HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformation Report 09-09INFORMATION REPORT NO. 09-09
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF
November 2, 2009
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS
OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13
SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment —A 18/09
2121401 Ontario Limited (V!VA Retirement Living Corp.)
1884 Glengrove Road
(Lots 42, 43, 44 and Part of Service Road, Plan 509)
City of Pickering
1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
the subject property is located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road
and Glengrove Road and is approximately 0.77 hectares in area (see
Attachment #1);
one vacant, detached, 11/2 -storey brick dwelling, one vacant, detached
bungalow, a single detached garage and several small storage sheds
currently occupy the site. The structures are proposed to be demolished in
the course of the development of the site;
the surrounding land uses are:
north - one and two storey residential dwellings;
south - Kingston Road and a 16 -storey apartment building;
west - a veterinary clinic and 4 -storey stacked townhouses;
east - a medical building housing a chiropractic centre and spa.
2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
the applicant has requested to amend the zoning by-law to permit a 135 unit
rental retirement residence on the subject lands (see Applicant's Submitted
Plan — Attachment #2);
01
Information Report No. 09-09 Page 2
U L
- the proposed flat -roofed, 6 -storey building, stepping to 4 -storeys on the north
and southwest sides; will consist of 31 assisted daily living (ADL) units and
104 independent living (IL) dwelling units;
the proposed building is to be located at the south and southeast section of
the subject property in close proximity to Kingston Road;
- living units will be located on the second through sixth floors;
the ADL units will provide a higher level of supervised support and care;
the ADL units will be approximately 31.5 square metres to 50 square metres
while the IL units will be approximately 42.7 square metres to 81.7 square
metres in size;
communal eating facilities will be provided and none of the living units will be
outfitted with. cook -tops or ovens;
first floor facilities include: day care for 25 to 30 children, administrative
offices, and a variety of amenities, restricted to residents only, including cafe
and lounge areas activity lounges, library and gym, craft room, hair salon/spa
treatment room, heated salt -water swimming pool;
- a theatre will be located in the basement;
outdoor facilities will include play facilities for the day care, walking paths and
a garden area;
- surface parking for 69 cars.
3.0 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING
3.1 Provincial Growth Plan
Places to Grow, the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe, identifies the Pickering Town Centre Neighbourhood as an Urban
Growth Centre;
Urban Growth Centres are to be planned as focal areas for investment in
institutional and region -wide public services, as well as commercial,
recreational, cultural and entertainment uses to accommodate a significant
share of population and employment growth;
the required review of the Pickering Official Plan (to bring it into conformity
with Places to Grow) may result in changes to the boundaries, designations,
prescribed densities, and other policies pertaining to the subject and other
properties along Kingston Road;
3.2 Durham Regional Official Plan
the Regional Plan designates the subject property Urban System - Regional
Centre;
Urban System - Regional Centres are to be planned and developed as the
main concentrations of urban activities within area municipalities, providing a
full array of community, office service and shopping, recreational and
residential uses;
- the proposal complies with the Durham Regional Official Plan;
Information Report No. 09-09
3.3 Pickering Official Plan
Page 3
- the City of Pickering Official Plan designates most of the subject property
Mixed -Use Area — Downtown Core. (Town Centre Neighbourhood) and the
northern portion of the property as Urban Residential Area — Low Density
(Liverpool Neighbourhood);
- the Downtown Core/Town Centre Neighbourhood is intended primarily for
residential, retail, community, cultural and recreational uses at the greatest
scale and intensity in the City, serving City-wide and regional levels;
- Urban Residential Area — Low Density (Liverpool Neighbourhood) areas are
intended for residential uses, home occupations, limited offices serving the
area, and limited retailing of goods and services serving the area; community,
cultural and recreational uses; compatible employment uses, and compatible
special purpose commercial uses serving the area;
- the Liverpool. Neighbourhood policies require that Council recognize the
proximity of its low intensity development relative to the Town Centre
Neighbourhood and accordingly, consider the concerns of the nearby
residents in the Liverpool Neighbourhood when considering development
proposals, for lands in the Town Centre;
- the facility is considered to be a Community Use, as the residents will be
relying on a central kitchen facility for their meals. This use is permitted in
both land use designations;
- no density provisions apply to community facilities; however, the permitted
floor space index (FSI) (total building floor space divided by the total lot area)
for properties within the Downtown Core is up to and including 3.0 FSI. The
proposal has an FSI of 1.56. Restrictions on size, height and/or floorspace of
non-residential developments should be considered within Urban Residential
Areas where neighbourhood character and/or environmental constraints
warrant;
- the Compendium Document to the Pickering Official Plan contains
development guidelines affecting the lands. Through the rezoning and site
plan approval process the proposal will be reviewed to ensure overall
conformity with the principles contained within the Kingston Road Corridor
Urban Design Development Guidelines and the Pickering Downtown Core
Development Guidelines;
- the proposal complies with the Pickering Official Plan;
3.4 Zoning By-law 3036
- the subject property is currently zoned "R3" — Detached Dwelling, Third
Density Zone;
- the existing zoning permits single detached dwellings;
- an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to allow the development of
the proposed retirement home;
- the applicant has requested an appropriate zone that would permit the
proposed development.
Information Report No. 09-09
4.0
4.1
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
PRE -SUBMISSION COMMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE
Resident Comments
Page 4
- a neighbourhood open house was hosted by the owners and applicant on
June 17, 2009;
- 25 neighbourhood residents and property owners attended;
- concerns were raised in regard to traffic, school busses, property values,
fencing, adequacy of proposed number of parking spaces, services and site
grading, possible future expansion, the provision of day care, availability of
medical consultation, the Kingston Road sidewalk location, issues with snow
ploughing on Kingston Road and Glengrove Road;
- subsequent to the meeting, the Planning & Development Department
received a written submission from Dr. Donald E. Roden, owner of Sheridan
Veterinary Services, abutting the subject property on the west, outlining
concerns regarding traffic congestion and an opportunity for shared access,
parking adequacy, building height, building location, loss of existing
vegetation, the density of the proposal and loss of visual exposure of his clinic
building (see letter Attachment #3).
RESULTS OF CIRCULATION
Resident Comments
- none received in response to the circulation to date;
Agency Comments
- none received to date;
City Department Comments
in reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been
identified by the City's Stormwater & Environmental Engineer:
no objection to the rezoning; however, detailed review of and adjustment
to stormwater management design factors will be required prior to site plan
approval (see memo, Attachment #4)
Staff Comments
in reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been
identified by staff for further review and consideration:
• reviewing the studies, reports and plans submitted in support of the
application;
• ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with and sensitive
to existing surrounding development, including traffic, noise, level of
activity, scale and intensity of the uses;
Information Report No. 09-09
Page 5
05
• resident and neighbouring owner concerns;
• reviewing the application in terms of its level of sustainable development
components;
• reviewing the application in terms of the constraints and benefits the
proposed use will have on both the subject property and on the
surrounding community, given the function of the surrounding community;
• reviewing that adequate information has been provided, that technical
requirements are met and that the proposed development is appropriate at
this location;
• finalizing the conveyance of the portion of the service road right-of-way
north of Kingston Road to the applicant for development in conjunction
with the subject property.
6.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
- written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning
& Development Department;
- oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting;
- all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report
prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent
meeting of Council or a Committee of Council;
- if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must
provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this
proposal;
- if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you
must request such in writing to the City Clerk.
7.0 OTHER INFORMATION
7.1 Appendix No. I
list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City
Departments that have comments on the applications at the time of writing
report;
7.2 Information Received
copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at the
offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department:
Conclusions summarized here are for information purposes only. Further
review and staff/agency comments are still required.
outline of Sustainable Initiatives (comments required from City and Region
Engineering)
•
'outlines the provision of a variety of small-scale initiatives; staff may
recommend additional initiatives through the course of more detailed
review;
Information Report No. 09-09
Planning Analysis Report (comments required
Engineering)
• concludes that the proposal is appropriate,
planning;
Page 6
from City and Region
desirable and represents good
- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (comments required from City and
Region Engineering)
• indicates no evidence of past, potentially harmful activities nor any
subsoil/groundwater contamination and no further environmental
investigation is warranted at this time;
Limited -scope Phase II Environmental Site Investigation (comments required
from City and Region Engineering)
• confirms suitability of the subject property for human habitation. No
further environmental study is warranted at this time;
Parking and Traffic Study (comments required from City and Region
Engineering)
estimates maximum peak parking demand to be 31 spaces. The study
concludes that the increase in site traffic will not have any significant effect
on traffic operations at intersections or on roadways in the area except
that the southbound movement during the afternoon rush-hour will operate
with an acceptable, rather than good, level of service. Improvements to
the intersections of Glengrove Road, Glenview Road and Kingston Road,
including possible right turn lane, the provision of stop lines and centre-
line tail pavement markings, would improve operations;
Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report (comments
required from City and Region Engineering)
• finds that all utilities are available to service the site, an on-site
stormceptor and rooftop and parking lot detention will provide quality and
quantity control of the site -related stormwater;
- Environmental Noise Analysis (comments required from City and Region
Engineering)
• determines that maximum permitted indoor noise levels can be achieved
by using appropriate construction materials and methods and by providing
air conditioning to the suites. The areas of the outdoor amenity spaces
(including the area of the outdoor day care play area) will experience
sound exposures below the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) criterion
limit. With proper engineering design, all requirements for mechanical
equipment interfacing to the outdoors can be designed to comply with the
MOE noise guideline limits. Additional road traffic generated by the
proposal will be insignificant relative to existing traffic volumes in the
general area, and is not expected to create adverse noise impact;
Information Report No. 09-09
Page 7
07
Shadow Studies A901 —A904 (comments required from City and Region
Engineering)
• concludes that some overshadowing of residential properties lying to the
north and northeast will only occur between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM in
early winter. No overshadowing of residential properties will occur
between 9:00 am and sunset throughout spring, summer and early fall
seasons;
- Site Plan; (comments required from City and Region Engineering);
- Elevations A-301 —A-304; (comments required from City and Region
Engineering);
- Site Grading and Servicing Concept; (comments required from City and
Region Engineering);
- Plan of Survey (comments required from City and Region Engineering);
- Landscape Plan (comments required from City and Region Engineering);
7.3 Company Principal
the owner of the subject property is 2121401 Ontario Inc. (V!VA Retirement
Living Corp.);
Freeman Planning Solutions Inc. (Rob Freeman) is the applicant.
Aiw�Lp�
Isa JI III Plan a II
IJ:jf
Attachments
Copy: Director, Planning & Development
--
Lynda aylor
Manager, Development Review
M
APPENDIX NO. I TO
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 09-09
COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS
(1) Dr. Roden, Sheridan Veterinary Services— 1398 Kingston Road
COMMENTING AGENCIES
(1) none received to date
COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS
(1) Planning & Development Department — Development Control
ATTACHMENT#_ATO
INFORtJlATION REPORT# 09-"q 09
_- ����� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
MWEN
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
�_ _1111
� ��
�_�
e
•
-
�_
� �
sl�lllllllll
.
_1111111
NEW
11IIIIIIII ����0.���.
11111111111111111�'��
��
-IIIIIP o •t
/�����
�•
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
i1»rri
��
p :1111:
►1111111_1111111111111111111111►si����
••'
ii1i1111111111111111111►���
�
� �'
\\\
S
1
\ ••
•
i
ATTACHMENT# 2 TO
INFORMATION REPORT# 2 -09
0 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS
SUBMITTED PLAN
A 18/09
2121401 ONTARIO LTD.(VIVA RETIREMENT RESIDENCE)
3
-
I
Q
=
EK
>
M1RE{O�OI�REY4RS gREY
00 FF�
0
p
RRBu SYSk d9
LLJ
p
q
o
J
Ur
E�
6 STOREY ROOF a
z 7^
a I
-- 1 STOREY ROOF
Y110.`
ML WINYSE
q x.
§ RETIREMENT OOMMONITY
VV
Cor 2�Tcll
S. \ 899
A STOREY ROOF
/ PO
O
THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED DG THE CRY OF PICKERING..
PLWNING & OEYEEOPMENT DEPARTMENF.
INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERWCES,
OCT 6, 2009
27 July 2009
SHERIDAN��"""�Fmw#
VETERINARY
SERVICES
Lynda D. Taylor
Manager, Development Review
Planning and Development Department
City Of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7
Dear Ms. Taylor:
1398 Kingston Road, Pickering, ON L1V 1B9
Tel: (905) 839-7061 (905) 831-1131
Re: VIVA Development Proposal
Thank you for extending to me the opportunity to meet with you on the 26th of June. I found the
discussion with you and staff members Mila and Isa productive and want to express my appreciation to
you for addressing my questions and concerns pertaining to the proposed VIVA retirement development
in the Kingston Road and Glengrove Road area in Pickering.
The concerns expressed at the public meeting were primarily as follows:
• TRAFFIC CONGESTION at Kingston Road and Glengrove Road;
• PARKING and the questions concerning adequacy for staff, residents, guests and delivery
vehicles;
• HEIGHT and its effect on neighbouring homes and businesses;
• LOCATION of the building on the property and its proximity to property lines; and the resulting
impact on neighbouring homes, businesses and roadways;
• FOLIAGE as it relates to protection of existing trees, particularly where they help separate
boundaries and thus lessen the impact on neighbouring properties and roadways.
As requested, I am putting my questions and concerns in writing. I trust that you will appreciate in
reading this overview that the depth of my concern is significant.
ATTACHMENT#—I.:M
1 INMRMATION REPORT*
In preparation for this letter, I visited and studied the following:
• The site itself and the surrounding properties;
• The nature, impact and style of all present buildings along Kingston Road;
• The ambitious future model of the Pickering downtown core, which the Province of Ontario has
recognized as an, Urban Growth Centre in the greater golden horseshoe; an area where high
density, mixed use development and infrastructure investment is highlighted. The model did
reveal new structures located close to roadways and further that buildings greater than two
stories high should be tiered or set back to lessen he overcrowding impact along the major
roadways, thereby enhancing the visual impact for the entire Pickering community;
• Hollandview Trail (photographs enclosed) for comparative information and additional
retirement facilities to help me assess how, in my view, this type of proposed structure would
impact the neighbouring properties.
In an objective manner, I would like to comment on the questions and concerns expressed. I will do so
in the order set out earlier:
• ' TRAFFIC CONGESTION: In 1984, when the gully or swale was created along the north side of
Kingston Road between Glengrove Road and Glenanna Road, discussions were held about
access to my property at 1398 Kingston Road, the VIVA project property, then owned by
McLeod, and the City of Pickering property (adjacent'to and fronting on Kingston Road). It was
concluded then that traffic matters would best be addressed when redevelopment was being
planned and in particular, that a mutually shared access or entrance should be considered at
that time. As I stated during our session, I am willing to consider a mutual entrance to the two
properties from Kingston Road, on a realistic dollar basis. This new entrance could perhaps be
located at a greater distance from Glenanna Road which would In turn improve traffic flow and
enhance pedestrian safety concerns, while at the same time addressing some concerns
expressed about traffic congestion at the intersection of Glengrove Road and Kingston Road. I
would reiterate here that any cost sharing would have to be realistic for me to consider this
option and the location would have to be positive for all of the concerned parties.
• PARKING: I do perceive from my general observations that the proposed parking area appears
adequate for most occasions, especially if all VIVA staff knew and agreed that on street parking
for staff on the secondary roads was not permitted. Still, parking. represents 25% of the land
surface and if one utilized underground parking for residents and staff, this would have a
significant positive impact on the options for height issues, structure location on the property
and impact on existing foliage.
ATTACHMENT# 3 TO
INFORMATION REPORT# 0 9 0 2 13
• HEIGHT: If there were less surface parking, the building's footprint could be larger, without
lessening the green space area, so that the height of the building could be lowered without
impacting the density. Ideally, with tiered levels, the visual impact for the community would be
improved as well as the specific visual impact from both Kingston Road and Glengrove Road.
• LOCATION OF THE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY: With less surface parking, it would allow more
flexibility in locating a more typically balanced location from the property lines, thereby
lessening the height impact and improving the visual impression from all directions.
• FOLIAGE: Less surface parking provides a greater opportunity to retain more sizeable foliage.
This would negate the necessity of replanting and taking more time for growth. This in turn
would provide the necessary foliage barrier to lessen the visual impact of the new building.
DENSITY: One could ask whether the density would become too great if the proposed
development were to proceed. Perhaps the developer should consider purchasing additional
property, especially since the land fronting on Glengrove Road immediately to the north is
currently listed for sale. Clearly, this would permit more flexibility to properly address all of the
issues on the agenda, especially to lower the density and thereby control the negative impact.
I have set out to this point, from a layman's perspective, what I feel should be reasonable planning
concerns and I have outlined several options. Obviously though, this it is not simply an objective,
altruistic exercise for me. I have personal concerns that drive these comments.
I graduated in 1971 from the Ontario Veterinary College in Guelph. In 1977, 1 began practicing at the
rear of the Hub Plaza and expanded in size at that location as additional space became available. In
1992,1 made the significant business and subsequent financial investment in relocating to 1398 Kingston
Road. This move was undertaken for a number of reasons, among which were the following:
• Greater size to assist in growth;
• Improved exposure to assist in growth;
• Better control of my financial destiny.
At the present time, those goals have been achieved.
When I started my practice in Pickering in 1977,1 had the only veterinary practice in the east end of
Pickering. Since that time, business competition has increased dramatically and by locating to 1398
Kingston Road, I placed myself in a favourable competitive position. It is an obvious current goal to
retain that business edge by continuing to grow the business at its current location.
ATTACHMENT#.ATO
INFORMATION REPORT-11
My belief in the value of my building is captured clearly in the yellow pages, on my business cards, my
letterhead and envelopes. I feel that it gives me a competitive advantage and therefore, any change
that negatively impacts my exposure will be financially detrimental to me and my staff. All of us are
concerned and anxious that a towering structure to be constructed so close to Kingston Road and our lot
line will have a very negative impact on the image that we have been trying to sustain and improve
upon. from my perspective, my Pickering practice and the real estate form the primary foundation of
my financial planning for retirement, which can only be negatively impacted if the draft plan is approved
as presented.
I know that no one should have the right to control forever how adjacent properties are used or
developed. I recognize the value of municipal planning that attempts to define a strategic and well
developed overall planning strategy. But the VIVA proposal that, with the city s assistance, will allow it
to virtually build to the street line has a direct impact on my business that is dramatic and harmful.
I believe that in the planning proposals, there is the opportunity to ameliorate the negative impact on
my location and my business and in closing, I would encourage the city to explore all of the alternatives.
I await with eager anticipation the discussions and ideas that evolve ahead. I feel confident the planning
process will bring with it some sound decisions that will overcome the concerns addressed in this letter.
Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to outline my thoughts. I trust that I will be informed
of each and every step along the way and that the best interests of the Pickering community will prevail.
Yours very truly,
Donald E. Roden, DVM
Cc: Regional Councillor, Rick Johnson
CC: Councillor David Pickles
CC: Robert P. Morton, Solicitor
To: Isa James
Planner II
ATTACHMENTOL/ To
From: Marilee Gadzovski
Stormwater & Environmental Engineer
Copy: Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering
Manager, Development Control
Subject: Rezoning Application A18/09
Viva Retirement Living
Glengrove Drive
City of Pickering
File: 0-4100
1 5.
MEMO
October 7, 2009
I have reviewed the Stormwater Management Report for the above -noted rezoning application
and have no objection to the rezoning. However, as the report was quite detailed and will most
likely be proceeding to site plan stage very shortly, I.offer the following comments that need to be
addressed for the Site Plan Application.
Section 4.3 states that the allowable release rates for the site were calculated based on a pre -
development runoff coefficient of 0.45 and a 10 min. rainfall intensity: The assumption for the
runoff coefficient is not valid given the current hard surfaces of the three residential lots.
Moreover, these 3 lots are not typical residential lots as they are extremely large and do not
exhibit an imperviousness of 36% (equivalent to C of 0.45). Measurements from the aerial
photography estimated (very generously) that the current hard surfaces are only approximately
6% of the total site area. Given this, the allowable release rates need to recalculated to accurately
reflect existing conditions. A pre -development runoff coefficient of 0.25 should be utilized, which
will result in more water quantity storage required.
In addition to the above, the time to peak of the pre -development peak flow should be estimated
from the Airport Formula or equivalent method and not assumed as 10 min. This.site is entire
undeveloped (except for two houses) and is drained by overland flow not directly connected to the
storm sewer. A quick check confirmed that a time to peak of approximately 21.82 min. was
obtained.
Given the extent of the seriousness of the downstream flooding concerns within the Krosno Creek
watershed, it very important to accurately reflect existing conditions, which will directly impact
the amount of post -development storage that is required.
Consideration should be given to take the clean roof runoff (or at least partial) into the proposed
infiltration trench instead of directly connecting it to the storm sewer. Please ensure that there is a
provision of an overflow from the proposed infiltration trench back to the storm sewer system.