Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
April 1, 2019
C!, ef DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, April 1, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 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 Cts �f DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, April 1, 2019 Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner (1) Disclosure of Interest (II) Delegations 1. Craig Marshall Re: Report PLN 06-19 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (III) Part 'A' Information Reports Pages Subject: Information Report No. 06-19 1-17 Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/17(R) Avonmore Ventures Inc. Part of Lot 18, Concession 3 (North of William Jackson Drive, South of the CPR Corridor) Subject: Information Report No. 07-19 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/19 2545633 Ontario Inc. Part of Lot 6, Plan 585, Now Part 11, Plan 40R-2633 (2620 Brock Road) 18-29 (IV) Part `B' Planning & Development Reports For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 Iroberts@pickering.ca C4 6f DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, April 1, 2019 Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner Consultant/Staff Delegation David Riley, Principal, SGL Planning & Design Inc. on Report PLN 06-19 Note: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report: Phase 1 circulated under separate cover and posted on the City of Pickering website. 1. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 06-19 30-41 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report Phase 1 Report Recommendation 1. That the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report — Phase 1 Report, be received; and 2. That Council authorize City Development staff to proceed with Phase 2 of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. 2. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 07-19 42-51 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, June 2018 Recommendation 1. That Council support the use of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, dated June 2018, as a technical guideline to determine compensation for ecosystem loss due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, when required through conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land divisions, and site plans, with the exception of tree removal that falls under the purview of the City's Tree Removal Compensation Fee; 2. That the City collect compensation for ecosystem loss due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, when required through conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land Cts �f DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, April 1, 2019 Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner divisions, and site plans, under the circumstances set out in Table 1 in Report PLN 07-19; 3. That staff be authorized to develop a memorandum of understanding in consultation with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regarding the administration and collection of the fees and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation in terms of the Guideline; and 4. That staff be authorized to initiate an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to introduce policies that address ecosystem loss and compensation due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, on a city-wide basis. (V) Other Business (VI) Adjournment C4 o� DICKERING Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 06-19 Date: April 1, 2019 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/17 (R) Avonmore Ventures Inc. Part of Lot 18, Concession 3 (North of William Jackson Drive, South of the CPR Corridor) 1. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding a revised application for Zoning By-law Amendment, 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 revised proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the revised 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 of which only 1.47 hectares are developable. The remaining environmentally sensitive lands, having an area of 0.82 of a hectare, will be conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). The developable lands will have approximately 113 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 of the subject lands, and within the valley lands associated with the Urfe Creek (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #3). Surrounding land uses include: North: Across the CPR Corridor, vacant lands designated as "Open Space Systems — Seaton Natural Heritage System". East: Urfe Creek and associated valley lands designated as "Open Space System — Natural Areas". 1 Information Report No. 06-19 Page 2 South: An existing medium density residential subdivision comprising freehold semi-detached and townhouse dwelling, units. A future Village Green is located between the residential subdivision and Brock Road, to be constructed by the City. West: Across Brock Road, vacant lands designated as "Mixed Use Areas — Mixed Corridors". The lands at the northwest corner of Brock Road and Zents Drive,. which are owned by the City, are planned for a future Fire Hall and headquarters.. 3. Background In 2017, Avonmore Ventures Inc. submitted an application for a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate a residential condominium consisting of 178 stacked townhouse units within 7 rows of multi -unit residential blocks (see Previous Concept Plan, Attachment #4). A public open house was held on February 22, 2018, and a statutory public information meeting was held on April 3, 2018. The following is a list of key concerns/comments that were expressed by the area residents regarding the previous proposal: • concerned with the loss of mature vegetation and wildlife habitat, and that the removal of the vegetation will result in excess noise and vibration impacts on the existing residential properties in the area • commented that the proposal will increase traffic congestion in the area, and that vehicular access be aligned with the north -bound portion of William Jackson Drive and designed as a three-way stop • concerned about the lack of park space and outdoor private amenity within the proposal and within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood to serve both existing and future residents The applicant has since revised their proposal to provide a wider range of housing types in the neighbourh000d, and to take into consideration some of the concerns raised in the initial review. A revised application was received on December 21,, 2018. 4. Applicant's Revised Proposal The applicant is proposing a residential condominium development consisting of a 7 -storey apartment building and stacked townhouse units containing a total of 205 units (see Submitted Revised Concept Plan, Attachment #5). The 7 -storey apartment building is proposed to be located on the westerly portion of the developable lands, adjacent to Brock Road (see Submitted Conceptual Apartment and Townhouse Block Elevations, Attachments #6 and #7). The longest section of the exterior facade will run parallel to the CPR Corridor and will step down from 7 -storeys to 3 -storeys at the east side of the building. The 3 -storey section will consist of a block of stacked townhouse units with separate exterior entrances. The apartment building and attached stacked townhouse block will contain a total of 148 apartment units and 12 stacked townhouse units. The remaining 45 stacked townhouse units will be located on the easterly portion of the developable lands within 2 rows of 3 -storey stacked townhouse blocks oriented perpendicular to the rail corridor (see Submitted Conceptual Townhouse Block Elevation, Attachment #8). The 2 rows will contain 4 blocks of stacked townhouse units. 2 Information Report No. 06-19 Page 3 The conceptual site plan illustrates two vehicular access points from William Jackson Drive. The principal access for the residents will be a three-way stop controlled intersection at the 90 degree curve in William Jackson Drive. The second access, located east of the principal access, is strictly for emergency fire access. A total of 282 resident parking spaces will be provided within one -level of underground parking garages. A total of 33 visitor parking spaces are proposed at grade. The residential buildings will be setback a minimum of 20.0 metres from the north property line. To protect the proposed residential development from the rail corridor, 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 2.1 metres from grade and a width of approximately 1.0 metre. Rooftop patio areas and balconies are proposed for the stacked townhouse units, and balconies are proposed for the apartment units. A private landscaped parkette, having an area of approximately 0.2 of a hectare, is proposed adjacent to the future Village Green, and a smaller private parkette is proposed at the northeast corner of the site, adjacent to the CPR Corridor and the environmental lands. The applicant has indicated that the valley lands associated with the Urfe Creek, including required buffer lands, will be conveyed to the TRCA. The table below summarizes the key details of the proposal: Lot Area Developable Lands: 1.47 hectares Environmental Lands: 0.82 of a hectare Gross Floor Area Townhouse Blocks A, B, C, D: 6,923 square metres Apartment Building and Townhouse Block E: 16,370 square metres Total: 23,293 square metres Total # of Units 205 units (148 apartment units and 57 stacked townhouse units) Density 139.5 units per net hectare Floor Space Index 1.58 0 # of Storeys and Building Height Apartment building: 7 -storeys (19.1 metres) • Stacked townhouses: 3 -storeys (8.7 metres) # of Parking Spaces provided Townhouse Blocks A, B, C, D: 90 spaces (all located within two separated one -level underground parking garages) Apartment Building and Townhouse Block E: 192 spaces (all located within a one -level underground parking garage) Visitor Parking: 33 spaces (surface parking) 3 Information Report No. 06-19 Page 4 Proposed Parking Ratios Townhouse Blocks A, B, C, D: 2.0 spaces per unit Apartment Building and. Townhouse Block E: 1.20 spaces per unit Visitor Parking: 0.16 spaces per unit The proposal will be subject to site plan approval and an application for draft plan of condominium will be required at a later date. 5. Policy Framework 5:1 Region of Durham Official Plan The Regional Official Plan (ROP) designates the subject lands as "Living Areas" with a "Regional Corridor" overlay along Brock Road. Living Areas shall be developed predominately for housing purposes. Limited office development and limited retailing of goods and services, in appropriate locations, as components of mixed use developments, are also permitted. In the consideration of development proposals, regard shall be had to achieving a compact urban form, including intensive residential, office, retail, 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, Tong -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. Brock Road is designated as a Type 'A' Arterial Road and High Frequency Transit Network in the ROP. 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 45 metres. Roads designated High Frequency Transit Network are recognized for planned High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, or buses in mixed traffic, with transit signal priority at major intersections and other measures to ensure fast and reliable transit service. The proposal appears to conform to the policies and provisions of the Durham Region Official Plan. 5.2 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., The proposed development has a net residential density of approximately 139.5 units per net hectare and an FSI of 1.5. Information Report No. 06-19 Page 5 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 through the site plan approval process. 5.3 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 • require proponents of new development abutting or containing existing naturalized open space features designated Natural Areas, to submit an Edge Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City, in consultation with the TRCA, that: • address the protection of the natural heritage features and functions from the impacts of any few development through such mechanism as tree management, tree preservation, invasive species management, construction management and stormwater management; and • identifies road and engineering designs that maintain the ecological integrity of the tableland coniferous and mixed forest The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies of the Pickering Official Plan also require landowners to demonstrate how the proposal is consistent with the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Pian (ESP) to the satisfaction of the Region, City and TRCA. As a condition of approval, the landowners are required to 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 costs. The application will be assessed against the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the application. 5.4 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 area, 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 5 Information Report No. 06-19 Page 6 • a diversity of uses to support neighbourhood and City functions • preserve and maintain the ecological function of the tableland forest and valleylands • promote site development and building/construction that is consistent with the City's Sustainable Development Guidelines • a mix of housing types, forms, affordability and tenure on a variety of lot frontages The developable portion of 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. The application will be assessed against the provisions of the Duffin Heights Neigbourhood policies and Development Guidelines during the further processing of the application. 5.5 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. 6. Comments Received 6.1 Public comments from public open house meeting and written submissions As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received from the public regarding the revised application. 6.2 Agency Comments At the time of writing this report, no comments have been received from the Region of Durham — Planning & Economic Development Department, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) or the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR). 6.3 City Department Comments 6.3.1 Engineering Services Department • no comments, received at the time of writing this report 7. Planning & Design Section Comments The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date. These matters, and others 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 is compatible with the surrounding established residential development 6 Information Report No. 06-19 Page 7 • assess any potential shadow impacts from the proposed 7 -storey building on the existing residential development and future Village Green to the south • ensure that the massing for the apartment building and townhouse blocks are well designed and articulated by incorporating a variety of architectural elements and details, including durable cladding materials, projections and recesses, pronounced vertical elements, corner and parapet features and distinct rooflines • assess the appropriateness and suitability of the proposed .parking ratios, the parking ratios for the apartment building, Block E and visitor parking • assess if the proposed private parkettes are sufficient to serve the needs of future residents ensure bicycle parking is provided for residents and visitors • explore opportunities for the development to include affordable and/or rental units and accessible units • explore opportunities for the development to include affordable or rental units • ensure that the proposed crash wall/acoustical attenuation barrier is designed to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and CPR, and appropriate on-site landscaping is maintained to soften or screen the crash wall • 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 • ensure that the proposed three-way stop provides safe and appropriate access to the site for vehicles and pedestrians, and is designed in accordance with City standards • ensure that appropriate compensation (financial and replacement planting) is provided for the removal of the existing vegetation and Toss of ecosystem services • 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. 8. Information Received Copies of the plans and studies submitted for the revised application and 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: • Second Submission Covering Letter, prepared by the Biglieri Group Ltd., dated December 21, 2018 • First Submission Comment Response Matrix, prepared by the Biglieri Group Ltd., dated December 21, 2018 • Architectural Drawing Set (Al, A2, A3), prepared by Ferdinand Wagner — B. Arch. Consultant, dated September 2018 • Preliminary Site Grading Plan (SG -01), prepared by Lithos Group Ltd., dated December 20, 2018 • Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, prepared by AECOM, dated October 9, 2018 7 Information Report No. 06-19 Page 8 • Environmental Noise and Vibration Impact Study, prepared by Aercoustics Engineering Ltd., dated December 19, 2018 • Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Beacon Environmental Limited, dated December 2018 • Arborist Report, prepared by DA White Tree Care, dated December 17, 2018 • Groundwater Assessment, prepared by Groundwater Science Corp., dated December 18, 2018 • Geotechnical Investigation Addendum, prepared by Haddad Geotechnical Inc., dated December 18, 2018 • Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment Addendum No. 1, prepared by Haddad Geotechnical Inc., dated October 31, 2018 • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, prepared by Lithos Group Inc., dated December 2018 • Planning Rationale Report Addendum Letter, prepared by the Biglieri Group Ltd., dated December 21, 2018 • Sun/Shadow Study Report, prepared by the Biglieri Group Ltd., dated December 2018 • Transportation Impact Study, prepared by-TMIG Ltd., dated December 2018 9. Procedural Information 9.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department • oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 10. Owner/Applicant Information The owner of this property is Avonmore Ventures Inc. and represented by The Biglieri Group. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Ownership Map 3. Air Photo Map 4. Previous Concept Plan 5. Submitted Revised Concept Plan 6. Submitted Conceptual Apartment and Townhouse Block Elevation (North) 7. Submitted Conceptual Apartment and Townhouse Block Elevation (East) 8. Submitted Conceptual Townhouse Block Elevation Information Report No. 06-19 Page 9 Prepared By: 'Rory McNeil Plan#r 1 6 f Nilesh S rti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design RM:NS:Id Date of Report: March 11, 2019 Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, Chief Planner Attachment # / to Infnrmatinn Rei00rt# O 1 I 1 Taunton Road eibee, Fourth Concession Road • Subject Lands Mufti ftmi Mum ftwa awl isig Iarousel I (Mews l 11 11LL N Tally Street v 10 1WO 11111111 I1m Carousel Drive c William Jackson Drive 111111 1111 I 111111111 1 I Grossing •c EPOF - N 'yO fn fn v co 0 o 0.-o JU ov Huckleberry Crossing Zents Drive Rex Heath Drive m Grenwich Glen C ^ Calico Mews IIIIIIIIIIII) Location Map File: A13/17 (R) D of PICKERING City Development Department O Applicant:Avonmore Ventures Inc. Property Descri'tion:Part Lot 18, Concession 3 (William Jackson Drive) Date: Feb. 25, 2019 9 The Corporetlon of the CO), of Pockenng Produced hn part) under hunse from: ® Queens PnMer, Ontano MInhtry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.6 Her Majestythe Queen In Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. Al rights reserved.; 0 Teranel Enlerpdses Inn. and Rs suppllen all rights reserved.;® AluNdpal Prop edy Assessment Carponlbn and Is suppliers all right. reserved.; SCALE. 1:5,000 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. I Attachment # o2 to information Report# OLS -/9 Taunton Road eet Fourth Concession Road • Zents Drive Brock Road Applicant Owned Lands Infrastructure Ontario Owned Lands Jackpine Crossi kleberry Crossing Re Heath Drive Cit, 4 Ownership Map File: A 13/17(R) PICKERI NG City Development Department Applicant:Avonmore Ventures Inc. Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Concession 3 (William Jackson Drive) Date: 08, 2019 D he Corporalron of the City of Pickering Produced (In part) under license tom: C Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. /dl rights reserved.9 Her Majesty Ihe Queen In Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. Al lights reserved.; D Teranel Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.;® Municipal Prop arty Assessme 0 Corporation a nd Is suppler. all rig his reserve d.; .Mar. SCALE. I.�Jr��� THIS IS HOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. 11 Attachment# 3 to Qn�'fnrrnatit�n Ronnrtif O 11 Mun+,on Road • rl Yilflam'Jaa%csoerltie Camino' Rex Heath Drive 6-4°11. Air Photo Map File: A 13/17 (R) - PICKE RI NG City Development Department n Applicant: Avonmore Ventures Inc. - _ Property Description: Part Lot 18, Concession 3. _— (William Jackson Drive) Date: Mar. 06, 2019 OThe Corporeonof Na Cay of Pickering Produced(n pall) under license from:O Queens Prager, Onlado MF bay of Natural Resources. All Hanle reserved.0 Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Canada, Oeportment of Natural Resources. Al rights reserved.; DTeranet Enteryaeee Ino..d lls supplies all rights reserved.; 0 Munklpal Properly Ass essmeni Corporation and Rs suppler rig rights reserved.; C I SCALE. 1.5, 00() THIS is NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. W r UNDERGROUND RAMP 1.Om WIDE . CRASH WALL CP Rail BLOCK 1 cdre PICKERING City Development Department Previous Concept Plan File No: A 13/17 (R) Applicant: Avonmore Ventures Inc. Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Concession 3 (William Jackson Drive) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: March 1, 2018 Entrances to Crash wall Underground Parking Parkette RAILWAY LANDS RAILWAY LANDS III Ii51111C' '- --' 111 ;_ . `; 111111111 &'��i'1■ .. I . _ 1 W * _ __ r, I. • `//:: -� Apartment '7:'.' APS. BUILGNO ■ � a O Block C : !_=:�. � fi' Block BI .► d /-, 1445UNITSi .. j1 /,J utidlrf W Environmental Lands to . J F- ¢ ( , :-u :I be Conveyed to ' •J 411‘11. = i__�r' i Conservation Authority - Parkette 0 .{ ' d 1 TOYRJ OUSES ','� �'," 7OWNIOIOUSES „• JSTOREr , :. - _ _-_ UNITS ^r i LI 1 S Po, /� /�/ {tire "_ - Imo,,, I ck - - ( 3STOREY TOWNHOUSES _ 4 �1��. 3 STOREY TOWNHOUSES .r1 Ar 14, V///a '--, + 1Block _D !Block Al reef) ._ _ 11 ' ■ W%//%a,i) 4okson Dr've Emergency Access Submitted Revised Concept Plan C4 ° File No: A 13/17 (R) PICKERING Applicant: Avonmore Ventures Inc. . City Development Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Concession 3 (William Jackson Drive) Department . FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb. 2O, 2019 s. o0 3 2 - is CD c a 0 • Apartment Buildin. rTownhouse Block E, Cm- ® I=Er1liMI-10 EG]B=1Mi 011 L 1711 All I[71;=iL'=[I7[ Ill a =dill 1101 .,r1/4111T101 I[r lallI = if MI R1011I.PIVI111? ®I ;UI [VII IIS ID'-' J1- t9 ATI OQB= �= ' _ -tau-uG1 31 - FT M. -, [gFr,_,c-L Lsl¢--,--rr _r1[n4TitloN5 KIR® ppr ®gkCD,rMQ' - [ 1.ara,E`. _ ©l u,-L-,C[�r_ — — _ n—on� i iE�E. El e kE.11 EMI i ' t R UE L E 1I/.iIr. II R il�1!p ®C . 1 , , . ®I � d©1 0 = s , ■.I .q C� o�Q Q�Q p �[ poQ-,-_ .1 g[;Afl ® : fl _ Ki = — . _ ..,r,,,,,,,,, .--, m = - ,I�� 1t1 J yIl®.-E+■ ujflr au —+—� 1@ i_ 5 q i QGA- ale 1 1:,l,�®q.l1;1l11 =NII,,,, =®I'EGEIDB1T+1 0151 11AV XI ri ii `� t711011C1I I -[N[ECL1111 05i ® kzufloILIWiC1oat NG i li-MR ro1511TR1175ISB NI RIO LI Ell IQ B®: VK *IIFElll]:tER:,_ ii= - — — - �' mr 19 IsT`EWEIA®Q�QT'� 1"1( M_C3 1 [W=1'el = `2. 1[Y[[ M©- . a - [hRMEE`'g —®®IC�l9lE -a r 1�`-. S 'S e• '._-Dare r_ Si.�Jalr74.lr fa RI El v ,k =ryC1i Inas icp`En ,grFGk EwUIEE+7 hgo=i m=i. Is °,-i r Egr a �-_ m ° al SI =ma i a r-,�:clitap IIMP EWE Iv ses _ II,If , ff�t4. = a Er,_' �, _ - ,_--r- , _ o ' i �DEFcj'Iv ga ' Di 1131 M - T_ 1.. —; -:I _°� . Ill `w1= HI L.--_,..-1;�R= 19 IR CSB"I�V[�E IIE I Ill 111�1[:Ifl - ._ _ °pj=[[ r7 �'-. f �I Q E�1Erau r3 G. .71 _1M lCi-}°:, C0- mgFr 1W0 fl - I�Ippl if�l Lll Clill7l.l li r I�]° .__ ' l fllp -7- �.rT=o -T [:3p�B, l�!: t i i /� ‘,1 , �ll�lff �,� , Ia1p_ 1 �blB t fiif[T1I tai EkE Eo 1, t.1 �ti���r it�t 1i0 _ 5,-11.1] =4 i - 5r a ,�L��1..1+'G+'!' ,��� irf'1 17 =1l[ mr .dam _[ All oaf is _- I r.M ...---- ®E®E _ am CC p®p el®— uti MC �I TRU .Q4p o �]aio. '„- Maria= / �� L�'��tt�[ El am �u'-�sVn�osooI ` = ic' `q _ iLy7f��7C�t� i T 11 _u®I IIiA u�id9, - fes{ IFI d L�f, IEI�e it 0�6 iE�t1� j�� a I©fgfJP�® iEtiE ,. 'vlu�.�iT���r I�IY 'HAI I 1. Ilk °A S� Il 12 .*.11i11 -Ai IISE_ 1r i �➢- °-i --` C9B_��� �� J _- Cir �. LJ 1� �f _ —��p�v[ _ ■woo • IP .110111.10.102 mom Apartment and -Townhouse Block • North Elevation • • el* Submitted Conceptual Apartment and Townhouse Block Elevation (North) File No: A 13/17 (R) -4 P1CKE RING City Development Department —. Applicant: Avonmore Ventures Inc. _ Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Concession 3 (William Jackson Drive) - FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT- DATE:Feb. 20, 2019 s. o0 3 2 - is CD c a 0 Townhouse Block E viral- rimy-rm. 117w/CE raPelro Apartment Building NESTE -I- �Jj ] 18111':]1 MX! Iwai ®- Wan 11711-M1 jrZiM 1111111111111111111111 n 11111111111II 1111111111111111111 ,1 n pl III MI III II!i1 "" YIIIIIIII 1111111IIIIII 1111,1IIIIIII fl n IIIIIIIi!IIIIIII 1111111111IIII1111111I 1111 ®mss 1.ii 11111 ll�l a Eh - 1�0 111111111111111111111111111 -- 4- — J Apartment and Townhouse Block East Elevation cdri PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Conceptual Apartment and Townhouse Block Elevation (East) File No: A 13/17 (R) Applicant: Avonmore Ventures Inc. Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Concession 3 (William Jackson Drive FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb. 20, 2019 1 • NM Illlllllllllilllgll�lllll�IIIIIIIIIIIILI 1111 'I it IEI ■ 1 *WOW- OE M -TM r- IEFIRACB(OI'F I t t 1 1 I r 1 rt l Vtial Cd.AZWYr TYR EPAIJDF€1.Ci ata rE6)-T1P. 1111111111111 ■i ■� 11111111 r IIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIII 1131[!:::11 ■ 111111111111111111111 1111111. ILII 1111111111111, ■ ■ i® I .;11111 111111 :I a_ NNW Townhouse Block cdpi PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Conceptual Townhouse Block Elevation File No: A 13/17 (R) Applicant: Avonmore Ventures Inc. Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Concession 3 (William Jackson Drive) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb. 20, 2019 S I—r-� IU r .-in® WEIN*r _!i_ i< 1IMims ■i ■� 11111111 r IIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIII 1131[!:::11 ■ 111111111111111111111 1111111. ILII 1111111111111, ■ ■ i® I .;11111 111111 :I a_ NNW Townhouse Block cdpi PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Conceptual Townhouse Block Elevation File No: A 13/17 (R) Applicant: Avonmore Ventures Inc. Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Concession 3 (William Jackson Drive) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb. 20, 2019 CGS o� DICKERING Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 07-19 Date: April 1, 2019 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/19 2545633 Ontario Inc. Part of Lot 6, Plan"585, Now Part 11, Plan 40R-2633 (2620 Brock Road) 1. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding a Zoning By-law Amendment application, submitted by 2545633 Ontario Inc. to facilitate a residential stacked townhouse 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 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 west of Brock Road, north of Dersan Street within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands are approximately 0.38 of a hectare with approximately 23.0 metres of frontage along Brock Road (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2). A detached dwelling currently occupies the site, which is proposed to be demolished. The westerly portion of the site contains mature vegetation forming part of the significant woodlands to the west. Surrounding land uses include: North and Immediately to the north and south are vacant lands owned by Lebovic South:- Enterprises Limited (Lebovic) for which the Ontario Municipal. Board (now Local Planning Appeal Tribunal) has approved a Draft Plan of Subdivision and a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a residential condominium development consisting of stacked and townhouse units. East: Across Brock Road, is a Hydro Corridor. On the north side of the Hydro Corridor are additional lands owned by Lebovic for which the City has received a site plan application to permit residential condominium development consisting of a mix of stacked and townhouse units. South of the Hydro Corridor is an existing residential development consisting of a mix of freehold, stacked and back-to-back townhouse dwellings. 18 Information Report No. 07-19 Page.2 West: Immediately to the west is a woodlot that is identified as Significant Woodlands in the City's Official Plan. 3. Applicant's Proposal The applicant has submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment application to facilitate a residential condominium development consisting of 30 stacked units accessed from an internal private road on the property to the north. The vehicular access to the internal private road network will be provided from a new north -south local road connecting Dersan Street to Zents Drive. The conceptual site plan illustrates 3 residential blocks (see Submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #3). Block 1B will be oriented with the front pedestrian access fronting Brock Road, and Blocks 2B and 3B will be oriented with the front pedestrian access to be fronting a shared mews with the Lebovic proposal to the south. Vehicular access for all three blocks will be in the rear from an internal private road. The residential blocks will have four levels (approximately 13.5 metres in height). The first level includes an internal private garage, storage area, and a mechanical room for each stacked unit. A pedestrian access to a common corridor/stairwell is provided from the garage area leading to each stacked unit. Levels 2, 3 and 4 will each be a single bungalow unit, ranging in size between 94.4 square metres and 97.4 square metres. Each unit will have a balcony as their private outdoor amenity area (see Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations, Attachment #4). Each stacked unit will have 2 parking spaces (1 space within an internal garage and 1 space on the driveway). Visitor parking is provided at a rate of 0.2 spaces per unit for a total of 6 spaces. The applicant, has also provided an area for snow storage and community mailboxes. The conceptual site plan also illustrates a 1.5 metre wide shared pedestrian walkway with the Lebovic lands to the south and a 1.8 metre wide pedestrian sidewalk along Brock Road. The applicant has been in discussions with Lebovic to ensure that all three parcels on the. west side of Brock Road are developed in a coordinated manner, and the future north/south local road is completed in a timely manner. To facilitate the timely construction of the local road, the applicant has agreed to convey the portion of the lands associated with the future local road to the City (approximately 0.05 of a hectare) in advance of zoning approval (see Conceptual Site Plan of 2545633 Ontario Inc. and Lebovic Enterprises Limited, Attachment #5). ' The portion of the lands containing the woodlot (approximately 0.04 of a hectare) will be conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and rezoned to appropriate open space zone category. The development will be subject to site plan approval, and an application for draft plan of condominium will be required at a late date. 19 Information Report No. 07-19 Page 3 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The subject lands are designated as "Living Areas" with a "Regional Corridor" overlay in the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP). Lands within the Living Areas shall be developed predominately for housing purposes. Limited office development and limited retailing of goods and services, in appropriate locations, as components of mixed use developments, are permitted. 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 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. Brock Road is designated as a Type 'A' Arterial Road and High Frequency Transit Network in the ROP. 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 45 metres. Roads designated High Frequency Transit Network are recognized for planned High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, or buses in mixed traffic, with transit signal priority at major intersections and other measures to ensure fast and reliable transit service. The proposal appears to conform to the policies and provisions of the Durham Region Official Plan. 4.2 Pickering Official Plan The developable portion of the subject lands is designated "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. This designation is intended primarily for residential, retail, community, cultural and recreational uses at a scale servicing the community, and for a range of commercial uses and residential development at a density range of over 30 units up to and including 140 dwellings per net hectare. The proposed development has a net residential density of approximately 104 units per net hectare and an FSI of 1.01. The westerly portion of the subject lands, containing the woodlot, which is designated as "Open Space — Natural Areas" and identified as a Significant Woodlands in the City's Official Plan. 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 through the site plan approval process. • 20 Information Report No. 07-19 Page 4 4.4 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 • require shared access points between properties along Brock Road in order to minimize access points along Brock Road, in consultation with the Region of Durham • the development of future roads adjacent to the Mixed Corridor designation on both sides of Brock Road to provide alternative access and potential transit routes, and • require proponents of new development abutting or containing existing naturalized open space features designated Natural Areas, to submit an Edge Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City, in consultation with the TRCA, that: • addresses the protection of the natural heritage features and functions from the impacts of any new development through such mechanisms as tree management, tree preservation, invasive species management, construction management and stormwater management, and • identifies road and engineering designs that maintain the ecological integrity of the tableland coniferous and mixed forest The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies of the Pickering Official Plan also require landowners to demonstrate how the proposal is consistent with the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan (ESP) to the satisfaction of the Region, City and the TRCA. As a condition of approval, the landowners are required to 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 costs. The applications will be assessed against the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the application. 4.5 Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development 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 neighbourhoods • a streetscape which is attractive, safe and encourages social interaction within the neighbourhood • a central focus to the neighbourhood which is safe, lively and attractive • a diversity of uses to support neighbourhood and City functions 21 Information Report No. 07-19 Page 5 • the preservation and maintenance of the ecological function of the tableland forest and valleylands, 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. The guidelines for lands within the Brock Road Streetscape include the following requirements: • all buildings along Brock Road must be two functional floors with a minimum three storey massing • all primary frontages of buildings shall front Brock Road and provide pedestrian access directly to the sidewalk and multi -use trail along Brock Road • the siting, massing, and facade design of townhouse units shall be coordinated on a block -by -block basis • side and rear elevations visible from public areas shall have upgraded facade treatments, and • corner unit designs are encouraged to provide significant corner features such as a wrap-around porch, wall articulation, turret or bay window The application will be assessed against the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Guidelines during the further processing of the application. 4.6 Zoning By-law 3037 The subject lands are currently zoned "A" — Rural Agricultural Zone within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended, which permits a detached dwelling, home occupation, agricultural and related uses, recreational and limited institutional uses. The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject lands to appropriate zone categories with site-specific performance standards to facilitate the proposal. ' 5. Comments Received 5.1 Resident Comments As of writing this report, no comments or concerns have been received. 5.2 City Department Comments 5.2.1 Engineering Services As of writing this report, no comments or concerns have been received. 5.3 Agency Comments As of writing this report, no comments have been received from the Region of Durham — Planning & Economic Department, and the TRCA. 22 Information Report No. 07-19 Page 6 6. Planning & Design Section Comments The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration prior to a final recommendation report to Planning and Development Committee: • ensure conformity with the City's Official Plan and Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies • ensure the proposal addresses the goals and objectives of the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines with respect to building siting and setbacks, building heights and massing, architectural features and materials, landscaping, and pedestrian connectivity within and external to the site • ensure the proposal is developed in a coordinated manner with the abutting Lebovic lands to the north and south • ensure the lands associated with the future north -south local road are conveyed to City and appropriate arrangement met with Lebovic for north -south construction • ensure a sufficient number of parking spaces is provided for residents and visitors • ensure appropriate cross -use easements are granted between the applicant and Lebovic for pedestrian and vehicular access • exploring whether joint -use arrangements can be secured between the applicant and Lebovic to sharing visitor parking and the future private parkettes within the Lebovic development • ensure adequate outdoor amenity space is provided for each stacked unit • ensure that appropriate compensation (financial and replacement planting) is provided for the removal of the existing vegetation and loss of ecosystem services • 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 applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated department, 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 offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Planning Justification Report, prepared by IBI Group, dated December 21, 2018 • Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plans, prepared by Jardin Design Group Inc., dated December 12, 2018 • Traffic Impact Brief, prepared by GHD, dated September 21, 2018 • Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by YCA Engineering Limited, dated September 11, 2018 • Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Beacon Environmental, dated December 2018 • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, prepared by GHD, dated December 8, 2018 • Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by WSP, dated December 2018 23 Information Report No. 07-19 Page 7 • Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by WSP, dated September 24, 2018 • Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by WSP, dated December 20, 2018 • Pre -demolition Designated Substance and Hazardous Materials Survey, prepared by WSP, dated December 14, 2018 • Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment, prepared by Archeoworks Inc., dated November 7, 2018 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 2545633 Ontario Inc. and represented by IBI Group. Attachments 1. Location. Map 2.. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Conceptual Site Plan 4. Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations 5. Conceptual Site Plan of 2545633 Ontario Inc. and Lebovic Enterprises Limited Prepared By: Tanjot Bal Plan r l Niles rti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design TB:Id 2 Date of Report: March 15, 2019 Approved/Endorsed By: :1 -‘74 -;A -t) Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Attachment #_to Information Report# 0.7 Dusty Drive 3 to U Dusty Spinnaker Drive 'v I Mews. I 1111110111"1' 1 Brandy Court III Shepway Mews— JVinville Road IIl Bruny Avenue _Winville Road a Edgecroft 3 Drive _ Elmsley, Drive ScenicLane_Drive Carousel Drive Vcossing E 13 o a Q. -D m m Huckleberry Crossing_ Zents Drive Rex Heath Drive Subject Lands Dersan Street Castlegate rst) Crossing c Hidden Valley ‘'Gleriy 4) �h1IIIPt.g' - a coU U a .— Shining Star f Chase - V,v U U O =LGrenwich Glen m c Cfn ri ic7.9 • a pc,-. to • ,-.2 m Adir no deckChase ti fie, tieJ wo ee. Byford =— . (Street t(D = `11111) c. ure Springs Boulevard IA .0 -3 ami °1 J J �IIIIIIIIIII� U Liatris Drive Ka mar Avenue I J a_ 1 f Hayden Lane Misthollow Drive i \Liatris Drive 11111111�� 25 Location Map A 02/19 D ofFile: PICKERING City Development Department Applicant: 2545633 Ontario Inc. Property Description: Pt Lot 6, Plan 585, Now Pt 11, Plan 40R-2633. 2620 Brock Road) Date: Mar. 12, 2019 H he Corporation of Ne City of Picketing Produced (In pan) under license from: 0 Queens Pnnter, Onta o Mnelry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.B Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. AI rights reserved.; 9 Teranet Enterprises Inc. and Its suppliers all rights reserved.; 0 Municipal Prop eny Assessme M Corporation and Is suppfers all rghts reserved.; .s.5J SCALE. 1 ., 00 THIS IS ROTAPLAN OF SURVEY 25 Attachment#. & _tQ e..inror Kinn R bort # 1 Dusty Drivel--• r , .-..• (.0 m :-� m 2 Dusty.2Spinnaker Drives Mews c c Brandy?: iCourt] Si Shepway Zents Drive) VVinville Road ,,i Bruny Avenue r, K� ..111111 `,Winville Road' ;4414J 1. )J Elmsley r. m Carousel Drive -•-• iii y, 1 ,E9�n�iiilEitr�S^�7�'4 1 _ir71', coNa'. tCalic�i tossing; •r ,. - � c`j .E t .* c f;N to• - Flo 92.73 7 Huckleberry, I ` ,Rex Heath Drive - Subject Lards Liatris Drive - Kalmar Avenue co Drive Scenic Lane Drive oft tarp). fl. f JR IP 4 s I +�ari2� Bjfiord Street Dersan Street Liatris Drive _, i414jwit illir Castlegate;-� Crossing 4�.,M° Hidden Valley '`'`i Glen c W �i0 UM '6 Air Photo Map File: A 02/19 G o‘ PICKERING City Development Department Applicant: 2545633 Ontario Inc. Property Description: Pt Lot 6, Plan 585, Now Pt 11, Plan 40-R2633 2620 Brock Road) Date: -Mar. 12, 2019 E. Corporation of the City olPrekenng Produced(,n part) under license from:® Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of tralural Resources. MI rights reserved.9 Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. AI rights reserved.; a Teanel Enterprises Inc. and Its suppliers all rights reserved.; 0 Municipal Properly Assessment Corporatbn and as sup piers all rights reserved; SCALE. 1.5r000 THIS IS HOT APLAN OF SURVEY. L:\PI a n ning\Corel\Pla n ning\Apps\A\2018 g a g 5 (. .70 Future Collector Road: Parcel to be conveyed to the City of Pickering prior to approving the rezoning application. • - 1 1 , r fi� II I+ i;. V I ( 6 a i .'.---_-_ ___—_ ' I "1 I Et:.I1- `444 N69'26'30$-iP / \ _ ..-^"�' I I / ;' `' i 1 IJ I . 1• �"t62 26.001E (P3 ''' N 69'2 0.6 (P P4dA1EAS 164.26 P1,P3 1 1t1 �� 1 , �, i '' l , 1 R1B 1_..-'— _Z_`�_ (P318.05 AI(P2.P3, 4&1dEAS) - 1 '• :.� (0U) ___.._ 0 126.22 (P3) I ti "�' ii di ( 0 18.052 .01 w NO SIB• r i I I 126.27 (P2,P4hMEA5) �. : , C, ,, ANtE ' .4 v (10 6) ...—� i SB ; I �_ . I .° • G.__-,-.c.---, t, 'w G +. '-,.' G } I \v_f ‘ j is ioo a i Q ( w o- sm ..+w •, I sa __� �I•'+ CC avv is sn x �'2y° 1 3B-100 3B-101 3B-102 3B-103 3B-200 I 3B-201 I 3B-202 I 3B-203 26-100 26-101 2B-102 2B-103 �2B-200 I 26.201 I ZB-202 I 2B-203 s° K,oamo \ /I. •"P 7p f f 38-300 1 36-301 1 38302 I 36-303 ZB-300 ! 28-301 , 3B-302 , 36-303{ I� t. ! i s ` :LO'K3: Is c--TBLOcIK2 1 � W H® Jr NO (JDe f AL 5@[WALK - :q..pQEWA1K- • .a S.GLE) ! S 3MEAS)2,P3,P4hMF�4S); i (1D6 0 --1O�P2 -y ---,, ,—y. 1 R.P: No. SBS / / d I / 1/ / Il• (J69'24i0.E N69Y3'4(}"E ��' 12 - 4860 P1) I i p3) ¢ i 1 1 12 I I t I 164126 I P1),v1i 1 1 1 I 1 I y 11 1+ 1/t [ 7: ( j • j i I It Woodland: Parcel to be conveyed to the.Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and rezoned to "open space". ' Submitted Conceptual Site Plan C4 File No: A 02/19 o/ PICKERING Applicant: 254633 Ontario Inc. Property Description: Part of Lot 6, Pian 585, Now Part 11, Plan 40R-2633 City Development (2620 Brock Road) Department V >J .FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb: 27, 2019 L:\PI a n ning\Corel\Pla n ning\Apps\A\2018 g a g 5 (. .70 rr.v} =i r- == rr==f=ir _z F3s rs _-=_?iL77 P3t$i: •_ , mgt m �iq,Iulmp nlu_u .H..�l._nn VIII r°=d �Q "7" .1.7. "Mil= mnI_Iu,Y21�:_ 9 .Plo-.unm`, �lru_nJ111111 111111 111111 minliiI 1!1111l,A,,Se 1 1-v 1 s Iss` 1r1rh1e1 �1vs�Imuq I"iI°.01ignq,k 11111111111111IIII1111111111111111111111111L= SFr;..TIIIIIIIII@IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIp1111111IM111111p11611111@IIII11111p111MIIL.....rr—_-,1IIIIIIIIIp11J111111111111111111111111111f1t -10M11•111111M1 10p1110tI1p1011-1111, -u,--0 1➢ IIINQr-.nMWutnMmN.?Ipuloptmplup 7 11111• plmrsnl11M111 1111111143 lwlllrt'�lmunn 110831P 11111111.31L4111I _ 1111 n ]i'(1" -11111111 I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIII .taxa-x-�vv_x_x 1111111111.111111111111 111111111111111 r..' 1111111111r 11111111111111111111.11111111111 I' --_�OilwnN�i1 1, C^J IMIUu out IN 1, W I � ,� Rppl It aUlF"'^IY Ut110 IIGp�- mtlYlY o^^tl���t���l■I 6`�I t m t r IMt YUI IIIpC."..Illu 11 t1111Y F.9 III't 111 sY I I IrYiPR.�IC:.�I Y�11111YY i �I �111�.�119 ��I_111� � � 111111111IIIlI11I11111111111111111111111 �__---- IIIIIIIIIOIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I1111111111IIlI1111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-II 111031 0311 Y IIIOUI11610 II �n rrrmvrr mrrim. MII IpWIIUIi —M I rmmrvrl—Irlmvlrlmruill' m VIII 1 II mm.mry®Irrvmrrrm mnunmrrllmrlllmml vlr rvmllmvrimvruo om Ir rrn lOmlll®IIIpWII10Wlll rr IrrmllllmlUmrrrIlrrwvr 1"mrirmo tt1 dlttsl�J '�— t• •••• 100111111111011111 OO �j OD pt�lt�]1YIt� t� p� tt�lttiJ 1!!1�!��i!�� 1111110111111! !11!!!1 „„min.".","!!!!II!JI!h!!� I!1!�!! I!�i!!! i l!!i(��II!!!(�I !!!I0!I!11!!!( h!!I!jjj!�I!!I(� (C�I!!I(I�II!� * G�I!!L1Ilo (�1!!�! �I!!Irl1 11110111111 I IMit MAIM MII t! 0p1 III 111111111111111111111111111111111111111_ 0 iI1• UNIT 6 UNIT 5� UNIT 4Lj� UNIT 3 REAR ELEVATION (12 UNIT BLOCK) ➢111111111111[8 .......:1... 1 la 1l I ll llluI 111 — UNIT UNIT 3 4 PICKERING City Development Department �I�l■I■Iln■u�l� IaILlIL.lall!"�II III�IIIIIIIII� - II�IIIIIIIII�I" °1111111°° °1�1°_'�rAi1=��n�l ILt2i1lI It Ii UNIT4 UNIT5 FRONT ELEVATION (12 UNIT BLOCK) -r- UNIT 6 Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations File No: A 02/19 Applicant: 254633 Ontario Inc. UNIT 3 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION UNIT 6 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION Property Description: Part of Lot 6, Plan 585, Now Part 11, Plan 40R-2633 (2620 Brock Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. \ Planning \Corel\ Planning'Apps\A\2018 DATE: Feb. 27, 2019 -n g 5 CD iD 0 0 1 ■r`'..:JeTiri i �{ i i , a 111•*} PAC/ a c. ---.z II , / -, ° UTUR ELOF'ME - — F 111 i. • I ! I i `` I• .�- - 4.L--.--. • ;�' • • yI �4y11 b�I1l . • _ F • WWIII•I•fl 11111111 UNIT 31.11401 311M114 UNITS l•MIIS U • • y0 d�LL�OCX 3B - "LOCK 2B � I m, .... 1 • L1T7 >!•.�ik Ara1�..411 • } {FMA_ ;i =1ti a s i I 1i , 1 i i ' , el 1 I• } 0 NI ir Cdre Conceptual Site'Plan of 2545633 Ontario Inc and Lebovic Enterprises Limited • File No: A 02/19 PICKERING • City Development Department Applicant: 2545633 Ontario Inc ' Property Description: Part of Lot 6, Plan 585, Now Part 11, Plan 40R-2.633 (2620 Brock Road) _ . FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: March 15, 2019 (p L•\Planning\Corel\PlanninglApps1A12019 C�l�y 4 DICKERING Report to Planning & Development Committe Report Number: PLN 06-19 Date: April 1, 2019 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report — Phase 1 Report File: D-1100-096 Recommendation: 1. That the Infill and. Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report — Phase 1 Report, be received; and 2. That Council authorize City Development staff to proceed with Phase 2 of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. Executive Summary: This report provides an update on the status of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Study), presents the Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report: Phase 1 (posted on the City of Pickering website at pickering.ca/InfillStudy and circulated under separate cover), and seeks Council authorization to proceed with Phase 2 of the Study. The purpose of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study is to provide direction for the preparation of appropriate Official Plan policies, zoning regulations and otherimplementation tools, and to develop design guidelines that will facilitate a sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction in the City's established neighbourhoods in South Pickering. The Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report completes Phase 1 of the Study and, among other things, generally identifies areas within the City's established neighbourhoods, within the South Pickering Urban Area that may be susceptible to pressure for the development of infill and replacement housing, identifies the key issues regarding infill and replacement housing that are of concern to stakeholders, and provides a summary of the feedback received at the Public Open House 1. Phase 2 of the Study will result in a Planning Options Report to be presented to Planning & Development Committee and Council. Phase 3 of the Study will result in a Recommendation Report and Design Guidelines to be presented to Planning & Development Committee and Council. 30 PLN 06-19 April 1, 2019 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Page 2 Financial Implications: On June 28, 2018, Council approved the project funding of $147,995.00 and the financing as 55% from property taxes and 45% from Development Charges. Funds to complete the Study have been carried over in the 2019 Council approved Current Budget for the City Development Department, Consulting and Professional (Account 2611.2392.0000). 1. Background On June 25, 2018, Council authorized SGL Planning &Design Inc. (SGL) to undertake the Infill, and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (see Resolution #459/18, Attachment #1), which stems from two previous resolutions of Council which addressed a community engagement process and pre -budget approval (see Resolutions #236/16 and #345/17, Attachments #2 and #3). In September 2018, City Development staff met with the consultants and toured the various established residential neighbourhoods in the South Pickering Urban Area that are experiencing change. Since that time, the consultants have been communicating with City staff and preparing the Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report. On March 5, 2019, Public Open House 1 was held to receive input on the Study from the community. 1.1 Definition of Infill and Replacement Housing For the purpose of this Study, the following definitions of infill and replacement housing are used: Infill means the development of two or more ground -oriented housing forms such as single detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot. Within the context of this Study, infill does not include the development of stacked townhomes, stacked back-to-back townhomes, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi -unit housing resulting in a higher level of density. Infill can occur through draft plan of subdivision/condominium, site plan and/or land division. Replacement housing involves a smaller dwelling being substantially altered or demolished and replaced with a new larger dwelling through the building permit application process and possibly the minor variance process. 2. Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report The Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report completes Phase 1 of the Study and addresses the following: • establishes the scope, purpose and objectives of the Study; • establishes the definition of "infill" and "replacement" housing for the purpose of this Study; • provides an overview of the policy framework and regulatory context applicable to the matters addressed within the Study; • reviews similar studies prepared by various municipalities; 31 PLN 06-19 April 1, 2019 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Page 3 • identifies the City's established residential neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, within the South Pickering Urban Area (South Pickering) where there have been observed changes in the form of infill and replacement housing; • identifies and evaluates the unique qualities and characteristics of the City's established neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, and the key issues regarding infill and replacement housing that are of concern to residents; and • presents the feedback received at the March 5, 2019 Public Open House. 2.1 Scope, Purpose and Objectives The area subject to the Study (the Study Area) is generally within the predominately low density residential neighbourhoods within the South Pickering Urban Area (see Map of Study Area, Attachment #4). These are the areas that contain most of the older housing stock within the City that have experienced new infill and replacement housing construction over the last few years. The boundaries of the neighbourhoods/areas for in-depth investigation are discussed in greater detail in section 2.3, Focus Neighbourhoods, of this report. The purpose of this Study is to provide direction for the preparation of appropriate Official Plan policies, zoning regulations and other implementation tools, and to develop design guidelines that will facilitate a sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction in the City's established neighbourhoods in South Pickering. The key objectives of this Study are: • To identify the City's established neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, within the South Pickering Urban Area that may be susceptible to pressure for the development of infill and replacement housing. • To identify and evaluate the unique qualities and characteristics of the City's established neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, and the key issues regarding infill and replacement housing that are of concern to residents. • To identify and/or develop tools the City can use, including Design Guidelines, that will allow neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, to evolve while respecting the character of the area. • To provide an opportunity for full and meaningful engagement and consultation with residents, agencies and the development industry through the study process. The Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report is Phase 1 of the Study and addresses the key objectives outlined in points 1, 2 and 4 above. 2.2 Best Practices Review Like Pickering, many municipalities in southern Ontario have, or are, experiencing infill and replacement housing in established residential neighbourhoods. SGL has reviewed and summarized the results of nine completed studies that were undertaken for the following municipalities: City of Brampton, Town of Halton Hills, City of Kitchener, City of Vaughan, City of Hamilton, City of Ottawa, Town of Oakville, City of Mississauga and City of Burlington. 32 PLN 06-19 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study April 1, 2019 Page 4 The studies recommend implementing one or more of the following: official plan policies, zoning by-law regulations, design guidelines and/or site plan control, all with a view to enhancing and/or maintaining established neighbourhood character. 2.3 Focus Neighbourhoods There are fifteen neighbourhoods within the South Pickering Urban Area (Study Area). Nine of these neighbourhoods contain most of the older housing stock within the City and have significant areas experiencing new infill and replacement housing construction over the last few years. The remaining six neighbourhoods, though they may have small pockets of older homes, typically comprise newer residential dwellings. The exception of the six neighbourhoods, is the Brock Industrial Neighbourhood, which contains employment uses. There are few instances of infill and replacement housing within these six neighbourhoods, and they are therefore not included in the Study. The nine neighbourhoods that are the focus of this Study are referred to as the Focus Neighbourhoods (see Map of Focus Neighbourhoods, Attachment #5) and they include the following: Bay Ridges, Dunbarton, Highbush, Liverpool, Rosebank, Rougemount, Village East, West Shore and Woodlands. 2.4 Neighbourhood Character Neighbourhood character can be defined as the combination of public and private realm elements that contribute to the physical identity and feel of a neighbourhood. The public realm of a neighbourhood includes elements such as streets, curbs, ditches, sidewalks and street trees. The private realm of a neighbourhood includes elements such as houses and other structures, driveways, walkways, landscaping in front yards, and the placement of and space between these elements. Evaluating each of these elements in isolation of each other would overlook the relationships between these features. In addition, each individual has their own subjective perception of the character of a neighbourhood. This study attempts to define neighbourhood character based on a combination of physical features and characteristics in order to maintain objectivity. This method of describing neighbourhood character will enable us to determine the appropriate tools that can be used to manage and realize new construction that is compatible within the existing residential neighbourhoods. 2.5 Neighbourhood Character: Themes and Elements The physical elements that define neighbourhood character are grouped according to the themes described below: 2.5.1 Built Form Built Form examines the elements of building type and architectural form that contribute to the massing and appearance of buildings and include, such items as: housing type (single, semi-detached, townhouse dwelling); building height; location and height of front entrance; architectural style (cottage/bungalow, traditional new build, modern/contemporary); roof style and pitch; and lot coverage. 33 PLN 06-19 April 1, 2019 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Page 5 2.5.2 Streetscape Streetscape examines the relationship of the buildings to the street, to other buildings, as well as to other defining landscape characteristics in the private -realm and include, such elements as: lot frontage; front, rear and side yard setbacks; landscaped area in front yards; driveway location and width; and garage or carport placement. 2.5.3 Neighbourhood Composition Neighbourhood composition examines those elements in the public realm that contribute to neighbourhood character on a broader scale and include, such features as: street width; curbs; ditches; sidewalks; parking lanes; cycle lanes; and street trees. Throughout this report, the character of the City of Pickering's established residential neighbourhoods will be examined using these elements. 2.6 Trends and Observations Within each of the Focus Neighbourhoods, there are certain areas where there has been a significant amount of change observed in the form. of new construction related to either infill and/or replacement housing. These areas are referred to as "areas of observed change" and are identified in the Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report. Trends observed in new construction that differ from the original houses in the Focus Neighbourhoods can generally be summarized as follows: • being taller by one to two storeys • being larger in overall size and mass • having more lot coverage • having two -car garages attached to the homes and flush with the front facade, whereas the original homes have no garage or have a carport • having smaller side- and rear -yard setbacks • having wider driveways • having steeper roof pitch • having multiple steps to the front entrance as opposed to only one or two, and • having smaller separation distance between neighbouring houses Observations and trends for each Focus Neighbourhood are detailed in the Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report. 2.7 Public Open House 1 On February 20 and 27, 2019, a Notice of Public Open House appeared in the Ajax -Pickering News Advertiser. Participants from the May 2017 Focus Group Sessions who requested to be kept informed about the Study were sent a Notice of Public Open House either by email or regular mail. 34 PLN 06-19 April 1, 2019 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Page 6 On March 5, 2019, Public Open House 1 was held to receive input into the Study from the community. The purpose of the Open House was to offer interested community members an opportunity to: • confirm that the issues related to infill and replacement housing affecting their neighbourhoods have been appropriately identified; • confirm that the areas within neighbourhoods being affected by change have been appropriately identified; and . • generally provide input into the Study. Feedback from Public Open House 1 is contained in Appendix D of the Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report. Some of the comments heard at the Open House included the desire for new house construction to: • be more compatible with neighbouring houses in terms of height, overall size and massing; • maintain similar separation distances between houses as that which currently exist within the neighbourhoods; • maintain green space between houses; • maintain or add street trees when there is new construction; and • be more compatible in terms of style of house built. In addition, participants commented on their desire to maintain a mix of housing that can accommodate people of all ages and, in particular, those individuals wishing to downsize. Participants welcomed 'the opportunity to learn about the Study and provide their input. A number of participants had questions about how this Study addresses major redevelopment applications. It was clarified that any major redevelopment application is required to go through a Planning Act process that involves a separate and distinct public process. This Study does not address major redevelopment applications. 3. Next Steps 3A Phase 2: Planning Options Phase 2 will result in the preparation of a Planning Options Report, and will: • identify gaps and opportunities in existing City policy, guidelines and strategies to address the matter of infill and replacement housing; • identify preliminary options, tools and strategies to address the issue of compatibility between new construction and existing built form within the identified established residential neighbourhoods and precincts; • address feedback from the consultation process undertaken in Phase 1;. and • engage the public, agencies and stakeholders. City staff will report to Planning & Development Committee and Council on the Planning Options Report. 35 PLN 06-19 April 1, 2019 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Page 7 3.2 Phase 3: Recommendation Report and Design Guidelines Phase 3 will result in the preparation of a Recommendation Report and Design Guidelines, and will: • address feedback from the consultation process undertaken in Phase 2; • recommend a preferred strategy, tools, guidelines, including draft Design Guidelines, timing and required resources to address infill and replacement housing within the City of Pickering for Council consideration; • recommend where these strategies, tools andguidelines should be implemented within the City of Pickering; and • engage the public, agencies and stakeholders. City staff will report to Planning & Development Committee and Council on the Recommendation Report and Design Guidelines. Attachments: 1. Council Resolution #459/18 2. Council Resolution #236/16 3. Council Resolution #345/17 4. Map of the Study Area (South Pickering Urban Area) 5. Map of the Focus Neighbourhoods Prepared By: aAle( Margaret Kish, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics MK:Id Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer WOIL 19 Zot 36 ATTACHMENT #_ 1 TO REPORT /1 Legislative Services Division Clerk's Office Directive Memorandum .June 28, 2018 To: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO From: Subject: Debbie Shields City Clerk Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on June 25, 2018 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 22-18 Consulting Services for the Infill and Replacement housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Request for Proposal No. RFP -8-2018 Council Decision . Resolution #459/18 1. That the proposal submitted by SGL Planning & Design Inc. to undertake the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study in the amount of $147,657.00 (including HST) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $164,342.00 (HST included), including the RFP amount and contingency costs, and the total net project cost of $147,995.00 (net of HST rebate), utilizing the funding identified for this project in the 2018 Current Budget for the City Development Department, Consulting and Professional (Account 2611.2392.0000), be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the net project cost in the amount of $147,995.00 as follows: a) The sum of $81,397.00 to be funded from property taxes; b) The sum of $66,598.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges —Studies Reserve Fund; and 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to enter into any agreements to give effect hereto. Please take any action deemed necessary. Debbie Shields Copy: Chief Administrative Officer 37 J\TTACHMEI\IT # TO Fv-PORT ,/ PI Ni NSC -19 (IX) Notice of Motion a) Guidelines to Protect Community Character (Infill) Councillor McLean reiterated his conflict of interest and did not take part in or vote on the matter. Resolution #236/16 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Ashe Whereas the City of Pickering recognizes the importance of community character and its preservation where infill construction takes place; Whereas the Planning Act enables approvals when it involves Draft Plans of Subdivision, but provides no jurisdiction to enable municipalities to impose conditions for individual building permits not subject to Draft Pian Conditions; Now Therefore be it resolved that the City Development Department commence a community engagement process via the establishment of a focus group that will enable Pickering to establish the creation of guidelines that will encourage developers and builders to be mindful of established community character when bringing forward draft plans and/or individual building permits in communities such as Fairport Beach, South Rosebank and others within Pickering. And that City staff forward copies of this resolution to all City of Pickering community associations and ratepayer groups seeking appointments to this focus group. Carried 38 ATTACHMENT # 3 TO REPORT r J -IN; Legislative Services Division Clerk's Office Directive Memorandum September 13, 2017 To: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO From: Subject: Debbie Shields City Clerk Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on September 11, 2017 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 15-17 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Council Decision Resolution #345/17 1. That Council authorize staff to initiate a zoning by-law amendment to the general provisions of By-law 2511 to add a maximum building height where site specific zoning amendments do not regulate maximum building height; and 2. That Council provide pre -2018 current budget approval of $150,000 to retain consulting services to complete an "Infill•and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study" and the cost of this study be funded 50% from Development Charges and 50% from property taxes. Please take any action deemed necessary. Debbie Shields /Ir Copy: Chief Administrative Officer 39 Third Concession Road ca 0 0 Rouge Park FinchYAVenue Arriberlea jHighbush Liv repoli T'1 I• Duffin Heights Brock Ridge 1111110110 frar,r- City Centre Sheppard'Avenue-Dunbarton Rougemount Woodlands' s -i We_ stlSho_ re; U i l Focus Neighbourhoods r • Village: i East' Lake Ontario r-Brockl Industrial N cdgoi Map of the Focus Neighbourhoods File: D-1100-096 DICKERING City Development DepartmentDateC: I O r Mar. 13, 2019 B t he Corporation of the Cdy of Picke nng Produced gn part)under license from: O Queens Printer, Ontano Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.0 Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. AI rights reserved.; 8 Teranet Enlerpdees Ino. and its suppliers all rights reserved ;0 Property AssessmentCorporanon and is suppbers all rights reserved.; SCALL. I..�lO�000 I. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT #�_N ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # cession Road 'a�as y1 v� 0 Duffin Heights N d Rouge Park "Liverpool Finch Avenue 1�■ Village East Highbush Rougemount West Shore South Pickering Urban Area Ba y Ridges Lake Ontario Brock; Industrial Jim I o N PICKERING City Development Department Map of the Study Area (South Pickering Urban Area) File: D-1100-096 . Date: Mar. 13, 2019 B The Corporation of the City of Pickenng Produced (in part) under license from:0 Queens Printer, On ado Mhstry of Natural Resources. All rights resenied.,0 Her Ma(esty the Queen In Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. Al rights reserved.; 9 Teranet Ehterpdses Inc. and lis suppliers all rights mserved.; O Munidpal property Assessme nt Corporation and is supplers all rights reserved.; SCALE. 1:50, 000 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. I 14 1 ct� f DICKERING Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 07-19 Date: April 1, 2019 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, June 2018 File: D-8000-046 Recommendation: 1. That Council support the use of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, dated June 2018, as a technical guideline to determine compensation for ecosystem loss due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, when required through conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land divisions, and site plans, with the exception of tree removal that falls under the purview of the City's Tree Removal Compensation Fee; 2. That the City collect compensation for ecosystem loss due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, when required through conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land divisions, and site plans, under the circumstances set out in Table 1 in Report PLN 07-19; 3. That staff be authorized to develop a memorandum of understanding in consultation with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regarding the administration and collection of the fees and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation in terms of the Guideline; and 4. That staff be authorized to initiate an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to introduce policies that address ecosystem loss and compensation due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, on a city-wide basis. Executive Summary: This report provides information regarding the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation (the Guideline), issued in June 2018. It also contains a discussion regarding the purpose and scope of the Guideline, the principles that guide its application, its applicability, how it fits into the development approval process, and its implications for the City: The report concludes with a number of recommendations regarding the use of the Guideline, defining its relationship to the City Tree compensation practice, and requesting authorization to initiate an Official Plan Amendment to introduce policies that address ecosystem loss and compensation. 42 PLN 07-19 April 1, 2019 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation Page 2 1. Background 1A How are natural heritage systems protected? There is a strong policy framework in Ontario to protect and expand the natural heritage system. The Planning Act identifies the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions as a matter of Provincial interest. Similarly, the Provincial Policy Statement requires that the long term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems should be maintained, restored or enhanced where possible. Municipalities and other 8gencies protect these systems through various processes. Regional and local official plans designate lands as natural heritage systems where development is generally not permissible. Municipalities may pass Tree Protection By-laws to further regulate natural heritage system lands and/or the destruction of individual trees, and to establish penalties for unlawful removal of trees in the areas covered by the by-laws. Additionally, municipalities may establish compensation protocols to calculate a value for the lost feature, function, or area, and require the value to be used towards enhancing the natural heritage system in a nearby location. The Pickering Official Plan designates and provides policies to protect a robust natural heritage system. The City has passed a Tree Protection By-law in 2003 that prohibits and regulates the injuring, destruction or removal of trees within defined areas of the City. Further, the City passed Tree Inventory, Preservation and Removal Compensation Requirements in January 2018 to address the loss of trees during the development review process, with the exception of the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood, which has its own compensation agreement in place. TRCA is one of the City's partner agencies that plays a strong role in protecting and enhancing the natural heritage system through its regulatory authority, land stewardship, and as a commenting agency on development applications. The Conservation Authorities and municipalities have been continuously working together to reduce the losses to the natural heritage system through the promotion of best practices, strengthening environmental policies, education programs, and compensation requirements. 1.2 Why is a compensation guideline required? In spite of the strong policy framework, and the efforts and initiatives from the City and TRCA to protect, restore, or enhance the natural heritage system, losses to the natural heritage system and features continue to occur due to unavoidable losses associated with urbanization and infrastructure expansion. These losses may become even more apparent due to impacts associated with climate .change. In November 2014, TRCA adopted their Living City Policies. These policies, among other matters, introduced stronger policy direction regarding "compensation", defining it in the context of conservation and land use planning, as "the replacement of lost/altered ecosystem services or ecological functions". The Living Cities policies also recommended that after all other options for protection, minimization and mitigation have been exhausted, and where no other federal, provincial and municipal requirements exist to protect a natural heritage feature being impacted by development or infrastructure, that compensation for the loss of ecosystem services be provided. 43 PLN 07-19 April 1, 2019 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation Page 3 Although compensation has been partially successful in restoring natural heritage systems and ecological functions, TRCA recognized that there have been various challenges in its application. For example, these challenges include the lack of consistent standards and transparency, lengthy negotiations that delay the development approval process, and the lack of direction on selecting sites for ecological restoration. Initial discussions between TRCA and the development industry also revealed that developers would welcome the development of a transparent and standardized compensation protocol or guideline. Subsequently, TRCA investigated best practices for compensation, and produced a Draft Terrestrial Ecosystem Services Compensation Protocol in mid -2015. A consultation process followed with key stakeholders, the building industry, and municipalities. Staff, in their comments on the Draft Protocol, supported in the principle the concept of a standardized ecosystem compensation protocol and provided technical comments. Following a review of the comments received, TRCA revised the Draft Protocol, and renamed it "Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation". The TRCA Board endorsed the Guideline in June 2018 and directed TRCA staff to work with municipalities and public agencies to implement it, recognizing their distinct regulatory frameworks. The Guideline is posted on TRCA's website and can be accessed via the following link: https://trca.ca/app/uploads/2018/07/TRCA-Guideline-for-Determininq-Ecosystem- Compensation-June-2018.pdf. 2. The purpose and scope of the Guideline? The Guideline was developed in support of TRCA's Living City Policies. The Guideline provides direction for compensation in a consistent and transparent manner, after it has been decided through a planning, environmental assessment and/or permit process, that the impact on a natural heritage feature cannot be avoided, minimized or mitigated. The Guideline determines requirements for replacing the natural features and related functions that are lost to development or infrastructure. It deals with the loss of the feature and the land base associated with the ecosystem function. Other important aspects that have been clarified by the Guideline are the following: • the roles of the parties (TRCA, municipalities, and proponents) • the applicability of the Compensation Guideline, specifically with regard to the type of features and how it relates to other replacement tools, and • the method to determine the compensation amount, and the simplification thereof. TRCA will be regularly reporting to their Board on the status of compensation projects undertaken by, TRCA, financial bookkeeping, and project monitoring results. 3. Principles that guide its application The following seven principles help guide the application and implementation of the Guideline: • Compensation must be considered only as a last resort within the established mitigation hierarchy of: Avoid, Minimize, Mitigate, Compensate. 44 PLN 07-19 April 1, 2019 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation Page 4 • The compensation process should be transparent,, helping to ensure accountability of all parties involved. • The compensation process should strive to be consistent and replicable. • Compensation outcomes should strive to fully replace the same level of lost ecosystem structure and function in proximity to where the loss occurs, and where possible, achieve an overall gain. • Compensation should be directed to on -the -ground ecosystem restoration and be informed by strategic watershed and restoration planning. • Implementation of compensation should be completed promptly so that ecosystem functions are re-established as soon as possible after (or even before) losses occur. • The compensation process should use an adaptive management approach incorporating monitoring, tracking, and evaluation to gauge success and inform program improvements. 4. The Applicability of the Guideline The Guideline contains a comprehensive overview of its applicability. The Guideline: • applies to all new applications or project undertakings that come before TRCA on or after June 22, 2018, and to any existing applications or project undertakings before TRCA that have not received approval as of June 22, 2018; • applies to all cases where money is directed to TRCA, through an agreement, to implement ecosystem restoration andconservation land securement; • applies to any natural feature (e.g., woodlands, wetlands, thickets and meadows) that has been determined through the review of development applications, infrastructure or TRCA permits, to require compensation; • does not apply to street trees or trees in parks that are not associated with natural features; • requires compensation be applied to re-establish natural ecosystems; • is not intended for the provision or improvement of engineered green infrastructure, such as green roofs; • does not contain stipulations for determining compensation for the loss of fish habitat and defers to provincial and federal ministries; • recognizes and supports other compensation programs such as municipal by-laws for tree replacement; • stipulates that TRCA will continue to support other compensation programs by providing technical guidance and coordinating with municipal staff to avoid duplication, and to assist in the development of new or updated by-laws, as needed; • acknowledges that municipalities may have enabling policies in their official plans regarding compensation, in which case the Guideline may be used as technical guidance in implementing such policies; and • recognizes that municipalities may have their own unique approach to compensation, and may wish to adapt the Guideline to their own needs. 45 PLN 07-19 April 1, 2019 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation Page 5 5. How does Compensation fit into a development or infrastructure approval process? Figure 1 (contained in the Guideline) and provided as Attachment #1 to Report PLN 07-19, illustrates how compensation might fit into the current review and approval process for development applications and infrastructure. The figure illustrates that the Guideline is a tool that is used by TRCA, in cooperation with the municipality, once a decision has been made that ecosystem loss is unavoidable. 6. What are the implications for the City? In answering this question, it is important to first point out the mechanisms or regulatory means the City currently uses to request compensation. a. The Pickering Official Plan The Official Plan contains a number of policies on the subject of compensation, which pertain only to a few specific geographic areas in the City and to major infrastructure projects. While the principle of compensation is already embedded in the Official Plan, the current policies regarding compensation are specific to only infrastructure expansions, certain urban neighbourhoods and certain natural heritage features, and do not directly address ecosystem loss and compensation due to development impacts, .on a city-wide basis. Nonetheless, policy 2.5.a) of the Plan states that critical ecological functions and components should be protected from inappropriate human uses and activities. The City consults and collaborates with TRCA and the development industry to seek favorable outcomes where these functions and components cannot be protected through the unavoidable loss of key natural heritage .or key hydrologic features due to development or infrastructure impacts. Yet, the absence of City-wide policies in relation to ecosystem loss and compensation leaves a policy void. This void can hamper the City and TRCA's efforts to achieve shared objectives for a connected and robust natural heritage system and to reach a satisfactory level of compensation. A more complete policy framework on ecosystem loss and compensation will create a level playing field and a greater degree of consistency for all development proposals in the City, irrespective of the geographic area in the City or the type of natural feature impacted. It is therefore recommended that new enabling policies be developed for the Pickering Official Plan, providing a stronger basis for collaboration between parties and to achieve consistent and fair compensation. With respect to municipal infrastructure projects, the Guideline acknowledges that such projects may face challenges. The Guidelines stipulate that TRCA will work with municipalities to explore offsetting losses to the natural heritage system through such means as ecological restoration and enhancement programs. 46 PLN 07-19 April 1, 2019 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation Page 6 b. Council's Tree Protection By-law and Compensation Practice Council has a Tree Protection By-law (6108/03) in place. It prohibits and regulates the removal of trees within defined areas of the City (within shoreline and stream corridors, wetlands and environmentally significant areas identified in Schedule III of the Pickering Official Plan, and areas within 30 metres on lands adjacent thereto), subject to certain exemptions such as woodlots that are governed by By-law #031-2012 of the Regional Municipality of Durham. A person who wishes to remove a tree within the defined area, must apply for a permit to do so. The provisions of the City's By-law does not apply to the removal of trees imposed as a condition to the approval of a site plan, a plan of subdivision or consent, or any agreement entered into to that effect. In order to formalize the City's tree removal compensation practice when required by conditions of draft plan of subdivision, zoning, land division or site plan approval, the Council adopted a compensation fee for tree removal in January 2018. Tree compensation is one of the tools used by the City to implement the policies in the Pickering Official Plan regarding the protection, restoration, management and expansion of the City's urban forest. The scope of this policy is limited to "tree removal", and does not extend to the loss of ecosystem functions and the associated land base. In a manner similar to TRCA's Compensation Guideline, the priority for compensation is replacement plantings on the development site. If there is insufficient room for these plantings on site, it may take place on other publicly owned lands in proximity to the development site. If there is insufficient space to plant all the trees required for compensation, the City may take cash -in -lieu to be used for tree planting initiatives within a neighbouring community, if possible. Prior to TRCA's Compensation Guideline and Council's adoption of a Tree Compensation fee, the decision on who collects the compensation for tree loss was often part of a negotiation process between TRCA and the City. Any compensation in relation to other ecosystem losses was mainly a matter TRCA took up with developers, but in the absence of a formal compensation guideline, there was confusion and uncertainty as to when, why and how compensation should be collected. Hence, the need for the Guideline. In order to: clarify the application of the City's Tree Removal Compensation fee in relation to the Guideline; distinguish the type and location of the features for which compensation is required; and to prevent any duplication of compensation efforts, staff recommends the following approach: 47 PLN 07-19 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation April 1, 2019 Page 7 Table 1 Location of feature What features and/or ecosystem functions? Authority/Tool Within the City of Pickering (outside TRCA's regulatory area), through a City condition of site plan approval, draft plan of subdivision, zoning, or land division Individual trees Council's adopted Tree Removal Compensation Fee, and the Pickering Official Plan Within the City of Pickering (outside TRCA's regulatory area), through a City condition of site plan approval, draft plan of subdivision, zoning, or land division Woodlands, areas of natural and scientific interest, and other non-regulated features, and their related ecosystem functions, (which could include the associated land base) TRCA's Guideline, and the Pickering Official Plan Within the City of Pickering (inside TRCA's regulatory area), through TRCA permit process, a condition of site plan approval, draft plan of subdivision, zoning, or land division Individual trees Council's adopted Tree Removal Compensation Fee, and the Pickering Official Plan Within the City of Pickering (inside TRCA's regulatory area), through TRCA permit process, a condition of site plan approval, draft plan of subdivision, zoning, or land division Woodlands, wetlands, valley lands, shorelines, areas of natural and scientific interest, and their related ecosystem functions, (which could include the associated land base) TRCA's Guideline, and the Pickering Official Plan To advance the implementation of the Guideline in accordance with the table above, staff will be developing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in consultation with TRCA with respect to matters such as the administration and collection of fees, and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation in accordance with the Guideline. Once the MOU has been developed, it will be presented to Council for endorsement. 7. Conclusion Acknowledging and strengthening of the natural heritage system and its functions through a more holistic, integrated approach to compensation is important for the health and sustainability of the watc:rshr,ds and the ecosystem in the City. 48 PLN 07-19 April 1, 2019 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation Page 8 TRCA's Compensation Guideline: sets consistent standards and a transparent process in place; creates a greater level of predictability; clarifies the roles of all parties; leads to shorter negotiations and development approval timelines; and puts in place a strategic site selection method for ecological restoration. To ensure consistent application of the Guideline and coordination with the City's current compensation practices, staff recommends that: • Council support the use of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, dated June 2018, as a technical guideline to determine compensation for ecosystem loss due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, when required through conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land divisions, and site plans, with the exception of tree removal that falls under the purview of the City's Tree Removal Compensation Fee; • the City collect compensation for ecosystem Toss due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, when required through conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land divisions, and site plans, as illustrated in Table 1 in Report PLN 07-19; • Council authorize staff to develop a memorandum of understanding in consultation with TRCA regarding the administration and collection of the fees and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation in terms of the Guideline; and • Council authorize staff to initiate an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to introduce policies that address ecosystem loss and compensation due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, on a city-wide basis. This report was prepared in consultation with TRCA and the City's Engineering Services Department. Attachment 1 Figure 1: Compensation and Review and Approval Processes 49 PLN 07-19 April 1, 2019 • Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation Page 9 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: n Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Arnold Mostert, OALA Senior Coordinator, Landscape & Parks Development DJ:Id Chief Planner yle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO. Rich Holb•rn, P. Eng. Director, Engineering services Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 50 ATTACHMENT #__ 1 TO REPORT # ALIS 4 7-19 Figure 1: Compensation and Review and Approval Processes m "I < m m mIn a� Z ✓ tn u1 • „ .uo O 0 a� rm 73 Ow N N in = In0 PRIVATE LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AVOID MINIMIZE MITIGATE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE UNDERTAKINGS If there remains unavoidable Toss TRCA COMPENSATION GUILDELINE Determine Compensation How much compensation is required to address loss Apply Compensation Stakeholder agreements, Implementation plans and actions Track Compensation Document decisions and actions Guideline is separate from other off -setting requirements but may be influenced or replaced by them Other public agency off -setting requirements M r � Restoration Opportunities Strategic direction on restoration locations and design TRCA Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation Page 4 . 51