HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 3, 2018Cty 0f
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Agenda
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Council Chambers
7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Ashe
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
Planning & Development
Committee Agenda
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Council Chambers - 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Ashe
(I) Part `A'
Information Reports Pages
Subject: Information Report No. 04-18
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/18
Request for Red -Line Revision of Draft Approved Plan
of Subdivision SP -2009-11(R)
Mattamy (Seaton) Limited
Part of Lots 21 & 22 Concession 4,
Part of Lots 21, 22 & 23 Concession 5
Seaton Community, City of Pickering
Subject: Information Report No. 05-18
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/17
Avonmore Ventures Inc.
Part of Lot 18, Concession 3
1-8
9-23
(II) Part `B'
Planning & Development Reports
1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 09-18 24-55
Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 17-002/P
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/17
2388116 Ontario Inc.
Part of Lots 5 and Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Plan M-89
(1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 and 1294 Wharf Street and 607 Annland Street)
1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 17-002/P and Zoning By-
law Amendment Application A 02/17, submitted by 2388116 Ontario Inc., to
facilitate the development of an 8 -storey condominium apartment building
on Part of Lots 5, and Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Plan M-89; be refused; and
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Linda Roberts
905.420.4660 extension 2928
Iroberts(a�pickerinq.ca
C4 �6
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Agenda
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Council Chambers - 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Ashe
That Council authorize City -staff, its outside legal counsel and outside
experts in the fields of planning, transportation, urban design and other
specialties, as may be required, to present and defend Council's position
on Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 17-002/P and Zoning By-law
Amendment Application A 02/17, submitted by 2388116 Ontario Inc. at the
Ontario Municipal Board.
(111) Other Business
(IV) Adjournment
cdy
DICKERING
r
Information Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: 04-18
Date: April 3, 2018
From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/18
Request for Red -Line Revision of Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2009-11(R)
Mattamy (Seaton) Limited
Part of Lots 21 & 22 Concession 4, Part of Lots 21, 22 & 23 Concession 5
Seaton Community
City of Pickering
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding applications for a
Zoning By-law Amendment and Request for Red -Line Revision of Draft Approved Plan of
Subdivision SP -2009-11(R), submitted by Mattamy (Seaton) Limited. 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 applicants proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear
public delegations on the 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.
2. Property Location and Description
The subject lands are located north and south of Whitevale Road, west of Mulberry Lane
within the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood, which is part of the Seaton Community (see
Location Map, Attachment #1). The lands covered by the approved Draft Plan of
Subdivision SP -2008-11(R) have a land area of approximately 54 hectares. A remnant
parcel located at 1415 Whitevale Road, which is proposed to be added to the plan of
subdivision, has an area of approximately 0.8 of a hectare.
Lands within the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-11(R) have been used for
field crops or are open space. There are no buildings or structures on the these lands.
The remnant parcel currently support a detached dwelling.
The surrounding lands are all owned by the Province and are designated Seaton Natural
Heritage System. Beyond the Seaton Natural Heritage lands are other draft plans of
subdivisions within the Seaton Community.
1
Information Report No. 04-18 Page 2
3. Applicant's Proposal
The original Plan of Subdivision SP -2009-11 was draft approved by the Ontario Municipal
Board (OMB) in December 2013. The related zoning that implements the subdivision, being
the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, was confirmed by the Province through an Order in
Council in March 2014.
Since these approvals, the landowner has commenced detailed design for the draft plan of
subdivision. This has resulted in engineering and urban design modifications to certain
roads and the lotting fabric of the approved draft plan of subdivision.
The majority of the draft plan of subdivision and zoning remains unchanged as the
revisions mostly affect the area in the central portion of the draft plan. The major change is
to convert the back-to-back townhouses to lane based townhouses along the east side of
the north -south spine to enhance the urban design for this area. This change will eliminate
the driveways on the east side of the spine collector road.
The other significant change is the incorporation of the remnant parcel on the south side of
Whitevale Road into the draft plan of subdivision. This land is proposed for 17 detached
dwellings and extensions of proposed roads. Including this parcel in the subdivision allows
for the completion of an integrated development for the neighbourhood.
The other change is a slight reduction of the stormwater management pond size so the
adjacent road and lots are extended south.
The overall lot yield and land uses are consistent with the approved draft plan (see
Submitted Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #2).
The rezoning application is to amend the zoning by-law for a remnant parcel of land and to
modify the zoning boundaries to reflect the change in unit type being proposed (see
Submitted Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision with Proposed Zoning, Attachment #3).
4. Policy Framework
4.1 Central Pickering Development Plan
The Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) sets out the principles and goals that
outline the general development vision for the overall Seaton Urban Area, including the
integration of new sustainable urban development while ensuring the protection,
maintenance and enhancement of the natural heritage system. The objectives and policies
of the CPDP are designed to achieve the vision of Seaton. The subject applications
conform to the intent of the CPDP.
2
Information Report No. 04-18 Page 3
4.2 Regional Official Plan
The Seaton Community falls under `Special Policy Area A (Pickering)', in the Durham
Regional Official Plan. These lands shall be developed in accordance with the CPDP and
implementing Neighbourhood Plans. The design, structure and uses proposed in the
subject applications are consistent with those permitted in the CPDP and the
Neighbourhood Plans. The applications comply with the Durham Regional Official Plan.
4.3 Pickering Official Plan
The subject lands are within the Seaton Urban Area in the Pickering Official Plan. The
Official Plan contains policies governing various land use designations, such as Residential
Areas and Open Space Systems, both of which are located in the subject lands. The
Official Plan establishes various policies for such matters as density, intensity of land use
and sustainability. Official Plan Amendment 22, which brought the Official Plan into
conformity with the CPDP, further defines the land use designations as well as establishes
policies for such matters as the Seaton Natural Heritage System, cultural heritage,
sustainable development, servicing, and urban design. The applications comply with the
policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan.
4.4 Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14
Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 implements the City's Official Plan Amendment 22, and the
CPDP.
A zoning by-law amendment is required to implement the proposed red -line revisions to the
approved draft plan of subdivision. The applicant is only proposing amendments to the
zoning schedules, modifying certain zoning boundaries. No changes are proposed to the
zoning categories or performance standards. The proposed rezoning is only for lands in
the central area of the draft plan. Zoning for the remaining lands within the draft plan
remain unchanged.
The zoning amendment for the parcel of land at 1415 Whitevale Road is to remove
the "A" —Agricultural Zone in Zoning By-law 3037 and rezone the parcel as LD1, LD2
and MD -DS in Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, in accordance with the Official Plan
Amendment 22 land use designations for this parcel.
5. Comments Received
5.1 Resident Comments
As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received from the
public.
5.2 Agency Comments
As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received from any
agency.
3
Information Report No. 04-18 Page 4
5.3 City Departments Comments
As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received from any
City Department.
5.3.1 Planning & Design Section Comments
The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration:
• ensuring the applications will implement the City's Official Plan and the Seaton
Neighbourhood policies
• ensuring the proposal is consistent with the City's urban design goals and objectives in
the Seaton Sustainable Place -Making Guidelines
• ensuring the remnant parcel can be properly integrated with the approved land uses
• ensuring the revised road pattern and lotting fabric achieve City design standards
• ensuring that required technical submissions and reports meet City standards
The City Development Department will conclude its position on the applications after it has
received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public.
6. Information Received
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, City Development
Department:
• Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision
• Phase One Environmental Site Assessment Report, dated April 24, 2017
• Environmental Noise Assessment — Revised, dated January 2018
• Revised Planning Analysis and Community Urban Design and Sustainability Brief
7. Procedural Information
7.1 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
• 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
4
Information Report No. 04-18 Page 5
7.2 Ontario Municipal Board is the Approval Authority for this Revision to the Draft Plan
of Subdivision
As the subject draft plan of subdivision was approved by the OMB, the Board is also the
approval authority for the requested revision. If Council supports the requested revision, it
is anticipated that the owner and the City will approach the OMB to approve the requested
revision.
The City of Pickering is the approval authority for the amendment to the zoning by-law.
8. Owner/Applicant Information
The owners of the properties are Mattamy (Seaton) Limited and are represented by
Macaulay Shiomi Howson Limited.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Submitted Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision
3. Submitted Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision with Proposed Zoning
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
ecro
Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP, PLE Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives Chief Planner
RP:Id
Date of Report: March 16, 2018
5
Attachment # / to
Information Report# O4-1 i
::•
••i♦i` r474
r•-•-
,
••�•••i••••♦•i♦-•-
i1+.41 ••••♦•• 4i
/I•.•••••••••••i
••••••4
•-
►404%i♦••i•i•♦i•i♦•Oi♦•Oi
�•••••••♦••••♦
♦•••••••••♦•♦
• •••♦•i i i •i••••• ••• ••i
•••••♦•ii•♦i•••♦••♦••4
•••••••••�•••••••••••
•
.•.•••r••,••
i
Attachment #_to
Information Report# 0 q
i
�
r
u
NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM - ! r
� I C
i \•,\ , \� ii\ r1, \ 1��\,\ %'\Ill ldiilrllt.
t \`
j+ 14'b
A II�,ir�l I
°I! I
rc.
1
_ I
, ;; nq ,� / „ I'�
1 1. 1 I! ;,11
hill
11 lrr�,
} L T
I i !
`
4 °�� I
� .. �`
—";-a r -(
�
111
� rjP 007OSED
i Ar ��� VELOPMENT r. 1,q ) r 1) I)Ir
r a
' ;f i ll,r
, (1 1
� i'i,l I(r, �li
\
'\'•�
i '"14 erT
I ��Y ��?�
\ I?,S atS
7Si}
Ii
��
t :�
,.:
I�R
11
11F
+{T-
t 511
t ,
I ,' it -
1 rfl � \
�. \
\ i `\
1
11.1 V
!�/� V�\ , L� �f/ ,�t�r
,. \\` �ll,1111,
1 7 tI �J T i 1
A+V (,It,/,it�{.
I r
�+Pik all fir.
jr,a+
.utri t
t
I " it
8 .5
i'l$11t
1.
sn�eu 'i , v i,�
v I,`r
���.�` q('�r
1 , eiREET2
-- -1 SIfiCET \ 7� ) ••
/ dy.�s. ,) j
1,1
1 R \\
f �--�— �1 k�i \ i 1 A I t
of ji
`�
\1 1 rf 1. sTgEtipe
tl ' : 1 f i �, ' 17r
Ij t: {. CC - + L yY }�� , f , ,
31 \f �.� vi V ,� I�
till li °',1
r r v i
rl. �,i �.,� i�r
-i C 1 r , v'��
{ g e �\
TeIl
I I�' I\ /
i j STREET.B---. `E
?;3j ip L f / \t. I ) r
E4) j
�.
\
3-SR1EEf - 0' + ry v +T.4, 5 "-
EFS+ ,
't 1 /� tri II
l I v ? a r
1 1
At
{ r.
G
L 1�'
�r X11
li
6� p€I
i1 1 t v 1 _`
Ilt
\tve,l x� Ill �'
'
{i
!�
�f{
c
e��1'�Iln
l `
r, \4 ,f.
x
bio
{
r � h\
.�
;j
l,-.
f18
�•: /. 1 , trT
`
sTtar FF::
e
C�
L
1
i1Q j
1
\II1
1 V [
T
gli
fl i�.e
[
} f
(i NATURAL
F \I HERITAGE
.. AREEf1 :
pll
nrag/(f
9YSTEl.1
NATU,
HERITAGEKM
1
Li
1
SYSTEM % :!
I
I
®e.a
�1
2a
e_
=a.,d
i��@'��lm
D
r�
OAII.
k rr
KaAI=
:=#rW-a
— 11
Y i!l
�
.
® `'
i
Area NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM
General A ea of . •
.;
SII
11
1 P , •
.,. { ,r.
"
Draft Plan Revisions=
-'I' t
If'
\y
\'\ \
Il y i : NATURAL
`}£ f„! HERITAGE
SYSTEM
igi
V'iA
ikl}I�
3 ter m
3O
Submitted Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision
C14 4
File No: A04/18 & SP -2009-11(R)
PICKERING
Applicant: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited
City Development
Property Description: Pt Lots 21 & 22 Con 4 & Pt Lots 21, 22 & 23 Con 5
Department
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: March 14, 2018
Attachment #to
Information Report# O 4 —
NATURAL HET/RAGE SY97EM
i
♦ I, 4 T'
P OPOSED
DEVELIPMENT
II
..l_ ID-; ,,
IMJUR L
SYIITE .!
6 off
PICKERING
City Development
Department
• HARROW.
HERITAGE
6Y BYGN
HAIIIRAI. V1,d rTAGE Gni EIA
ti•
HERITAGE G
WIN
Submitted Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision with Proposed Zoning
File No: A04/18 & SP -2009-111R)
Applicant: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited
Property Description: Pt Lots 21 & 22 Con 4 & Pt Lots 21, 22 & 23 Con 5
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKFRING I DATE: March 14, 2018
CITY OEVELOPM8141 6EPARTM NT.
GL' ooz
PJCKERI NG
Information Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: 05-18
Date: April 3, 2018
From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/17
Avonmore Ventures Inc.
Part of Lot 18, Concession 3
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding a Zoning By-law
Amendment application, submitted by Avonmore Ventures 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. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public
delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning
issues. This report is for information and no decision on this application is being 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.
2. Property Location and Description
The subject lands are located on the east side of Brock Road, north of William Jackson
Drive and south of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) Corridor within the Duffin Heights
Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands, which comprise
three properties, have a combined area of approximately 2.3 hectares with approximately
76 metres of frontage along William Jackson Drive and 42 metres of frontage along
Brock Road. Infrastructure Ontario (10) presently owns approximately 0.3 of a hectare of
the subject lands, which the applicant is in the process of acquiring (see Ownership Map,
Attachment #2).
A single storey detached dwelling currently occupies the site, which is proposed to be
removed. Mature trees and other vegetation are located along the northern and eastern
limits and within the valley lands associated with the Urfe Creek (see Aerial Photography
Map, Attachment #3). Surrounding land uses include:
North: Across the CPR Corridor are vacant lands that are designated Open Space
Systems — Seaton Natural Heritage System.
East: To the east is the Urfe Creek and associated valley lands.
South: To the south is an existing medium density residential subdivision comprising
semi-detached and townhouse dwelling units. Located between the subject lands
and the residential subdivision is a future Village Green to constructed by the City.
West: Across Brock Road are vacant lands designated as Mixed Use Areas — Mixed
Corridors.
9
10
Information Report No. 05-18 Page 2
3. Applicant's Proposal
The applicant is proposing a residential condominium development consisting of 178 stacked
townhouse units within seven rows of multi -unit residential blocks. The residential blocks
are oriented in north -south rows separated by pedestrian walkways that connect to
William Jackson Drive, Brock Road and the future Village Green. The residential blocks will
be 4 -storeys (approximately 12.0 metres in height) with back-to-back 2 -storey units stacked
on top of 2 -storey units. Rooftop patios areas are contemplated for the upper units, and
walkway balconies for the ground units, except for the units fronting the Village Green (see
Submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #4, Submitted Conceptual Block Elevation
Plan, Attachment #5, and Submitted Conceptual Streetscape, Attachment #6).
The residential blocks will be setback a minimum of 20.0 metres from the north property
line. To protect the proposed residential development from the existing CPR tracks, the
applicant is proposing to construct a concrete crash wall along the entire length of the north
property line. The proposed crash wall will have a height of approximately 2.0 metres and a
width of approximately 1.0 metre.
Vehicular access will be provided from William Jackson Drive. An emergency fire access
route is proposed at the centre of the development that will exit through the future Village
Green. A single level of underground parking is proposed for residents and visitors, except
for seven visitor parking spaces to be provided at grade. A total of 345 parking spaces will
be provided to support the development. Resident parking will be provided at a rate of
1.75 parking spaces per unit for a total of 312 spaces. Visitor parking will be provided at a
rate of 0.18 spaces per unit for total of 33 spaces.
The applicant has indicated that the lands associated with the Urfe Creek, including
required buffer lands, will be conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA).
The development will be subject to site plan approval.
4. Policy Framework
4.1 Region of Durham Official Plan
The subject lands are designated as "Living Areas" with a "Regional Corridor" overlay along
Brock Road in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands within the Living Areas
designation are predominately intended for housing purposes and limited office and
commercial uses. In the consideration of development proposals, regard shall be had to
achieving a compact urban form, including intensive residential, office, retail and service,
and mixed uses along arterial roads, in conjunction with present and potential transit
facilities.
Regional Corridors shall be planned and developed in accordance with the underlying land
use designation, as higher density mixed use areas, supporting higher order transit
services and pedestrian oriented design. Regional Corridors are. intended to support an
overall, long-term density target of at least 60 residential units per gross hectare and a
floor -space index (FSI) of 2.5, with a wide variety of building forms, generally mid -rise in
height, with some higher buildings, as detailed in municipal official plans.
Information Report No. 05-18 Page 3
Brock Road is designated as a Type 'A' Arterial Road and a Transit Spine in the Durham
Regional Official Plan. Type `A' Arterial Roads are designed to carry large volumes of
traffic at moderate to high speeds, have some access restrictions and generally have a
right-of-way width ranging from 36 to 50 metres. Transit Spines are recognized corridors
where higher levels of transit service is to be encouraged.
4.2 Pickering Official Plan
The Pickering Official Plan designates the developable portion of the subject lands as
"Mixed Use Areas — Mixed Corridors" within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. Mixed Use
Areas are recognized as lands that have or are intended to have the widest variety of uses
and highest levels of activity in the City. The Mixed Corridors designation is intended
primarily for residential, retail, community, cultural and recreational uses at a scale serving
the community, and provides for a range of commercial uses and residential development
at a density range of over 30 units up to and including 140 units per net hectare and a
maximum FSI up to and including 2.5 FSI. The proposed development has a net residential
density of approximately 121 units per net hectare and a FSI of 1.17.
The portion of the subject lands containing the Urfe Creek and associated valley lands and
buffers are designated as "Open Space — Natural Areas ". Lands designated as part of the
open space system are intended to be used primarily for conservation, restoration,
environmental education, recreation, and ancillary purposes. As noted above, these lands
will be conveyed to the TRCA prior to site plan approval.
4.3 Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies
The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies of the Pickering Official Plan require a broad
mix of housing by form, location, size and affordability within the neighbourhood. Policies
for the Mixed Use Areas — Mixed Corridors designation in this neighbourhood require the
following:
• new development to provide a strong and identifiable urban image by establishing
buildings closer to the street, providing safe and convenient pedestrian access and
requiring all buildings to be multi-storey
• higher intensity multi -unit housing forms on lands adjacent to Brock Road and restrict
grade related residential development to lands adjacent to collector or local roads
The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies also require landowners to:
• submit a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report that demonstrates
how the proposal is consistent with the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan to
the satisfaction of the Region, City and the TRCA
• become a party to the cost sharing agreement for Duffin Heights or receive an
acknowledgement from the Trustee of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group Inc. that
the benefitting landowner has made satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportion of
the shared development cost
11
Information Report No. 05-18 Page 4
4.4 Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Guidelines
The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines provide design objectives for
the neighbourhood. The intent of the Guidelines is to further the objectives of the Official
Plan and to achieve the following:
• an accessible pedestrian -oriented residential areas, distinct in character and
harmonious with the larger neighbourhood
• . a streetscape which is attractive, safe and encourages social interaction with the
neighbourhood
• a central focus to the neighbourhood which is safe, lively and attractive
• a diversity of uses to support neighbourhood and City functions, and
• a mix of housing types, forms, affordability and tenure on a variety of lot frontages
The subject lands are delineated as Brock Road Streetscape on the Tertiary Plan, which
encourages higher density, mid -rise and mixed use buildings with a high level of
architectural quality. Other key objectives for the Brock Road Streetscape include:
• enhanced landscaping, street elements and signage requirements that complement
and are visually harmonious with the design of development and building architecture
• building frontages that frame Brock Road and provide pedestrian access directly to the
sidewalk and the multi use trail along Brock Road
• in addition to the pedestrian circulation that will take place on street sidewalks,
provision shall be made to provide multiple private pedestrian connections from
Brock Road through the mixed use blocks in locations that have regard to transit stops
The application will be assessed against the provisions of the Duffin Heights Neigbourhood
policies and Development Guidelines during the further processing of the application.
4.5 Zoning By-law 3037
The subject lands are currently zoned "A" — Rural Agriculture Zone within Zoning
By-law 3037, as amended, which permits a detached dwelling, home occupation and
various agricultural and related uses. The applicant is requesting to rezone the
developable portion of the subject lands to an appropriate residential zone category with
site-specific performance standards to facilitate the proposal. The lands associated with
the Urfe Creek, including the required buffer lands, are to be rezoned to "OS" — Open Space
Areas.
5. Comments Received
5A Public comments from public open house meeting and written submissions
On February 22, 2018, a Public Open House meeting was hosted by the City Development
Department to inform area residents about the development proposal. Approximately
3 households (approximately 7 people) attended the Open House meeting. The following is
a list of key concerns that were verbally expressed by area residents at the meeting and
written submissions received from the area residents:
12
Information Report No. 05-18 Page 5
• concerned with the Toss of mature vegetation and wildlife habitat
• commented that the existingmature vegetation on the subject lands provided a natural
buffer between the existing dwellings and the CP Railway, and concerned that the
removal of the vegetation through the development of the lands will result in excessive
noise, vibration and pollution impacts on existing residential properties in the area
• commented that the proposal will increase traffic congestion in the area
• commented that the 90 degree bend of William Jackson Road has resulted in multiple
traffic collisions, which will be exacerbated by the location of the new proposed private
road and the increase in the number of vehicles in the area
• suggested the proposed vehicle access to the internal private road be relocated slightly
west to be aligned with the north bound portion of William Jackson Drive and designed
as a three way stop to try and mitigate the traffic collisions that have been occurring
• commented on the pooling of existing surface runoff water from the subject lands along
William Jackson Drive and expressed concern that the increase in impervious surfaces
from the development will worsen the existing conditions of the drainage in the area
• concerned that the proposed development does not provide a sufficient amount of land
dedicated to park space
• commented that the proposed building height (12.0 metres) should not exceed the
height of the proposed acoustical barriers
• noted that the existing bus route does not travel north past Rex Heath Drive as intended
• would like to see the sidewalk along the north side of William Jackson Drive continue to
connect out to Taunton Road
• noted safety and traffic issues associated with turning onto William Jackson Drive from
Taunton Road
• concerned over building residential developments on top of a high pressure gas line
• commented that the City's notification radius is too small and should be increased to
notify a larger number of residents
5.2 Agency Comments
5.2.1 Region of Durham — Planning & Economic Development Department
• the proposed development will positively contribute to the density targets of this area
while contributing to the Region's density targets along the Brock Road Corridor, and
therefore conforms to the Regional Official Plan
• the proposed medium density development is consistent with the policies of the
Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
• the applicant will be required to implement the recommended noise attenuation
measures as outlined in the Environmental Noise and Vibration Impact Study, dated
November 27, 2017, prepared by Aerocoustics Engineering Ltd., in a development
agreement with the City of Pickering
• given the high potential for both First Nations and Euro -Canadian archeological
resources in the study area, a Stage 2 Archeological Assessment and any further
studies must be completed by a licensed Ontario Archaeologist and submitted to the
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport for clearance prior to the final approval of a site
plan application
13
Information Report No. 05-18 0 Page 6
• the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Report, dated November 13, 2017,
prepared by Haddad Geotechnical Inc. concluded that there are several potentially
contaminating activities, which warrants the preparation of a Phase 2 ESA
• the Phase 2 ESA, dated November 13, 2017, prepared by Haddad Geotechnical Inc.
concluded that the majority of the samples met the Table 2 Site Condition Standards;
however, two boreholes on the site exceeds the standards; therefore, the applicant is
required to undertake further measures and testing prior to any development taking
place on the subject lands
• a Reliance Letter and Certificate of Insurance will be required prior to the final approval
of a site plan application
• the applicant will have to submit additional engineering information to confirm that the
underground parking structure can maintain the weight of waste vehicles travelling
above on the private road
• the applicant must submit a revised Waste Management Plan demonstrating ability for a
continuous waste truck movement without reversing once collection occurs
• if the standards for municipal waste collection cannot be met, then applicant will be
responsible for retaining private waste collection for the subject site
5.2.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
• the location of the 10 metre buffer is generally acceptable; however, a squaring off of
the lot line to provide a more linear transition between the private and public lands is
recommended
• there does not appear to be sufficient municipal setback between the eastern most
townhouse block and unknown location of the underground garage and the easterly
limits of development for future access and maintenance of the proposed structures
• requests a fence be installed along the property boundary between the developable
lands and the environmentally sensitive lands to be convey to TRCA
• requests the submission of a Functional Site Grading Plan
• TRCA Ecology staff staked the limits of the most mature vegetation associated with the
valley to east in 2016. This staking was based on a recognition that the planning history
of this site splits the property into a Mixed Corridor designation on the west, and a
Natural Heritage System designation on the east. However, this does not mean that the
now matured vegetation on the Mixed Corridor designated lands is not significant. Over
850 trees of 15 centimetre diameter at breast height and greater will be removed. The
need for compensation should be revisited as the site has matured into a woodland
since the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan was completed. TRCA is
prepared, given this planning history, to consider the option of compensating for the loss
of ecosystem services subject to the City of Pickering being supportive of such an
approach
• requests an updated Environmental Impact Study that outlines the proposed tree
compensation scheme, additional details on the proposed dewatering of the site, and a
restoration plan
• requests an update to the Stormwater Management Report to reflect TRCA's criteria
and additional details addressing the impervious surfaces, on site retention volumes,
and the water budget deficits as per the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan
14
Information Report No. 05-18 Page 7
5.2.3 Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR)
• the development proposal is abutting a CPR corridor which is classified as a Principal
Main Line
• CPR typically requires a minimum setback of 30 metres from the rail right-of-way to any
new residential dwellings, and reductions in this setback can be achieved through
increases in safety barrier/berm height
• the applicant is proposing an alternative safety barrier (crash wall) in place of the
standard earthen berm
• the final design and height of the crash wall will have to meet CPR's specifications and
be reviewed and approved by CPR's external service provider
• CPR has reviewed the Environmental Noise and Vibration Impact Study, dated
November 27,. 2017, prepared by Aerocoustics Engineering Ltd., and notes that the
night time noise levels at the north end of the blocks exceed the Ministry of Environment
and Climate Change and CPR requirements
• CPR requests that the recommended noise reduction and attenuation measures be
implemented as conditions of site plan approval
• CPR in principal does not object to the rezoning of the lands subject to the final design
and review of the crash wall barrier at the site plan application stage
5.3 City Department Comments
5.3.1 Engineering Services Department
• no comments received at the time of writing this report
6. Planning & Design Section Comments
The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date.
These matters, and other identified through the circulation and detailed review of the
proposal, are required to be address by the applicant prior to a final recommendation report
to Planning & Development Committee:
• ensure conformity with the City's Official Plan and Duffin Heights Neighbourhood
policies
• ensure the proposal complies with TRCA's policies and regulations, and that the limits
of development, including appropriate buffer areas adjacent to the Urfe Creek, are
provided to the satisfaction of the TRCA
• explore opportunities to preserve and protect the existing mature vegetation within the
developable lands where possible
• if the mature vegetation cannot be preserved, ensure that appropriate compensation
(financial and replacement planting) is required for the removal of the existing
vegetation and loss of ecosystem services
• ensure adequate provision of private amenity space on-site to serve the residents
• review the location of the fire route access and ensure it does not compromise the City's
ability to design and program the future Village Green
• review whether additional parkland is needed on the east side of Brock Road to support
the additional population anticipated in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood, and whether
this proposal should contribute parkland to enlage the future Village Green
15
16
Information Report No. 05-18 Page 8
• review the location of the proposed vehicle access on William Jackson Drive to ensure
appropriate sightlines are maintained for safe turning movements
• ensure the proposed indoor living spaces and outdoor living areas meet the minimum
daytime and nighttime sound limits as recommended by the Ministry of Environment and
Climate Change
• require information demonstrating how the proposed crash wall (2.0 metres in height
and 1.0 metre in width) and the minimum 4.0 metre high acoustical attenuation barrier
will be accommodated within the proposal
• require additional information illustrating the location of the exhaust fans and proposed
pedestrian access to the underground garage
• ensure sufficient resident and visitor parking is provided to support the proposed
development
• review the opportunity for the development of accessible units
• ensure that the applicant becomes a party to the cost sharing agreement for Duffin
Heights or receives an acknowledgement from the Trustee of the Duffin Heights
Landowners Group Inc., that the benefiting landowner has made satisfactory
arrangements to pay its proportion of the shared development cost
• further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the
circulated departments, agencies, and public
The City Development Department will conclude its position on the application after it has
received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies, and public.
7. Information Received
Copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing on the City's website
at pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development
Department:
• Conceptual Site Plan, prepared by The Biglieri Group, dated November 29, 2017
• Conceptual Elevations, prepared by The Biglieri Group, dated November 2017
• Planning Rationale Report, prepared by The Biglieri Group, dated November 2017
• Stage 1 Archeological. Assessment, prepared by AECOM, dated August 14, 2017
• Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by HADDAD Geotechnical Inc., dated
November 20, 2017
• Phase 1, Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by HADDAD Geotechnical Inc.,
dated November 13, 2017
• Phase 2, Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by HADDAD Geotechnical Inc.,
dated November 13, 2017
• Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Implementation Report, prepared by
Lithols Group, dated November 2017
• Transportation Impact Study, prepared by The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd.,
dated November 2017
• Environmental Noise and Vibration Impact Study, prepared by Aercoustics
Engineering Ltd., dated November 27, 2017
• Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Beacon Environmental Inc., dated
November 2017
• Arborist Report, prepared by DA White Treecare, dated November 10, 2017
Information Report No. 05-18 Page 9
8. Procedural Information
8.1 General
• written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development
Department
• oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting
• all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by
the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee
of Council
• any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision
must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal
• any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this
proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk
9. Owner/Applicant Information
The owner of this property is Avonmore Ventures Inc. and represented by
The Biglieri Group.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Ownership Map
3. Aerial Photography Map
4. Submitted Conceptual Site Plan
5. Submitted Conceptual Block Elevation Plan
6. Submitted Conceptual Streetscape
Prepared By:
Amy Emm, MCIP, RPP
Planner II
1 1
Nile urti, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
& Urban Design
AE: NS: Id
Date of Report: March 14, 2018
Approved/Endorsed By:
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
17
Attachment # to
ult-of ma A 411
Fourth Concession Road
Zents Drive
Taunton Road
Subject
Lands
♦������� **•`•4
• ♦��•1•�•���•••• v
444444 ,
0000• 000000titt:.•itis
►000000004040! ....• 4►0000000000
0
e
111111111/
Tall
Street
"1111""
1111"""'
iackpine Crossir
uckleberry Crossing
mom mom
Ise
1100 sis
woo S .00
ra
owl
uoilkulow
WV woo
oll
glows,s1*
G7
gc
Re Heath Drive
0
0
0
0
@
E
ow
virs
wa
(
8
c4 4
'
Location Map
File: A 13/17
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Applicant:Avonmore Ventures Inc.
Property Description:Part of Lot 18, Concession 3
(2810 William Jackson Drive)
Date: Mar. 05, 2018
' The Corporatton of the City of Pickering Produced tin pan) under license from 0 Queens Primer,Ortano UJrdstry of Natural Resources.
All rights re served.,0 Her Majesty the Queen In Right or Canada, Departmertef Natural Resources. AA rights maenad.;
OTeranet Enterprises Inc. and Rs suppl'zrs all rights reserved.;0Mon:6pal Property Assessment Corporation and Its suppler: al riglts reserved.;
SCALE. 1.5,000
THIS IS ROTA PLAN OF SURVEY.
Attachment ft c to
hforrnotion Renart#
Fourth Concession Road
Zents Drive
Taunton Road
Brock Road
roc
P
Applicant
Owned Lands
Er7
11111111
Tall Street
Infrastructure Ontario
0
fp
Jackpine Crossi
1 uckleberry Crossing
gc
0)
Rex.Heath
Drive
0
envy 1
E
Owned Lands
044
Ownership Map
File: A 13/17
PICKERING
City Development
Department(2810
Applicant:Avonmore Ventures Inc.
Property Description:Part of Lot 18, Concession 3
William Jackson Drive)
Date: Mar. 07, 2018
The Corporation of the City of Rae nng Produced hn part) under license from: 0 Queers Pnnter, Ortano Ihristry of Nahral Resources.
All rights reserved x, Her P.Ialesty the Queen In Right of Canada. Deo ertmert of Natural Resources Al rights resened ;
0 Teranet Enterprises Inc. and Its suppliers all rights reserved.; 0 /.1unklpal Properly Assessment Corporation and Its supplers al netts rescued ;
SCALE: 1:5,000
ThIS IS ?JOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.
19
;.t.aclirnent# to
643--18
IIII !!!!,
rossIn
`1"r7i _ 724 60 Erri v e
0
PICKERING
City Development
Department
I
Aerial Photography Map
File: A 13/17
Applicant:Avonmore Ventures Inc.
Property Description:Part of Lot 18, Concession 3
(2810 William Jackson Drive)
Date•. Mar. 05, 2018
rro. c.w.o. a Ma city gl Plsktihv PiorPs•oll {In ffrIl iirtrlor litgro.oirvir..bkmYrWer,P44,19 M.^ WrerGlirtirl•ows,
„Ili& emi.piit, Msfoily N. Mom In RI& of Collodi!, Owillinsiionlakni Ft414Mil. hl NUN roomed;
tilfweana5 Iniorpilxis irp, oltel lit oc poll*. sNiplto mime :it 1.4iDicfpai Preporcyksiestmott utopormienaraila otpotoit oiiipluepeo MA .
S CAI F : 1 :5,00D
PIK 11. NI . A,L
21
22
Macbrifient
RG: qt:i'i t. ,�---
0
0_
-03
V
N
O
O
dam+
N
Q.
O
c.)
O
E
.o
N
N
7
0
O
cdU
cdE
O
T
co
N
co
C
O
U
co
C
O
U
r
O
J
0_
O
Q.
.t)
W
O
O
Q
O
a
DATE: March 1, 2018
0
z
uj
0 U
n
LL
O
U
W
1-
F -
u_
0
z
0
0
O
J
0
uj
3Z
W
EL 2
LLa
LL W
0
W 0
0
Oa
UO
J u J
0 W
(n ❑
LL U
L3
C
Z a)
E C
'' of0
W TD aa) Q.
U a D
U
C!H ,),F
DICKERING
Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: PLN 09-18
Date: April 3, 2018
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 17-002/P
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/17
2388116 Ontario Inc.
Part of Lots 5, and Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Plan M-89
(1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 and 1294 Wharf Street, and 607 Annland Street)
Recommendation:
1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 17-002/P and Zoning By-law Amendment
Application A 02/17, submitted by 2388116 Ontario Inc., to facilitate the development of an
8 -storey condominium apartment building on Part of Lots 5, and Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12,
Plan M-89; be refused; and
2. That Council authorize City staff, its outside legal counsel and outside experts in the fields of
planning, transportation, urban design and other specialties, as may be required, to present
and defend Council's position on Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 17-002/P and
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/17, submitted by 2388116 Ontario Inc. at the
Ontario Municipal Board.
Executive Summary: 2388116 Ontario Inc. has applied for a site specific exception to both the
Official Plan and Zoning By-law to facilitate the development of an 8 -storey condominium
apartment consisting of 118 dwelling units on lands located north of Wharf Street, south of
Annland Street and west of Liverpool Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The applicant
has appealed the applications to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on the grounds that the City
has not made a decision on the applications within the time frames prescribed in the Planning Act.
The purpose of this Report is to obtain a Council position on these applications and authorize staff
and the City's outside experts to attend the OMB hearing and defend the City's position.
While intensification is a central thrust in provincial and regional policies and plans, there is also a
theme through the documents requiring sensitivity to the local context in determining where, how
and to what extent intensification should occur. The applications for site specific official plan and
zoning amendments in the Waterfront Node would result in a high density apartment building in an
area the City had not targeted under its current intensification strategy.
24
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 2
The height, density, scale and massing of the building will result in a form of development that is
too dense, and not in keeping with the scale and character of the existing Waterfront Node and
surrounding development. The form of development will not provide an acceptable transition to
the existing development, resulting in adverse shadow impacts and limited opportunities for
landscaping. The building will be raised, on a partially below grade parking structure, resulting in
a wall-like condition as the interface with the public streets, particularly along Wharf Street.
Accordingly, staff is of the opinion that the proposal for an 8 -storey condominium apartment
building in this location does not represent good planning, and recommend that Council deny the
applications, and authorize City staff and its agents to prepare, present and defend Council's
position on the applications submitted by 2388116 Ontario Inc. at the OMB hearing.
Financial Implications: There will be costs associated with defending Council's position at the
Ontario Municipal Board as outside Counsel, and planning and related experts will be required.
These costs will be funded from the General Government — Purchased Services account.
1. Background
1.1 The applicant has appealed the applications to the Ontario Municipal Board
On. November 1, 2017, 2388116 Ontario Inc. filed appeals to its applications for Official
Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on
the basis that the City did not make a decision on the applications within the prescribed
time lines as set out in the Planning Act. At the time of the writing of this Report, a
Pre -hearing Conference to identify the parties and participants to the hearing, and
determine the list of issues to be considered by the Board was scheduled for Wednesday,
March 21, 2018. City Development has identified a number of issues to be presented at
the Pre -hearing Conference which are attached to this report for Council's information
(see Appendix I). An OMB hearing date will be scheduled following the Pre -hearing
Conference.
The purpose of this Report is to obtain Council's position on the applications for
presentation to the OMB.
1.2 Property Description
The subject properties are located north of Wharf Street, south of Annland Street and west
of Liverpool Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands, which comprise
six properties having the municipal addresses of 1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 and 1294 Wharf
Street, and 607 Annland Street (see Municipal Address Map, Attachment #2), have a
combined area of approximately 0.5 of a hectare with frontages along Wharf Street and
Annland. Street. The applicant also owns a parcel of land along Frenchman's Bay
(1276 Wharf Street), located to the west of the subject lands, having an area of
approximately 345 square metres, which is indicated as `Additional Lands' on the
Location Map.
25
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 3
A detached dwelling occupies each of the properties at 1280, 1288 and 1290 Wharf Street,
and 607 Annland Street. The rear yard of 1290 Wharf Street is currently used for outside
storage of boats. The property at 1292 Wharf Street is used for outside storage of
equipment and materials, and overflow parking for the Port Restaurant. A metal storage
building and outside storage occupies 1294 Wharf Street.
Surrounding land uses include detached dwellings to the north, townhouse dwellings and
the Port Restaurant to the south, outside storage of boats and equipment to the east, and
registered over a portion of the vacant lands immediately to the west is a 7.0 metre wide
easement to accommodate a 4.5 metre wide trunk sanitary sewer in favour of the Region of
Durham serving areas to the north in the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Also to the west is a
private right-of-way providing access to 1276, 1280 and 1288 Wharf Street.
1.3 Applicant's proposal
The applicant is proposing an 8 -storey `L' shaped condominium apartment building
consisting of 118 dwelling units containing one and two bedroom units and a visitors' suite
(see Submitted Plan, Attachment #3). A three-level parking structure partially below -grade
is proposed to accommodate a total of 167 parking spaces for both residents and visitors.
Access to the parking structure is from Annland Street and a loading/delivery area is
accessed from Wharf Street. The principal pedestrian entrance is proposed from
Wharf Street in the southeast corner of the site. A secondary pedestrian entrance is
provided in the vicinity of the Annland Street entrance to the underground parking structure.
The overall building height varies from 27.5 metres at the southeasterly corner of the building
in the vicinity of Wharf Street to 30.0 metres at the northwesterly corner of the building in the
vicinity of Annland Street. Exclusive of outdoor common amenity areas and private amenity
areas, the proposed building has a total gross floor area of approximately 16,030 square
metres, a floor space index (FSI) of 3.2 and a density of approximately 230 units per net
hectare.
Building stepbacks are proposed along the Wharf Street elevation above the below grade
parking structure at the first, third, fifth, seventh and eighth floors. Building stepbacks are
also proposed along the west elevation, overlooking Frenchman's Bay, at the first, fifth and
eighth floors (see Submitted South and West Building Elevations, Attachment #4). No
building stepbacks are proposed along the north (Annland Street) and east (Liverpool
Road) elevations, but contain balconies that are recessed from the face of the building
(see Submitted North and East Building Elevations, Attachment #5). Exclusive use private
amenity areas adjacent the first floor units and the outdoor common amenity areas are
located on top of the below grade parking structure along the south (Wharf Street), west
(Frenchman's Bay), and. partially along the east elevations.
The applicant proposes to dedicate to the City of Pickering for the purposes of public
parkland the 'Additional Lands' (1276 Wharf Street) that are owned by the applicant and
located on Frenchman's Bay. The `Additional Lands' are not subject of the applications for
Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.
26
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 4
At the request of City Development, a Block Plan was submitted by the applicant, that
demonstrates the applicant's vision of how the development of the `Additional Lands' for
park purposes would connect Front Road to Wharf Street. The plan also demonstrated an
option of how the abutting lands to the east could accommodate a possible future
development. These adjacent lands to the east are not owned by the applicant, and the
Block Plan is only for illustration and has no approval status.
The applicant has submitted an application for an Official Plan Amendment to re -designate
the subject lands from "Open Space System — Marina Areas" and "Urban Residential Areas
— Low Density Areas" to "Urban Residential Areas — High Density Areas". Also submitted is
a Zoning By-law Amendment Application to rezone the subject lands to an appropriate
residential zone category to facilitate the proposal. While the `Additional Lands' are not part
of the Zoning By-law Amendment Application, the applicant is proposing that the City
initiate a site specific amendment to rezone the property to an appropriate zone category
for recreation/park uses.
2. Comments Received
2.1 Public Open House, Public Information Meeting and Written Comments
On October 11, 2017, a Public Open House meeting attended by approximately
100 persons was hosted by the City Development Department to inform area residents
about the development proposal. Subsequently, the Public Information Meeting was held
on November 6, 2017, where approximately 90 persons are recorded to have attended.
Since the submission of the applications approximately 45 written submissions have been
received. The key concerns addressed in these written submissions and voiced at the
Public Open House and Public Information Meetings are summarized in Appendix II and
the major themes addressed in these key concerns/comments can be described as follows:
• the proposal is not in keeping with the nautical themed character of the residential area
• there is insufficient capacity in the existing road network to accommodate the
development, which will lead to more congestion
• the proposed 8 -storey building will have negative impacts on the surrounding residential
area, resulting in lack of privacy, shadowing, and loss of views
• it is important to protect the existing uses that support marina and recreational boating
activities
• the development of these lands will worsen the significant flooding recently experienced
in the area and have adverse environmental and ecological impacts
• additional residents in the area will have impacts on safety and increase the delay for
emergency evacuation of the area
27
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 5
2.2 Friends of Frenchman's Bay
The Friends of Frenchman's Bay retained Trans -Plan Transportation Inc., (transportation
consultants) to peer review the applicant's submitted Transportation Impact Study,
prepared by Dionne Bacchus & Associates. The peer review found that:
• the transportation impact study does not take into account the peak roadway traffic
volumes experienced along Liverpool Road during the summer period when traffic
volumes are nearly twice as high as the spring and fall peak hour traffic volumes
• the proposed parking rate of 1.42 spaces per unit cannot be justified with the minimal
transit service available in the area
• displacement of the overflow parking lot for the Port Restaurant accommodated on the
subject lands is not addressed, and
• further analysis of the emergency evacuation times for apartments is required
A copy of the covering letter that accompanied the Trans -Plan Transportation Inc. peer
review report, dated January 11, 2018, is provided as Appendix III, and a copy of .the
Report is available on the City's website at Pickering.ca/devapp.
2.3 City Departments & Agency Comments
2.3.1 Region of Durham
• the subject lands are designated "Waterfront Areas" and "Living Areas" in the Durham
Regional Official Plan
• lands within the "Waterfront Areas" designation are to be developed as focal points
along the Lake Ontario waterfront, having a mix of uses which may include residential,
commercial, marina, recreational, tourist, cultural and community facilities, and where
appropriate shall be planned to support an overall long-term density target of at least
60 residential units per gross hectare and a FSI of 2.0
• lands within the "Living Areas" designation shall be used predominantly for a variety of
housing types, sizes and tenure; be developed in a compact form through higher
densities especially along arterial roads by intensifying and redeveloping in existing
areas provided that the development complies with the provisions of the area
municipal official plan and zoning by-law
• the proposed development is permitted by the Regional Official Plan as it supports
infill development within the urban area while implementing the intensification policies
of the Plan; is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Statement as it supports
compact urban form and promotes the efficient use of public infrastructure; and is
generally in conformity with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as it
will help provide a variety of residential forms and assist in the achievement of
intensification within an existing residential area
• the Region requires the applicant to submit a Record of Site Condition (RSC) to
Ministry of Environment and Climate Change to the Region's satisfaction
• municipal water supply and sanitary sewer services are available to the subject
properties
28
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 6
• the lands are currently served by the Durham Region Transit routes 101 and 193 with
the nearest bus stop located on Liverpool Road, north of Annland Street; the Region
of Durham has no concerns from a transit perspective as the properties satisfy the
principle of being within a reasonable walking distance of transit services as defined
as approximately 400 metres
• as the Official Plan Amendment application is considered to have no significant
Regional or Provincial concerns, the application is exempt from Regional approval
subject to satisfying the RSC requirement
2.3.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
• has no objections to the approval of the applications
• the west side of site is within a wetland area of interference and is adjacent to the
eastern shoreline of Frenchman's Bay
• a permit is required prior to development for lands within the TRCA Regulated Area
limit, which includes a small part of the subject lands (1276 and 1288 Wharf Street,
and the south-west corner of the easement)
• a preliminary stormwater management design should be provided to functionally show
the measures that are feasible and how they will meet enhanced water quality
treatment and the 5 mm retention criteria
• the lands adjacent to Frenchman's Bay, intended to be conveyed to public ownership,
represent an opportunity to naturalize the shoreline, and should be considered an
important component of the development
• the Bird Strike Mitigation Report provides valuable information on designing buildings
to reduce bird strikes, and strongly encourages good design to limit future bird
mortality on this important migratory bird stopover location
2.3.3 City of Pickering — Engineering Services
• the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) used off peak seasons for the waterfront; the TIS is to
be revised to include summer (July) traffic counts, add a growth rate of 2 percent to
the traffic counts, and include the development at 747 Liverpool Road (67 dwellings)
to the future background traffic
• due to the limited space between the amenity area and the property line, a proper
drainage swale cannot be provided to direct drainage
• the loading area is not to drain to the roadway; drainage from this area is to be
contained onsite and treated
• the City does not support point discharge for stormwater at the southwest corner of
the building; stormwater is to discharge to the Annland Street storm sewer, upsizing of
the storm sewer from the outfall to the site may be required if the existing sewer does
not have the capacity
• the applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City for any offsite
works; a separate cost estimate for these offsite works will be required with the
submission of the detailed design
• the uncontrolled flows proposed to be directed towards adjacent private properties are
unacceptable; these flows are to be directed towards public road right-of-ways
29
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 7
• the applicant is required to submit a tree preservation plan; financial compensation for
canopy loss will be required
• technical matters with respect to grading, drainage, servicing, fencing details and
requirements, stormwater management details, and vehicular access locations will be
further reviewed at detailed design stage and through the site plan approval process
2.3.4 Durham District and Durham Catholic District School Boards
Durham District
School Board
• no objections to the proposal
• students generated by this proposal will attend existing
neighbourhood schools
Durham Catholic • no objections to the proposal
District School Board • students generated by this proposal will attend Father Fenelon
Catholic Elementary School located at 795 Eyer Drive and
St. Mary Catholic Secondary School located at 1918 Whites
Road
3. Policy Context
3.1 The Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe
The Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS) provides policy direction for land use planning
and development in Ontario with which municipal planning decisions must be consistent.
Section 1, Building Strong Healthy Communities, of the PPS states that healthy, livable and
safe communities are to be sustained, including among other matters, promoting efficient
development and land use patterns; accommodating an appropriate range and mix of
residential, employment, institutional, recreation, park and open space and other uses to
meet long-term needs; and promoting cost-effective development patterns and standards to
minimize land consumption and servicing cost.
Section 1.1.3.3 of the PPS requires planning authorities to identify appropriate locations
and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be
accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, and the availability of
suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to
accommodate projected needs. Further, section 1.1.3.5 of the PPS requires planning
authorities to establish and implement minimum targets for intensification and
redevelopment within built-up areas, based on local conditions.
Section 4 of the PPS outlines methods in which the PPS should be implemented and
interpreted. Policy 4.7 states that the municipal official plan is the most important vehicle
for implementing the PPS, and that comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning is
best achieved through official plans.
30
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 8
The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 (Growth Plan) is a provincial
plan that builds on the policy foundation of the PPS providing a more specific framework for
municipalities on how to grow, the provision of infrastructure to support growth, and the
protection of natural systems. Unless provided otherwise by legislation, the Growth Plan
takes precedence over the PPS in cases where there is a conflict. Section 3 of the
Planning Act requires that all municipal planning decisions shall conform or not conflict
with, as the case may be, to the Growth Plan.
Section 2.2.2 4.b) of the Growth Plan states that all municipalities are required to develop a
strategy to achieve the minimum intensification target and intensification throughout
delineated built-up areas. The strategy is also required to identify the appropriate type
and scale of development and transition of built form to adjacent areas. Furthermore
Section 5.2.5 5.a) of the Growth Plan requires the minimum intensification targets to be
identified in the Region of Durham Official Plan and requires the City of Pickering to
undertake studies to establish the permitted uses, densities, heights, and other elements of
site design to implement the minimum targets.
3.2 The Durham Regional Official Plan
The subject lands are designated as "Waterfront Areas" and "Living Areas", and
Frenchman's Bay is designated as "Waterfront Places — Frenchman's Bay" in the Durham
Regional Official Plan.
Lands within the "Waterfront Areas" designation shall generally be developed as people
places. Lands within the "Living Areas" designation are predominantly for housing
purposes and incorporate a variety of housing types, sizes and tenure. Living Areas shall
be developed in a compact form through higher densities, especially along arterial roads by
intensifying and redeveloping in existing areas, provided that it complies with the provisions
of the area municipal official plan and zoning by-law.
The "Waterfront Places — Frenchman's Bay" designation requires waterfront areas within
the vicinity of Frenchman's Bay designation to be developed as focal points along the
Lake Ontario waterfront having a mix of uses, which may include residential, commercial,
marina, recreational, tourist, and cultural and community facilities. The scale of
development shall be based on and reflect the characteristics of each Waterfront Place.
The boundaries and land uses of Waterfront Places are to be defined in local official plans.
Where appropriate, Waterfront Places shall be planned to support an overall, Tong -term
density target of at least 60 residential units per gross hectare and a FSI of 2.0. The built
form should vary, and be developed in a manner that is sensitive to the interface with the
natural environment, as detailed in area municipal official plans.
In addition to the above -noted policies, the Regional Official Plan also provides policy
direction for area municipal intensification strategies. These strategies are based on, but
not limited to the following:
• the growth management objections of the Regional Official Plan (Policy 7.3.9)
• intensification in appropriate locations throughout the built-up areas
• the identification of intensification areas
31
32
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018,
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 9
• the recognition of Urban Growth Centre, Regional and Local Centres, Corridors,
Waterfront Places and Transportation Hubs and Commuter Stations as the key focus
for intensification
• the provision of a range and mix of housing, taking into account affordable housing
needs
• the provision of a diverse and compatible mix of land use, to support vibrant
neighbourhoods, providing high quality public open spaces with site design and urban
design standards that create attractive and vibrant places, support transit, walking and
cycling and achieve an appropriate transition to adjacent areas
3.3 Pickering Official Plan
The Pickering Official Plan designates the westerly portion of the subject lands (1280 and
1288 Wharf Street and 607 Annland Street) as "Open Space System — Marina Areas" and
the remaining lands (1290, 1292 and 1294 Wharf Street) as "Urban Residential Areas —
Low Density Areas". The subject lands are within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood.
The "Open Space System — Marina Areas" designation provides for marinas, yacht clubs,
marina supportive uses such as restaurants, limited retail sales, limited residential uses in
conjunction with marinas and yacht clubs, and aquaculture in addition to conservation,
environmental protection, and agricultural uses. These uses were intended to strengthen
and complement the existing working marinas that cater to the Pickering community and
recreational boating. The "Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Areas" designation
provides for housing and related uses with a maximum net residential density of 30 units
per hectare. The applicant's proposal illustrates a density of approximately 230 units per
net hectare and a floor space index of 3.2. Notwithstanding the current land use
permissions, the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood policies further restrict permitted uses on the
subject lands to only non-residential uses listed above.
The Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Policies recognize the subject lands as being within the
"Liverpool Road Waterfront Node", which is described as an area that exhibits a unique mix
of built and natural attributes. Building form and public space within the Waterfront Node
are to be of high quality design with a nautical theme as detailed in the Liverpool Road
Waterfront Node Development Guidelines.
3A Council adopted a vision for the Waterfront Node
In the early 2000's, Council adopted a vision for the Waterfront Node, with input from area
landowners and the community. The resulting Tertiary Plan of the Liverpool Road
Waterfront Node Development Guidelines designates the subject lands as Marina Mixed
Use Area. Lands in this designation are intended to develop in a manner that creates a
high quality built form that is sensitive to views of the water, provides a critical link for visual
and physical public accessibility to the waterfront where appropriate, has an attractive
pedestrian scale, and builds upon existing neighbourhood patterns.
Policies for the Waterfront Node allowed new residential development, as an exception.
With the Node, residential was to be limited, was restricted to 55 units per hectare and
required the provision of a public benefit. Within the Marina Mixed Use Area, residential
was only permitted in conjunction with marinas and yacht clubs.
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 10
The Guidelines set out detailed development standards and policies that recognize the
importance of development be appropriate for the area by addressing the protection of
views and vistas, maintenance of existing road network, opportunities for additional off-road
trail connections, continuance of street and block patterns, provision of pedestrian friendly
built form, creative parking strategies, compliance with relevant environmental
management policies, and stormwater best management practices ensuring post
development flows are of equal or better quality and quantity to that of predevelopment
flows.
3.5 City's Intensification Strategy
The City's current intensification strategy as set out in the Pickering Official Plan is to
maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure and minimize the consumption of vacant
land by accommodating additional residential units within the South Pickering Urban Area
by encouraging:
• major intensification in Mixed Use Areas as designated on Schedule I of the Official
Plan (which includes among other areas, the City's urban growth centre and anchor
mobility hub, and the majority of the Kingston Road corridor along which bus rapid
transit service is available)
• infill development of vacant or underutilized blocks of lands
• in mixed use areas and residential areas, redevelopment and conversion of
non-residential uses to residential uses, including the addition of residential uses in
mixed use forms
• methods for the provision of compact housing form, with regard to housing type,
architectural design and cost-effective development standards, where technically
feasible
Major intensification is primarily intended to occur on those lands designated as Mixed Use
Areas, not low density residential areas. Infill occurs in low density areas on vacant or
underutilized parcels of land. The effect of this is to increase the number of people in close
proximity to higher order transit infrastructure, withoutsignificantly changing the character
of the established neighbourhoods.
In 2009, the City initiated a growth strategy program as part of the comprehensive review of
the Pickering Official Plan to bring it into conformity with provincial and regional plans. The
first component, which resulted in the approval of Pickering Official Plan Amendment 22,
addressed the provincial and regional conformity exercise for future development within the
City's designated greenfield area (Seaton).
The next component of the program focused on the City Centre, identified as an urban
growth centre in the provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. On
March 4, 2015, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approved Amendment 26 to the
Pickering Official Plan, the planning framework for the redevelopment and intensification of
the City Centre. Council adopted urban design guidelines and a new zoning by-law for the
City Centre in April 2017.
33
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 11
The next component of the program focused on examining intensification opportunities on
the remaining lands in South Pickering. In 2015, the first phase of the South Pickering
Intensification Study started with a community engagement exercise regarding where and
to what extent growth should occur in South Pickering. The key themes that emerged
throughout the community engagement exercise included focusing intensification and
higher density development in the City Centre and along corridors such as Kingston Road,
maintaining stable neighbourhoods, and creating vibrant, mixed-use, well designed, transit
supportive communities.
In light of these findings, staff then undertook a review of the City's Official Plan structure,
policies and densities for intensification, against the 2006 Growth Plan and the Regional
Plan requirements. Staff also tested whether land available for infill and intensification
using current density ranges in the Official Plan, could meet the population identified for
South Pickering by the Region of Durham. Staff concluded that the basic framework of the
Plan, which establishes the primary areas for intensification within the City Centre and the
Mixed Use Nodes and Corridors, is sound and consistent with the community engagement
results. Further, staff determined that the 120,000 population allocated by the Region of
Durham for South Pickering can be accommodated by 2031. A major change to the Official
Plan policies for the established neighbourhoods was not required.
In 2017, Council authorized staff to retain the services of SvN Architects Planners Inc. in
association with AECOM and 360 Collective to undertake the Kington Road Corridor and
Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study. This study will, among other matters,
identify opportunities for increased minimum and maximum density provisions compared to
the current Official Plan densities.
4. Planning Analysis
4A The proposed development is not within a growth area identified by the City
Both the provincial and the regional policies require planning authorities to develop
appropriate intensification strategies to achieve minimum intensification targets, identify
appropriate locations for intensification through -out the built-up areas, and identify the
appropriate type and scale of development and transition of built form to adjacent areas.
The City has been building on an intensification strategy that started with the approval of
the City's Official Plan. The approval of Amendment 26, and related design guidelines and
zoning for the City, bring the Official Plan in to conformity with the provincial and regional
policies for the urban growth centres. Maximum density provisions were eliminated for
these lands. With this amendment, the City was able to demonstrate that it could
accommodate the population allocated by the Region to South Pickering, by 2031. The
Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node study is now underway to further
opportunities for intensification in these Mixed Use Areas. Once this high priority study is
complete, other potential areas for intensifications can be reviewed such as the Waterfront
Place.
34
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 12
Staff is cognizant of the identification of the Waterfront Places designation and policies, and
overall provincial direction for intensification. However, the provincial and regional policies
not only give direction on what should occur (intensification), but how that intensification
should occur. The provincial policies require the municipal intensification strategy to
address the appropriate scale and type of development and the transition between the
intensified built form and existing development. Further, that regional policies require the
scale of redevelopment in Waterfront Places is to be based on and reflective of the local
characteristics. Based on the existing conditions, staff concluded that Pickering's Waterfront
Place had low potential for intensification and was therefore a low priority area to review.
Staff acknowledge that the proposal for an 8 -storey apartment building containing
118 dwelling units conforms to many of the provisions of the provincial and regional policies
including promoting compact built form; promoting efficient development and land use
patterns; accommodating an appropriate range and -mix of residential uses to meet the
long-term needs; and promoting cost-effective development patterns and standards to
minimize land consumption and servicing cost.
However, the proposal for high density residential, at 230 units per net hectare and an
FSI of 3.2, is introducing a scale and intensity of development that was not contemplated
for this area. The developments to the south of Wharf Street have a maximum residential
density of 55 units per net hectare and a maximum building height of 3 storeys. Lands to
the north of Annland Street is the historic village of Fairport, which contains some of the
oldest homes in Bay Ridges. Many of them are bungalows and converted cottages from
decades ago when this area was a vacation area. The existing residential density for this
area is well below the maximum cap for low density residential area of 30 units per net
hectare.
Given the regional policy for Waterfront Place states that, where appropriate, Waterfront
Places shall be planned to support an overall, long-term density target of at least
60 residential units per gross hectare and a FSI of 2.0, staff conclude that the targets set
out in the regional policy are not appropriate in this location, nor is the high density
proposal of an 8 -storey, 118 unit apartment building on 0.5 of a hectare.
Staff notes that the density target for Waterfront Places (minimum 60 units per gross
hectare, and 2.0 FSI) is almost the same as Regional Corridor designation (minimum
60 units per gross hectare, and 2.5 FSI). Regional Corridors generally support higher order
transit services. This proposal is on a local road at the south end of the neighbourhood,
with limited roads in and out.
The proposal introduces a residential development that is at least four times or greater than
the existing residential density in the immediate area. The surrounding area, including the
subject lands, have not been identified for major intensification. The areas which can best
accommodate major intensification are the City Centre, and Special Retailing Node, Mixed
Corridors, Community Nodes and Local Nodes. Staff finds that the proposal in its current
form is too dense, over develops the property, does not provide an acceptable transition to
the existing development, and will result in built form that is not keeping with the scale and
character of the existing Waterfront Node and surrounding development.
35
36
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 13
4.2 Further study to implement the Regional Waterfront Place designation has not yet
taken place
As noted earlier, policies for the Waterfront Places — Frenchman's Bay designation set out
the objective of developing lands in the vicinity of Frenchman's Bay as a focal point along
the Lake Ontario waterfront having a mix of uses, a variety of built form, and developed in a
manner that is sensitive to the interface with the natural environment.
The regional policies for Waterfront Places also set out how this intensification area should
be established. The policy requires area municipalities, in consultation with the Region and
other agencies having jurisdiction, to: detail the boundaries of the Waterfront Place;
establish permitted uses; identify densities, heights and other matters of site design; and to
incorporate the boundaries and land uses for the Waterfront Place in local official plans.
The City has not yet undertaken this conformity exercise as staff considered this area to be
a low priority for intensification. Staff consider these site specific applications to be
premature until such time as a study is completed by the City, in consultation with the
Region and other agencies, such as the TRCA. Through this study, the City can engage
local residents and landowners to develop an intensification strategy considering the
Region's intensification target as well as establish appropriate built form guidelines that
ensure building height, and massing, coverage, building separation, and other matter of
urban and site design is reflective of the existing neighbourhood character and also
provides for appropriate transition between the existing development and the new
developments within the area. Approval of these site specific applications could prejudice
the outcome of the required study.
4.3 The density, height and massing of the proposal is out of scale and character with
the area
The Pickering Official Plan outlines City Community Design goals which states "City
Council promote development at various scales which, through their adherence to
principles of good, high quality community design, will produce built and natural
environments in Pickering that offer enjoyment, comfort and safety for all uses, and evoke a
desirable image and sense of place for the City". To achieve the community design goal,
City Council shall, amongst other objectives:
• encourage private and public developments that offer pedestrian and users a high
level of comfort, enjoyment and personal protection
• encourage developments that are designed to fit their context by considering the mix
of uses, the massing, height, scale, architectural style and details of existing, adjacent
buildings
• encourage developments that create spaces between and along buildings that are of
high architectural landscape quality, and contribute to and enhance the overall quality
of Pickering's public realm
While the applicant has not submitted a site plan application, a review at the site plan level
is required to determine the appropriateness of intensification on this site and the site's
ability to accommodate the proposed density and built form. Given the reduced building
setbacks of the proposed building, it is important to review the design concept in detail and
resolve issues that affect building placement, and orientation.
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 14
From a site design perspective, the following matters are of concern:
• As a result of the height, scale and massing of the proposed development, shadows
would be produced having adverse impacts on abutting low density development to
the north and east. The abutting property to the east would be partially shadowed at
all test times on September 21st and December 21st with some shadowing late on
June 21st. While the area of the abutting property that is most affected is currently
used for boat storage, the shadows may adversely impact the future redevelopment
of that property, and current owner's use and enjoyment of the property.
• The shadow analysis also shows that the proposed common amenity area of the
apartment building adjacent to the north and east interior lot lines will be in shadow all
the time.
• In light of the minimal setbacks to property lines, the proposed approach to grading
and drainage requires revisions to incorporate proper drainage swales between the
building and the property lines so uncontrolled flows do not impact neighbouring
private properties. Additionally, revised grading is required to prevent the loading area
from draining on to the road, and the stormwater outlet must be changed to the
Annland Street storm sewer.
• The deck of the proposed underground is raised above grade. A pedestrian on
Wharf Street would be adjacent to a wall of about 1.5 metres in height. Along
Annland Street, the pedestrian would be adjacent a wall of about 3.0 metres in height,
albeit set back several metres from the street and of a shorter length than along
Wharf Street. This same condition (3.0 metre high wall) would also occur along the
east and north interior lot lines, adversely impacting the abutting property to the east.
• Although Wharf Street is to be the "working" street, the proposed development does
not integrate itself into the neighbourhood, but rather separates itself from the
surrounding streets, and does not contribute to enhancing and_ animating the public
realm.
• Construction of the underground parking garage with proposed minimal setbacks from
the property line may adversely affect trees on the abutting property.
• The minimal setbacks for the proposed building will result in few opportunities for
enhanced landscaping.
Staff are of the opinion that the proposal does not appropriately transition and fit into the
physical character of the existing neighbourhood with respect to building heights, building
orientation, setbacks and landscape open space. The proposed development would create
a physical built form that would cause adverse shadow impacts on surrounding properties.
The proposal would also create an undesirable urban design condition along Wharf Street
and Annland Street that separates itself from the surrounding streets, and does not
contribute to enhancing and animating the public realm.
37
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 15
4.4 Conveyance of land for public park is of little value to the community and the City
The existing policy framework in the Pickering Official Plan for the Waterfront Node, new
residential is permitted only by exception and requires some public benefit. The applicant
proposes to dedicate a 345 square metre parcel of waterfront land (1276 Wharf Street) to
the City as public parkland. This lot is entirely within the TRCA Screening Area. In
addition, access to that property is by a right-of-way over lands that are not part of the
application. Conveying this block to the City may provide City staff access but no right of
access for the public. There appears to be an intervening piece of land, owned by the
Pickering Harbour Company, between 1276 Wharf Street and the water's edge. The parcel
is not contiguous to any city owned lands, nor does Council have a planned acquisition
strategy for waterfront property. Consequently, this parcel may be of little functional value
to the City.
4.5 The Traffic Impact Study is to be revised to address summer traffic counts and
restaurant overflow parking
Engineering Services has commented that the traffic impact study requires revision to
reflect summer (July) traffic counts. The revised Traffic Impact Study will then be required
to be peer reviewed by the City at the applicant's cost before the impact of the traffic
generated by the proposed development can be assessed. As of the writing of this Report,
it is understood that the applicant has prepared a revised traffic impact study and will be
submitting it within a few days.
Concerns have been raised that the proposed development does not accommodate
overflow parking serving the Port Restaurant which is located to the south of the subject
lands at 1289 Wharf Street. The site plan drawing approved in 2007 for the Port
Restaurant shows 6 off-site staff parking spaces provided on Lots 8, 9, and 10 (1290, 1292
and 1294 Wharf Street). The parking justification is to be revised to address the restaurant
overflow parking.
4.6 The Functional Servicing Report requires revision
Engineering Services have commented on the Functional Servicing Report submitted in
support of the application highlighting a number of concerns relating to grading and
stormwater management including:
• the minimal setbacks to property lines, require a revised approach to grading and
drainage to incorporate proper drainage swales between the building and the property
lines so uncontrolled flows do not impact neighbouring private properties
• revised grading is required to prevent the loading area from draining onto the road
• the stormwater outlet must be changed to the Annland Street storm sewer
Revisions are required to the Functional Servicing Report addressing the City's Stormwater
Management Design Guidelines. As of the writing of this Report to Planning &
Development Committee, it is understood that the applicant has prepared a revised report
to respond to the above -noted comments and will be submitting it within a few days.
38
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 16
4.7 City staff have arrived at different conclusions than the Region regarding the PPS,
the Growth Plan and the Regional Official Plan
In October 2017, the Region provided comments on the applications indicating that the
proposed development is permitted by the Regional Official Plan as it supports infill
development, and implements the intensification of the policies of the Regional Plan. The
Region also commented that the proposal is consistent with the policies of the PPS as it
supports compact urban form, and promotes the efficient use of public infrastructure; and is
generally in conformity with the Growth Plan as the development will help to provide a
variety of residential forms and assist in the achievement of intensification within an existing
residential area.
City staff have arrived at different conclusions after review of the proposed development
against the PPS, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Durham Regional
Official Plan.
It matters to a community where, how and to what scale intensification takes place. There
is a common theme running through the PPS, the Growth Plan, and the Durham Regional
Official Plan regarding where, how and to what scale and extent intensification should
occur. This theme is illustrated by such intensification policies in these documents as:
• requiring "appropriate locations"
• "taking into account existing building stock"
• establishing "minimum targets based on local conditions"
• establishing a "strategy including the type and scale of development and transition of
built form to adjacent areas"
• "the scale of the development in a Waterfront Place should be based on and reflect the
characteristics of that Waterfront Place", and
• "where appropriate," plan Waterfront Places to achieve a minimum 60 units per gross
hectare and floor space index of 2.0, with the local municipality to "detail the boundaries
of a Waterfront Place, and establish permitted uses, densities, heights and other
elements of site design" for inclusion in the official plan
With respect to these matters, it is staff's opinion that a decision to approve the site specific
applications is not consistent with the PPS, and does not conform to the Growth Plan and
the Durham Regional Official Plan.
4.8 The proposed development is not desirable. or appropriate for area, or in the public
interest
The City has an intensification strategy focusing major intensification in the City Centre and
other lands designated Mixed Use Areas. The Waterfront Node had not been identified as
an area for major intensification give the current characteristics of, and vision for, the area.
Approval of these site specific applications would not be in keeping with the City's current
intensification strategy.. Approval of the applications may result in development that
prejudices a further review of the Waterfront Node as required by the Regional Plan.
39
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc. Page 17
Approval of these site specific applications would result in a development that is too dense,
over develops the property, does not provide an appropriate transition from the proposed
new development to the existing development, and results in a built form that is not in scale
and character of the existing Waterfront Node and surrounding development. The impact
of the proposed height, scale and massing of the proposed development would result in
adverse effects from shadowing to the north and particularly on the abutting property to the
east as well as on a proposed amenity area on the proposed building. The proposed
development does not integrate itself into the neighbourhood but rather creates a blank wall
condition adjacent to the street and the abutting property to the east.
Despite the above, should approval of the applications be contemplated, a number of
technical matters remain outstanding including the adequacy of parking, the impact of
additional traffic on neighbourhood roads, the design of the stormwater management plan,
the adequacy of proposed landscape area, and the suitability of a inaccessible block of
land as parkland dedication.
5. Conclusion
Staff recommends that the official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to
permit an 8 -storey, 118 unit apartment building on lands located west of Liverpool Road,
fronting on Annland Street and Wharf Street be refused, and that staff and its agents be
authorized to defend Council's position at the OMB.
Appendices:
Appendix I Draft List of Issues identified by City Development, March 2018
Appendix II Key Comments and Concerns of the Public
Appendix III Covering Letter from Trans -Plan Transportation Inc. Peer Review Report of
Applicant's Submitted Traffic Study
Attachments:
1 Location Map
2 Municipal Address Map
3 Submitted Plan
4 Submitted South and West Building Elevations
5 Submitted North and East Building Elevations
40
Report PLN 09-18 April 3, 2018
Subject: 2388116 Ontario Inc.
Prepared By:
Deborah Wy, , MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner, Development Review
Nile h urti, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
& Urban Design
DW:ld
Page 18
Approved/Endorsed By:
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
/7/(
Kyle Bentley, P.Eng.
Director, City Development & CBO
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
41
Appendix I to
Report PLN 09-18
Draft List of Issues Identified by City Development, March 2018
Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 17-002/P
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/17
2388116 Ontario Inc.
42
OPA 17-002P & A 02/17, 2388116 Ontario Inc.
(1280, 1288, 1290, 1292, & 1294 Wharf Street, and 607 Annland Street)
OMB Case Number PL171171
Issues identified by City Development — Draft March 2018
1. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the Provincial Growth
Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and is the proposed Official Plan
Amendment consistent with the intent and purpose of the Provincial Policy
Statement, and the applicable provisions of the Planning Act?
2. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments comply with or
maintain the intent of all of the relevant and applicable in -force policies of the
Region of Durham Official Plan including the Waterfront Place designation?
3. Does the Waterfront Place designation in the Region of Durham Official Plan
require a new visioning exercise for the area?
4. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments comply with or
maintain the intent of all of the relevant and applicable in -force policies of the City
of Pickering Official Plan including the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood policies, and the
Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines?
5. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments represent good
land use planning?
6. Are the proposed density, building height, massing and scale of development
appropriate for the site and the character of the surrounding area?
7. Assess the appropriateness of the shadow impacts of the proposed 8 -storey
building on the neighbouring properties particularly the properties to the north
across Annland Street.
8. Does the proposed 8 -storey building height pose overlook and/or privacy concerns
for the adjacent existing low density neighbourhood?
9. Does the proposal represent an appropriate land use within the context of the
surrounding land uses and transportation network?
10. Is the proposal an efficient development of the site and does the proposal provide
for appropriate and efficient redevelopment of the adjacent lands?
11. Could the proposal be a catalyst for similar higher density developments in the
area?
12. Assess the appropriateness of the proposed site layout including building design,
setbacks, landscape buffers, private outdoor areas, vehicular and pedestrian
access locations, service areas, and at -grade building design/treatment along
Annland Street and Wharf Street.
43
13. Is the proposed grade separation along Wharf Street appropriate and does it
satisfy any applicable Development Guidelines?
14. Does the proposal result in any significant traffic impacts and/or operational issues
on Liverpool Road and local roads?
15. Require that the traffic impact study submitted in support of the application be
updated to include traffic analysis during summer community waterfront events and
impacts on local roads such as Front Road.
16. Does the proposal provide adequate parking for residents and visitors, comply with
applicable in -force City parking policies, and have implications for previous
conditions of approval to provide overflow employee parking for the
Port Restaurant?
17. Does the vehicular access proposed from Annland Street provide adequate
vehicular access to the site taking into consideration present and future traffic,
sight lines and the impact on the adjacent existing residential area?
18. Are the lands at 1276 Wharf Street which are proposed to be conveyed to the City
for public parkland suitable for park purposes, does the current private right-of-way
providing access to 1276 Wharf Street permit public access to a future public park,
and is it feasible for the City to acquire additional adjacent lands for public park
purposes?
19. What impacts does the proposed change in land use of the subject lands have on
the future of marina activities (boat storage, fuel, amenities) in the area?
20. Have the impacts on the water table and recent basement flooding in the area
been satisfactorily addressed?
21. Does the proposed development have implications for emergency evacuations?
22. Are there impacts on the surrounding existing residential uses from the
service/loading areas and outdoor common areas?
23. Does the proposed development contribute to or detract from the existing nautical
village character?
44
Appendix II to
Report PLN 09-18
Key Comments and Concerns of the Public
Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 17-002/P
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/17
2388116 Ontario Inc.
45
The following is a list of key resident comments and concerns that have been
expressed, either in writing or verbally, prior, at and subsequent to the November 2017
Public Information Meeting, including at the Public Open House held on
October 11, 2017:
• opposed to the proposed development and ask that the City deny the application
• concerned that the proposal is out -of -character with the community
• concerned that this proposal may be the catalyst for similar developments in the
area
• commented that there are three existing problems in the area including parking,
traffic and enforcement, and that this development would further exacerbate these
issues
• commented that the traffic impact study submitted in support of the applications
should include data from the summer months (particularly during weekend events),
and traffic data for Front Road traffic
• commented that the location of the access to the underground parking garage from
Annland Street is located on a dangerous bend and could cause potential
operational conflicts or accidents
• questioned the ability of the community to object to the proposal considering
expected changes to the Planning Act
• supportive of development of the subject lands that would not exceed the height of
existing residences in the area
• concerned with potential noise generated by service vehicles
• concerned that the proposed height will permit new residents to overlook into
existing residents' yards and have shadow impacts on the surrounding community
• requested an animated shadow study
• concerned that the proposed height has potential implications on the landing of float
planes in Frenchman's Bay which has a 50 year history as an unregistered water
aerodrome
• concerned about impacts on the water table and increased basement flooding in the
area
• concerned that the proposal will result in an increase in traffic congestion particularly
during the summer months
• concerned that development of the subject lands removes overflow and employee
parking for the Port Restaurant that was tied to the Restaurant's development
approvals
• opposed to the use of underground garage for overflow parking for the Port
Restaurant
• commented that the area is not well served by public transit to be a real
transportation alternative
• concerned that the proposed development will have an impact on ingress/egress to
neighbouring properties
46
• concerned that visitor parking will overflow onto City streets
• commented that the groundwater risks are not appropriately addressed in the
supporting report and existing flooding concerns on neighbouring properties may
increase
• commented that the proposal does not adhere to the ambience of the nautical village
that has been established in the area
• commented that Liverpool Road is the sole access road to this area, and it cannot
handle the traffic and that access to existing homes will be disrupted
• commented that the quality of life for existing residents will be impacted
• commented that in favour of good development, but not eight storeys, would support
a maximum of four storeys as it is a better fit for the community
• concerned that the proposal would compound an existing parking problem in the
south end of Liverpool Road
• concerned that the proposed development is too dense for the area and would
cause traffic conditions leading to safety and security issues for emergency vehicles
• commented that Pleasant Street and Annland Street, which are now quiet local
streets, will experience increased traffic
• concerned that the proposed 8 -storey development will change the quaint and
waterfront feel of the area
• commented that townhouses would fit in with current development in the area
• commented that it is already difficult to access Liverpool Road from Annland Street
and is concerned that this development will make it more challenging to make left
turns onto Liverpool Road
• commented that the proposal does not represent making the best use of the subject
lands, integration into the existing neighbourhood, and preserving the area's natural
resources and built heritage
• commented that the proposal provides insufficient parking and each unit will require
parking for two or more vehicles
• concerned that the proposed 8 -storey building will block cooling southwest breezes
that existing residents have enjoyed
• concerned that the proposed development will contribute to the declining support of
recreational boating in the area, and questioned why three levels of government
recently spent more than $9,000,000.00 on rebuilding the harbour entrance to
Frenchman's Bay
• questioned how long it would take for an 8 -storey building to be evacuated in an
emergency
• questioned the impact of an 8 -storey building on the monarch butterfly migration
• commented that the proposed building is unattractive
• commented there isn't sufficient space to coordinate construction supplies and
equipment
47
• concerned that approval of this proposal would set a precedent for the Swans
Marina and the Waterfront Bistro both of which have recently been purchased by a
developer
• concerned the impact the proposal would have on the marine and wildlife in the area
• questioned whether the impacts on neighbouring properties of driving piles for the
construction of the apartment building have been considered
• commented that there has been no discussion or consultation with the landowners to
the east regarding the impacts on the existing residential and business or future
development plans
• commented that given the financial investment made by various levels of
government, it is imperative that any future development ensure that marina uses
continue to, function successfully
• provided support for the recommendation of the South Pickering Intensification
Study to accommodate intensification in the provincially designated Pickering Urban
Growth Area and along Kingston Road
• commented that residential development should only be allowed if it can be
demonstrated how marina uses and the economic viability of the Nautical Village
can be maintained to achieve the objectives of the Liverpool Road Waterfront
Development Node Development Guidelines
• concerned that approval of the proposal would result in no opportunity for boat
storage, marina fuel, seasonal boat slips and other marina related amenities
48
Appendix III to
Report PLN 09-18
Covering Letter
Traffic Peer Review prepared by Trans -Plan Transportation Inc.
for Friends of Frenchman's Bay
Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 17-002/P
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/17
2388116 Ontario Inc.
49
Ar
TM
TRANS -PLAN
Transportation Engineering
17 Atlantic Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6K 3E7 I Telephone: 1 (877) 668 8784 I Web: www.trans-plan.com
January 11, 2018
Friends of Frenchman's Bay
Re: Proposed Residential Condo Development, West Side of Liverpool Road & South of
Annland Street, Pickering, ON — Traffic Peer Review and Area Development Scenario
Testing Study Report
TRANS -PLAN is pleased to submit this Traffic Peer Review and Area Development Scenario Testing report
to review concerns raised by the Friends of Frenchman's Bay for the proposed residential development,
located on the west side of Liverpool Road and south of Annland Street in the City of Pickering (the
"Subject Site" or "Proposed Development"). Our work includes a review the Transportation Impact Study
report, prepared by Dionne Bacchus & Associates Consulting Engineers Ltd., dated December 16, 2016,
for the subject site. The proposed development consists of an 8 -storey residential condominium building.
Our findings indicate that the Transportation Impact Study does not take into account the peak roadway
traffic volumes experienced along Liverpool Road during the summer period, whereby traffic volumes are
nearly twice as high as the spring / fall peak hour traffic volumes analyzed in the Study. If development
were to continue in a similar manner of intensification in the study area, the local intersections would likely
operate at a poor level -of -service of F.
The proposed parking supply for the subject site does not meet the City of Pickering requirements / typical
standards. Given that the subject site is located within a mature residential area, with the proposed units
catering to "professionals / executives" who are less likely to utilize transit or alternative modes of
transportation, the typical parking standards would be more appropriate. A portion of the existing property
for the subject site currently consists of an overflow parking lot for the Port Restaurant, located at 1289
Wharf Street, just south of the site. The lot is frequently used and near capacity during the peak summer
periods. The Study does not provide for a solution for the restaurant needs. The site is located
approximately 1 km from the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, within its primary zone of evacuation.
There are no other similar condominiums located within 2km of the nuclear station. The proposed
development (and if similar developments were to occur) would likely have a negative impact on acceptable
evacuation times.
Sincerely,
Anil Seegobin, P.Eng.
Partner, Engineer
Trans -Plan Transportation Inc.
Transportation Consultants
50
0
ATTACHMENT # / TO
REPORT # PI -N 081-1 f3
w
L7
Cr
w
z
w
w
w
N\ANTNGAVENUE
0
0
ce
H
z
0
L
w
z
w
0
❑
ILONA PARK ROAD
r�
SUBJECT
LANDS
ADDITIONAL
LANDS
Mt,
!"k
1111111111
WPM
WIN
1-
w
w
1-
0)
I—
z
WHARF STREET
LUNA COURT
FOXGLOVE AVENUE
G'1
5
w
z
0
w
W
COMMERCE STREET
BROADVIEW STREET
ANNLAND STREET
0
0
0
a
w
C44
Location Map
File: OPA 17-002/P and A 02/17
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Applicant:2388116 Ontario Inc.
Property Description:Part Lot 5 and Lots 8 - 12, Plan M-89
(1280, 1288, 1290, 1292, 1294 Wharf St, & 607 Annland St) TMS ISoLE:p�:5,000v
N OF SURVE
TA The Corporation of the Cay of Pickering Produced (In Omens part) license from:0Oens Primer, Ontario M4durcs.
sty of Nahsal ResoeDate. Oct.l��12 2017
AB rights reseed.HerMa)esty the Oueen ln Right of Canada. Department of Natural R. All rights received.;
rv;0
0Temnet Enterprises Inc. and Its suppliers all rights reserved.; 0 Mu pal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppfers all rights received.; f
1
ATTACHMENT # TO
131: PORI. f1
690
688
I -J^
680
687
1280
1278
1280A
1290
12821284 280 1.288A
1288 A1288 8
1288 C
1290
1292
1294
1296
1298
COMMERCE STREET
Q
1 1279
1291
676
672
666
ADDITIONAL
LANDS
1278
1280
685
681
1295
1297
1299
675
682
678
673
672
669
668
657
665
661
616
866
664
616
660
ANNLAND STREET
609 SUBJECT
LANDS
644
1290
1288
1292
1294
WHARF STREET
/2951295 1295 1295 1295 1295/295 1295 1295
12951295 1295129512951295 12951295129512951295
1289
129
951
71295
295129512 5 1295
129
129
1295
129, 1255129
.9512
126
1295
1295
1295
1295
1295
1295
1295
1295
1295
1295
1295
1295
LIVERPOOL ROAD
709
701701.E
695
689
685
302
675
667
663
1303
634
657
653
649
645
641
831
1302
633
633A
1303
631
629
627
623
621
619 }
617 r
613
611
609
4
Municipal Address Map
File: OPA 17-0021P and A 02/17
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Applicant:2388116 Ontario Inc.
Property Description: Part Lot 5 and Lots 8 - 12, Plan M-89
(1280, 1288, 1290, 1292, 1294 Wharf St, & 607 Annland St) SCALE; T A 1:2.N 0000
AVET
CThrGoryonLe n el IM G11 of lrxdem414oduml Oli rll rrederlWnrherr'. 84bee r.16 00+,10, gierw lAlyd•rry 8l hlaimil Ha mixed I. r� ��yj Oct.1 �] �]
I ht d�eru.& HUALltnlydle BueanM Aghl fir Canute. l.pet/n/nlnl Wham! Marl llne,trcex 11,11hhl , l.rt,d; Date: V412 L 1 1
enrpla Fr4dJPi•es lea,elld 4••dppdml eN1101• IniltynJ•0 MU11±I PropertpliunfnrrnlCar(mrIIItI1and ...vim 4IIM1yl11e nwrwd: 1
8
e
W
O N
CD CDCa 0
4
z
z
z
m
•
a)
D,
15 co
J<
ZIP
0}
C
d �
co EL
C
N
U �
< O L}
N U
o -
> w
vate Amenity A
0_
F
od
• c
0• <
Submitted Plan
OPA 17-002/P and A 02117
D
2
0
it
oo
CV
DATE: Oct 12, 2017
ATTACHMENT # TO
I E_POlT N act —I
53
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPCJR 1 # PEN P I --1 B
1
H
■1
1111
u D HI
Ail
Ft11 III
view from Wharf Street)
South Elevation
L
S-
c
O
)t to
W LU
tJi
N.
N
c
0_
N
9
N.
a_
0
O
Z
W
IL
0
O
L
a
N
Qi
c
c
c
N.
O
CO
c
N
405.N
..c
rn
N
N
rn
N
0
0)
N
co
N
CO W
N
DATE: Oct 12, 2017
O
U
0
O
W
1-
L.=
O
z
W
0
W
W
Z�
-I W
a
W
0 ❑
W W
0
W
j
(f) ❑
liU
54
III I Im
lv�t
t
IQ
I I
in
ani
11
, •
•1
1—
jEL@
II
I!
I K!
1
F
-�
��
-:
�ID
i1
i
r
L
•�
..�
_ if
I t
Ug
IIMkt,.®
I I
-Km
U
�I._
��
pp_�
(
11
1®joI
1
��_%,I
II
if1
k,P 1
I�
�• 1�
■
3
I I t <<
111
1a
r�
g
MO
I p®
17
1,®NO
1:
�4
-1C!®
pp
..pp
W®I�
II
T til
r
��I_
11119
/M1
1^®
so
1
a I .o
1
-Li
1
X14_,
T.
-L1
i
I
Ci
I-,1
��
{
r
'-111111
111
.
■'
#
ii
i
I
1111
IN
-1
._
rl:
'
IRA
iiii
11_
L
S-
c
O
)t to
W LU
tJi
N.
N
c
0_
N
9
N.
a_
0
O
Z
W
IL
0
O
L
a
N
Qi
c
c
c
N.
O
CO
c
N
405.N
..c
rn
N
N
rn
N
0
0)
N
co
N
CO W
N
DATE: Oct 12, 2017
O
U
0
O
W
1-
L.=
O
z
W
0
W
W
Z�
-I W
a
W
0 ❑
W W
0
W
j
(f) ❑
liU
54
ATTACHMENT # 5 TO
REPORT # LN QG_
[
1 >'
('
11
1 1 �
_LL
'
r
[_I
_LL
iI
1
I_
i
1
_
_l_
-iF
1
[
—1+
:
T=
—i—
j
r
—
1
- - h
- -71-1
--
T_
,,
I
-
7—i—
_ __
1
_I I-
-F-
iT
A.
I
!
11_F�
"T
-m
LL,
1,
i 1
I1
�L
i—I
LI
f
1I_
14(K
iu1
o
1
1f
iI
[
IT�
i 1
III
I_
F £
I
I
I
fir, t
I
—71
t
L� _
z
11
gill
I
I
I E
I I
J
IIf�
t
._
55