Department. 14. Resident — Westshore Boulevard a) The proposed height is too short; it will devalue their property by restricting the size of a home to be built in the future a) The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is an interim measure until the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study either confirms that 9.0 metres is an appropriate building height limit or recommends a different building height limit. 15. Resident — Pleasant Street a) Concerned about much of the infill construction occurring in their neighbourhood. b) The house at the corner of Pleasant Street and Annland Street is an example of bad design and a house out of character. c) In addition to height restrictions, homes should be made to suit the neighbourhood. a) The intent of the forthcoming infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study is to examine what would constitute appropriate infill in the City's mature, established neighbourhoods. The Study is intended to look at neighbourhood character and review matters such massing, height, and scale. b) Comment noted, also see staff response a) above. c) See staff response a) above. Commenter Written Submission Staff Response d) The house at 660 Pleasant Street is an example of good infill. e) A 9.0 metre height limit is a good start, but 8.0 metres would be even better. d) Comment noted. e) Staff have recommended a 9.0 metre maximum building height as a means to provide a reasonable transition between new contemporary housing development and older existing residentia development. 16. Resident — Simpson Avenue a) Streets with trees and greenery increase human life span. Large trees are destroyed to accommodate massive new buildings and front yards are paved over for new infill developments. b) Over the past few years builders have been pushing the envelope with height and size of new buildings. c) Would like to see a 2 year halt on development for the City to determine how to maintain the health and wellbeing of citizens. d) A temporary solution which can be amended down the road is better. a) Landscaping design elements may be a matter addressed in the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. b) The intent of the forthcoming Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study is to examine what would constitute appropriate infill in the City's mature, established neighbourhoods. The Study is intended to look at neighbourhood character and review matters such massing, height, and scale. c) Staff are recommending a 9.0 metre maximum building height for lands zoned "R3" and "R4" in Zoning By-law 2511 and are proceeding with the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. d) Comment noted. DICKERING Clip 602 Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 05-18 Date: March 5, 2018 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP -2017-03 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26, Plan 350 Recommendation: 1. That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP -2017-03, submitted by Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. on lands being Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26, Plan 350, to establish a residential plan of subdivision consisting of 7 lots for detached dwellings as shown on Attachment #3 to Report PLN 05-18 and the implementing conditions of approval as set out in Appendix I, be endorsed. Executive Summary: The subject lands are located on the west side of Frontier Court, east of Rougemount Drive, north of Toynevale Road and south of Highway 401 within the Rosebank Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. has submitted an application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a residential development consisting of seven lots for detached dwellings fronting onto an extension of Frontier Court (see Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #3). Staff support the proposed draft plan of subdivision. The proposal demonstrates appropriate lotting pattern, lot sizes and lot frontages. The existing zoning standards which are proposed to remain the same, will ensure that the future dwellings will be in keeping with the character of the surrounding residential community. The applicant is proposing two-storey detached dwellings having maximum building heights of 9.5 metres which is in keeping with the existing zoning in the area. The proposal implements the policies of the Official Plan and d is consistent with the Rosebank Neighbourhood policies. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council approve the Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP -2017-03 and endorse the implementing conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix I. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this report. 41 Report PLN 05-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Page 2 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject lands are located on the west side of Frontier Court, east of Rougemount Drive, north of Toynevale Road and south of Highway 401 within the Rosebank Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands have an area of approximately 0.66 of a hectare and were created through a land assembly facilitated by various land division applications. The land division applications severed the rear yards of three properties (653, 655 and 661 Rougemount Drive) to the west fronting Rougemount Drive. Additional lands on the south side of Highway 401 were acquired from the Ministry of Transportation (MTO). There are currently no structures on the subject lands. However, there are a number of mature trees located on the site. Surrounding land uses to the east, west and south include low density residential development consisting of one and two-storey detached dwellings. Immediately to the north is Highway 401 (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2). 1.2 Applicant's Proposal The applicant is proposing a residential development consisting of seven Tots for detached dwellings fronting onto the extension of Frontier Court (see Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #3). The proposed lot frontages will be approximately 15.2 metres and lot areas will range between 518 square metres and 976 square metres. Frontier Court is proposed to be extended approximately 30.0 metres to the west terminating in a cul-de-sac. A remnant parcel of land west of Lot 5 will be created through the proposed development. The applicant has indicated that the remnant parcel is intended to be conveyed to the abutting landowner to the south at 661 Rougemount Drive upon registration of the draft plan. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing zoning standards which are the same as the abutting properties to the west and south and similar to the existing zoning standards of the adjacent properties to the east fronting onto Frontier Court (see Existing "R4" Zone Provisions, Attachment #4). 2. Comments Received 2.1 October 2, 2017 Public Information Meeting, and Written Submissions A Public Information Meeting was held on October 2, 2017 at which two residents attended to express their concerns regarding the proposed development. The following is a summary of key concerns and comments: • the resident at 401 Frontier Court expressed concerns that the building height and massing of the proposed dwelling on Lot 1 would have a,negative visual impact on their property as their home is a bungalow and requested that the dwelling on Lot 1 be restricted to a bungalow 42 Report PLN 05-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Page 3 • concerned that the existing adjacent residential lots will be impacted by storm drainage from the proposed development • concerned about the loss of existing trees on the subject lands • requested clarification regarding the construction management practices to ensure construction impacts such as dust, noise, mud tracking, parking of construction vehicles and other related construction activities are minimized 2.2 City Departments and Agency Comments 2.2.1 Region of Durham • the Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Living Areas", which shall be used predominately for housing purposes • sanitary sewer and municipal water supply is available to service the proposed lots • . the Region has no objection to draft approval of the subdivision plan and has provided its conditions of draft approval • as a condition of approval, a Record of Site Condition Compliant Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is required to further examine two areas of potential environmental concern identified by the Phase One ESA prepared by Soil Engineers Limited, which include: the past use of pesticides for farming purposes and a dry cleaner located approximately 171 metres north of the site • as a condition of approval, the filing of a Record of Site Condition with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change may also be required • the Region will also require a completed Reliance Letter and Certificate of Insurance to extend reliance to the Region for the environmental work 2.2.2 City of Pickering Engineering Services Department • no objection to the proposal subject to the conditions of draft approval provided • the owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise of the City of Pickering including, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the owner and the City concerning the provision and installation of roads, services, grading, drainage, utilities, tree compensation, construction management, cash in -lieu of parkland, noise attenuation and any other required matters 2.2.3 Durham Catholic District School Board • no objections to the proposal • students from this development will attend Father Fenelon Catholic Elementary School located at 795 Eyer Drive and St. Mary Catholic Secondary School located at 1918 Whites Road 43 Report PLN 05-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Page 4 2.2.4 Durham District School Board • no objections to the proposal • students from this development will be accommodated within existing schools 2.2.5 Ministry of Transportation (MTO) • no objection to the proposal • as condition of a. draft approval, the owner shall submit a detailed stormwater management report in accordance with MTO Stormwater Management Requirements for review and approval • as a condition of draft approval, the owner shall submit a traffic impact study to assess site impacts on Highway 401 operations and ensure that appropriate mitigation, if required, is provided for • requests that the following Note to Draft Approval be included: • MTO Building & Land Use permits are required for all Tots within a 395 metre radius of any Highway 401 intersection; MTO permits are also required prior to site grading/servicing/internal road construction and for site signs 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 The proposal conforms to the policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan and the Neighbourhood Development Guidelines The subjects lands are within the Rosebank Neighborhood and are designated "Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Areas" within the Pickering Official Plan, which provides for housing and related uses. This designation permits a density of up to and including 30 units per net hectare. However, the Rosebank Neighbourhood policies restrict lands west of Rosebank Road to the development and infilling of single detached dwellings and establishes a maximum residential density of 17 units per net hectare. The proposal is for 7 lots for detached, dwellings having a density of approximately 12.5 units per net hectare. The Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. identify three distinct Design Precincts, each having their own separate guideline requirements. The majority of the subject lands are situated within Design Precinct No. 2, except for the northerly portions of proposed Lots 5, 6 and 7 which are situated within Design Precinct No. 1. The guidelines outline that residential development within both precincts shall be limited to detached dwellings only and that all new lots shall have minimum lot frontages of approximately 15.0 metres and minimum lot depths ranging between 30.0 metres and 36.0 metres. The proposed Tots will have a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres and lot depths ranging between 30.0 metres and 48.0 metres, which comply with the requirements of the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. 44 Report PLN 05-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Page 5 The Official Plan also states that where new development is proposed within an existing neighbourhood or established area City Council shall encourage building design that reinforces and complements existing built patterns such as form, massing, height proportion, position relative to the street, and building area to site ratio. The applicant is proposing to develop the Tots in accordance with the current "R4" zoning provisions (see Existing "R4" Zoning Provisions, Attachment #4). The existing zoning of the subject lands is the same as the abutting properties to the west and south and are similar to the existing zone standards of the adjacent properties to the east, fronting onto Frontier Court. Utilizing the existing "R4" zone standards will ensure that the future built form will be in keeping with the existing pattern of development within the surrounding area with respect to lot frontage, lot size, yard setbacks and lot coverage. 3.2 Proposed building height will be compatible with the existing building heights within the immediate area As noted above, the applicant is proposing to maintain the existing "R4" zone provisions. The existing "R4" zoning standards do not have a maximum building height requirement. The abutting properties to the west and south are also zoned "R4" and are occupied by detached bungalows and two-storey dwellings. The lands to the east are subject to site specific Zoning By-law 5688/00, which restricts dwelling heights to 9.0 metres except for the 3 properties on the south side of Frontier Court, where the maximum height of a dwelling is limited to 6.0 metres. At the September 11, 2017 Council meeting, Council approved the recommendations of Report PLN 15-17 (Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods). One of the approved recommendations authorized staff to initiate a zoning by-law amendment to the general provisions of By-law 2511 to add a maximum building height where the site specific zoning amendments do not regulate maximum building height. At the November 6, 2017 Planning & Development Committee Meeting, the City Development Department presented an Information Report that proposed to amend the general provisions of By law 2511 to add a maximum building height requirement of 9.0 metres that would apply to the "R3" — Residential Third Density Zone and "R4" — Residential Fourth Density Zone. Staffs recommendation report to introduce a maximum building height will be considered by the Planning & Development Committee at its March 5, 2018 meeting. The applicant has submitted Conceptual Building Elevations (see Conceptual Building Elevations, Attachments #5, #6 & #7) and a preliminary siting plan for the future dwellings. The applicant has requested City Development staff to consider a maximum building height of 9.5 metres for the subject lands. Their request for the additional 0.5 of a metre in building height would provide for a marginal buffer to allow for grade differences of the various Tots: The submitted conceptual elevations and siting plan demonstrate building heights ranging between 9.0 metres and 9.5 metres depending on their location and the grade. 45 Report PLN 05-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Page 6 Acknowledging that the applicant submitted an application for draft plan of subdivision with the understanding that there was no building height restriction in place and undertook the design of buildings in accordance with the existing by-law, staff have recommended in Report PLN 05-18, that a site specific exception be made in Zoning By-law 2511 to permit a maximum building height of 9.5 metres for the proposed development. Maintaining a maximum building height of 9.5 metres will ensure that the proposed dwellings will becompatible with the existing zoning within the immediate area. 3.3 Proposed grading and drainage from the development will not impact adjacent properties An area resident expressed concerns that abutting properties may be negatively impacted by stormwater runoff from the subject lands, should they be developed. A Functional Grading Plan, prepared by Candevcon Ltd., dated December 11, 2017, was submitted in support of the proposal. Split drainage and walkout drainage lots will be utilized within the proposed subdivision to ensure the proposed grades match existing boundary grades. Drainage from the front yards will outlet to the existing storm sewers on Frontier Court and drainage from the rear yards will be captured within infiltration trenches located in the proposed rear yards. An overall grading plan for the subdivision and a detailed stormwater management report will be prepared at the detailed design stage. Additional details and specifications will be established in coordination with the Engineering Services Department. The Recommended Conditions of Approval (see Appendix I) require the applicant to prepare and submit detailed drainage and grading plans. These plans will be reviewed further by City staff to ensure compliance with City's engineering standards. The required detailed drainage and grading plans for the development will ensure that drainage from the development will not impact adjacent properties. Drainage issues are not expected to impact the existing Tots surrounding the subject property as a result of this development. 3.4 Noise Attenuation Measures A Noise Impact Study, prepared by YCA Engineering Ltd., dated June 23, 2016, was submitted in support of the proposal. The study recommends that the future dwellings be constructed with central air conditioning units and that warning clauses be registered on title on all lots. The Recommended Conditions of Approval require the applicant to agree in a subdivision agreement to implement noise control measures and warning clauses as recommended in the submitted noise study. The Noise Impact Study has been reviewed by the Region of Durham. The Region is satisfied with the noise consultant's recommendations. 46 Report PLN 05-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Page 7 3.5 A construction management plan will be implemented to minimize the impact of construction activities Area residents also expressed concerns regarding noise, dust, debris and traffic during the construction process of the future dwellings. The applicant has submitted a Construction Management and Erosion/Sediment Control Plan, prepared by Candevcon Ltd., dated June 20, 2017. The submitted construction management plan proposes a variety of mitigation measures to be implemented during the construction process in order to minimize any negative noise, dust and traffic impacts. The mitigation measures proposed include a mud mat at the construction exit to minimize debris from construction vehicles being tracked off the site, silt fencing to mitigate erosion impacts, and water trucks to control dust, as required. The Recommended Conditions of Approval require that the applicant enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the City. A condition of the Subdivision Agreement will require that the applicant implement the measures outlined in the submitted Construction Management and Erosion/Sediment Control Plan as approved by City staff. 3.6 Tree compensation will be required for the loss of existing vegetation Another concern identified was the loss of existing trees on the subject property. The applicant has submitted a Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan, prepared by Cosburn Nauboris Ltd., dated January 9, 2017, which surveyed and evaluated 47 trees on the subject lands and proposes to remove 37 trees, while protecting approximately 10 trees. The health condition of the trees proposed to be removed include poor, fair and good, with various trees highlighted as having poor structure. Appropriate tree protection fencing will be implemented throughout the construction process. The Recommended Conditions of Approval require the applicant to compensate the City for the loss of tree canopy through either payment of cash -in -lieu and/or replanting. 3.7 Technical matters will be addressed as conditions of subdivision approval To ensure an appropriate development, the City, Region and Agency requirements have been provided as conditions of approval for the subdivision application. Technical matters to be further addressed include, but not limited to: • construction management/erosion and sediment control • stormwater management • on-site grading and drainage • site servicing • fencing • noise attenuation measures • payment of cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication The conditions of approval set out in Appendix I to this Report address these (and other) matters. It is recommended that Council endorse these conditions. 47 Report PLN 05-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Page 8 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant has been advised of and supports the recommendations of this report. Appendices Appendix I Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP -2017-03 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision 4. Existing "R4" Zoning Provisions 5. Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations 6. Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations 7. Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations Prepared By: Cody Morison ) Pla ner I „4) i es Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design CM:NS:Id Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 14, 20/8 48 Appendix I to Report PLN 05-18 Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP -2017-03 49 Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP -2017-03 General Conditions 1. That the Owner shall prepare the final plan generally on the basis of the draft plan of subdivision, prepared by Design Plan Services, identified as Drawing Number 1592-9, dated April 6, 2017, which illustrates 7 Tots for detached lots and a road (extension of Frontier Court). Subdivision Agreement 2. That the Owner enters into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the conditions outlined in this document. 40M -Plan 3. That the Owner submits a Draft 40M -Plan to the satisfaction of the City Development Department. Street Names 4. That street names and signage be provided to the satisfaction of the Region and the City. Development Charges & Development Review & Inspection Fee 5. That the Owner satisfies the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act. 6. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to payment for engineering review fees, lot grading review fee and inspection fees. Architectural Control 7. That the Owner submits preliminary model designs for sale to be reviewed and approved by the City's Urban Design Review Consultant. The Owner will be responsible for the City's full cost of undertaking this review. Pre -Condition Survey 8. That the Owner submits a pre -condition survey for 401, 402, 403 and 404 Frontier Court to the satisfaction of the City. The surveys must be prepared by a qualified professional and must be undertaken prior to any site works commencing. 50 Recommended Conditions of Approval Page 2 (SP -2017-03 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd.) Stormwater 9. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision and any provision regarding easements. 10. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services for contributions for stormwater maintenance fees. 11. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services for the design and implementation of stormwater management facilities and easements for outfalls and access to the outfalls. Grading 12. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the submission and approval of a grading control plan. 13. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting authorization from abutting landowners for all off-site grading. Geotechnical Investigation 14. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical investigation. Fill & Topsoil 15. That the Owner acknowledges that the City's Fill & Topsoil Disturbance By-law prohibits vegetation or soil disturbance, vegetation or soil removal or importation to the site. No on-site works prior to the City issuing authorization to commence works is permitted. Construction/Installation of. City Works & Services 16. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the construction of roads, storm sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs through the submission and approval of a site servicing plan. 17. That the Owner satisfy the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City. 18. That the Owner satisfies the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar services. 19. That the Owner agrees that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the responsibility of the Owner. 51 Recommended Conditions of Approval Page 3 (SP -2017-03 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd.) Phasing & Development Coordination 20. That if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration, the Owner will be required to submit a plan showing the proposed phasing, all to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the City. Dedications/Transfers/Conveyances 21. That the Owner conveys to the City, at no cost, all road allowances with the proper corner roundings and sight triangles. Easements 22. That the Owner conveys, to the satisfaction of the City, at no cost, any required easement for works, facilities or user rights that are required by the City. 23. That the Owner conveys any easement to any utility provider to facilitate the installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City and the utility provider. 24. That the Owner arranges, at no cost to the City, any easements required on third party lands for servicing and such easements shall be in a location as determined by the City and/or the Region and are to be granted upon request any time after draft approval. Construction Management Plan 25. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting the submission and approval of a Construction Management/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan; with such Plan to contain, among other matters: (1) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these controls as per the City's Erosion & Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (ii) addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building materials during servicing and construction, and ensuring that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on existing streets, or the proposed public street (iii) assurance that the City's Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law (iv) the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to the site (v) type and timing of construction fencing (vi) location of construction trailers (vii) details of the temporary construction access 52 Recommended Conditions of Approval Page 4 (SP -2017-03 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd.) Fencing 26. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the provision of temporary fencing around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior to the commencement of any works. 27. That the Owner agrees to install a 1.8 metre high board -on -board wood privacy fence along the west, south and east property lines, where there is adjacent existing residential lots fronting onto Rougemount Drive, Toynevale Road, and Frontier Court. Landscaping 28. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Servicesrespecting the submission and approval of a street tree -planting plan. 29. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services with the submission of a tree preservation plan which will illustrate the protection of trees and other natural features where appropriate, with specific attention to preservation in all public open spaces prior to the approval of a preliminary grading plan. Tree Compensation 30. That the Owner agrees that prior to final approval of the draft plan, or any phase thereof, compensation for the loss, of tree canopy will be required either through replacement planting or cash -in -lieu, to be paid to the City of Pickering. In accordance with Council Resolution #387/18, approved on January 15, 2018, tree removal compensation is to be calculated in accordance with the City of Pickering Tree Inventory, Preservation and Removal Compensation requirements. Where compensation through replanting is being considered, the Owner will be required to provide a Landscape Plan indicating the location, size and species of trees to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Services. Engineering Plans 31. That the Owner ensures that the engineering plans are coordinated with the streetscape/architectural control guidelines and further that the plans coordinate the driveway, street hardware and street trees to ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimized and all objectives of the streetscape/siting and architectural design statement can be achieved. 32. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting the submission of appropriate engineering drawings that detail, among other things: City services, roads, storm sewers, sidewalks, lot grading, streetlights, fencing, tree planting; and financially -secure such works. Noise Attenuation 33. That the owner agrees in the subdivision agreement to implement noise control measures and warning clauses as recommended in the Noise Report. 53 Recommended Conditions of Approval Page 5 (SP -2017-03 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd.) Parkland Dedication 34. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the payment of cash -in -lieu in accordance with the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act. Fire 35. That the Owner agrees that no development will proceed on any land until adequate services are available including adequate water pressure to the satisfaction of the City's Fire Services Department. Model Homes 36. That the Owner enters into a model home agreement with the City, if applicable for this draft plan. All model homes must satisfy all requirements of the siting and architectural design statement. Other Approval Agencies 37. That any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham, the Ministry of Transportation or any utility for the development of this plan be obtained by the Owner and upon request written confirmation be provided to the City as verification of these approvals. Plan Revisions 38. That the Owner acknowledges and agrees that the draft plan of subdivision and associated conditions of approval may require revisions to the satisfaction of the City, to implement or integrate any recommendation resulting from studies required as conditions of approval. 39. That the Owner revises the draft plan as necessary to the satisfaction of the City, to accommodate any technical engineering issues which arise during the review of the final engineering drawings. Required revisions may include revising the number of residential building lots or reconfiguring the roads or lots to the City's satisfaction. 40. That the Owner agrees to implement the requirements of all studies that are required by the City for the development of this draft plan of subdivision to the satisfaction of the City. Notes to Draft Approval 41. This draft approval shall lapse three years from the date the draft approval has been granted if the noted conditions have not been fulfilled, or if it has not been extended by the City of Pickering. 54 ATTACHMENT # / TO REPORT ,1/ PLA • -41�o *°o 3ROOKRIDGE GAT Q�Nei 11 SUBJECT LANDS w tY ❑ z 0 w 0 0 11I ROUGE HILL COU nu op) 1111 KEN N\G FRON IER TOYNEVALE ROAD O U cdri PICKE.RING City Development Department Location Map File: SP -2017-03 z m ,. z 0 w rt ❑ ❑ 0 0 i - z w U 0) w U 0 w O Applicant:Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Property Description:Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 & 26, Plan 350 Date: Feb. 01, 2018 'b The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produces pn pan) under bcense from: ® Omens Porter,Ortane Mutsayer Natural Resmrees. 411 H3 his reserved.6 Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. Al riglts resened.: D Tenant Enterprises Inc. and Rs suppliers all rights reserved.; ® Municipal Pmpeny Assessment Corporation and Its stppters art risks reserved; SCALE: 1:5,000 THIS IS NOT APLAN OFSURVEY. f. 5 ,.,#oro' ltli ii - --moi .fir. U IkiaJlc lei= •'1,),'iLAALIN L , k 0 ['7,1 Mir ISI u EMtarll = ' _ M l'. tip, I�-' @ L E 111M.f 3"F 1 kW '(.p !MEM kW ' ! MEM rc_NM1117'EFIR MI !MEM i 6 cdrii Air Photo Map File: SP -2017-03 PICKERING City Development Department Applicant:Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Property Description: Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 & 26, Plan 350 Date: Feb. 01, 2018 mina Cure ..l.n or., Cnly of PIA...q Pneoecd Gn pan) under 10014 Tram b Owera Ps.rar, Cerane Mn wet Pi-M.111..41m R9rbMs r.M.n.I Milt,Mslr Ary lb* QAAOnln R WA Or Caluda,Oepadmert orNNualResonces. Al rlplla rexnnd.; lbhranel Rrtnrprlsra Inc...d its ropp/in gni rights reaeN.d..* P0444H Pave any A....0d Corpwa6an.m 14.41.1tra al Of5. namsd; SCALE: 1:5,g00 1519 IS SOT A PLAN OFSr1RVEY- /ATTACHMENT REPORT 0 PLN _.--1- --- ..4 r/ r s I r s ++� r 1 s r 1- i poi �ti / �'a1 r r ,�+ •�'. /r \, Remnant Parcel Parcel �9r `' 1 t� rr._ rr—, �' - ' 1.---- I I ------------------------- 661 1 • I- Y I ` I o.III 'Y r �_-_� Frontier i: 1_ Court J J r 1 j I I 1 ] i o 1 555 _ G f 653 O t T F n o 1 2 1 L11`--___ y11- �j ' i r �.. �' . 3 ' L. ._._. Toynevale , q� '} 2 7I 1• ._.�� Road i i--+---t----�----5-----� I � 1 I 1 � I 1 r 1 0 1 J 1 ; 1 I. l 1 T N Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision ° FILE Na: SP-2017-03 PIC KE RI N G APPLICANT: Marshal! Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. City Development PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 & 26, Plan 350 Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: Feb. a8, 2fl7 8 ATTACHMENT. �`.•xry� /� _/i0 Existing "R4" Zoning Provisions Zoning .By-law 2511 • Provision Existing `R4' Zone Standards Permitted Uses Detached dwelling Lot Area (min) 460 square metres Lot Frontage (min) 15.0 metres Front Yard (min) 7.5 .metres Side Yard (min) 1.5 metres on one.side and 1.8 metres on the other side or 1.5 metres on both sides where a garage is erected as part of the detached dwelling Flankage Yard (min) 4.5 metres Rear Yard (min) 7.5 metres Lot Coverage (max) 33 percent 58 U U N� AIS N &A I�I�I�Il• — TOP OPNWOW R ANI 1F. M. Imulut-r...„....... ,s1.. in ..... a_, IIIIIIIIIIII _____..1M.- . 2. „11= ' _ _ ,, „ _ , 11111111 1 �, 11..11,, 1111111 r " ,,, "� �•'� _#1 -r..:4. - :: <� �„„1,'..�I ',N m '-- �IMC�1O_C"I�. rA= -� \ 'Tea _s•• -T25 __ �7�t .. .. FIN SfC.OND R M- i mrd -i= % i ��•_ --/■_�.�=ffEa:� i -■" DJ7 ■��-. ��Norm _ ......,_..._._._.__..... '' �� ■■�-,.�� , TOP or nvuna1 • 1.1.0 MO ■ re I if -- - VIS- 1 -. TOP OfNIOOW LELIVII�P ■7 X11;Ill 11 vi' ■ i �i1 ;1 i■• 4 - cBii♦' _- !�1 'log ' `NII Ins ll tali rail ' � ■� I - .:7 Imu .. NIIIB ■ ..ME: • BBi . mor ■ mina ■ ■ I i I rte■Mail,� --:- i�1 111 1111 ■■e =-_ ' 1 ill rrrh 1 ■ :11' / � u _ i�lw � ! IOW ■ �____'--__'ingotIn I 1�.hhIll Illi�ill III !SIB%iIUIII IS :'� -111111111111 _ :� III III 'I�i/��1�'! ----+�----ii----...--�=•I; NEM= . iib 1 II16u, s-" :1161111 iiiiiiii� 11 lElliqi - 4 ■ 1 i :It/ / - PLR m. owf FRONT ELEVATION 'A' FRONT ELEVATION 'B' Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations 01# °d FILE No: SP -2017-03 . PICKERI NG APPLICANT: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. City Development PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 & 26, Plan 350 Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb 1, 2018 c /AL» \ b Fpood "�� ` - 'il . .� - w 1 "'t :0 __..._.. ,�� 71� - lull ■rrr� p TOP Or RATE I'' 7 �"r'__—r-"-4-11,41111111 1■_7r 'r- S TM OP HRL^ON 7�_��p-•Ip/11r0/ ll re _- ��-^ ____mi. 1/I/e/ � ■.! ■-� ,.■'-...'"'"7750"4- .. -ova("'- /. . r r � I4 •ii Nj�i X71 I `�/ `c"�/1 1—�. 11 .1=.+v; ` 1 H1 �7/ IT: '.ei 1� 11 � /11r _ Vii/ 111 a. ... .�I,�� /�''■■Ij■■ ._._ � �� o �� La alall1.�� _II.; NI II, //(■/�1 27 'T .. 1 / 1 .11 11 �� .—i a• .tom \/q `� <_. .: 111 �N 1 11 Ei• ' ��■ I•irk • - iliallidill....iiiIMPill ma `y ■ .la.■.M�.��.MiNal , �Y=,11 7 ,; FYI •11.1111111-944111111111111 ces,.s■9isc$...f� � < .! PN. SCUM tilt _ _ MI -4:' litimikapAr. El _ IMP-. TOP M Tameat i], ii . • =.. 16.. .r._ .�� ■1. MINIM _ _ -.,===� r.- .�...�� Tara WIOQV ll IS 1 1.1 '.: e: a. • Al :::: ..:::::. i ii °` '. .n_,re SLI .or s r: 11 11 III 11 III '. r. rll ��) + IIIIIIIl�Nillilli ■Illllllll/,I Ili I�IIIIIIII•; I II\II . _. 1 1 nt —___a � ) I�f�I�IhV1111■'1�1I1D1111I 111 Illll' - 1I . -- --- I1IIII1I1i11 i ■� :.1 ■ 1 1 IVT 1111. SIIiN .. Irl.• Ii1I 11II uu MI - .%.Nw�1■ ■_i ■■ � � ..� !Ii 1j �N« M1R _- - :,.o--�.=--�.: =' — Alliil Minh. Alliin nil 1. - �I 7,.+n. ...mom i�., �.R •" - 11� 1 ■ 11 ;: ■AGI �1 ■ (11 I: FA c«AC FRONT ELEVATION'A' FRONT ELEVATION'B' Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations Oty °d FILE No: SP-2017-03 P 1 C KE RI N G APPLICANT: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. City Development PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 & 26, Plan 350 Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING. CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb. 1, 2018 i ' .... '.__ Ciy1� X16 I 4� _w'f l 1�.1 i11111 t G 1111 —....e 11 11 IS gamiitett PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations FILE No: SP -2017-03 APPLICANT: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 & 26, Plan 350 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb. 1, 2018 GLS ,F PICKERING Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 07-18 Date: March 5, 2018 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Future Reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway 1331301 Ontario Inc. In Trust 1450 Pickering Parkway File No.: Site Plan Application S 07/17 Recommendations: 1. That City of Pickering Council supports a future reduction in the Pickering Parkway right-of-way width to a minimum of 22.0 metres to accommodate a maximum 7.0 metre widening of Highway 401 into the City's right-of-way, should the Ministry of Transportation widen Highway 401 in the future and that the City accepts responsibility for the future reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway and associated impacts; and That the Site Plan Control Agreement for Site Plan Application S 07/17 contain provisions obligating the landowner to convey the required 2.0 metre road widening along the entire frontage of Pickering Parkway to the City, at no cost to the City, in the event that Highway 401 is widened; and That a copy of this Report PLN 07-18 and Council's resolution on the matter be forwarded to appropriate staff at the Ministry of Transportation and 1331301 Ontario Inc. Executive Summary: In August 2017, the City received a site plan application for an eight storey retirement residence located at the northeast corner of Glenanna Road and Pickering Parkway (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The siting and design of the proposed development conforms to the Council approved City Centre Zoning By-law, and is consistent with the urban design objectives as outlined in the approved City Centre Urban Design Guidelines (see Applicant's Submitted Site Plan, Attachment #2). In response to the circulation of the site plan, the City received comments from the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) indicating that a minimum 14.0 metre building setback must be provided from the north limit of Pickering Parkway. MTO's Building and Land Use Policy outlines minimum building setbacks to essential components of a development to ensure that future widenings of provincial highways can be accommodated (see MTO Comments, Attachment #4). Implementing the required 14.0 metre building setback would negatively impact the proposed development and compromise the City's desired built form objectives for the City Centre. 62 Report PLN 07-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Future Reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway Page 2 Based on further discussions with MTO, they would be supportive of a 2.0 metre building setback, as illustrated on the applicant's site plan, subject to a resolution from Pickering Council indicating that the City would support a reduced right-of-way width for Pickering Parkway and assume responsibility forthe reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway and associated impacts (such as partial road relocation and lane reductions, reduction of boulevards, removal/relocation of utilities, relocation of multi -use path, etc.) should the MTO expand Highway 401 in this immediate area. City staff are satisfied that in the event Highway 401 is widened, a reduced right-of-way width of 22.0 metres for Pickering Parkway can accommodate future traffic volumes, and the various functions for transit, cyclists, and pedestrians as outlined in the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines (see Future Pickering Parkway Cross Section, Attachment #6). Therefore, City staff recommend that City Council pass the required resolution indicating its support for a future reduced Pickering Parkway right-of-way width and accepting responsibility for the realignment of Pickering Parkway and related impacts, in the event that the MTO expands Highway 401. Financial Implications: No immediate direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this Report.. However, in the event that the MTO widens Highway 401 impacting Pickering Parkway, the additional costs for the realignment of Pickering Parkway and associated works, (which may include the relocation of existing sidewalks, streetlights, transit infrastructure and a multi -use path on the north side of Pickering Parkway and the potential relocation of a significant power line that exists on the south side of Pickering Parkway), will need to be identified and will be the responsibility of the City. 1. Background '1.1 Applicant's Proposal 1331301 Ontario Inc. In Trust (Rockport Group) has submitted a site plan application for the lands located at the northeast corner of Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject property has an area of approximately 0.63 of a hectare and is currently vacant. The applicant is proposing an eight storey retirement residence consisting of a total of 165 units including units for memory care, and assisted and independent living. The site plan illustrates two accesses to the site from Glenanna Road and Pickering Parkway. A total of 55 parking spaces have been provided on-site, including 9 surface parking spaces for visitors, and 46 parking spaces for residents within a one level underground parking structure (see Applicant's Submitted Site Plan and Submitted Conceptual Renderings, Attachments #2 and #3). The proposed retirement residence will have a number of central common facilities located mainly on the ground floor including, dining room, pool, salon, fitness room, library craft/workshop room, multi-purpose rooms, and offices. Separate private kitchens will not be provided within the units. Services provided to the residents will include: food services, cleaning services, recreational activities, nurse facilities and transportation services. 63 Report PLN 07-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Future Reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway Page 3 The proposed building is sited close to the intersection of Glenanna Road and Pickering Parkway having a minimum building setback of 2.0 metres from each road. The principal entrance, with a pedestrian canopy, is located on the north facade, and a secondary pedestrian entrance is proposed along Glenanna Road. A central landscaped court yard is provided along Pickering Parkway, and an additional outdoor green space is proposed to the east of the building. The proposal has been prepared in accordance with the Council approved City's City Centre Zoning By-law and is also consistent with the approved City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. 1.2 Ministry of Transportation Comments The site plan application was circulated to internal City Departments and external agencies for review and comment, including the Ministry of Transportation (MTO). The MTO has expressed concerns with the location of the proposed building. The MTO Building and Land Use Policy requires a minimum 14.0 metre setback for all essential site features when a property abuts a service road (Pickering Parkway), which adjoins a Provincial Highway (Highway 401). The 14.0 metre setback is to be applied fromthe limit of the service road. In this instance, the setback would be applied from the north limit of the Pickering Parkway right-of-way. The intent of the 14.0 metre setback is to protect for a future expansion to Highway 401, which in this area may require a realignment of Pickering Parkway to the north City staff requested the MTO to explore whether they could consider a reduced setback given that the required 14.0 metre setback would significantly impact the proposal and result in a built from that is inconsistent with the City's urban design objectives for the City Centre. The MTO advised that they would be willing to reduce the required setback to a minimum of 7.0 metres from the north limit of Pickering Parkway since it is consistent with other developments in the area. Further, the MTO indicated that they would be willing to accept the proposed 2.0 metre building setback, as shown on the applicant's site plan, provided that the City of Pickering, through a resolution of City Council, agrees to be responsible for the reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway and associated impacts (which may include partial road relocation and lane reductions, reduction of boulevards, removal/relocation of utilities, and relocation of multi -use path) in the event that Highway 401 is widened in the future (see MTO Comments, Attachment #4). The applicant has requested the City to consider passing the required resolution in support of the 2.0 metre building setback as this option has the least adverse impact on their proposal. 2. Planning Analysis 2.1 Pickering Parkway right-of-way width and designation Pickering Parkway currently has a right-of-way width ranging between 26.0 metres and 27.0 metres with two lanes of traffic. The current configuration of Pickering Parkway includes a 13.5 metre wide asphalt road, 6.75 metre wide boulevards, and no painted bike lane. Pickering Parkway is designated as a Type "C" Arterial Road in the City's Official Pian. Compared to Type "A" and Type "B" Arterial Roads, Type "C" Arterial Roads are designed to carry lower volumes of traffic, at slower speeds; provide access to properties; and generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 26.0 to 30.0 metres. 64 Report PLN 07-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Future Reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway • Page 4 The City Centre Urban Design Guidelines identifies Pickering Parkway as a "Special Street". Pickering Parkway is a street that is to be designed to provide a gateway to higher order transit services. Pickering Parkway, east of Valley Farm Road, is to provide two 3.5 metre wide traffic lanes, sidewalks on both sides, a 1.5 metre wide bike lane, and a generous landscaped realm of 3.65 metres on both sides of the street within a 26.0 metre right-of-way (See Pickering Parkway Cross Section — City Centre Urban Design Guidelines, Attachment #5). 2.2 Applicant's Response to MTO comments To support the reduced building setback, the applicant retained the BA Group (transportation consultants) to examine the existing and future operation of Pickering Parkway adjacent to the proposed development, in light of a potential widening of Highway 401, and design options for a reduced right-of-way width for Pickering Parkway. BA Group has indicated that recent design work completed by the MTO to develop an expanded core -collector system through Durham Region did not include a shifting of Pickering Parkway and therefore, it is expected that this widening is not anticipated to occur in the near future. BA Group prepared three potential design options supporting a reduced right-of-way width for Pickering Parkway from the required minimum width of 26.0 metres to 22.0 metres. The potential reduction in the right-of-way width will require a 2.0 metre land conveyance from the subject property to create a 22.0 metre right-of-way width for Pickering Parkway. This conveyance would be required to accommodate the pedestrian infrastructure as outlined in the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. Should City Council support the potential reduction in the Pickering Parkway right-of-way width, City staff will ensure appropriate clauses are included in the registered site plan agreement requiring the owner of 1450 Pickering Parkway to convey the required 2.0 metre road widening along the entire frontage of Pickering Parkway to the City, at no cost to the City, in the event that Highway 401 is widened. 2.3 City's Engineering Services is supportive of the reduced right-of-way width for Pickering Parkway in the event that MTO widens Highway 401 The City's Engineering Services Department has reviewed BA Group's findings and are satisfied that if Pickering Parkway is reduced to a 22.0 metre right-of-way width in the future, it will continue to provide the intended form and function of a Type "C" Arterial Road as outlined in the City's Official Plan and the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. Engineering Services has prepared a revised cross section for Pickering Parkway along the frontage of the subject property and further west fronting Pickering Town Centre to illustrate how Pickering Parkway could be redesigned in the event the MTO undertakes a 7.0 metre expansion of Highway 401 in this area (see Future Pickering Parkway Cross Section, Attachment #6). 65 Report PLN 07-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Future Reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway Page 5 The City's Engineering Services Department has confirmed that future traffic volumes can be accommodated within a reduced right-of-way for Pickering Parkway, the curb reduction from a potential 4 lanes to the proposed 3 lanes of traffic would have minimal impact on the efficiency of the road. The focus was to minimize construction impact on the north side Transit Hub area. The section of Pickering Parkway, from the subject property to the pedestrian bridge, where the road directly abuts Highway 401 does not require the full pedestrian infrastructure on the south side due to the existence of the abutting provincial highway. Therefore, an opportunity to reduce the right-of-way width exists while maintaining the intended function and design contemplated by the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. 2.4 Potential Costs incurred by the City should Highway 401 be widened in the future The City has not budgeted any cost towards the reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway, and it would be premature at this time to identify all the costs the City would incur as a result of a future widening of Highway 401. A reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway would impact various types of City infrastructure, including the possible relocation of existing sidewalks, streetlights, transit infrastructure and a multi -use path on the north side of Pickering Parkway and the potential relocation of a significant power line that exists on the south side of Pickering Parkway. 3.0 Conclusion Development of the subject property is constrained by a number of existing easements on its north limit. Therefore, shifting the proposed building further north cannot be accommodated. The application of the 14.0 metre MTO building setback could only be accomplished by significantly reducing the footprint of the proposed building, which would further constrain the opportunity to develop the subject lands. Furthermore, imposing the 14.0 metre MTO building setback would result in an undesirable urban design condition along Pickering Parkway. The applicant has worked closely with City staff to ensure that their proposal meets the requirements of the City Centre Zoning By-law, and the siting and design of the proposed building addresses the City's built form objectives as outlined in the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. Should the MTO expand Highway 401 into Pickering Parkway, a reduced right-of-way width of 22.0 metres for the City's road can accommodate future traffic volumes, and the various functions for transit, cyclists, and pedestrians. Staff recommend that Council support the applicant's request, and pass the required resolution to enable the proposed 2.0 metre setback of the building adjacent to Pickering Parkway to be retained. 66 Report PLN 07-18 March 5, 2018 Subject: Future Reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway Page 6 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Applicants Submitted Site Plan 3. Submitted Conceptual Renderings 4. MTO Comments 5. Pickering Parkway Cross Section — City Centre Urban Design Guidelines 6. Future Pickering Parkway Cross Section By: Princip • arnett I P anrier, Site Planning Nile S rti, `ACIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design TB:Id Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Ricrd Holbrn, P. Eng. ctor, Engineering Services x� Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P. Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 67 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # lip 1,,,„ , .,„„„,..""sw ,* 7 `, P�P,PpE 4 ES -SNE ❑ 0 z z z J cD SNE Pp 0 2 u_ >- -1 J • • • 00-o P( 40 DIEFENBAKER COURT Min C� d- MING MIN PPRK J ❑ 0 w U z -J J Q C4 Location Map File: S07/17 of DICKERING City Development Department 8 Applicant:1331301 Ontario Inc In Trust Property Description:1450 Pickering Parkway Date: Feb. 09, 2018 O The Corporation of the City of Ptckenng Produced (In part) under license from: OQroers Pour, Oraro Moony of Natural Resources. All tights teserveddin Her Mo o,ly the Queen In Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resotaccs. AO rights reserved; OTeranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; 0 Violence! Property Assessrrert Corporation aril its suppters al rights reserved.; SCALE. 1:5,000 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. �vui u�ay..c r,. - . 1.7e. PERIMMIONAPe .n.,.... - aaal • I. ' +nun{' vris • omvtww^_ - • _ ----- - ---- ---- - _- ' ._� 'V ur ar o11OF OFF k z V V V V V 'V V c. :t - Fw E � �..�� Q i, L r -r _� $ , -- 9' • < �� I ( a ... VK z 2 �' �I — { jj `PRtlP_a5FA8574REY - J BUILDING7' 1— iFwiw .ice j r Il 1 ..------ Fk..r Km wwa • w2w10v+r ..ate ."c"�.r._ _ .� 1, look,,.. ... 7 .,nn, u.w" o.. rw+:a.o-i:.e. Applicant's Submitted Site Plan Gtr FILE No: S07/17 • a PICKE RI N G APPLICANT: 1331301 Ontario Inc. In Trust PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1450 Pickering Parkway City Development Department p FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb. 9, 2018 L:IPLANNI NGICORELIPLAN N ING W PPS1P CA12018 J I I -i3 `lriirQ - 7 00 ❑OG `i ;r Gi 1 a eel"' f . - l 6 1-0-33l 17C7r 3 ii ❑ !ii1I' I D J r - - - 000 '' 0n G_ - . n.lrl I 0IA iiIfiI !ME . i I -- J1 1. _ I AERIAL VIEW OF SrTE FROM NORTH AERIAL VIEW OF SITE FROM SOUTHWEST .1 A.,,,._ — wt' I. -■ '-� - - -•" �. ; ill � ! i G: s 1 Ili r III � ;-. 0❑❑ ■■■RSI i i'� 0®[]❑' . ®-�-� =i_ ❑ g_ �I-I 4 -ii'". ❑❑❑ CI 1:1 .;. IL. _ _ '! ❑❑■ ❑❑?EE_ - __ _1+• I _ • H fl• 11--- ��1�7 Oil ' sgP . L,„,Irtr”.• j I ri If - _..A._: '4111 _. I - . I fur.{' 0 ------------------ AERIAL VIEW OF SITE FROM NORTH-EAST AERIAL VIEW OF SITE FROM SOUTH Submitted Conceptual Renderings • FILE No: 507/17• of P1CKER1 NG APPLICANT: 1331301 Ontario Inc. In Trust PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1450 Pickering Parkway City Development Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DATE: Feb 9, 2018 L:IPLANN INGICORELIPLAN N INGIAPPSIPCA12O18 T 0 C7 z -oFA.) ma ATTACHMENT REPORT # PL.N 67-43 Barnett, Tyler From: Tuz, Sylvester (MTO) <Sylvester.Tuz@ontario.ca> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 9:16 AM To: Rose, Catherine; Barnett, Tyler Cc: Hewitt, Tom (MTO); Aurini, Shawn (MTO); Kolet, Arieh (MTO); Kathryn Randle Subject RE: Site Plan Application S07/17- 1450 Pickering Parkway Good morning Catherine and Tyler, Further to the Ministry's comments on October 2nd regarding Site Plan Application S07/17 for a proposed retirement home at 1450 Pickering Parkway, I have discussed the concerns pertaining to the 14m setback requirement with my Manager in an effort to move forward. The Ministry of Transportation has reviewed the request for a setback reduction for the proposed retirement home at 1450 Pickering Parkway. The Ministry protects for a 14m setback to account for future expansion of Highway 401, which in this area may require a potential realignment of Pickering Parkway to the north, which would negatively impact the proposed development. With the above noted, after review, the Ministry will permit a reduced setback of 7m from Pickering Parkway to the proposed development as this is consistent with other developments in the general area of the subject site. If the 7m setback is not agreeable, the Ministry will consider the 2m setback if the City of Pickering provides a Council Resolution stating that if Highway 401 is expanded into the Pickering Parkway ROW, the City will be -responsible for the reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway and associated impacts (ex. Lane reductions, loss of boulevard, removal/relocation of utilities, etc...). We hope that the above is helpful for the project. As mentioned to the Developer, non-essential site features such as surplus parking, landscaping, amenity.space, signs, etc... can be located within the MTO setback. We look forward to a revised submission. If you have any questions, please feel free to call and discuss. Thank you, Sylvester Tuz, B.E.S. Corridor Management Planner Ministry of Transportation Highway Corridor Management Section- Central Region 159 Sir William Hearst Ave., 7th Floor Toronto, ON M3M OB7 Phone: 416-235-4351 1 Fax: 416-235-4267 Email: Sylvester.Tuz@ontario.ca From: Tuz, Sylvester (MTO) Sent: October -02-17 10:53 AM To: 'Barnett, Tyler' Cc: Kolet, Arieh (MTO) Subject: Site Plan Application S07/17- 1450 Pickering Parkway 1 71 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # PLN 0'7-/ g Hi Tyler, The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has reviewed Site Plan Application S07/17 for a proposed 8 storey retirement home at 1450 Pickering Parkway in Pickering. After review, the Ministry offers the following comments: Site Plan • The proposed Site Plan layout in its current state is not acceptable to MTO • MTO requires a minimum 14m setback for all essential site features (buildings, above/below ground structures, required parking spaces, fireroutes, etc...) when a property abuts a Provincial Highway • As per the Ministry's Building and Land Use Policy, when a subject site abuts a Service Road (Pickering Parkway) which abuts the Highway, the 14m setback is applicable from the Service Road property line. o This is to ensure that should Highway 401 be further expanded and Pickering Parkway is shifted, this will not be detrimental to the development. • A 14m setback is required from the Pickering Parkway property line. • Through discussion with Management, due to the irregular shape of the lot, the 14m setback will only be applied to the western portion of the lot. I have attached a rough redlined plan illustrating this. • Non-essential features such as landscaping, surplus parking, etc... can be within the 14m setback. MTO Permits • An MTO Building and Land Use Permit will be required prior to construction on-site. • MTO Sign Permits will be required for all new signage visible from Highway 401. • MTO Permits can only be applied for once all MTO comments have been addressed and the Site Plan has been approved by the City of Pickering. This is to ensure there are no discrepancies with the Site Plan revision numbers. • MTO has recently launched a new online Permitting website, Applicants must apply online at the following link: www.hcms.mto.gov.on.ca/ I trust that the above is clear, however, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Regards, Sylvester Tuz, B.E.S. Corridor Management Planner Ministry of Transportation Highway Corridor Management Section- Central Region 159 Sir William Hearst Ave., 7th Floor Toronto, ON M3M OB7 Phone: 416-235-4351 I Fax: 416-235-4267 Email: Sylvester.Tuz@ontario.ca 72 2 LAP LANNI N G1C0 R EL1P LANK I N GIAP PSIPCA12018 Q I mm. 26 m • ROW 1_ ' �. ---• a 1 I, 1 jF^.. Jy. t 0 =- � r 1 ,, A 1 1... Spilt out IS Zone or '?oy residential a1 and -c5' {t O 1 • Landscaping Parking sem, a m 5 m Travel Lane Travel LaneILI m m 3 m �� ndscaping in a 'J' in a 0 0 Pickering Parkway Cross Section - City Centre Urban Design Guidelines Ci FILE No: S07/17 of P I C KE RI N G APPLICANT: 1331301 Ontario Inc. In Trust PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1450 Pickering Parkway City Development J Department 1 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATA: Feb 9, 201 B LAP LANNI N G1C0 R EL1P LANK I N GIAP PSIPCA12018 Q Multi -Use Path Travel Lane Left Turn lane Travel Lane 2.5 m 6.6 m 3.75 m 3.5 m 3.75 m 0.20 m 9.1 m 11.0 m 0.2 m 22.0 m 1.5 m 7m MTO Highway 401 czy PICKERING City Development Department Future Pickering Parkway Cross Section FILE No; S07/17 APPLICANT: 1331301 Ontario Inc. In Trust PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1450 Pickering Parkway FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE env OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb 9, 2018 L•1PL4NNINGICORELIPLANN INGVIPPSIPCAI201 8 0