Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 13, 2002PICKERING AGENDA PLANNING COMMITTEE Anne Greentree Supervisor, Legislative Services MAY 13, 2002 5/6/2002 11:(}'~ ~! F?,"£~: BEELTD 4164~99933 Dor~ E~L Er,t~ssuzses Ltd TO: 90~ 420-764~ PAGE: 002 OF 002 864 Midland Point Road Midland, ON L4R 5G2 'lelephone: 705-526 0146 fax: 705 526-0363 Don Eri Enterprises Ltd. Cell: 416-316 9933 31 Ben Stanton Bird, Toronto, ON Mill 1N7 Voice 416-438-2326 Fax 416-43%9933 May 6. 2002 Attention: Linda Taylor, MCIP, RPP Managg Current O~perations Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Picketing, ON L1V 6K7 Re: Zonin, Ag Eplication Al8-01 Dear Linda Taylor, I respectfully request a deferment o[ our appearance at the upconiing Planning Conmfittee Hearing on Monday May 1'~ ' ' ~ Nix' clients have engaged the services ol'a Plam~er. Mr. vM~thonv Biglieri o£the Biglieri ~oup, we require time until the next scheduled Planning Conmfitlee I tearing so as to allou' Mr. Biglieri an opporluni~y lo t'amiliari×e himself with this application. Please acknowledge if this request is acceptable to the Planning Conmfitlee and your office to the above Toronto numbers, 416-438-2326 Fax 416-439-9933 Sincerely, cc A. Biglieri S. Mastrofillo F. Mastrorillo File Ross Pyro, MCIP. RPP 5/7/2002 !1:56 AH FROM: DEELTD 4164399933 Don Eu~ Ente:Tulses Ltd Ti,: 9~25-410 7648 PAGE: 002 OF 864 Midland Point Road Midland, ON L4R 5G2 '1 (!lephone: 70.~526d)146 705 526-0363 Don Eri Enterprises Ltd. Cell: 416 316 9933 31 Ben Stanton Bird, Toronto, ON Mltl Voice 416~438 2326 Fax 416-439 9933 May 7, 2002 Attention: Mr. Neil Carroll, MCIP, RPP Director, Plamfing & Development Picketing Civic Complex (')ne The Esplanade Picketing, ON I,l V 6K7 Dear Mr. Can-oil: Re: Re- Zoning_Ap_pA lication # Al8-01 Revision /alter further consultation with the client and their plam~er Mr. A. Biglieri we respectfully request our original application -~ :\18-01 to amend the zoning Bylaw submiUed by Mr. & Mrs. F 8: J Nlastrorillo on lands being Lol :: (2). Plan # 473, Municipally knoxvn as 1495 Rosebank Road lo alloxx for a building containing (4) dwelling units. The primaU' dxx elling unit for thc property oxxner on the main and upper floors and (3) basement dxx elling units. Be revised lo allow tbr a building containing (2) dwelling units consisting of the primao' dxvelling unit for the property o~ner on the main and upper floors and (1) basement dxvelling unit. Il has been stated in the Plamfing Director's Report --14-02. "Planning Staff would be supportive ora revised a_E,plication to introduce one (1) additional dwelling unit in the existing dwelling." My clients are revising their initial Zomng Bv-Laxv ,&nendment application # :5 18-01 to accept this revision as stated March 26, 2002 report PD 14-02 Page 5, Para. 1 ... 2 CITY ,iD, , ~ .... 5/7/2002 1!:56 A~ FROM: DEELTD 4164399933 Don Ell Enterprises Ltd TO: %(:~ {20--64~ PAGE: 003 OF Page 2 We ask this amendment be feiNTed back to Slafl' xvith the appropriate conditions for approval, Sincerely. CC A. Biglieri, B.~M4 Plam~er S. Mastrorillo F. Mas~rorillo File Linda Taylor. XICIP. RPP Manager Ross Pyro. XICIP. RPP Principal Planner Maurice Brenner. Councillor. \Vard 1 Planning Conuninee GD:gd ttq o~ ~ P!CKERiNG Planning Committee Meeting Monday, May 13, 2002 ?:30 P.M. Chair: Councillor Johnson ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of March 18. 2002 (!I) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION PAGE PIiANNING & DEVELOPNIENI' REI)()R'I PD 21-02 REVISED OFFICIAI~ PLAN .,XNIENDMENT :XPPI.IC:X'I'ION OPA 99-004/P(R) REVISED ZON~G BY-LAW AMENDMENI APPLICATION A 22/99(R) PICKERING HARBOUR COMPANY PART OF LOT o' ' _o. ~NGE o. B.F.C. (I...XNDS ON THE WEST SIDE OF LIVERPOOL ROAD. AND 5OUTtt SIDE OF WHARF STREET) -AND- ZONING BY-LA'¢,' :\NIENDNIi~N l' :\t>Pi_IC.NTI()N ..\ 13 l il PICKERING HARBOUR COSIt)AN (COOLWATER FARMS PROPERTY) PART OF LOT 22, RANGE 3. B.F.C. ti.ANDS ON THE EAST SIDE ()F ANI) SOUTH OF WItARF STREET) 1-90 PI.ANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 23-02 NORTHEAST QUADRANT REVIE\V: FINAL REPORT PROPOSED OFFICIAL PL:\N AS1ENDMENT REVISED NORTHEAST Q~, 'ADR:XNT DEX'ELOPMENT GUIDELINES 91-160 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 24-02 PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN .,\NIEN[)NIEN-I' ()PA 01-{)()2 P ZONING BY-LAW AMENDNIENT APPLIC..VFI()N :\ 04 ()1 MARION HILL DEVELOPMENT CORP()RATION PART LOT 28, RANGE 3. B.F.C. (NOW PART 1, PLAN 14431 & PART 1. PI..\\ 4()R-2767) (SOUTH-EAST CORNER OF WHITES R()AI)AND SIIEPt'ARD :\VENI 161-219 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 20-02 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 03/02 SEAN AND ANN REGAN 1911 VALLEY FARM ROAD PART OF LOT 20, CONCESSION 1 220-245 Planning Committee Meeting Monday, May 13, 2002 7:30 P.M. Chair: Councillor Johnson PLANNING & I)EVELOPhlEN I' REPORT PD ZONING BY-LAW AMENI)MI!NI ~\PPL1C:\TI(~)N 138, 1190 ONTARIO LIMITED BLOCK T. PLAN NIl5 7(tl 711 KROSNO B()UI~t~V:\RD 246-270 PLANNING & DE\:ELOPMENT RI~P()R'I' f)D 14-02 ZONING BY-LAW :\.MEND*lENT APPLIC.\TI()N .\ 1801 FRANK MASTR()RILL() LOT 2. PLAN 473 1495 ROSEBANK ROAD 271-295 PI~.\NNING & DEVELOPNIENT REP()RT PD 17-02 ZONING BY-I.:\\V AMENDNIEN1 At)PI IC..\TION :X 26 (~1 689629 ONTARIO LIMITED 420 SHEPPARD AVENUf( SOUTH PART OF L()T 32. CONCESSI()N I. (PART 2. PLAN 40R-17618~ 296-333 Ct lIEF ADMINISTR:\TIVE OFt:ICt:~R RtiP()R I' (15-(t2 PICKERING GRO\VTH XIANAGE~I~-]NT SI2'DY 334-341 CORRESPONDENCE Members of Council may lbrmallv table an item of correspondence that has been circulated by the Mayor. CAe. Clerk or other stall' person. ADJOURNMENT PICKERING RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Official Plan :\nacndmcnt :\pplication ()P.-'x *)9-()(}4 P(R), submitted by the Picketing Harbour Company to redesignatc land located on thc ~x cst side oI' I,ix'crpool Road, south of Wharf Street. within Parts of Lot 23. Range ; B}-('. to t'cx'isc lane 3 of the Pickering broaden the list of permissible uses to permi~ thc prtq~oscd 6(5 unit residential development be REFt :SLED in light ol'Anaendmclat 0 to the Picketing ()t'ISciaI Plan: and That Zoning By~law Amendment ~\pplications :\ 2299 and .X 13 0l, submitted by the Pickering t tarbour Company to permit on the I-mst Shore Xlarina lands Ibc upgrading of the marina uses and the development of 00 toxxn}~ouscs xxith thc potential tbr ground floor commercial uses in those al\veilings ~kontin~ I,ixcrpool Road. and to permit on thc Coolwater Farms lands retail, oI'ficc, and boat storage uses. bc ENDORSED IN PRINCIPLE, AS REVISED BY ST:\}:I:. in accordance with thc Council - adopted Amendment 6 to the Picketing ()fficial Plan. to permit on thc East Shore Marina lands the upgrading of the marina uses and thc development oI'a maximum 26 townhouses fronting Live¢ool Road with the potential Ibr ground Iloor commercial, and to permit on the Coolwater Farms lands retail, oI]2ce, and winter boat storage, as set out in the staff recommended implementing by-lax\ attached as Appendix I to Report Number PD 21-02: and That City, staff and representatives be authorized to present Recommendations ~-1 and ~2 to the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing as Council's position on ()I'ficial Plan Amendment Application ePA 99-004/P(R), Zoning Bx-lax~ :\mcndmcnt :\pplications A22/99(R) and Al3/01, and further authorize City staff and representatives to make a4justments to the staff recommended implementing bv-laxv as technical issues are finalized. REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM' Neil Carroll Director, Planning and Development DATE: May' 3, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: PD 21-02 SUBJECT: Revised Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 99-004/P(R) Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/99(R) Pickering Harbour Company Part of Lot 23, Range 3, B.F.C. (Lands on the west side of Liverpool Road, and south side of Wharf Street) City of Pickering -AND- Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/01 Pickering Harbour Company (Coolwater Farms Property) Part of Lot 22, Range 3, B.F.C. (Lands on the east side of Liverpool Road, and south of Wharf Street) City of Pickering RECOMMENDATIONS' That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 99-004/P(R), submitted by the Pickering Harbour Company to redesignate land located on the xvest sidc of Liverpool Road, south of Wharf Street, within Pans of Lot 23, Range 3, BFC, to revise Table 3 of the Pickering Official Plan - Open Space System: Permissible Uses by SubcafegoO' - Marina Area to broaden the list of permissible uses to permit the proposed 66 unit residential development be REFUSED in light of Amendment 6 to the Picketing OI'ficial Plan; That Zoning By-law Amendment Applications A22/99 and Al3/01, submitted by the Pickering Harbour Company to permit on the East Shore Marina lands the upgrading of the marina uses and the development of 66 townhouses with the potential for ground floor commercial uses in those dwellings fronting Liverpool Road, and to permit on the Coolwater Farms lands retail, office, and boat storage uses, be ENDORSED IN PRINCIPLE, AS REVISED BY STAFF, in accordance with the Council-adopted Amendment 6 to the Pickering Official Plan, to permit on the East Shore Marina lands the upgrading of the marina uses and the development of a maximum 26 townhouses fronting Liverpool Road with the potential for ground floor commercial, and to permit on the Coolwater Farms lands retail, office, and winter boat storage, as set out in the staff recommended implementing by-law attached as Appendix I to Report Number PD 21-02; and That City staff and representatives be authorized to present Recommendations #1 and #2 to the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing as Council's position on Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 99-004/P(R), Zoning By-law Amendment Applications A22/99(R) and Al3/01, and further authorize City staff and representatives to make adjustments to the staff recommended implementing by-law as technical issues are finalized. REPORT NUMBER PD 21-02 Date: May 3, 2002 Subject: Amendment to the Picketing Official Plan ePA 99-004 P(R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A22 99(R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13,"'01 Page 2 ORIGIN: In July 1999, the City received Official Plan Amendment Application 99-004/P(R) and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A22 99 from thc Pickcrin~j Harbour Company for lands locally knoxvn as the East Shore Manna. On June 19, 2(9()(). Council tabled thc applications. In June 2001, Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13 I)l was submitted by the Picketing Harbour Conlpany for lands southeast of tile East Shore Marina, locally known as "Coolwater Farms". Concurrently, PHC revised its earlier Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applications for tile East Shore Marina lands to reflect tile new dex'dopment concept, which integrated tile Coolv, ater Farms property. In December 2001, Pickering Harbour Company appealed Picketing Council's refulsal or neglect to make a decision to amend tiao official plan and zoning bv-laxv within 9t) days of receipt of tile applications, to tile Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). AUTHORITY: The Planniug Act, R.S.O. 1990. ctnapter P. 1 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as 'a result of thc proposed dex'elopmcnt: hoxvcvcr, costs to the City will be incu~ed in defending Citx Council's position belbre the Ontario Municipal Board. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In July 1999, the Pickering Harbour Company (PHC) submitted applications to amend the Pickering Official Plan and Zoning Bv-laxv. Later that year. thc Citx of Picketing initiated a Detailed Review of the Liverpool Road South Area in order to establish con~prehensive land usc, urban design, transportation, and environmental management guidelines for tile area. Such a study was necessary to provide a context for tile review of PHC's planning applications that were earlier submitted. On March 5, 2001, Council passed Resolution =20 01(a) directing that the PHC applications be referred back to staff for review and be considered concurrently with tile City-initiated Official Plan Amendment tbr the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node and the iSverpool Road South Area Detailed Review. In June 2001, PHC submitted a revised development concept ttnat integrated marina uses on both tile East Shore Marina and Coolxxater }:arms properties, wittn residential redevelopment on part o£the East Shore Marina lands t see Location Map. Attactnment el a, and Applicant's Revised Concept, Attachment =lb!. PHC requested that Council detax consideration of ttneir original applications and recommendations IZw both tile k. ivcrpool Road Souttn Area Detailed Review and City-initiated Official Plan Amendment in order Ibr staff to consider and review tile revised development concept Ibr their lands. On January 22, 2002, Council adopted Amendment 0 the Picketing Official Plan, whictn implements tile results of the Liveq~ool Road Souttn Detailed Review. In accordance ~vith Amendment 6, staff has reviewed the applications submitted by PHC and recommends that the private initiated Official Plan Amendment Application ePA 99-004/PtR) be refused and that Zoning Bv-laxv Amendment Applications A 22 99(R) and A 13,01 submitted by PHC be endorsed in winc~Dle as revised by staff to contbnn to Amendment 0, as set out in the attached implementing by-law. As well, it is recommended that City staff and representatives be (} (1 <I REPORT NUMBER PD 21-02 Date: May 3, 2002 Subject: Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan OPA 99-004/P(R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A22/99(R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A13/01 Page 3 authorized to present this position at the scheduled Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on this matter as Council's position, subject to adjustments as technical issues are finalized. BACKGROUND 1.0 Public Information Meeting A Public Information Meeting for the applicant's revised proposal was held on September 20, 2001 to obtain the views of the public. Information Report No. 25-01, which summarizes the applicant's proposal and outlines the issues and comments identified to that date through circulation of the application, was prepared for that meeting. The text of the Information Report is provided tbr reference (see Attachment #1 c). At the meeting, Planning & Development staff gave an explanation of the application and the applicant addressed the merits of the proposal. In addition, a number of local residents expressed their concern with respect to: increased neighborhood traffic; lack of access to the waterfront, and public safety with the travel lift crossing Liverpool Road. Minutes of the meeting are included as Attachment #2. 2.0 Additional Information 2.1 Public Comments All public comments received on the original and revised development applications are attached (see Attachments #7 to #28). The comments pertaining to the applications are summarized below: · · · · · area should be as natural and "green" as possible; will be increased traffic congestion; lakefront properties should be preserved; opposed to boat houses being built to store boats; proposal would fill the land with terraces of condominium townhouses, which will block the public view of the vistas and ensure that the public can not get near enough to the waters edge to feel the lake breezes and chase away the boaters whose boats the public come to see; proposed townhouse development is not suitable for this small and poorly accessible area; townhouses in this area would alienate the public from the waterfront eventually, if not immediately; large residential development would cut public access to the waterfront; and current proposal brings all marina traffic further south on Liverpool Road. 2.2 Agency comments The following agencies have provide written comments on thc development applications: Durham District School Board and Durham Catholic District School Board indicated no objections to these applications (see Attachments #3 and #4); Region of Durham provided detailed servicing comments applicable to the proposed development (and development on surrounding lands proposed by the Pickering Harbour Company- see Attachment #5). The Region outlined sanitary sewer ser¥icing REPORT NUMBER PD 21-02 Date: May 3, 2002 Subject: Amendment to the Picketing Official Plan ePA 99-004/P(R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A22 99(R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application Al3/01 Page 4 2.3 3.0 3.1 3.2 constraints in the Livc~?ool Road South Area. and provided conditions of approval to be addressed by the applicanl through tile review oi' appropriate related development applications. The owner will be required to satls~\ tt~e Region of Durham respecting the sen;icing of thc proposed development. Toronto and Region Conservation Authoritx indicated that impacts on tile natural environment and hazard mana2ement as a result of new marina activities should be reviewed comprehensively prior to tile approval of site-specific applications relations to that use. Given the nature of this proposal (i.e. marina uses), staff are concerned about impacts to the management of Frenchman's Bay including high lake level and wave up- rush impacts, the channel entrance to Frenchman's Bay and other associated matters (see Attachment Documentation Received from PHC The £ollowing docurnents have been recently sLlbmitted and are available lbr vier, lng at the Planning & Development Department: · Plannino Analysis prepared by Patrick Sxxeet & Associates Limited dated September 2001. received September 14. · Phase I - Environmental Site Assessment /bt the East Shore Marina Propemy prepared by Tarandus Associates Limited dated January 2002, received January 22. 2002; · Phase I Environmental Site Assessment lZw tile Coolxxater Farms property prepared by Fence MacLaren. dated February 1998. rcccix cd Janumw 22. 2002; · Addendum to tiao Phase I Environmental Site Assessment lbr the Coolxvater Fam~s propemy prepared by Tarandus Associates Limited dated Janua~' 11. 2)02 received Janua~ 22, 2002: · Wave Up-rush Report prepared by Shoreplan Engineering Limited dated November ~' ,_~, 2001, receix ed Janizary 22, 2002; Environmental Impact Study Marina Property prepared by Tarandus Associates Limited dated November 2()()1, received Januam' 22, 2002; · Scoped Environmclatal Impact Study Coolwater Farms Property prepared Tarandus Associates Limited dated November 2001. received JanuaD' 22, 2002; and Sto~water Management and Floodplain Nlanagement Analysis Report prepared by Sabourin Kimble & Associates Ltd. dated March 14.2~)( 2. received March 26, 2002. Discussion Original Applications The applications submitted by the Picketing ttarbour Company (PHC) in July 1999, proposed redevelopment of only tile lands on tile x~cst side of Liverpool Road, which consisted of 40 townhouse dxvelling units (adjacent to Liverpool Road and Wharf Street) in tile first phase, and a mixed use block (adjacent to tile waterfront) including tile potential for a marina, a 140-unit hotel/apartment complex, restaurant, retail. entertainment and office uses. and a public walkvcav in thc second phase. A substantial amount of bay-fill was proposed to provide additional area to support tine second phase of development. Revised Applications In June 2001, PHC submitted a revised development concept lbr tl~cir lands, which included tile recently acquired Coolxvater Farms property. A revised development concept illustrates 66 townhousc dx~elling units of which 20 units are located along the west side et' Liverpool Road. The existing marina operation would be retained and REPORT NUMBER PD 21-02 Date: May 3, 2002 00t3 Subject: Amendment to the Picketing Official Plan OPA 99-004/P(R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A22/99(R) Zoning By-taw Amendment Application A13/01 Page 5 3.3 3.4 3.5 upgraded on a portion of the East Shore Marina lands with the associated marina support uses, including boat storage and administrative operations relocated to the Coolwater Farms property. Approximately 1,070 square metres of future commercial uses (which may include the retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants) are also proposed on the Coolwater Farms property abutting Liverpool Road. Appeals to Ontario Municipal Board On November 30, 2001, PHC appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, Picketing Council's refusal or neglect to adopt zoning by-law amendment applications A22/99(R) and A13/01; and appealed pursuant to subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, of Council's failure to adopt official plan amendment application OPA 99-004/P(R) relating to the Marina property. A Pre-hearing conference before the OMB was held on March 27, 2002. Prior to the commencement of the Pre-heating, the City was served xvith a Motion Record fi'om PHC. PHC is seeking an Order from the OMB granting partial zoning approval for a portion of its holdings, specifically the Coolxvater Farms site. The City in response to PHC's motion argued that it was premature to grant partial approval for the Coolwater Farms site as neither the Citv nor the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has had the opportunity to review some of the technical studies that PHC had just recently submitted. PHC, after reviexving the City's material agreed, on consent, to postpone the hearing of the Motion until May 10, 2002. Commencement of the hearing is scheduled for June 10, 2002 and is to be heard over a two-week period. Amendment 6 of the Picketing Official Plan On January 21, 2002, Council adopted Amendment 6 to the Picketing Official Plan, which contains new land use policies .as well as Development Guidelines for the Liverpool Road South Area. Amendment 6 is approved save and except as it applies to PHC lands. Amendment 6 restricts residential uses along Liverpool Road within the Liverpool Road Corridor. As indicated earlier, PHC is seeking approval for 66 townhouse d~velling units on the East Shore Marina lands. PHC's proposal includes 26 units facing the west side of Liverpool Road with the balance of the residential units located outside of the Liverpool Road Corridor and in close proximity to Frenchman's Bay. Through Amendment 6, City Council has determined that only the East Shore Marina lands fronting Liverpool Road should be developed for residential uses, and the remainder should be retained for marina and marina support uses within the Waterfront Node. According, staff recommends PHC's Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 99-004/P(R) be refused. Residential uses abutting Liverpool Road Amendment 6 permits, subject to conditions, the introduction of residential uses within the Liverpool Road Corridor provided a significant public benefit is achieved. This benefit is the requirement that residential dwelling units be designed and constructed in such a way that the ground floors can be easily converted in the future to accommodate a range of uses including the retailing of goods and services, and offices. In this way, opportunities are provided for limited seasonal and year round commercial within any of the residential uses, which helps create an active public realm at street level. REPORT NL'MBER PD 21-02 Date: May 3, 2002 Subject: Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan ePA 99-004/P(R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A22/99/R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A13 01 Page 0 3.6 3.7 3.8 However, the applicant is proposing only that ~ of tine £o tov~'nhousc dv, elling units fronting Liverpool Road be constructed for retail convertibility. Staff is recommending that all of the 26 units be constructed in such a x~av that tha~ tile ground floor can be easily converted in the future to accommodate a range of commercial uses. This is consistent with Council's approval of the townhouse proposal on the east side of' Liverpool Road in xvhich all oi' the dwelling units will bo constructed so that the ground t'ioor of' tile units can be readily conxerted to accommodate retail, office and personal service uses. Related Zoning Bv-la~v Amendment Applications A 23/99 and A 13/02 Staff has prepared a draft Bv-lav,, which establishes uses on both the East Shore Marina and the Coolxvater Farms properties Uses proposed Ibr tile East Shore Marina site include the existing marina, marina-supportive, and residential uses abutting Liverpool Road with commercial uses pcm'dtted on thc ground/'ioof. For the Coolwater Fan-ns site, uses proposed include marina-supportive uses including winter boat storage and retail, commercial and offices uses. Many of thc uses being proposed by the Picketing Harbour Company in its draft zoning bx'-law tbr thc C'oolx~atcr Farms property are the same uses currently permitted on tile East Shore ).larina lands. Staff considers the range of uses proposed by PHC to be inappropriate on the Coolxvater Farms property. Since tile main marina functions are to occur on tile lands adjacent to Frenchman's Bay, the staff recommended zoning only permits limited marina-supportive uses on the Coolwater Fam~s property..As v, ell, tile applicant xvill be rcqcnred to provide appropriate easements, rights-of-way andor agreements renistered on title that ensures mutual and convenient access between the East Shore Nlarina and Coolwater Farms properties are provided over the long temp. Tile amending By-law proposed by staff provides that buildings on the Coolv, ater Farms site be permitted within a building envelope located west of tile fioodline as determined by the TRCA. The area of the property located east and south of floodline is to be conveyed to a public authority. Thc recommended Bv-laxv also prohibits boat storage immediately adjacent to Liverpool Road. Tile specific zoning provisions have not been finalized and will be discussed at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Staff recommends that Council endorse, in principle, tile provisions of the Zoning By-law amendment in Appendix I to this Report, and that the City staff and representatives be authorized to present Council's endorsement in principal at the scheduled OMB hearing, and further authorize staff to assist the City Solicitor in finalizing tile zoning by-law incorporating any directions expressed by tile Board in its decision. Technical Matters Through discussions with the Picketing Harbour Compan). it is their intention to submit applications through tile condominium and site plan approval process fbllowing the OMB's decision on its apt)cal. Thc City's site plan approxal process will also address Regional and TRCA requirements. Parkland Dedication The applicant will be required to convey land for park ptirposes not exceeding five percent of the land proposed for residential development along Liveq')ool Road. The City may, in lieu of accepting conveyance, require cash-in-lieu of parkland not exceeding five percent of the land. The amount of pa}relent will be based upon the appraised value of lands as of the day before the day the building permit is issued pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act. REPORT NUMBER PD 21-02 Date: May 3, 2002 Subject: Amendment to the Picketing Official Plan OPA 99-004'P(R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A22/99(R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A13/01 Page 7 AP P ENDICES: I Draft Amendment to Zoning By-laws 2511 and 2520 ATTACHMENTS: Location Map & Plan la. Location Map lb. Applicant's Revised Plan Report and Meeting Minutes lc. Text of Public Information Meeting 25-01 2. Minutes of Public Information Meeting Agency Comments 3. Durham District School Board Comments 4. Durham Catholic District School Board Comments 5. Region of Durham Comments 6. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Comments Resident Comments 7. Noreen S.M. Denman (Letter received September 20, 2001) 8. Craig Bamford (Letter received September 20, 2001) 9. G. Maynard (Letter dated September 20, 2001) 10. Patricia Robinson (Letter received September 20, 2001) 11. Peggy Wilmot (Email dated September 20, 2001) 12. J.E. Tennant (Letter received September 20, 2001) 13. Monika Deutscher (Letter received September 21, 2001) 14. Wendy Welfe (Letter dated September 21, 2001) 15. Mary and Edward Mann (Letter received September 21,2001 ) 16. Bill Balloway (Telephone call received September 21,2001 ) 17. W. Sedman (Letter received September 21, 2001) 18. Philip B. McMullen (Letter received September 24, 2001) 19. David Steele (Email dated September 24, 2001) 20. Jennifer Nguyen (Letter received September 25, 2001) 21. Roger and Marg Wade (Letter received September 25, 2001) 22. Nancy Vichert (Letter received September 25, 2001) 23. Sue Peschke (Email received September 21, 2001) 24. Tracey and Joseph Ven (Letter received September 28,2001) 25. Monika Taylor (Letter received September 28, 2001) 26. Joan and Jeff Skelton (Letter dated September 28, 2001 ) 27. Monica Dennis (Email dated October 2, 2001) 28. Brian Evely (Letter received October 3, 2001) REPORT NUMBER PD 21-02 Subject: Amendment to the Picketing O£ficial Plan OPA 99-004/P(R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A22/99(R) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A. 13 "01 Date: May 3, 2002 Page 8 Prepared By: Principal Planner - Polio: .~Xpprovcd Endorsed by: Director. Planning & Development Catherine L. Rose Manager, Policy GM/CLR/jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Ot'ficci' Director, Operations and Emerzcncv Serx ices Director, Corporate Services City Clerk City Solicitor A. Biggart, Ritchie Green & Ketchcson Recommended for the consideration of Pickcrin< City Council Thomas J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Ot'Iiccr Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-laxv 2511 and By-law 2520. as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Picketing District Plmming Area, Region of Durham in Part of Lots 22 and 23, Range 3, B.F.C. in the City ofPickering. (OPA 99-004/P(R); A 22/99(R); A 13/01) WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board deems it desirable to permit the development of 26 townhouse units with potential ground floor commercial uses and redevelopment of the existing marina on lands xvest of Liverpool Road, together with marina supportive, winter boat storage and parking uses on lands east of Liverpool Road; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 2511 and By-laxv 2520, as amended, is therefore deemed necessa~; NOW THEREFORE THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: SCHEDIIlES l AND 11 Schedules I and 1I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is hereby declared to be part of this By-law. AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Parts of Lots 22 and 23, Range 3, B.F.C., designated "(H)MU- 16", "(H)O3B-1 ", "(H)O3B-2", and "OS-HL-5". GENERAI~ PROVISIONS No building, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved, or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. DEFINITIONS In this By-law, (1) "Adult Entertainment Parlour" shall mean a building or part of a building in which is provided, in pursuance of a trade, calling, business or occupation, services appealing to or designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations; (2) "Boat Storage" shall mean the temporary or seasonal enclosed or open storage of boats on land, and may include a trailer supporting a boat, but shall not include the service, repair or sale of boats; (3) "Fhminess Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in which the management or direction of business, a public or private agency, a brokerage or a labour or fraternal organization is carried on and which may include a telegraph office, a data processing establishment, a newspaper publishing office, the premises of a real estate or insurance agent, or a radio or television broadcasting station and related studios or theatres, but shall not include a retail store; (4) ~ shall mean a building or part of a building in which a not-for-profit or non- commercial organization carries out social, cultural, welfare, athletic or recreational (5) (7) (8) (9) - 2 - programs for the benefit of the community; "Commercial School" sinai1 mcan a school xvhictn is operated for gain or profit and may include tine studio of a dancim,= teacher or music teacher, or an art school, a ~olf school or any other such scinool operated lbr gain or prolit, but shall not include any other school defined therein: (a) "Dwellins~," shall mcan a building 07' pan of a building containing one or more dxvellino units, but does not include a mobile home or trailer; (b) 'T)wellin.~, ['nit" shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a single, independent, and separate housekeeping unit containing a separate kitctnen and sanitary Facilities: (c) "Dxvellin~,. Semi-Detached or' Semi-I)cu~ched Dxx ellin,~," shall mcan one of a pair of single dxvellings, such dxvellings being attached togetlner hori×ontalh' by an above-grade COIT~IllOIn x\ ail: (d) "Multiple Dxvellin,~ - Hori×on~a]" shall mcan a building containing three or more dxvclling units attached horixontalh, not x c~Tically, by an above grade wall or walls: {a) "Floor Area - RcsidemiaI" shall mcan the area of the floor surface contained within the outside walls of at storey or part of a storey: "Gross Floor Area - Residential shall mcan the a=..re_atc of tine. floor areas of all storeys et' a buildin,, or structure, or part thereof as the case may be, other than a private=oara(,c= . an attic, or a cellar: "Ground Floor .Area" shall mean the area of that portion cfa lot occupied by a building or structure, e×clusive of any porch, private garage, verandah or sum-eom, unless such sunroom is habitable at all seasons; (d) "Gross Ieasable Floor Area - Comnnerci:d" shall mean tine ag~'egate of the floor areas of all tine storeys cfa building or structure, or pan thereof as the case may be, other than rooms or space jointly used by tenants of the building, such as garbage storage areas, mectnanical and electrical rooms, lobbies, stairwells, elevators and se~'icc con-idors. "Games Arcade" shall rnean any building, room. or area in vd'rich Facilities are offered for the play of (a) three or more gzunes ofctnancc. (b) three or more games of mixed chaxce and skill. (c) a combination of three or more games of chance and games of mixed chance and skill, lbr the amusement el'the public, which games are not contra~' to the Criminal Code of Canada, but does not include premises in x~ hich tho amusement 2~cilities o/nkred are pool tables, billiard tables, or boxvlin~,= allcvs: (a) "l.ot" stnall ilncan aTq area of land fronting 072 a street which is used or intended to be used as the site et' ti building, or group of buildings, as the case may be. together wittn any accessory buildings or structures, or a public park or open space area, regardless o£ whether or not such lot constitutes tine whole cfa lot or block on a registereci plan of subdivision: (b) "l_ot Frontage" shall mean thc width cfa lot between tine side lot lines measured along a line parallel to and 7.5 metres distant from the front lot line: 01 2 (10) (10) a 11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) 2Manna2 shall mean a commercial establishment or premises containing a minimum o1'200 rental boat slips and where boats vessels and watercraft or boat accessories are berthed. stored, serviced, repaired or launched. A Marina may include: land based facilities/bt the winter storage of boats; sale or rental of boats and boat accessories: the sale of marine fuels or lubricants, accessory retail sales and a taxi and/or barging service: waste water pumping facilities; washroom and shower facilities: a laundromat: launching ramp; boat lift/boat lifting equipment; administrative offices; and, a restaurant. A Marina shall not include a "Yacht Club" as defined herein; " ' ' ,'- ' "shall mean a building or pan of a building containing facilities for the repair and maintenance of boat vessels on the premises, in which boat accessories are sold and boat vessel maintenance and repair operations are pert'o~Tned in return for remuneration, but shall not include the retail sale of motor ihcls. ~ shall mean a lot or portion thereof., used for the temporary storage or parking of motor vehicles and available tbr public use, whether free, tbr compensation, or as an accommodation for clients, customers or residents, but shall not include the repair or the storage or parking of motor vehicles lbr hire and gain, display or tbr sales: " -- · ;' "shall mean an establishment in which a personal scm'ice is performed and which may include a barber shop, a beauty salon, a shoe repair shop. a tailor or a dressmaking shop or a photographic studio, but shall not include an adult entertainment parlour as defined herein or a body-mb parlour as defined in section 224(9)(b) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O.1990, Chapter M.45, as amended fi-om time to time, or any successor thereto; " ' - - ' "shall mean a building or part of a building in which facilities are provided for amusement or entertainment purposes, and which may include a billiard or pool room, a dance hall, a music hall, or theatre, but shall not include a games arcade or an adult entertainment parlour as defined herein; ~ shall mean an enclosed or partially enclosed structure for the storage of one or more vehicles, in which structure no business or service is conducted for profit or otherwise; '~ ~ ' shall mean a building or part of a building in which medical, legal or other professional service is performed or consultation given, and which may include a clinic, the offices of an architect, a chartered accountant, an engineer, a lawyer or a physician, but shall not include a body-mb parlour as defined in section 224(9)(b) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.45, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto; " - "shall mean a building or part of a building xvhere food is prepared and offered or kept for retail sale to the public for immediate consumption on the premises or off the premises, or both, but shall not include an adult entertainment parlour as defined herein; ~ shall mean a building or part of a building in xvhich goods, wares, merchandise, substances, articles or things are stored, kept and offered for retail sale to the public. (a) 2_Zard2 shall mean an area of land which is appurtenant to and located on the same lot as a building or structure and is open, uncovered, and unoccupied above ground except for such accessory buildings, structures, or other uses as are specifically permitted thereon; (b) ~ shall mean a yard extending across the full xvidth of a lot between the front lot line of the lot and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (c) "ErmllD&ar~LD2gI~ shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a front yard of a lot between the front lot line and the nearest wall of the nearest main - 4 - main building or structure on tine lot; ~ shall mean a yard extending across the full width of a lot bern-eon tine rear lot line of fine lot. or where ti~ere is no rear lot line. tine junction point of tile side lot lines, and tile nearest wall of the nearest mare building or structure on the lot: ~ shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a rear yard of a lot between the rear lot 1me of tile lot. or wtnere there is no rear lot line. the junction point of the side lot lines, and tine nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on tine lot: ~ shall mean a yard of a lot extendim2 ~'rom tile front yard to the rear yard. and from tile side lot line to tile nearest wall o£ tile neap'est main building or structzire on the lot; "~ "' " "shall mean tine shortest horizontal dimension cfa side yard of a lot betv:een the side lot line and the nearest wall of thc nearest main buildin- or structure on the lot: (h) ..... L" ' - " "shall mcan a side yard immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on tile opposite side of which is a street; i) .... ,,-" = '. " "slaall mean tiao shortest horizontal dimension of a flankagc side xard of a lot between tiao lot linc adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on tile opposite side of which is a street, and tile nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on tile lot: (j) " ~ ' ' ~ ', "shall mean a side yard other-than a flankage side yard: (19) ~ shall mean a building or structure or part thereol; together with associated land-based and water lot areas, ased as tile meeting place for an association of persons united by a coinmon interest in boating. A Yacht Club may include facilities for docking, mooring, storing, servicing, fueling, berthing, securing, lifting and launching of private pteast~re craft. Accessou.' uses may include the sale of marine fuels and lubricants and incidental boating supplies, waste water pumping facilities, a restaurant for the boat owners, crews, and guests, instructional schools, and administrative offices..& Yacht Club shall not include a "Marina" as defined herein. (1) (a) No person shall xx ithin ttae lands designated . IL-10 on Sc .h~l~ uqd:rattached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use anx bklilding or s~mure tbr any pu~ose except the Iblloxx in~,' (i) Residential Uses: A multiple dwelling - tlorizontal B senli-detached dy, cilia< (ii) Conmnercial Uses' business office commercial school personal service shop professional office 014 E restaurant type-A F retail store (b) ~ ("MU-16" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "MU-16" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building except in accordance with the following provisions: (i) BUILDING LOCATION AND RESTRICTIONS: A Buildings and structures shall be located entirely within the envelope illustrated on Schedule I attached hereto; B Building Height: minimum 7.5 metres maximum 11.0 metres C Front YardDepth: minimum 3.0 metres maximum 4.5 metres D Unit Width minimum 5.4metres F Despite clause C above, front yard balconies, verandahs and decks, both covered and uncovered, may project fully into the required minimum front yard; PARKING REQUIREMENTS A For each dwelling unit there shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 3 parking spaces, any of which may not be located within a front yard, and one of ~vhich must be provided within an attached private garage located to the rear of the dwelling unit, any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6 metres from any street or drive aisle providing access to those lots and a minimum of 0.30 visitor parking space. B Clauses 5.21.2a) to 5.21.20 inclusive, of By-law 2511, as amended, shall not apply to the lands designated "MU-16" on Schedule I attached hereto: C Despite Clauses 5.21.2g) and 5.21.2k) of By-law 3036, as amended, all entrance and exists to parking areas and all parking areas shall be surfaced with brick, asphalt, or concrete, or any combination thereof. (iii) SPECIAL REGULATIONS A A maximum of 26 multiple dwelling-horizontal and semi- detached dwelling units are permitted on the lands designated zoned "MU-16" on Schedule I attached hereto; B Each dwelling unit shall provide a minimum ground floor area of 60 square metres, with a minimum finished ceiling height of 2.7 metres; 0! ,5 C D Despite Section 5.(2)(a)(ii) of this By-law, non-residential uses permitted witlnin tine "MU-16" zone designation may bc established only within the ground floor ora dwelling unit; A single dwelling, unit sinai1 be established on each lot above tine ground floor of tine dxvcllim~, with supplementao' floor area provided within the ground floor. Despite Section 2.40{c)(i) of By-law 2511, Liverpool Road should be considered as the front lot line. (2) (a) ~l "(}3B- ~1" Zone) No person sinai1 within the lands designated "O3B-01" on $ctnedulc I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or usc any building or structure ibr any purpose except tine folloxving: (i) boat storage (ii) business office (iii) club (ix') marina (x) restaurant t)pc A (vi) retail store (b) Zone} No person shall within tine lands designated "03B-I)I" on Schedule i attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or usc any building except in accordance with tine following provisions: (i) LOT AREA (minimum}: 1.5 hectares (ii) LOT FRONTAGE (minimuna): 20 metres (iii) WATER FRONTAGE (minimum): 140 metres (ix') BUILDING HEIGHT (inaximum): 7.5 metres (v) There shall be provided and maintained ora tine lands designated "03B-0I" a minimum of 4.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of building gross leasable floor area: (vi) There stnall be 1 ( parkinL_' space per boat slip. (vii) Clauses 5.21.2 a} to 5.21.2 f) inclusive, of Bv-Iaw 2511, as amended, shall not apply to thc lands designated "{)3B-01" on Schedule I attached thereto: (viii) Despite Clauses_'~.,'~1 ._ '~ =,,) and .... ~ 21 '~ k) of Bv-laxv 2511 , as amended. all entrance and exists to parkin3' areas and all parking areas shall bc surfaced with brick, asphalt, or concrete, or any combination tlnereof. (ix) For the purposed of this clause, tin<? term "drive-throu?~ 12~cility" shall mean a t;acilitv in xxhich goods, products or sc~ices are provided directly to tine customer in x ehiclcs: (3) (b) (ii) (x) No drive through facility shall be permitted in association with any of the uses permitted on the lands designated "O3 .B,<01" on Schedule I attached hereto; ~("03B-02" Zone) No person shall within the l~ds desi~ated "O3B-02" on Schedule II attached hereto, use ~y lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any pupose except the following: (i) boat storage (ii) business office (iii) club (iv) marine service and repair shop (v) restaurant - type A (vi) retail store ~ ("03B-02" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "03B-02" on Schedule II attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building except in accordance with the following provisions: A Buildings and structures shall be located entirely within the envelope illustrated on Schedule II attached hereto; B LOT AREA (minimum): 2.0 hectares C LOT FRONTAGE (minimum): 30 metres D BUILDING HEIGHT (maximum): 7.5 metres (I) Despite D above, buildings located within the hatched area shall provide a minimum height of 7.5 metres and a maximum height of 11.0 metres; E The storage and display of boats shall be located a minimum of 12 metres from the front lot line abutting Liverpool Road; F There shall be provided and maintained on the lands designated "03B-02" a minimum of 4.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of building gross leasable floor area; G Clauses 5.21.2 a) to 5.21.2 f) inclusive, of By-law 2520 and By-law2511, as amended, shall not apply to the lands designated "03B-02" on Schedule II attached hereto: H Despite Clauses 5.21.2 g) and 5.21.2 k) of By-law 2520 and By-law 2511, as amended, all entrance and exists to parking areas and all parking areas shall be surfaced with brick, asphalt, or concrete, or any combination thereof. SPECIAL REGULATIONS A Despite clause 3(a), restaurant - Type A shall be restricted to the hatched area shown on Schedule II attached hereto; B The maximum aggregate gross leasable floor area shall be: 0 17 - 8 - C ~ii) ~iii) For all business offices on tile lot: 325 square metres Ibr all restaurants T.xpc A on the lot: o_> square metres Ibr ail retail stores on tile lot: o_> square nlelrcs Outdoor storage of any boat. equipment, hardware, fittings or goods stroll be restricted to the cross-hatched area shown v, ithin the lands designated )_ B-()_ on Schedule II except during the period from May 6:" to September o_. , both dates inclusive, each year; D ~i) [:-or tile purpose of this clause, the teton "drive-through facility" shall mean a facility in which goods, products or services are prox ided dirccth' to tile customer in vehicles: (4) (a) (ii) ~I"~)S-HL-5" Zone) No drive througtn facilhx shall be permitted in association v, itln any of the uses permitted on the lands designated "O3t3- 02" Oil $ctnedule I attached hereto: · ',, No person sinai1 within the lands designated "OS-HL-5" on Schedule II attached hereto, use any lot or erect, aher. or usc any building or structure tbr any purpose except the ibllov, ira,'=. (i) (ii) (iii) (ix') pedestrian trails and xvalku'ax s preservation and conservation of tine natural environment, soil and wildlife: public parking resource nlanagenlent (b) ~( S-HL Zone) No buildings or structures shall be erected, nor shall tile placing or reiuoval of fill be pem~itted, except where buildings or structures are used only For purposes of flood and erosion control, resource management, or pedestrim'~ trail and walkway purposes, or public parking. ~ ((H) Holding Ssmbol) (a) USES PERMITTED While the "(H)" holding sxmbol is in place, no person stnalI, on tile lands designated: (i) "(H)MU-1O". usc thc lands for anx puq, ose other than for a marina and marina support uses: (ii) "(H)O3B-I", usc tile lands tbr anx purpose otlner than for a marina and marina support uses: and (iii) "(H)O3B-2", use the lands for any purpose other than Ibr a business office. (b) REMO\?AL OF THE 'H' HOLDING SYMBOL Prior to an amendment to remove tile "{ H)" Holding Sxnnbol preceding tile above zoning_ cate.ories.o tine followin<, conditions shall bc met: - 5) - (i) MU-16 The owner has executed appropriate Site Plan and Development Agreements, with and to the satisfaction of the City and~or Region of Durham, and such Agreements have been registered on title to the lands, to address the following matters: (ii) A access be provided to Liverpool Road for the condominium block from the East Shore Marina property located south of the condominium block be registered on title; B contributions provided to the City for Liverpool Road boulevard improvements; C servicing agreements with the Region of Durham; .~ D the applicant satisfy Section 51.1 of the Planning Ac~t,::;..~'~.',~'iest~ct,.~ :" '~,.. to parkland dedication · ,~ The owner has executed appropriate Site Plan and Development Agreements, with and to the satisfaction of the City, and such Agreements have been registered on title to the lands, to address the following matters: A contributions provided to the City for Liverpool Road and Wharf Street boulevard improvements; servicing agreements xvith the Region of Durham; appropriate access easements on the East Shore Marina property located the west side of Liverpool Road, and south of Wharf Street within Parts of Lot 23, Range 3, be registered on title to the satisfaction of the City; (iii) O3B-2 The owner has executed appropriate Site Plan and Development Agreements, with and to the satisfaction of the City, and such Agreements have been registered on title to the lands, to address the following matters: A contribution provided to the City for Liverpool Road boulevard improvements; servicing agreements with the Region of Durham; appropriate access easements on the East Shore Marina property located the west side of Liverpool Road, and south of Wharf Street within Parts of Lot 22, Range 3, be registered on title to the satisfaction of the City; By-law 2520, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt within this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2520, as amended. (2) By-law 2085/85 as it affects the subject lands is hereby repealed. By-law' 2511, as amended, is hercbv further amended only to the extent neccssarv to give effect to tile provisions of this Bv-laxv as it applies to tile area set out ir; Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt within this By-law shall bc govenlcd by rclcvant provisions of By-law 2511, as amended. (2) By-laws 2085 85..3179 and 5966 71 as they affcct thc subject lands are hcrcby repealed. This By-law shall take effect I¥om tile day of passing hereof subject to the approval of tile Ontario Municipal Board. AS MADE B'Y THE ONTARIO MINICIP.~L BOARD tltis¢'':~ ' day of (H)O3B-1 .... BUILDING ENVELOPE SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW AS MADE BY ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD*:iiii',-. ORDER DATE (O.M.B. FILE Z01 01 63) (H)O3B-2 -'3 ; OS-HL-5 SCHEDULE TF TO BY-LAW AS MADE BY ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD (O.M.B. FILE Z01 01 62) ORDER DATE Attachment 1 to Draft By-law EXPI,AN,4TORY NOTE The purpose of this By-law is to amend City of Pickering Zoning By-law 2511 and 2520, as amended, pursuant to applications by Picketing Harbour Compm~y/344430 Canada Inc. (Files A 22/99(R) and A13/01. The effect of this By-law is to permit the development of a portion of the subject lands for residential uses in the form of 26 nautically themed townhouses and semi-detached &veilings with the potential for future conversion of the ~ound floor of all dwelling units along Liverpool Road to commercial uses, redevelopment of the existing marina, relocation of boat storage to lands east of Liverpool Road, provision of additional public access to the water's edge of Frenchman's Bay and the potential provision of additional public parking. The lands affected by this By-law are located on the east and west sides of Liverpool Road south of Wharf Street within Part of Lots 22 and 23, Range 3, B.F.C. Attachment 2 to Draft B}/-law WAYFARER LANE RADOM BAYLY STREET POPRAD A~NUE TATRA D RI'c'E STREET HALL£R AVENUE ALYSSUM WA T~RPOINT $177£ET FRENCHMAN ~g4Y AVE. OLD ORCHARD AVE. PLACE ILONA PARK ROAD COMMERCE ,~N N LAN D WHARF ~!~~ % PA~ K H A,M CRESCENT 2T PROPERTIES LAKE ~. ON?~£10 City of Pickering Planning & Development Department DATE MAY 7,2002 ~94 ATTACHMENT #. / (/ TO REPORT # PDt__ AVENUE OLD ORCHARD AVE. AVE. WA ~-tRPO/NT FRENCHMAN LANDS SUBJECT OPA 99-004/P AND A 22/99, PLACE BOULEVARD LUNA CRT. FOXGLOVE AVENUE ~ ILONA PARK ROAD COMMERCE STREET BROADVlEW STREET ANNLAND STREET WHARF STREET L BALA]ON COLMAR AVENUE AVENUE PARKHAM CRESCENT $ :T TO A ~ 3/0~ LAKE ON?AP/O City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOTS 22 AND 23, RANGE 3, B.F.C. OWNER PICKERING HARBOUR CO.; 344430 CANADA INC.I DATE JUL 12, 2001 sc, ,:,zoo FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-3 PA- DRAWN BY RC CHECKED BY RT /if ATTACHMI~T ~ ~----._TO APPLICAN'"PS PROPOSED SITE CONCEPT-PHASE 2 OPA 99-004/P(R); A 22/99(R); A 13/01 z Marina Property--- Total Site Area 24,612 sm (2.46 ha) 6.08 acres Marina Area 5,794 sm (Approx.) 1.43 acres Residential 18,818 sm (Aporox.) 4.65 acres Residential Yield 66 Townhome Units Gross Density Net Density 26.8 Units per Hedare (10.86 Units per Acre) 35.1 Units per Hectare (14.21 Units per Acre) Visitor Parking Provided @ .32 per unit = 21 cars Unit Parking Provided @ 2 per unit = 132 cars Total Parking Provided @ 2.32 per unit = 153 cars Coolwater Property ..... Total Coolwater Site Area 23,061 sm (2.31 ha) /~,'TTACHME~T ~ / C RFPORT # PI) PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 25-01 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF September 20, 2001 IN ACCORDANCE 'WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Revised Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 99-004/P(R) Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22'~99(R) Pickering Harbour Company Part of Lot 23. Range 3, B.F.C. (Lands on the west side of Liverpool Road, and south of Wharf Streot) City of Picketing - AND - Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/01 Picketing Harbour Company (formerly 3444309 Canada Inc. - Coolwater Farms) Part of Lot 22. Range 3, B.F.C. (Lands on the east side of Liverpool Road, and south of' Wharf Street) City of Picketing 1.0 PROPERTY LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTION - the subject lands are approximately 4.77 hectares in size, and are generally located on the east and west side of Liverpool Road, and south of Wharf Street; - a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1 ); the lands fronting on the west side of Liverpool Road are approximately 2.46 hectares in size, and currently support an active marina operation, including boat storage, docks and ancillary administrative and marina-support buildings; it is our understanding that a maximum of approximately 200 boats are accommodated by the existing marina operation; these lands provide additional street frontage onto Wharf Street, and water frontage onto Frenchman's Bay, and are locally-known as East Shore Marina; existing marina and residential uses abut these lands to the north and northwest: proposed mixed residential/commercial buildings are located to tiao cast across Liverpool Road (owned by Glenbrook Homes - formerly Hilts); and Swan's Marina and a restaurant use are located to the south; the lands on the east side of Liverpool Road (directly southeast of East Shore Marina) are approximately 2.31 hectares in size, and currently support an abandoned fish farm operation, including a vacant office building (approximately 410 square metres in size) and associated storage tanks; these lands are locally-known as Cool~vater Fam~s; the Hydro Marsh abuts the north and east side of these lands; both a watcr treatment facility and the Glenbrook Homes property are located immediately to the north; a City parking area abuts a southxvest comer of these lands; and a tributary of Krosno Creek is located to the south. inlbrmatioia Report No. 25-01 ;, TAo,-, ,,2 '~T #~ TO 2.0 APPI.ICANT'S PROPOSAL tile applicant proposes to amend the Picketing OFficial Plan and Zoning Bv-laxx s 2511 and 2520 to pcmait dox'olopnaont a_,, t'olloxx s: · retain and upgrade thc oxist~q~ n~au'~na opovatiou on part of'tiao East Shore Marina lands, and relocate and establish associated n~alun~l SLlp[0Ort LISCS. includino boat storage and administratix e OpCI'dtiOIq5 o11 t}~C ('oolxx after' }-alnqqs properly; providing thc opportunity Ibi-potential ground floor commercial uses. (xxhich may include tiao retail in5 of ~oods and serx ices. ;md ofliccs), and. establish additional uses on thc Cootxv'atcr Farms property, including up to Liverpool Road. alld 5casonLzl public parking. tho Applicant's Proposed Site C'onccpt Ibotin Phase I and 2) are twovidcd thc residential development on thc xxcst side off [.ix cb)eel Road would drivexvays; Liverpool Road and tCl-l~qil~atc ut }"FOllC}]Illitll'5 [3LIN. argot could bo accessed by both residents and thc put01ic: xx id~in thc ground tiao proposed 20 dxxollin< units IS'olqtl~ng i_ix cb>eel Road proxidc thc opportulaity ibr a dwelling unit) of non-rcsidciatiaI space xxithin thc ground floors of those dwelling units; the applicant, since submittin~ tt~c original site contel>tS, alas revised the configuration of those ctxx oiling tllqlts t'I'Ol~tila~ I.ix cU~ool Re'ad to create "clusters" of units at certain street "Ibcal the Applicant's Revised Plan LivcU>ool Road [ nits is p~-oxidod lbr rclbrencc (sec Attachment ~4); the existing marina operation on thc west side of l__ivorpooI Road is proposed to continue operating; however, certain aspects of thc marina support uses. including seasonal boat storage and administrative offices, xvoulct t0c relocated to thc ('oolxx atcr }:arms prope~y; a net increase in land devoted to thc marina operation3 i5 pre)posed, itlqd the ability fbr an increase in the alllOtllit 0~' boats stored scasormllx is cnx isioncd: the applicant has noted that thc Cooixxatcr-Farms pvopcrt)xxill be in the same between both properties oxcv thc long tcrnu is pr-ox idcd: thc marina tkmctions proposed lbr thc x~cst side of Lix crpool Road include: · a nexv dock master buildin~ I xx ith r'acilitios sot-,, in~,~ thc boatin~,~ public, includin~ a boater's supply store, washrooms, launca'x faciiit~cs, a lounge area and l]larina staff facilities): · a travel xvav to allow a wax'el lift to transport boats {to and from the xvatcr, and to and fi-om thc proposed boat storage area on thc cast side of L. ix erpoot Road): typical boat launch facilities and associated equipment: alld, 0 9. 8 Information Report No. 25-01 3.0 · security-gated docks and a vehicular "drop-otT' and parking area accessed by boaters; - the marina functions proposed for the east side of Liverpool Road include: · marina administration offices, boat repair facilities and marina support uses (including boat sales offices and marina retail uses) within the existing two storey building, which is proposed to be upgraded; and, · winter boat storage, both external and within future boat storage sheds, tbr in excess of 230 boats of varying sizes, in Phase 1 (see Attachment #2); the applicant further proposes to provide the opportunity for public parking on part of the Coolwater Farn~s lands, to be leased by the City of Picketing on a seasonal basis, as an extension to the existing City-owned parking lot at the lbot of Liverpool Road; the option for future mixed use commercial development oriented towards Liverpool Road is proposed within the north-west sector of the Coolwater Farms property (see Attachment #3); the applicant's Phase 2 concept plan indicates the potential for approximately 1,070 square metres of retail floor space with two future buildings. BACKGROUND Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications (ePA 99-004/P and A 22/99), submitted by the Picketing Harbour Company in July, 1999, were tabled by City Council on June 19. 2000; those applications proposed redevelopment of only the lands on thc west side of Liverpool Road; the July 1999 applications proposed a phased development consisting of 40 townhouse dwelling units (adjacent to Liverpool Road and Wharf Street) in the first phase, and a mixed use block (adjacent to the waterfront) including the potential for a marina, a 140-unit hotel/apartment complex, restaurant, retail, entertainment and office uses, and a public walkway in the second phase; a substantial amount of bay-fill was proposed to provide additional area to support the second phase of development; recommendations for, and Council's consideration of, the original development proposal, was contemplated for June, 2001; however, the owner requested that Council delay consideration of their original applications and recommendations for both the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review and City-initiated Official Plan Amendment Application (ePA 01-001/P) in order to consider and review a revised preliminary development concept for their lands; the applicant has provided several revised plans in response to input from stakeholders since June, 2001; the Picketing Harbour Company will be acquiring the Coolwater Farms property (they currently have a signed agreement of purchase and sale), with the closing date scheduled for September 14, 2001; the applicant's proposed development will be reviewed by the City within the context of the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review process, the implementing City-initiated amendments to the Picketing Official Plan (ePA 01-001/P) and related Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines; a similar application proposing 17 townhouse units fronting the east side of Liverpool Road with the option for ground floor commercial uses (proposed by Glenbrook Homes - formerly Hilts - Zoning By-laxv Amendlnent Application A 23/99) was approved by Council in June, 2000, subject to conditions being fulfilled; related draft plan of subdivision application SP-2001-03 is in process, and an implementing zoning by-law is scheduled to be considered by City Council on October 1, 2001, for that development; design details of that proposal are being reviewed in conjunction with the Pickering Harbour Company applications to ensure coordinated development and an appropriate streetscape is achieved. Inlbrmation Rcpo~t No. 25-01 R£?OR7 ,¢ PD / C TO Page 4.0 4.1 4.2 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Reglional Official Plan tile Durham Regional ©fficiaI Pian dcsi?ates all of zinc subject hinds Waterfront Places shall bc dcxciopcd as Ibcul poims along the Lake Ontario xx atcrl¥ont, and exhibit a m~x of uses and attract people Ihu a x arictv ofrcasonsz predominant uses xs ithin kVatcrI'ront Places max include marina, recreational, tourist and cultural and communitx residential and clnp]oynqcnt opportunities max be permitted, which support and complement the predominant the applicant's proposals appear to conlbmq to this thc Regional Plan ftHqhcr outlines considerations when t'cvicwin~j proposal within %VatorlS'ont Places. and details additioxal criteria to Picketing Official Phm thc Picketing Official Plan dcsiunalcs ail of thc lands ',2~s! of k. ix cq>ooI Road and a xx'ithin thc Bay Ridges Ncigiabourhood: uses, as xvdl as marina suppoi'tixc uses. l'ostaui'tmt5, limitd retail uses alld limited development proposed within this designation: thc proposed residential dcxcJopmcnt xxould tx'oxictc a net site 1.8g hectares of lands) tiao proposed rctuincd murina lands and tiao C'oohx atcr Famas lands do not form part el'the 1.5S hectare t-csidcntial lands: residential itocatcd on - the applicant proposes to amend thc uses pemnittcd bx tile Official Plan, as they pertain to the lands west of Liverpool Road. bx adding "limited office" uses, and dclctin,~ thc terms "limited" zmd "in conjunction x~itia marinas and yacht clubs" to - a copy of the applicant's proposed Official Plan .%incndnlcnt is enclosed (sec Appendix II): - no amendments to thc Ofl~ciaI Plan arc required to accommodate thc proposed development on the lands cast of Liverpool Road: thc Picketing Official Plan designates a south and cast edge of tile lands east of Lix'ct~ool Road as Open ,S)xx'u 3'xsa'm --.Vu~,r,/ permissible uses within this designation include conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education, passix c Fec:'cation and similar portions of tile subject lands, incluOin~ thc Frcnchmcm's [3ax shorclinc and portions recognizing lands ~cncrallx associated xx ith xxatcr' bodies and strcain corridors tlmt in supper of these applications {inclUdilq~ at least thc tnitlimum inlbmuition prescribed in section 15.11 of tho through that Report, si?ailScant and ~onsitixc environmental t~aturcs will bo identified, and appropriate pl-OtCCtion and mitigation measures xx Oklld be dctcrmincd7 Information Report No. 25-01 /V'rTAOHMENT # 1 c- TO REPORT# PD ~/ -c, ~ Page5 City Council, through section 10.14 of the Picketing Official Plan, recognizes thc ecological, cultural, recreational and economic significance of Frenchman's Bay and the Lake Ontario Waterfront, and accordingly, shall, among other things: · designate the shoreline of Frenchman's Bay and the Lake Ontario Waterfront as pan of Shoreline a~d Stream Corridors to increase awareness of this area; · permit uses and activities along and adjacent to Frenchman's Bay and the Lake Ontario Waterfront that promote the area as attractive, healthy and accessible, while protecting and/or enhancing ecological systems and thc character of abutting neighbourhoods; and, · require, where appropriate, the recommendations of an Environmental Report (prepared in support of a development application) to be implemented; the subject lands fall within a Detailed Review Area. where Council may require thc completion of development guidelines for the Area prior to considering development applications; the applicant's proposal is being reviewed within the context of the on-going Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review proccss; the applicant has opted to revise and maintain the proposed site-specific Official Plain Amendment (ePA 99-004/P) applicable to the lands west of Liverpool Road: however, should City-initiated Official Plan Amendment application ePA (/1-001/P (intended to implement the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Dexelopment Guidelines) amend fine Official Plan in a manner ttnat xvill allow the applicant's proposed development, then the site-specific Amendment would be withdrawn: Section 15.5 of the Pickering Official Plan states that wlnen considering applications to amend tine Plan, City Council shall consider tine overall benefit to the community of the proposal, and accordingly, shall: · require all applications to be accompanied by a Planning Analysis (evaluating the proposal against the relevant goals, objectives, and general intent and purpose of the Plan); and, · discourage amendments that are contrary to the goals, objectives and general intent and purpose of the Plan; in June, 2000, City Council adopted in principle the "Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines" as the City's strategy for detailed land use, urban design and major street layout within the Liverpool Road South Area; the vision described in those Guidelines includes: · a "waterfront village" with a mix of use that is open, accessible and friendly; and an interesting place to visit, work and live; · an area providing seasonal marina facilities with some opportunities for visiting boaters, and additional land-based recreation and tourism opportunities to attract visitors from the surrounding area; · the maintenance of views to the water and streets that act as public open spaces; · a high level ofstreetscape design and quality; · the continuation of marina uses as a key character-setting element of the village; and, · a variety of other uses that provides opportunities for people to live, xvork, shop and play within the area, including residential development, retail operations, personal service uses, offices, studios and restaurants, in addition to marina-related activities; preliminary review of the applicant's proposal suggests that the main elements envisioned in the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines have been incorporated into their proposed development plan; amendments to the Pickering Official Plan are required to implement the applicant's proposed development; Inlbrqa~ation Report No. 25-01 27-2T :- Dr' ') /_ '--, ~; tiao proposed Draft Picketing Oi'/icial Plan Amendment prepared bv tiao applicant is provided as Appendi× Il to this Report. 4.3 Zoning. B¥-lawv 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.3.l all of the subject lands on tiao west side of Lixcrpoo! Road LiFe zoned "O3B" Watertkont Zone. b~ Zonin~ B~-ia~ 2511. as am~c~dcd: this zoning permits ~qqarina and n~arina support uses. }~U~t does ltd permit residential all of' the subject ]allds ell linc eLiS[ side of Lix'cl~)OO] Road arc Aquaculture Facilitx Zone. bx Zoning Bx-lax~s 2511 and 252(L as amended by Bv-lax~ 2050'85: this zoning permits only an tiMuackilturc /2tcilitx' (an opcr'ation pertaining to the hatching, cultivating, grow lng and proccssi~2~ of Iish) on tiqosc lands: an amendment to thc ZOlniiqu bx-laxx is required to implement thc applicant's proposed development. RI~iSt;IfFS OF CIRCt'I...\I'ION (Sec .~Xttachmcnts =5 and-~0) Resident Comments I10 residelaI COI21111Cl11. S ha\c [~cc1~, FCCC]\ cd to-dtitc: ho~encv Comments Veridian Connections expressed ~ obicctio~s to those 'applications. and outlined a No Objections or Concerns: - Durl~am Distv~ct 5ciqool L3oavd Isee .-Xtt'actaiqqelqt -~(~). Staff Comments Official Plain Amendment the applicant will be subn~ittin~ tile required Plannin.~ Analvsis to support the proposed official plan amcndHqcnt in t}~c ilcai' Ik~turc: preliminary review sklggcsts that thc applicant's subnqittcd ol'Iicial plan amendment contains insufficient detail to co,atto] resultant dcvolopmcntz additional neighbourhood policies may be required: throuoh verbal discussions with tt:o applicant, x~c L~ndcrstand that hc is - ' ~cctuostmg the City to accept this proposal as bcin~ consistent x~ ith tlnc x ision contemplated For the Live~ool Road Watertkont Node. but an altor~qatc 0cvclopmcnt design to the design that was contemplated throt~?~ the ('itx's dralk oftncial plan amendment (CPA 01-001.'P) presented in N1ax. 2~n;l' we understand that the applicar~t is I'c~'thcv sL~cstin~ tl~at i~ the City considers it appropriate to revise the C'itx'-initiatoO at~qo~ad~nqctqt i~q .l nqzmnor that pem~its the applicant's proposed dcx clolM~acnt, ti~z~t tl~cx xs ould xx ithdvz~xv their private amendment (CPA 99-004t R)): uses along Live~ool Road: staff is still not satist~cd xx ith tiao details of tile proposal xx it}~ respect to thc ability tbr some retail,office personal set-x ices Lists to be proxidcd immediately along I.ivepool Road (without ronoxatlon or conversion of residential l]oor space)' both start'and tlne applicant are actix'clx discussing this issue in detail. O32 Information Report No. 25-01 ATTACHY, ENT# ] r__ TO REPOR'I' # PD ~ / - c' ~- Page 7 5.3 '~ 5.3.3 Environmental Considerations when received, the applicant's Environmental Report, and other supporting technical reports (including grading and drainage plans and a comprehensive stormwater management plan), will be evaluated to review proposed methods, and must: · ensure the protection and/or improvement to existing natural features and habitats, including, but not limited to, the Hydro Marsh and Frenchman's Bay; · maintain or improve existing surface water quality and quantity, rexiewing methods of stormwater management, and assessing impacts on surrounding natural habitats; · determine any potential negative impacts on aquatic habitats, both in Frenchman's Bay and the Hydro Marsh resulting from the proposed development, and suggest mitigation measures to be implemented; and, · consider tree and vegetation preservation on the Coolwater Farms lands, and the identification of areas requiring protection, restoration and / or rehabilitation; staff will be exploring opportunities for lands supporting significant natural I'eaturcs (particularly portions of the Hydro Marsh encroaching into thc Coolwatcr [:areas property) to be publicly-acquired to promote further protection of those lands: and. technical reports submitted in conjunction with the applicant's proposal will be reviewed to determine their adequacy, both through review by City Staff and appropriate agencies (the applicant is currently preparing an Environmental Report in support of these applications, and will also be required to prepare preliminary grading and drainage plans, a stonnwater management plan and a tree and vegetation inventory and preservation plan). Marina Land Uses preliminary review suggests that the proposal can ensure that an active, vibrant working marina use is maintained and continues to bca predominant use within the Liverpool Road South Area; staff are currently working with the applicant to prepare a draft agreement(s) that will maintain an interconnection between the marina activities on the west side of Liverpool Road and those activities proposed on the Coolwater Farms property, and are exploring other appropriate mechanisms to achieve an interconnection between these properties (including right-of-ways and easement); additional information from the applicant is required to understand the expandability of the improved marina operation, including the securement of appropriate local seasonal boat storage; staff, with assistance from the City's Legal Department, are reviexving thc proposed crossing of a boat travel lift through Liverpool Road between the subject properties, and addressing any negative impacts or potential conflicts with that arrangement; staff is working with the applicant to encourage public access to the proposed marina through both formal and informal arrangements; additional information is required from the applicant to understand and review proposed boat storage techniques, including the location and details of buildings on the Coolxvater Farms property supporting stacked boat storage; additional information is required from the applicant demonstrating that an appropriate Liverpool Road streetscape is maintained xvhere boat storage is proposed abutting that street, and that mitigation measures and landscaping improvements to maintain a high-quality streetscape are implemented; additional information from the applicant is required confirming that bay-fill is not required to accommodate development, and that appropriate edge management of the Frenchman's Bay shoreline (to define and stabilize it) is encouraged; staff encourages the restoration and rehabilitation of the Coolwater Farms property, including reuse of existing infrastructure where appropriate; and lnfommtion Report No. 25-01 Page 8 5.3.4 5.3.6 Residential Land Uses preliminary rcvicxx suggests that tho mix of marina, residential and other mixed commercial uses can co-exist uno be compatible x~itta sun-ounding existing proposed uses, if designed residential uses arc supported to encourage a base r-csidcntial population in thc Liverpool Road South Area [hat xxill stlpport local [mLiSil2OSSeS and activities, and maintain a presence of people in thc area on a year round preliminary rcvicxx suggests that design ctctaiis of tho proposed residential development can ensure compatibility of thc resultant scale, character and rdationships of tiao ncxx dcvclopmciat xxith SUzToklndin~ alex clopznCl]t (including buildings, landscaping, Ik'ncing, building matorials, crc. ): the lhture implementing zenana by-lay, xxd rcx icxx of associated dcxclopmcnt applications (site plan approx al and &'ail plan oI'condominiun2) will assist in ensuring that resultant development maintzuns tho cnvisiolqcd "Groat Lakes Nautical theme espoused through thc i_ixcq)oot Road South .&rea Detailed Rcxiexx process: and. lhrotlgh tiao detailed design of tiao residential lands and t}aI-OLtgh I~ltklI'C agreements, thc establishment of private outdoor xnacnitv ar'oas scrxin~ rcsictcntial units fronting Nvcrpool Road along that stFcct ix ill be discouraged: Commercial Retail Uses uses to be developed alonm~ both 5ides of [.ix crpool Road. at yaryan-. = sizes, both Liverpool Road and is compatible xx ith SLU-rOLindin~ cxistin~ and proposed residential development: staff are not vet conx inccd that tine cippiicuxt'5 proposal adcquately altoxxs tbr-easy conversion" oi'ground tlc)or stoacc xx ]tiqln dx~cllin~ unii~ Fr'otatin~ Liverpool Road lbr staff are still discussing, x~ith thc applicanL ti~o required minimum ~round floor area for proposed units ffontin~$ Lixcq>oo] Road. to Cl~COLII'/t~C Li k ar-~ctx of non-residential uses to be established in these units: staff supports thc early construcuon of thc proposed I'uturo commercial buildings located on the Coohvater Farms propcrtg: accordin~l>, star'I' needs to i'urther review thc Phase II design For the Coohxater Fanns propert> to ensure commercial, boat storage and parking uses are all accommodated: and. staff is considering the appropriateness of establishing non-residential '%cat points" along Liveq~ool Road (where a hi?act intensity of non-residential activities are located), as proposed by the applicant~ Required Future Development Applications ensuring additional related doxolopmont uppliciiliol].< includi~ag appropriate site plan applications and di-aI~ plan of condominium applicxtion. ~x ill be required should the proposal be approx cd: manner will be required: and. thc exact boundaries of thc proposed dcxelot>mczat precincts, considering natural {and assessing altcrnatixcs, ii' wan'anted}, will bc rcx icxNcd rbllox~in5 receipt and review of the technical inlbrmation: Zonin,, Matters should thc proposal be approved, thc bv-lax~ xxouId haxe to identiI'x appropriate zonin- standards to respect and protect natural tbaturc,' the implications of the proposed condominium tenure o!' dcx clopmcnt will have to bo Information Report No. 25-01 ATTACHMENT # / ~- TO Page 9 ..2.8 6.0 6.1 6.2 should the proposal be approved, the by-law would have to establish appropriate zoning provisions that encourage a broad mix of non-residential, grade related uses within residential units fronting Liverpool Road; and. staff' is considering the use of an (H) - Holding Zone to be applied to dwelling units fronting Liverpool Road as a way to ensure minimum design criteria is achieved within the ground floor of dwelling units to support future commercial uses; Other Considerations staff suggest that the proposed seasonal public parking lot on the Coolwater Farms lands be conveyed into public ownership; staff is still reviewing pedestrian connections over portions of the subject lands. where appropriate; and, the applicant is required to prepare an Environmental Audit on thc lands west of Liverpool Road supporting proposed residential development, to identi~' any on-site soil contamination originating from the existing marina operation (in accordance with the Ministry of Environment and Energy's "Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario"). PROCEDURAL INFORMATION General 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 xvish to be notified of City Council's adoption of a proposed local official plan amendment or passing of any zoning by-la~v amendment, you must make a written request to: City Clerk City of Picketing Picketing Civic Complex One the Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 if you wish to be notified of the decision of the Region of Durham with respect to proposed local official plan amendment application, you must make a written request to: Mr. A. Georgieff Commissioner of Planning Region of Durham Planning Department 1615 Dundas Street East 4th Floor, Lang Tower, West Building Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 Approval Authorities for Submitted Applications the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional approval if such applications are determined to be locally significant, and do not exhibit matters of Regional and / or Provincial interest; the Region has verbally confirmed that the submitted Picketing Official Plan Amendment application is not exempt from Regional approval as it is a revision to a previously submitted official plan amendment application on the same lands that was circulated in 1999 (prior to the date allowing Regional exemptions to be granted); Report No. 25-01 - Page 10 0.3 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 thc City's recommendations on the proposed official plan amendment application xx il! bc Ibrwarded to the Region of Dur'ham. xxhich is tiao approval authority iht' tinis application; amendment applications. ii' a person or public bodx :hz: niles a~: appeal of a decision of the Regional Municipal}t> of Durham in respect of thc proposed official plan amendment docs not make oral submissions at thc p~lblic mooting, or l~lakc xvt}non submissions to Board inav dismiss all or pan of the OTttER INFORMATION ~endix No. ! report. 1 n formation Received large-scale plans submitted bx thc applicant arc aivail'ablc IN' xiowing in thc City of Picketing Plannin,~ & Development I)cpar't:~acnt: tiao submission and review of the applicant'~ Plann:n5 .%::alxsis and a supporting Environment hnpact Study are required pr-roi' to Staff Ibl'n:k:latin~ rccon::ncndations to City Council For consideration. ('ompanv Information the agent, Mr. Jim Lucas of,lames Lucas Properties Limited, advises that tho owner of thc lands west of Live~ool Road arc oxxned by thc Picketing Harbour Company Limited; - Picketing Harbour Compan5 Limited currentlx has a si?cd agreement of purchase and sale Ibr the Coolxxatcr }:arms propcrt), currcntlx possessed by Alan Lawson, Fisher Inc., the appointed Rece~x c: Ibr tiao ('oolxx ate: ~'tlrlllS [3I'01901'15 2 - Picketing Harbour Con:pan) Limited is sci:edulcd :o complete :}noir' pctrchasc of the Coolxvatcr Farms lands on September 14.2{ ~i · ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Rea Taylor Planner II RS'[- :\nachments ('op.v: Director, Planning & Dcxclopment Dopai-tmcnt Rose /¢ APPENDIX I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 25-01 ' N COMMENTi. G RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS - no resident comments have been received to-date; COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) Veridian Connections (2) Durham District School Board COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS (1) Planning & Development Department AI~PENI)IX II TO INFORMATION I/EPORT NO. 25-01 I)ROI'OSED RI~]X,'ISEI)~\311~Ni)511'~NITM l'O TIlE PICKERING OFFICIAI~ PLAN (Ol'A 99-004/1'(1/)) PURI'OSIS: I~OC:\TION: PROPOSED AMENDSIENT: 1MPl .EM ENTAIl ON: 1 NTER PRETATiON: The purDosc oFthc anlcndnlcnt is to Fcvisc Table 3 of'the Picketing (Di'i]cial Plan -- "O[)ell Si)acc S;'Stelll' I)cFmissible Lists by Subcate~,oF,"' to bFoadcn thc list oFpcrmissible uses. 'I'{ic DloDosed an~cnchnent to Table 3 xxotild at'i'ect all lands desigHatcd "ODcn Space Sx'stc~q - Nlarina Area" on Schedule I - "Land Use St;'uCtUl'e" oF till~ k)t'iicial Plan in that Pm't oF Lot 23, "l,[cvisinl2 l';tl~le 3, as sh¢~n on Schedule ':\' to this proposed ameHtlmeHt." Thc DFovisioHs set l'oi'th in tile PickcFil],j ()i'licial t)laH, as ztmendcd, Thc Drox'isions set lbFtt~ i~ thc t)ickct-in,5 (Ot'l~cial Plan, as amended, rc~a~'din$ tt~c intcrDrcta~tioH c)I' tt~c Plan si~all aDtMy in Fcgard to this APPENDIX II TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 25-01 ATTACHMENT # [ c .TO R[PO8T~PD ~/ -c,9, Page * Schedule 'A' to the Proposed Amendment to the Picketing Official Plan TOWN POLICY ])ermis.~zb/e l '.,c.. ~,~ . ;'~aS,,:,T~v9' TABLE 3 Open Space Permissible Uses System (Restrictions and limitations on the uses permissible, arising from other policies of Subcatego~' this Plan, xxqll be detailed in zoning by-laws.) Natural Areas Conservation, enviroumental protection, restoration, education, passive recreation, and sitnilar uses; Agricultural uses outside of valley and stream corridors, wetlands, enviromnentally significant areas, aud areas of natural and scienti~c interest; Existing lawful residential dwellings; a new residential dwelling on a vacant lot. Active All uses permtssible in Natural Areas; Recreational Areas Active recreational, communiw and cultural uses, and other related uses. Marina Areas All uses permissible in Natural Areas and Active Recreational Areas; Marinas, yacht clubs and ancillan, uses; Marina supportive uses, restaurants, limited retail and o£lTce uses; bruited residential uses in conjunction v, Sth marina~ -and :'acht clubs; Aquaculture and other related uses. Note: The ira/idled words xvithin the "Marina Areas" row arc proposed to be added to the text, and theoo~:~'~*u~,~..~.o~,8-r' words are proposed to be deleted from the text. 0?9 Excerpts from the Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes Pursuant to the Plannino~ Act Thursday, September 2t}. 2001 8:0(} P.51. Chair: Councillor Holland I'hc Ni'anager, Policy Dixision. pro~idcd an o~c:'~icx~ of thc rcqmrcmcnts of the Planning .Act and fl~c ()ntario NIunicipal Board respecting th~s meeting and matters under consideration ti~crc at. (1II) REVISED OFFICIAl. PI~AN ASIENI)NIFNT APPLICATION ()PA 99-004/P (R) REVISED ZONING B'~'-LAV~ ASIENDSIENI APPI.ICAI'ION A 22/99(R) PICKERING ItARBO[R COMPAN5' PART OF EOT 23. RANGE 3, B.F.('. (LANDS ON TIlE \XES'[ SIDE OF LI\'ERPOOI~ ROAD. AND SOUTH OF \\'HARF STREET} Ron Taylor. Plam]er II, )rovided an explanation of thc 'application, as outlined in Inlbi-mation Report Jinl Lucas, Lucas Propcrue~. spcakin5 on i~chalf of :?plic',mu advised that this xx itl hca nautical, either water to boat beds or bzick, takin5 :q?roxima~tclx 2', IlallILitCS. NO infilling of thc BSi5' xx ill takcplace. Tiao units haxcbccndcsi?acdto haxcthc appcaranccof2 ?5 storeys. Thc2''':phase of thc development coc~ld nrc\, icic, a tx\ o 5tore\ 5tI'LZCtLtI'C xxhich xxill house small boats in boat slots. Phil .\lcNIullen, 572 Kinsston Road. spcak~n5 on t~clmll'of lb\CT and BECA, advised that most boats at thc marina arc sail boat,_ xshich arc more than _~'<' atnd the proposed buildin-~ could only hold 1S' boats. Ho distributed his comments and t-cqucstcd refusal of thc application. Nlichelle Evans, 1£1{) Radon] St.. ::5~( stated }qci' co]qccrn xxitl7 access to the xxatcrfi'ont and trat'i~c. She requested that tine I1L1111130I' Of }1OI1~C5 }~c limited and that a xxidcr path be Mi\ch /bt walking. Sylvain Trcpanier, 12IS Nlonica Cook Place, speaking on behalf of PESCA, echoed what Mr. McMullcn stated and adx'iscd that it is pr-creature to rcxicxx this applicatioi~. The application does not have a nautical theme. Hc stated their sit-on5 objection to this application, especially the boat crossing which will create saint\ issues. Nlox in~ boats across tho road will take longer than anticipated due to cars and pedestrians using Lixcq3ool Road. Any study that is undertaken should take into consideration thc impact on thc communitx xx~th this proposed road closing. He advised that he is not in agreement xxith staI'I' comments and that in Section 5.3.5 Commercial Retail Uses staff appears unsure. John Earlcy, SI0 Helen Crescent. adx iscd that hc is in I'axour of any application that would beautilh' tho bottom of Liverpool Road. but he fun}ncr ~tatcd that he is opposed to this application. David Matthews, Annland St.. questioned xxt',', resident_< spent so much time mooting and planning to bare eVel'xthin~ dasiqcd. }lc fur'thcr questioned v:h~ thc property has been alloxx cd to remain an eyesore. Ho requested that this application bo refused. Suzannc Rcgiinbal, 1240 llona Park Rd., ~14, stated her opposition to thc application, highlighting the absence cfa picnic area and retail and suggesting more green space, ice cream shops, aft stores, etc. Doug i_?ch, 1177 CJlouchestcr Sq., f~cls confident that tile applicant can develop this in a clean, environmentally safb xvav. It would benefit the bottom of Liverpool Road if storage was moved to thc other side. Jill Adams, 1285 Commerce St., stated her opposition to this/chin5 application, ad\ isin~, that no further de\ dopmcnt should bc approx cci that x~ ould il2q]ln~e et\ OpCI; space. (I 4 0 Excerpts from the Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes Pursuant to the Planning Act Thursday, September 20, 2001 8:00 P.M. Chair: Councillor Holland. 11. 12. 13. t4. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. ¸22. 23. Pierre Langeni. 1240 Ilona Park Rd. #10, agreed that Coolwater property needs improvement He stated his concern regarding water access. Louise Bailer, 889 Antonio St., questioned if ownerstnip lnas changed and if Swans Marina xxil close. She stated her opposition to the application and her concern with respect to traffic. Sandra Frost. 909 Naroch Blvd., stated her total opposition to this proposal, her concern witl respect to traffic and boat crossing, and the lack of need for retail. Jackie Smart, 829 Fairview Ave., stated that the marina is an eyesore and that thc b, required landscaping. She outlined that to build a commercial unit is more costly, tlnerefore, th developer is allowing for conversion rather than paying tile cost of' building tis commercial. the cost to purclnase a unit is between S350,000 to 5500,000, residents will not want the having access to the waterfront through their property. The waterfront }las had an amount c $3.2 million spent on it to-date which is of benefit to developers. She stated her concerns wit respect to the boat crossing and loss of waterfront to the new residents. She requested tlmt thi application be denied and that present residents interests be considered. David Steele, 966 Timmins Gardens, questioned if the application is legal, stating that the zonin of the land on ttm west side of Liverpool Road is for marina use. He further questioned if tln Planning staff agree with this proposal and if Coolwater Famns is subject to approval. He state that thc vision of the Waterfront Task Force was for tlne development of commercial space. A resident of Wharf St. stated that a travel lift takes tine same amount of time as a [ crossing the street. Bernie Luttmer, Swans Marina, advised that the marina will not allow for waterfront access an ttmt it would be better to move the marina across the street. The entrance to tine Bay must b addressed before any development occurs. He stated that traffic fi'om this development will be any worse than in previous years and that taking a boat across the street would not be an ' He stated his agreement xvith some of the proposal, but would like to sec more commercial. Craig Bamford, 528 Marksbury Rd., advised that the harbour entrance must be addressed an shops and restaurants are needed if tourism is to increase. He questioned hoxv many boats wil use the waterfront, what are the parking standards for each boat, how many boats xvill be used b' residents from land and how are xve going to finance the upgrading of the harbour entrance. Paul Kelland, 921 Grenoble Blvd., questioned the benefits to the City, if approval is given. Jim Dike, 4 Boxves Garden, Scarborough, advised that the chances of having sufficient wat~ level over tbe next txvo or three years is not good and that the Bay must be worked on quickly. Sylvain Trepanier, 1218 Monica Cook Place, echoed previous comments and questioned the cos for upgrading units to commercial and the impact on the environment with boat repairs an, cleaning. He stated that ttm entrance to the Bay requires improvement and that maybe compromise could be reached. Terry Wheately, 1201 Old Orchard Ave., stated opposition to the development, advising that it not in tine spirit o£tlne plans for the area. She questioned what impact this development will on tine Frenchman's Bay Festival. Brad Forbes, 663 Front Road, advised that this development does not meet tlm spirit of th waterfront and approval would create an alley of townhouses. KE G E×eerpts from the Stututor¥ Public lnfornmfion Meeting Minutes Pursuant to the Planning Act Thursday, September 20, 2001 8:00 P.31. Chair: Councillor Holland 24. .lacctucline Smart. $29 I~:z~i~-x'icxx :Nxc.. advised that hack i~n 1V~5 to 1986, boats did not intcz'~ro THE DURHAM DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Facilities §e~vices 400 Taunton Road East Whitby, Ontario L1R 2K6 Telephone: (905) 666-5500 1-800-265-3968 -ax: (905) 666-6439 A'r-rACHMENT #~TO REPORT # PD ~ / -': '~ -- August 27. 2001 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Planning Department Pickering Civic Complex One the Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 RECEIVED AU6 2 9 200] CiTY OF i=iC,V, EF',iNG DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Attention: Mr. Ron Taylor Dear Mr. Taylor. RE: Revised Official Plan Amendment Application 99-004/P (R) Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/99 (R) Picketing Harbour Company Part of Lot 23, Range 3, B.F.C. (west side of Liverpool Road, south of Wharf Street) City of Picketing - AND - Znning By-law Amendment Application A 13/01 Pickering Harbour Company (formerly 3444309 Canada Inc. - Coolwater Farms) Part of Lot 23, Range 3, B.F.C. (west side of Liverpool Road, south of Wharf Street) City. of Picketing Staff has reviewed the information on the above noted application and. under the mandate of the Durham District School Board, has no objections. Yours truly, Christine Nancekivell, Planner CN:em THE DURHAM CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD September 11, 2001 Ron Taylor Planning and Development Department Pickering Civic Complex City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Taylor: RE: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OPA 99-004/P(R) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 22/99(R) PICKERING HARBOUR COMPANY PART OF LOT 23, RANGE 3, BROKEN FRONT CONCESSION CITY OF PICKERING At the Regular Board Meeting of September 10, 2001 the following motion was approved: "THAT the Durham Catholic District School Board indicate in its comments to the City of Pickering that the Board has no objection to Official Plan Amendment 99- 004/P(R) and Zoning By-law A 22/99(R).' The subject lands affected by these applications fall within thee catchment area of Holy Redeemer Catholic Elementary School, located at 747 Liverpool Road in Pickering. The projected student yield from this development is 13 students. Sincerely yours, Gerry O'Nei~ Controller of Planmng and Admissions GON:SMR:smr f 44 ATTACHMENT #., ~' TO REPORT# PD ~/ - ¢ ~ October 29. 2001 The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Departmen~l 1615 Dundas St. E 4th Floor. Lang Tower West Building Re. Box 623' Whitby, ON L1N 6~,3 [Q05) 728-7731 f905~ 436-6612 WWW r~ A.L Georgieff, MC~P, RP~' Commissioner of Planning Mr. Ne//Carroll, Director-of Planning Planning Department City of Pickenng 1 The Esplanade Pickering ON L'IV 6K7 Dear Mr. Carrolh Re: ReviSed Servicing Comments for an Application to Amend the City of Picketing. Official Plan Area Municipal File No.: ePA 99-004/P Cross Ret.: A13/01 8, A 22/99 ('Revised) and ePA 2001_001/P Applicant: The Nickering Harbour Company Limited Municipality:. City of Pickering Further to our letter of October 17, 2001, following are revised servicing comments related to the above noted applications. Municipal water supply is available from the existing 200 mm wa~erma~n on LiverpooJ Road and the existing 150 mm watermain on Wharf Streel. Regional fire flow tests yielded static pressures in excess of 80 psi. Therefore, .individual pressure-reducing valves will be required in accordance with the City of Pickering Plumbing Code; The existing sanitary sewer system in 'the Liverpool Road Pumping Station trib,tary area is at capacity due to sewage pumping capacity constraints at th~ Liverpool Road Pumping Station. There is a history of basement flooding due to excessive infiltration in the built up areas, during heavy rainstorms. The most recent high level flows occurred on May 12-13, 2000, causing basement flooding within the Liverpool Road Pumping Station tributary drainage area. The Region of Durham has recently undertaken an upgrade, evaluation study of the Liverpool Road Pumping Station. The study indicates that twinning of the existing 900 mm forcemain would be required for security and additional capacity. The estimated cost-of this twinning is approximately. $3.4 to $3.9 million. These Works are identified in the draft 00% Pest Consumer ATTACHMEI~T #_~ .TO Region's Capital ~,~L an:J [ne ~ .ear forecast for ':,,'ear 2005. in a.,~t~on. modifications of electrical ans' secu:r'.t.., comsonents at the LF~.'erooo,' Road ~umDing Station are ~,,.-~'~.d ','~,;~,,,~- r~r~,c; year a early . ~~ [o be un~=~ .... du 2001 nd 2002. Due to tile pump,.ng station constraints the minimum ',:~asement floor elevations of the proposed =.-~ ..... d~=,~?~n~n~ must be above 76.00 metres. This requirement is necessary to prevent basement flooding and environmental da. mace in the event of pumping station failure or sanitary sew'er surcharge. Alternatively, the development will require private pump,nc stations. WhiCh may be an .option if the site ~s serviced as a condominium. To provide additional capacity for the proposed ceve~opment ann to alleviate surcharging and basem, ent flooding cue to ~nfi!tratior,,. the ex~stina sanitary sewers on Wharf Street, Liverpool Road and on easement to the Liver~oo! Roa~i Sewage Pumping Station, must be twinned with a 525 mm sanitary sewer. The 525 mm sanitary sewer will outfail Cirectly into the Liverpool R~ac Pumping Station. These works have not been included in the Realon's Oapital Budget. However, they will be considered in the Region's fonncon~no review for budget. preparation. ~ Alternatively, these works couid be constructec rn con unction with the subject development, through a subdivision or site servicing ag'~eement with the Region of Durham. The applicant would be responsible for the cost of providing., as a minimum, a 200 mm diameter sanitary sewer, wniie the Region of Durham would be responsible for oversizing costs. The estimated cost of constructing 430 metres of 525 mm sanitary sewer is $410,000. The sanitary sewer works on Wharf Street will only be required if the proposed development connects to the Wharf Street sewer or if the road is planned for reconstruction. As a result of the previously mentionec' constraints, the Region will require that the commercial uses proposed within the sub,eot lands ton the east and west sides of Liverpoo! Road), be restricted to !ow water consumstion,discharge (dry- use) establishments only, until twinning of the 900 mm iorcemain Inns been completed. In conclusion, the Region has no o~0jeciion :o further processinq of the subiect applications. However, Regional approvai ,of the development ~f the subje'ct lands, through a site plan or plan oi concom~n~um, wi!i be subject to the follcw~ng conditions: · Submission by the applicant, of a functiona~ ser,.'~c~ng repo~ prepared by a consultant identifying: the feasibility of providing a private sanitar:, p~.~.mp;n~ stations; building floor elevations; and ,0 iii) Page 3 preliminary sanitary sewer plans and profile drawings along Wharf Street, Liverpool Road and the easement to the Liverpool Road Pumping Station. Completion by the Region of the electrical and security modifications at the Liverpool Roads Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station, scheduled during 2001 and early 2002. · construction, by the applicant, of a 525 mm sanitary sewer: i) easterly on Wharf Street from a point 120 metres west of Liverpool Road' ii) southerly on Liverpool Road to the easement from the Liverpool Road Pumping Station' and iii) easterly on the easement to Liverpool Road Pumping Station. Execution of a Regional servicing agreement with the applicant, covering all aspect, financial and otherwise, with respect to provision of Regiona Services. Restricting of the proposed commercial uses Within the subject lands on Doth east and west sides of Liverpool Road), to treat of Iow water consumption discharge (dry-use) establishments only, until twinning of the 900 mm forcemaln has peen completed. In addition, it is recommended that the applicant's Engineer meet with Regional Works Department staff to discuss servicing requirements prior to detailed design. Yours truly, T C I~/ om aaman, Planner Current Operations Branch :tc cci: Regional Works Department - Cliff Curtis N: ,pim\tc\devapp\lopa\PostExemption\Pickering\99_004\99_004P_wrKsR.d 3c .Octobe/17,200. rhe Regional )f Durham ~tanning )epar~ment . 615 Dundas St. E. th Floor, Lang Tower i/est Building '.O. Box 623 Chitby, Oki L1N 6A3 ,~) 728-7731 _x: (905) 436-6612 ~.re ion dur m. n .L. Georgieff, MCiP, RPP. ommissioner Planning Mr. Nell '-' ,- ~arr~ll, Director of Planning Planning Department City of Pickering · 1 The Esplanade PickeringON L1V6K7 Dear Mr. Carroll: Re: Region's Review of a Revised Application to Amend the City of Picketing Official Plan Area Municipal File No.: LOPA 99-004.:P Cross Reft: A13/01 & A 22/99 (Rewsedl; Applicant: The Pickering Harbour Company Limited Munic~ of Pickerin_~ This rey!sed application has been reviewed by the Region aha ~ne fotlow'ng comments are offered with respest to the Regional Offic~a Plan other app~casle Regional policies, and the proposed method of ser','icins. The applicant is proposing to amend the City of Pickenna 3flSci~. Plat to permit a marine villag.e combining marina, residential, retail, com~er:i~vofl'ice and restaurant uses. 'More specifically, the lands to the west of _iverpoo Road are to include a townh°use development, consisting of 66 conaom~niurr townhouse units, with some commercial/office and personal services opportunities on the ground floor of units fronting onto Liverpool Road. The land ~o the east of Liverpool Road is to contain associated marina support uses, including boat storage and administraiion, operations, as well as permitting future commercia uses including the retailing of goods and services, offices an~ restaurants. The property is ~lesignated "Waterfront Place" within tne Durnam Realonal Offic a~ Plan. Waterfronts are to be developed as"peopieplaces"wtntnee~ce©tlon of significant natural areas, which wilt beprctectedin·theirnatura states. Waterfront development shall not negative!y impact environmental v sensitive areas and wildlife habitat. Section ~14.3.90fthe Durham Regional O,t~c,~.. Plan permhs restoent~ai development, which supports and ~- ~'~ ~ ' ~,om~m=nts :ne preoominant uses w thin the Watedront. Predominant usesma~,:nciuce mari~a, recreatona.tourist, anq cultural and community uses, as we!: as residentla, - ' ~nc emp.syment Jses wrcn suppo~ and complement the pregominant uses. The scaJe of ceve,osmenl sna be based on and reflect the characteristics of each "v,'ateXron; Piase" review of development proposals within the consiaered' ' ~ ' ~'~' ~' r~ rO,iO~*, ns s~cu c 3e ® 100% Pos[ Consumer O45 ATTACHMENT #~tO REPORT ,~ PD · Environmental constraints and opportunities; _ · Maximization of public access to the Waterfront Place; · Emphasis of the unique landscape features and neritage resources to strengthen community identity; · Development of east-west natura corricors to link Water-l:ront Places and natura'l areas along the waterfront and to develop norm-south valley systems. R._~g_g. ion a I Services The Regional Works Department has reviewed the revised prooosal and offer the following comments with regard to Regional' Roads and service requirements. Water Supply Services Water supply to service the subject lands is available from the existing 200 mm watermain on Liverpool road and a 150 mm watermain on Wharf Street. A fire flow test for this area yielded as static pressure of 98 psi, therefore individual pressure-reducing valves will be required in accordance with the City's Plumbing Code. ~anitary Sewer Services The existing sanitary sewer in Liverpool Road Pumping Station tributary area, is at capacity and there are sewage pumping capacity constraints Due to a history of sanitary sewer surcharging and possible basement flooding, the proposed development may require private pumping stations. Servicing'of the proposed site as a condominium development, would therefore be beneficial. As a result of overflow events at'the Liveroool Road Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station and related basement flooding in the area, the minimum elevations of basement floors for all units must be above 75.975 metres This requirement is necessary to prevent basement flooding and environmental damage in the event of a pumping station failure or sanitary sewer surcharge. A capacity study at the Liverpool Road Pumping Station indicates that twinning of the existing 900 mm forcemain will be required for security and additional capacity. The estimated cost for this is $3.4 to $3.9 million dollar:s. These works have not been included in the Region's Capital Budget or identified within the 4 year foreca st. The existing sanitary sewers on Wharf Street, Liverpool Roaa and on easements to the Pumping Station, must be twinned with a 525 mm sanitary, sewer,' to accommodate the additional capacity required for the development and. to alleviate surcharging and basement flooding due to infiltration. The estimated cost of twinning 420 metres of 525 mm sanitary sewer ~s $410,000. These works have not been included in the Region's Capital Budget or identified within the 4 year forecast, but are being considered for review. Due to the previously mentioned constraints, there is no capacity to sep.,'ice the proposed development at this ~ ~ ' t,m:. In order to srovide sufficient capacity tc service the proposed develo~ment, a water consen.~a~ion program would nave to be implemented to retrofit th'e existing homes surrounding the proposed development. To accommodate the additional sewaee flow generated by this proposal, twinning of the ~ '~ . '; ~ s~nl~r), sewers on Wha~ S~r~;, Liverpool Road and the easement to the Pumping Station would ben~.e~san./. The Region has not budgeted for these programs anc' nas not included them in the Capital Program for 2002. The Regional Works Department has no obiection to continued process ng of the subiectapp cations However, since tne de,~etopment of the proposal site is premature, from a sanitar)~ sewer ser~'Jcing perspective, prior to any approval of a site plan, plan of condominiurn or execution of a subdivision acreement, the following conditions would be require~ to Pe satisfied' ~ In conclusion, since the development of the proposal site is premature from a sanitary sewer servicing perspect va, prior to any Regional approval oi a site plan, plan of condominium or execution of a subdivision agreement, the following. conditions would have to be satisfied: · Submission and acceptance of a functional servicing reoort prepared by a consultant identifying; ' i) the feasibility of providing a private sanitar/pump ng station; building floor elevations; and preliminary sanitary sewer plans and profile drawings. Completion by the Region of the e!ectrical system and SCADA monitoring · equipment modifications at the Liverpool Ro'a~s Sanitaq/Sewage Pumping Station, scheduled to be coms!eted within 2001 and 2002 budget years. · Twinning of the sanitary sewers on 1.&/har~ street. Li,.~erpocl Road and on the easement to the Liverpool Road Pumping Station. · Execution of a Regional Servicing Agreement. covering all ~ ~ ' ~s~c~ financial and otherwise, with respect to prowsion of Regionai Services. Please advise the Commissioner of Planning of your ~' ~ ' ~,ounc,l s decision. If Council adopts an Amendment, a record must be submitted to this Depa~ment, within 15 days of the date of adoption, with a reeuest for approval (refer to the Attachment for details). ' In addition, effective Januan./I, 2002 the app,,,..~n~ is aOvised that a new non- refundable fee of ,$1000.00 (cheque or money order payable to the Regional Municipality of Durham) will charged for Regional approval of ~rivate!y-initiated amendments. This fee must be submitted with themunicipaliiv, s record for processing to commence. Please call me if you nave any questions. Yours truly, / . -/~? ×? Tom O~dm~r~, Planner, M.O.I.P., R.P.P. Currem Oper~ians Branan Atta ch. cc. Malone Given Parsons N:\pim\tc\devs pp\lopa\PostExem 3[ion\Pickerina\99-004\99-004P-revlewR.doc Attachment If an Amendment is adopted, Regicna PiannJng Desar~mentrequiresttse following information (within 15 da?s of tine date cf acoption): adopted Amendment i certified csp).-' auSi!cates&Sworkingcopies) Region's submission form ~1 letter requesting the Region's approvai Adopting by-law (2 certified copies~ Minutes of all public meetings All written submissions, and comments (oricina!s or cosJes), showing the dates received ~ ' All planning repons considered by Council Affidavit(s) of municipal empioyee/s) ce.difying that Notice of Publis Meeting was given, a public meeting was held. and Notice of Adoption was given in accordance with the requirements of the Pianning Act ~1 Mailing list of persons who spoke at tine public meeting(s O52 pnservat n RONTO AND REGION 'danuaw 3,2002 CFN 30511.02 Mr. Grant McGregor Planning Department City of Pickering Pickering Civic Centre One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. McGregor: Re: and Revised Official Plan Amendment OPA 99-004/P(R) Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/99(R) Part of Lot 23, Range 3 BFC Lands on the west side of Liverpool Road, and south of Wharf Street Pickering Harbour Company City of Pickering Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 13/01 Part of Lot 22, Range 3 BFC Lands on the east side of Liverpool Road, and south of Wharf Street City of Pickering ~(Pickering Harbour Company) (formerly 3444309 Canada Inc. - Coolwater Farms/ Further to our discussions and after receipt of the above noted applications we offer the following comments. TRCA staff have met with the applicant to discuss the proposed development of the subject lands prior tothe submission of the above applications. As a response to these discussions staff outlined a number of concerns with the proposal (see attached letter) to be resolved prior to consideration of the above applications. Notwithstanding the technical concerns noted in our letter of June 22, 2001 to the applicant, staff continue to promote a comprehensive plan for the Liverpool Community which addresses the long term measures for the improvement of Frenchman's Bay and the provision of the associated infrastructure / public land requirements prior to the consideration of the site specific applications. In this regard staff recognize the Liverpool Road South Detailed Land Use and Design Study is in the final stages of completion. As part of the review of this study the City of Pickering with input from the TRCA has highlighted some of the comprehensive issues to be addressed prior to consideration of specific development applications. Under section C1.6 the recognition that Environmental Management matters of particular interest include: the need to assess impacts of boating activities on the natural environment should be considered in the review of any new docking activities. F:",P RS'~CORRES P\PICKERIN\CFN30511.02- 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 154 (416) 661~6600 FAX 661-6898 www. trca.on.ca ~'"'~"l~\ Mr. Grant McGregor January_3. 2002 We submit that impacts on the natural environment and hazard mar~agement as a result of new marina activities should be reviewed comprehensively prior to the approval of site specific applications relating to that use. Particularly given the nature of this proposal(ie. Marina uses), staff are concerned about impacts to the management of Frenchman's Bay including high lake level and wave uprush impacts, the c~annel entrance to Frenchman's Bay and other associated matters. We also promote a comprehensiw~ scheme for s:ormwater management for the Liverpool Community in accordance with the direction of the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Study. Therefore, by way of this letter we request a meeting wi;h the applicant and the City to discuss TROA staff concerns with the management of Fre,nchma,n s Bay and tine specific technical concerns with the appiication. We trust that this information is of assistance. If you require further clarification please contact the undersigned. Yours, truly, Plans Analyst Development Services Section Ext. 5306 RW/fa CC: Nell Carroll, City of Pickering Larry Field, TRCA F:\P RS\CORRES P~,PICKERIN,,CFN30511.02- /~TTACHMENT ~ '-7 ~TO REPORT d' PD -c,~ Noreen S.M. Denmm~ 1640 Highway # 7 Brougham, Ontario LOH IAO 905-683-9325 email ndenman@aol, com RECEIVED SE? 2 0 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING ,AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Sept ] 8/01 Re--Major Redevelopment Proposed For Frenchman's Bay I am opposed to construction of commerical or residential developments along the waterfront. This is a beautiful natural resource, and should be kept for the pleasure and recreation the public. Sincerely N.S.MDenman ,/'i, ....... ATTACHMENT # ~.~._.~TO REPORT # PD .-; ,' - c .~ 0 5 5 T.E. CRAIG BAMFORD 528 Marksbur~ Road Pi,,:ker/m, Ontario 905-420-6255 The Citx of Pickering P I ar'.rri;a g Department Atterntiora Catherine Rose One Fhc Esplanade Pick:ring, Ontario LI V 6K7 SE? 2 0,2001 CITy OF PICKERING PLANNING A DEVELOP NO Picketing Harbour Company Appiicat~ons E~ist and ',test Side of L_ix erpc.:i Road Liverpool Road Design Stud} Dear Catherine Build it and they xtii! come. This pi~rase, which introduces the ¥ourism chapter of the Watert'ron: 2c)C:,I.;~':e-sented in October 1997, should guide ali of our actions as we consider the above applications anJ des; cn study'. LET'S GO BACK BRIEFLY TO OCTOBER leO-. .4ND [r~.:~,,[-~.~ CLOSIELY AT THE WATERFR(]NT 2001 VISION. a xision ot'o~er 100 Picketing resident.s "The Picketing YVaterfront should create a distinct sense of Place. ]_his sense must be nurtured by not only ()ut' heritage and unique natural settinz, but also what the waterfront represents to Picketing residents and visitors of all a,,!es and abilities. To dexelop tis a successful destination the Picketing x~aterfront must become: A Place where public access is maximized and opportunities exist for visitors to choose safe waterfront activities, compatible with the natural environment and udjacent neighbourhoods. A Place that is effectively linked to coinmercial areas hv special design themes along connector roads. ' ~ A Place where the waterfront trail harmonizes with the environment and links the different landscapes in a ~vav that minimizes automoMle use. A Place where residents can stud}, nature and contribute to its enhancement, as well as learn about the early settlement of our co~nmunit? and Port Pickering's historic role. A Place where economic activities are encouraged to enhance the waterfront landscape and promote the waterfront experience. A Place where development maintains a pedestrian scale that reinforces the ~aterfront experience, protects waterfront vistas, supports the ecosystem and remains compatible with the adjacent neigbbourhood. A Place that makes an important contribution to the development of a toe, n-wide tourism- strategy and helps attract future businesses and residents. ,c TI'~,SHk'IEf~!I ~¢_~ ......TO A Place xvhere landscaping, public art, and other enhancements work together to mitigate the impact of existing land use. A Place that recognizes and celebrates Pickering's multicultural mosaic. Above all. a place that fosters a healthy ecosystem, sustainable for the enjoyment of future generations. Further, on page 3 the Waterfront Development Principles as set out by the royal Commission on the Future of Toronto's Waterfront are defined. These principles are: Clean Green Accessible Connected Open Useable Afford able Diverse Attractive. Page 33 of the Task Force report expands on the concept of Accessible, as itemized above in a section titled "Public Access to the Water's edge on page 33. Specifically "With proper design, the waterfront promenade could become the area's main street." The Task Force recommended that a "Tourism Design Study and Implementation Timetable be prepared. Applications now being considered effectively limit public access to the waterfront except at the end of a pedestrian promenade in the center of the residential development. I have serious concerns about how this promenade would operate in the center of a condominium development, regardless of what guarantees the applicant proposes to put on title. I understand that the public would have limited access, if any from the end of the promenade back along the water to Liverpool Road through lands to retained by the harbour company, effectively privatizing this portion of the waterfront. The planning department has undertaken a design study, within the context of its official plan. I would welcome a meeting of all of the landowners in the design area, the planning department, members of the original Task Force Tourism committee and any other interested members of the public to discuss what information on tourism the planning department has obtained to support its design study, how the Task Force's objectives of tourism can be achieved, where commercial facilities should be located and how the commercial node should be designed to ensure that tourism opportunities are maximized. Further, it is imperative, that the Pickering Harbour Company provides its business case for the new harbour entrance, to facilitate discussions on the design and funding of this project. One of the reason's the Task Force encouraged reconstruction of the harbour entrance was the fact that this would both bring transient boaters into the bay to support tourism and also allow expansion of the number of docks. How many docks are feasible? This information is important, so that parking requirements and land required by marine activities can be assessed. The Waterfront 2001 Report The main focus of the Waterffom 2001 repo:~ :md its Citizen's Visicn is First rehabilitating Frenchman's Ba3, Second. improvin~theHarbeurEntrance:omake~:a~a:~seco~d ~', .... ~', :o the ~aterfront with the obfecnve oS increasing tourism s~endin~ in Third stimulating an active ',~ateribon: t.o Frcxide a destination iior area res~ceats that provides tourism oppo~umtes. ~ith economic deve!opmznt focused n :he L~erpoo! Road Commercial Node, ~vi~ich had mre,.iouslx been recognized as a location for commercial uses b~ thc TRCA Shoreline study, by the Waterfront Trust, by the Picketing Official Plan and by the Kegion of Durham. Fourth providing recreational activities For ail a~es and aczommodatinz the waterfront trail in close proximity to the waterfront, with a pedestr:an promenade acting as a "hizhwav" to brin= residents through the commercial node alon~ the ',~ aterYrent betx~een L~verToei Road and Front Road ~ark. Since June 1998 when the f~nat report of the Task Force v, as presented, the Adhoc Committee For Pickering's Waterfront h~ Sumher exp~ded on tim waterfront trail route included in the Waterfront 200t report mid confi~ed that a three traii system siqould i be create& fannin~ out t?om the Millennium Square. with the Nlonarch Traii taking the hiker off the main Lake Ontario XVaterfl'ont Trail, up to the Commercial Area and around Frenchman's Be', natural features. The Task Force Report sets out one possible deveio2mem scenario ~'er this area. The Task Force also recognized that it might be necessary for xarious land ex, nors to excxange p~cels of land and work out arrangements lbr simred parking in order to eptin2ize vehicic :k:',~ and centralize tourist uses in the right places to maximize opportumties Sot tcur:si~: :,.~ suzzeea. In putting its design scenario ~+br, x ord. the Task Force :dentli!e5 a rlun~be:' ~[' issues: From a design standpoint, the Task Force recc, mmenas creaticr,, or'tiw best possible and most invitinz appearance tbr the Tourism node Erst looking r~T.~n':.ard from the ?*liiiennium 5quake .Area (to draw hikers on the main east-west waterfront :raj; nc.r:h'.,.ard Fo, r :arieS: etc.. ~xd szzcn~ from the marina dock area. to ensure that ~ve aUracted beaters [nzo r2su:urants anJ b~,nt:cue~. 'i he task force recognized that a substantial critical mass ~ouid be ne,teaser}, in .order to create a tourist destination. It also recognized opportunities to develop the Fairport V5ila[ze ac~zssibi~ Crc, m uae pedestrian promenade at Front Rd) fbr boutique uses ~ ~vell as a seconder,, commercial Traffic on Liverpool Road was recognized as a problem and the Task Forc: wanted to ensure that as much parking as possible occurred as far north on Liverpool Road as possible, to maximize pedestrian flow and safety south of this area and minimize contlicas x~ith cars. Guidance given to the Task Force. during its ciscussions in i997 indicated Ssa: active marina activities would continue to occur in the area of %'imr~' Street. This Ioca. t~on was consistent with the previous point, since all marina traffic would also (consistent v, Jth point 25 remain to the north of the main active commercial node. The Task Force did accept the concept o£ winter boat storar:e_ in the parkin:~ lot proposed on the east side of Liverpool Road on the understanding that titose boats ',sould be returned to the water each spring and the parking lot would be futlv accessible to ti~e public in the summer with no boats in it. This would have involved the travel lift traversing Wharf across Lis erpooi Read in tine spring and fail, but not during the prime tourist season. The Task Force Report saw mixes used within the Liverpooi Road Commercial Node. In particular, the Task Force hoped that offices would locate ir-. this area so that it ',~<)u:d be a destination for 12 months of the year and during the da}', thereb? bringing peeuie rote tire area to sum~ort restaurants and other businesses, it must be ernph~ized that a: no ti'me did ~he task 5oreo ecnside~ ~ha: this area would include a substantial reside,,uia! component. ~r the re',c, zat:c:: :,f the exis:in.: mar:ne ~'~d '.ear-end acuvitx across the road. ~ Since 1998, several rezoning applications have been filed and the Town of Pickering has undertaken a Design Study within the context of an official plan. I continue to have considerable difficulty. ~viti~ the focus of the Design Study on Liverpool Road and creating a streetscape/tourism ambience on that road, rather than on creating a pedestrian promenade/tourism node along the water. In a public meeting you indicated that this was because the Town could only plan land, which it owned. The Task Force has always envisioned a planning process which both involved all landowners and which had the objective of maximizing the tourism potential of this area. In the first application by Pickering Harbour Company for lands on the west side of Liverpool the only way offered to achieve a pedestrian promenade was for the town to construct it on bay-fill. This was totally unacceptable to members of the community whose first objective is to return Frenchman's Bay to health as quickly as possible. The current application for this area has a pedestrian walkway through the middle of a condominium development with no economic activity along it. (except perhaps in two residential units at the east end if purchasers of these primarily residential units decide to open a business..) The applicant's representative has indicated to me that they are unwilling to loop the promenade north with a sidexvalk along their property line out to Wharf Street or to construct a public walkway or facilitate pedestrian flow. from the end of the Promenade back along Frenchman's Bay to Liverpool Road. (Wouldn't this be a nice area for a public park beside the water[) I have serious concerns about future conflict between members of the public and condominium owners/boaters. My concerns have been further compounded by a considerable reduction in the width of the applicant's proposed pedestrian promenade (from I believe 80 meters to 50 meters) within the proposed residential development, which I have been told were driven by the City, Planners desire for more units facing Liverpool Road. I submit, the Task Force's Tourism objectives can best be achieved through construction of a pedestrian promenade in close proximity to the waterfront from Liverpool Road to Front Rd Park. U recognize that this will occur over time and that a pedestrian promenade xvill have to go around tim active marina areas proposed below at Wharf St This is further discussed below. LOCATION OF MARINA FACILITIES As mentioned earlier, the Task Force report is based on active marina activities occurring in the area of Wharf Street. In the current application we see what happe.ns when this location is moved as proposed, ~vith results as follows: a. Traffic Specifically, the current proposal brings this all marina traffic further somh on Liverpool Road and means that a very substantiai area of our waterfront and prime area for a commercial area (i.e. restaurants with decks overlooking the water) is lost b. Access to the Waterfront The resulting lack of pedestrian flow through this area takes away the opportunity for residents and children to be up close to the boats. The Task Force visited numerous other waterfront municipalities where waterfront design allows boaters and tourists to coexist in close proximity. An excellent example is the Flora MacDonald Conferation Yacht Basin in Kingston. At this location, over 350 boats are moored 20 f~ offshore in full view of residents in the adjacent public park. A small lighthouse like structure houses the dock master functions at the causeway linking the boats to the park. I understand that security is provided 24 hours a day, a cost not unlike what would be incurred in most condominium housing development's today. I would be happy to provide pictures of numerous similar facilities along Lake Ontario, which I have visited, for consideration. c. Requirement for a dedicated travel-way and a boats crossing Liverpool Road all summer In discussions with resident's I have heard considerable concern about pedestrian safety along the waterfront trail during boat movement across Liverpool Road and about conflict between cars and boats crossing Liverpool Road during the busy parts of the summer. The need for tbncing of a dedicated travel way aiso creates additional barriers to the waterfront. d. Commerciai Opportunities The proposed design forces the public :o put any future restaurants in along Li',erpooI Road. I submit that when full`,' build out as proposeZ ',v:d~ i- roughhouses alrcaa~ aFpro~ed on tim east side of Liverpool. a very poor environment exJs~ ~r ~?, restauran~ or pano in :ne resuiting valley, which is on the dark side of a building. The design study needs consiccrabic further discussion in conjunction wid~ a reworking of all applications, including thc one tka~ has airead~ beer: :aisditionaily approved by Oouncil. We can do better'. After consideration of the alternatives now being presented. I submit that active mariua facilities should continue to be located in close proximity to Wharf St. beside lands o~vned by others currently providing marina functions. TMs is consistent with me Task Force Report. I smz_~est that the applicant consider also moving ~he clubhouse to the western edge of this area. where it ~'~'I1 serve as a buffer. VeMcle access to this clubhouse and active marina ',~ouid con:!r:ue to be from Wharf Street. The result is that `,~i~at t consider to be the prime tourism area on this }and is opened aL, for green space, restaurants, patios and other boutioues and tile peaestr:an pron~enade, all ,,','},,ere tile besz vista of Lake Ontario exists. In the current applicant's proposal. I0 condon',',rAum units at the sour}: e::a of the application back yards onto Frenci~man's Bay. The result is bazkSards onto Frenchman's [~a',.. This does not create the welcoming entrance to Pickefing's waterfront that the Task Force prc?osed. Instead we see ~ active commercial area rhcing Lake Ontario, inxitmg pcopie in. [n the alternati`,e, i have submitted aboxe. :_,orang :f lands t:.o t}:e north o~' the Pedestrian promenade along the ~saterffont proposed herein should continue ~..' be zoned for marh:e reiamd uses, boat sales ~d suppliers, restaurants, ofiices and boutiaues. T~icse uses shouid be encouraged in all buildinas · along Liverpool Road at ie~tc0nthe!iistt]oor. Serious co~2sideration snouid be given to the buildint fbrm in the now successful Pearson Lanes de'.'eiop~nent cn Brock Street in tt'i:::b5 BOA 1- STORAGE ALTERN.-\ FIVES The Task Force accepted that some ,.~inter boat stcraze ~:n [:arkinz lots on the east side of Lixerpooi Road. suitable landscape bu~'fered. 'could be ac,,~ ...... ..... 4i., Nfo:abets of the Task Force Steerin~ Comm tree itoped that this would f[ee up space to meet :he ,:other obiecti'.es for these lands, including green space ~:d ~e pedestri~ promenade. T}:e Task Force m other sections of its report introduced the concept of grit separators and spent considerable time discussing sto~ ~ater manaaement both of which ~e importer in any area where parking or boat storage wouid occur. The Task Force did not envision ~at any maintenance of boas wouici occur during winter storage in this location. This did not envision maintenance of boats or any summer use of this land for marina use. Tim marina plan now being considered is not that envisioned b~ the Task Force. SpedScaii>. the Task Force recommended that this land come into public ownership for public parkiand ann limited parking, if it becomes available for purchase. The Applicant's currant proposal fuahe: rosa-lots punic access to another area ofPickering's wate~ront ~d increases activities in close proxinm2, :o a~ area of natural significance ( the Hydro Marsh) . It is unclear from the applicant's plans hex~ the~, in~end to provide I~dscape buffers ~d mitigate the environmental impact of~eir operations. [ ha',e stated my position above that active m~ina operations should remain concentrated in tIqe area of Whari' Street. With respect to winter boat storage currently occurring ,on Pickerinz_ Harbour Company lands, I believe that it can be accommodated in properly designed parking lots (Oct !5 to April 30 only) or an offsite location. Has anybody considered somewher_= ,on the Ontario Power Generation Lands? i.e. Perhaps in conjunction with a boat-launching ramp. `,~hich the Task Force recommended on Ontario Hydro, Lands, the design and water depth could accommodate the launck remc,~ al oF larger boats at that location. ATTACHMENT ~~TO q~POgT ~' PD~ ......... Built Form -Accommodation of Tourism Development A real effort has been made by the applicants to accommodate tourism within the constraints of a toxvnhouse form of residential development. I cannot accept the limited amount of tourism being proposed (about four units of 500 square feet). There is no guarantee that any commercial development will occur within the residential units currently being proposed which could accommodate tourism, in fact, several units in the Walnut Lane Development (adjacent to Highway 2) condominium development were designated for possible commercial uses. These remain in residential uses. Pickering requires commercial development and has already made an investment of over $3 million in infrastructure to promote tourism. We must use specific designations of land use as commercial to ensure that our land use objectives are met. I cannot support transfer of all of this land to residential. What is the maximum number of boat slips that Pickering Harbour Company intends to put in Frenchman's Bay? Do they require any rezoning to permit this? Will this number of boaters together with those at the Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club support the ongoing cost of maintaining navigation into and within Frenchman's Bay? How much land is required for an active marina to st4pport these boaters? What is tile parking standard/requirement to support this number of boat slips required? How much land remains after the above? Where do we intend to allow public boat launching (which requires two parking spots per boat)? Does the applicant intend to provide public boat launching? Only after it is clearly demonstrated that sufficient land has been set aside to meet the City of Pickering's tourism/commercial objectives for this area and support marina operations, exis}ing boat sales operations, should council consider rezoning any land from marina/marina support to residential. The success of a tourism node depends on concentrating a number of uses in close proximitv to each other and parking. A successful tourism node is important to ensure tt~at visitors to our mi'llennium square and waterlkont are provided with a more enjoyable visit. A successful tourism node will also attract boaters into the marina and day visitors from other nearby marinas such as Bluffer's Park and Whitby Yacht Club. Who is funding and where do we intent to accommociate transient boat docking to accommodate these visitors? We need to decide first, what uses can be accommodated in this area, second where they are best located and third where they these uses are best located. Successful tourist businesses in this area will fall into two categories, those that can survive year round, and those that can only exist on a seasonal basis during the summer. It will be important to locate businesses having a year-round appeal close to parking. The City of Pickering and applicants should together retain a retail consultant to work with the land owners, planning departments and public, as the Final Design Study is completed, to first develop a feasible list of uses, determine the best location for these use and to approach some principal potential tenants around whom a tourist commercial node can be designed. In previous discussions, the concept of a banquet hall has been suggested. This type of service is provided quite successful within the restaurant in this area on a limited scale. I have a concern that on a larger scale a use such as this would be very land intensive in terms of parking at the same time as peak public usage. (evenings and weekends). On the other hand an office type development would work, since it would use parking lots, which are largely empty on weekdays and bring people into restaurants at lunchtime. An excellent Tim applicant should prepare a iis: ofacce~abie ccmmercia~ uses before 9d~iner discussion occurs. Along~ the pedestrian promenade .r see restaurants and decks, sc,me ~mrner~:a-~ ~' uses. boat sales and a variety of office (largely on upper stor:es~ at trxe eastern L~xe:-poc-i Road er:3 <'the promenade and south west side of Liverpool. This iand si:ouid be zoned to, include onix ti:ese uses and no second stcrx residential. Wouldn't it be nice if bed and breakfast type accommodaticn, or a small hotel were avatiabie in this area, perhaps on second floc. rs. xk e must use our imaginatS~n. Buiid it and they will ,-\CCO*iMODATING SEASONAL BUSINESSES It is important to recognize that man~ c, mmewiai uses will onix be able to exist on a seasonal nature. A field trip to Grand Bend in tt~e summer is instructive, where a substantial seasonai commercial area exists with a wide variety of vendors, restaurants, fast food and arcades. Most of these buiidings are designed to be quickly shut in tpulI down doers otc) durima tt~e winter. Grand Bend proves that it xvorks, but Picketing can definitelx improve on the arct~itecture. I understand that a unique development of this nature using ships is located in Montreal. As Nit. Lucas suggested to me in a different context, this type ct'structure cou!c, be easily convened to indcor beat storage in the winter. thereby helping to defray the construct/on cost. in conclusion, if' our mutual objectives Eot this area are to be achie', ed. ti:e lap, downers, planning starT, waterf?ont coordinating committee and otiter interested resider'.ts need :e x',ork toEeti~er on both the submission of a plan for harbour entrance, marina improveme::rs and a ?lan f'~,r-t~oxx a successf'ul commercial development can occur talc wa[erl'ront trail can oe a,:Tcr'~.n7 ~:zted as _iustiIScation For further public spending in this area. I xvould encourage flzrther discussion with tile iarl.douners or: iicx,, ti:is c]::adrant shc. uid l~znction to maximize commercial activitx and ',selcome busters to a urea:nc Pickerir:z_ t:i~urlsin node. what uses shouId be allowed in this area, and how :lie pedestrian portico ~,r'r~e ',~at~r?, ~:t trail can traxerse this area. tInen proceed no~h in the Future. The role of Liverpool Road vs. tlne role of a Pedestrian \\'alkx~a', as the ma:n street also needs to be discussed f'urther, with participation of ail landox~ners. I imxe c~nsistentix ~nestioned tixe orientation or-all activities and patios along Liverpooi Road and 5, een told that d~e p~ar~ni~5 department could only plan what it had control over. I must empimsize that the Water,©ut Task Forze ~ecus is on uniquenes's and imagination. The Task Force saw a pedestrian walkwax in dose proxin,.it'., to the wateN~ont as a mainstreet of the waterfront. Yours very truly, T.E. Craig Ba~ntbrd // cc Mr. David Steele Mr, Harold Hough Mr. James Luca.s Mr. Mark Holland Kt'TACHMENT ~_ c~ TO G. Maynard 807 St. Martin's Drive Pickering, ON L1W 1N1 September 20, 2001 PICKERING PLANNLNG & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Sir: I will be unable to attend the meeting scheduled for 1900 hours this evening in the Pickering Council Chambers. However, I feel the issue of redeveloping the Marine and Coolwater Properties at the end of Liverpool Road is important enough to put pen to paper. i have seen a few details of the plan not the complete package. From what I have seen I have to ask, what is the benefit of this proposal to the City of Picketing? .Why are limited waterfront areas being used for mere housing? Surely there are other land parcels in the north end of the city that could be used for housing. Do we really want another 132 vehicles travelling Liverpool Road on a daily basis? What is a boat traffic lift and what does it do for vehicle and pedestrian movement? Who really benefits from this proposal? Do we really need a second Canoe Landing? Have we learned nothing from that development? it seems to me that we must have acceptable answers to these questions before these properties are re-zoned and a one time opportunity is lost. G. Maynard 807 St. Martin's Dr. Pickering, ON L1W 1N1 650, Anntand StrtZi~TY OF PICKERING Picket~n~I, ON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ~ DEPARTMENT LIW lB1 CitY's Planning and Development Department C/tv of Pickering Civic complex One, The Esplanade Pickenng, ON L 1V 6K7 September 19.2001 Dear Sirs: Thank you for your letter of August 16, 200 t. concermng the applications bv Mr. Jim Lucas, on behatf of the Picketing Harbour Company (PHC), to amend the Picketing O~'ficial Plan and Zoning By-laws 2511 and 2520. I wish to record mv opposition to these amendments, It is not m the best interest of the residents of Pickering to delete the term "limited" and "in conjunction with marinas m~d yacht clubs" to describe the t,vp¢ of permissible residential development within the desigmation given to these lands in the Picketing Official Plan. The proposed development of 66 toxvn houses is in conflict with the Plan's vision oftNs area as a MKior Open Space S~'stem - Waterfront or as a Waterfront Place, which wilt attract residents and visitors to the area. This large residential development would have the effect of cutting off' the area from public access. How the constant traffic of boats moving across Liverpool Road from the east side development to Frenchman's Bay would work also needs careful consideration. The "Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review, Part2-Phase2report (Ciu~ of Picketing, May8, 2001) calls for new residential development in the Liverpool Road Corridor to be designed to accommodate a range of uses, and the PHC proposal does not allow for this at all. This proposal for the west side of'Liverpool Road is even worse than that of Jutv 1999, and council may recall there was considerable opposition by a large number of people x~'ho atxended the meetin~ to discuss that proposal. I hope that Council will continue supporting th.e vision of the Liverpool Road South area as a "Great Lakes" Nautical Village which Picketing res/dents can enjoy and be proud of. If the best proposal PHC can develop is 66 town houses, better that the area remain as it is now. Yours sincerely, Patricia Robinson ~ose, ¢~therine ~TTACH)'JENT ,4,~T0 ~ ~: ,T ;- p From: Sent: To: Subject: September 20, 2001 Catherine Rose City of Pickering One The Esplanade Picketing, ON. L1V 6K7 peggy wilmot [peggywilmot@hotmail.com] Thursday, September 20, 2001 12:31 PM crose@city, pickering.on.ca waterfront RECEIVED SEP 2 0 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Catherine Rose: There is a proposal before the City of Pickering Council to change the zoning of the East Shore Marina lands, to accommodate the construction of ~ixty or more townhouses on the bay. When the parties responsible, dredge the harbour, there will be an increase in the demand for boat storage and docking in the bay. This is why it is SO critical that the East Shore Marina lands zoning remains, as it is to accommodate the increase in boat traffic. By not rezoning the area and keeping The East Shore Marina lands in it current form, will only help to maintain the nautical theme that the city has based the restoration of the waterfront on. I believe that is it very important t look towards the future, and not change the zoning, at this time, so we will have a viable waterfront Thank you for taking your time to read about my concerns. Yours truly, Peggy Wilmot 1344 Foxglove Avenue Pickering, Ontario L1W 1E9 Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp A'vTAC~t.~ENT# /J .TO CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPfVIENT DEPARTMENT ~,TTAOHMI~T #_/~ TO REPORT # PD o?/- c ¢~ September 17, 2001 Momka Deutscher 869 Naroch Blvd., Pickering, ON., L 1 W l T 1 City. Planning and Development Department Picker/ng, Ontario To Whom it may concern: RECEIVED SE? 7_ 1 ?.001 CITY OF pICKERtNG pLANNING AND I am wr/ting tkis letter about the major redevelopment proposed for Frenchman's Bay. The ~vaterfi'ont should be enjoyed by every'one. Please do not amend the Picketing Official Plan and the Zoning._Bv Law. Please keel/the lands west of Liverpool road and a maloritv of the lands east of Liver!mol Road as OPEN SPACE SYSTEM-MARINA AREA within the Bay ~hboarhood. I am a local resident that cannot at'ford to be associated w/th a Marina!!! LISTEN TO THIS RESIDENT!!!!! Thank you, fbr reading. Sincerely, Monika Deutscher Taylor, Ron REPOR1 ~ PD ,i; / t, d Page 1 of 3 From: HeaJey, Phyllis Sent: Friday, September 2~, 2001 1!'14 AM To: Taylor, Ron Subject: FW: Liverpool Road South Deve~oome,nt Application - Pickenng Har3our Company For your information - I believe this is concerning :,,our application ..... Original Nessage ..... From: RGW [mailto:RGW@LOOK.CA] Sent: September 21, 2001 11:53 AM To: phealey@city.pickering.on,ca Subject: Liverpool Road South Development Application - PicKeting Harbour Company I wouldjust like to express my opinzons rezardin~ the ~N, -~ ~ ~ ~ ~x ~ mennoned housing m~a ~provement proposal. i live at 1280 W~S~eet, and have been a resident of thc nmediate area s~nce 1952. my ~r~dparents purchased on ti~e street in 1921. ' ~ Tile proposed town house complex is not smtabie for this small and pork accessible area. By that I mean. that there ,,','ill be far more cars in residence than there is room for and :"<ier. m conibu~atzon with other proi~osed development, there simply is no where for ail the cars to go. We have one road in and one road om. ',t hich is Liverpool. Already, with the recent addition of the improved waterfront, traiEc iix:es the street on both sides. Proposed parking areas still will not afford enough spaces given the number oscars we know tend to reside at each i:on2e, not to mention guests and others that will somehow reside in these homes ~xho witl be non in'znediate family members. Dense housing in an already congested area mil make it rather impossible to mo~ c. ihc most recent example of flus would be Canoe Landing. Another area wiUci~ is almost mpossibte to ~we throui~ due to o~er tlow parNng, is the area of Radom Street near St. Nla~s wi:ere there are :ir more cars than pat4unc_ for the rzs:cicnces of the toxxn homes on both sides of~e so'eel Ihere are aiwavs accidents there ani ~t's veo' dirNcuh to ma:toeu,, re :iuough the p~ked cars to make yo~ way along that section of s~eet. Townhoines in this area would alienate the public from the watert¥ont evenmaiiv., ~fnot tn:mediately., People !ivmg in this ,type of area would eventually, a~er spending large stmns on such properties. ,.';'ant er.reit:sevin.'., Examples o£ this attitude would be if you've ever tried to visit the Beaches area or'Toronto. Residents resent v:sitors tomqsts to 'fi:ea" neighbourhood, and of course parking is a nigi:tmare. We can go back to the 'old' days ~vhen there were 3 ve~-,' active marinas on this side of the bay, and m excess of 1500 boats, and yes there were lots of cars associated ',vi8i t22'ose boaters, but there were aiso far ie~s people living m the area and using the waterfront. We can go back even fl, arther before PHC nm'chased its propem,' and it was still Avis Park. At that time on a busy sunday there could be as many as 3.')00 cars zn ~at area. but azain, m 'those days this was a cottage area, with few o£us in permanent residence. But for those of us who had to :ravci~ap a::d dox~u Li~'emool and Wharf it was still difficult. We also had an exit onto and olT o£ the 401 then. and the u:a£tlc d'i&n't have to flow~throuuh the residential neighbourhoods. It is very, different now, due to our population and the hugelF popular v,'aterfro~t. I also question why so much emphasis is placed on the operation of the m2n::a ztsei£ hi the 30 odd years that they have been in ownership precious little in the way of improvements have been made. Pre,ns' much on an as needed basis. Nothing in the way of landscaping, the original wire fence from the Avis Park days, ~till encompasses the area. This is not one of the well thought of marinas on the lake, according to what patrons and visitors have expressed. In fact as is fairly obvious from the numbers of boats now in the marina, it probably has more vacancies than occupants. Why is that? I always appreciate hearing the residents/tive-aboards that come to these public meefin~s~ voicing their approval for all things marina. It is a ve~ inexpensive way or' iivim: when vou can take advan:aze of all the 2ood thimzs we property, tax payers, pay for! ..... 9/24/01 ATTACHMENT ~~TO REPORT ~ PD~~ Page 2 of 3 As mentioned at last nights meet/ng. Before we can expound on marina issues, we need to first have the basic water that is needed to attract boaters, plus a safe and navigable harbour entrance. But once again, why is it that we have to £~rst cater to those that have the luxury of affording a boat? This is a hobby and a luxury. The days of this being a commercial risking and shipping harbour are long gone so to bend over backwards so that a snell goup can enjoy their hobby is quite decadent. For the amount of activi .ty as is currently seen in the manna, improving what they currently have and beautifying their property, would be much appreciated. Expanding their operation across the road seems like added work for nothing accept to developed the housing phase which is as was pointed out, a whole other issue and having nothing to do with the Charter and their mode of operation. There certainly doesn't appear to be any need to have a large number of boat storage spaces available, since those with boats under 20 feet or so, seem quite able to keep them in other places on trailers and can save their money as opposed to paying for commercial storage. Only the large boat owners need proper mar/ha storage, as seems to be obvious when observing the boats that have been stored on marina property in the past. Small boat owners trailer in and trailer out and don't relish pahamg for storage when they can park them at home in the yard or drivexvay or elsewhere, for much less if anything at all. Personally I think, IF the area must be developed why is that we can't see large homes, on large sprawling lots. Sirmlar to what is seen on the west shore of the bay. We can all enjoy admiring those homes. To wander through another townhouse complex to the stares of the residents is not what any of us enjoy doing. At every, turn in this City there is yet another townhouse/apalXment complex being considered. Why do we have to densely populate every square inch of this city? The shame of it all will be when it happens down here, choking off what is left of the ~vaterfro~t and green space area. I have suggest to a couple of City staff (Kathryn. Rose and Mark Holland) to take a look at another area very. similar to what we are talking about down here, namely Perkins Cove, Maine. You would fine on first view, a pretty little town right on the Atlantic. The mix of housing and commercial like that which is being proposed down here. One street down to the waterfront. A small pedestrian bridge wkich crosses the cove. But on a busy summer day, the residents are pulling the/r hair out since the traffic congestion is unbearable. There is precious little parking, drive~vays are blocked and you can't get up or down the street. Just like is happerfing now on Liverpool Road. The business's are also suffcr/ng since people will not park elsexvhere up the street and walk to the/r locations. We all like our conveniences, if we have to walk to thr, we don't! And of course many can't. Yes there are lots of tourists, but do they purchase much ...... no. Regular clientele don't bother coming on those busy days it's too difficult to get around the area. Then comes fall and ~vinter and then there is no business. This is not unusual. Cooperstown, N.Y. (Baseball Hall of Fame town). Also a beautiful waterfront town, full of tourists in the summer, and shop owners shut down about mid-October. Absolutely close the doors. I'm am now talking as a small business operator. [ have had my small business in the marina, as part of the services of the marina, for the past 8 years. There is no question that I must close about the end of October. There simply is not enough business to afford staying open and paying for utilities. I therefore have a great interest in how other businesses in similar locations functign, and have talked at length with many in other parts of the country. It's the old story., on the sunny days of summer everyone figures you're making a fortune but 5vhen the snow flies and there is no one around, nobody knows that you're even there! You have to somehow make enough in 5 months to pay yom' bills for 12. It isn't easy and I've yet to f'md any business whether in St. Jacobs, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Cobourg (having had an influsion of government money), Unionville, or waterfront towns in the U.S., that think it's a joy to be a business in the waterfront area of town. Before one oft he last meetings on the proposed development of the Liverpool Road area, I had just had a conversation with one of the last of the original shop owners in Unionville who was closing after 18 years. There simply isn't enough business. We are a generation of Mall shoppers, and yet the mails can't keep their stores full. In Unionville other than restaurants there is little else. There are people in town at meal time. They have an art gallery which brings in limited numbers. In this lady's opinion, if they had of put in a little theatre at least there may have been bus loads of people coming for shows. But ultimately the residents of the town do not support these types of local businesses and shop elsewhere for their purchases. Yes they might come down the street and look, but do they spend....not enough. And combined with the kind of rents that can come with being in one of these thought to be, prime locations, it becomes a lossing battle. So the thought of commercial down here is going to be quite a challenge and I don't envy anyone trying to pay the rent in December, January and February. Having worked in the dental field as well in this city, even the thought of professional offices down here would be very, very difficult. As mentioned we all shop where it's convenient, one stop shopping mentality. That goes for services as well. With regards to the Coolwater Farms property, at this point there is still no 'SOLD' sign on this property and I wonder why 9/2 4/01 ~'rTASN,',7.~'~T# /9' TO Page 3 0£3 we are even spending the rune discussing tiffs prope~.' I have :o also a:ree_ wi~ what was mentioned last mght. ~vhat ever happened to all the ~me spent in developm~g tire master plan lbr the area. ofwNch none oFthese house,'co~:erami estabiis~ents were a part [ hope that if and when something happens down here. and we ail have similar zonmu.~ it is something we can al! en?v and not resent. In:agree ho~v man),' tox~z~hon~es can be sq'aeezed onto the Avis prc?e:T,'l \Vhen it starts to happen I thL~ it will be die doi~uno effect so it better be good. Regards, Wendv Welfie 1280 Wharf Street Picketing, Ontario L1W i905) 839-1143 9."24,'01 Thursday, September 18.2001 R e G E ! V E &'~TACHUrr',I'f, #, /~' TO To: Ci~ Planning and Development Department SEP 2 1 2001 CITY OF PICKERIN ~ PLANNING & DEVELOPMEI We recently received a document advising us of proposed changes to the watertront of DEPARTMENT Frenchman's Bay, and the surrounding Marina areas. While this looks like a very nice plan it is not in the best interest of the area as a whole. Approximately 66 homes are proposed which will theoretically house 150-200 people. This in our opinion does not equate with the number of citizens who will lose their waterfront access. It seems the only people to gain in this will be the construction companies that are proposing the changes, (Picketing Harbour Company). It looks from the plan allowing a 21 car parking area, the others to be allotted to the town houses, that even if access to the waterfront was allowed there would be very little parking available. Looking at the town houses that are in the process of being constructed on the west side of Liverpool (St. Martins Rd) at the present time, it would be a shame to have more of them built on the waterfront, as they are an eyesore and add nothing to the looks of the natural surroundings of that area. They are obviously another situation where they were allowed solely for the profit of a construction company. While addressing tiffs subject there are many other problems that will arise from iL such as more overcrowding in our schools, and traffic on roads that have not had much care or attention in recent years and will probably require a good amount in the future. Speaking of traffic we were totally appalled on the statemem that boats would be transported from the Marina to the waterfront across Liverpool Road by a traffic lift. (REALLY????). We do not know what a traffic lift is, but we are sure this is not a very good idea and would need reassurance that it is not only viable, but safe. Will boats be lifted in the air from one side and put down on the other ??? (REALLY ????) Addressing the commercial use of the property ---Traffic ---Parking--- and do we really need stores on the waterfront? Will the Pickering Harbour Company be running them as well or at least obtain rent ? All that is required as far as commercial endeavors on the waterfront should be a place to get a light meal, a cold or hot drink and an ice cream cone. LETS LEAVE THE WATERFRONT AS IT IS, A PLACE OF RELAXATION AND SERENE ATMOSPHERE FOR ALL THE CITIZENS OF PICKERING TO ENJOY. LET US START OUR FIRST YEAR AS A CITY AS A 'CITY RESPONSIBLE TO ALL, NOT COMPANIES ONLY INTERESTED IN THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR. Mary and Edward Mann Apt 1805 1210 Radom Street Picketing Ont. L 1W2Z3 Phone: (905) 839-94 t 0 E-mail: edandmarymann~home.c om 071 AttACHMENT# /'7 TO REPORT ,~ PD., RE[CE[liVED PICKERING-AJAX CITIZENS IOGETHER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (P.A.C.T.) & BROCK EAST COSISIUNITY ASSOCIATION (BECA) c o 5-2 Kmcs[on Road VVcsL Picher:ng Village Ajax. Ontario, LiT 5:\2. Attention: Phiiir B. Mc%[ulicn U73 The Corporation of the City of' Picketing One The Esplanade Pickcnng, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Dear Sirs: Catherine Rose Ron Tavlor Planning Depa~lment Subj eot: Revised O£ficiaI Pian _4Jnendment Application OPA 99-004/P(R) Revised Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 22/99(R) Picketing Harbour Company Para oFLot 23. Ranu~' 3. B.F.C. (Lands on the west side of Liverpooi Road. and SouLh of Wharf Street) City of Picketing, - AND - Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 13 01 Picketing Harbour Company (Formerly 3444309 Canada inc. - Coolwatcr Farms) Part of Lot 22, Range 3. B.F.C. (Lands on the east side of Liverpool Road, and south of Wharf Street) City of Picketing Picketing Harbour Company has submitted the above-noted applications for the subject lands. In essence, ~anting oS the ~rst application would result in aveo' high density condominium townhouse development extending west From Liverpool Road south of Wharf Street to the edge of Frenctmmn's Bay, on lands currenth' zoned and used/'or marina purposes. Granting of the second application would move the ma~iority of the marina operations to the lands formerly used as a fish farm by Coolwater Famls, on the east side of Liverpool Road. again south of Wharf Street. in response to comments made by the City's Planning Department and others, the applicant has presented a plan which would give eight potential "business" sites by desi~m~g the front room of eight semi-detached houses for future "home office business" use. Mayor Arthurs Task Force on the Picketing \Vaterfl'ont has published a detailed C: ,TEMP',OBJECT1ON TO HOUSING DEVELOP%lENT PRESENTA ? r)%.D ~ ._' 1 ~TTACH~ENT # / ~" TO vision for the lands south of Wharf Street on either side of Liverpool Road, a vision which has been accepted and acted upon by this council. This vision includes the development of the lands abutting Liverpool Road between Wharf Street and the lakeshore as a "tourism node". Much thought and effort was put into tiffs report, and the details of the vision. This included retail/commercial uses for all of the properties immediately abutting Liverpool Road; expansion of the marina uses on the lands to the west of Liverpool Road; the use of lands to. the east of Liverpool Road as parking for the visiting tourists; and the stopping up of Liverpool Road to the north of the bridge to enhance the appearance of the actual beachffont In the time since the publication of the 2001 Waterfront Task Force's final Report, this council has expended considerable effort, and expense, in beginning the moves to implement the vision. Liverpool Road now ends before the bridge, with a turning circle; parking is available north of the bridge on the east side of Liverpool Road; a boardwalk has been constructed along the beach east to connect with the Alex Robertson Park; a children's play area, the "misting pool", has been constructed with change rooms and other necessary facilities. As stated in the 2001 Waterfront Task Force's report, people come to the south end of Liverpool Road, as indeed to all waterfront areas, to enjoy the vistas; to feel the lake breezes on their faces; to see the boats; and to broxvse in marine-related or arts-type retail outlets. The steps taken to date by this council are those essential to direct the development such that our children, grandchildren and their gandchildren will continue to have access to the water1¥ont for all the reasons spoken to above. Hoxvever, the first application before this council will dam up the process, covering the land with ten'aces of condomLnium townhouses ~vhich xvill block the public view of the vistas; ensure that the public cannot get near enough to the water's edge to feel the lake breezes; and chase away the boaters whose boats the public came to see. The application before this council is, we submit, so much at variance with the vision espoused for the area that it must be refused. It takes little or no imagination to foresee a "third phase" of the development, the elimination of all mahna uses along the shore of the bay, and the development of more residential units with water frontage - obviously at a premium. Even without the potential ttfird phase, the development as proposed will in and of itself form a psychological barrier to the public. As envisioned by the 2001 Waterfront Task Force, the public would access the area either through walk~vays between commercial/retail uses, or through the marina lands. As proposed, access would be through a residential area, with no view of the lake or bay from most of the development. This will cause people to stay axvay; go some other place where the access is more "tourism friendly". As proposed, there would be a maximum of eight "business" uses included in the twventy six residential properties fronting on to the west side of Liverpool Road. These units are shown as 589 square feet each, less allowance for a washroom, leaving a net useable space of approximately 565 square feet, for a total of 4,520 square feet between the eight uits. Even the draft plans submitted in support of the application, and the written material accompanying those plans, describes the potential uses as "home office", not retail. The proponent also indicates an intention to develop some 16,000 square feet of commercial/retail space on the Coolwater Farms lands at some C:\TEMP\OBJECTION TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION.DOC 2 time in the future, thereby, they posit, meeting the intent of the Waterfront Task Force vision tbr the area. This is simplynot so, the proposed development not only being "out of'sight and out of'mind" in temls of' tourist attraction, but it also takes away fi'om the already limited availability of winter boat storage in the proposal, thereby almost inevitably leading to the "phase three" of the development spoken to above. As envisioned by the 21)I)l \Vaterfront Task Force. ever~, property facing onto the west side of Liverpool Road would be retail, commercial, services. \Ve concur with this useage. We would point to the successful development on Kingston Road at Ahona Road for a vision of what can be done to integrate residential trod retaiL connnercial spaces, hi that development, the main floor and basement are retait.:commerciat [and include a restaurant pub). The residential component sits above and behind the retail.conm~erciai component, with access fi'om the rear. This removes the feeling that the tourist,, customer is walking into someone's "£ront room" which would prevail under the proponent's plait, h~ addition, the proponent show s rio parking on Liverpool Road in front o fit's "business" locations, thereby decreasing the attraction to members of the public. \Ve submit that it is essentJaI to the long-term growth o£the City of Picketing that this application be refused. Permitting the development as proposed will sound the death knell for tourism in this area. As stated in the 2001Waterfl'ont Task Force's report, the Frenchman's Bay waterfront is the last major waterfront between Bronte and Kingston to remain substm~tially undeveloped. The report states that tourism is an "engine" driving',}l~o economy, worth in excess of $300 million to the Durham Region. little of which comes to Picketing. it states that tom'isln will pay, for itself many times over, financiaih', culturaih' and recrcationallv. ?ostermg corporate and public partnerships the benefits of which will extend far beyond the waterfl'ont. This council has adopted the 2001 Task Force's report. In short? therefore, tile advantages to the community in contirluing to implement the vision of the 2001 Waterfi-ont Task Force tar outweigh any potential short-term gain obtained as a result of granting the applications. Nlartin Luther King said that he had a dream - well so do the residents and council of the City of Picketing, and that dream does not include the over-development of one of the last remaining pieces of waterfront on the norti~ shore o£Lake Ontario. If there is to be residential development along the Liverpool Road corridor south of Wharf Street, then let it be restricted to a single building depth with retail commercial at street level and residential above and behind. This would leave the majority of the lands currently used for manna activities untouched. In addition, if they feel residentia! development is the way of the future, the proponent could investigate the possibility of re-zoning the Coohvater Farms property to residential, instead o£open pm-kmgYboat storage/future commercial. After reviewing the history, of Picketing Harbour Compzmy (Limited), we are also of the opinion that the.,,, do not have the right, as a corporation, to develop these lands as proposed. The Company was incorporated by Act of Parliament, 40 I~5'c~'. c. 67..4~t .4ct ~o ]ncor]9orate the Picketing Harbour Co,zRauy (Limited). (Assented to April 28, 1877~. This Act mcoporated the te~s of~ earlier Act, 16 tS'ct, c. 141, An ,4ct to ~uco~or~e :he P~c,::cri~ H~r3o~r ~d Roud JoiuZ S~ock ComIgu%:. (Assented to May 23. 1853) This earlier Act limits the powers off the co~oration to: "...the purpose of constructing a Harbour w~th tile nccessaO' piers, C:\TEMP\OBJECTION TO HO US IN O D E V EL OP hie NT P RESENT 4Ti 5N. DOC 3 076 wharves, store-houses, and planked and other roads therewith to be connected at Frenchman's Bay." The Act further states that: "...nothing hereto contained shall extend or be construed to extend to allow the said Company...to purchase more real estate than is absolutely necessary, for the purposes for which they are hereby incorporated." The purchase by the Pickering Harbour Company (Limited) of the Coolwater Farms lands clearly violates the terms of the Act of 1853, in that those ]ands are not "absolutely necessary" for the construction and operation of a harbour. Indeed, it could be argued that, by the very fact of their application to build residential properties on the lands to the west of Liverpool Road, the Company is stating that it has no need for those lands to operate the harbour, and should, by the terms of the Act of 1853, divest itself of those lands. PACT and BECA have met and spoken with many members of the general community in the affected area, and the overall response is the same as set out above. We have an enormous asset in the lands at the foot of Liverpool Road, an asset ~vhich must be preserved for future generations, not squandered in poorly thought-out mass development, we ask, therefore, that these applications be denied. Yours very. truly PICKERING-AJAX CITIZENS' TOGETHER BROCK EAST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Philip B. McMullen Director Mayor Wayne Arthurs Members of Pickering City Council Pickering Harbour Company (Limited) c/o Jim Lucas Lucas Development C:\TEMP\OBJECTION TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION.DOC From: Sent: To: Subject: Healey. Phyllis Monaay, September 2~.. 2001 8:53 AM Rose, Catherine; Taylor. Ron FW: Monday Night's Presentation. For your information ..... Original Message From: david Steele [maiizo:d~ .s~eeie'~uzur'£nzc.ca[ Sen~: September 23, 2001 ' To: Sylvain Trepanier; p!anLdeviiczzy. Cc: irvan~city.pickeri~c~ ~._ .on.ca; m~renne~s pkei!and3home.com; fjdGidirec~.com; David Craigbamfordes~pa~ico. ,sa; ...... ~._~ .... ~,,-s E-mail> ; Herzog and ~'~'~ Subject: Monday Night's Presex~a~i.aP_. David S~eele wrote: Sylvain , Pickering planning deparumex~. Do you have any background ox real-es-ate laws? i ai'.,/ays zhcash~ ~xaz d~ owner of land (Receivers; are '-~i'2~'~ ~.c r,~l<e ~Npi~sa-tox on any proposed develcpmexl on iaxcl uhev own. i will check this out furuker, zz seer. s ~o me Enau year and r.v friend Hr. Lucas is makin~ aueilca~icx ~s i:ie {idly %haz does ncl feilcw ~he olanning act.!he Cily planning deparlr, ent have ~cceuuel ~he azuiLca~ions under who's ownership name. Perhaps the plannin? department could answer zke rues% cn above bv I, -mail ? i' I have stated and will conminue 2o dc sc:,. Rr. Lucas is ncl meeuinc with anyone for any reason than to enforce his percepEicx si '.vha5 he dreams to develop on the Marine zoned properzy. About six months ago I recues-=s~ ~ ~h~ ,Cdt? c~ Pick~<~c_ 2:-~ Department to obtain the foi!owinc infczma~icn: 1) . How many boats (total] is ccxuemrls. 5ed zn ihe hatter ccr. panl- expansion as per agreement wi5h the Cizy of Pickerinc as Der irawinu that shows the boundary line in the bay extended lc fha '.vest enlrance spit for marine purposes. 2) . If the City was to assume ownership of the entrance Zc Bay, City of Pickering should request east spit with five acres cf land from harbor company ( future green space) as c~me~ns~=~_~ 3) . The entrance to the Bay should be ieszgxei 7rcperii:-,.:zuh zeshnzcal data that support the design .if the Till.- cculi xe~czza~e item z-,.,'c above they could apply for grants from nhe Prpvixce ami Fedora- ~z-.-ernmexzs for the bay entrance. 4?. Liverpcc! road design s5udv shcu!i cf teen a l:'arzs~ suaiv. - REPORT ~ PD ~?/- ~: .2 5) . We do not have any problems (P.A.C.T.) with developing Liverpool road as long as it is long term planning that benefits the residents and the City of Picketing waterfront. David.steele. I Ciw of Picketing Planning & Development Department CITY OF PICKERING PrCKERiNG ONTARIO 667 Liverpool Road Pickering, Ontario L1W 1R5 Canada Monday September 24, 2001 To whom it may concern: This letter is regarding to the "nwor redevelopment for Frenchman's Bay." As a resident residing in the southern Liverpool area for the past 6 years, I have watched this quiet waterfront surrounding develop from a tranquil and undisturbed marina, to a busy. crowded and hi~hh' industrialized area. ~ ' What has happened to the undisturbed wildlife? What has become of our slow, noiseless streets during the weekends, afternoons, and nights? The calm lakeshore has become polluted, the streets have become traffic jams, and the residents of the Frenctunan's Bav area, having already being denied access to the waterfront during construction for over a vear,'are now discovering that our city is proposing to build over 60 townhouses, several parking lots. and commercial businesses in our quiet nmrina. The Liverpool area is a much too s~nall street for the traffic as it is, from the visitors who travel up and down the waterfront. Building townhouses, parking lots and businesses will only further create more pollution and traffic problems. 1 am strongly opposed to the upcoming proposal of the redevelopment of the Frenchman's Bay area. I am speaking for mv famih- as well as several other residents in ti]is area. I urge you reconsider the proposal intended for this waterfront. Thank you. Sincerely, '~ . ,,, t, ff/. '1 t,;C ____.---. Jerafifer Nguyen ROGER A. ti]aiDE CITY OF P!Oi, qiNG PICKERING, Of,L, ,~TTACHMENT #. ~ / TO REPORT # PD, ~ / - e ~- September, 2001 1254 Ilona Park Road Picketing, Ontario L1W 1E4 The Corporation of the City oF Picker/ng PlannSng Department Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Mr. Ron Taylor CITY OF PICKERING PICKERING, ONTARIO SEP 2. 5 2UOi Dear Mr. Taylor, As a result of the Public Infbrmation Meeting held last evening ( September 20, 2001), I would like to make a statement in writing in connection with items 6.0/6.1 in the information Report No.25-01. circulated at the meetina. In accord with the manv speakers '~x't~o responded to Mr. Lucas' presentation, I wish to add my remarks in defense of the Durham Region O/Scia! Plan and The Picketing Official Plan. To date. a great deal of excellent work has been done in tile area at tile lbot of Liverpool Road. One can only suppo~ this and hope that fl~e Plan will continue to be the basis for further improvement of the kind that preserves plant and animal life, enhances the beauty of open land and water vistas, and encourages flee public access with no further residential or business or corporate development. While it would be expensive, future planning should involve tSe resir~ctur/in~ of the former fish farm; would it lend itsekf to a children's play area with ponds and elaborate game sites? What would be the tota/cost of trans£ormin~ the site toro parkland? Even a Japanese Garde~ using the eMsting pond uNts c~uld be considered. YP~erelv, X // /~ _ N e~' ' Q e-ma5I: V~ome. com Rose, Catherine Page t of 1 From: Van Staveren, Saida Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 2:50 PM To: Rose, Catherine Subject: FW: proposed redevelopment for Frenchman's bay Here is a note for the Planning Dept. ..... Original Message ..... From: sue peschke [mailto:spesh1571@home.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 10:20 PM To: wayne authors Subject: Fw: proposed redevelopment for Frenchman's bay RECEIVED SEP 2 6 2001 CITY OF PIC,KERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ..... Original Message ..... From: suej3eschke To: ~c~.on.ca Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:48 PM Subject: proposed redevelopment for Frenchman's bay Planning Dept, City of Pickering Sept. 19, 2001 I am opposed to the proposed redevelopment for Frenchman's bay submitted by Picketing Harbour Company. I do not support amendments to the Pickering Official Plan and the Zoning bylaw. Where wilt residents park, if they want to go to the waterfront? there is not enough parking as it is. Pickering has waited a very long time for a waterfront trail and green space that can be used by all its residents. Residents of all ages and abilities. This proposal is not compatible with our new green space/parkland/recreation area. Sue Peschke 1831 Fairport Rd Pickering on L1V1T2 905 839-1571 9/26/2001 Tra, cey& Jost~ph Yen 631 Annland Street Picketing, Ontario L1W lA9 905-83%2904 DEVELO .. September 28, 2001 Via Fax: 905-420-'7648 RUSH/~RGENT City of Pickerin$ Planning & Development Department Picketing, Ontario LIW lA9 Deal' Members: e: ev o nt ro ~ed r F nch an'sBa We have been residents of Frenchman's Bay' for 12 years nov,', We have watched the community gray, m positive ways and negative ways, It has come to our attention that the above mentioned proposal can become a reality. WE MUST STAND FIRM THAT WE ARE OPPOSED TO 'IHIS REDEVOPMENT OF FRENCHMAN'S BAY. We have finally got a waterfront our families can access, enlu? and be proud of and now are faced with a r~alization that it could be taken from our communib', V,/e beiiev~ ii'this proposat becomes reality the existing ambience of the area will disappear, The current traffic situation is already congesled, what will it be like with a major influx of residential units combined with all the t~oat tragic° Most ~treets in the are~ do not have sidewalks, therefore, it is not uncommon to see children playing near the roads, This major increase iii traffic will be a danger to the m~y young children being raised in the area. The roads in the area are already in a decrepit state, the wear and tear of so much more traffic will be disastrous. The traffic noise and air pollution that we are already' experiencing at this stage of the waterfront development will become unbearable, the residents ~ill be denk:d their rlght to enjo? their homes and properties. This proposal will be perceived as a privatizatlon of the area, reg~'dless of ho~ the developers will try' to convince otherv,'ise Many of the residents in our community have lived in the area for dec,es, why should they now be denied access to public community areas and be forced to live in an area that will be equivalent to the busy streeta ora major city? Our vote goes to opposing this proposal, Hopefully the voice of our community is loud and clear and stands for something. Sincerely, Jose~ph & Tracey Ven September 24,2001 ITy OF ~tO.K~ ..... J CiBr's Planning & Development Department One the Esplanade Pickering, Ontario LtV 6K7 REPORT ¢, PD ,-~' / - c, ..2._ PiCKERING, ONTARIO Re: Development Proposed for Frenchman's Bay I would like to say that I am strongly opposed to this plan for the waterfront area. So much money has been spent to provide Pickering residents w/th a beautiful natural waterfront trail and area, it seems a shame to have this changed in such a way to include a residential area and a boat storage facility directly across from the waterfront trail. Look at what has happened at the new townhomes built at Canoe Landing on Bayly. Prior to their construction as you drove west on Bayly you could see Frenchman's Bay. Noxv much of this view is gone and what the passing motorists can enjoy is a view of ugly townhomes in its place. And I called them ugly because I fmd their outside appearance less than pleasing. I live near this area and I would be severely affected by the additional traffic congestion this would cause on Liverpool. This would become the main road used by this development. Can you imagine what the morning and evening rush hours would be like? I have lived in Pickering for approximately 20 years and I fred it disturbing that ever3' time you turn around a new subdivision is being built. We have no major industry but we certainly have homes for many. How do you expect everyone to travel to their place of employment when the majority of the jobs are west ofPickering. I work in Concord, and my daily route is the 401 to Markham when traffic permits, north on Markham to the 407. Thank god there is the 407, and at least once I reach th_is point I feel that I will survive the drive in. The only drawback is that for th~s I have to pay. Yes, I am opposed to this new development. Sincerely, Monika Taylor 691 Balaton Ave. Pickering, Ontario L1W lW2 A'"TASHMENT # ~' ~'? TO September 28, 2001 Dear Sir or Madam: Subject: Revised Official Plan .Kmendment Appiication OPA 99-004/P(~ Revised Zoning By-Law _~'~endment Application :L22 99.:~. Picketing Harbour Company Part of Lot '~ Ran_oe '~ B.F.C ~ Lands on the west side of Liverpool Road, and south oi' Wharf Street) City of Picketing AND- Zoning By-Law .Zmendment Application A 13 01 Picketing Harbour Compan7 (formerly 3444309 Canada ]nc.-Cooiwater Farms) Part of Lot 22, Range 3. B.F.C. (Lands on the east side of Liverpool Road. trod south o£ Wharf Streeti Ciw of Picketing Further to the public information meeting held on Thursday,, September 20, 2001, which I attended, please accept this as mx' written submission with regards to tt~e above-noted applications. I am not in favor of these applications, and would implore that the City of Picketing denies these appiic, ations as the,,' stand. [ believe that once the zoning changes have been approved as submitted, these applications could take on vet another faceli£t, and the end result would be no marina usage (or ver~' little), saturation of'more towni-~ouses on both sides of Liverpool Road with no thought o£the plans envisioned by tt'~e Waterfront Task Force. I concur xvith many of the concerns made at the public meeting surrotmding the proposed development, and do not feel it necessary at this time to repeat them all. Do not try. to fit a square peg in:o a round hole...let us not make a rush decision now that will effect us £or many years to come. I urge the planning staff-to envision past the applications on paper, and understand the negative effect that such a major zoning change vvoutd have on om- commUmtv. Yo~stmly, Joan and Jeff Skelton and family FrOITl: Sent: To: Subject: rot, Grant Monica [guJtd~.Jdirect.com] Tuesday, October 02, 2001 11:59 AM 'gmcgregor@city.pickering.on.ca' Liverpool Rd South development Dear Sir I have lived in Picketing my whole life and owned a home on Commerce Street for the last 12 years. I am writing today for a few reasons. First off let me say that the work done on the boardwalk/Millennium Square/kids splash pool and the regenerative planting of native plants is simply wonderful! I would like to congratulate all those responsible in the planning and implementing of the project. I can't tell you how much life it's brought to the waterfront(i'm sure you know I used to walk down there even before the boardwalk and can see such a major difference in the. number of uecple ho now enjoy the area. It's an inspiration to see people walking, cycling, rollerblading and just getting out to enjoy the great outdoors. This area is so much more fun and enjoyable now. I couldn't be more thrilled with what's been done to date. Thank you all for your hard work. That being said it brings me to my second comment. I know there is now a proposal before the board to consider the building of townhomes, offices, restaurants and other uses of the Coolwater farms property in this waterfront area. I strongly believe that the area should stay as natural and "green" as possible. Why build a waterfront, focusing on regeneration, nature and public access, only to turn around and take out as much of the ~xisting adjacent green space as you can and turn it over to private _nterests? Why was millions spent to make an area where people can go to experience nature just to put in more asphalt and buildings? I don't understand the thinking behind this. Did we improve and beautify this area so developers, or single individuals, could profit from those endeavors bought and paid for by our tax dollars? What of using the area for public events? I can't imagine anyone spending large dollars to buy a house down there would appreciate public festivals and the din that a public area naturally carries with it. In my mind there is an obvious conflict of interest between these two parties which is bound to flare up if residential buildings are constructed in this area. A green space lost can never be reclaimed once houses or business are established there. We have an opportunity to preserve the whole area. There is no turning back once it's developed. We have so few of these kinds of places now it seems to me that developing just because we can is shortsighted to the extreme. Can no~ leave ~his area intact and as undeveleced as is possible? i beg ycu - consiier i,,eur iecisions wisely. Please mark nhzs iown as a prones~ against ~his kind of d ~,,~zupm_n~ in an area which nas otherwise been treaned with such care and foresight. Yours truly, Honica Dennis !288A Cemmerce St. Picker~ng, Onzario LIN !C8 From: Brian, Evel¥ Fax: +l(905)83~-Bbl}U Io: Non I A'n/'ACHMB~T # .... ...o ~ TO REPORT f PD_ ~ / - (, ~_ FAX Date:Monday, OctOber 0l, 2001 8:45 PM Number of pages including cover 3 Ron Taylor Phone: Fax Phone: (905)420-7648 From: Brian Evely Dynaweb 15-75 Bayly Street West Ajax ()N L1S 7K7 Phone: ~- 1(905)839-0400 Fax Phone: +1(905)839-8500 REMARKS: k]ease accept hhe proposed ~ ~ ncerel y, Brian Evely ResBdent and the fei]owing document and enter development_ of the waterfront area. Constituent, Ward 2, Bay Ridges it. as an objection to CC: Pla r k Bill R o I~ Nolland, Regional Councillor--Ward 2 McLean, City Councillor--Ward 2 Taylor, Planning Dept.--City of Picketing DEVEL©~-'r l? '" i:~ARI'MENT Bnaq Evet¥ Fax: +1(905)639--8500 Io: Ron laylor F~: (905)420-7648 Page 2 of 3 Monday, October 01, 2001 8:45 PM B R I ,5. N $. EVELY C)ctoher i. ?(ii (7oqm)ration of the City of thckenr:{~ The Es ph'made Subject: Revised Official Plan Amendment Application Ol'A 99-t)04/'1~ (Ri Revised Zorfing By-lxtw Amendme. nt Application A 22/"99 (Ri I'ickering Harbour Comp;my Prat of Lot 23, Range 3, B,ttC, (La.nds on the west side of thverpool Road, and Snuth of \\'haft Street) City of Picketing Zoning By-Law Amendment Apphcation A 13/01 Picketing 1 t arbour Company (formerly 3444309 Canada Inc. - Coolwater [;~ms) l'art of Lot 22, Range 3, B.F.C. (Lm~ds on the east side of IAverpo~>l [{oad~ attd south of \\ h~f Street) City of Pickering i would like to take Lifts o[>porturutT to express my concerns rcg:ar&u~,, tins ap[dJcamm. [ strongly t~el that [>asses succcssfiflls; it ~ h~t the level n( acces~ eurrenlly enjoyed b5' IlllUlS' residents Live~)ool Road, x~dthout adding to ~e voimne of trntli( I would like to voice my concern regarding the ,x'~rdm5 ,~- the mncn&nt'nt, which excludes tim word ~d pl~s on }ming ~e abili~- to budd homes u~ ~ts place, at a gtc:tier profit i believe fl~e mamm is a hislonc~ I would also like to object 1o thc 'boat houses' d~t are proposed to be bmh to store boats. ] feet that fins will degrade tim ~nass inveslxnent that Lam taxpayers of' tim City of Pickemig anct local interest groups [mve invested m rite beautification of the Pickem~g Waterfront, only to }rove ~t tarnished by tmsighfly %oat houses'. Wily is flus proposal being considered? There is a pletho~a of dilfemig ideas t~mt would be more suitable for the space a~d the uulitanan use of the space [be the greater conunumlv Please ted free to contact me regar&ng my oblect~ons I hnve sevcr~ ideas ior development m the area m question fl~at would be more COlI~ilt~nW oriented ~d enjoyed by file n~l)' and not b?' the few. C)ur waterfrom is a great treasure ~at sho~d be nurtured Carrf~fl ~d hn~c[y ~:'.;truung stct)s siiould bc taken to ensure tim enloymcnt of i~mre gcnera~ons to come ~z-~!E~,; r L~?AP~TMEt4T From: Brian~ Every Fax: +1(905)839-8,500 To: Ron Taylor Fax: (905)420-7648 Page 3 oi" 3 Monday, October 01, 2001 8:45 PM - ,~ - October 1, 2001 I respectfully request that t}ns proposal is quashed md sent to the people to dcc~de what is best for the conununity and city at large. I ask only that my voice is heard and considered, and ~ny obiection to t}ris projec! is noted. Thank you very much for this oppornmity to bring my feehngs forward to lhosc who have the ability to spe.~k on rny behal£ Smcercls¢ Bnan Evely Resident and Cons~ituent~ Ward 2, Bay Ridges 853 CHAPLEAU DRIVE ' PICKERING, ON ' L1W 1PS PHONE 905-839 0400 · FAX: 905-fl39 8500 RECOMSIENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED SECONDED BY That Council receive as background int'onnation thc/Cz~z~szrp/z/ec)~z,/ IUtizes Road Norz/zeast .'LS'3'CS3'ItlCII[ O/','I/tCt'tlaltl'VC3, dated Sop[ember. 2{,~1. prepared bx Schollcn & Company Inc. for the City, (previously distributed under separate coroT's: and That Council endorse tile recommendations of fine "Northeast Quadrant Review", as set out in Report to Council PD 23-~)2: and That Council direct staff to hold a Statutory Public lnlbrmation Nlcctin,~ in .ltme 2002. to discuss potential amendments to thc F'ickering OflScial Plan that arc required to implement thc recommendations of the "Nontncasl Quadrant Rex iow ". tis sot out in Appendix I to Report Number PD ~ ~' .3-0_. and That Council adopt, in principle, tt~c revised "Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines" as the City's strategy for detailed land usc. urban design, transportation and stonnwater, as set out in Appendix II to Report Number PD 23-02, and that staff bc requested to finalize the guidelines in light of the final official plan amendment that is brought back to Council; and That Council require the proponents o1:' maior development applications within the Northeast Quadrant Area to contribute their proportionate share of the Northeast Quadrant Review costs prior to zoning bv-laws being adopted for their lands: and That Council direct tile City Clerk to Ibrx~ard a copy of Report Number PD 23-02 to the Region of Durham, Toronto and Region Conscrx at,on :\uthoritv. and thc funding landowners within the Northeast Quadrant. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Nell Carroll Director, Planning and Development DATE: May 1. 2002 REPORT .NUMBER: PD 23-02 SLq3JECT: Northeast Quadrant Review: Final Report Proposed Official Plan Amendment Revised Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines City of Picketing RECOMMENT)ATION: That Council receive as backg-round information the Kingston Road - IU~izes Road ?Vort/teast O_uadrant Transportation Study, Phase ] report, dated September. 2001, and the Kingston Road - ~3'Tzites Road Northeast O~uadrant Transportation Stud~'. Phase £ report, dated May, 2002, prepared by TSH Associates for thc City (previously distributed under separate cover); That Council receive as back~ound information ~he Amberlea Creek ,¥or~heax~ Ouadrant - Axxexsmenz of Ahernazives, dated September, 2001, prepared by Schollen & Company Inc. for the City, (previously distributed under separate cover); That Council endorse the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review", as set out in Report to Council PD 23-02; That Council direct staff to hold a Statutory Public Information Meeting in June 2002, to discuss potential amendments to the Pickering Official Plan that are required to implement the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review", as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 23-02; That Council adopt, in principle, the revised "Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines" as the City's strategy for detailed land use, urban design, transportation and stormwater, as set out in Appendix 11 to Report Number PD 23-02, and that staff be requested to finalize the Guidelines in light of the final official plan amendment that is brought back to Council; o That Council require the proponents of major development applications within the Northeast Quadrant Area to contribute their proportionate share of the Northeast Quadrant Review costs prior to zoning by-laws being adopted for their lands; and That Council direct the City Clerk to forward a copy of Report Number PD 23-02 to the Region of Durham, Toronto and Region Conser~'ation Authority, and the funding landowners within the Northeast Quadrant. ORIGiN: Council Resolutions #24/01, passed on March 5, 2001, which directed staff to commence with the Northeast Quadrant Review, and established pre-budget approval to undertake the review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. REPORT NUMBER PD ,__ -0_ Northeast Quadrant Final Review Ma,' 2002 Page 2 AUTHOP, JT\': The t~'hznnz~zg Ac~. R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 1; FIN,ANCLAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct cost to the City is anucipated as a result o£ the proposed Official Plan policies. However, there will be costs associated v, ith maintenance of tile public road recommended within the Quadrant by stall-. These costs arc similar to the public road maintenance costs ah'cadv endorsed by Council in the currently approved Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. EXECUTIVE SUMM.ART' In 1990, Council approved the Northeast Quadrant Devc]opment Guidelines. The Guidelines contemplated a high intensity of mixed-use development ',~ iti~ substantial underground parking. An internal residential neighbourhood fc)cused around a r:ng road, and an interior linear park was illustrated. Additional commercial and office, with office-suppo~ comm. ercial was proposed tbr the Kingston Road and \Vhites Road frontages. Due to recent market interest throughout thc Quadrant and iandox~uers rcquestin~ changes to specific elements of the CUlTCnt Guidelines, Council suhscqucntl} authorized a review of the Development Guidelines. As pan of the Quadrant Rcviex~. thc Git\ retained tine consulting sec'ices of Schollen & Company. TSH Associates, and Xlarkson Borooah Hodgson ~chitects to assess the eI~vironmental, transportation and land else urban design components. Through tile environmental analysis, it was determined that a net environmental benefit could be achieved bv piping the tributary of Annberlea Creek through the Quadrant, if a downstream stormwater management facility was constructed. For the transportation analysis, it was concluded that a proposed new public road throagh the Quadrant betx~een Delta Boulevard and the new signalized access opposite the Highway 401 westbound on off ramp v,'ould co-ordinate internal movement between sites, allow orderly development of the Quadrant, reduce congestion on Kingston Road. and provide for future intensification through redevelopment over time. in addition, through public and landowner consultation, staff has prepared revised Development Guidelines that are more responsive to development interests while still maintaining the principles of higher intensi~, mixed use and pedestrian connectivity that are articulated in the current Development Guidelines. Further, a number of potential amendments to the Official Plan are proposed, which implement the recon~mcndations oi' the Northeast Quadrant Review. The next step in the planning process is to hold a statutor~ public infonnation meeting in June v, ith a final recommendation report being brought back for Council's consideration in tile Fall. BACKGROUNd: 1.0 Location and Description The "Northeast Quadrant" lands are generally bounded by Kingston Road to the south, \Vhites Road to the west, Sheppard .Avenue to the north and thc Amberlea Creek tributes, to the east. These lands are currently subject to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. The Boyer property, located at thc southv,'est comer o£ Kingston Road and Highway 401 on/off ramp and the old Dunbanon School property have also been included in the review area (see Attachment 1 Review Nlap). O94 REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1. 2002 Page 3 1.1 1.3 1.4 A tributarv of Amberlea Creek traverses the Quadrant and flows in a southerly direction under Kingston Road, through the Boyer lands, under the Highway 401 on'off ramp, connecting to the main branch of Amberlea Creek and into Frenchman's Bay. History The existing Development Guidelines were formulated through a review of the land use policies in the Highway No.2 - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Study initiated bv Pickering in the late 1980's. In 1990, Picketing Council adopted the Development Guidelines for the Northeast Quadrant. The Guidelines contemplated a high intensity of mixed-use development with substantial underground parking. An internal residential neighbourhood focused around a ring road, and an interior linear park was illustrated. Additional commercial and office, with office-support commercial was proposed for the Kingston Road and Whites Road frontages. A copy of the concept plan from the current Development Guidelines is attached (see Attachment #2). Recently, there has been significant market interest throughout thc quadrant and landowners are requesting that changes to specific elements of the current Guidelines be made. These changes relate to the arrangement of uses, design matters, provision of the park, provision of the internal ring road, and access to the external road network. As well, other on-going challenges include the interest in primaril.x commercial development adjacent to Kingston Road, the high cost and resultant lack of interest in under~ound parking, the difficulty in implementing the internal public ring road, and the location of the Amberlea Creek tributary bisecting the Quadrant. In an effort to be more proactive in working with development interests, the City commenced a review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. Development Applications Within the Northeast Quadrant Review area, several development applications have been submitted including: · Wood/Carroll (Hayes Line Properties) (A 22/00) · Lydia Dobbin/City of Picketing (Marion Hill Development Corporation) (OPA 01 002/P & A 04/01) · Michael Boyer/Pickering Holdings Inc./Veridian Corporation (A 40/01) · North American Acquisitions (old Dunbarton School Property) (OPA 01-003/P & A 10/01) A brief summary of each application is provided in Attachment #3 to this report. Quadrant Review On May 3, 2001, Council approved a budget allocation for the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines Review with a total developer contribution of not less than 50% of the total Review costs. To assist in the Review, the Planning & Development Department retained the following consultants: · Schollen & Company, an environmental consultant to determine the feasibility for piping the Amberlea Creek tributary; · TSH Associates, transportation consultants, to undertake a traffic and access review for the entire Northeast Quadrant; and · Markson Borooah Hodgson Architects, a urban designer/facilitator to assist staff in the review of land use and urban design matters. ~ REPORT NL'MBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review 0 May 1, 2002 Page 4 2.0 2.1 2.2 The Amberlea Creek Northeast Quadrant - Assessment of Alternatives report prepared by Schollen & Company inc. determined the implications and benefits of piping Amberlea Creek tributary traversing the Northeast Quadrant and concluded that a net environmental benefit could be achieved bx piping the tributary of Amberlea Creek through thc Quadrant, provided a downstream stormwater management pond was constructed. TSH Associates prepared txvo reports for the transportation component. The Phase 1 - Final Report examined existing traffic conditions, access opportunities and constraints within the Quadrant and concluded that the major signalized intersections in the Northeast Quadrant Review area are operatino= at or above capacity.. In Phase ,,'~ it was concluded that a proposed new public road opposite the Highx~ a.x 4~11 x','estbound on/off ramp would provide additional signalized access to the Norti~east Quadrant and facilitate the possible implementation of access control measures along Kingston Road. A summa~' of these Reports are provided m Attachment =4 to this Ropor~. As xvell. copies of the reports are available Ibr public revie',v in thc Planning ok: De',elopment Department. Public Consultation Public Meetings Over the course of the Revie',',', meetings have been held v, itiq thc iandox~nors to introduce and discuss thc study process, a revtsed sci o;' urban de~? and land usc ptSnc~ples I~r tine Quadrant and the results of thc transportation and ¢nvironn2ental studios. This info~ation was then presented at a public meeting held on October 3~;, 2(t()1. Notes of that meeting are provided in Attachment =5 to ~his report. On November 24, 2001 a desi~ workshop was subsequently held, with both area residents and landowners, to discuss urban desi~ and transportation issues with the City staff and the City's consultants. Notes of the workshop are also provided in Attachment =6 to this report. On April 9, 2002 a further public meeting was held to present and discuss tile results of the review, including land use concepts, transportation, and urban desig~l matters for the Northeast Quadrant. A meeting of landowners :',-as also t:cld on .April 1-, ?)0£ to discuss their views. Agency Comments Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) The TRCA indicated support :in principle for a proposed downstream stormwater management facility located east of the Bavfair Baptist Church property that could enable further changes (piping) to the upstream portion of the Amberlea creek that runs through the Quadrant location for this f'acilitv. It was noted that that the works constitute a hamfful alteration disruption and destruction to a watercourse and as a result, noted that a suitable compensation arrangement x',ould be required to support the project. Further verbal comments have been received from TRCA indicating that City would be required to undertake detailed flood line mapping, a detailed erosion assessment and preliminary engineering of the proposed facility to con,tm tile required and available storage volume of the proposed stormwater fac/litv Isee Attachment =7). Ministry of Transportation (51170) The MTO provided comments on the Phase I Final Report of the TSH Transportation Study for the Northeast Quadrant. Thc comments emphasized a preference that no access onto Kingston Road directly across from the Highx,,ay 4{)1 ramp terminal be provided. However. provided the need for such an access could be justified, MTO would require the road to be a public road with no access, conflict points or sharp REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1, 2002 Page 5 2.3 radius curves for the first 110 metres of the north limit of the current Kingston Road/Highway ramp intersection in order to provide adequate stopping distances for any vehicles that run the amber light at the intersection. MTO commented that they would prohibit full moves access points along the first 180 metres of this road (see Attachment #8). In a subsequent letter, MTO re-emphasized that no access onto Kingston Road across from the Highway 401 ramp terminal be provided; however, MTO is prepared to co-operate and work with City and Regional staffs toward a design, which would be acceptable to all parties concerned (see Attachment #9). Comments received from Area Residents and ProperS' Owners Vivian Vandenhazel, 1757 Fairport Road. indicated objection to the piping the Amberlea Creek tributary as it would only increase the proposed density for the subject lands and that open space/park should be planned along the watercourse. She also suggested the following: the proposed density of development is too high; the existing mature trees must be preser-,'ed, the single fatuity character on the south side of Sheppard Ave should be maintained: and there is not enough park ,.open space/bike path development (see Attachment ~10). Robert McConachie, 770 Kingston Road, indicated that the City should be responsible for pa.,,dng the entire consulting costs or require all landowners in Quadrant to pay equal amounts toward the cost of the studies (see Attachment #11). Kim Baker, Valarie Lawson, and Shane Legere, 765 Sheppard Ave, 757 Sheppard Ave, and 751 Sheppard Ave., indicated they should have the opportunity to sell off a portion of their backyards for development. They also commented that it would beneficial to the City and its residents that development of this area be appealing to the eye, easily accessed and with amenities and services that are best suited for the area (see Attachment #12). Stefan & Raffi Nalbandian, 1475 & 1485 Whites Road, indicated that "Access Concept B" proposed in the Transportation Study restricts access to our property by "right in-right out" access only (by means of raised center median). Proposed restricted access devaluates our property and as much changes the original grounds upon which we acquired our property. Therefore we support the alternative "Access Concept A" which enables safe pedestrian crossing of Whites Road and unrestricted access onto our property (See Attachment #13). 3.0 DISCUSSION 3.1 Vision for the Quadrant A revised vision for the Northeast Quadrant is being recommended by staff, which reinforces the importance of the area as a gateway to the City, supports a mix of land uses at higher intensities, and reinforces and enhances the pedestrian network. At the same time, the Guidelines are cognizant of current development realities while providing the foundation for redevelopment and intensification opportunities in the Quadrant. As well, instead of the current requirement in the Development Guidelines for a ring road, an internal road network is proposed that would provide access to existing and proposed signalized intersections Delta Boulevard / Kingston Road and Kingston Road/ Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp. REPORT NLLMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May l, 21)02 Pa<e o 3.2 Further, to ensure that main street characteristics of higher intensity and mixed usc are achieved in the Quadrant over time, tile revise Guidelines include provisions that address' building frontage, heights, and massing appearance: building relationships to the main public streets: streetscape elements: access and circulation: parking and service areas: and pedestrian amenities. The Guidelines also, m recognition of the existing character of Sheppard Ax enuc, require development proposals to be in a ~'onn and scale that is compatible with ttn~: existing low density residential land uses. Recommended Land Use Through community and landoxvner consultation, staff concluded that the hi<In intensity. mixed residential, commercia] office development concept originalI~ contempiatcd Ibr the Quadrant will not bc achicx ed in the near to mid tenn. How ever. an appropriate and compatible land use concept has been identified that ~s more responsixe to development interests while still respecting thc community context. Staff recommends residential :uedium densitx dcxeiop:uent on the south side of Sheppard Avenue, as a bufI~r bctxx con thc exlsttnLz Iow douser', residential development on thc north side of Shcppard Avenue. and nc~ nqodcratc intcnsitx commercial uses on Kingston Road. Over time. it is anucipated that some of the commercial p~'opcnics will redevelop and Further intcns:!h. A land use map that appears, on Page 7 of this Report specific land use delineates precincts areas within the Quadrant. The delineation is based on existing property boundaries, Delta Boulevard and the proposed east-xvest public road. Land use designations are discussed for each precinct. Precinct A The retention of residential uses within the North East Quadrant was an important conclusion of both the 1980's review and the current reviex~. \Vhat has changed is its location from both the north and central pan of the lands, and a collapsing of the three tiers of low, medium, and high residential density to a single medium density. It is proposed therefore that the lands withip, this Precinct currently designated Mixed Corridor along the Whites road frontage: £o, Dc,~s~n' k~s,tc~;r~'~;l along Sheppard Avenue frontage: and .tic(tim, Dc,zszn' Rcz',,'c~ m.~ m thc interior be desi~ated to :tiedi,ttt Densin' Ros,iomzJl with a maximum cicrsitx restricuon of f5 units per net hectare. This ~'ould simpli~' thc number of designations, reduce the alloxvable densities in some portions of the Precinct, and increase ~t modestlx iE other portions. These increases in residential density can result in a housin~ tknnn that respects the existing character of Sheppard Avenue, Further. it would provide an appropriate transition between the single detached dwe!lings on thc north side oi' Sheppard Avenue and proposed commercial uses along Kingston Road. A proposed policy would require the design et' properties being redeveloped for residential and commercial purposes on the south side o1' Sheppard Avenue to be compatible with existing residemial development. Further. a single vehicular access to Sheppard Avenue is proposed from Precinct A. which will allow future residents to travel in all directions from this site, resuhing in a nominal increase m traffic in tile area. The Precinct is adjacent to an arterial roadway with sufficient capacitF to support the traffic anticipated from a medium residential density dexelopment. A policy promoting the 0 ,q 8 REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review Ma>' 1, 2002 Page 7 reduction of traffic speeds and improvement of pedestrian safety along Sheppard Avenue by implementing pavement markings and other measures is proposed. The City will consider additional "traffic-calming" techniques following the adoption of a safer street traffic management policy. .. f// City ol Picketing Planning 8, Development Department NORTHEAST QUADRANT LAND USE PREGINGIS NORTHEAST QUADRANT WOOD~NDS NE~GHBOURHOOD E--JUl II~t~ BOUNDARY lAND USE PRECINCTS ~'~ BOUNDARY -Ix SCALE 1:6000 DATE OCT. 29, 2001 Precinct B Nine residential lots fronting Sheppard Avenue, east of the City's property, characterize this Precinct. The lands are currently designated Low Density Residential along the Sheppard Avenue frontage and Medium Densi~. Residential in the interior. The existing residential character is low density residential. It is envisioned that over time some of the residential lots will be assembled and/or developed at the higher end of the density provisions. This is consistent with the views of some' of the property owners in the Precinct who indicated an interest in subdividing their lots for development purposes. It REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1. 2002 Page 8 is therefore appropriate to extend the 31edium Densio' Residential over this area with the density restricted at 55 units per net hectare over tho entire Precinct. As ,,',.'ell, tile nexv official plan policies and Guidelines recommended :bt Precinct A are applicable to this Precinct. In this wax. any ney, CLevelopment along Si~eppard Avenue ,,','ill be required to be compatible .`vith tile character of the existing ncighbourilood. A further policy has been added to permit residential development below the nmmnum overall net density of 30 units per net hectare for lands on the south side of Sheppard Ax'emac. This .`,,'ill enable sonic of the lots to be redeveloped on a site-specific basis `,vithout having to be consolidated. Precinct C The lands within Precinct C inch:de cxistim, retail uses on Delta Boulevard. on tile north side Kingston Road are currently designated .tlz.vcJ CorrzJor along tile frontage and Medium Dcusin' Rcside~mal m the interior. Tile current ©uidelines envisioned medium densitx residential uses in thc internal portion of the Quadrant centered on an intcmaI ring road with an interior linear park, and commcrcial retail uses on the Kingston Road ffontauc. Thc Guideiinesaisocontemplated separate underground parking lbr residential buiidinzs. Througi2 thc Rcvieu and working in part with proponents of dcvelopmcut applications, it was determmcd that surface as opposed to underground parking ~ as appropriate as there were insufficient parcel sizes to accommodate separate commercial and residential dex eiopmcnts. Thc Mi.vcd Corridor designation is proposed for Precinct C. As `,,,'eli. to achieve the City's 'mainstrcet' objective, the revised Guidelines require second store.`' floorspace and a i12[nN72~i12 buildin~ height of~xvo-storcvs. Thc inclusion of fine second storey/Mnctional floorspace would be expected to attract uses suct: as offices, adding variety to the mix of uses and times of acux~tx in thc Quadrant. These are important objectives of the City for 'mainstreet' - Kingston Road. and 1bt the Northeast Quadrant. Precincts D and E Precinct D is currently designated (_'ri,~ S~z,A' :trc~;. This designation permits conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education, passive recreation, similar uses and existing lawful uses. Council ma.',' replace thc (_)'i,~z~z Szudx' Area designation for the "old" Dunbarton school property with appropriate land usc designations and policies by amendment to the Official Plan, follov,'ing completion of a land use. transportation and design study that responds appropriately to the dual frontage of the property along Kingston Road and Sheppard Avenue. identifies an appropriate means of conserving and re-using the Dunbarton school building, and adequatel5 addresses tile location opposite the Highway 401 on off ramps. Precinct El consisting: of :'our parcels to the east of the school property are currently desi.~ated t)%~: Rc~s-zdc~zmff .-trc~z.s' .\[cdz~m De~tsin,. Through the Review process, it has been detemained that a rcdesignation of the Dunbarton School property and the four adjacent properties to .th_red Corrzdor would be appropriate and would pro`,ide opportunities for rede`,elopment on all four properties. The 'old Dunbarton school' building is not designated as a historical building by either local or provincial authorities: however, staff supports tile re-use of the sci~ool building for other purposes. Tile revised Ouidelmes require any commercial buiidings located in the nonhero portion of the school property to present a building face to Sheppard Avenue that reflects a residential character. As indicated earlier, an application has been received from North AmeficanAcquisitions Corporation to develop the school proper7.,,, for retail, personal service, office and restaurant uses in addition to ~as bar and car wash facilities. Staff' does not support additional gas bar and car vcash facilities within this alreadv 1 i5 0 REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review Max' 1, .. _ Page 9 congested area, and is proposing a new policy prohibiting the development of any new gas bars, automobile service stations, or car washes for lands designated Mixed Used Area - Mixed Corridors or Medium DensiO' Residential within in the Northeast Quadrant. The revised Guidelines for commercial proposals along Kingston Road would also apply to Precincts D and E. 3.3 3.4 3.5 Precincts F and G Both properties are currently designated Mixed Corridor. No changes to the Official Plan are required; however, any commercial or residential developments on either property would be subject to the revised Guidelines. Any development on lands within Precinct F would be required to maintain a 1 O-metre buffer strip from Amberlea Creek unless piped. Internal Public Road The current Guidelines contemplated an internal ring road, with an interior linear park as a focus for a residential neighbourhood, and to accommodate access movement within the Northeast Quadrant. Through the Review process, it has been deternfined that an internal east-west public road (10 metre ~vide right-of-way), through the Quadrant would provide an appropriate traffic circulation system between Delta Boulevard and the new signalized access opposite the Highway 401 westbound oWoff ramp (see Access Concept E in Appendix II). This internal public road xvould co-ordinate internal movement between sites, allow orderly development of the Quadrant, reduce congestion on Kingston Road, and provide for future intensification through redevelopment over time. Staff is proposing that the new public road be designated as a collector road on Schedule II - Transportation in the Official Plan. The public road would also provide access to signalized intersections at Delta Boulevard and the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersections at Kingston Road. The Ministry of Transportation has indicated that a public road is required in order to permit access from the Dunbarton school site to the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersection and that access to the public road should be limited in proximity to the signalized intersection to ensure that free flow of vehicles can be maintained. It is recognized that the access plan, and the related major changes to the intersection will require approval by both the Region of Durham and the Ministry of Transportation. A requirement for a public road would be implemented through imposition of a Holding Provision in the Zoning By- laws for lands in the Quadrant except for the Wood, Carroll properties (the OMB decision for these lands accepted Wood Carroll's approach to provide a right-of-way only). The provision would require property owners to enter into development agreements requiring construction and conveyance of a public road to the City's satisfaction before removal of the holding provision. Amberlea Creek Tributary The previous Development Guidelines did not contemplate an open channel for this stream. The Schollen report on the feasibility of piping the creek has concluded that a net environmental benefit will result from construction of a downstream stormwater pond on lands north of Highway 401, and could allow consideration of piping the tributary. Until a decision is reached on the matter of the stormwater management facility, the creek channel will remain open. This will require applications to respond to TRCA's normal requirement for a 1 O-metre buffer between development and the stream corridor. Stormwater Treatment The Schollen Report on the Amberlea Creek tributary, the potential for a downstream Amberlea stormwater quantity/quality control facility is being investigated. In the event development within the Quadrant precedes construction of the Amberlea pond, REPORT NULMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1. 2002 Page 10 landowners within the Northeast Quadrant will be required to contribute to the proposed downstream stomlwater control works and provide on-site treatment. On-site stomnxxatcr treatment is to be implemented through future site plan approval. A policy is proposed requiring any developer to construct on-site controls if development precedes a doxvnstream solution. On-s~te controls xvill address both quantity and quality stormwater conceFrls. 3.6 3.7 3.8 Potential Amendments to the Pickering Official Plan .As mentioned prex'iousl>', annendments to the Official Plan x~il] require further public consultation process separate from ti2is Review. Accordingl>. staff recommend that Council direct staff to hold a ota~u=o~ Public InFommtion Nleetii2z ~n June 2002. to discuss the details of thc potential amendments to the Pickerino= Official Plan required to implement the recommendations of the "No,beast Quadrant Revicxv". as set out in Appendix I to this Report Proposed Northeast Quadrant Dex'elopment Guidelines Thc proposed new Northeast Quadrav, t Guidelines x~ ere prepared to assist tile public and developers with interest in ti:ese lands, and to ass:st :he Planning & Development Department in revicxxing proposals in this area. Thc pr'eparation of the guidelines required a review of cu~cnt policy, a rethinking_ cc, thc cxistim,~ Northeast Quadrant guidelines, and a number of meetings with the var:ous stakeholder ~roups in this area. A distillation of issues rclatin~ to tine City's urban design objectives and the concerns of the development community and tine ncijhbouring residents was also required. The Guidelines are laid out to first provide thc C'itx's oxemli urban design objectives and ttnen to elaborate a set of guidelines, which implement these objcctixcs. The objectivesof the City can be summarized as alloxving these lands to evolve m an appropriate manner, while striving to provide a safe. pleasant enx ironmcnt that dispiaFs a high quality urban image and to inte~ate this new development sensitively into thc existing neighbourhood. The Guidelines themselves are :separated into guidelines for Commercial Development Proposals and guidelines for Residential Development Proposals. and cover matters ranging from building location, height and appearance to landscaping, site layout requirements, storm water management and traffic. The Guidelines are the result of a collaborative eflbrt betv, een all of the stakeholders and the Planning & Development Department and shall provide a framework to review the various development proposals in this area, They are provided as .Appendix II to this Report. Staff requests that Council adopt the Guidelines in principle that they be brought back to Council for final adoption with the tbnnal Official Plan amendment. Study Costs Staff recommends Counci! rc-af:Snn the reqmreme,,u that applicants pay a proportionate share of the study costs before zoning is approved for each site. It is recommended that this be a requirement prior to rcmoxal of the Holding sxqnbol from tile proposed zoning for the subject lands. Council previously required cost sharing of thc Review. with benefiting landowners/developers contnbutins, at least 5~° ~, of thc anticipated 550.000 study cost. Some additional work has been necessary to complete tile stud,.', due to tiao requirements of approval agencies. This work was undertaken with the concurrence of funding landowners. It is recommended that Council re-affirm the requirement for benefiting landowners to pay all costs in excess of the City's initial 525,000 commitment. If these costs are not recovered in 2002. they will be increased in accordance with the Southam Construction Index. REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1. '~00 Page CONCLUSION The Review provides a renewed vision for the future growth and evolution of the Northeast Quadrant. The draft Woodlands Neighbourhood policies and Development Guidelines establish a comprehensive framework for guiding private development and private investment within the Quadrant, while ensuring a sensitive 'fit' to the existing neighbourhood context. As well, the framework provides direction and guidance for the reorganization of the built and natural environments that could result in the transformation of this section of Kingston Road into a more vibrant "mainstreet". It is therefore recommended that Council endorse the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review", as set out in Report to Council PD 23-02 and adopt, in principle, the revised "Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines". Further, it is recommended that staff be authorized to hold a Statutory Public Information Meeting in June 2002, to discuss potential amendments to the Picketing Official Plan that are required to implement the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review". REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May l, 2002 Page 12 .~XPPENDICES I, Potential .Amendments to the Pickenng Official Plan Ii. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines .ATTACHMENTS: 1. Northeast Map 2. Current Northeast Quadrant Development Guideline Concept 3. Summa~ of Development .Applications 4. Summa~' of Reports prepared for the Northeast Quadrant 5. Notes of Public Meeting held on October 30, 2001. (5. Notes from Design \Vorkshop held on November 24.2( - Comment Letter from Toronto and Re<ion Conservation .&uthoritv dated October ~4. S. Comment Letter from Xlinistrx of Transportation dated November 9, 2001 _ 00_ 9. Comment letter from Ministry of Transportation dated February 26, '>' '~ 10. Letter from Vivian Vandenhazel dated October 3{~. 2~ 11. Letter from Robert XlcConachie dated November 0.20{.)1 12. Letter from Kim Baker. Valarie Lay, son. and Shane Le~cre rocca\ed February 12. 2002 13. Letter from Stefan & Raffi Nalbandian dated October x~, Prepared Bx': Grant McGregor, MCIP. RPP Principal Planner - Policy Cathenne L. Rose Manager, Policy GM/CLR/pr Attachments Cop>': Chief Administrative Officer Director, Operations and Emergency Se~'ices Recommended for the consideration of Pickenng I Citv Council Ti e O f, ff'c c r l Ttu~m'a's J. Qui~, Chigf Admin~~ APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT AREA POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE NORTttEAST QUADtL~XNT AREA Certain formal amendments to the Picketing Official Plan arc required to provide a strong policy foundation ibr the City's objectives Ibr the Northeast Quadr~t Area. The folloxving potential amendments have been drafted based on the conclusions reached through the Review of thc 1990 Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. All potential amendments to the O~-ficial Plan will require a further public consultation process, including a Statutory Public Inffommtion Meeting. Staff' will inmate flus process once &retted to do so by City Council. Potential amendments to thc Pict,:erinz 0I-I2ciaI Plan include: Amending Schedule I - Land Usc Structure bx redesignating lands as folloxxs: · the south-east quadrant of ~,~,'hites Road and Sheppard Avenue from Mired ('~c Areas -3lLved Corridor~ and ~'rban Residential .4rea - Low Densitx to ~ )'ban Residential Area -31edium Densio': lt~e 'old' I)unbarton School property t'rom Other Desig, uatious- ()'ban Study .4 Ft'fl5 tO 31Lved (M' .4 rca.~ - 3lLred Corridors: · the properties lyin~ east of thc 'old' Dunbarton School property, west of the main Amberlea ('reek tributarx, and south of Sheppard Avenue, from ~'rball Residential .-trea- 31edium Densi~' to 31Lx'ed L'se Areas -3[Lx'ed Corridors: and Ihe interior lands located norlh and east of Whites Road and Kingston Road from Urban Rc~identia1.4rea- 31edium Density to 31~red ~'se .4rea~ - 31~ved Corridors, as illustrated on Schedule 'A' attached to this draft Amendment: Amending Schedule II - Transportation System. to add a Future Collector Road, opposite the High~xay 401 x~estbound on/off' ramp to connect with Delta Boulevard. as illustrated on Schedule 'B' attached to this draft Amendment: Revise policy 11.8 - ll oodlands .\'ei,dhbourhood Policies, by retaining the existing sections (a), (b) and (c). renumbering existing section (e) as (d), and adding new subsections (e) through (g) as follows: WOODLANDS NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICIES "11.8 Ciw Council shall, (a) (b) (c) in the established residential areas along Hig]hbush Trail, Old Forest Road, Rosebank Road and Shcppard Avenue, encourage and where possible require new development to be compatible with the character of existing development; encourage the introduction of uses and facilities into the nci~hbourhood that complement and support secondary school students and activities; despite Table 6* of Chapter Three, establish a maximum residential density of 55 units per net hectare for lands located on the north side of Kingston Road that are designated Mixed ['se Areas and abut lands developed as h)w density development; * Table 6 is attached to th:s _\mcndmcn: for m~- ,r:::,u: ~:: purp,,<c> ~,ni',': ~t docs not consututc part of the Amendment. Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02 Page 2 Potential Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area (d) (e) accommodate future improvements to Sheppard Avenue and Rosebank Road within the existing 20 metre road allowance, except at intersections where additional road allowance width may be need to pro~dde vehicular turning lanes; to provide clearer direction for land use within the lands covered bv the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, (i) further its objective of transforming Kingston Road into a "mainstreet" for Pickering by requiring the placement of buildings to provide a strong and identifiable urban edge, the construction of some multi-storey buildings, and the provision of safe and convenient pedestrian access; accordingly, for the lands designated Mixed Use Areas - Mixed Corridor, City Council shall require, (A) buildings to be located close to the street edge, with the minimum specified percentage of their front walls required to be located within build-to- zones to be established in the implementing zoning by-laws for each site; (B) all buildings to be a minimum of two storeys in height; (C) commercial development to provide second storey functional floor space, with the minimum percentage of their gross floor area to be provided in second (or higher) storevs to be established in the implementing zoning by-laws for each project; (ii) despite Table 10' of Chapter Three, establish a maximum residential density of 55 units per net hectare for lands located within the area governed by the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines that are designated Urban Residential - Medium Density, in light of their location abutting lands developed as low density development; (iii) despite ll.8(d)(ii) above, and Table 10' of Chapter Three, permit residential development below the minimum residential density, of 30 units per net hectare for lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue; (iv) require new development to establish buildings on Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue close to the street edge, with the front doors facing the street, with a specified percentage of their front walls required to be located within build-to-zones to be established in the implementing zoning by-law for this site; (v) restrict the height of the Sheppard Avenue elevation of new dwellings fronting Sheppard Avenue to a maximum of two storeys; (vi) require a minimum of four functional storeys for the Whites Road elevations of new dwellings fronting Whites Road; * 'Fable 10 is attached to this Amendment for information purposes only; it does not constitute part of the amendment. Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02 Page 3 Potential Amendment to the Pickenng O£ficial Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area (vii) recognize the existing low density development on Sheppard Avenue, and to this end, require the design of new residential or commercial development to be compatible with existing development with respect to such matters as building heights, yard setbacks, building orientation and massing, access to sunlight, and privacy; (vi) despite sections 3.6(b)*, 3.9(b)* and 15.38', and Tables $* and 9* of Chapter 3, prohibit the development of any new gas bars, automobile service stations, or car washes for lands designated Mixed Used Area - Mixed Corridors or Urban Residential - Medium Density; to provide clearer direction for transportation matters within and around the lands covered by thc Northeast Quadrant De\ elopment Guidelines, (i) support shared access points between properties along Kingston Road, in consultation with the Re~,ion of Durham; iii) endeavour to secure x~dth the approval of the Ministrx of Transportation and the Region of Durham, in consultation xxdth the affected landowncrsis), a signalized intersection for a future collector road opp(~sitc thc Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp; (iii) despite Section 4.10(c)(i)* and in accordance with Section 4.ii(a)*, reduce thc width of thc future collector road to 10 metres, t(, thc satisfaction of the City: (ix') restrict vehicular access from \\'hites Road to the properD, located at the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, in the future, to right-in/right-out turns only through the installment of a centre median down Whites Road between Shcppard Avenue and Dunfair Street; (v) promote the reduction of traffic speeds and improvement of pedestrian safew along Sheppard Avenue by implementing pavement markings and other measures, and considering "traffic-calming" techniques following the adoption of a City policy; (vi) require pedestrian access, bv means of easements, from Delta Boulevard and from the future collector road through the old Dunbarton School site to Sheppard Avenue; (vii) require vehicular and pedestrian access, by means of easements, from Delta Boulevard to Whites Road;; (viii) require easements to connect thc old Dunbarton School site to the Mixed Corridor lands to the east; (ix) require easements across the lands located south of Kingston Road and west of Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp in order to prox5de access to Delta Boulevard; 5ectzons 3.6i0, 3,9 b, 1410c 1., 14.11 a 2~:d 153S, az~d '!able? 5 :~:nd ~.' ~trc~ consu~te part of thc _kmcnd~nent. Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02 Page 4 Potential .amendment to the Pickering Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant .Area (g) to provide clearer direction for environmental and stormwater management matters respecting the Amberlea Creek tributary- that flows through lands covered by the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, (i) support the principle of piping the Amberlea Creek tributary that flows through the Northeast Quadrant lands and, at the same time, recognizing the interests of landowners w4thin the Northeast Quadrant on whose lands Amberlea Creek tributary flows to pipe that tributa%', and the interests of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to maintain the Amberlea Creek tributary through the Northeast Quadrant lands as an open and buffered creek channel; (ii) require any developer of lands within the Northeast Quadrant proposing to pipe or relocated the Amberlea Creek tributary to: (A) submit an environmental/ stormwater management report, to thc satisfaction of the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, which report must demonstrate a strate~, resulting in a significant net environmental benefit to the watershed if justifying piping of the creek; (B) obtain appropriate approvals and permits from public review agencies; and (C) satistN' anv required compensation under the Fisheries Act; and (iii) ensure that development proposals arc undertaken in a manner that does not adversely impact downstream water quality and quantity through the use of on-site controls and/or financial contributions to a downstream stormwater facility, if necessary; and (h) to provide additional direction on implementation matters for lands covered by the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, (i) through the use of the holding provisions of the Planning Act, require where necessary, proponents to enter into agreements with the City, Region and other agencies as appropriate, respecting various development related matters including but not limited to: the construction of a collector road across their lands to the City's satisfaction and conveying the road to the Ciw upon completion; entering into cost sharing agreements between each other where mutual shared access is necessary; providing or exchanging easements over lands where necessary.; payment of study costs; and providing contributions to the cost of a downstream stormwater management facility., if necessary." 4. Delete in its entirety, section 3.16, Urban Study Area: Old Dunbarton School policies, which policies identify that City Council shall, following the results of an appropriate land use, transportation and design study, establish appropriate land use 'designations and policies for the subject lands, by amendment. .Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02 Pace 5 PotentiaI Amendment to the Pickenng Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant .Area Selected Policy Extracts from the Pickering Official Plan Referred to in 'the Potential Amendment Provided for Infom~ation Puu>oses Only - Not Part of Potential .~,mendment TABLE $ Mixed Use Areas Permissible Uses Subcategon., (Restrictions and limitations on the uses permissible, arising from other policies of t~!~..~!~n~ will be detailed in zoning by-laws:) Local Nodes Residential; Retailing of goods and ser~-~ccs generally serving the needs of thc surrounding neighbourhoods; Offices and restaurants; Communitx, cultural and recreational uses. Community Nodes M1 uses permissible in Local Nodes, at a larger scale and intensiu-, and serving a broader area. Mixed Corridors ?all uses permissible m Local Nodes and Community Nodes, at a scale and intensity equivalent to Commumtv Nodes; Special purpose commercial uses. Downtown Core All uses permissible in Local Nodes and Commumtv Nodes. at thc greatest scale and intensity in thc Cir,,, scr','mg Citx-wide and regional lexels; Special purpose commercial uses. 3.6 Ciw Council, (a) ...; (b) may zone lands designated Mixed Use Areas for one or more purposes as set out in Table 5, and in so doing will apply appropriate performance standards, restrictions and provisions, including those set out in Table 6; 1 i0 Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02 Page 6 Potential Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area Selected Policy Extracts from the Picketing Official Plan Referred to in the Potential Amendment Provided for Information Purposes Only- Not Part of Potential Amendment TABLE 6 Mixed Use Maximum and Minimum Maximum Gross Maximum Areas Net Residential Density Leasable Floorspace for Floorspace Index Subcategory (in dwellings per hectare) the Retailing of Goods (total building and Services floorspace divided (in square metres) bv total lot area) Local Nodes over 30 and up to and up to and including 10,000 up to and including including 80 2.0 FSI Community over 80 and up to and up to and including 20,000 up to and including Nodes including 140 2.5 FSI Mixed over 30 and up to and determined by site-specific up to and including Corridors including 140 zoning 2.5 FSI Downtown over 80 and up to and up to and including 300,000 up to and including Core including 180 3.0 FSI TABLE 9 Permissible Uses (Restrictions and Designation limitations on the uses permissible, arising from other policies of this Plan, will be detailed in zoning by-laws.) Urban Residential Residential uses, home occupations, limited Areas 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. 3.9 City Council, (a) ...; (b) may zone lands designated Urban Residential Areas for one or more purposes as set out in Table 9, and in so doing will apply appropriate performance standards, restrictions and provisions, including those set out in Table 10; TABLE 10 Maximum and Minimum Residential Area Net Residential Density. Subcategory (in dwellings per net hectare) Low Density Area up to and including 30 Medium Density Area over 30 and up to and including 80 High Density Area over 80 and up to and including 140 Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02 Page 7 Potential Amendment to the Pickenng Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant .Area Ill Selected Policy Extracts from the Picketing Official Plan Referred to in the Potential Amendment Provided fbr Information Purposes Only - Not Part of Potential Amendn]ent 4.10 Ciw Council shall, (b) ...;, (c) recognize the following municipal road categories, wherein, (i) Collector Roads: ~cnerally provide access to individual properties, to local roads, to other collector roads and to Type C arterial roads; carry greater volumes of traffic than local roads, including automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles and transit; and generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 20 to 22 metres; and 4.11 Despite section 4.10, City Council may. (a) vary road right-of-way widths, and related road categoO' intersection criteria, for roads under its jurisdiction and which are not designated on *lap 'B' of thc Durhan~ Regional Official Plan, either upward or downward, without amendment to this Plan, where circumstances warrant such action, including, (i) at intersections to improve siffht-lines, accommodate turning movements, and provide for transit st~)ps; (ii) for traffic calming purposes, and ti) pre,vide fi)r the installation, where warranted, of traffic circles and other similar features: (iii)where rear yard lanes are provided; (ix') to avoid providing excessively wide roads or boulevards: and (v) to improve streetscapes andl/or reduce the crossing distance between buildings; and activities on opposite sides of a street; and 15.38 \I/'ithin the urban area or within a rural hamlet, City Council mav approve a site specific zoning by-law xxdth appropriate provisions and restrictions, to permit a retail gasoline outlet in any land use designation except Open Space - Natural )~reas, provided, (a) the retail gasoline outlet maintains the goals, objectives and policies of this Plan; (b) the retail gasoline outlet obtains access from an arterial road as identified on Schedule II; (c) the retail gasoline outlet is not located adjacent to or opposite a school; (d) the number of retail gasoline outlets is limited to a maximum of two outlets within 100 :metres of any intersection; and (e) the retail gasoline outtlet will not adversely affect the safe and convenient movement of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. SCHEDULE 'A' REDESIGNATE FROM "MIXED USE: AREAS-MIXED CORRIDORS' AND "URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS LOW DENSITY AREAS' TO "URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS-MEDIUM DENSITY- xS"U RBAN RESIDENTIAL ITY AREAS" TO "MIXED ED CORRIDORS' REDESIGNATE FROM "URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS MEDIUM DENS TY AREAS" TO "MIXED USE AREAS MIXED CORRIDORS EXTRACT FROM SCltEI)ULE ! TO TIlE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN EDITION 2 I.AN1) ITSl'] STRU(~TIiRI{ SCHEDULE 'B' L ADD NEW COLLECTOR ROAD J i EXTRACT FROM SCIIEDULE II- TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN EDITION 2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FREEWAYS TYPE AARTERIAL ROADS , ' I TYPE B ARTERIAL ROADS I II I I }YPE C AR}ERIAL ROADS COLLECTOR ROADS - LOCAL ROADS .... RAILWA f:, ~ GO '~AIL ~,~ ~ ~ RANSIT SPINES 1 14 APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT GL'IDELINES FOR THE NORTHEAST QI~;ADR&NT Woodlands Neighbourhood Section F1 Northeast Quadrant ]!5 NATIONAL ;HEPPARD TOYN ~E ROAD AVENUE CRES. 0 j ' ~' ~ ~ EDG WOOD~/ ~UNE . ~,,,,,..., ~. ~ ~_ .... ,~, B ~ COURT 3~ · ~ AUTUMN -- ~UR,~ ~l ~I ~l ~) ~ .... I ~ -- ~ - ~ ] L° RAILWAYS ' ~' ' ~ ~ ~BI~H~OD ~T ¢I I I ~ AVENUE ~ -- J ( SHEPPARD -( DRIVE SUNDOWN P~CE / / 1 © OK~OMA STONEBRIDGE ]16 Draft Northeast Quadrant Development (]uidelines - Table of Contents Sections F1.1 General Description F1.2 Development Framework F1.3 Urban Design Objectives F1.4 Llrban Design Guidelines FI.5 'Transportation F1.6 Stormwater F1.7 Implementation F1.8 Sumrna~' Figure 1 Page 13 14 15 16 17 This Draft Guideline was prepared for discussion purposes, ,~.ta~ 3, 2002 ] 1 '7 Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines F1.1 General Description The revised Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines apply to lands generally located between Kingston Road and Sheppard Avenue, east of Whites Road, and for lands located at the southwest corner of Dunfair Street and Whites Road. In addition, througi] tt~e review that led to ti~ese Guidelines, a parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Kingston Road and Highway 401 on/off ramp was added (see attached Figure A - tertiary plan). The previous Development Guidelines were formulated through a larger review of the land use policies in the Highway No.2 - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Study initiated by Picketing in the late 1980's. In 1990, Picketing Council approved Development Guidelines for the Northeast Quadrant. The Guidelines contemplated a high, intensity of mixed-use development, witi~ substantial underground parking. An internal residential neighbourhood, focused around a ring road with an interior linear park was illustrated. Additional commercial and office, with office-support commercial was proposed for the Kingston Road and Whites Road frontages. Recently, there has been significant market interest throughout the quadrant but landowners are requesting that changes to specific elements of tt~e current Guidelines be made. Accordingly, City staff in collaboration with the consulting firms of TSH Associates, Schollen & Company Inc., and Markson Borooah Hodgson Architects, major landowners within the Northeast Quadrant Area, commenced a review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. As background to these development guidelines the following reports were prepared for the City of Pickering: the Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study, Phase 1 Final Report, dated September, 2001, prepared by TSH Associates; the Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study, Phase 2 Final Report, dated May, 2002, prepared by TSH Associates; and the Amberlea Creek Northeast Quadrant - Assessment of Alternatives, dated September, 2001, prepared by Schollen & Company Inc. F1.2 Development Framework The Northeast Quadrant is an important focal point in the City of Pickering and acts as a 'gateway' for the planned Seaton Community. This intersection brings together access to and from the 401, downtown Pickering to the east and the planned Seaton Community to the north. The visual character of this intersection should serve to substantiate the role of a 'gateway' and shift the focus from the present highway commercial developments presently positioned at the street corners. It is recognized that the spatial and land use characteristics of the three main roads bounding the study lands are quite different, and correspondingly urban design concepts are proposed and elaborated for each in section F1.5. Draft Northeast Quadrant Developmer~t Guidelines ,Ma~ 3, 2002i Page 2 .. F1.3 Northeast Quadrant Objectives The development of lands affected b,v the Development Guidelines will strive to achieve the urban design objectives of chapter 9 - "Community Design", Chapter 13 -"Detailed Design Considerations", and tt~e Kingston Road Corridor Urban Design Development Guidelines of the Official Plan. It is the intent of these guidelines to both furti~er those objectives and embellish the ones listed below: To provide a quality urban image by encouraging tt~e placement of high quality buildings located to define the street edge. To provide a ctuatitv urban image by encouraging a i~armonizc~t and complementar~ landscape treatment throughout tile Norti~east Quadrant. rOhl~ E ~, Cl,l~ L To provide a quality urban image bx encouraging a coordinated effort to improvin~ the streetscape that includes pedestrian oriented furnishings and other appropriate in~provements. To provide a safe, pleasant, comfortable a~ convenient environment supporting all modes of travel including bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular traffic. To minimize yields to large parking areas b,v utilizing appropriate principles of site planning and street edge treatment. To ensure that new development is compatible with existing development while allowing appropriate evolution of this area, To recognize the need for efficient vehicular movement through and within this area including access to individual properties. To recognize and support all efforts to address tile stormwater management issues facing this area and to work cooperati,, el ,v with all agencies towards a suitable resolution of issues. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 3 '- F1.4 Urban Design Guidelines The following guidelines have been objectives. developed to help meet the above stated F1.4.1 Commercial Development Proposals In reviewing any commercial development proposals fronting Whites Road or Kingston Road: 1.0 Building Placement: Buildings should be located close to the street with no parking between the buildings and the street. This will be implemented by the establishment of provisions within the zoning by-law creating a build to zone; along Kingston Road 40% of its length will contain the front walls of buildings and 30% of the build to zone's length will contain the front walls of buildings along Whites Road. Where the configuration of a property makes this requirement onerous, special considerations can be made. 2.0 Building Appearance: Buildings shall be constructed with heights greater than one storey with building height not less than 6.5 metres. A minimum amount of functional second storey floor space will be required for each development in the quadrant, with a ratio established in each implementing zoning bylaw. Development will employ innovative architectural designs utilizing high quality materials to humanize the street, mitigate the effects of traffic, roads. · I:01"1 ~ E R cl~k L ROAD Fi~O tIT,AGE' and present an attractive frontage along public Draft Northeast C~uadrant Development Guidelines !May 3, 2002) No blank walls shall be exposed to public right of ~va~ s. Buildings that front the street should be constructed with street level windows and entrances to buildings directlx,' off of the public right. Covered entries in order to provide points of refuge to pedestrians and define entry points shall be provided at all public entrances. A minimum of 50% glazing will be required on tile facades facing Kingston Road where possible. Pedestrian entr),, doors facing Kingston Road will be required regardless of whether these are ti~e main entry points. 3.0 Rooftop Equipment ,~lr mechanical equipment must be aciequately screened and all commercial buildings si~ouid contain ti~eir rooftop mechanical equipment eiti~er in small rooftop elements or under roof profiles. 4.0 Parking: Parking areas will be required to be attractively buffered from, public rights-of-way through the appropriate layout of plant and landscape materials. Parking areas shall be set back a minimum of 3.0 metres from adjacent residential development. The majority of parking shall be provided at the rear of the site behind the main buildings, and at the side. STREET 1'21 Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 5 -- Landscape islands a minimum of 3.0 metres in width shall be required at the ends of each parking row. Parking between building fagade and streetline is discouraged. Where appropriate, bicycle lock ups shall be provided for employees and patrons. 5.0 Road Boulevards: · The Kingston Road and Whites Road frontage's will be urbanized and landscaped appropriately as part of any development proposal. The Ci~ may assist in implementation costs for certain improvement elements. 6.0 Loading & Services: · All loading and service areas should be located away from street frontages and effectively screened. Draft Northeast_Ouadrant Development Guidelines ~iNlav 3, 2002) Pase 6 -. 7.0 Odour Control: · For all restaurant uses, restaurant cooking ventilation systems st~atl incorporate ecologizer, water wash, ultraviolet or other equivalent odour extraction mechanisms sufficient to ensure that the resulting exhaust is substantially odour free and will not effect surrounding residents. 8.0 Drive-Thru Facilities: · Drive-tt~ru facilities shall be located such that tt~e pick up window or stacking spaces are not situated between the front wall of a building and Kingston Road or \Vi~ites Road. · Drive-thru facilities si~ould provide a minin3um of $ automobile stacking spaces before the order boa rd and a nninir~um of 4 automobile staking spaces between tt~e order board and tt~e pick-up v,,i ndow. 9.0 Vehicular Access: Driveways and parking areas located between streetline and the front of the building are discouraged. Pedestrian and vehicular conflict points should be minimized and pedestrians should be given priority at crossings by treating the ground plane with textured asphalt or pavers. 10.0 · Internal Public Lane Internal access for vehicular traffic and pedestrians to other properties in ti~e Nortt]east QuacJrant si~all be provided by a publicly owned and maintained lane, aligned as indicated in Access Concept E, attached as Figure 1, of approximatel~ 10 metres I , - BO ULE VA'~' s ouq-H e Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3r 2002) Page '7 '- 11.0 in width, generally consisting of a 1.0 metre north boulevard, 8.5 metre pavement, including curbs gutter and storm sewer and a 0.5 metre south boulevard. A publicly accessible sidewalk shall be located on private property on the south side of the lane. Conditions Abutting Creek No buildings or structures shall be permitted within 10 metres of the stream corridor of the Ambertea Creek tributa~'. If possible, this area adjacent to the creek should be landscaped in a manner that is sensitive to the natural processes of the stream, unless the stream is piped or currently channelized. 12.0 · 13.0 · Pedestrian Environment: Clearly articulated pedestrian access from the public right of way to the entry of all buildings will be provided. Where possible a minimum landscape strip of 3.0 metres will be required along building frontages to allow .for comfortable pedestrian circulation and adequate landscaping and site furnishings to be integrated into these areas. In large parking areas landscaped pedestrian walkways shall be provided from the parking area to the main entry. Storage: Garbage and recycling enclosures for commercial development will be fully enclosed in roofed structures and located towards the rear of the properties. Garbage and recycling enclosures will be required to be constructed of materials matching or complementary to that of the buildings. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines ,'xlav 3, 2002! Page $ '- · Garbage and recycling storage can also be handled interior to the building itself. · Any outdoor storage shall be completely screened within a structure. 14.0 Landscaping: · All areas not required for building, storage, servicing, or parking shall be landscaped. · Front yard landscape areas should be maximized by minimizing access points and reducing the amount of paved area at tile front of buildings. · A continuous landscape connection behveen the building front and the street boulevard is preferred. · Berms are not considered appropriate along the frontage of a commercial property. As the percentage of front yard landscaping decreases quality of landscaping throughout the site si~alt increase. the intensity and 15.0 16.0 Buffers: Adequate and attractive buffering between commercial and residential development shall be required; landscape elements including fencing may be utilized Site Furniture: Bicycle lock-up areas and trasi~ receptacles will be integrated into development sites in convenient on site plans. Attradive exterior seating areas or courtyards that include benci3es, bicycle lock ups and garbage receptacles and are safely removed from vehicular routes will be encouraged. ocations and shown Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 9 .. 17.0 Signage: · Site plan applications should identify sign details including location and size. · Fascia signs should be designed to be integral with the buildings fa~:ade. · Signage for second storey businesses should be located on a sign directory near the main entry. · Ground signs are preferred over pole or pylon signs. 18.0 · · · · Lighting: Lighting design should complement the design of the development. Exterior lighting shall not spill over onto adjacent properties or streets. Lighting shall be downcast to avoid excessive light pollution. Lighting and light standards in public areas including parking lots should relate to the pedestrian and be limited to a height of 6.0 metres. 19.0 · 20.0 · Tree Preservation Established trees that provide significant buffering or aesthetic contributions to the neighbourhood should be considered for preservation and protected during construction. Tree preservation details will be required to be submitted for the City's review. 'Former' Dunbarton School Site and Lands to East Any buildings located in the northern portion of the sites shall include a treatment of the north facing fa~:ade that presents a building face to Sheppard Avenue that reflects a residential character. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines ,,Xram, 3, 2002', Pa~e F1.4.2 Residential Develo2mentProposals In reviewing residential de~elot)ment proposals: For the proposed residential development, at tine south-east corner of VVhites Road and Stneppard .~venue, buildings shall be located close to the street, wittn parking provided at ttne rear. New residential development shall be integrated into tile area in a manner that is bottn respectful of the character of tile existing neighborhood and sea'es as an interface between this area and tine surrounding lands. -T i~e souttn-east corner of Sheppard Avenue and Whites Road snail act as a transition area between the higher buildings on VVlnites Road and thc [o~xer buildings on Sheppard Rxenue. Tinis corner should be treated as an important focal point, and include landscape and hardscape treatment to create an identifiable amenity ar~, prefe~ly including p~estrian connections into tine site. New residential development along Sheppard ~,venue stnall include no more than four units that are attached before pro~.iding a break between building masses. o Ti~e height of residential units along Sheppard Avenue shall be restricted to two storeys on the front elevation facing Sheppard Avenue, and shall include facades that are mostly brick on all sides facing the public right of xvav. ~. U~TS Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3~ 2002) Page 12 11. 12. A public pedestrian link which runs Ii %.i~ .... ~'~-i--'1 north south from the end of Delta Blvd 'l i~T~:).:-~'k.' south side of Sheppard Avenue, and ~-~--/~,x/-~-~' f: ~ includes up-graded landscape treatment ~-~: -' and a minimum 2.0 metre wide sidewalk, shall be included as an ~,... Allowance for comfortable and convenient '. ' ." ::~L :P~ and west of this location to destinations to the south shall be integrated into the site layout. 13. 14. 15. No buildings or structures shall be permitted within 10 metres of ti~e stream corridor of the Amberlea Creek tributary. If possible, this area adjacent to the creek should be landscaped in a manner that is sensitive to the natural processes of the stream, unless the stream is piped. Any building mounted utility boxes including telephone and hydro shall be enclosed within or behind a screening device, which generally matches the materials used in the building fa~:ade construction. Any free standing utility boxes including hydro, telephone, etc. shall be enclosed within screening devices designed to match or complement the buildings. 16. 17. All stairs, which are required on building facades, shall be cast in place and not pre- cast units. The grade of the site along the Whites Road frontage shall be raised so that any proposed dwelling's front entry is at or above the grade of the sidewalk on Whites Road. Draft Northeast C~uadrant DevetoDment Guidelines ,Nlav 3, 2002) Pa~e ! L New residential development along Wt~ites Road shall be a minimum four functional storeys on the side of the building facing Whites Road, and of mostly brick facades on all sides facing tt~e public right of,,va~. Architectural detailinB and stepping tile footprint of the front and rear facades st~all be utilized to avoid the appearance of long flat walls. C,NDU LATIHG '~oO-r W-..I I'4 T 10. A new sidewalk shall be constructed along the south side of Sheppard Avenue. A vegetative buffer and a generous sideyard width will be required along the eastern property line separating any proposed residential development at the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue from the existing -~~ neighbourhood. I Attractive and appropriate landscaping will be required both on tile perimeters of the development facing the streets and nterior to the site. I73 Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 13 '- 18. 19. Garbage and recyclable material shall be handled internally within each dwelling unit (including its garage), and not within separate buildings or centralized areas. Lighting design should complement the design of the development, si~all not spill over into adjacent properties or streets, and shall be downcast to avoid excessive light pollution. q~O~qT K~'T~~ 20. For residential development along Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, the front entrance will face the public streets. F1.5 Transportation The three primary roads surrounding the Quadrant are Kingston Road, Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue. All are arterial roads that perform an important traffic function in the City. As lands are developed along these roads, this function must be maintained. Accordingly, the number and spacing of new access points to Kingston Road, Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue will be carefully reviewed by City and/or Regional staff. However, no through road is permitted to connect Delta Boulevard to Sheppard Avenue or the Higi~way 401 westbound on/off ramp to Sheppard Avenue. It is anticipated that Kingston Road and Whites Road will be widened to six lanes plus auxiliary turn lanes in the future, and upgraded to standard urban cross-sections with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Access Concept £, attached as Figure 1, identifies the approximate alignment of a proposed east-west road that is proposed to connect Delta Boulevard with the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp. Access to Kingston Road will occur at points indicated by Access Concept E, with signalized intersections along ] SU [)raft Northeast C~uadrant De~elo_pment Guidelines (',,tax 3, 2002~ P~el4 Kingston Road occurring at tile 401 westbound on/off ramp, Delta Boulevard and Winites Road. The City of Pickering acknowledges and advises landowners and developers that the intersection of Kingston Road and tt~e Higinwax,' 401 westbound on/off ramp is under tt~e sole jurisdiction of tile ~,4inistq.' of Transportation. Further, the City acknowledges and advises landowners and de~elopers that remaining access locations along Kingston Road and \%'hires Road are under ti~e sole jurisdiction of the Region of Duri~am, and access permissions may ci~ange o~er time from full access to restricted access as traffic and safety conditions warrant. A single access onto Sheppard Avenue from the new residential development, located at tine south-east corner of Whites Road and St~eppard Avenue, is supported. Despite the access restrictions to Slneppard .4venue shown on Figure 1, Acces,s Concep~ E, for any ne~ residential development proposals located along Sheppard Avenue east of tine residential de,,elopment proposed at tt~e south-east corner of \,Vtnites Road and $i~eppard Avenue, the Citx ~xill consider permitting selected additional accesses. As a condition of development, landowners x~iil be required to enter into develot)ment agreements to construct, at ti~eir cost, tile new collector road, to the City's satisfaction. Additionally, the City ,,,,,itl support all opportunities for shared access from abutting private property to public streets as well as coordinated internal access, between private properties, and will require ti~e granting of easements in favour of neigi~bouring lando~,,ners and/or ttne City if deemed necessary. Where ttne new collector road intersects with Kingston Road opposite the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on,"off ramp, the proponent of development on those lands shall require approval of the entrance configuration from the Ministry of Transportation in consultation with the Region of Durham, and the City, prior to consideration b~,' Council of any zoning by-law amendment application for those lands. In the event tile intersection is not approved, alternative access to Kingston Road would be required. F 1.6 Stormwaler The Amberlea Creek Northeast Quadrant -Asses5men~ of ,41~ernatives study, prepared by Schollen & Company Inc., identifies an option for a storm sewer extension of the existing system south of Stnepparct Avenue to the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp. Tt~e Cit~, supports tine piping of the existing tributary of Amberlea Creek, whicln traverses tine Norttneast Quadrant, as an integral component of a stormwater management system that includes a storm sewer system and a stormwater management pond. Ti~e stormwater facilit,v is required to control both quality and quantity stormwater. A substantial net benefit to the downstream environment must be demonstrated in order to warrant consideration of piping the tributary. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 15 Lands located east of the Bayfair Baptist Church are the preferred location for a stormwater management facility. Detailed siting, engineering and grading plans are required to assess the feasibility of, and design options for, a storwmwater management pond (reference may be made to the Assessment of Alternatives study for additional stormwater management details available to date). If the stormwater management facility is approved, the City will be requiring proponents of development applications within the Northeast Quadrant and lands currently draining into the reach of the Amberlea Creek tributary to pay a proportionate share for the detailed design work and costs of piping the creek, in addition to a share of the total cost of implementation of the proposed Amberlea Creek stormwater management pond. In the event that approvals are not granted for the stormwater pond, or development proceeds ahead of construction of the pond, developers will be required to install quality and quantity control devices and to enter into agreements with the City to cost share future stormwater works. Further, in the event approvals from the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Department of Fisheries are not granted to pipe the creek, the landowners shall be required to maintain the Creek with appropriate setbacks. F 1.7 Implementation Council and City staff shall implement the appropriate components of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines in the review of all land use applications in the Quadrant and through zoning by-law performance standards. Accordingly, to ensure that proponents have considered this Guideline in the preparation of any major land use application and to assist the City's review, a statement of how the proposal will achieve the intent of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines will be required to be submitted to the City, prior to the City's consideration of an application for site plan approval. All building permit applications will also be reviewed development guidelines including any corresponding Design Statements. in the context of these Siting and Architectural Developers or property owners will be required to contribute to the costs of completing the Review of the Northeast Quadrant Guidelines including the transportation, environmental/stormwater and urban design components. Costs will be adjusted annually based on the Southam Construction Index. Draft Northeast C~uadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 20021 Pa~se 1 6 F1.8 Summary The Northeast Quadrant Guidelines were prepared balancing the at times competing interests in the lands of the various concerned parties. Ti~e Guidelines were prepared to aid developers in designing their development projects, and to assist tire Planning & Development Department in revie~ing proposals in this area. A distillation of issues relating to the City's objectives and the concerns of ti~e development community and the neighbouring residents was required. ~he Guidelines are laid out to first provide tile City's overall objectives and then to elaboratea set of guidelines, which in~plementthese objectives. The objectives of the City can be summarized as allowing these lands to evolve in an appropriate manner, while striving to provide a safe, pleasant environment ttlat displays a high quality urban image and to integrate this ne~ development sensitively into tile existing neighbourt~ood. q-he Guidelines themselves are separated into guidelines for Commercial Development Proposals, Residential Development Proposals and further to cover Transportation, Stormwater t~anagement, and Implementation matters. The Guidelines are the result of a collaborative effort between all of the stakeholders and the Planning & Development Department, and silall provide a framework to review all development proposals in this area. 133 Figure i Paoe ~m °~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~ F~ % ~ ~ ,~ - % ~-'. , ~ ~ ~ ' : ~-'~ · i ~o~ ~ ¢ ' ' o~ ~ , :~ : ~ ~ ._ City of Pickering Planning & Development Depa~ment ~III~ i DATE MAY 2, 2002 ATTACHMENT# -~'~-...- 'ri} - CURRENT NORTHEAST QUADRANT DE~ELOPMENT GUIDELINE CONCEPT ATTACHMENT ~~TO REPORT ~ PD~ SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS \Vithin the Northeast Quadrant Review area. several development applications have been submitted to the City as follows: · \Vood/Carroll (Haves Line Propcmesl The original application proposed zoning amendments to ~mplemcnt a preliminary conceptual site plan that included 18 townhouses on the north pan of the site and 1625 square metres of commercial retail and restaurant uses on the lands fronting Kingston Road.). Despite Council's authorization to undertake tile Quadrant reviev< Hayes Line Properties lnc. appealed Council's neglect to make a decision on the application to the Ontario Xlunicipal Board (OMB). Thc application was revised throuoh= the submission to thc ONIB of a proposed amendim,= zonin2~ bx-law. The Citx received circulation of thc rcxised bv-laxv in December 2()01 to implement a revised preliminao' site concept. The revised preliminau site concept eliminated the residential uses and reconfigured one-storey retail commercial/restaurant building envelopes. On Februau' 14 and 15, 2002. the OMB heard the appeal and delivered its decision on April 11, 2002. Thc OMB approved commercial zoning for thc entire propcrt} providing for: one-storey buildings with a tx~o-storcx faqade: thc location of from walls buildings required to occup} at least 25",, of a 'build-to' /one aion~ thc Kingston Road frontage: conncctixitx of this sltc to abuttin~ sates bx means other than dedication of a 'public lane" a cap of 12{)0 square metres of gross I2oov area restaurants on thc site and no requirement to impose a "Molding" zone to guarantee ccmain public matters arc addressed. Thc OXIB will issue its tbrmal order once the final implen~enting Zoning Bv-laxv is provided to the Board. Lydia DobbinCitv of Picketing (Marion Hill Dexclopment Corporation) (ePA 01-002 P & A 04 i)l } The proposal consists of constructing 97 stacked toxvnhouses units with a massing concept of 4 storeys fronting onto Whites Road, 2 to ; storeys fronting onto Sheppard Avenue, and 2 to 3 storeys fronting onto a private Ioop lane in the interior of the site. The application also applies to a City oxx ned parcel of land, previously owned by Veridian Corporation, xxhich abuts tile Dobbin property. A statutoD' public meeting on the application was heard on 3, lax' 1 ' 2001. · Michael Boyer/Pickering Holdings Inc. Vcndian Corporation iA 40/01 ) The proposal consists of expanding the list of permitted uses by consolidating the prevailing "sc-8" and "ca3-3" categories into a single and inclusive zone. The application applies to lands located at the souti~v:est corner of Kingston Road and the Highway 401 on offramp east of Whites Road. North American Acquisitions f"old" Dunbarton School Properly) (ePA 01-003 P & A 10 01) The proposal consists of constrncting of 2.1()()(~ sq~mre metres of retail store, personal service shops, office and restaurant uses within txvo buildings located on the east and north sides of the site. Gas bar and car wash facilities are located within two other buildings on the xvest part of tile site separated bva proposed right-of-way to the abutting property to the west. ,~TTACH,~ENT #. l~ TO :,--:sR'r/, PD 2%-02 ]?7 SUMMARY OF REPORTS A) Environmental/Stormwater Amberlea Creek-Northeast Quadrant Assessment of Alternatives prepared bv Schollen & Company Inc. in association with Aquafor Beech Limited and LGL Limited dated October 2001, Revision #1 A summau' of the assessment contained xvithin the report concluded the following: · reduced rates of erosion and enhance stability of Amberlea Creek downstream of West Shore Boulevard will be realized through the construction of the proposed stormwater management facility. The proposed stormwater management will address flood and erosion control objectives 1¥r the Amberlea Creek watershed, mitigating erosion and its associated impacts in the downstream reach. The implementation of the stormwater management facility will also reduce the extent of erosion protection work required to be implemented over the long-term; · water quality improvements will be achieved through the implementation of the stormwater management facility and will enhance the viability of aquatic habitat downstream. These water quality benefits will also have a positive effect on aquatic habitat in Frenchman's Bay; and · the implementation of the stormwater management pond will moderate water flows, reduce erosion and consequent sediment accumulation in Frenchman's Bay enhancing the long-term sustainability of the wetland. A copy of the Amberlea Creek - Northeast Quadrant Assessment of Alternatives report is available for public review in the Planning & Development Department at the City of Picketing. B) Transportation Phase 1 - Final Report prepared by TSH Associates dated September 2001 Conclusions reached as a result of the work undertaken for Phase 1 include: · the major signalized intersections in the study area are operating at or above capacity in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the exception of the Kingston RoadJDelta Boulevard at it operates at a good level of service; · the concept site plans for the propitious east of Delta Boulevard, including the Wood Carroll lands and the Dunbarton school site reflect a highway commercial orientation with a reliance on direct access to Kingston Road and little opportunity for good internal vehicular or pedestrian connections with adjacent properties; · significant constraints exist to providing all moves access points along the subject sections of the White Road corridor; · it would be desirable to develop an access management plan that would include the consolidation of access ;points al for the properties along Kingston Road east of Delta Boulevard, the possible restriction of certain turning movements along Kingston Road, and the provision of alternative access via internal connections to adjacent properties and linkages with the east-west road to access Delta Boulevard; · it is desirable to mitigate the potential traffic impact on Sheppard Avenue by providing access for new developments via adjacent Type A (Whites Road) and B (Kingston Road) arterial roads and by providing an internal traffic /¥r"rACHMENT # ~ ~TO REPORT # PD 2'~- circulation svstem to serve the various properties within the Northeast Quadrant; two access concepts A and B have been developed lsee Attachments :3 and 4); these access points will be refined through discussions with tile City, Durham Region, MTO, and propeR.', owner developers, and in the Phase 2 study will be subject to a traffic operanons analysis Phase 2 - Draft Final Report prepared by TSH .Associates dated May 2002 Conclusions reached as a result of the work undertaken ~br Phase 2 include: due to signalized intersection spacin~ constraints, there are no opportunities other than the Highxvay 4~tl westbound on of ramp location to develop a new sismalized access on Kingston Road m the subject comdor: in the future, it is likely that access to Study .&rea propemes on the north and south sides of Kingston road will be restricted to right tums only. The proposed access road. opposite the Highway 401 westbound o~voff ramp, would provide Ibr traffic signal controlled left turn movements to and from tills development area: the long-tem~ development potential of thc stzbicct area is not likely to be achieved without the prox~sion of an intcn:al road connecting thc developable properties between Delta boulexard and the Dunbanon school site. and the related additional signalized access to Kingston Road opposite thc Hiulnxvav 401 westbound on off ramp. It is tine Citx"s twei~rence tinat thc intemaI road connection be provided as a public roact xxax', rather than thorough propen)' easements: without the access road opposite thc Highway 401 westbound oh"off ramp, the road connectim~ the properties alon-~ the north side of Kin~ston~ Road mav. not be developed as envisioned and tine implementation of access management in the Kingston road comdor will be difficult in tine lk~ture as no alternative access plans will be possible: the analysis indicated that the proposed new road opposite thc Highx~ay 401 westbound o~.'off ramp would be beneficial ~br the operation of the Kingston Road:Delta Boulevard intersection: the Whites Road comdor will be subject to access controls in thc future as development occurs, includim~= section with raised center medians to control left turn movements; it has been dete~ined that is not feasible from a traffic operation and safety perspective to si~alize the intersection of Whites Road"Dunthir Street due to its close probi~ to the existing traffic si?al at Whites Road Kingston road and Xk~ites/Shepp~d Avenue: with the existing residential land use along the Shcppard .Ax enuc comdor, and its functional classification as a T)pe 'C' ancriai. ~t ~s seen as appropriate to pe~it access for new residential developments proposed along the south side of Sheppard Avenue. In considenng the proposal ~br the Nlamon Hill development, thc combination of access to Sheppard .Avenue. Whites Road, and an internal dnvexvav connection ipossibl7' gated) at the no~h end of Delta Boulevard would result in a nominal traffic impact on Sheppard Avenue operation. Copies of the Kingston Road - \Vhites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study, Phase I and Phase 2 RepoNs are available for public review in the Planning & Development Department at the City of Picketing. ~"-r^OHMENT t I~ TO REPORT # PD PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEETING NOTES Subject: Public Meeting: Northeast Quadrant Review (hfformation Package provided for pick-up at the meeting) Meeting Date and Time: October 30, 2001 Pickermg Civic Complex Comlcil Chambers 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. Attendees Staff: Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy Grant McGregor, Principal Planner - Policy Steve Gaunt, Plmmer II Consultants / Developers: Alex Artuchov (representing Pickering Holdings (Boyer)) Lorelei Jones (representing Wood Carroll) lan Matthews (representing Marion Hill) Robert McConachie Stefan & Raffi Nalbandian (submitted letter, see attached) Ron Richards (representing North American Acquisitions) Public/Other Area Residents & Landowners: +15 Councillors: none present Purpose: · to exchange information concerning the Northeast Quadrant Review Catherine Rose: · introductions Grant McGregor: · brief overview 1 4 0 Meeting Notes Northeast Quadrant Review: Public Information Meeting October 30, 2001 Page 2 ,lohn lbettson: · mentioned that ins neighbour's property has an angled property line at south-east comer · confused that Mixed Corridor is au~ option for his property · asks, "Where's the proposal'"? · is concerned about noise from car wash close to his itome · wants homes on south side of Sheppard · does not wamt gas stations or other commercial uses that stay open between 8 pm and 8 am · says Wood Carroll homes don't I2t - concerned with stylcprice,propeny value/class of occupa_nt:height/overlook over sv,'imming pool/privacy · says residential area north of road should fl'ont road and be low density David Steele: · · · · is concerned with environmental impact is opposed in general to piping creek wants Schollen report reviewed by Dr. Ex'les at University of Toronto has no confidence in TRCA Ron Richards: · stated staff is not giving any veal consideration to or consulting with development interests, including trm~sportation study · rejects staffs findhigs in the h~tbnnation Package as they apply to his client's property · use of word "development guidelines" wrong- should be "design guidelines" · comment in Lnfom~ation Package that there is little opportunity for vehicular access is wrong · traffic conclusions in the Information Package are not the only conclusions available and other options are possible including access to site at full intersection Grant McGregor: · transportation issues will be reviewed and other conclusions are possible Ron Richards: · wants full commercial · Mixed Corridor use option does not clearly permit this · suggests more meetings Meeting Notes Northeast Quadrant Review: .L, Tq"ACHMENT # ~_~ TO Public Information Meeting Iai October 30, 2001 Page 3 Irene McNamara · too much density is being proposed · ilO one asked home owners · wants R3 zoning on Sheppard · there is currently too much traffic on Sheppard · currently dangerous on Whites for pedestrians · proposal would create cmuqict with traffic / don't add to it · too manyhomes proposed · doesn't like 'Canoe Landing' development · likes townhomes at Whitby Village · traffic survey should not be done at mid-day · don't ~vant to be like downtown Toronto or Scarborough · concerned with school services as they are too crowded already likes setfiors' home or adult housing · only cormnent was about Marion Hill Sylvia Spencer: · wants median on Whites Road for safety of kids · no nexv traffic onto Sheppard · can she buy back expropriated land? (Catherine advised she'd call Legal Services) · wants low density residential in Precincts D and A · wants access onto Sheppard from City lands for only eight houses Iow density i.e. rear land · and same on school site - would be seven houses · access concept b preferred · wants development on Nallandian to be street-oriented · why full median across front of Boyer property - should be more breaks for tums · concerned with noise- lots of roads proposed · fumes from Wendy's and Tim Hortons are bad Tim Costar: · · lives in E none of plans recognize existing character of development on Sheppard Avenue Irene Wolf: · · · lives on north side of Sheppard Avenue wants low-density residential along Sheppard Avenue too much development proposed - density is too much ]42 ;.:- c-~: ~ ~s 2%- 02. *'leering Notes Northeast Quadrant Reviev,': Public Information Meeting October 30, 2001 Page 4 John Ibettson: · maintain lo4' density on Sheppard Avenue · there are too many tow~thomes proposed · there are too many cars and that the traffic is dzmgerous *h's. Costar: · concerned v, ith saf'etv of a2w proposed onto Highway 401 bank because robbers can easih' escape Several People: · no restaurants, car wash, gas stations or lan Matthews: · there are ahvays concerns · willing to meet with residents Lorelie Jones: · developers concerned that in['ormation from City not good enough · not enough land for public road on their propert}' · wilt want all commercial on Wood Car,:'oI1 site ~,Vilma Flavelle: · Sheppard and \Vhites are plugged witia traffic · too much traffic, parked cars - all dax and night · Sheppard not safe · lights from Tim Hortons shine onto our properties Several People: · Bover's has loud speakers that disturb area residents Mrs. Costar: · lights from 401 off-ramp stfine onto our properties Mrs. Ibettson: * how high of a fence can she build [call Clerk's for sign by-law information] Mr. Costar: · · · lives in Precinct E can it be a mix of use? could access be provided from fomler school site'? ,~-TA?L~E~JT #_ _F----) TO Meeting Notes Northeast Quadrant Review: Public Information Meeting October 30, 2001 Page 5 Ms Parkes: · · · · · lives in Precinct E should be mixed use access from school site should be provided for lands could be developed for a dental office don't let design of North American Acquisitions proposal land-lock their property Sylvia Spencer: · why does creek have to be piped? · wants a park, creek and walkway from medical centre to Delta Boulevard David Steele: if keeping stream - needs a buffer Tim Costar: · concerned that mosquitoes stonnwater pond could be dangerous for kids and will breed Catherine Rose: · wrap-up · welcomes sharing Schollen study with David of University of Toronto Next Steps: · originally anticipated proposed Official Plan A2nendment being forwarded to a Statutory Public Meeing and Council before end of year · in light ofcornments, probably not making recommendations before end of year · willing to have additional meetings between developers and residents Mr. McNamara: · will residents get to see another revision prior to it going to Plarming Committee? · wants more time than a month · wants everyone on street to be contacted Attachment PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEETING NOTES Subject: Northeast Quadrata Review Design Workshop Meeting Place and Time: November 24. 2001 9:3()a.m. - l:30p.m, Picketing Civic Complex - hibran Auditorium Attendees: Staff: Catherine Rose, Llanagcr, Pohcv Grant Mc©regor, Principal Planner - Poi:o', John McMullen, Senior Plarmc: Site Planning Steve Gaunt, Planner II City's Consultants: Ronji Borooah, Plato:er & Architect, of' Markson, Borooah, ttodgson Architects Ltd. Oarn' Pappin. Transportanon Consultant, of ISM Associates l.alldoV¢llel's / Agents: Lorelei Jones t~'cprcsenting \Vood. ('an'oil. et Ron Richards ~rcpresenting North American Acquisitions) Robert NlcConachic Robert Oordolq Mr, Case Vincent 5antamaura c reprcscntin~ Nlarion Alex Artuchov lrepresenting Picketing Holdings (Boyer)) Residents: Vivian \'andent lard Raouf Besharat Jotm Ibenson .~'ua P~cton Mr. & Nits. Costar John Hache Bonnie Bares & Mr. Bares Irene McNamara Robert Laurie Di~a Robinson kene Moult Joia Mahar Bill Somberger Sylvia Spencer Wihna & Ken Fla~ell David S~eele Councillors: none Meeting Notes -'_-w. 7~, PD ~-02 Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop November 24. 2001 Page ~ 1 WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS (Catherine Rose): · outlined purpose and intent of today's workshop; reviexv nexv transportation information; provide opportunity for residents, staff and developers to discuss opportunities, constraints of the Quadrant, the sites within the Quadrant and the individual development proposals. TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION UPDATE (Gary Pappin, TSH Consultants): presented an update of findings and alternative access opportunities and constraints within the Northeast Quadrant. Resident's questions/comments (includes comments recorded on flip charts): what is the purpose of traffic signal at Dunfair? when were traffic counts done? - they appear to under represent reality: · cars infiltrate to Sheppard to avoid right turn from Whites Road northbound to Kingston Road eastbound; · concerns with parking at medical centre, and drop-offs at school; · cra-rent traffic situation is broke - adding development makes it xvorse, not better; · no enforcement of parking on Sheppard Avenue; · parking in front of Dunbarton High School is a problem; · build public parking; speed and volume on Sheppard Avenue; · delays 14+ cycles) to turn left at Whites Road to Kingston Road; · suggest physical traffic, calming speed bumps on Sheppard Avenue; · speed of traffic on Whites Road down to Kingston Road problematic; · widen Sheppard Avenue and allow on-street parking; · delays turning right fi-om Whites Road north to Kingston Road east; · consider an all-way pedestrian lights at Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue; · students jay-walking causes delays and safety concerns; · widen Kingston Road and Whites Road; · consider parking metres. BREAK-OUT GROUPS GROUP 1 - KINGSTON ROAD DEVELOPMENTS (Facilitator: Steve Gaunt) (Wood/Carroll [Hayes Line Properties], North American Acquisitions [Dunbarton school site], Boyer/Pickering Holdings) Meetin~ .Notes I, TTACH~/IENT Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop November 24, 2001 Page 3 Ron Richards {for North American Acquisitions I: · offered to meet witla residents to discuss his proposal; Lorelei Jones (for Wood, Carroll (Hayes Line Properties)): · not supportive of public road: · prepared to v, ork x`,'itt~ ('itu' and residents to easement across their property. achieve an acceptable access Sylvia Spencer: · if no public road. rear of lots ,,,,'ill be landlocked: · wants the gheppard frontage lands to remain as lox', density residcntiaI. 51rs. McNa~nara: · vehicle repair shops, restaurants, gas stations, cai' washes, car sales and banks should not be permitted ii1 tile Quadrant: · concerned with buffering for light: screening and fencing should be done properly; trees, including the whole tree line and particularly the existing big maple tree. should be retained: 5lr. lbettson: · objects to toxx nilon~es: wants good buiTorin5 and screening bet',x :'~ c'×ist:~5 ho::,~'s a~i x~rds and proposed new dex'elo:>nae~at. :\ Resident: · Ministry of Transportation and Coln~utqicatio~s has control over road access fi'om Kingston Road and the length of sucl~ road Ron Richards: · the cost of constructing and providing the land tbr a public road `,','ill be too expensive for his client: consequently, other developers and,or tile City should contribute to its cost. A Resident: · regarding buffering: asked for an example of adequate buffering/sound barriers to protect residential uses from car washes and gas stations: need trees back to buffer noise from Highway 401: opposed to building height above one storey near the rear of existing homes; should not have two storeys close to any existing houses. Meeting Notes ;,~TA~H!/,ENT ~_ ']--w.?~_T0 Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop November 24, 2001 Page 4 I Ron Richards: · his client is a commercial developer- not residential: · wants his commercial development to have minimal effect on residential uses; · it is inherently difficult to achieve a suitable interface betxveen residential and commercial use Residents: · · · office uses are Okay; does not want car wash or gas bar uses; need adequate buffering between residential and commercial uses. Ron Richards: · needs to first see how access road onto his site will work. then will develop detailed designs to determine whether economics of development can work; · this location is good for retail / restaurant / gas station uses; · it is difficult to rent second-storey space; · as plans evolve, Ron will keep residents informed of his evolving proposal. Resident(s): · don't object to.connnercial uses in. general; do object to noise smell expected from gas station or car wash use; wants to keep the ability to have easements from the school site properly to properties to the east; need buffering along the north edge of Wood Carroll. McConachie and school site properties; should keep trees; need fencing; detailed design should look attractive; pedestrian access is needed. Alex Artuchov (for Boyer / Pickering Holdings Agent): · no specific development is proposed and permitted uses on his site at this stage. Mr. Boyer wants to broaden the 48 Meeting .Notes Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Desigl~ Workshop November 24, 2001 Page 5 GROUP 2 - MARION HiLL DEVELOPMENT (Facilitator: Gra~t McGregor) Grant 31cGregor: · Introductions: Vincent Santamaura: · Provided the ©roup with an ovcrx'iexv of the Xlarion Hill Development; Grant McGregor: · Reviewed the design challenge statement and urban design object:yes All: · There was considerable discussion on tile volume and speed of traffllc op, Sheppard Avenue especially at peak times and on weekends..Also, mentioned was the parking of cars on the south side of Shcppard .Avenue bx parents dropping off andor picking-up their ctdldren from the Dunbarton High School. it was suggested that the City should be entbrcing the no parking bvlax~. The pa~'ticipants in the GroLtp generally agreed that the Nlarion Hilt toxvnhouse proposal x~ as too dense ibr thc ncighbourhood. As xx ell, there were concerns expressed regarding thc proposed building heights along Sheppard .kvenuc and tl~at such heights should be similar to the heights of existing ~-csidences. hq 'addition. the need Ibr more open space areas especially lbr children and thc need tbr n2o;'c parking at-cas xt ithii~ thc development were expressed. The Group i~2dicated their preference Ibi' eight single detached lots along Sheppard Avenue as opposed to the Marion Hill townhousc proposal. TowN~ouse units, if constructed should be located in behind the single detaci~ed lots and similar in desi~ to the town, louse units constructed by John Body Homes in Ajax. Vincent Santamaura provided the Group with ahemate designs ibr the proposed townhouse units along Sheppard Avenue that emulated the existing building size and height of residences on the no~h side ~d suggested that parking be provided in scuipted areas along the side of Shepp~d Avenue. There was a suggestion from one of the Group participants that a greenspace corridor along the frontage of Sheppard Avenue should be incorporated into tile Marion Hill proposal. This would alloxv future residents tile ability to have flov,'er and shrub beds in the front of the units. There was considerable discussion and concern about the impact of traffic from the Marion Hill proposal onto Sheppard Avenue. As a result, the Group indicated that access onto Sheppard Avenue for tile Marion Hill p~'oposal was inappropriate. Alternatively, access should be directed to Delta Blvd a2d or Whites Road. Meeting Notes Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop November 24, 2001 Page 6 1 One of the participants who lives directly across the road from the proposed driveway location into the Marion Hill site indicated a concern xvith both lights shining into their house from cars and increased traffic making their driveway difficult to utilize. It was noted that the medical art building at the comer of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue has created a traffic and parking problem for the neighbourhood. There was a suggestion that the City owned lands be swapped for lands opposite the medical arts building in order to accommodate additional parking. There was also the suggestion that the City owned lands, in conjunction with a natural trail along Amberlea Creek, be used as a public open space feature for the quadrant. It was noted that public bus service is no longer provided on Sheppard Avenue so residents are forced to use their vehicles. This is particularly bothersome to the elderly who are dependant on public transportation to get around. The Group raised the issue of odours emulating from the fast food restaurants located along Kingston Road affecting their quality of life. As well, noise issues were identified with respect to the servicing of these restaurants in the early morning especially with respect to waste haulage. There was a suggestion that garbage enclosures at Marion Hill be provided. In addition, there was a concern about the high number of cars idling their engines while in the restaurant drive thru's and the related impact of exhaust ftm~es on the surrounding environment. Three was comment from one of participants of a review by Dr. N. Eyles on the City's report Amberlea Creek-Northeast Quadrant Assessment of Alternatives that piping the creek is not appropriate. The Group indicated that they would be like to see an alternate design for the Marion Hill proposal illustrating what the proposal would look like with single detached residential lots fronting onto Sheppard Avenue. SUMMARY/WRAP-UP & NEXT STEPS (Catherine Rose): · indicated that staff will arrange a meeting on Transportation issues to address the current traffic conditions with Regional and Pickering Works staff within a couple of weeks [now slated for January, 2002]; · indicated that a'copy of the notes from this Workshop and the previous October 30th Information Meeting to the participants at those two meetings; · indicated that, as a result of this workshop, that the statutory public information meeting for the Northeast Quadrant Review will be rescheduled from the previously announced December 20, 2001 date to a later date and that any report on the findings of the study will be in the new year [subsequent notice to be mailed]. SG/sm staff/sgauntJmisc/NortheastQuadrantWorkshop.doc . onservaEon TORONTO AND REGION October 24, 2001 Ms. Catherine Rose City of Pickering P~ckering Civic Centre One The Esplanade P~ckering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Ms. Rose: Re: Amberlea Creek - Northeast Quadrant Report Assessment of Alternatives City of Pickering Further to our discussions and after reviews of the above report prepared by Schollen & Company Inc., The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff offer the following comments. The proposal is to develop a comprehensive plan for Stormwater Management for the Ambertea Community, by placing a Stormwater Management Pond on two intermitted tributaries fdescribed as AC3 and AC5), The works would appear to benefit downstream portion of Amberlea Creek and Frenchman's Bay which currently received large amounts of sediment from the upstream developed community. From the inventory provided it is evident that the tributaries upstream of the prepared pond are degraded and a large percentage of flows result from stormwater run-off. Given the potential benefits to Frenchman's Bay, TRCA staff would support in principle the proposed Stormwater Management Scheme and the resulting cnanges to the upstream portions of the creeksAC3andAC5. However we would note that the works constituteaHarmfulAIteration Disruption and Destruction and as a result note that a suitable compensation arrangement would be required to support the project and we are prepared to work with the Municipality, DFO and MNR to help further this project. We are prepared to work with the municipality Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of National Resources to help further this project. We trust that this is of assistance. Yours truly, ,Russel White Senior Planner Development Services Section Extension 5306 RW/gc CC: Laud Matos, DFO Rob Fancy, MNR F:'~PRS\CORRESP\PICKERINVqM BERLEA.WP D 5 Shoreham Drive, NOV -09' O1 (FRI) ~lnlst-r~ of Tr~n~por~allon 16:07 CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT .~llnlsl~'e de~ ATTACHMENT ~EPO~T ~ PD~~. TEL'4162354267 P. 002 Ontari Phone: Fax: E-mail: (416) 235-3509 (416) 235-4267 charles.petro~!mto.gov_on.ca Corridor Management Office 7th Floor, Atrium Tower 1201 Wilson Avenue Downsview, Ontario M3M 1J8 November 9, 2001 File No: 42-80197 City of Pickering Planning & Development Department Pickenng Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickermg, Ontario L1V 6K7 Atterltjorl: Orant_ McGregor Dear Sir: Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study Phase 1 Final Report City of Picketing Highway 401 We have reviewed the submitted information and offer the following comments: It is this ministry's preference that there be no access on Kingston Road directly across the Highway 401 ramp terminal. We would therefor encourage development as shown in Alternative 5, Alternative 6 and Access Concept A, Our concerns regarding the alternatives involving access across from the Highway 401 E-E/W ramp are a~ follows: · As mentioned in the report, the need for this access must be justified. The Delta Boulevard access may be sufficient to serve the development. Benefits of thc new access would have to be weighed against impacts of locating directly across a ramp terminal. * Any access across from the ramp terminal shall have no southbound through movement to access Highway 401WB. This through movement would probably necessitate an additional signal phase, which is not possible as the signals are at capacity and the signal timing has no free time. Signal timin must be maintained to ensure preference is given to ramp traffic. * If northbound through movements are considered from the ramp to the access,' it must be ensured that minimum stopping distances are maintained. The current advisory speed on the ramp is 50kin/hr. There is the possibility of northbound ramp through vehicles crossing the intersection at 60km/hr- 70kin/hr if they are trying to "beat" an amber signal. Therefore if tile 70Mn/hr is assumed, a - - /N'F'FACHN~ENT ~'~_TO 16'07 CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT TEL:4162354267 F, 0()3 stopping distance of 110m is required, which means there should be no accesses, no conflict points, sharp radius curves, etc. within 110m north of the north limit of the intersection. Some alternatives consider a southbound left mm movement to go east on Kingston Road_ Ttus ' ' presents a conflict point ifnorthbotmd ramp veb2cles are permitted through the intersection to the development (Alternatives 1, 2, and possibly Access Concept B). If northbound ramp vehicles are 'not permitted through the intersection, as shown in Alternative 3, "no though access" signage would have to erected for the rzm2p. This may not be effective, and depending where this signing is erected, it may possibly confuse Kingston Road left mm and right turn vehicles attempting to access the development. t-he road would have to be a public road, (not an entrance as indicated in CPA 01-003/P and ZBA A10/0I, for North American Acqmsit~on Corp). We would also req:dre that there be no full moves access points along the first lg0m of this road. This requirement may preclude the viability of the gas bar as indicated in the OPA/ZBA. We are also prepared to discuss access opportunities as they relate to Highway 401 and ramp terminals at Wkites Road and Kzngston Road, dUnng Phase 2 of t_he Transportation Network review. We will require: Estimates of site generated traffic from all existing and proposed land uses within the study area. Detailed traffic operational analysis of the impact of future waffle on the level of traffic service on Highway 401 and associated ramps and ramp terminals on Whites Road and Kingston Road. Analysis of existing traffic conditions Table 1 Characteristics of Stud3' area roads - does not include the Hv, T 40I WB on ramp from southbound on Whites road. From Fig. me 1 - Stud,',' .&rea - the Whites road no~th and south approaches on ramps to WB 401 fall within the boundaries of the Study area. At least thc on ramp from the north approach of V?hites road should be included for analysis in ?hose 2. This one lane on-ramp had peak a.m. volume of about 1900 vph, according to our 1995 database. Please provide justification for the assumpUon that p.m. peak hour volume is 12% of daily traffic (Table 1 -.column 6). A cl~eck with Kingston on/off ramp 1995 data indicates an average of about 6.7% of daily traffic as p.m. peak volume, and ranges from 6% to 10%. Using 12°/; for all roads in the study area underestimates the daily traffic where the actual percentage ~s less. The consultant should determine the actual percentage for each road_ Also, it should be confirmed that the daily traffic is an estimation of the annual average daily traffic. As well, Table 1 does not indicate the dates for the p.m. peak hour volumes from which the daily traffic was estimated. We believe the source is the p.m. peak flows given in Figure 3 of the report. Table 1, which appears before Figure 3, doesn't indicate that. Additional comments will be provided once a detailed analysis is received. I trust that this is sufficient to your needs. Please do not hesitate to call should you require tim:her information or clarification. Yours tTuly, Charl2e Petro Project Manager CC. Tom Hewitt, MTO Michael DeMichele, MTO Ken Sherbanowski, MTO Steve Gaunt, City of Pickenng Steve Mayhew, Durham Region ~}~. ;2~' 02 (TUF~) 1~:00 ATTAOHI',;ENT #. C~. TO OORRIDOR MANAGEMENT TEL:4162354267 P. O0 Ministry of Transportation TraoJports Phone: Faz: E-mail: (416) 235-3509 (416) 235-4267 charles.petro~mto.gov.on.ca City of Pickering Planning & Development Department Pmkering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Grant McGregor Dear Sir: Onta' Corridor Management Office 7th Floor, Atrium Tower 1201 Wilson Avenue Downsview, Ontario M3M 1J8 February 26, 2002 File No: 42-80197 Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study Proposed Access Opposite Kingston Road/l:Iighway 401 Westbound On/Off Ramp City of Picketing Further to the meeting of January 30, 2002, we offer the following comments: It is this ministry's preference that there be no access on Kingston Road directly across the Highway 401 ramp terminal and would therefore encourage development of one of the other options outlined in your Transportation study, Phase 1 Final Report dated September 2001. We appreciate the municipal need for ramp terminal access road, but we are reluctant to approve it at this time, as many details still need to be resolved to our satisfaction. This ministry is prepared to co-operate with your staff, and regional staff, to work toward a design, which would be acceptable to all parties concerned. To this end, since it is your desire to pursue the ramp terminal access road option, we offer the following points for consideration: The need for this access must be justified. Other options must also be examined and the benefits of new access options would have to be weighed against impacts of locating access directly across fi-om the ramp terminal. Some preliminary design work would also need to be undertaken. This ministry is not prepared to sacrifice Level of Service of the Highway 401 Ramp Term/hal. Also, any roadway/interseetioa/ramp improvements, should an acceptable design be developed and approved, shall be at no cost to MTO. · Any access across from the ramp terminal shall have no southbound through movement to access Highway 401WB. This through movement would necessitate an additional signal phase, which is not ~RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2002 CI t'¥' OF' PIC',4ERiNG PLANNING ,'d~D DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 18'01 CORRIDOR A'~TACH~ENT NIANAGEMENT Tl]b:416235q ~ OO3 possible as the signals are at capacity and the signal timing has no free tlme. Signal timing must be maintained to ensure preference i$ given to ramp traffic. · Proposed road must be designed to meet the design parameters of the off ramp i.e. 70 Lin/hr design speed. · Northbound through movements fi-om the ramp to the access road, must be provided. Minimum stopping distances must be maintained. A southbound left turn movement to go east on Kingston Road presents a conflict point if northbound ramp vekicles are permitted through the intersection to the development. At this tn'ne the Mimstry is not prepared to accept these movements. Similarly. a left turn movement into the development from eastbound Kingston Road also presents a conflict. Signal timing priorities must be as £ollows: 1) Highway 401 Ramp, 2) Kingston Road (Arterial Road), and finally, 3) Development access road at raznp terminal. The road would have to be a pubhc road, (under MUmcipal jurisdiction and mmntained to municipal standards). We would also require that there be no ~11 moves access points along the first 180m ofth/s road. This requirement may preclude the viabi]5 .ty of an3, development near the intersection. In order to further our evaluation of access opportunities as they relate to Highway 401 and ramp terminals at Whites Road and Kings'ton Road, we x~qll require: I, A detailed traffic impact smd>', wkich reflects and identifies all of the proposed geometries of thc roadway. Plea. se note that all comments submitted 'to you in om- letter of November 9, 2001, still apply. 1 trust that this is sufficient to your needs. information or clarification. CC, Tom Hewitt, MTO Michael DeMichele, MTO Ken Sherbanowski, MTO Steve Gaunt, City of Picketing Steve Mayhew, Durham Region Please do not hesitate to call should you reqmre further Yoars truly, Charlie Petro Project Manager -ANNING ;D :-MENT DEPARTMEI'¢'I' LTTACHMEI'~T #~T0 REPOR"T,'¢ PD ~.,~-("")2' / .................. RL~e L~G. o ......................... L.._I P~_nq~,-, __.CZt3 _~Y proo ~ ~ . ~VS c~cf~e ATTACHMENT ~~TO REPORT ATq'ACHI?,ENT #. II REPORT~' PD 2~-~ FO Dear Catherine Rose Nov. 6 2001 Re~ Stormwater Management Study Transportation Study Development in the N.E. Quadrant As I stated to Ron Tavlor and yourself at the landowners meeting of March 2001, that I would not agree to give anymore financial retribution for any more studies in The NorthEast Quadrant. At the landowners meeting of March 2001, it was understood the landowners and The City Of Pickering would be both involved with the consultants in these studies. Since The City was the only one involved with the consultants the City should be the onlv one to pay for these studies. In 1999 1 hired a consultant and biologist to perform an independent study on this water course from Frenchman's Bay to Sheppard Ave. where this watercourse turns into a massive system of storm water piping tbr the development north of Sheppard Ave. to my astonishment the two studies from different consultants have the the same outcome. I feel The City, Of Pickering has wasted two years ofmv life and held up development in the North East Quadrant for a long period of time. The storm water problem we have now from Sheppard Ave. to Frenchman's Bay was created by the residential and commercial development north of Sheppard Ave. which the City let be built with insufficient storm water management facility.. There has been other studies done on this water course in the West shore area because of a serious erosion problems. The city paid for these studies to be done. In my opinion, the City is being predigest against the land owners of the North East Quadrant. If the Landowners of the North East Quadrant-have to financially contribute to these studies, all Landowners of the North East Quadrant should pay equal amounts not the payment schule set up by the Planning Dept. because these studies might contribute some information for the development to all properties in the North East Quadrant not certain property owners. The transportation study shows two different schemes on two maps I feel if the best feature were used from both these maps, to make it a must that the entrance on the north side of Kingston Rd. would be between Wood Carroll west property line and are east propem.' line aligmng the entrance to these properties with Michael Boyer east entrance on the south side Kingston Rd. alloV~qng a break in the future center medium if there was ever one put on Kingston Rd. Maybe there could be some consideration on the north of the properties for an internal road of minimal width fi'om Delta Blvd. to the Hwy. 401 interchange stoplights. Every public meeting I have attended, there are a small handful of residents from Sheppard ave. that bnng up the same complaints about development in the North East Quadrant. It is about time personal from the Ciw's Planmng Dept. and the Ward One Councilors stop looking at maps and pieces of paper and personally come and look at these properties of the North East Quadrant to make their own decisions about the accusations of a small minoriw of Sheppard Ave residents and decide themselves if these accusations are real or a figment of their imagination. i was velw discussed with the public meeting of Oct 30 200t where the ~neeting got out of control and no one from the Planning Dept. could accomplish getting this meeting back into some kind of orderly fashion, agam nothing was accomplished. There was a mention of another public meeting on Nov. 17 200t I would hope that this meeting will have a chmrperson to keep this meeting in an orderly manner and be able to explain to the public ifan~ issues arise, Thankvou R NlcConachie cc; N Carol G McGregor Councilor Brenner Councilor Rvan /:,TTAOHME['~.T X2~ORT ~' P5 The City of Pickering Planning And Development Depart]nent, t'2_ .TO RECEIVED FEB 1 2 2002 OITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Northeast Quadrant Development As land owners of 765,757 and 751 Sheppard Avenue, and being 3 of 4 lots which will be directly affected by the development of the Northeast Quadrant of Whites Road, Kingston Road, and Sheppard Avenue, feel that based on neigh- boring concerns we would discriminated against in any endeavors lo be mciuded (as per the approved NorthEast Quadrant Land Use and Guidlines) of the oppor- tunity to sell off a portion of our backyards,for development. We realize that the Northeast Quadrant needs to be carefully planned, as Whites Road and Kingston Road is the main entrance off Hwy. #401 into the City of Pickering. It would be beneficial to the Citv of Picketing and it's residents that development of this area be appealing to the eye, easily accessed and with amenities and services that are best suited for the area. We have no objections to re-zoning to accept these changes and would like to kept informed of all Applications, Amendments etc, but we would also like to be given the opportunity, should it arise to be separated fi'om the tbu~th lot 771 Sheppard Avenue which has shown no interest to have these lm~ds developed. Yours Truly, C.C L1V.1G4 ~ , "Ontario Municipal Board File #Z010070 Kiln Baker Valarie Lawson 765 Sheppard Ave. 757 Sheppard Ave. Picketing, Ontario Pickering, Ontario. L1 V 1 G4 Shane Legere 751 Sheppard Ave. Pickering, Ontario L1V IG4 ATTAOHI,.~ENT #~TO REPDF7 ~; PE,~ Stefan and Raffi ~'albanth'an 3-30 Rivermede Road, Concord, Ontanb, L4K 3N3 October 30, 2001 Mr. Grant McGregor Planning and Development Department Ci0, of Pickering One The Esplanade. Pickering, Ontario, L1 Il 6K7 1475 & 1485 Ight'tes Road Public Meeting North East Quadrant Review RECEIVED OCT 3 0 2001 CITY OF P/CKERING ~LANNING AND O,,~ F. EI.O PM E N T DEPARTMENT Mr. McGregor We bought our properO', municipally known as 1475 & 1485 Wltites Road based on the 3~ortheast Quadrant Dm'elopment Guidelines, which provides for full access road for our propert), onto I4 7tites Road. For tonight Public Meeting we received for comments the Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study. prepared by TSH. Itt this stud)' in the alternative "Access Concept B" you are proposing to restrict the access to our property by "right itt- right out" access road only ( by means of raised center median). Proposed restricted access devaluates our properO, and as such changes the original grounds upon which we acquired our properO~. Therefore we support the alternative "Access Concept A "which enables safe pedestrian crossing of I+hites Road and unrestricted access onto our properO'. Yotlrs trul)* Stefan and Raffi Nalbandian 1 61 RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-002/P. submitted bv Marion ttill Development Corporation on lands being Part of Lot 28, Range 3. B.F.C. in the City of Pickering, to replace the Urban Residential Areas.' Low Dens/0' Areax designation on lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue with a Urban Residential Arcax: .tk'dium DensiO' Areas designation on Schedule !- Land L~s'c S~ructure be APPROVED AS REVISED, to also add various site-specific policies to section 11.8, I~;odlands Ncighbourhood Policies, for the subject lands, including a cap in the maximum residential densitv of 55 units per net hectare, as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 24-02: (b) That the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 8 to the Pickering Official Plan be FORWARDED TO COUNCIL for enactment, as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 24-02; That site-specific Amendment 2 to the .Northeast Quadranl Development (]uidelines. be ADOPTED as the City's detailed strategy for transportation, stormwater / creek, land use, urban design and pedestrian access within the subject lands, as set out in Appendix II to Report Number PD 24-02; That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01, on lands being Part of Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C., at the south-east comer of Sheppard Avenue and Whites Road in the City of Pickering, to permit 97 stacked and street townhomes, be APPROVED AS REVISED, by the Applicant to permit a maximum of 89 stacked and street to~vnhomes, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix III to Report Number PD 24-02. Cit,~,,¥ & _ PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE: May2, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: PD24-02 SUBJECT: Picketing Of'Iacial Plan Amendment CPA ~1-00£ P Zoning By-lax\ .~nendnqent :\pplication A Marion Hill Dcvclopnacnt Corporation Part Lot 2S. Ranzc 3. B.F.C. (nov,' Part 1. Plan 14431 ck Part 1, Plan (South-east comer o£ Whites Road and Shoppard Ax cnt~c) City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: 1. (a) That Official Plan Anaondnqcnt :\pplication OP.& ~l-l)l)2 P. submitted by Marion Hill Dexelopnaent Cou)orat~on o~7 lands being Part of Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C. in tine City of Picketing. to replace thc ~)'i,~z~t Rc.s'z'de~zial Areas: Low Oenszzx' :trc~s' designation on lands on thc so~tla side of Sheppard Avenue with a Lam/ ~¢e 5'truczurc be APPROX'ED AS REVISED, to also add various subject lands, including a cap in tiao Hi~ixIiEiLlI12 residential densitx of 55 units per net hectare, as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 24-~2: That the draft bv-lax~ to adopt Anaendmont S to tiao Picketing Official Plan be FORWARDED TO COUNCIL for enactment, as set out in Appendix I to '4 0'~' Report Number PD z - ,. That site-specific Amendment 2 to the .Vord~c~Jst (~u~:dr,:~z~ Dcx'elo?ment Guidelines, be ADOPTED as the City's detailed strategy Ibr transportation, stomw:ater ,' creek, land use, urban desigm and pedestrian access xvithin the subject lands, as set out in Appendix II to Report Number PD 24-02; That Zoning By-law )~nendment Application A {24 01. on lands being Part of Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C., at the south-east comer of Sheppard Avenue and Whites Road in the City of Picketing, to permit 97. stacked and street townhomcs, be APPROVED, AS REVISED by the Applicant to permit a rnaximun2 of S9 stacked and street townhomes, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix III to Report Number PD 24-02; ORiGIN: Official Plan Amendment Application ©PA ~1-,~)2 P Application A 04"01 submitted to tile City of Picketing. and Zonit~.c By-lay, Amcndn~ent AUTHORITY: Tile Plcznning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 13. Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Pickering Official Plan .Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Date: May...~ '~ '~00'~. '[ Page FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. The City will be responsible for the cost of the construction of a sidewalk along the south side of Sheppard Avenue, adjacent to the development. This sidewalk is identified as a development charge project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Marion Hill proposal is one of four applications that triggered a need for a review of' the Development Guidelines that affect lands generally known as the Northeast Quadrant. A map showing the Northeast Quadrant Area is provided as Attachment #1. The Marion Hill lands are generally located south and east of Sheppard Avenue and Whites Road (see Attachment =2 i. Marion Hill's proposal to develop all townhouses at a medium density (see Attac}m~cnt instead of offices, townhouses and single detached dwellings, a portion ora ring road and a linear park as originally contemplated by the current Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (see Attachment #4), is recommended for approval, subject to conditions, in light of the findings of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines Review. Readers of this Report to Council should refer to Report to Council PD 23-02 for recommendations respecting the Review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. The applicant's revisions to reduce the number of dwelling units, decrease the proposed building height, and break up the form and massing of the proposed development along Sheppard Avenue were made in response to resident and staff concerns for improved compatibility and are supported by Staff (see Attachment #5). Having carefully considered objections expressed by some residents living on Sheppard Avenue, staff recommends that the proposed Sheppard Avenue access be retained as the primar5' vehicular access to this development. This access provides for unrestricted vehicle movements, superior vehicular egress and access opportunities for the development's new residents, visitors, delivery, services, and Fire and other emergency services. Since a decision cannot yet be made on the issue of piping Amberlea creek through the Quadrant, the zoning of the Phase 2 lands, located at the east end of the subject lands, will have to be considered at a later date. Accordingly, the value of the City's lands cannot yet be determined and these lands should not yet be declared surplus and sold. In order to provide timely guidance to the site plan review of the Marion Hill development proposal, it is recommended that a separate site-specific amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines be approved at this time. The final Council adoption of the comprehensive replacement Guidelines for the Northeast Quadrant will occur later, co-incident with Council's adoption of the comprehensive official plan amendment for the Northeast Quadrant Area (see Report to Council PD 23-02). Staff recommends that Council adopt site-specific amendments to the Pickering Official Plan and the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines along with specific conditions for rezoning of the subject lands, as set out in the Appendices to this Report. Report to Council PD 24-02 Subiect: Picketing Official Plan :%mendment OP.A 01-002/P Zoning Bv-laxv .,:,umendment Appl~cauon A 0401 Date: May 2. 2002 Paue R BACKGROUND: 1.0 Relationship_ With Northeast _Quadrant Development ©uidelmc Rex icy,' Tile Marion Hill application is one of four applications received v¢ithin the Northeast Quadrant that triggered tile study of thc area..Ks the results of the Northeast Quadrant Review are now availabie v, ith respect to land use. urban design, environmental and transportation issues are nov, available, it is appropriate to consider this site-specific application within tile stud,.' area. The conclusions reached £or thc Marion Hill applications relx on thc results and discussion in thc Northeast Quadrant Reviev,. xvhich is contained in the Plannim, & Development Report to Council PD 2.0 S ub_j_ect Lands The subiect lands, at the south-east comer o:' \Vhites Road and Shcppard Avenue, are located in the Northeast Quadrant of the Woodlands Ncighbourhood ~see Attachment :2) for thc location map). Thc subject lands comprise tx~ o parts: Part One ( 1.52 hectares) is owned by Lydia Dobbin (N1arion Hill Development Co~oration has an option to purchase this propen)'): and Pan Tx~o (().3~ hcctarcsL at the eastern end of the subject lands, is oxvned by the City of Picketing (Marion Hill has expressed an interest in acquiring the City-owned lands). One house is located on thc subject lands, adjacent to \Vhites Road. 3.0 4.0 Orimnal Proposal The original proposal requested changes to the Pickenng Official Plan and Zoning By-law 3036 to permit 97 stacked and street toxvnhousc dv,'ellings (oil a private road) on the subject lands (see onginat concept plan, Attachment :6). Vehicular access was proposed by a driveway onto \Vhites Road pemnitting right tums-in and right tums-out, and a driveway pem:itting a full range of tums onto Shcppard .Avenue. The creek was proposed to be enclosed. The proposed amendment to the Official Plan was to redesignate lands along the Sheppard Avenue frontage of the property from L'rba~ Reside~m~l Areas - Low DensiO' Areas to an Urban Residential Areas- .\ledium Dc,~szn' .4re~s desi~ation lone-quarter of the site) to permit the proposed residential density. The applicant provided a supporting planning analysis. The amendment required to Zoning Bx-lav, 3()36 was from R3 - One Family Detached-Third D£'~zszn' Zo~c to a suitable zone to peru:it townhouse dwellings on the subject lands. The applicant was advised that their proposal would require amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. (The revised proposal submitted bY the applicant is outlined in Section 6 of this Report.) Infomlation Meetin: A Statutory. Public Infbmmtion Meeting was held Max 1- £001 to obtain the views of the public. Information Report No. 16-01 outlined tile proposal and comments received throm, h circulation of the application t see Attachment = 7). Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Picketing Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Date: May 2, 2002 Page 4 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Concerns expressed by residents included the impact of increased traffic on Sheppard Avenue, property values, school capacity, design of the proposed homes, proposed densities, compatibility with the community and the need for an environmental assessment. The discussion that occurred is recorded in the Meeting Minutes (see Attachment # 8). Additional Information Further Information from the Applicant The Planning Analysis, submitted after the Statutou7 Public Information Meeting, indicated that the proposal to redesignate the lands fronting Sheppard Avenue meets the general intent, goals, objectives and policies of the City of Picketing Official Plan. The Planning Analysis indicates that the proposed townhouse units will maintain a character that is compatible with the housing to the north of Sheppard Avenue through its ~ound related nature, articulated building masses, street-facing facades, human scale building heights, possible provision of a pedestrian link between Sheppard Avenue and Delta Boulevard and the function of the buildings as an acoustical and visual buffer between the houses on the north side of Sheppard Avenue and thc commercial development on Delta Boulevard. Comments Received from Area Residents and Property Owners Subsequent to the Statutory Public Information Meeting, the following comments were received: John Overzet, who represents 734 Kingston Road Limited, owner of lands along Delta Boulevard, south of the subject lands, has requested that Marion Hill Development Corporation, and developers of other abutting lands, be required to pay a share of the stormwater control works over-sizing costs, the road construction costs, and other costs (see Attachment #9). Verbal comments from area residents xvere received about the Marion Hill proposal at Northeast Quadrant Development Guideline Review meetings and design charette. The comments are attached to Planning & Development Report PD 23-02 on the Northeast Quadrant Review. In general, comments included concerns about: · traffic volume and speed, vehicular access and parking on Sheppard Avenue; · proposed townhouse density, design and building height to achieve compatibility with nearby detached homes; · need for greenspace along Sheppard Avenue and along An~berlea Creek; · light shining into houses on the north side of Sheppard Avenue from developments located south of the subject lands; · enclosure of the creek. Agency comments The following agencies provided written comments in addition to those agency comments noted in the earlier Information Report: CN Rail indicated that offers to purchase the townhouses must include warning clauses that CN Rail is not responsible for noise from its operations. In addition, a noise study must identify noise abatement measures to be achieved (see Attachment #10). Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Picketing Official Plan Amendment ePA 01-002 P Zoning Bv-la~v .Amendment Application A (. 4 (~l Date: May '~ 2002 Page 5 The Toronto and Region Conservation Authoritx' (TRCA) advises that development on the subject lands must satisfy the requirements of d~e Fill. Construction and Alteration to Water,rays Regulation and thc Valley and Sweam Con-taler Management Program (VSCMP) tbr the Amberlea Creek tributary. Development on thc subject lands will have to be set back a minimum of 10 metres from the top of d2e stream corridor bank. which has not vet been defined. The barfer should be zoned "Open Space Hazard Land" ~o prohibit structures, fill. or removal of vegetation and should be conveyed into public ownership. TRCA also notes that a pem~it ~ill be required :o change the stream channel. if desired, and proper storm~vater management practices daring and alter construction will be required to control water quantity and qualiU. TRCA cannot support the application until the limits of ~he natural features are deigned and appropriately zoned and protected (see Attachment =111. Canada Post and Bell Canada each have no objections but have certain technical requirements I see Attachments =12 and ~13 t. The Region of Durham Planning Department advises ti~at fl~e proposed use meets the policies of the Durham Oflqciai PIa.,~. Tine ;wot~osed amendmo~qt to thc Pickcrin< Official Plan is exempt from Regional am~'oxzd pro\ dod spcciI~c policies to f0rotcct thc stream comdor arc included in the amendment. The Regional Works Department interest ~n ',imitin~ :~cccss from these lands to right-in right-out vehicular turqq movements to \Vhitcs Road can be satisfied at the site plan approval phase. Since the si~e is thc locat~o~,q of a watercourse, an archaeological assessment v,'ill be required and since i~ is in proximit> to t}~e CNR tracks, a noise impac~ report will be required isee Attachment :141. 5.4 Comments Received From Cit~ Departments The Municipal Property & Engineering Division has advised · the proposed right-in right-out access onto 'Whites Road is at the discretion of the Region of Durham' · additional on-site parkim,= for residents should be provided: · metered parking on the south side ofShcppard Axenue is not supported; · sidewalks will be required on Whites Road and St~cppard Avenue, where none currently exist, with funding available from de\ clopmcnt charges for the Sheppard Avenue sidewalk; · the need for access for vehicles or pedestrians to Delta Boulevard is questioned; · a caution was raised that public access tt~rougt~ this private development, with anticipated high volume of' pedestrian traflSc betxvcen t}ae high school and restaurants, invites complaints from the future residents about loitering, trash and property damage caused by pedestrians' · maintenance responsibility for pedestrian path~a>s should be clearly identified: · the Citv-oxvned parcel of land within thc subiect lands is not needed for parkland or other municipal purposes and should be sold to the developer; · a private tot lot should be provided by the developer within the proposed townhouse development to serve the needs of residents: · Sheppard Avenue is the preferred prima~5 access ibr fire set\ice purposes, because it provides full tums access, with the preferred secondao' access point at Whites Road; The Development Control Section has advised that a number of matters must be addressed for this proposal' · storrnwater manao_ement, includim, the existino_ dov, nstream storage requirements; Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Pickenng Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Date: May 2. 2002 Page 6 6.0 7.0 7.1 · the proposed elimination of the watercourse; · a permanent turning circle should be constructed at the applicant's cost at the north end of Delta Boulevard (if Delta Boulevard is not extended to the east); · future use of the City-owned blocks of land on the east and west sides at the north end of Delta Boulevard; · sidewalk and boulevard upgrading will be required along Sheppard Avenue; · fencing and/or screening between residential units backing onto adjacent commercial properties will be required. · a development agreement will be required between the City and the developer; Revised Development Proposal The applicant submitted a revised conceptual site plan and phasing plan for the proposed development that includes the following changes (see Attachment #3): · reduction in the total number of dwellings from 97 to 89; · develop the subject lands in two phases; · provide additional access for traffic to Delta Boulevard; · greater separation between townhouse blocks; and, · add a focal point at the Whites Road/Sheppard Avenue comer. Phase 1 proposes the development of 67 townhouse units on the western 1.3 hectares to include: · four storey stacked townhouses along Whites Road, two storey units on the Sheppard Avenue frontage and three storey units located on the internal lands; · townhouses to front Sheppard Avenue limited to: o two-storeys facing Sheppard Avenue xvith three-storeys facing southward; (see Attachment #5) and, o no more than four units in each townhouse block; · vehicular access by a driveway to Whites Road permitting fight-in / right-out turn movements, a full-tums access to Sheppard Avenue and an additional driveway providing controlled access to Delta Boulevard. Phase 1 development is designed to proceed immediately, irrespective of future decisions to sell the City-owned parcel relocate, or enclose the Amberlea Creek tributary. Phase 2 proposes the development of 22 units on the easterly 0.6 hectares of land. This Phase is proposed to proceed once the City of Pickering makes a decision on the possible sale of the City-owned lands to Marion Hill Developments, and a decision is reached about relocation or enclosure of the Amberlea Creek tributary. Although a formal application for site plan approval has not been submitted to date, analysis of the conceptual site plan provided by the applicant permits the City to envision how the site can be developed in order to propose suitable zoning, official plan and development guideline policies. Discussion Medium Density Land Use The change from a low to a medium density residential designation for the lands fronting Sheppard Avenue (only one-quarter of the site) plus a cap on the maximum allowable residential density across the entire site is supported by staff. Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Picketing Official Plan .~endment ePA 01-002;P Zoning By-lay,' Amendment Applicanon A 04,01 Date' May2. 2002 Page 7.2 '7.3 Tile Official Plan nov,' permits medium density residential uses up to St)dxvclling units per hectare plus a range of commercial uses on the interior lands south of Sheppard Avenue (one-half of the site), and a muctn broader range of commercial uses and residential uses t~p to a dens,tv of 14(~ units per hectare on the \Vhites Road lands {one-quarter of the site). The proposal to develop tine whole site with medium density residential uses at a density capped at 55 dy, elling units per hectare will result in uses and an intensity of development on the xvholc site considerably less than the Official Plan In addition, although the current Northeast Quadrant Development ©uiciciincs provide for low density residential buildings on the SOLlth side of Sheppard .~venuc. thc Ouidelines identified a City objective to locate residential buildin~,s of ibur storeys ~n hcid~t on thc interior portion of the subject site ~mn~ediatelv south of the units fronting Sheppard Avenue. The development of four storey buildings at this location would be more intrusive upon the low density commun:tv to thc no~h than thc txvo and ttwee storey townhouses proposed. Medium density residential use of the Sheppard Avenue lands provides a transitional use, and a visual, accoustical and land usc bluffer bet\teen commercial uses on Delta Boulevard to the south and low densit~ residential uses on the north side of Sheppard.Avenue. Development of the entirc area subiect to this application lbr medium density residential usc pennits integrated, ct'incic~qt and ordcFh dexelopmcnt of these lands. Capping the residential densitx at 55 umts per hecta~-c reduces tine density on the overall site by almost one-third, adding to the ability to dos1?7 a development that will be compatible with the surrounding neighbou~riqood. Accordingly. staff recommends that Council approx e tile channe in designation from lox',' to medium density in the Official PIan for lands fronting Sheppard Axenue and that a policy be introduced to the Woodlands Ncighbourhood policies to cap tile density throughout the property at 55 dv,'elling units per hectare I see Appendix I). Form of Develo!ament on She.ppard Avenue The proposed form of development ',viii create a ney: community that is compatible with (but not exactly like) the current use, density, form and character of existing development north of Sheppard Avenue and to the east. Height limitations, limits on the number of dv,'ellings in each block, enhanced separation distances betv,'een blocks, front doors facing Sheppard Avenue, location of drivevcavs and parking to the rear of the units together assist in achieving this compatibility. The applicant's massing concept of townhomes for the south side of Shcppard A','cnuc show s tine rex ised view of the proposal from Sheppard Avenue (sec Attachment =5 ). Staff recommends that Council adopt the recon~mended site-specific policies in the Official Plan, conditions to the approval of a,,2 ~nplementizng zoning amendment and an amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Developnqent ©uidelincs to ensure that tile form of the development is compatible with surrounding development. Once adopted, the foregoing policies, guidelines and conditions will goven~ consideration of tile site plan ,,,,'hen it is subsequently submitted for approvai. Access to Shen_pard Avenue Provision of vehicular access to Sheppard Avenue will allow the tilture residents the most convenient means of traveling in all directions fron~ this site. resulting in a lesser increase in traffic impact in the area and `,','ill provide the best access to tine site for emergency ser`,'ices. Further. the lands are adjacent to an arterial road\,, ax' with sufficient capacity to support the traffic anticipated from a medium residential density development. Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Picketing Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Date: May 2, 2002 Page 8 8.0 8.1 8.2 Additional peak hour traffic from this development will result in a nominal impact on Sheppard Avenue traffic operations. Provision of an access to Sheppard Avenue is essential to permit this residential area to relate to the Sheppard Avenue community and to provide a focus and orientation away from the commercial uses on Delta Boulevard. Removal of an access to Sheppard Avenue from this development would force residents of this development to take much longer and more circuitous routes, or make unsafe and disruptive turn movements in order to get to either Kingston Road or Highway 401, which are the most likely destinations of most residents. It may result in drivers making unsafe and illegal tums or force them to circle the xvhole Whites Road / Sheppard Avenue / Fairport Road / Kingston Road block. Picketing Fire Sen'ices a~ees that Sheppard Avenue access provides the best access to this site. In addition, provision of one through-access driveway to Sheppard Avenue for this development would be less disruptive than a large number of individual private driveways that would otherwise be provided if low density detached dwellings were constructed fronting Sheppard Avenue. Staff recommends that Council approve an access to Sheppard Avenue tbr thc proposed development in addition to the proposed right-in/right-out access to Whites Road and the gated secondary access to Delta Boulevard proposed by the applicant. Outstanding Matters For Phase 2 Development The following two matters require resolution before it xvould be appropriate to approve zoning for Phase 2 of the proposed development. Tributary to Amberlea Creek Policies should be adopted to recognize that the stream may be enclosed (piped), relocated to the edge of the property or protected in its current location as an open stream corridor. As discussed in the Report to Council on the Review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, resolution of the piping, relocation or protection options cannot occur until a number of related issues are resolved. Because they remain unresolved at this time, suitable policy must be adopted that allows for any of the options to be implemented at a later time. Until an option is selected, it will remain premature to finalize the detailed arrangement of land uses and precise conditions for zoning of the Phase 2 lands. Accordingly, policies are proposed to be introduced in the Woodlands Neighbourhood Policies in section 11.8 of the Official Plan and in a site-specific amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines that recognize the interests of the different parties and agencies in the stream lands and provide for zoning to be dealt with only once an option for use of the stream corridor is finalized. Ci_ty Property Staff suggests the sale of the City's surplus land should continue to be deferred until the land use option for the stream corridor (which occupies a major portion of this land) is adopted. It would be premature for the City to make a decision to sell the surplus 0.37 hectare vacant parcel of land until a land use option for the stream corridor (that runs through the middle of the property) is selected, even though this land is not required for parkland or other municipal purposes. Until a land use option is adopted, and an estimate of the costs of any necessary piping, relocation or protection of the stream corridor can be obtained, a realistic value for the City lands cannot easily be determined. Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Picketing Official Plan Amendment ePA 01-002/17 Zoning By-law Amendment A. pplication A 04,/01 Date' May '~ '00'~ Page 9 .Accordingly, staff recommends that the sale of the City's land be considered foltov,'ing the adoption of the new zoning bv-laxx for Phase 2 of tile proposed development. 9.0 Controls 9.1 9.2 9.3 Official Plan .Amendment S Official Plan Amendment S. contained in :kppendix I to this Report. is recommended for adoption in order to: · chanoc tine land use from lox,, to medium density residential use lb." the lands fronting Sheppard .Avenue: · ensure compatibility xxith surrounding low density development by capping the maxinmm residential density at 55 units per hectare and providing policy support ~br specific design standards: · require buildings to be located close to and facing Sheppard Avenue and Whites Road: · reco<nizc options ofpipino relocation or protection of the current stream corridor for the .&mberlca Creek tributary: and · adopt appropriate vehicular and ?edestrian access to a!ld through tho 'Marion Hill' lands. Since the Region of Durham has exempted this amendment from the requirement for Regional approval, it v, ill comae into force follox,, in,.:' Council adopuon and tiao mandatory notice and appeal period of 20 days. provided there are no appeals. Amendment 2 to the Northeast ~)uadrant Development Guidelines Site-specific Amendment 2. contained in Appendix II to this Report. is recommended for adoption by Council in order to: · adopt transportation objectives for vehicular and pedestrian access to the 'Marion Hill' lands: · adopt stormwater / creek objectives to pcrnait enclosure of the creek once a net environmental benefit is demonstrated, or relocate the creek, or protect the stream in its current location and control stormwater in a suitable manner; · adopt general urban desi~mn objectives and guidelines for development of the Marion Hill lands to ensure compatibilit> with and connection to thc surrounding community and achieve a quality development on the subject lands. Zoning Conditions of Ap_proval Conditions recommended for zoning approval, contained in Appendix III of this Report, include the following: payment of a share of the Northeast Quadrant Reviev,' stud,,' costs and execution and registration on title to tile lands of a development agreement between the proponent and the City to secure a public right-of-x~ ay between [Delta Boulevard and Sheppard Avenue. require the proponent to urbanize Sheppard Avenue. require the proponent to submit a no~se impact report and an archaeological assessment, require the proponent to satisffv the City with respect to pa.xq~nent of a cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution: provision ora private tot hot in Phase 1 of the development; provide for a turning circle for Delta Boulevard if required, and cost-sharing of the oversized stormwater works previously constructed on lands to the south, fiop29xXg_ passage of a zoning amendment: Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Pickenng Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning Bv-law .Amendment Application A 04/01 Date: May 2, 2002 Pagc 10 17 10.0 · performance standards for Phase 1 development to permit four-storev stacked townhouse development of the lands fronting Whites Road and two storey street townhouse development of the lands fronting Sheppard Avenue and three store,,,' townhomes to the south in Phase 1 of the proposed development at this time; and, · performance standards for Phase 2 development to permit two storey street townhouse development of lands fronting Sheppard Avenue and three storey townhouses to the south in Phase 2 of the proposed development, to be adopted by Council following resolution of the creek and sale of surplus City lands issues. Applicant's Comments The applicant is in substantial a~eement with the recommendations of this Report but has raised two particular concerns. The applicant commented that payment of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guideline Review study costs should be required at the time of issuance or' building permits, not prior to Council adoption of the zoning amendment, as recommended. The applicant further commented that the easement for public access across the site should be located in Phase 2 of the development on the lands that are now City property, as indicated in the applicant's revised conceptual site plan. Date: May '~ "'00'~ Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Picketing Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Page 11 APPENDICES: I II III By-lave to adopt Amendment No. $ to ti~c Pickcnng Official Plan (Amendment included as Exhibit "A" to Bv-la~v Site Specific Amendment to tile No~theas~ Quadrant Dexciopment Guidelines for thc Marion Hill Lands Conditions oi' Approval For Zoning An2endment .Application A 0Z U l ATTACHMENTS' 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 14.. Northeast Quadrant Area Location Map Applicant's Revised Conceptual Site Plan Current Northeast Quadrant Dex elo?mcnt ©uidclines Applicant's Massing Concept of loxvnhomes for the Soutin side of Sheppard Avenue Applicant's Original Concept Plan Information Report 10-01 Statutory Public Meeting Minutes Letters from 734 Kingston Road Comment from CN Rail Comment from Toronto and Rezion Conserx ation Autiqori:x Comment from Canada Post Conxnent from Bell Canada Comment from Durham Region Planning Department Prepared By: Steve OaunL MCIP. RPP Planner II Approved Endorsed By: Nell Carr-oll.~pp Director. Planning & Development Catherine Rose Manager, Policy SO tdjF Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickenng City Council 173 APPENDIX 1 TO REPORT NUMBER PD 24-02 BY-LAW TO _AA)OPT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN 1'7 4 THE CORPOP,~X, TION OF THE CITT OF PICKERING BY-LA.\V NO Being a By-law 'to adopt Amendment S to the Of I~cial Plan for fl~e ('itx' of Pickering /OPA(I1- c~2 Pt \VIdEREAS pursuant to the Planning .Act. R.S.O. 199~. c.p. 13. subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of thc Corporation of thc City of Pickcnng may bx by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan ibr the City of Picker:hi: AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning _Act. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housin< has by order authorized Regional Counc~' to pass a bv-la~ to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approx al: ,AND \VHEREAS. on February 23. 2~ Regional Council passed By-lay,' 112000 xvhict~ alloxvs the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; AND WHEREAS the Re-LOon has adx iscd that Amendment S to thc City of Picketing Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval' NOW' THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPOR,\TION OF -Fide CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS .AS FOLLO\\'S' That Amendment S to the C)fficial Plan ~br thc Citx of Picketing. attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted: That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forv,'ard Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Official Plans and Amendments' to the Regional Area Municipal 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on thc dax of the ~inal passing hereof. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of '~00'~ .XiATOR \VAYNE ARTHURS CLERK BRUCE .1. TATLOR I73 Exhibit "A" to By-law AMENDMENT 8 TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN 1 7 6 AMENDMENT 8 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: I.OCATION: BASIS: The purpose of this amendment is to cimnge the designation o[the lands fronting Stneppard Avenue from a Low to a Medium Density Residential desi~mation on Schedule i Land Use Structure and add to section l l.S Woodlands Neighbourhood Policies provisions to address compatibility ~ith thc neighbourhood, reco?ize optional strategies Sot the stream comdor and provide suitable ~ chic~lar and pedestrian access ~br the affected lands. The subject lands are approximatelF i.S9 hectares m size. and located on the south side of Sheppard Avenue. east of Whites Road. All of the lands Fall ~ iti~in Part Lot 28. Range 3. B.F.C. This amendment to thc Picketing Official Plan }las been determined to be appro?riate tblloxving the completion of a reviex~ ofapreliminar> conceptual' ~ sitepla;q m ii<hr_ of thc findin,zs_ of thc Whites Road andabutu,qziands m '~,)' Thc ccntral issue is Iand use compatibilit> betxxccn medium densitx residential uses with commercial uses to tho south and lo;; dons~tv residential uses to the north and east. The strateg.v tbr the Northeast Quadrant is lv~o-I'old. Firstly. the vision is. ox er time. to encour'a~c hi?n qualitF design and intensity of commercial or residential structtlrcs that assist in convening Kingston Road to a pedestrian fficndlx 'ma~nstrcct' from an autodommated highwa>. Secondly. thc vis,on is to encourage medium density residential use in fine nonhero pan of thc Quadrant to se~'e as a transition betxtcen thc mixed commercial residential use close to Kingston Road and the existing low density residential use to the no~h, Other major elements of the stratef>' arc to intensil\' development by piping the tributary to Amberlca ('reek. it' a net benefit to the environment can be demonstrated and to adopt a transportation strategy to provide vehicular access to tile Quadrant and beyond. The land use objective for the subject lands is to ensure building siting, height, massing and orientation that is compatible with the community to the north and integrate by means of suitable vehicular and pedestrian access arrangements and design controls with the community and the ©uadrant. In addition, since a final decision cannot ,.'et be reached on piping thc creek or protecting it in an open state, the interests oFttne parties are recognized and the objectives of each option are set out. Since this amendment is to precede the amendment Ibr the xvhole of the Northeast Quadrant. relevant provisions arc incorporated into tile comprehensive amendment for the Northeast Quadrant, which xviI1 be adopted by Council at a later date. Appendix I to Report to Council PD 24-02 Page 2 Amendment 8 to the Picketing Official Plan - Site-Specific Amendment for "Marion Hill" Lands AMENDMENT: The City of Picketing Official Plan is hereby amended by: Revising Schedule I- Land Use Structure by replacing the "Urban Residential Areas - Lo},, Density Areas" designation for the lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue with an "Urban Residential Areas - Medium DensiO' Areas" designation, as shown on Schedule 'A' to this amendment. Adding new policies to section 11.8 - Woodlands Neighbourhood Policies, as follows: "11.8 City Council shall, (b) ...; (c) ...; (d) ...; (e) ...; (0 for the lands subject to the "Marion Hill" proposal, located at the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, (i) despite Tables 6* and 10' of Chapter Three and section 11.8(c)*, establish a maximum residential density of 55 units per net hectare; (ii) require new development to be compatible with respect to building heights, yard setbacks and building massing with low density residential development on the north side of Sheppard Avenue and on the south side of Sheppard Avenue to the east; (iii) require nexv development to establish buildings on Whites Road or Sheppard Avenue close to the street edge, with the front doors facing the street, and with a specified percentage of their front walls required to be located within build-to-zones to be established in the implementing zoning by-law for this site; (iv) restrict the height of the Sheppard Avenue elevation of new dwellings fronting Sheppard Avenue to a maximum of two storeys; (v) require a minimum of four functional storeys for the Whites Road elevations of new dwellings fronting Whites Road; (g) for the lands subject to the "Marion Hill" proposal, located on the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, (i) support the principle of piping or relocating the Amberlea Creek tributary that flows through the lands, while at the same time recognizing the interests of the landowners, on whose lands the Amberlea Creek tributary. flows, to pipe or relocate that tributary., and the interests of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. to maintain the Amberlea Creek tributary as an open and buffered creek channel; Tables 6 and 10, and sections 11.8(c) are attached to this Amendment for information purposes only; thev does not const/tute part of the Amendment. 78 Appendix I to Report to Council PD 24-02 Page 3 Amendment $ to the Picketing Official Plan - Site-Specific Amendment for "Marion Hill" Lands (h) (ii) (iii) require the developer of the subject lands proposing to pipe or relocate the Arnberlea Creek tributary to: (A) submit an environmental/ stormwater management report, to the satisfaction of the Ciw and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authorits-, which report must demonstrate a stratego?' resulting in a significant net environmental benefit to the watershed if justifying piping of the creek; (B) obtain appropriate approvals and permits from public review agencies; and, (c) satisfy any required compensation under the Fisheries Act; ensure that development proposals are undertaken in a manner that does not adxersel; impact downstream water quali~' and quantiU' throu~zh the use of on-site controls and/or financial contributions to a downstream stormwater facility if necessaD'; and throu,.zh thc use ~f thc holding provisions of thc Planning Act. require wtmre necessan.', the proponents of development having lands with the stream corridor for the tributary to Amberlea Creek to enter into agreements with the City and other agencies, as appropriate, respecting public ownership of the stream corridor lands of the tributau-, or its piping or relocation, once approved; for the lands subject to the "Marion Hill" proposal, located on the south-east corner of \Vhites Road and Sheppard Avenue, (i) support vehicular access restrictions preventing left turns from \Vhites Road into the site, and left turns from the site onto \\'hires Road; (ii) promote the reduction of traffic speeds and improvement of pedestrian safety along Sheppard Avenue by implementing pavement markings and other measures, and considering "traffic-calming" techniques following the adoption of a City policy; and, require pedestrian access, by means of easements, from Delta Boulevard to Sheppard Avenue. (iii) IMPLEMENTATION: INTERPRETATION: The provisions set £o;7h ira the Citx of Picketing Official Plan. as amended, regarding thc implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Tire provisions set Ibrth in tile Citx of Picketing OFficial Plan. as amended, regarding the interpretation of tile Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Appendix I to Report to Council PD 24-02 Page 4 Amendment 8 to the Picketing Official Plan - Site-Specific Amendment for "Marion Hill" Lands 17 Selected Policy Extracts from the Pickering Official Plan Referred to in the Potential Amendment Provided for Information Purposes Only- Not Part of Potential Amendment TABLE 6 Mixed Use Maximum and Minimum Maximum Gross Maximum Areas Net Residential Density Leasable Floorspace for Floorspace Index SubcategoD, (in dwellings per hectare) the Retailing of Goods (total building and Services floorspace divided (in square metres) by total lot area) Local Nodes over 30 and up to and up to and including 10,000 up to and including including 80 2.0 FSI Community over 80 and up to and up to and including 20,000 up to and including Nodes including 140 2.3 FSI Mixed over 30 and up to and determined by site-specific up to and including Corridors including 140 zoning 2.3 FSI Downtown over 80 and up to and up to and including 300,000 up to and including Core including 180 3.0 FSI TABLE 10 Maximum and Minimum i Residential Area Net Residential Density Subcategory (in dwellings per net hectare) Low Density Area up to and including 30 Medium Density Area over 30 and up to and including 80 High Density Area over 80 and up to and including 140 11.8 City Council shall, (b) ...; (c) despite Table 6 of Chapter Three, establish a maximum residential density of 55 units per net hectare for lands located on the north side of Kingston Road that are designated Mixed Use Areas and abut lands developed as low density development; SCHEDULE 'A' i EXTRACT FROM S(/llEI)IILE I TO Till,; PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN EDITION 2 I..\NI) I SI,; STRI:i'TI'RI( APPENDIX I1 TO REPORT NUMBER PD 24-02 AMENDNIENT 2 TO THE NORTHEAST QUADR-XNT DEVELOPSIENT GUIDELINES FOR THE "MARION HILL" LANDS AMENDMENT 2 TO NORTH EAST QUADRANT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES To implement the conclusions of the Review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, as they affect the Marion Hill/City of Picketing properties, it is recommended that Council adopt the following site specific Amendment to the 1990 Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines: Despite any other ?rovisions in these Guidelines, lands known as Part 1, Plan ]4431 and Part Plan 40R-2767, subject to Official Plan Amendment Application OPA O]-O02/P Amendment $ to the Pickering Official Plan) and Zoning Bv-law Amendmenl Application .4 04/0] shall be developed in conformiO' with the following guidelines: A) Transportation Objectives The three roads providing access to this site are Sheppard Avenue, I.~7~itc's Road and Delta Boulevard. [~ehicular access shall be provided to this site by ~ fid/moves access to Sheppard Avenue, a right-in, right-out turns only access to ~ites Road, and access to Delta Boulevard controlled ? resident-activated gates to prevent fi'ee flowing traffic movements between Delta Boulevard and Sheppard Avenue. The City will require these vehicular access arrangements zo be implemented ,~2r this site through the required Site Plan agreements to the sati~&ction o/' the City and the Region of Durham. It is anticipated that I~7~ites Road, a Regional Road. may be widened to 6 lanes in thc/iaurc, hz addition, auxilia~3' turn lanes may be added in the future. Further, at the sole disc~'CtlOn 2£ the Region of Durham, a center median may be installed to prevent lefi turn movements D'om Whites Road into the site, and from the site onto IVhites Road. B) Stormwater/Antberlea Creek Objectives The Amberlea Creek Northeast Quadrant - Assessment of Ahernatives stu4v, prepared by Schollen & Compa~(v Inc., identifies an option for a storm sewer extension of the existing system south of Sheppard Avenue to the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp. The Cra' supports the p~Ping of the existing tributa~.' of Amberlea Creek, which traverses the Northeast Quadrant, as an integral component ora stormwater management system that includes a storm sewer system and a stormwater management pond. The stormwater facility is required to control both quality and quantity stormwater. A substantial net benefit to the downstream environment must be demonstrated in order to warrant consideration of piping the tributary. Lands located east of the Bayfair Baptist Church are the preferred location for a stormwater management facility. Detailed siting, engineering and grading plans are required to assess the feasibili~ of and design options for, a stormwater management pond (reference may be made to the Assessment of Alternatives study for additional stormwater management details available to date). If the stormwater management facility is approved, the Ci0' will be requiring the proponent of this development application within the Northeast Quadrant as its lands currently drain into the reach of the Amberlea Creek tributary, to pay for a proportionate share of the detailed design work and costs of piping the creek, in addition to a share of the tozal cost of implementation of the proposed Amberlea Creek stormwater management pond. hr the event that approvals are not granted for the stormwater pond, or development proceeds ahead of construction of the pond, the developer of the lands will be required to install quality and quantity control devices and to enter into agreements with the City to cost share future stormwater works. Further, in the event approvals from the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, Minist® of Natural Resources, and the Department of Fisheries are not granted to pipe the creek, the landowners shall be required to maintain the Creek with appropriate setbacks. Appendix II to Report to Council PD 24-02 Amendment 2 to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - "Marion Hill" Lands Page 2 C) General [~rban Des&n Objectives urban dexSgn oh/ectix'ex Qf thwarter 9 - '~('Otllllllilll[V DCSlgN ", ctHt/ ('h~Fter ]3 -- "Detailed Dest'~n Considerations" qf thc Qfl~c~d Pla~. l~ ~5 t/~e ,~tcnt ot'zhe$e gu~deh'ne$ to both further d~osc ob/eom'es and embelh'sh dze ones [z'sted be/ow: ]. To provide a quah'o' urban image hi' encour~gz~zg t/~c' £hweme~ of high quality buildings located to define t/~e street edge. [dndscape treatment t}lroughoz~: thc .\'art/leaSt (?tczdr~itzI. To provide a quohtv urban Image by encourogt~zg ~: c'oordtnated C{~ibrI to tmPro~'z~z~, dle slreetsc~Pe I/loll lIte[lidoS pedeslrian orie~z~cd .;io'tttshtngs and ol/ter appropriate [ttlpro~'eDl ell .5. ~0 CHSItFC I/lO[ II~_'ix ~[CVC[O?~IHc'H[ FC[d[cT [0 cW,'SI!HZ d'c'I Ci'OIoDZCH! ~,V]II'[C a[[ol~ lllf~ including ~ccess to DtdZW'dllo[ ?po[~Crtt'es. D) Detailed Design Guidelines For lite proposed residenlta[ dex'elo£mcu;. ~ dlc' soudl-cc~,s; corner c!/" IITtt'ros Road and Sheppard Avenue. bzohh'ngs shall 3c [oc'~Ied Hose to ~/~c' .s'rrccz. ~,~t/~ ?arkzn,~ provided at the rear. New residentia[ development she// bo inte,grcited ttzto t/~c' ~:rc~: t~t d mc~tmcr that ix both respec~d of the character of d~c cx~s~t~C. t~ezg, hbc:H~ood a~d ~cm'cs ,.s' ~tt interface between this area and the surroundzng lands. The soud~-easI corner of Sheppard .4x'enue czmi IITzztcs Yo~id shall act as a transition area bem'een d~e higher buildings on ~7~zrc'5 Ro~d ~J,~d d~c [o~cr buildings on Sheppard Avenue. This corner should bc rrc~wd ~is ~ zmpor~,~zr ./Or'rd poin~, and include lan&cape and bar&cape treatment ~o create ~:t~ ~dcntiEabic amenity w'ea, preferably including pedestrian connectiot~s ~nto ti~e sz~c, 4. New residential development along ShcT£c:rd ..lx'cJlz~c shcd[ ;~zoll,(c ua marc titan four units that are attached be./bre providing c~ t, rc~:~: ,;,c:'.,~ cc/~/~uz[c[tt~:d m~s.s'c'5. The height of residenrz~d units ~dotlg 5he?p~ird .-txcmw .shed/ he rcstm'ctcd to two storeys on I/reft'ant elevation facing Shcpp~Jrd Avenuc~ ~z~!d _sh~d[ t~olude.~wades I/tat are briclc on all sides facing t]le pti/o/lc i'zg/2t o1~ New residential develo?tnent along ItT~t~e5 Road shcd[ storeys on the side of the buihiing.~?wing IIT~irc's Roczd, ~tzd o/'mosdx' brick/~wade.s' on all sides .~cing the public right of ~v~0'. - .4re/n'teciuro[ detailing attd stepping uHltzed ~o avoid t/~e appearance 6'. A ne;~' sidewalk shall be constructed along the soudl side 2i'5'hc?£ard Avenue. Appendix II to Report to Council PD 24-02 ,Amendment 2 to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - "Marion Hill" Lands Page 3 10. 12. 13. ]4. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. A vegetative buffer and generous sidevard width will be required along the eastern properO, line separating any proposed residential development at the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue from the existing neighbourhood. Attractive and appropriate landscaping will be required both on the perimeters of the development facing the streets and interior to the site. .4 public pedestrian link which runs north-south from the end of Delta Boulevard connecting to the sidewalk on the south side of Sheppard Avenue, and includes up-graded landscape treatment and a minimum 2.0 metre wide sidewalk, shall be included as an easement for pedestrian access granted to the C/0'. Allowance for comfortable and convenient pedestrian movement fi'om areas north and west of this location to destinations to the south shall be integrated into the site layout. .5o buildings or structures shall be permitted within 10 metres qf the stream corridor of the Amberlea Creek tributatT. If possible, this area adjacent to thc creek should be lat~dscaped in a manner that is sensitive to the natural processes of the stream, unless the stream is piped. building mounted utility boxes including telephone and hydro shall bo enclosed ~vithin or behind a screening device, ~vhich generally matches the materials used in the building facade construction. .4ny free-standing utiliO' boxes including hydro, telephone, etc. shall be enclosed within screening devices designed to match or complement the buildin,gs. .4ll stairs, which are required on building facades, shall be cast in place, and not pre-cast units. The grade of the site along the Whites Road frontage shall be raised so that am' proposed dwelling's front ent® is at or above the grade of the sidewalk on Whites Road. Garbage and recyclable material shall be handled within each dwelling trait (including its garage), and not within separate buildings or centralized areas. Lighting design should complement the design of the development, shall not spill over into adjacent properties or streets, and shall be downcast to avoid excessive light pollution. For residential development along Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, the front entrance will face the public streets. APPENDIX III TO REPORT NUMBER PD 24-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-I.AV~' AMENDMENT APPLIC~.TION A 04,01 1.0 That prior to forxvarding an amending zoning by-law to Council for either Phase of development, the developer shal! meet thc folloxx in~ requirements: la) pa)Tnent of a proportionate share of the Northeast Quadrant Review study costs; execution and registration on title of a Development Agreement betxveen the developer and the City, addressing such matters as. but not limited to. thc ii) ~ii) ¢iii) v) (vi) convey an easement to the City for public access purposes, and construct a pedestrian pathv,'a> across the Phase t lands to provide public access between Delta Boulevard and Sheppard Avenue: construct, at the owner's cost. a turning circle at thc north end of Delta Boulevard. if required: construct, at thc oxxI2Or'S COS[. ll12DroxcII1C!2ts to urbanize thc road cross-section of 5iqcppard .-kx cnuc. if required: pay an appropriate share o:' thc costs incu~cd by tiao ex, ncr of thc lands to the "Nlarion Mill" lands, of stotq:axx atcr ff~ciiiues previously constructed on the souttnerh' lands, prior to issuance of any building pcmnits ibr the subject lands: satisfy the Citx with respect to a cash-tn-lieu of parkland contNbution for each phase of development and proxision of a private tot lot in Phase 1 of the development: and, submit a noise impact study and an archaeological assessment to the satisfaction of the City. 2.0 That the implementing zoning bv-laxv shall comply with the provisions of Amendment 2 to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines and shall include, for the lands shovvn as Phase 1 on the applicant's revised conceptual site plan. but not necessarily be limited to the following: (a) (b) lc) buildings to be located within a build-to-zone that generally reflects setbacks as shown on the revised conceptual site plan; buildings required to occupy a build-to-zone generalh' reflecting thc locations shown on the revised conceptual site plan: permit multiple dwellings (stacked townhouses) on the lands fronting \Vbites Road, and diagonally fronting the Whites Road and Sheppard Axenuo intersection in accordance with the following provisions: (i) (ii) (iii) a maximum number ofdv, clling units _.'2 dx~ellina: units: a minimum of four functional storeys t'acn:g Whites Road: parking requirements for each dwdling unit off (a) one private~2ara2e~ attached to each dwellim,= unit: (b) one parking space betxveen zarage and traffic aisle: and, (c) aminimum of ~ 25 visitors parking spaces: and generally, in accordance with maximum buildin<,= heio_ht,_ lot covera~,e= . minimum landscaped open space and minimum distances between blocks of dxvellings shoxvn on the applicant's conceptual site plan: (d) permit single attached dv,'ellings on lands fronting Sheppard Avenue and the interior lands in accordance with the follov,'ing provisions: Appendix 1~ to Report to Council PD 24-02 Page 2 Recommended Conditions of,Approval for Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application A 4//01 3.0 (i) maximum number of dwelling units - 45; (ii) maximum number of storeys facing Sheppard Avenue - 2 storeys (and 3 storeys on internal lands); (iii) maximum building height - 11 metres measured from grade on the Sheppard Avenue elevation; (iv) parking requirements for each dwelling unit of: i. one private garage attached to each dwelling unit; ii. one parking space between garage and traffic aisle; and, iii.a minimum of 0.25 visitors parking space; (v) minimum distance between blocks of dwellings - 2.5 metres: and. (vi) provisions for maximum lot coverage, minimum landscaped open area, and minimum gross floor area that generally reflect the applicant's revised conceptual site plan. That prior to forwarding an implementing zoning by-law to Council for passage, which shall comply with the provisions contained in Amendment 2 to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines for Phase 2 lands as shown on the applicant's revised conceptual site plan, decisions to be reached respecting enclosure, relocation or protection of the stream corridor in an open state and respecting the sale of the surplus City owned parcel of land. Following those decisions, an implementing zoning by-law be forwarded to Council for the Phase 2 lands including, but not necessarily be limited to the tbllowing: (a) buildings required to be located within a building envelope that generally reflects the setbacks shown on the applicant's revised conceptual site plan; (b) buildings required to occupy a minimum proportion of a build-to-zone generally reflecting the setbacks shown on the applicant's revised conceptual site plan; (c) permit attached dwellings on the Phase 2 lands in accordance with the following provisions: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) maximum number of dwelling units - 22 units; maximum number of storeys facing Sheppard Avenue - 2 storeys (and 3 storey on internal lands); maximum building height - 11 metres; parking requirements for each dwelling unit of: i. one private garage attached to each dwelling unit; ii. one parking space between garage and traffic aisle; and, iii.a minimum of 0.25 visitors parking spaces; and, minimum distance between blocks of dwellings - 2.5 metres; provisions for minimum gross floor area for dwelling units, maximum lot coverage and minimum landscaped open area that generally reflect the applicant's revised conceptual site plan. LTTACHL',E~,JT # / TO REPORT ~, PD~ _AN E w~E3URN A¥'EN ~E DAYLIGHT STROUDS ~NE COURT ROAD City of Pickering · · NORTHEAST Planning & Development Department ©UADRANT R,n-,¥1EW ,&REA DATE MAY 2, 2002 REPORT~PD ,¢ Y"'6 ~_ CRESCENT LANE STROUDS FLAVELLE COURT HEDGEROW STROUDS LANE TRAIL RAINY DAY STEERLE HILL ' AVENUE EDGEWOOD JACQUELtNE WELRUS STREET, WE'¥BURN ! UARE J! COURT SHADYBROOK ii!I '~, ~ AVENUE AVENUE '!! PROPER~ '-'-~oo,~ /I City of Pickering DRIVE I BREDA AVENUE j,v M O r E-TTA AVENUE SANOK ~' Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOT 28, RANGE 3, B.F.C.; PART 1, 40R-14431; PART 1, 40R-2767 OWNER MARION HILLS DEVELOPMENT INC. DATE MAY 3, 2002 DRAWN BY RC APPLICATION No. A 04/01; OPA 01-002/P SCALE 1:7500 CHECKED BY SG FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-6 PA- N Z ILl 0 W I ATTACHMENT REPORT ~ PD NORTHEAST QUADRANT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES (1990) "FINAL URBAN DESIGN CONFIGURATION" 'Oo \ \ LU I.-i.U 0~ lq2 A'r'rACHM~T ~ '~' TO REPORT # PD ,? ~J-¢ 2_ INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN MARION HILLS DEVELOPMENT INC. A 4/01; OPA 01-002/P PART 2 A~4ENI1~ SPACE ..... PR__IV_AT~ ~A_~IqR~_A._~S~R~ _ SUMi, C4RY STArlSI?CS PROVIDED ON THE NEXT PAG£ A LARGE SCALE COP)' OF THIS PLAN IS AVAID~B£E FOR VIEWING AT THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPAR~7~fEN~ THIS ~ WAS PRODUCED BY THE C/rY OF PLANN/NG& DEVELOPWENT /NFOR~ITON · ATTACHMENT # ~ TO PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 10-01 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF NIAY 17. 2001 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC' 5IEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT. R.S,O. 1990. chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Pickennz OflScial Plan Amendment OP.-X 01-{)02P Zonin~ By-lay, .-Xn2cndment .-Xpplication Nlarion Hili Pan Lot 2S. (now Pat7 I. Plan 4~)R-I44;i & Pa:7 i. Plan 4q)R-2707) City of Pickcrinz 1.0 2.0 PROPERTY I~OC:',,TION AND DESCRIPTION the subject lands are I.S9 hectares in area. and are loomed on the soutln-cast corner of Whites Road and Sheppard .Avenue: the subject lands comprise tx~ o parcels of land ~see locatio~7 IlnaiD..-Xttachnnent = 11: · parcel 1 is a 1.S2-hectarc parcel ex, ned bx Lydia Dobbin: Nlarion Hill Development Co~orat~on has entered ~nto ~2 a~rccmcnt oi' pLlI-chasc and sale for this parcel: it is occupied by a detached dxxellin5: existing access is from Whites Road: parcel 2 is a 0.37-hectare parcel owned by tine City o~'Pickcrin*~: Marion Hill has approached the City about acquiring this parcel' this vacant parcel appears to be su~lus to the City's needs {it was acquired 1?om X'eridian Corporation); a tfibuta~' of Amberlea Creek crosses ~on~ ~torth to south throuMh thc parcel' existing access is from Sheppard Avenue: uses su~ounding the subject lands are: a medical oI'~Sco and detached dwellings to the north; detached dwellings fronting Sheppard .~venue to the east; the newly constructed commercial development includin~ retail uses. day care, Wendy's / Tim Honon's and Swiss Chalet restaurants on Delta Boulevard to the south; vacant lands and residential also to the south ~rot2ti~nz Whites Road: and residential and schools to the west. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL Marion Hill Development Corporation proposes to an~cnd thc Picketing OtTicial Plan and the zoning bv-Iaw in order to pcn:~t cicxclopnncnt of the subject lands tbr 97dwellings; the proposal consists of 22 stacked townhouscs adjacent to Whites Road and its con,er with Shcppard .&x cnue. plus -5 street tox~nhouscs: 1S of the 75 street townhouses are proposed on the Citx-ox~ ned parcel; a copy of the conceptual site plan and various site statistics are provided for reference (see Attac~ents fi2 and =3): a copy el'thc proposed official plan amendment is also provided (see Appendix I): the stacked townhomes fronting X, Vhites Road arc 4 storexs to create a I\~c:ai point and frame the intersection; the remaining units are proposed at 2 to 3 storcxs: the internal units front onto a linear public amenity space: total landscape space is proposed at about x(,~,,~ and total buildin5 coxeraec is approximately 350 o' Information Report No. 16-01 ATTACHMENT ~,,, '7 TO Page ~PORl ~ PD ,~ ~ - c, ,..2 3.0 3.1 3.2 a network of walkways through the site is proposed to link it to the surrounding community; a 6.5 metre wide public easement has been proposed as a pedestrian link fi.om Sheppard Avenue into the north end of Delta Boulevard; all vehicular access to the dwellings is proposed from a private internal road; vehicular access to the private road is proposed to be provided by a driveway onto Whites Road permitting right turns in and right turns out, and bv a driveway onto Sheppard Avenue; no vehicular access is proposed between Delta Boulevard and the Marion Hill lands; the applicant is also proposing to enclose the watercourse that flows through the eastern portion of the subject lands. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan the su~ect lands are designated as £iving .4rea in the Durham Regional Official Plan: lands designated Living Area may be used for housing purposes in addition tO other compatible uses; the proposal appears to conform; Whites Road is designated as a ~79e .4 Arterial Road and as a Tr~msi[ Spine; Sheppard Avenue is desi~o2ated as a T)12e CArterial Road; Pickering Official Plan the subject lands are designated as follows in the Pickenng Official Plan: · Mixed Use Areas: Mixed Corridor along the Whites Road frontage: · Urban Residential Areas: £ow Densio' ~4reas along the Sheppard Avenue frontage~ and, · UYban Residential Areas: Medium Densitv.4reas in the interior: section 14.2 (g) of the Official Plan requires that where a single parcel of land is governed by two or more separate land use designations, the policies of each of the respective designations shall apply; - the Mixed Corridor designation permits residential uses at a net residential density of over 30 and up to and including 140 dwellings per hectare; in addition, retail, office, restaurants, community, cultural and recreational uses at a scale and intensity serving the broader area, and special purpose commercial uses, may be permitted; - about 0.3 of a hectare lies within this designation with 22 units proposed: thus, the residential density is calculated at 73 units per net hectare; the residential density lies within the allowable range for this designation; the Low Density Residential designation pem~its residential uses at a net residential density of up to and including 30 dwelling units per hectare; in addition, 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, may be permitted; about 0.4 of a hectare lies within this designation with 28 units proposed; thus, the residential density is calculated at 70 units per net hectare; the residential density exceeds the allowable range for this designation; an amendment to the Official Plan to change the designation from Low to Medium Density Residential is required; a copy of the proposed amendment is provided as Appendix I to this Infbrmation Report; the Medium Density Residential designation permits the same uses as the Low Density Residential, except residential uses are permitted at a net residential density of over 30 and up to and including 80 dwelling units per hectare; about 1.1 of a hectare lies within this designation with 47 .units proposed; thus, the residential density is calculated at 42 units per net hectare; the residential density lies within the allowable range for this designation; Information Report No. 16-01 Page 3 if the Low Density lands are redesignated to Medium Density, about 1.5 of a hectare would lie within the desigmation, with -5 units proposed: the residential density would bc calculated at 38 units per net hectare: this residential density would lie within thc allowable range for medium dens,tv: il`all lands are included, this apphcauon proposes rcstdcntial uses at an overall residcnual density ot'53 dwelling umts per net hectare: Map 1© of' tile Picketing Orificial Plan identifies the subject lands as i.ving within the \Voodlands Neighbourhood: ffzr-ther. Nlap l0 identifies tile subject lands as lying within a Dcu~i/ed Rovzc~ :tt'c~;: section il.2 of tile Of`ficial Plan indicates that Council may adopt development guidelines For any part of a Detailed Review Area; Council shall endeavour to complete a detailed review prior to approving major development within thc area: Council has adopted thc .Vordw~sr Ouadraut Develo£motz (5z,dcli~ze~,. which affect tiao sub.lect lands: once Council has adopted development guidelines, development shall comply with them: section l l.S fa) of the O1`ficial Plan indicates that Council shall, in established residential areas along Sheppard Ax enue. cncouraue and where possible, require new development to be coinpatiblo with fine character ori existing development; further, the policies restrict tho nmxmTum oxcrall net site density tbr residential development in tt~e lands ?xcmcd bx tho Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines to 35 units per net hectare: tine CU~TCUt residential density within the area covered by the Northeast Quadrant Guidelines i< approximately 8.5 units per hectare: with thc proposed development, thc net dcnsltx over tiqc entire Northeast Quadrant would be approximately 21.5 units per hectare: betxvccn Kingston Road and Whites Road: Dcha Boulcx ard is fine start et'this road: its continuation west would run along thc south portion of` thc subject lands: a proposed A'ezg/~bozo'hood Par2' is identified generally in thc interior o1` thc Northeast Quadrant; section 10.5 of the Picketing Official Plan identifies that Council shall promote the retention of watercourses and stream comdors in an open and natural state and require, where appropriate, the recommendations of an Environmental Report to be implemented; however, section 10.6 of the Picketing Plan states that Council shall consider alterations or enclosures of limited portions oi-watercourses within existin~ urbanized areas if supported by an approved subxvatershed plan or environmental master servicing plan; in addition, section lC). 19 o1` the Official Plan states that Council may permit alterations to watercourses or stream corridors, including thc placement of fill, only following the appropriate approvals of` tine relexant conservation authority and the Ministry of Natural Resources. i1` necessary: further, Schedule III -- Resource Management o1` thc Of`ficial Plan designates the valley of the creek tributary as 5horeh~c ~;~d 5'~'e~.~ (',~v'zdor~s': among other matters, this desi~ation may permit new development in accordance with tine land use designation on Schedule I. ~x~hich as noted above is Nlcdium and I_ox~ Residential), subject to the recommendations of` an Enx ~ronmental Rcpom sections 1.5.9. t5.11 and Appendix II indicate that Council shall 1bt major development, and may for minor development, require tile submission of an Environmental Report. as part of tile consideration of an application on lands designated Shoreline and Stream Corridor: Schedule II- Transportation Network designates Whites Road as a 7~7~e ,4 Arterial, and a Trattsit S£i~ze; T.,,T)e A Arterials are designed to carry large volumes of`traffic at moderate and high speeds, within the municipality: they have access restrictions, and generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 36 to 50 metres: Information Report No. 16-01 ATTASHUErCT ~' 7 TO REPORT ~t PD ~/-/-D ~ Page 4 3.4 3.3 4.0 4.1 Schedule Ii also designates Sheppard Avenue as a F)7;e C Arterial; Type C Arterials are designed to carry lower volumes of traffic, provide access to properties, and generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 26 to 30 metres: however. section 11.8 (e) of the Picketing Plan indicates that Council shall accommodate future improvements to Sheppard Avenue within the existing 20 metre road allowance. except at intersections where additional road allowance width max' be needed; Compendium Document to the Pickering Official Plan as noted above, the subject lands fall within the detailed review area that is subject to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines; the Northeast Quadrant is the block of land bounded generally on the south by Kingston Road, on the west by Whites Road, on the north by Sheppard Avenue, and on the east by the main branch of the Amberlea Creek (east of the Dunbarton School site); the small tributary of Amberlea Creek that passes through the eastern part of the subject lands, continues southwards to Kingston Road, and then under Kingston Road and through the Picketing Holdings property (located east of Boyer Pontiac); Council has adopted the Northeast Quadrant Develo£ment Guidcl,~cs. for these lands; in addition, two parcels on the ',','est side of Whites Road. south of Dunfair Street, are also governed by the same Guidelines: the Northeast Quadrant Guidelines contemplate a high intensity mixed-use development, with substantial under~ound parking; the vision is centred around an internal residential area fronting on a public 'ring' road with an interior linear park; in addition, commercial and office uses, with office and office-support uses, are permitted along the Kingston Road and Whites Road frontages respectively; for the subject lands, the Northeast Quadrant Guidelines identifv: · the intent to ensure that new residential development close to the existing residences has little visual impact from Sheppard Avenue; · the new residential zone provide a buffer and transition between the existing residential community on Sheppard Avenue and the commercial component of new development; and · residential uses in buildings with building heights not to exceed 14 metres were anticipated on the southern part of the subject lands; more specifically for the subject lands, the concept plan from the Guidelines shows: · a 2,660 square metre, 2-storey office / office-support building on Whites Road; · 33 residential dwellings in the form of 4-storey structures, adjacent to the new internal public road; and · detached dwellings on Sheppard Avenue; an amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines is required; Zoning By-law 3036 the subject lands are currently zoned R3 - One Family Detached-Third DensiO, Zone; the R3 zone permits detached dwellings on lots with minimum street frontages of 18 metres and minimum lot areas of 550 square metres. an amendment to Zoning By-law 3036 is required. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION (see Attachments #4 - #6) Resident Comments Vivian VandenHazel - is opposed to the proposed density increase along the Sheppard Avenue frontage as all other homes fronting on Sheppard are detached homes; she also does not support enclosure of the watercourse as it would be environmentally unfriendly to plants and animals; she would prefer the watercourse to be cleaned up and used as a park (see Attachment #4); ' information Report No. 16-01 4.2 SyMa Spencer (verbal commentst is concerned with the grades at the south-east comer of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue: would prefer to see no more than 8 houses along the Sheppard Avenue fronta~,e' questions x~ hether home businesses are pemdtted. and if so. states that adequate parking sinould be provided: is concerned with the steep gTades along Sheppard Avenue and suggests tile access be mo~ed further to the east: A_5_g e ncv Comments Durham District Sdnool Board has no oblccuons to the proposal tsee ,Attachment #5); Veridian Connections advises that the applicant must meet numerous requirements and specifications respecting electrical se~'icing of tlnis property and pay certain deposits and fees tsee .x. ttachment =0 I: 4.3 4.3.1 Staff Comments Residential Uses thc proposal to change tile use of these lands from a mix of of~]ce and residential as originally envisioned by the Northeast Quadrant Guidelines. to only residential, must be rcviexved: to-date, there has been little success in achievin~ thc internal residential area as originally envisaged: thus. rclbcusinc of the residential to Sheppard Avenue may be an appropriate ahcmatix c to explore: the proposed housing IbmL layout, design, and intensity of development must be reviexved in ligtnt of urban design obioctixos, tra~'I~c :md access considerations. environmental considerations, and thc CotTqllltlllitv COIltCXL: specifically, the appropriateness of chanzinz thc dcsiznauon of tine lands fronting on Sheppard Avenue from Low to Nledium Dens,tx residential must be ex aluatcd: fine approphate perfomaance standards, restrictions, and provisions I;DF thc residential uses must be established: 4.3.2 Amberlea Creek and Stonmvater ?,lana~emcnt the appropriateness of piping tile tributarx of .Ambertea Creek must be reviewed; it is noted that the tributary is piped all upstream of Stneppard Avenue. and portions of the tributao,' are piped doxvnstream under Higtnx~ax' 4~/1. and the CN Rail: some downstream reaches of the Creek arc experiencing stream and valley erosion; the location of the ren'mant reaches of the open channel on the subject lands, and on the lands to the south, frustrates thc land use and urban design objectives contemplated for these lands; accordingly, there appears to be some merit in considenng piping of these remnant pieces of the watercourse; however, an appropriate Environmental Report is required to support the request; the report must examine the impacts to tile tributary both upstream and downstream, and justify the benefit of piping the creek: from an environmental perspective, it is anticipated that an,,' justification v, ould be required to demonstrate how the implementation plan xvould result ira a net benefit to the watershed: to-date, no report has been submitted bv tile applicant: ultimately, any application to pipe the creek would be required to receive appropriate approvals and permits, rbr fill and alteration to a xxatcrcoursc, from thc Toronto and Region Conservation Autinontv. and tine Federal Dcpartnlent of Fisheries. and possibly the Ministu' of Natural Resources ~ iTere required: however, there is also an interest by the owners of' lands located to the south of the subject lands, between the subject lands and Kingston Road, and those south of Kingston Road, to pipe the tributary of .&mberlea Creek through their lands: accordingly, there is an opportunity for all landoxvncrs to undertake a single stud,.': tile City is one of these landowners; Information Report No. 16-01 -ATTACHMENT ~.-.~._~TO REPORT # PD_~ '¢ ~ Page 6 in addition, the City is currently undertaking a review of the do~vnstream reach of Amberlea Creek which is experiencing the erosion problems; work associated with this mitigation/restoration project appears to duplicate much of the effort required for the piping justification; a collaborative effort between the Citv and the other affected landowners xvould appear to be the most strategic approach to completing the required report; further discussion is required on hoxv an appropriate Environmental Report is best completed; opportunities for collaboration are currently being explored through a proposed review of the Northeast Quadrant lands in conjunction with lands south of Kingston Road (see section 4.3.4 below); regardless of whether the tributary is ultimately piped, stormwater management must be addressed for these lands; storm sewers installed under Delta Boulevard have been sized to accommodate flows from the Marion Hill lands; however, it is not clear whether piping of the creek would change any of the earlier assumptions for stormwater management; Review of the "Northeast Quadrant" Lands in addition to this application, the City has received other development applications for lands within the Northeast Quadrant, requesting revisions to the ©uidelines: these changes relate to the arrangement of uses, design matters, provision ot' the park, provision of the internal ring road, and access to the external road network: in addition, the City is aware of other development interest for lands in the Quadrant: furthern~ore, the owners of land, through which the tributary of Amberlea Creek flows, are interested in piping the creek; although the City has had some successes in implementing the vision set out in the Northeast Quadrant Guidelines, there are some on-going challenges: these challenges include the interest in primarily commercial development adjacent to Kingston Road, the cost of and lack of interest in underground parking, the difficulty in implementing the internal public road, and the location of the tributary through the block; in an effort to be more proactive in working with development interests, the City is considering a review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines: although the process, tasks and funding are still under discussion, preliminary work done to date suggests that the review would look at: · revisions to the arrangement of land uses, while maintaining key urban design objectives and having regard to the community context; · the internal access network through the block, and external access to and from the surrounding streets; and · the potential for piping the Amberlea Creek tributary. based on a preliminary study design, it is anticipated that staff would work closely with landowners on finding common ground between their interests and the City's; but, it is suggested at this time that a new approach, using a consultant who is a facilitator with urban design expertise, or an urban designer with expertise in facilitation, may best accomplish this task in a timely manner; additional consulting help would also be required in two technical areas not currently available on staff; consultants would be required to complete a traffic/access analysis, and the environmental /engineering report for the piping of the tributary; the consultants' work would provide input into, and support, any revisions to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines; based on a preliminary study design, it is also anticipated that staff would work closely with the community to understand issues and concerns so that neighbourhood development continues to achieve an appropriate fit; Inibrmation Report No. 16-0t A'r'TACHVE~T Page 7 ] g g 4.3.4 4.3.5 5.0 5.1 5.2 the representative for the Marion Hill lands has indicated at a preliminary level that his client is interested in participating in tine review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, including the related environmental and traffic access studies; should a review of Norti:easl Quadrant Development Guidelines proceed, recommendations on the officia! plan and zonin!: bx-lax~ amendment applications amendment applications x~ ould axx a~t tiao outcome of that process: L'rban Design discussions have been held bctxxeen tile applicant and Planning & Development staff about the nature oi' development that may be appropriate on the south-cast comer of Whites Road and Sheppard Axenue: while staff recognize that there may be merit in the removal of the office commercial uses from the land fronting onto Whites Road. enclosure of the watercourse, surface parking, and provision off traffic access to the subject lands without connection to Delta Boulcx ard. no comnaitmcnts were g~x Ch: a number of design clements of dcxelopmcnt of tho subiect lands will requn'c careful consideration: issues for rex iow x~ll ~nclud?: the proposed stacked and street townhoufc fomx5: the proposed hci,,ht= for the pr-ope<cd. ~ *ox~. nhouscs I~ontin°= onto Sheppard Avenue and Whites Road: the grade differences bctxx cctq WiTitcs Road and thc nonh-xvcst comer of the site: thc proposed intensity ofdexciopmcnt: the adequacy, a~angcmcnt and number of parking areas tbr the proposed development: pedestrian access to, and throtl~h, t}qc s~bicct lands: the location and design of thc proposed ]incaF amenity space opposite Delta Boulevard: and thc locations of traffic access points and turning movements bctxxecn the subject lands and Whites Road and Sheppard Ax enue: Other Matters following approval of anx official plan and zoning amendment, site plan approval and a draft plan of condominium application w~ll be required. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Official Plan Amendment Ap_proval Authority - the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional approval if such applications are determined to be locally significant, and do not exhibit matters of RegionaI and or Provincial interest: - at this time, the Region has not vet dctemxined x~hethcr this official plan amendment application is exempt from Regional Approval: General written comments regarding this proposal should bc directed to tine Planning & Development Department: oral comments may be made at the Public Intbm:ation Meeting: all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department ~br a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; if you wish to rese~'e the option to appeal CounciI's decision, you must provide comments to the City betbre Council adopts any bv-lax~ ibr this proposal: if you wish to be notified of Council's adoption of any oflfcial plan amendment, or passing of any zoning bv-laxv amendment, you must request such in xxriting to fine City Clerk; Information Report No. 16-01 /~TTACHU,~h~T =~--__7._~ TO Page 8 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 if you wish to be notified of the decision of the Region of Durham with respect to the proposed amendment to the official plan, you must make a written request to the Commissioner of Planning, Region of Durham Planning Department. OTHER INFORMATION A_~_pendix I copy of the proposed Picketing Official Plan Amendment; A_~zpen dix II those whose comments on the proposal were received at time of v,'riting are listed: Company Principal - Mr. Ian Matthews is the President of Marion Hill Development Corporation; Mr. Vincent Santamaura of Cassidy and Co. is representing Marion Hill. SG/jF Copy: ORIGINAL SIG~ ~,~ Steve Gaunt, MCIP. RPP Planner 2 Director, Planning 8,: Development ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Catherine L. Rose Manager. Policy REPORT ~ PD~ APPENDIX I TO INFORMATION ~PORT NO. 1~01 PROPOSED AS1ENDSIENT TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN ATTACH~,ENT #_ '7 TO RFPO~I J' PD ~'~ ~co 2__ PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: LOCATION: PROPOSED AMENDMENT: IMPLEMENTATION: INTERPRETATION: The purpose of this amendment is to permit an increase in the net residential density permitted on a portion ot' the subject lands to a maximum of 80 units per hectare. The Plan currently establishes a residential density maximum of 30 units per hectare for lands desigmated "Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area". The subject lands are approximately 0.3 ora hectare in size, and located on the south side of Sheppard Avenue, east of Whites Road. All of the lands fall within Part Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C. The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: Replace the "Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area" with an "Urban Residential Area - Medium Density Area" designation on Schedule I - the Land Use Structure map of the Picketing Official Plan, as shown on Schedule 'A' attached hereto. The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. The provisions set forth in the City of Picketing Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. sxg/dobbin/Opa AT'FACHI~ENT #____~ ,TO REPORT ~' PD o2~- o 2-- 2n3 APPENDIX II TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 10--01 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOX~NERS 1) VivianVandenHazel. l-f-Faiq, omRoad. Pickcring. ON L]V lTl Svlxia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Avenue. Picketing. ON L 1V t G4 COMMENTING AGENCIES (2) The Durham District School Board Veridian Connections COMMENTING CIT~' DEPARTMENTS (1) Planmng & Development Excerpts of Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes of Thursday, May 17, 2001 STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, May 17, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The Manager, Policy Division, provided an overviexv of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration thereat. o o PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA 01-002P ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 04/01 MARION HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PART OF LOT 28, RANGE 3, B.F.C. (NOW PART 1, PLAN 40R-14431 & PART 1, PLAN 40R-2767) t~SOUTH-EAST CORNER OF ~VHITES ROAD AND SHEPPARI) AVENUE) Steve Gaunt, Planner II, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report # 16-01. lan Santamaura, representing the applicant, advised that they have been working with staff for approximately two years on development for this area. An appropriate type of building form for this site could make the transition between Kingston Road and residential to the north. Four storey stacked townhouses are proposed along Whites Road and three storey units in three separate blocks with walkways are proposed along Sheppard Ave. The site includes an internal park, 219 parking spaces and a walkway from Sheppard Ave. to Delta Blvd. Irene McNamara, 752 Sheppard Ave., stated her concerns with respect to increased traffic along Sheppard Ave., style of homes, impact on busing and impact on existing residents. She questioned whether or not Sheppard Ave. is to be widened, how this development will impact the prices of the area homes and what school will these children be bused to when all schools in the area are overcrowded. A resident at 738 Sheppard Ave., advised of his opposition to this development and stated his concern with respect to schools, parking and traffic. Gregory Flavell, 734 Sheppard Ave., stated his concern with overcrowding of schools, small children's attraction to the neighbouring train tracks and looking into another community. He questioned why the density is being doubled in the area. Bill Sornberger, 750 Sheppard Ave., commented on his concern that traffic from this development will exit onto Sheppard Ave. which will create incredible traffic increase. He further stated his concern with overcrowding of schools and the negative impact on the present community. ATTACHMENT #..~_~TO F,~.PORT # RD ~ ~ -~, ~2_ '7. SyMa Spencer, 771 Sheppard Ave., advised that she will be forwarding her comments to the City in writing. She questioned what percentage of this development is government required. John McNamara, 752 Sheppard Ave., questioned Councillor Rvan on the actions he will be taking to stop this application. Paul White, 507 (71i£1X'iexv Road. advised of the di~-t~cuhv in understanding all the corrections previously advised by staff. He requested that conceptual drawings be provided and that a complete Environmental Assessment be undertaken. He stated his concerns with respect to traffic increase, overcrowding of schools and the increase in density. 10. John Ftavell, 734 Sheppard Ave., stated his surprise that the proposed road will be going to Sheppard Ave. rather than Kingston Road. He advised of his interest in speaking with tiao applicant. 11. Ian Santamaura, representing the applicant, advised that the OP Amendment deals with only .4 hectare of propert>, e~erxxhing else z'alls c~nder ©P requirements. The proposal is for four storey buildings on \\'hi,es Road and three storeys on Sheppard Ave. Trafiic will haxo to t0c rev~extod and access onto \Vhites Road will be looked at in detail..No ?venmaent t~ousing is required atld tho quality and architecture of this development will be m~rrorcd to tiao area. 734 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED RECEIVE MAY 2 4 2001 OITY OF DEPARTMENT May 19, 2001 Catherine L. Rose, Policy Manager Planning and Development Department City of Pickering One the Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 RECEIVE, HAY 2 4 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Catherine Rose: Re: Pickering Official Plan Amendment CPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Marion Hill Development Corp. Part Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C. (Now Part 1, Plan 40R-14431 & Part 1, Plan 40R-2767) (South-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue) City of Picketing To confirm our verbal comments at the public meeting on May 17th, 2001, involving the subject applications, we wish to express that various development and design issues must be resolved, prior to the consideration of the approval of the proposed applications. The subject proposal must address two key issues, involving 734 Kingston Road Limited, as follows: Cost Sharing 'Obligations The cost sharing obligations of the applicant in respect to the oversiz, ng of services and the construction of Delta Blvd, must the resolved. As per previous correspondence involving this matter, the City of Pickering acknowledged that these costs will be addressed during future planning applications. Cost calculations had been undertaken by Durmuid Horgan, Candevcon Engineering Limited. We are currently reviewing these costs and will be providing this information in the near future, in order to conclude this matter. 650 Lakeridge Road, Ajax, Ontario, LIS 4S7 Tel: (416)-410-0778 Fax: (416).410-0778 ~TTACHM~IT ~~TO ~E~ORT I~ PD~~ Design Impacts - Street 'B' In accordance to the development agreement executed between the City of Picketing and 734 Kingston Road Limited, the lands transferred to the Cit.,,' for st~t 'B' are to be returned to 734 Kingston Road Limited, if street 'B' is not constructed. Based on this proposal, Street 'B' is eliminated. As a result, discussions need to occur regarding the design of the subject proposal to ensure the long term planning of the "street B lands". It is suggested that the design be altered to accommodate further residenti'A uniLs, thereby creatino the most efi2cicnt and practical use of these lands. To address these comments, it is encouraged that meenngs be held, in the immediate future, with the applicant, City of Picketing staff and 734 Kingston Road Limited. Yours truly, /Road Limited cc. Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP, Planner 2j ATTACHMENT #..___.~ ~TO REPORT # 734 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED March 21, 2002 City of Pickering Planning and Development Department One the Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Arm: Catherine L. Rose, Policy Manager Dear Sirs: Re: Northeast Quadrant Study Area 734 Kingston Road - Recovery of Costs As per our previous discussions we believe that other surrounding land owners in the Northeast Quadrant Study Area should be contributing towards the costs of the road and services that we had installed, as a result of the City's insistence, through our property. Provision of this road was a significant cost to us in both dollars and in forgone'revenue as a result of reduced land. Attached is a detailed schedule indicating total cost incurred and a reasonable apportionment of these costs in order to determine the amount to be recovered. Yours Pe erzet cc. Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP, Planner 2 650 Lakeridge Road, Ajax, Ontario, LIS 4S7 Tel: (416)-410-0778 Fax: (416)-410-0778 734 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED HAND DELIVERED March 21, 2002 City of Picketing Planning and Development Department One the Esplanade Picketing, ON L1V 6K7 Attn: Catherine L. Rose, Policy Mana~2er ii ,;:' '}',-Iii'?" CIT'Y OF PiC:h,,-:R!NG :'J ,:,',V,,L; ; i,: F:! 5i-','?!~; ~ z:_[.,[ . !: - Dear Sirs: Re: Parts 25 and 30, Plan 40R-18371, Development Agreement Dated February 15, 1999 between 734 Kingston Road Limited and the Cit~' of Picketing It is our understanding that the adjoining lands to the north of our property have submitted a plan for development and that said plan does not use Parts 25 and 30 for a road. Parts 25 and 30 were conveyed to the City by us pursuant to the above referenced Development Agreement in order to comply with the Northeast Quadrant Study. As it is apparent that road contemplated by the Study is no longer required we are requesting that the City reconvey these lands to us at your earliest convenience. If you require any additional information please contact the undersigned. //Y~,ys ~; y, d Limited cc. Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP, Plam~er 2 650 Lakeridge Road, Ajax, Ontario, LIS 457 Tel: (416)-410-0778 Fax: (416)-410-0778 ATTACH~,.',EN'r # ~.___~TO REPORT # pD....~,~..~-o 2_ 734 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED August 2, 2001 Neil Carrol City of Picketing Planning & Development Dept. One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario LI V 6K7 Dear Sir: Re: 734 Kingston Road - Itemized Costs to Construct Delta Blvd.(including oversizing). As requested by Cathering Rose the foil. owing are the itemized costs for the construction of Delta Boulevard which include oversizing and servicing extensions to accommodate the Iands to the north. Hydro $148,000 Road 326,000 Traffic Lights 56,000 Consultants 40,000 Overruns 45,000 Land 325 000 $940,000 We are available to attend a meeting with all parties involved to discuss cost sharing in more detail. Yours truly, ?.34 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED Per: Larry Macdonell Project Manager 650 Lakeridge ~ Ajax, Ontario, L15 457 Tel: (416)-410-0778 Fax: (416)-410-0778 flTTACHI/,ENT ~. _TO E?o~'r ~' PD ~ V -o 2_ __ 2tl Land Planning Surveying Servicing Engineer Engineering Admin Municipal Engineering Soil engineering Hydro Cleadng Tree removal Road Contract Storm Sewers Sanitary & Water Roads & Curbs Sidewalks Other Traffic Lights Kingston Road Median 734 Kingston Road Limited Road Costs to be Recovered Applicable Total to Road 650,000 650,000 4,462 1,116 9,787 2,447 33,225 33,225 19,157 19,157 6,951 6,951 5,514 5,514 125,732 125,732 80,875 20,219 6,170 1,543 Our Share 325,000 558 I ,223 16,613 9,579 3,476 2,757 80,000 10,109 771 To Be Recovered 325,000 558 1,223 16,613 9,579 3,476 2,757 45,732 10,109 771 56,818 56,818 28,409 28,409 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 1,384,954 1,308,984 610,994 697,989 139,615 139,615 22,400 117,215 67,014 67,014 35,000 32,014 124,657 124,657 62,000 62,657 40,684 40,684 5,900 34,784 4,293 4,293 2,200 2,093 212 ,¢TTACHMENT #~TO REPORT # VIA FAX: 905-420-9685 Mr. Steve Gaunt, Planner 2 Planning and Development Department City of Picketing One the Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 8th Floor 277 Front Street West Toronto, Ontario MSV 2X7 17 May 2001 Your File: OPA 01-002/P A 04/01 Our File: TZ-qS00-P-02 Dear Fir, Gaunt: Re: Proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment P~rt Lot 28, Range 3, Broken Foot Concession, City of Picketing Southeast corner of Whites Road and Shep_pard Avenue We have reviewed your letter dated 26 April 2001, regarding the above rioted application and have the following comments: The Owner is required to insert the following warning clause in all development agreements, offers to purchase, agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease and include in a Noise impact Statement: "Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest has or have a right-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the rail facilities on such right-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of an,/ noise and vibratio'n attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNR will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid right-of-way." The Owner is required to engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and provide abatement measures necessary to achieve the maximum level limits set by the Ministry of Environment and Canadian National. We would appreciate the opportunity to comment on any proposed modification prior ils adoption, and ultimately, we request notice of the Amendment being approved. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (q16) 217-6961. Yours truly, Geo-ff Woods Development Review Coordinator RECEIVED MAY 1 8 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT May 29, 2001 Ms. Celeste Terry Planning Department The Regional Municipalib' of Durham 1615 Dundas Street East 4th Floor Lang Tower, West Building P.O. Box 623 Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 Dear Ms. Terry: Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A04/01 and Application to Amend the City of Pickering Official Plan OPA 01-002/P Part of Lot 28, B F C Range 3 South-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue City of Picketing (MariOn Hill Development Corporation) We acknowledge receipt of the above-noted applications and offer the following comments. It is our understanding that the purpose of this applicatlon is to permit an increase in the maximum net residential density permitted on the subject lands, with the future intent of constructing 97 stacked and street townhouse dwellings. A review of the subject property reveals that a portion of the subject property falls within TRCA draft fill extension lines, and that a tributary of Amberose Creek that flows into Frenchman's Bay traverses the property. Therefore the proper~y is subject to Ontario Regulation 158, the Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP). The VSCMP sets out development guidelines for prope,qies affected by valley and stream corridors. Its goal is to prevent development that could cause an increase in risk to life and property through flooding, erosion and slope instability. The lira',ts of development are determined to be a minimum of 10 metres in!and from the stable top of bank and/or a minimum of 10 metres inland from the Regional Storm FIoodpla;n, whichever is greater. Note that the limits of the floodplain and valley corridor have not been defined in the field for this property, and may be required. Once the valley corridor/floodplain boundary is defined, we wil! require that these lands be formally recognized and protected. The valley corridor lands (inciuding the 10 metre buffer) should be zoned to prohibit development and/or any alterations. They should be placed/remain in an "Open Space -Hazard Land" zoning, or equivalent which has the affect of prohibiting structural encroachments, the placement of fill, or the removal of vegetation, except for the purposes of flood or erosion control, or resource management. The VSCMP policies also identify valley corridors (including the 10 metre buffer) as lands suitable to be placed in public ownership in order to minimize the associated hazards and ensure the long term protection of the natural feature. As an element of this application, we would tike to highlight the opportunity to transfer the valley portion of the subject lands to public ownershlp to the landowner. Healthy £ivers · Biodit'er~ihr'~ ., and O'r~e:?space · Education tbr Sustainab~,~? 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 F~,,~, 661-6898 v,v.v, trcaon.ca '714 ATTACHMEI~T# z/' TO ~,2~OR-r # PD ,~ '?- ~ :2. Ms. Celeste Terry May 29, 2001 In addition note that as the property is regulated under Ontario Regulation 158, a permit is required from the Authority prior to any of the following works taking place: a) construct any building or structure or permit any building or structure to be constructed in a pond or swamp or in any area susceptible to flooding during a regional storm; b) place or dump fill or permit fill to be placed or dumped in the areas described in the schedules whether such fill is already located in or upon such area, or brought to or on such area from some other place or places; c) straighten, change, divert or interfere in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse. In addition, if development were to take place, staff are concerned that, unless proper stormwater management techniques and erosion and sedimentation control measures are employed on site both during and after construction, negative impacts to downstream areas could result. Stormwater leaving the site will require 'treatment', both before and after development. 'Treatment' refers to providing some form (or forms) of water quantity attenuation and quality abatement usually accomplished by allowing stormwater run-off to infiltrate into the ground or through temporary stormwater detention or retention that would allow some settling of suspended solids and associated contaminants, prior to releaSe. In light of the above, we do not support this application at this time. We require that the limits of the natural feature be defined and appropriately zoned and protected before we could support this application. If you have any questions, please contact Patti Young at extension 5324 or the undersigned. Yours truly, ~Russel White Plans Analyst Development Services Section Ext. 5306 PY/fa cc: Steve Gaunt, City of Pickering F,E?3R7 ~ PD~ 215 DELIVERY PLANNING '860 MIDLAND AVE 2ND FL. SCARBOROUGHON M1P SA1 (416)285-5385 (T) (416)285-7624 (F) June 1, 2001 Steve Gaunt Planning & Development City of Picketing 1 The Esplanade Pickering On L1V 6K7 JUN - 5 200'1 CITY OF PICKERING D-:VF'LOPMENT C E p,.t.~,TM~ t,T RE: P1CKERING OFFICIAl. PLAN AMENI)MENT OP.& 01-002P ZONING BY-LAX3,' AMENDNIENT APPI.ICAT1ON .\ 04 01 MARION IlILL DEVELOPMENT CORP. PART LOf 28, RANGE 3, B.F.C. (no~' PART 1, PLAN 40R-14431 & PARI 1, PLAN 40R-2767) (SOUTIt-EASI CORNER OF VVItlIES RI) AND SttEPPARI) AVE) CITY OF PICKERING Dear Mr. Gaunt, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above noted application. Please note our new conditions below'. As a condition of draft approval, Canada Post requires that thc owner developer comply with the tbllowing conditions: - The owner,developer agrees to include on all off'ers of purchase and sale, a statement which advises the prospective purchaser that mail delivery will be from a designated Community Mailbox. - The owner/developer will be responsible £or noti~'in~ thc purchaser of the exact Community Mailbox locations prior to the closing of any home sale. - The owner, developer will consult with Canada Post Corporation to determine suitable locations for the placement of Community Mailbox and to indicate these locations on the appropriate servicing plans. REPURI ~ PD ~ 5' - e -2- The owner/developer will provide the following for each Community Mailbox site and include these requirements on the appropriate servicing plans: - An appropriately sized sidewalk section (concrete pad) as per municipal standards, to place the Community Mailboxes on. - Any required walkway across the boulevard, as per municipal standards. - Any required curb depressions for wheelchair access. The owner/developer further agrees to determine and provide a suitable temporary Community Mailbox location(s), which may be utilized by Canada Post until the curbs, sidewalks and final grading have been completed at the permanent Community Mailbox locations. This will enable Canada Post to provide mail delivery to new residence as soon as the homes are occupied. I trust that this information is sufficient, however, should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me the above number or mailing address. Sincerely, Debbie Greenwood Delivery Planner a:utildraw.sam R~?OR7 # PD ~.~ ,iF- ~ Bell Righn of Way Fi 5 - 100 Borough Drive Scarborough, Ontario M1P 4W2 Tel: 416 296-6291 Fax: 416 296-0520 June 12, 2001 City of Picketing Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 ATTENTION: Steve Gaunt RE: Official Plan Amendment File No: OPA 01-002/P South-east corner of Whites Road and She~ard Avenue Part Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C. Marion Hill Development Town of Pickering Thank you for your letter of April 2~, 200~ concerning 5he above official plan. Please be advised: 1 - Bell Canada shall confirm that satisfactory arrangements, financial and otherwise, have been made with Bell Canada for any Bell Canada facilities which are required by the Municipality to be installed underground; a copy of such confirmation shall be forwarded to 5he Munlcipality. 2 - The Owner shall be requested to enter into an agreement (Letter of understanding) with Bell Canada complying with any undergzound se~icing conditions i.~osed bi' ~he municipality and if no such conditions are imposed, the owner shall advise the municipality of 5he arrangemen5 made for such servicing. If there are any conflicts wiuh existing Bell Canada facilities or easements, the Owner/Developer sba~ be responsible for re- arrangements or relocation. If you have any questions, please contac5: 905-433-3066. Heanher Riven a5 Yours truly, Manager - Right of Way ATTACHMENT ~., / ~ TO REPORT I PD ,,~ The Regional Municipality of Durham April 29, 2002 Mr. Steve Gaunt Planner City of Pickering Planning and Development Department Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Gaunt: RECEIVED CITY OF PICKERING DEVELOPfJENT D~ pARTMEN f Planning Department Re: 1615 DUNDAS ST. E. 4TH FLOOR, LANG TOWER WEST BUILDING PO. BOX 623 WHITBY, ON L1N 6A3 (905) 728-7731 FAX: (905) 436-6612 www.region.durham.on~ca A.L. Geor§ieff, MClP, RPP Region's Review of an Application to Amend the City of Pickering Official Plan File No. OPA 01-002/P; and, Rezoning Application A-04/01 Applicant: Marion Hill Development Corporation Location: Part Lot 28, Range 3; B.F.C. South-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue Municipality: City of Pickering Commissioner of Planning Thi's application has been reviewed by the Region and the following comments are offered with respect to compliance with the Regional Official Plan, delegated provincial plan review responsibilities and the proposed method of servicing. The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment application is to amend the City of Pickering Official Plan by re-designating a portion of the subject lands from "Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area" to "Urban Residential Area - Medium Density Area". The applicant also seeks to amend the City of Pickering Zoning By-law by rezoning the subject lands from "R3 -One Family Detached Third Density Zone" to a specific designation.. These amendments would facilitate the development of 97 stacked townhouse and street townhouse dwellings. ' The subject site is designated "Living Area" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. One of the goals of the Living Area is to establish suitable areas for the provision of a full range of housing which will be developed in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Living Areas shall be used predominantly for housing purposes. The policies of the Durham Plan would support the proposed development. The application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial plan review responsibilities. The subject lands have been assessed as having a high archaeological potential due the proximity of a watercourse (Amberlea Creek). An archaeological assessment will be required. The subjec[ lands are also adjacent to both Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue. Whites Road is designated as a Type "A" Arterial Road and Sheppard Avenue is designated as a Type "C" Arterial Road in the Durham Official Plan. There is potential for noise impacts from vehicular traffic. In addition, the subject lands are also in close proximity to the Canadian National Railway (within 300 metres). A noise report will need to be submitted by an acoustical consultant which will summarise any noise attenuation requirements in aocOrdance with the Ministry of the Environment Noise Guidelines. "'SERVICE EXCELLENCE for ottr COMMUNITY" (~ 100% Post Consumer ATTACHI.~ENT #_ / ~ ,TO REPORT ~' PD The Region understands that it is the applicant's intention to enclose the portion of Ambedea Creek that flows through the eastern por~on of the subject lands. The limit of the floodplain and valley corridor have not been defined for this property, however, once defined the subject lands should be formally recognised and protected. Some downstream reaches of the creek are currently experiencing stream and valley erosion. The Provincial Policy Statement requires that the Region have regard for Natural Hazards. Proper stormwater management techniques and erosion and sedimentation control measures must be employed in order to avoid any negative impacts that could result to downstream areas. In addition, any proposed development should demonstrate that the ecological functions of the creek will not be adversely affected. The Regional Works Department has indicated that futl water supply and sanitary sewer servicing is available to the subiect lands. Comments regarding transportation issues have also been provided by the Regional Works Department. The Works Department is supportive of the application, however, the Region will only permit a singie controlled direct access to Whites Road for the proposed development. Upon submission of a future site plan, the design of the access and method of physical control will be determined through a detailed geometric design exercise. The final design must satisfy the Region's requirements, and the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the design and construction of the improvements required. This application is considered to have no significant Regional or Provincial concerns. Regional transportation requirements will be addressed through the site plan process. The concerns of the Region as they relate to the stream corridor will be addressed through specific policies in the proposed amendment. Therefore, in accordance with By-law 11-2000, this application is exempt from Regional approval. Once again, it is anticipated that the previously mentioned Provincial and Regional issues will be addressed as part of the amendment application process. Please advise the Commissioner of Planning of your Council's decision. If Council adopts an Amendment, please forward a record to this Department within 15 days of the date of adoption. The record should include the following: · Two (2) copies of the adopted amendment: · A copy of the adopting by-law: and · A copy of the staff report and any relevant materials If you have any questions, please call Lino T¢ombino at this office. Yours truly, Kai Yew,qdanager Plan Implementation Current Operations Branch CC. Steve Mayhew, Development Approvals Division - Regional Works Department Russel White, Development Services Section - TRCA 22O ?I _Ci<'E NG RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/01, submitted by Sean and Ann Rcgan, for 1911 Valley Farm Road, being Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, City of Picketing, to amend the zoning of the subject lands from "RY' to a "SA-I 1" zone, in order to pcrmi! tiao development of five (5) street townhouses on the subject lands, be APPROVED. subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report Number PD 20-02; and That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application 03/'01, as set out in draft in Appendix II to Report Number PD_~0-0~, be ibrwarded to Citv Council for enactment. That the request made by Sean and Ann Regan, to permit the division of the subject lands, 1911 Valley Farm Road, being Part of Lot 20, Concession I, City of Picketing to create a total of five residential building lots through land severance, rather than bv draft plan of subdivision, be APPROVED. REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE: April 19, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: PD20-02 SUB.IECT: Zoning By-law Amendn~cnt :~pplication A ()3 (;2 Senn and Ann Regan 1911 Valley Farm Road Pa~ of Lot 20, Concession 1 City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning Bv-Iav,' Anaendment Application A!)2 (}l. s~zbm~tteci by Sean and Ann Regan, tbr 191 l Valley Farm Road, belnz Part of l_ot 20. Concession 1, City of Picketing, to amend the zoning or'thc subject lands fi'om "R3" to a -SA-11" zone. in order to permit the development of tke ( 5 ) street toxk nhouse~ on thc subJect lands, be APPROVED subject to tine conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report Number PD 20-02: and: That the amending zoning Dx-law to implement Zoi~,ing Bx. -law Amendment Application A 03/01, as set out in draft in Appendix II to Report Number PD 20-02, be tbrwarded to City Council tbr enactment. That the request made bx.' Senn and Ann Regan. to permit the division of the subject lands, 191 I Valley Farm Road, being Part of Lot 21). Concession 1. City (of Picketing to create a total of five residential building lots through land severance, rather than by draft plan of subdivision, be APPROVED. ORiGIN: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 0301 submitted to the City of Pickering. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of thc proposed de\ elopment. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The subject lands are located on the cast side of Valley Farm Road. north of Kingston Road. The subject lands are currently zoned "R-3" by Zoning Bv-laxt 3036 and only permits a detached dwelling. The applicant Inns requested to develop tile subJect lot to support five (5) street townhouse dwelling units. The lands are designated in the Official Plan as Reside~tia/Area - Medium Det~sia'. This designation anticipates that tile land xvill be redeveloped to a density greater than the current use. Report to Council PD 20-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/01 Date: April 19. 2002 Page 2 The Planning 8: Development Department supports the application subject to certain conditions. These conditions will require the development to meet municipal standards and be compatible witln the neighbourhood. The proposed development reflects an appropriate land use and brings the zoning for the subject property into compliance with the Official Plan. It is recommended that Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/02 and that the draft amending zoning by-law set out in Appendix II to Report Number PD 20-02, be forwarded to City Council for enactment. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Information Meetin~ A Public Information meeting for the subject application was held on February 21, 2002. Information Report No. 06-02, which summarizes the applicant's proposal and outlines the issues identified as of the date of writing the report, was prepared for the meeting. No written comments from area residents or circulated agencies had been received as of the date of the writing of the information report. The text of the Information Report is provided for reference (see Attachment #3). At the Public Information Meeting, Planning staff gave an explanation et' thc application. There were several interested ratepayers in attendance at the meeting. Two ratcpayers spoke in opposition to the application and one spoke in support of the application. Minutes of the Public Information Meeting held February 21, 2002 are included as Attachment ¢4. The reasons for opposition to the application is that the immediate neighbourhood is currently all detached dwellings and the proposed townhouse are perceived as an unwarranted intrusion. No written comments have been received from area residents on the subject application. Since the public meeting no additional comments have been received from area residents. 2.0 Additional Information No department or agency that provided comments has any objection to the subject application. Certain technical issues and requirements related to the proposed development have been identified and can be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit, if this application is approved. The list of the comments received is included in the Attachment section of the report. These correspondences form Attachment # 5 to #10 of this report. 3.0 Discussion 3.1 Introduction The subject lands are located on the east side of Valley Farm Road, north of Kingston Road. A property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1). The subject lands currently support a detached dwelling that was constructed in 1953. The property is accessed from Valley Farm Road by a driveway. The subject lot has a lot frontage of 30.4 metres, a lot depth of 57.6 metres and a lot area of 1,686 square metres. The subject property is one of six detached dwellings that front the east side of Valley Farm Road between Kingston Road and Fieldlight Boulevard. Report to Council PD 20-02 S~bject' Zo~aing By-law .4.mendme~t Date: April 19, 2002 Page 3 2?3 3.3 Tile applicatio~a that is bei~g considered is to z'cdevelop thc sub.jeer property to pemnit the aptolica~at's submitted plain is provided Ibr rcI~re~ce l sec .qttaclame~qt ~2). The proposed desigi~ would have all thc L~aits I}-Olqiillg OlqtO X'allex' }:a~q [<cad. The current desig~ has only txvo (2) drivexvavs accessit~g k'allcx FaE~ Road. with t~ [~i'o[3oscd right-ogway across thc lko~qt of all tiao toxxiqtaousc dxxclli~ag u~raits that xx'ill proxide sir'eot access to all the dwelling traits. Thc dxvelli~ag utlit dcsig~q xxill for-oxide cactn u~7it xx ith a garage, and due to existing grades o~ thc propcn>', a xx alk-t~p I'ro~:t door o~n thc seco~nd store>'. The applicam has submitted a~n at'~plicatio~a with tlae Durt~a~a7 Regio~l La,id Division ('o~mittee to create the live i~dix'idual pat'cels atqd t~:~s ~'cctuestcd tl~at thc City permit the proposed lot crcatior~ througtq co~scz~t applicatio~qs. 3.2 Ncighbourhood Character Tile subject prot0ert>' is located ~','ithi~a a~a existiz~ e~qoia~ve of detached dwellings. The]'e a~-e six lots along tlqe eaist side o~' X'allov }:'ar~ Roa~t bctxvcczi Ki]]gstozi Road and Fieldlight Boulevard. .~%11 six of these lots tna%c s~qilar' si~c characteristic to the subject property. To t}~c cast of tJ~is ci~claxc thc la~d has l~c~ dcxclopcd tbr mcditm~ density residential, to ~hc sot~th as co~qqx~qorciatl a~d to linc ~or~h cig soldier's rcsidc~cc. Land o~ the Kingston Road. is dct:icl~ed dx~clli~qgs. This neighbotlvhood is located oz~ tt~e edge of a~2 tit'c~ desigiTa~,tcd ,/)c2~z<2',tvz ('~,/'c' i~q the Pickering OI'iScial Plat~. .~Xs sL~ct7, this a~'ea lq:is beeiq ~tesignated to accommodate redevelopmei~t in thc Pickeri~g Oi'I~cial designations. Thc xisio~ For this az'ca is that ovc~' ti~aqc thc a~'ct~ x~ot~ld be redevcloped ibr residential uses at a higher' density tha~ curre~tlv exists. It is recognized that the curre~:t zoning off the st~i>iect t3rof>et-t.v o~:lx' p~.~xn~:its detached dwellings. However. Zoi~ii~,= BY-Law 3()3(~ t0t-c-dates tiao Pickcriiac~ O~'IScial Ptai~ and as stich the Pickering Official Pla~2 takes t0~'ecede~lce irn detcr-]aqimIng tiao ~>t'cI'crz-ed la~d use visio]2 as established by City Cou~cil. Appropriatexless of the .Applicatio~ The subject application is consiste~lt xvith and ~ gc~erai coiqibtn~aitx to tile Durham Regional OfFicial Pla~ and the City of Pickeri~g OI't]cial Pla~q. The p~'otooscd tact density of the subject site is 31.6 units per hectare wtnicln is at thc lox~oz' ii~nnit oI't17o density range for the Oixen that there is a mix of rcsidc~tiaI t~ses i~ tho i~nq~qcdiatc t~ci<jtnt>ot~t-lnood, the proposed dc~sity is considered compatible a~ld appro}0r~ate ~br tiTc arcti. 'I he [0~'oposed t~se for Iive (5)street tow~qhouses, is con, side,'ed to t0c ~nore i~n li~2o xxittn the Ot'IScial Plan designation than the existi~g detached dxvellitng usc'. The proposal is co~-~side~-ed approtoriate ii1 its locatio~a a~d cotatribu~tes pos t xcl)' recognizing tile land use context az~d the sun'ou~di~ng land uses. T}~e t>z'ol¢osed st]'cct tow]]l~ouses will set a ~'edevelopment tbml lbr' the other pz'opc~-tics ztlc~a~ t)ac ca, st side el' X'alle>' Fan~ Road if the Ct~eZat owners choose to redevelop their prot>erties. Ti~crctb~'c. the desig~a of the toxx ~hoL~ses should displa}' a hi?q ctt~alit5' of LiFe>Cfi1 iliad ar'c}~itectc~ral design. I~q reviexvm~,= this application co~sideratio~7 x~z~,~ ~'ztxe~n to t}Tc co~2~i>eti~q~ i~tercst of the applicator, the immediate ~ci?~bot~rhood aiqd t}qc COI~2IliklIqltx aS a x~holc. ..% balzl~Tccd co~sidcratioiq of the competing i~qte~'ests was co~nsider'cd a~nd it was coiqcluded thc applicatio~a is appropriate, compatible witlq tiao suzq'outncti~lg ia~ad usc. conaplics with thc Ol'IScial Plat~ and x~ otlld not have a dcstabilizi~q~j cI-i'cct o~ the afoot. 2?4 Report to Council PD 20-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/01 Date: April 19, 2002 Page 4 It is recommended that Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/01 as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 20-02. Further, staff recommend that the draft by-law be forwarded to City Council for enactment. Technical Matters The applicant is required to complete a noise impact study to the satisfaction of the City and the Region due to the site's proximity to Kingston Road. The noise study shall demonstrate how the proposal will meet Provincial requirements for both indoor and outdoor noise levels. A siting and architectural design statement is required to be submitted and approved by the City of Pickering. This is to ensure that the resulting development is appropriate, considering its existing surroundings as xvell as setting a high quality standard for future development in the area. One of the building design elements that will be investigated for possible enhancement is the amount of projection of the external front stairs. A complete projection of the external stairs is not considered appropriate. Therefore, staff' will explore with the applicant options to reduce the front stair projection. A 3.5 metre road widening across the entire frontage of the subject property is required. This road widening requirement xvill be addressed in the development agreemem with the City and the land division application. A development a~eement between the City and the owner of the lands will be required to ensure that all matters of interest to the City are protected. This required agreement, and other development implementation matters, are incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for the proposal, found in Appendix 1 to this report. The development agreement will require that the applicant construct appropriate fencing where the subject property abuts the existing low density dwellings in order to mitigate any possible land use conflicts. 3.5 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions A Draft By-law, attached as Appendix II to this report, has been prepared which recommends the subject property be rezoned from "R-Y' (Detached Dxvelling) zone to a "SA-11" (Single Attached Dwellings) zone. 3.6 Lot Creation Five lots are proposed to be created from the subject lands, through the land severance process. Section 15.26(b) of the Pickering Official Plan states that City Council shall limit the creation of lots for residential purposes by land severance to a maximum of three, and require that an ownership of land capable of being divided into more than three additional lots be developed by a plan of subdivision, except where it is demonstrated to Council's satisfaction that a plan of subdivision is neither appropriate nor necessary in which case Council may authorize the development to proceed by land severance. The subject lands are capable of being divided into more than three additional lots, and therefore permission is required from Council to allow development of these lands to proceed through the land severance process. The applicant's proposal is for five lots only and it does not warrant the requirement for development by plan of subdivision. The City's interests can be appropriately addressed and protected through the subject rezoning application and conditions of land severance approval. Report to Council PD 20-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/01 Date: April 19, 2002 Paoe 5 2?5 The Planning & Development Department recommends that Council permit the exemption request by Sean and Ann Regan to proceed by land severance as opposed to plan of subdivision, as required seN'icing is available on the street and the proposed lotting pattern represents, appropriate development. ,4-.0 A__p__plicant's Comments The applicant has reviewed the contents of this Report and drai-'t by-law and concurs with the contents. ATYACHMENTS: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Property Location Map Applicant's Submitted Plan information Report No. 06-02 Minutes of February 2 I. 2002 Statutory Public intbrmat~on Meeting Agency Comment Region of Durham Planning Department Agency Comment - Durham District School Board Agency Comment - Bell Canada StaffConnnent Operations & Emergency Se~'ices Department Staff Comment Fire Prevention Staff Comment Development Control Prepared By: Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Principle Planner- Development Rex'iexv Approved E~ldorsed By: Director. Planning & Development Lynda TaylOr, MCIP RPP --~5 Manager, Development Review RP/jf/pr Attachments Cop.,,': Chief Administrative Oft~cer Recommended for the consideration of Picketing City Council Thopfia~J ~ strat b,~e'r i APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 20-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 03/01 That the subject lands be rezoned from a "R-3" zone in Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to a "SA-11" zone. That the following condition be included in comments to the Land Division Committee regarding applications LD 051/02 to LD 055/02. a) That the owner enter into an appropriate development agreement with the City of Pickering prior to the issuance of any building permit that will address, amongst other matters, noise attenuation, servicing, construction management plan, fencing, road widening, easements, road restoration, road cleaning, grading and drainage, boulevard tree planting, driveway location and paving, parkland contribution, required securities to safeguard the City and satisf.ving the City financially, including the pa,vments required to satisfy the Development Charges Act. b) That the owner submit to the City of Pickering appropriate siting and architectural design statement and that the owner a~ee to implement the recommendations of the siting and architectural design statement in the required development agreement. c) That the owner satisfy the requirements of the Ministry of thc Environment regarding the approval of a noise study recommending noise control features satisfactory to the Region of Durham and the City of Picketing. d) That the owner provide to the City of Pickering, at no cost to the City, a 3.5 metre road widening across the total width of the subject property. APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 20-02 2?7 DRAFT BY-LAW ZONING BS'-LAW AMENDMENI APPLICATION A 03/01 9 98 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NUMBER Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, on Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering. (A 03/01) WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to permit the development of freehold townhouses on Part of Lot 20 Concession 1, in the City of Pickering; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary: NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. SCHEDULE I Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2. AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands on Part of Lot 20 Concession 1, in the City of Pickering, designated "SA-11" on Schedule I attached hereto. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4. DEFINITIONS In this By-law, (1) (a) "Dwelling3~ shall mean a building or part of a building containing one or more dwelling units, but does not include a mobile home or trailer; (b) "Dwelling Unit" shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a single, independent and separate housekeeping unit containing a separate kitchen and sanitary facilities; (c) "Dwellin~ Attached or SingLe_ Attached DwellingS_shall mean one of a group of not less than 3 adjacent dwellings attached together horizontally by an above grade common wall; (2) (a) "Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the area of the floor surface contained within the outside walls of a storey or part of a storey; (b) "Gross Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys of a building or structure, or part thereof as the case may be, other than a private garage, an attic or a cellar; (3) (a) "Lot" shall mean an area of land fronting on a street which is used or intended to be used as the site of a building, or a group of buildings, as the case may be, together with any accessory buildings or structures, or a public park or open space area, regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the whole of a lot or block on a registered plan of subdivision; (b) "Lot Coverag~ shall mean the percentage of lot area covered by all buildings on the lot; (c) "Lot Fronta~ shall mean tile width o£ a lot betxveen the side lot lines measured along a line parallel to and 7.5 metres distant from the front lot line: {¸4) "Prix'ate Gara~3e" shall n~eaI] ;iI~ enclosed or par'tiall> enclosed structure tbr thc conducted t~r prot]t or otherxx ise: "'Card" shall mean an area of larad xxhicia is :~ppurtenant to and located on thc same lot as a buildinM of structure c~i~d is open. cH]covered and unoccupied above ground except fey sc~ctn accessorx buildin~s, structures, or other uses as are specifically permitted ttaereoI~: "Front Yard" stnall mean a yard extendin~ across thc I~tl width of a lot bctv,'ccn t}~c I5'oilt lot line oF the lot and tile nearest wall of' the nearest main buildin~ or strtlct/.lI'C Oil thc Ici: (c) "Front Yard Depth" shalI mean the shomcs~ inori/ontal dimension oI'a ~i-ont building or structure o~q thc lot: (d) "Re,ir 'Card" shall nnean ~ ~:ivd cxtendi~ u~cvoss thc l'uI1 width ora lot between tine roar lot linc of thc lot. ov x~hcvc thcvc is no ~'c:~r lot linc, thc ,junction point of tho side lot lines, and thc nearest wall of thc nearest nuuin building or cfa lot bctx~ cch thc t'cav lot linc. oi-hk}2CI'C [}2CI'C 15 120 I'CafI' lot linc thc junction structuI'C o~ tho lot' "Side Yard" shall n~caia a varct of a lot extendin< from the fi-om vard to the rear yard and from the side lot linc to thc nearest x,.all of tile nearest main building or structure on the lot: (gl) "Side Yard \Vidth" shall I1~2L).I2 tile Si~OVtCSt i~orixontui din~cnsion cfa side yard building or structure on tho lot: PROVISIONS ("SA-11" Zone) (1) [.;scs Pcnmtted ("SA-1 1" Zone) No person shall, within t}~e lz~nds desi.?ated "S:X- 11" oxq Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter or usc any building or StI'LiCItAFC Ibr &tin. x,' tDClltDOS(.? except the Following: (a) single attached dxxeIlin~ residenti:d usc: Zone Requirements ("S.-\- 11" Zone) No person shall, within the lands desiSnated "5.-X-1 1" on Schedule i attached hereto, usc any lot or erect, alter or use anx buildingS' of structure except in accordance with the following provisions: I a) LOT .-\RE.,\ (miiaimctm)' LOT FRONT.AGE 5 ( IllCI_I-CS FRONT \'.~RD DEPTH (minimum): -3- (d) SIDE YARD WIDTH (minimum): (i) 1.2 metres; and (ii) on the side where dwellings on adjacent lots are attached, no side yard is required, provided any wall other than the common wall that is on the side of the lot upon which the dwellings are attached, stnall be set back from the lot line separating such lots as follows: A 1.2 metres measured perpendicularly to such side lot tine if no side yard is provided on the abutting lot; or B 0.6 metres measured perpendicularly to such side lot line if a side yard is provided on tine abutting lot. (e) REAR YARD DEPTH (minimum): 7.5 metres (g) LOT COVEtLAGE (maximum): 40 percent th) BUILDING HEIGHT (maximum): 12.0 metres (i) DWELLING L~IT REQUIREMENTS' maximum one dwelling unit per lot and minimum gross floor area - residential ell00 square metres; 0) PARKING REQUIREMENT: minimum one private garage per lot, any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 0.0 metres from the front lot line and not less than 6.0 metres from any side lot line immediately adjoining or abutting a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street; (k) SPECIAL REGULATIONS (i) Single Attached Dxvellings in an "SA-11" zone shall be attached above grade by a common wall xvhich extends from the base of the foundation to the roof line and for a horizontal distance of not less ttnan 75 percent of the horizontal depth of the building; BY-LAW 3036 By-law .~0_ 6, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached thereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt xvitb in this By-law shall be governed by the relevant provisions of By-law 3036, as amended. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall come into force in accordance with tine provisions of tine Planning Act. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of ,2002. Mayor, Wa~vne~Ss Clerk, Bruce Taylor SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS DAY OF ..~ 2OO2 M~OR CLERK: ATTACHMENT l_ / TO REPORT ~ PD g2D "0 ,.2_ FINCH AVENUE FINCH AVENUE ~_L_L ~ ....... ~ ~ ' ~ ROSERELD ROAO ~ ~ City of Pickering Planning & Development DepaAment PROPER~ DESCRIPTION PART OF LOT 20, CONCESSION 1 OWNER SEAN AND ANN REGAN DATE JAN 22, 2002 DRAWN BY RC APPLICATION No. A 03/01 SCALE 1:7500 CHECKED BY RP FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-12 PA- ATTACHMENT~ '~~TO REPORT# PD ~d INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS' SUBMITTED PLAN A 03/01 SEAN AND ANN REGAN ! I ~ ~l.,l~ ,11 / / F THIS MAP W~S PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING 2~ANNINC, & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ~NFORMAT;ON & SUPPORT SERVICES, FEBRUARY 8, 2002 PICKERING ~TTASHMENI # ? TO REPOR'I' ~, PD "' ~' INFORMATION REPORT NO. 06-02 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF February 21, 2002 1N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/01 Sean and Ann Regan 1911 Valley Farm Road Part of Lot 20, Concession 1 City of Pickering 1.0 2.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject lands are located on the east side of Valley Farm Road. north of Kingston Road; a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1 ): the subject lands currently support a detached dwelling that was constructed in 1953; the property is accessed from Valley Farm Road by a driveway on the south side of the lot; the subject lot has a lot frontage of 30.4 metres (100 ft.) and a lot depth ot'57.6 metres (189 ft.); the subject site has an area of 1,686 m2 (18,148 ft2) the subject property is one of six detached dwelling that front thc east side of Valley Farm Road betxveen Kingston Road and Fieldlight Boulevard; surrounding land uses are; north detached dxvelling south detached dwelling east townhouse complex west on the opposite side of Valley Farm Road, detached dxvelling APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL the application that is being considered is to redevelop the subject property to permit the removal of the existing dwelling and construct five (5) street townhouse dwelling units; the applicant's submitted plan is provided for reference (see Attachment ,52); the proposed design would have all the units fronting onto Valley Farm Road; the current design has only two (2) driveways accessing Valley Farm Road, with a proposed right-of-way across the front of all the townhouse dwelling units that will provide street access to all the dwelling units; the dwelling unit design will provide each unit with a garage, and a walk-up front door on the second storey; the applicant has indicated that if this application is successful applications will be made to Durham Region Land Division Committee to create the five individual parcels; the subject proposal would have an impact on the majority of the existing trees located on the property, however some of the perimeter vegetation may be preserved. I~albrmation Report No. 06-02 Page 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan tiao Durham Regio~al OI'i]cial Plax~ dcsi~iaatcs thc thc Durham Rcgio~al Ot'ISciz~l Pl:~ states ti:;~t /./x'z/&a* .-tz'~'~¢5 arc imco:dod to be predominantly tbr bousi~2~ L/~'i~tg ..t~'c'~s shall be dcxclopcd i~7 a co~nni, ztct ~'o~'m through hishcr dc~sities a~d by imensi~ving a~d rcdevclopi~qg cxisti~5 a~rca~s, t>articularl)' alor~g arterial ~-oads; Valley Farm Road is desig~natcd as :~ ~x7*~' "('" .-lJ'zc'/'zczZ Rr:>cz,i i~a the Durham Regional Ot'ficial Plain the applicatio~a aptoca~'s to co~Ibtq~ to this Pickering Official Plan thc Picketing Otagicial Pla~a dosigmatos the includitag toxvinhouses: tine Pickeriil,, Ol'Iicial Pla~a cstatolisl~es a dc~asitx i'ktllZC of oxci' 3() a;~d up to and density of 29.(5 units per hcctzt~-c, a~ad if al road xx idc~ai~a5 ~5 tcikc~7 Ik'om this property, a net dc~sitv oi'31.4 traits toct* the subject t>~-ot)crt>' is xx itlai~a thc Livc~t~ool Nci?qt~octvlaood o~' tlqc Ol'/icial Plan' speed tha~ a 77x726' "I3" .-i/'[c'l'l~l[ R4;cztZ'. t*vovidc access to ln~'opet'tics a~qd Sol,orally have a right-of-xva>' xx idth ra~agi~ag t5'o~2~ 2(~ to the subject application, s will bo assessed agai~st tiao policies aI~d provisions of the Pickerm,¢ Ot'/acial Plala duri~g thc t'u~-thor proccssi~ag oi' tiao attot>Iicatio~as. Zoning Bx'-Ia~' 3036. as ame~tted - the subject lands arc currei~tlv zo~acd "R3" OIac FaiTai]x' Detached Dxxelli~ag Fourth Density Zo~e i~n Zo~ai~g Bv-lax~ 3(~30, as amci~dcd: - the existi~qg zoning only pemnits detached dxvellit~gs o~a lots with a minimum lot fronta~,e oC 1 S metres a~d a milaimum lot area of 5 <~) square moil'cs: - all amendmem to the zeroing bx.-law is required to i~qplc~aci~t thc applicant's proposal; the applicant has requested a~ aplo~'opriate zo~c II, at would toem~it the proposed development. RESULTS OF CIRCt'I,ATION Resident Comments resident common,ts h:~x c bcc~ t'cccix cci te-d~tc otq ti~c z~iot3licatio~a: Agency Comments no comments t'rom amx of thc ci~'culatod a<c~cios have bcc~ received to-date o~n thc application; Staff Comments i~1 rex'iexvmg the applicatioi~ to-date, t}ac tblloxxi~ag_ ~aattcrs have bee~a ido~atii~cd by stat'l" ibr further review zmd co~asidcrz~tio~a' · ensuring that t}:o pz-oposed devolopmc~t is co~patitolo x'~ith, a~qd scrnsitixe to. surrounding ta~ads: Information Report No. 06-02 ATTACHMENT O ~ Y0 Page 3 REPORT # PD ,~ 4) c, 2.. 5.0 6.0 · the impact the proposed use / site changes max have on the character of thc neighbourhood; · reviewing the implications that the proposal will have on the perceived identity of the neighbourhood; · whether the proposed development establishes a redevelopment form for the rest of the immediate detached dwellings along the east side of Valley Farm Road; this Department will conclude its position on the application after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and the public. 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 Plmming & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding the zoning by-law amendment application, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk; if a person or public body that files a notice of appeal of a decision of the City of Picketing, in respect to the zoning by-law amendment, does not make oral submission at the public meeting, or make a written submission to the City of Picketing before the zoning bv-law is passed, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal; if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision of the proposed zoning by-law amendment application, you nmst provide comments to thc Citx bclbre Council adopts any by-law for this proposal. OTHER INFORMATION 6.1 6.2 Appendices Appendix I - list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing this report; Information Received copies of the Applicant's submitted plans are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department; the City of Pickering has not received any technical information/reports on the proposed application. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Ross Pyro, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner - Development Review RP/jf Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development Department ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review ATTACM~dE~T ~ ~--~TO APPENDIX I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 06-02 2 3 7 CO*INIENTING RESIDEN'FS AND I.ANDO\~'NERS None received to-date COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) None received to-date COMMENTING CITS' DEPARTMENTS None received to-date 23S ATTACHMENT ~ ~ TO REPORT t_ PD "(-~ '(' -' Excerpts from the Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes Pursuant to the Planniug Act Thursday, February 21, 2002 7:00 P.M. Chair: Councillor Holland The Manager, Policy, provided an overview of the requirements of the Plmming Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. (V) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 03/01 SEAN AND ANN REGAN 1911 VALLEY FARM ROAD PART OF LOT 20, CONCESSION 1 Ross Pym, Principal Plmmer, Development Review, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Infom~ation Report #06-02. Sean Regan, 1911 Valley Farm Road, applicant, advised that when they purchased the property it xvas their intention to build two luxu~ homes but were advised that the zonin5 was tbr medmm density, townhouses. He stated that he is proposing 2,000 sq. ft. luxury, fi'cchold townhouses and intends to live in the last unit. Wendy Lee Fisher, 1915 Valley Farm Rd., stated that the plans being presented arc not the ones she previously viewed. She questioned what changes could be made after approval is given. She further questioned why the change to townhouses when the street is single family dwellings. She requested this not be approved but that the present standard be maintained. George Ashe, 28 Courtice Road, stated that' he owns property on Finch Ave. and is hoping to also present a similar plan for his property. He stated his support o f this application. Mr. Sarwatsky, 1934 Valley Farm Road. stated his opposition to this application. Mr. Regan, applicant, advised that these homes will be tull brick, Georgian Homes xvith elegant doors. He stated that what he is building is far superior to xvhat he is presently living in. t~TTACHMENT t ~.~-_..._TO REPORT t PD February 14, 2002 The Regional Municipality of Durham Piann~ng Department 1615 Dundas St. E. 4th Fioor, Lang Tower West Bu~iding RO Box 623 Wnitby, ON LtN 6A3 (905/ 728-7¥37 - ': (905) 436-6612 Ross Pym, Principal Planner Planning & Development Department One the Esplanade Pickering, Ontario LlV 6K7 Dear Mr. Pym' Re: Zoning Amendment Application A03/01 Applicant: Sean & Ann Regan Location: Part of Lot 20, Concession 1 Municipality: City of Pickering We have reviewed this application and the following comments are offered A.L. Georgieff, MC~P, RPP Commissioner of Planning ~'..re~,on.dur!~am_.on c_a with respect to compliance with the Durham Regional Official Plan, the proposed method of servicing and delegated provincial plan review responsibilities. The purpose of this application is to rezone the subject lands to an appropriate zone to permit the development of five street townhouses. The subject lands are designated "Living Area" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands within this designation shall be used predominantly. for housing purposes and shall be developed to incorporate the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure. The proposed amendment appears to be in conformity with the Durham Regional Official Plan. Regional sanitary sewer and water supply services are available from Valley Farm Road. The site is currently connected to water supply services only. The property has an outstanding sanitary sewer frontage charge in the amount of S4786.00, which will be due at time of the Regional Connection Application. Should the applicant choose to subdivide the lot through land severance, separate sanitary sewer and water supply connections will be required for each residential lot and all Regional conditions, financial and otherwise, will be dealt with at the time of severance. Please note that the Region reserves the right to comment further with respect to Regional services at tine time of site plan applicatior and/or land division application. This application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the ..,.,:~,~.:,,~,' provincial plan review responsibilities. The site is in proximity to Kingston ~,~?~.~ Road which is a Type-B arterial road. A noise study should be completed '.'$ervi~b'~£x~'eilenceprior to the development of the lands. The study can be submitted for for ~r:'Comm.un~ty ,~,. "~,.. ~, ~ ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT # PD, :'~'c' -' ¥' ~ Page 2 Regional review at the Plan of Subdivision/Land Division stage. No further provincial interests appear to be affected by this application. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me. Yours truly, ) Ray Davies, Planner Current Operations Branch R:\tra~nlng'¢d',zonln§tplc~enng a03-01 .doc ATTACHMENT F ~.--.-.~TO REPORT # PD ::~ c -- c ~_ THE )ISTRICT BOARD Services Tau?~ton Road ()qtario one: o57.i cx~6 5500 ! 80V-2a5 3968 Fax: (905) 666-6439 February 5 '~ '~ . . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RECEIVED FEB 1 1 20O2 The Corporation of the CiLv of Picketing Planning l)cpanment Picketing Civic Centre One The Esplanade Picketing. ( )ntario L1V 6K7 Attention: Nh'.RossPxm Dear Mr. Pyro. RE: Zoning Bv-la~¥ Amendment Application .MI3/01 Sean and Ann Rcgan Part of Lot 20, Concession 1 11191 Valley Farm Road) City of Picketing_ Staff has revie~vcd thc inlbrmation on the aboxe noted application and ur*x_ter thc mandate oI'the Durham District :4chool Board. hats no objections. Yours truly, Christine Nancekivell. Planner CN:em I;\PROPLAN",DATA PI N(i ?}:~[ -\'J; A77/-.SHL'~Ek17 ~' '7' TO REPORT~' PD ¢2E: -C,;~ Bell Right of Way Floor 5,100 Borough Drive Scarborough, Ontario M1 P 4W2 Tel: (416) 296o6291 1-800-748-6284 Fax: (416) 296-0520 February 20, 2002 CITY' OF r.~ r, ~ f,-,KERING PICKERING, ONTARIO Town of Pickering Planning Department 1 The Esplande, LlvPickering'6K7 Ontario /~~ ~.~~ Attentio~ RE: Zoning Amendment 1191 Valley Farm Road Sean and Ann Regan File No: A 03/01 Town of Pickering RECEIVE FEB 2 5 2002 PLANNING ._~ELoPMENT DEPARTMENT Thank you for your letter of January 30, 2002 concerning the above site application. Please be advised: 1 - Bell Canada requires one or more conduit or conduits of sufficient size from each unit to the electrical room and one or more conduits from the electrical room to street line. If there are any conflicts with existing Bell Canada facilities or easements, the Owner/Developer shall be responsible for re-arrangements or relocation. If you have any questions, please contact Heather Rivet at (905) 433-3066 Yours truly, /J/Janice Young Manager - Right of Way RE?C,:7 ~ PD :~: c' '- c ;:L ?43 OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM February 20, 2002 To: From: ~tlbject: Ross P>qn Principal Planner Development Review Richard Holbein, P. Eng. Division Head, Municipal Property& Zoning By-law Amendment Application Sean and Ann Regan 1191 Valley Farm Road Part of Lot 20, Concession 1 City of Pickering The Municipal Property & Engineenng Division is in receipt o£ the above application amend the zoning by-law and provides the following comments. The applicant is to be advised that tile existing services are not sufficient to accommodate the five (5) proposed town homes. A plan is required to indicate tile proposed location for service connections (water, sanitary and storm) that minimizes road cuts. A plan is required to depict driveway widths and locations, in order to assess traffic related impacts and necessity for utility relocation. Ridhard Hol~rn. P. Eng. RH:ds ' Copy: Director, Operations & Emergency SUrvices I:',.SITEP[ AN .',(~34)1 docFeb-02 Interdepamnental Memorandum Fire Prevention Date: To: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 Ross Pym Planning & Development From: Rex Heath Fire Prevention Officer RE: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A03/01 Sean and Ann Regan 1191 Valley Farm Road Part of Lot 20, Concession 1 City of Picketing This department has reviewed the applicant's proposal to rezone the subject lands to an appropriate zone to permit the development of five street townhouses and provides the following comments. 1) The fire department has no objections to the proposal understanding that all the requirements of the Ontario Building Code will be undertaken by the applicant. Regards, Rex Heath, Fire Prevention Officer ATTACHUENT #__/8 TO PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM February 25, 2002 To~ From: Subject: Tyler Barnett Planner II R. Start Supervisor, Development Control LD051/2002 to LD 055/2002 (Incl. Sean and Ann Regan Part Lot 20. Conc. 1 1911 Valley Farm Road City of Picketing We have reviewed the above-noted applications and provide the following comments: We will require that a Grading and Drainage Plan be provided as a condition of severance that provides sufficient information to ensure that the proposed severances can be developed without adversely affecting the adjacent and / or retained lands. The applicant will be required to enter into a Development Agreement with the City to address such items as lot grading, drainage and sodding, road restoration and cleaning, installation of services ~ storm connections, boulevard trees, driveway aprons, boulevards utilities etc./and st~fficient securities to safeguard the City. RS/et Copy: Coordinator, Development Approvals 7: ~ R. Start RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/01, submitted by Ramesh Patel. on lands being Block T, Plan M15, City of Pickering, to amend the existing zoning to include a convenience store in association with the existing gas bar, a du' cleaning depot, and technical amendments to clarif? existing yard requirements on the subject lands, be APPROVED. subject to the conditions included in Appendix I attached to Report No. PD 22-02. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning cM Dcvelopnlont DATE: April 24, 2002 REPORT NU.XlBER: PD'~'~ 0'~ SUBJECT' Zoning By-lax`, Anlcndment Application :\ 22 ~>1 1381190 Ontario Limited Block T, Plan >,I 15 701 711 Krosno Boulevard City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22 I)l. subnitttcd t0x' Ramesh Patti. on lands being Block T, Plan %I14_. City of Picketing,=. to amend tiao cxistim,= zonin~ to include a convenience store in association with tiao existing gas bar. a drx cleaning depot, and technical amendments to clari~v existing >ard requirements on thc sL~bioct lands, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions includcd in Appendix I a:tachcd to Report No PD __-(.. ORIGIN: Zoning By-law Amendment Application .-\ "~ (>1 subnltttcd to tt~e C'it,~ of Pickerin- AUTHORITY' The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990. chapter P. 13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS' No direct costs to tile City are anticipated as a result of tiao proposed development. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The subject property is located on the south-east corner o1' Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road (see Attachment =1 Location Nlapl. Tlae proport>' currently supports a gas bar operation, which includes the limited sale of accessory coax c~cnce store items, and a restaurant (see Attachment ~2 - Applicant's Submitted Plan). A Committee of Adjustment decision in September of 2000 approved a maximum gross 1~oor area of 04 syuarc metres within tho cxistinM ~,as bar building dedicated to the limited sale of acccssorx conxcnicnccitcms. ThcConanaittcc's decision limited the sale ofacccssorx conxenicncc itcna~ to coFI~c, chips, donuts. IanLIi'fiIlS, cakes, cigarettes and beverages, in single servings Ibr innnediatc consumption by the traveling public. and specifically excluded a retail store, and a ncigtTbouri~ood conxonioncc store. Thc applicant proposes to amend the existing zoning on tho subject lands to permit tho establisbnqent of a convenience store in association with thc existing sas bar alTd a drx cleaning depot. Technical amendments to the by-law are also requested to clariI'v existing yard requirements. The proposed uses are intended to serve thc day-to-day needs of tile neighbourhood, and are considered compatible with other commercial development iIq tile area. It is rcconlmcl~ded that tile application bo at>proved subject to thc conditions outlined in Appendix i to this report, to address a limitation on tile amount of floor space devoted to the requested uses and the cstablistnnent of specific vehicle parking standards. 2a 8 Report to Council PD 22-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/01 Date: April 24, 2002 Page 2 BACKGROUND: 1.0 Information Meeting A Public Information meeting was held on February 21, 2002, to discuss the applicant's proposal. Information Report No. 09-02, which summarizes the applicant's proposal and outlines the issues identified through circulation of the application, ~vas prepared for the meeting. The text of the Information Report is provided for reference as Attachment #4. At the Public Information Meeting, Planning staff gave an explanation of the application. Mr. Nick Givalas of Givalas Real Estate Ltd. was present to answer questions on behalf of the applicant. Several members of the public were in attendance, both in support and in opposition to the proposal. Minutes of the meeting are included as Attachment #5. 2.0 Additional Information Since the preparation of Information Report No. 09-02, several resident and agency comments have been received: Resident Comments in Objection - The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department has received six letters and a petition signed by 38 area residents in objection to the proposed zoning by-law amendment. The main concerns expressed by the residents included: competition - no need for another convenience store in the area; aesthetics of the subject property; potential increase in traffic at the three-way intersection of Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road; and safety concerns respecting the proposed installation of a propane tank. The objection letters and petition are included as Attachments #6 to #11 of this report. No department or agency that provided comments has any objection to the application. 3.0 Discussion 3.1 Appropriateness of the Application 3.1.1 Convenience Store and Dry Cleaning Depot Use The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property "Mixed Use Area - Local Node" which permits the retailing of goods and services generally serving the needs of the surrounding neighbourhoods. Although some of the surrounding residents have indicated that there is no need for another convenience store to compete in the area, it is a use permitted to be considered for this property under the Mixed Use designation of the City's Official Plan. Planning review and zoning is intended to address compatibility of land uses, not competition between business operations. During the past few years, gas station facilities have shifted their range of services to include the sale of convenience items, and items associated with the sale of petroleum products and fuel. The proposed land uses, convenience store (associated with a gas bar) and a dry cleaning depot are compatible with other commercial development on the site and within the area. The uses are intended to serve the day-to-day needs of the neighbourhood residents. It is recommended that the convenience store be permitted only in association with a gas bar, not as a freestanding store. It is further recommended that any resultant by-law establish a maximum floor area for the uses, restricting development of the site to the floor area that generally exists today, while alloxving for a potential minor expansion to the restaurant. Report to Council PD '~'~ 0'~ Subject: Zonin,,= By-lave Amclndmcnt Application A __.. '~'~/01 Date: April 24, 2002 Page 3 Current zoning on the subject lands permits motels, hotels, places of anausement, open air farmers market, and parking stations in addition to automobile service stations. restaurant - type A, and service stores, it is recommended that certain uses be deleted from the list oF permitted uses and that others bc updated to rcI~ect current definitions, as outlined in the chart beloxx. Thc /blloxxing chan identifies the uses currently permitted in a "CY' Highway Commercial Zone, the uses requested bx tiao applicant, and the uses recommended by staff: C3 Zone Permitted Uses Applicant's Requested Staff Recommended Uses Uses Automobile Sec'ice Stations Retain Retain Update definition to ' Automobile Service Station Type G Motels = No No Hotels , No No Places of Amusement No No Open Air Farmers .X. Iarkct No No Restaurant Type A Retain Retain Service Stores No Retain Update definition to Personal Service Shop (ex. barber shop. tailor, etc.) Parking Stations Xo __ No ................................... _Add C'onxcn~encc Store '~'cs tonlv in association with ................................... :_l '~ Lt. S ................................... .Add Dry ('lcani~ag Depot Tcs 3.2 Site Planning The subject application constitutes minor development, as outlined in the Picketing Official Plan. Therelbrc, the requirements of thc Detailed Review .Area designation applying to the property and surrounding area are not required to be l\~lfillcd at ttais time. Should any major building alterations or land usc &mn<cs be proposed at a fL~ture date, the requirements of the Detailed Rcviexx .Area Ibr tiao dovelopmelqt OI' design guidelines, naa,,,' be required to be satistied. Thc applicant has indicated that no major site or building alterations arc proposed at this time to accommodate tiao proposed new uses and that this zoning by-law anaendment is an interim step toxvard 2m~rc re-dex clopment. The Liverpool Road and Krosno Street intersection is subject to the Council adopted "Liverpool Road Waterfront Node" Development ©uidelmes. The guiding vision for the entire Node is that ofa"Great Lakes Nautical X'illa<e" with a mix el'uses and an ambiance that is inviting. The Liveu0ool Road and Krosno Street intersection is intended to create a "gateway" to attract travelers dox~n Livc¢ool Road bx maintain~ns visual continuity and interest between Bayly Street and thc 'Nautical Village', xx lxicla xx ill consist of IllaI1V design elements. Design elements may be implemented t0x tiao C/tv on tiao Citv-oxvncd sight triangle located at tiaa sotith-east conner o~' Krosno Boulevard and Lix'c~3>ool Road, adjacent to the subject site. Due to thc iinaitcd nature oi' this application, no design elements are recommended on the City land. Although the application does not propose to alter tiao existing buildings on thc lands, some site improvements are recommended. There is a need to enhance thc general appearance of this site, including such clements as site paxing, parking, curbing, landscaping enhancements, garbage storage, and site clean up. Thc applicant has submmcd a site plan indicating thc proposed parking tavout and function recommended that the site plan issues hi~hli~htod above be addressed to thc City's satislhction through a site plan agreement with thc oxvncr. ~or to thc implemcntinu bv-laxN bein~ tbm'arded to Council ~br consideration. Report to Council PD 22-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/01 Date: April 24. 2002 Page 4 The current parking standard for the subject lands is 5.5 spaces per 93 square metres of gross leasable floor area. Based on the total existing gas bar operation and restaurant floor area, a total of 12 parking spaces are currently required on-site. The site presently functions as two independent parcels, with the restaurant on the most easterly portion. It is recommended that the implementing zoning by-law establish a parking ratio of 8 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area be established for a freestanding restaurant. The site has adequate area to meet this higher parking ratio. Traffic Schedule II to the Pickering Official Plan designates Krosno Boulevard and the portion of Liverpool Road south of Bayly Street as collector roads. Collector roads generally provide access to individual properties, to local roads, to other collector roads and to Type C arterial roads. They carry greater volumes of traffic than local roads, including automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles and transit. Residents have expressed concern about the potential increase in traffic at the tlzree-way intersection of Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road as a result of the proposed zoning amendment. Municipal Property 8: Engineering staff advised that they have no concern with the applicant's proposal and do not consider the additional uses to be significant traffic generators. 3.4 Propane Tank A site plan application for the installation of a horizontal propane tank was processed and approved prior to the submission of this rezoning application. The City's Fire Prevention Officer reviewed safety concerns respecting the installation of the tank and had no objection provided the installation met all applicable Ontario Building and Fire Code requirements. The installation of the propane dispensing tank will be in accordance with the Ontario Propane Storage, Handling and Utilization Code, as prescribed under the Energy Act. Aesthetic concerns regarding the propane tank may be further investigated and addressed through the site plan approval process recommended as a condition of zoning approval. 3.5 Implementing Zoning By-law and Yard Requirements The preliminary site plan indicates that the additional uses can be appropriately introduced provided the applicant obtains site plan approval prior to the preparation of an implementing by-law. The implementing by-law will establish permitted uses. minimum yard setbacks and other zoning requirements to clarify technical matters of by-law interpretation (see Appendix I). 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant has reviewed the contents of this Report, and concurs with the content. Report to Council PD 22-02 Subject: Zoning Bv-la~v Amendment =Xpplication A 22/01 Date: April 24, 2002 Page 5 251 ATTACHMENTS: 6. 7. 8. 9. 1(). 11. Location Map Applicant's Submitted Plan Parking Layout and Function Site Plan Text of Inlbrmation Repo~ Statutory Public lnlbnnation Nlccting Nlinutes Objection Letter Bclmom. Fine & .kssociates Objection Letter Bay Ridges Market Objection Letter Picketing Panthers Junior ".X" Hockey Club Objection Letter Nancy Soltx's Objection Letter Chris XVri?t Ob ection Letter Bay Ridges %larket Petition Prepared By: Perry Korouyenis' Planning Technician Lynda D. Taylor, MCqp. t<PP Manager, Development Rex'icx~ PXK:pr Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Ofliccr Recommended for thc consideration or' Pickerin < City Council Th'om'tis J. Quinn, g:hief' Adrc_~istratix>~ APPENDIX I TO REPORT NO. PD 22-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 22/01 1.0 2.0 That, the implementing Zoning By-law: (a) permit automobile service stations - Type G, restaurant Type A, personal service shop, convenience store (only in association with a gas bar), and dry cleaning depot; and (b) include, but not be limited to, the following provisions' (i) minimum building setbacks; (ii) exclude motels, hotels, places of amusement, open air farmers market, and parking stations as permitted uses; (iii) establish a parking standard of 8 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable area for any restaurant use and retain 5.5 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable area for all other uses; (iv) restrict gross floor area to 120 square metres for convenience store (in association with gas bar), dry cleaning depot, and personal service shops; and (v) restrict gross floor area to 135 square metres for restaurant. That, prior to the forwarding of the implementing zoning by-law to Council, the applicant/owner shall' (a) obtain site plan approval for the appropriate site improvements from the City's Director of Planning & Development; and (b) enter into the appropriate agreement(s) with the City of Picketing to secure works required through the site plan approval process. A'I'T~ WAYFARER LANE RADOM STREET BAYLY STREET TATRA ~RIVE ! : i ; ii,:-- SmR~ HALl-ER AVENUE OLD ORCHARD AVE. ALYSSUM WA TEt~POINT AVE. PLACE ILONA PARK ROAD COMMERCE FOXGLOVE AVENUE BOULEVARD STREET Et ROAC)'¢ EWST R E E~T' < ~ALATON AVENUE ANNLAND STREET F/?ENCt-tM,4N WHARF STREET City of Pickering AVENUE PARKHAM CRESCENT Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION BLOCK T, M-15 OWNER 1381190 ONTARIO LTD. [DATEi FEB. 11,2002 DRAWNBY RC ¢ APPLICATION No. A 22/01 i SCALE 1:7500 CHECKED BY PK FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONlY PN-3 PA- ATTACHMENT ~lI '~ TO REPORT ~ PO '~' ?.- C'~ INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN A 22/01 - 1381190 ONTARIO LTD. ./ / KROSNO BOULEVARD GAS DISPENSERS PROPOSED THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, JANUARY 18, 2002. ~ORT ~ :¢55 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN 1381190 ONTARIO LTD. A 22101 '"""OWNED '% PROPER-FY '% %, KqOSNO BOULEVARD x' '%, %, '% PRODUCED BY THE C?W OF PICKERING ~L/-N~',ING & DEVE[ ©PMEN- DEPARTMENT N~ORMZ,,T ON & SUPPOR i- S!:R',/ICES APRIL 24 20C2 AT"rACI.9~ENT ~ /~, ~ REPORT ~ PD '~, '2,, - ~i'"~) Citq o~ ~ _ PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 09-02 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF February 21, 2002 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/01 1381190 Ontario Limited Block T, Plan M15 701 - 711 Krosno Boulevard City of Picketing 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject property is located on the south-east corner of Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road and is approximately 3,533 square metres in size and has a Krosno Boulevard lot frontage of 58 metres; a property location map is provided for information (see Attachment #1 ); the subject property currently supports a gas bar operation, which includes the limited sale of accessory, convenience store items, and a restaurant; the surrounding land uses are primarily residential to the north and south, and commercial to the east and west; a reduced site plan, compiled from the applicant's submitted plan, showing the existing site, is provided for information (see Attachment #2). APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL the applicant proposes to amend the existing zoning on the subject lands to permit the establishment of a convenience store and a dry cleaning depot associated with the existing gas bar, and technical amendments to clarify existing yard requirements; no site or building alterations are proposed at this time to accommodate the proposed new uses; a Committee of Adjustment decision (File: P/CA 44/2000) in September of 2000, approved a maximum gross floor area of 64 square metres within the existing building dedicated to the limited sale of accessory convenience items; the sale of accessory convenience items was limited by the Committee of Adjustment to coffee, chips, donuts, muffins, cakes, cigarettes and beverages, in single servings for immediate consumption by the travelling public, and specifically excluded a retail store, and a neighbourhood convenience store. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan the Durham Regional Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being within a "Living Area" designation, where lands are to be used predominantly for housing purposes; in addition, convenience stores that are compatible with their surroundings with limited retailing of goods and services, in appropriate locations may be permitted; the applicant's proposal appears to comply with this designation; information Report No. 09-02 ATTACHMENT ~.._.....~TO P.E>¥,~T ~ PD.~ -- 3.2 3.3 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Pickering~ Official Plan thc subject property is designated "Mixed [_'se Area Local Node" xxithin thc Bay Ridges Neighbourhood: mixed use areas are areas and corridors o1: dexclopmcnt having the highest concentration of activity in the Citx and the broadest diversity of community services and facilities: this designation permits residential, retailing of goods and services generally serving the needs of the surrounding neighbourhoods, offices and restaurants, community, cultural and recreational uses: in the '"Mixed Use Area Local Node" designation, tiao Picketing Official Plan establishes a maxmmm gross leasable P, oorspace for the retailing of goods and services of up to and including 1(/.(2(;(; ~quare metres and a max~mun~, l:ioorspacc index (total building floorspace divided bx' total lot area) c)f up to and includlnz 2.0 FSI: Schedule II to the Picketing Oflicial Plan designates Krosno Boulevard and tho portion of Liverpool Road south of Bayly Street as collector roads; collector roads generally provide access to individual properties, to local roads, to other collector roads and to Type C arterial roads: carU' greater volumes of traffic than local roads, including automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles and transit: and generally have a rigtnt-of-x~ ay width rangtng from 21~ to 22 metres: the applicant's proposal appear~ to compl)\kith thl~, dc,,,i~natlon: - the Liverpool Road and Krosno Street intcrsecuon is subject to the Council adopted "Liverpool Road \Vaterfront Node" Development (_iuidolinos' - the guiding vision tbr the entire Node is that of a "Great Lakes Nantical Village" with a mix of uses and an ambiance that is invitim,' - the Liverpool Road and Krosno Street intersecuon ~$ ~ntcnded to create a "gateway" to attract travelers dox~n Lix erpool Road by maintaining x lsual continuity and interest between Bayly Street and thc 'Nautical Village': - the "gateway" is to consist of many design elements that \till be implemented oil tile public right-of-way: Zoning. Bv-la~v the subject property is currently zoned "C3" .-- }tighx~av C'ommcrcial Zone by By-law 2520, as amended: this zoning permits the establishment of automobile serx~ce stauons, motels, hotels, places of amusement, open-air farmers' market, a restaurant type A, service stores and parking stations; an amendment to the bv-laxv would be required to implement the applicant's proposal. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION Resident Comments no written resident comments have been reccix ed to date: A~encv Comments the Durham District School Board has rcviex~ed the application and has stated that it has no objections: Staff Comments in reviewing the application to-date, the lbllox~ln~ matters hax e been identified by staff tbr further review and consideration: · impact on the streetscape of the Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road intersection: information Report No. 09-02 ATTACHMENT ~, ~, TO ~PORT ~ PD ,~,% - t', ',2_ Page 3 5.0 6.0 · the scale and appropriateness of the proposed uses in relation to abutting commercial properties and sm-rounding residential properties; · potential floor area restrictions on proposed uses; · traffic generation and on-site parking availability; · vehicular access and egress; · landscaping; · pedestrian access/egress and safety; · site lighting; · applicant has indicated the potential for a possible land severance of the subject property, therefore land severance impacts shall be considered; · staff will review the need to update and clarify existing by-law definitions provisions to reflect current standards for newer gas bar operations and conunercial uses. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION written comments regardh~g this proposal should be directed to the Plmming & Developtnent 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 ~vriti~.~g to the City Clerk. OTHER INFORMATION 6.1 6.2 6.3 Appendix I - list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have cmmnented on the application at the time of writing report; Information Received - full-scale copies of the Applicant's submitted plan are available ibr viewing at the offices of the City of Picketing Planning & Develop~nent Department; Company Principal the applicant advises that the principal of 1381190 Ontario Limited is Mr. Ramesh Patel. Perry Korouyelds Planning Teclmician PXK/pr Attachments Lynda D. ~.Zytur, MCIP Manager, ,Development Review Copy: Director, Planning & Development A~'FrAOHMENT,~_ ~ ,TO FIEFORT ~ PD,~ APPENDIX I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 09-02 COSISIENTING RESIDENTS :XND LANDO~,;,'NERS ( 1 ) none received to date COI~IMENTING AGENCIES (1t The Durham District School Board COMMENTING CITY DEP:kRTMENTS Planning & Development Dcparrmc~t ATTACHMENT # ~? TO t-=PORT # PD ?,L.~- c~, '~ Excerpts from tin Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes Pursuant to the Planning Act Thursday, February 21, 2002 7:00 P.M. Chair: Conncillor Holland The Manager, Policy', provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. (ii) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 22/01 1381190 ONTARIO LIMITED BLOCK T, PLAN M15 ~701-711 KROSNO BOULEVARD} 0. 10. ll. 12. Perry Korouyenis, Planning Technician, provided an explanation of thc application, as outline( in Information Report #09-02. Maureen Charlton, 867 Hillcrest Road, stated that this application should not be permitted there are enough businesses in the area properly zoned to serv'ice the neigbbourhood. She her concerns with respect to the proposed or existing propane tanks. She advised that tickets and large Food items are being sold at this establishment without proper zoning. The is not large enough to support: two similar businesses. Agnes Deutsch, owner of the property a4jacent, stated that this application conlqicts with development presently taking place in her plaza. She stated her stron,A opposition to application. t chex, es Brent Copin, Fairview Ave., advised that he frequents both establishments and ~ ' ' competition. At resident at t295 Wharf St., advised that he also purchases items at both stores and sees problem with competition. Joanne Key, 1303 Luna Court, advised that she sees no problem with the proposal and also frequents both stores. She is anxious to have a dry cleaning facility in the are;t. Sylvain Trepanier, 1218 Monica Cook Place, questioned if market research has been done in area to ensure sustainability from the Bay Ridges area. tte questioned i£the applicant is opposed to building one or the other or must they both be built together. Danny Murphy, 804 Helen Cres., stated that allowing the gas station to sell lottery tickets and large items prior to rezoning circumvents good faith. George Vlachos, 724 Annland St., stated is agreement with the application and is in favor of competition. Nick Devalis, representing the applicant, advised that this is a two point plan to redevelop the property, develop a first class station eventually to enhance the area and improve the site. Kash Joshi, 196 Joseph Aaron Blvd., applicant, stated that he is not going to ask for all the item: sold by a convenience store but wishes to sell only the items other gas stations carry. Cathy Rose, Manager, Policy, advised that Council may choose to approve either th~ convenience store or the dry cleaning depot or both. She further stated that a review of the circulation of this item will be undertaken. ATTACHMENT R~PORT # va¸ BELMONT FINE & ASSOCIATES Bczrristers and Solicitors Brian D. Belmont, LL.B Suite 6(>1 1 I20 Finch Avenue West Tonmt< Ontario M3J 3tt7 Teleph(me: (416) 661-2066 Facsm~ile: ¢116) 661-2116 CiTY OF PICKERING PIOKERINI3, ON?ARIQ DELIVERED VIA FACSIMILE (905) 420-7648 AND REGULAR MAIL February 12, 2002 File No. 01-233 City of Pickering Planning & Development Department One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario LlV 6K7 Attention' Perry Korouyenis Dear Mr. Korouyenis: RE: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/01 1381190 Ontario Limited Block T, Plan M15 701 - 711 Krosno Boulevard (South-East corner of Krosno and Liverpool) ~ of Picketing Please be advised that I represent Liverpool South Plaza Inc. My client is the owner of the property that is adjacent to the property which is the subject matter of the application herein for an amendment to the zoning by-law. Please be further advised that my client opposes the proposed application for an amendment to the zoning by-law. Liverpool South Plaza Inc. recently purchased the adjacent property, which is a strip plaza specializing in retail stores serving the surrounding neighbourhoods. As the owner of this property, my client pays a substantial amount of property taxes to the City: this, in addition to my client's efforts to cultivate and establish a first class retail environment means, we would respectfully submit, that my client has become an important part of the commercial landscape in the subject area. My client respectfully submits that the proposed amendment to the zoning by-law significantly conflicts with the commercial development taking place in my client's plaza, 262 ATTACHMENT ~EPORT # PD BELMONT, FINE & ASSOCIATES which is a substantially more attractive, valuable and commercially important property as far as the surrounding area is concerned. Due to the recent departure of a couple of tenants, my client's plaza presently has approximately 8,000 square feet of available rental space, which presents an exciting opportunity to further enhance and develop the retail environment in this area. My client's intention is to secure a new tenant in a portion of the available space to operate a thriving convenience store (and potentially a dry-cleaning depot), and my client has been working vigorously to achieve this objective. It is respectfully submitted that the proposed amendment would substantially conflict with both the present and imminent development on my client's property. There is no need for a second convenience store on the adjacent property (which, as stated above is not nearly as attractive and valuable as my client's property); further, it would seriously inhibit the development of a thriving retail environment in my client's strip plaza. Accordingly, as stated above, my client Liverpool South Plaza Inc. strongly opposes the proposed application for an amendment to the zoning by-law. In addition, mY client wishes to be notified of any subsequent meetings called to address this matter, and further requests to be notified of the passing of any zoning by-law amendment. We thank you for your kind consideration of this matter. Yours ~/ery truly, BRIAN D. BELMONT B D B/trh cc. Liverpool South Plaza Inc. 'ATTACHMENT # .TO REPORT ¢ PD~ BAY RIDGES MARKET 713 KROSNO BLVD. PICKERING, ONT. L1W 1 G4 905-831 -1270 FEBRUARY 21,2002 RECEIVED CITY OF PICKERING PL.ANN!BIG ~ Dfz',,;~z-t_GPMEI'~ i DEP~qZl FMENT My nome is Maureen Chorlton. I have been store manager of 'Bay Ridges Market' for most of the 20 years I've worked there. I am speaking tonight on behalf of the owners, David and Jenny Lim and myself. '~,;,-.,-~.,,~¢t~,: i~ i~x,, 5 u,c,7 \~.'(',lc~ ~\\ Simply, our concerns ore the following: '~::~R '4 ~:~z~- ~.~t- t.~,~, · There are enough businesses properly zoned, in the immediate area to serve the needs of our community. What the oreo needs is some diversity, not more of the some. We feel the existing zoning is brood enough to allow many other uses. · The 3-way stop at the corner of Liverpool Rd. & Krosno Blvd. is already extremely busy. We are concerned about increased traffic, especially for those residents directly opposite on Krosno Blvd. · We are also concerned about a proposed(or existing) propane tank on the property, since there are a lot of homes, businesses and schools very close by. In September of 2000, we attended a 'committee of adjustment' meeting regarding a bylaw amendment for this property. The amendment was approved subject to the following(P/CA44/O0) "That the limited sale of accessory convenience items be limited to coffee, chips, donuts, muffins, cake, cigarettes and beverages, IN SINGLE SERVINGS FOR IMMEDIATE CONSUMPTION BY THE TRAVELING PUBLIC, but not include a retail store, or a neighbourhood convenience store." At the same meeting, Mr. Dacres, an agent for the applicant, stated that the display stands were not intended for the sale of convenience store items, but for automotive supplies. Since that meeting, the following items have been offered for sale: · Potato chips in large sizes(270groms+) · 2 Litre bottles of pop · Cans of pop sold by the case · Lottery tickets While perhaps some people do consume these sizes in one sitting, they are generally considered take home packages. In September of 2001, I informed bylaw officer Kimberly Thompson of our concerns regarding these items. She originally asked the owners to remove the lottery tickets within one month. When I followed up on November1, 2001, she informed me of their intention to apply for rezoning, and that instead they could continue selling them while waiting for the rezoning issue to be settled. We feel that they should stop selling the tickets and large items, until such a decision is made. Also we would like to point out that we did not receive notification of this meeting, and while some of the residents did receive one, many we know didn't, including Mr. Scott Ramage, who though unable to be here this evening has strongly expressed his objection in this matter as well. On a personal level, I would like to saY, we've been around a long time, I myself grew up on Krosno Blvd, and we've seen a lot of changes, good and bad. We consider our customers part of our family, we've provided many jobs to the young people of our community and all we would like to see is something different to enhance the area and local businesses, not saturate it with too much of the same thing. Thank You~ Sincerely, David Lim Jenny Lim Maureen Charlton oR5 lCKerl g KdriL[ler ]unioF "A' Hockew Club Members of ~he Ontado Provincial gunior Hockey League 2~0~-20~2 3~ ~nn/ve~a~ ~e~ February 20,2002 City Of Picketing 1 own Council The ptJrpose of th!s l~:tLer !stc provide $~Jppo~ Charlton,manager of Bay Ridges Market, Bay PJdges Market h~$ been sup~oq:ing Picker~ng Panthers ]unior"A" Hockey with the sale cf INev~da gaming t cket~. since late summer of last year' o Jr sales ~ave drogpeC dramatically! After conversaL;on with Ms. Charlron, 't is our understaqcing that the sale of nevada tickets by the adjacent OLCO ga:~ beF may contravene ;ocal c.y-laws. Further, that }n the August/Sept:ember 2(!0:2 time Crame, @ by-taw off:cer gave them .30 days "To get rid of them", Without the continued proceeds from the sale of Nevaca :ickets by, Bay Ridges the flature ex stence of the Picked ~g Panthers ]un'o- "A" Hockey team is in serious jeopard'/. Michael Boyer ATTACHMENT #__ TO Korouyenis, Perry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: McLean, Bill - Councillor Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:39 AM 'nancy@soltys.ca' *Planning & Development RE: Road safety Thank you Nancy for your e mail. I will forward your concerns about the propane ~ank to the planning department. As far as the lights there are strict requirements that have to be met before traffic lights can be installed. We will monitor this situation and see how much traffic does increase. If there are any other concerns please do not hesitate to call. ..... Original Message ..... From: Nancy Soltys [mailto:nancy®soltys.ca]. Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:09 PM To: McLean, Bill - Councillor Subject: Road safety Dear Councillor McLean: f have a concern for the corner of Krosno and Liverpool. With the Upgrades that the service station wants to implement there is going to be an increase of traffic. If the proposed propane tank goes through we will have a large increase of commercial traffic as these vehicles are being switched over to propane. I do not have any problems with any of the upgrades to the station. And it would be great for business in the area. I do hope that a light w{ill be installed at the corner of Krosno and Liverpool as the increase of traffic from the service station and the waterfront project will make this already difficult corner into a Zoo. I must say as of now there is some mornings it takes me 15 min. to get out of my driveway. Yours trully: Nancy Soltys nancyesoltys.ca ATTACHMENT REPORT t PD -ATTACHMENT#_. { .{ .TO 'qF_PORT # PD ,?,-'~. - C ~ BAY RIDGES MARKET 713 KROSNO BLVD. PICKERING, ONT. L1W 1G4 905-831 - 1270 FEBRUARY 28,2002 To Whom It May Concern, RE: Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 22/01 1381190 Ontario Ltd. Block T, Plan M15 701-711 Krosno Blvd. City of Pickering I attended and spoke at last week's public information meeting regarding this application, and also submitted (3 written copy of my comments so I will not repeat them here. I am enclosing a letter from a concerned resident as well as 2 pages of signatures from other residents who object to this application. I would like to emphasize that while competition is always an issue, it is not our main concern, there are many other issues that are more important, as I've already stated in my previous comments, so please consider those when making your decision. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns, both as small business owners and residents of this area. Sincerely, Maureen Charlton per David Lim FEBRUARY 21,2002 CI'T¥ :~r- .~-~, - REGARDING ZONING 8V-LR~ AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR 70]:7'1q'~ HROSNO BLVD. IN SIGNING THIS ~e STATE OUR OBJECTION TO THIS aPPLICATION NAME ADDRESS ~'r'rACHM~r ~--LL.._.~O REPORT t PD~ FEBRUARY 21,2002 L, Ii '~ OF ?tCKERING PLAI',II,Jli,JC~ ,.'L [)EVEt OPMENT i )EPAR rM E~,I1 REGARDING ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR 701-711 KROS~O BWD. IN SIGNING THIS WE STATE OUR OBJECTION TO THIS APPLICATION NAME ] ADDRESS RECONINIENDAT1ON OF ItIE PLANNING COMSIITTEE DATE NIOVED SECONDED B5' That Zoning By-lax', Amendmem -\pplicarion -% 1~>1, sc~bmiued bx Frank Mastrorillo. on lands being Lot 2. Plan 473, municipally knc)xx~ a~ 14~5 Rosebank Road. City off Picketing, to amend the zonimz Olq [}hc 5[~bject lands ;o pet-mit the establisim~ent of a building containing four (4) dx;elling units consisting or' thc p~-imaq dxxdlin5 unit tbr thc prope~y oxvner on the main and upper tloors and tinree t B) basement dx~dlim5 units be REFUSED. REPORT NUMBER PD 14-02 Subject: Zoning By-lax~ Amendment Application A 18-01 Date: March 26, '~00 - Page 2.0 Three (3) written comments from the public had been received at the time of writing of the Information Report and are as follows (these comments are attachments to the Information Report): Wendy Atkinson-Lamacraft and Douglas Lamacraft of 1492 Rosebank Road are both opposed to the application as the proposal would change the integrity of the neighbourhood; set a precedent for any future requests of a similar nature; increase traffic on an already busy street; have a negative impact on surrounding property values; and request the application be denied. Chris and Donna Ellis of 1494 Rosebank Road are both opposed to the application as the existing neighbourhood is a single-family dwelling neighbourhood and if this application was approved for multi-family dwellings, that a precedent will be set for others as there are other properties in the area of a similar size to the subject property; have a negative impact on surrounding property values; increase traffic on an already busy street and the possibility of on-street parking created by the additional dwelling units could add to a safety issue; and request that the neighbourhood be preserved as a single-family zoned area. Deborah Peterson and John Andresen of 1498 Rosebank Road are both opposed to the application as the existing neighbourhood is a single-family dwelling neighbourhood and if this application was approved tbr multi-family dwellings that a precedent will be set for others as there are other properties in the area ora similar size to the subject property. At the Public Information Meeting, the applicant and his agent each made a presentation on the application. This was follo~ved by six area residents who expressed concerns and objected to the proposal. Minutes of December 20, 2001 Public Infbrmation Meeting detailing those comments made by the applicant and residents are provided for reference (see Attachment #4). Additional Information 2.1 2.2 Residents Comments Since the preparation of Information Report No. 30-01, the following residents comments have been received: Barbara KoOk of 1454 Rosebank Road is opposed to the application for the following reasons: the existing neighbourhood is a single-family dwelling neighbourhood and if this application is approved, a precedent will be set for others as there are other properties in the area of a similar size to the subject property; increase traffic; create on-street parking problems; and, impact negatively on the stability of the neighbourhood (see Attachment #5). Kathryn Gibson of 1478 Rosebank Road is opposed to the application as this application will set a precedent in the neighbourhood, if approved, and add to the congestion on an already busy street (see Attachment #6). Department/Agencies Comments Since the preparation of Information Report No. department / agency comments have been received: 30-01, the following The Region of Durham Planning Department noted that the subject lands are designated "Living Area" within the Durham Region Official Plan. Lands within this designation are to be used predominantly for housing purposes. They note that the application appears to conform to the policies of that Plan. Regional ~vater and sanitary sewer service are available to the subject property. The application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial plan review responsibilities and no provincial interests appear to be affected (see Attachment #7). 27 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE: March 26.20(;2 REPORT Nt'3. It?,ER: PD 14-02 Zoning Bv-laxx Ainendmcnt Application Frank Mastrorillo Lot 2, Plan 1495 Rosebank Road City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION' That Zoning Bv-laxx Amendnnent :\pplication :\ lb *)1. suibmittcd by Frank N'lastrorillo. on lands being Lot 2. Plan 4-3. nqunicipa]l> knov, n a~s 1&~)5 Roscbank Road. City of Picketing, to amend thc zoning on the sklblcct lands to pcnqnlt thc establishment ora building containing Ibur (4) cixvelling traits consisting of the p~'inaa~-y dxvellmg unit for the property oxvner on thc Iaqain and uppc)' l]oors and t[wco (3) basement dxvclling units be REFUSED. ORIGIN: Zoning By-law Amendment Application :X 1N ~1 5L~bmittcd to ti'~c ¢'4tx of Picketing. AUTHORITY: The Plannm~g Ac[, R.S.O. 1990. chapter P. 13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result o~'thc pt-oposed dcx elopmcnt. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed application to permit the establishment of a building containing four (4) dwelling units consisting of the primary dwelling unit Ibr thc propc~-t> ox~ nei- on thc main and upper floors and three (3) basement d~'elling units at 1495 Roscbank Road is ~qot considered appropriate development. The proposal may destabilize tine cx~sttn~ residential ncighbourhood by encouraging similar development applications Ibr otlqc~' p~'opc~'tlcs ~n tile az'ca. Tho proposal has the potential to introduce land use conI~cts that arc~ not app~'opnatc o~' compatible with the neighbourhood. It is recommel~ded that the sulo_ject application for thc p~-oposed buildin~ containing lbur {4 dxvelling units at 1495 Rosebank Road be t'et'used. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Information Meeting A Public Information Meeting for this application ',xas held on December 20, 2001 Inlbrmation Report No. 30-01. which sumnqarizes tine applicant's proposal and outlines tho issues and comments identified to that date tiqroLlgh circtiJation of the application, was prepared tbr that meeting. The text of that Inlbnnatioi7 Repor't is pr'oxidcd Ibr reI~rence (see Attachment =3 ). 274 REPORT NUMBER PD 14-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 18-01 Date: March 26, 2002 Page 3 3.0 3.1 3.2 Veridian Connections has advised that the existing services to the building may be inadequate and the applicant is required to contact Veridian to obtain technical bulletins and standards regarding residential services (see Attachment #8). Canadian National Railway Properties Inc. has advised that they request that a noise warning clause be inserted in all development agreements, offers to purchase, agreements of purchase and sale or lease (see Attachment #9). Municipal Property & Engineering Division has advised that there is a concern with inadequate availability of parking for the four (4) dwelling units; the result would be on-street parking that may conflict with traffic operation and street maintenance operations (see Attachment # 10). Discussion Introduction The subject lands are located on the east side of Rosebank Road, one lot south of SheppardAvenue. A property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1). The subject lands currently support a house that was originally constructed as a detached dwelling. The subject lot has a lot frontage of 27 metres (90 ft.) and a lot depth of 60.9 metres (200 ft.). The detached dwelling house was built in 1989. The application that is being considered is an amendment to the zoning by-laxv in order to permit the conversion of the existing building from a detached dwelling (one dwelling unit) into a building containing four (4) dwelling units consisting of the primary dwelling unit for the property owner on the main and upper floors and three (3) basement d~velling units. The applicant's submitted plan is provided for reference (see Attachment #2). The existing building on the property is to be retained as the applicant is not proposing any alteration to the exterior of the existing structure. The additional parking that would be required to accommodate the three (3) additional dwelling units is proposed to be accommodated in the existing circular driveway in the front yard. The dwelling units will consist of the main dwelling unit occupied by the property owner on all of the main and upper floors, while the basement has been divided into three dwelling units, each consisting of a kitchen, a bedroom and bathroom. The basement dwelling units are accessed by a common hallway that leads to a stairwell and an exterior door. Compatibility with Neighbourhood When considering whether a certain land use is compatible with other land uses, there are many considerations. In order to conclude that the proposed use (a building containing four (4) dwelling units) is compatible with surrounding land uses, it should meet favourably with the following criteria: · The proposal should not encourage other similar actions in the area where similar proposalS can be brought for~vard; · The proposal, when compared with existing development in the area, should not be a significant anomaly to its surroundings; · The proposal should not negatively impact existing residents of the area by introducing characteristics/increased activity which reduce the enjoyment of established amenities; · The proposal should not appear to either diminish property values or decrease the rate of increase of property values in the area; and, · The proposal should fill a gap and complete the full expression of the prevailing character of the area. REPORT NUMBER PD 14-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application Date: March 26, 2002 Page 4 27,"5 3.3 4.0 In considering the above criteria, a rezonlng does not set a definitive precedent for other rezonings as each application is considered on its oxxn merits. However, once a new usc is considered appropriate in an area. tile arg~m~cnt that a similar use is not appropriate tile area would can-5.' less weight, as it ~s already a permitted use. In the area surrounding tile subject site, there are properties flnat are of similar size and attributes to the subject site. ttnat could also accommodare a s~m~lar tlse ~fthe subject application v, ere approved. Tile SmTounding neigtnbourhood has indicated itaat there is a concern that the proposed use x~ ould have negative impacts on their properties. Ttnese impacts have been described as both physical and intangible. Tiao concerns expressed include: increased traffic, on-street parking and destabilization of tiao ncighbourhood ttnat would change the existing an&or perceived character of the neighbourhood: all o~' xxhictn could add up to a loss of enjoFwnent of private property lbr some ofttne neigbbours. Tine issue of decreasing property value as a possible impact of the application tnas been raised. No appraiser's opinion tnas been provided to substantiate this suggestion. As thc existing neighbourtnood is a v,'ell-ostablished :n'oa. that ~s predominantly detactned dwellings, the convertim, of the sublect properi'~ from a det~iched dwellino to a building, containing lc)ur dwelling umts does nor I}1I :,. xoid dnat has been missing from the neighbourhood. As a stable detached dx~ ellin~ no~ghbourhood, there are no land usc gaps that need to bc filled. Neighbourhood Character/Appropriate lmnd ['se Any Ibrm of land usc change should not hax c a szgn~ficz~n'~ ~mpact on tiao stability of' existing residential areas, except xx here i'cdcxclopmcnt i5 anticipated. Thc stability and maintenance of tine character of the neighbourhood is iHqportallt alld thcrcibre adverse impacts, real or perceived, should not be imposed. The applicant tnas advised that tile visual impacts of thc subject application xxill be minimal. There are no physical ctnanges proposed to tiao ex,crier of thc subject building. From the street, the building will appear to still t'uncnon as a detactned dwelling. The property's existing character will be maintained. The one noticeable ctnange will be the extra parking of tenant's vehicles in tine front circular drix The neighbourhood has expressed concerns that the application. ~f approved, could result in the neighbourhood becoming destabilized. Approxing thc application tbr four units has the potential to diminish the area residents' perceived en_jo>qnent of their property rigtnts consistent with the by-la;v Ittno knowledge of knox\lng they live in a neighbourhood that historically only permits detached dx~ cliings). This form of stability provides a certain comfort level to rcsidei2ts ii7 know iI2.~ \\ [~_at tine\ can expect in their surroundings. The proposed development \~ould not be in keeping \vittn the established character of the immediate nei~hbourhood :~nd is considered by the immediate neighbours to be beyond the realm of an acceptable or expected tlse in the neighbourhood. \Vtnen reviewing applications such as tiao subject application. ©rio must consider whether the need for change is greater flaan the need to remain with tiao existing use rights. The need, from a land use perspcctixc, to ?ei712it lbklI' IS) &\oilings at this site specific location has not been demonstrated. Xlarkct opportunities and propcrt)owner's needs do not have a higher need than the public interest, being municipal need or the neighbourhood's interests. A_gp_plicant's Comments Tile applicant does not agree \vith tile staff rcconnnendation. Tiao Mastrorillo's haxe spent significant IMnds and time to satisfy Fire Department requirements to bring the three {3) basement units into confomnitv with the Fire Code and sat/siN' a Fire Marshal's order. They request that the application be approx cd. °76 REPORT NUMBER PD 14-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 18-01 Date: March 26, 2002 Page 5 Staff would be supportive of a revised application to introduce one (1) additional dwelling unit within the existing dwelling. This would be in line with other recent Council approvals, where single additional units have been approved. However, the applicant does not support this alternative. After the applicant reviewed the staff recommendation on the subject application, the applicant has requested to amend the application to permit a building containing three (3) dwelling units consisting of the main dwelling on the upper two floors and two (2) dwelling units in the basement (see Attachment #11). This request for an application amendment has been reviewed, however, the change is not significant enough that staff would alter the staff recommendation. The recommendation to refuse the application stands. ATTACHMENTS: 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Property Location Map Applicant's Submitted Site Plan Information Report No. 30-01 Minutes of December 20, 2001 Statutory Public Meeting Resident Comment - B. Kotyk Resident Comment - K. Gibson Agency Comment - Region of Durham Planning Department Agency Comment Veridian Connections Agency Canadian National Railway Properties Inc. Staff Comment - Municipal Property & Engineering Division Applicant's request to amend application Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed by: RossPym, C ,Pdt' ' Principal Planner - Development Review Ne[i Carroll,~cIV, RPP Director, Planmng & Development Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP,/ Manager, Development Review RP/LDT/sm Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council_ ]l'/'"---~ , ' ~ ~ , //' ' / I / -'...,. I /,.x T, fi'Urfi'as J. Quinn, hief Admm, stratl' ' :'J reducer ATTACH~¢FI*,IT ~ / __TO FOXWOOD AVENUE r City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOT 2, PLAN 473 [ APPLICANT FRANK MASTRORILLO DATE OCT 9, 2001 DRAVVN BY RC APPLICATION No A 18/01 FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-6 SCALE 1:7500 CHECKED BY RT PA- 278 ATTACH,~,~,EI,,I'r # ~ TO INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN A 18/01 FRANK MASTRORILLO THISMAP WAS PROD[iCED BY THE CITY OF PICK/RING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, OCTOBER 9, 2000. ATTACHMENT ,~ -~ TO REPORT # PD /'-/-- o ~- PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 30-01 FOIl. PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF December 20. 2001 ACCORDANCI, WITtt THE PUBLIC MEEI'ING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PI,A2NNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 13 SUB,IE( I: Zoning By-taw Amendment Application Frank Mastrorillo Lot 27 Plan 473 1495 Rosebank Road City of Picketing 1.0 2.0 PROPERTY LOCAT! ON AND I)I(SCRI PTI()N thc subject lands arc located on the cast sitic of Rosebank },load, one lot south of Sheppard Avenue; a property location map is provided Ibr re/krcnce ( see :kttaChlllCltt #1 ); the subject lands currently support a house that was originally constructed as a detached dwelling: the property is accessed fi'Oln Rosebank Road by a circular driveway; The subject lot has a lot fl'ontage of 27 metres {9{) Ii.) and a lot depth of 60.9 metres (200 riO; suxounding land uses are; north detached dwelling south detached dwelling east on the opposite side of Rosebank Rd., detached dxvellings west detached dwelling APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL - the application that is being considered is an amendment to the zoning by-law in order to permit the conversion o£ the existing building from a detached dwelling (one dwelling unit) into a building containing four (4) dwelling units consisting of the primary dwelling unit for the property owner on thc main and upper floors and tl~ee (3) basement dwelling units; the applicant's submitted plan is provided for reference (see Attachment #2); tile existing building on tile property is to be retained tile applicant is not proposing any alteration to the exterior of the existing structure; - the additional parking that would be required to accommodate tile 3 additional dwelling units is to be accommodated in the circular drivewav m tile front yard; - the dwelling units will consist o£ the mare dwelling unit occupied by the property owner oll all of the main and upper floors, while tile basement has been divided up into three dwelling units, each consisting of a kitchen, a bedroom and bathroom; the basement dwelling units are accessed by a common hall way that leads to a stairwell and an exterior door; the applicant has requested to rezone the property from a "R4" One Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone, which only permits one detached dwellin~ to an appropriate zone that would pennit the proposal. Information Report No. 30-01 Page 2 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.0 4.1 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan the Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as within a Living Area; the Durham Regional Official Plan states that Living Areas are intended to be predominantly for housing purposes; Living Areas shall be developed in a compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along arterial roads; Rosebank Road is designated as a Type "C" Arterial Road in the Dnrham Regional Official Plan the application appears to conform to this designation; Pickerin~ Official Plan the Picketing Official Plan designates the subject lands as Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area; - permissible uses within this designation include a variety of residential uses; - the Pickering Official Plan establishes a maximum density of up to, and including, 30 dwelling units per hectare for development within an Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area, the proposed development would provide a net density of 23.9 units per hectare; the subject property is within the Woodlands Neighbourhood of the Official Plan; Section 11.8 (a) of the Official Plan, Woodlands Neighbourhood, states that City Council shall, in established residential .areas along Highbush trail, Old Forest Road, Rosebank Road and Sheppard Avenue, encourage and where possible require new development to be compatible with the character of the existing developments; Schedule II of the Pickering Official Plan - "Transportation Systems" designates Rosebank Road where it abuts the subject lands as a ~7)e "C" Arterial Road: Type "C" Arterial Road are designed to carry lower volumes of traffic at a lower speed than a Type "B "Arterial Road, provide access to properties and generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 26 to 30 metres; - the subject applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Picketing Official Plan during the further processing of the applications. Zoninff By-law 3036~ as amended the subject lands are currently zoned "R4" - One Family Detached [)welling Fourth Density Zone in Zoning By-law 3036, as amended; the existing zoning only permits detached dwellings on lots with a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres and a minimum lot area of 460 square metres; an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to implement the applicant's proposal; the applicant has requested an appropriate zone that would permit the proposed 4 dwelling units within the existing building. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION Resident Comments Wendy Atkinson-Lamacraft and Douglas Lamacraft of 1492 Rosebank Road are both opposed to the application as the proposal would change the integrity of the neighbourhood; set a precedent for any future requests of a similar nature; increase traffic on an already busy street; have a negative impact on surrounding property values; and requests the application be denied (Attachment No. 3); Chris and Donna Ellis of 1494 Rosebank Road are both opposed to the applicatiou as the existing neighbourhood is a single-family dwelling neighbourhood and if this application was approved for multi-family dwellings that a precedent will be set for others as there are other properties in the area of a similar size to the subject property; have a negative impact on surrounding property values; increase traffic on an already busy street and the possibility of on-street parking created by the additional dwelling Information Report No. 30-01 ,ATTAOHMEr'~T # ~ .TO REPORT # PD / '.:/ - o .~ Page 34 '') ,~ j 4.2 4.3 units could add to a safety issue; and request that the neighbourhood be preserved as a single- family zoned area (Attachm tnt No. 4); Deborah Peterson and John Andresen of' 14.98 Rosebank Road are both opposed to the application as the ex~stino nei~hbourhood is a sin,,lc-family dwellin~ neighbourhood and if'this application was approved For multi-Family dwellings that a precedent will be set tbr others as there are other properties in tile area of a similar size to tile subject property (Attachment No. 5 ). ~..~eH cv Comments - no connnents £rom any of tile ch'culated agencies have been received to-date on the revised application; Staff Comments in reviewing tile application to-date, tile Col]oxving matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: 5.0 6.0 6.1 ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with, and sensitive to, SmToundilag lands; the impact the proposed use . site changes may have on the character of the neighbourhood: the impact on the streetscape fi'om the proposed tkont yard parking; reviewing tho implications that thc proposal will have on the pcrccix'cd identity of the neighbourhood; whether the proposed use constitutes an intrusion into '~m cstablishcd detached residential area thereby creating a conflict of land use; whether the proposed use will bare a destabilizin~j ol'I~ct on thc ne ghbourhood. this Department will conclude its position on Ibc application after it has received and assessed comments f`rom the circulated departlnCnls, agencies and tile public. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to tile Planning & Development Department; oral comments may be made at thc Public lnlbnnation Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Departnlent tbr a subsequent meeting o f Council or a Committee o£ Council; if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding the zoning by-law amendment application, you must request such in writing to tile City Clerk; if a person or public body that files a notice ot' appeal oi' a decision of tile City of Picketing, in respect to tile zoning by-law amendment, does not make oral submission at the public meeting, or make a written submission to the City of Picketing before the zoning by-law is passed, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part o£ tile appeal; if you wish to reserve the option to apt)cai Council's decision of the proposed zoning by-law amendment application, you must provide comments to the City betbre Council adopts any by-law tut this proposal. OTIIER INFORMATION Appendix I - list of neighbourhood resictcms, community, associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on thc applications at the time of writing this report', Information Report No. 30-01 ATTACHN~ENT # '% TO RE?ORT~ PD.. /¢'0;~- Page 4 6.2 I n formation Received copies of the Applicant's submitted plan and basement floor plans showing the proposed additional dwelling units are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department; the City of Pickering bas not received any tectm/.cal infommtion/reports on the proposed application. Ross Pyro, MCIP, ILPt Principal Planner = Development Review Lynda Taylor~cIP, RPP Manager, Current Operations RP/sm Copy: Director, Planning & Development Department APPENDIX I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 30-01 COSIMENTING RESIDENTS AND I~ANDOX, VNERS Wendv Atkinson-Lamacrafl and Douglas Lamacrat't Chris and Donna Ellis Deborah Peterson and Jolm Andresen COSISIENTING AGENCIES (1) None received to-date COMMENTING CITY DEPARTSIENTS (1) None received to-date ATTACHMENT # _,~') TO REPORT ~ PD / ~ - 42 ~. ATTACHMENT# 3 TO INFORMATION REPORT# October 26, 2001 The City of Picketing Planning Department (~'~(~{'~ '~SPla n ad e Pickering, Ontado RE.C w D NOV - 8 2001 DEVELO~'~ :: '! , A,~TMENT NOV ? ' 2001 Without prejudic~lTY OF PICKERING PIGKERIN(~, ONTARIO Dear Mr. Pym: RE: ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT A 18/01 149~ ROSEBANK ROAD, PICKERING, ONTARIO We are wdting to you with respect tothe recent notice posted at the aforementioned properly. This notice advises residents of the area, of Mr. F. Mastrorillo's intent to change his existing single-residence to that of a multi-tenant residence. As long term residents of Rosebank Road, we are requesting that Mr. Mastrorillo's proposed application be denied. To give blessing to this request, will not only change the existing integrity of our neighbourhood, but will set the precedent for any future requests of a similar nature. As you are likely aware, the properly directly nodh of Mr. Mastrorillo's has recently been destroyed and is apt be re-developed or sold in the near future. The decision to approve Mr. Mastrorillo's request shall undoubtedly set the tone for the type of future development permitted not only on the neighbouring properly, but also for any of the remaining undeveloped lots on Rosebank Road. Since the widening of Rosebank Road in 1999, we have seen an increase in traffic and posted speed limits are seldom obeyed. The intersection at Rosebank Road and Sheppard Avenue is presently a dangerous one. To add fudher vehicular density to an address within 50 meters Of this intersectiOn will result in an increased safety issue on our street. Moreover, the value of surrounding propedies will diminish with a transitory occupancy. The footprint of this neighbourhood is that of single-family dwellings and it should remain as such. Thank you for your consideration of the above request. Yours very truly, ~, . ' . . Wendy Atkinson-Lamacraft ./ ,., / ~.../'/ " Douglas Lamacraft ~' ~~. __,~,~,,,/~ 1492 Rosebank Road - '~..~ "'-~"~'~ ' Picketing, Ontario L1V 1P4 (905) 837-2491 CC: Nell Carroll, Director ct Planning Maudce Brenner, Councilor Dave Ryan, Councilor ATTACHMENT- ~.~_. 'to INFORMATION REF'ORr -~. 3_0 7(~_t ___ November 15, 2001 The City of Pickering Planning Department Mr. Ross Pyro One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario D'_-VFL_]r-..~.:, _'. .. Er,~r Dear Mr. Pyro: -J NOV .1 20[11 CITY OF PICKEf-IING PICK~RING, OFITAFIIO we are writing to voice our objection to Mr. F. Mastrorilios proposed - BYLAW AMENDMENT A 18/01 1495 ROSEBANK ROAD - to construct three basement apartment dwellings. This neighbourhood is zoned for single-family dwellings, not multi-family dwellings. It is a street undergoiug many changes with ~hler homes being replaced by new homes. We are concerned that by alio~ving Mr. Mastrorillo to change his home into a multi-family dwelling that a precedent will be set for others. There are many homes with equal or greater lot size that could accommodate extra parking and apartmeuts. The home immediately to the north of his residence has been destroyed - by fire and in all probability will he re-built. What will they be allowed to build once a multi-family dwelling has l~een approved? Our family home is located directly across the'street from Mr. Mastrorillo and we feel the future pricing and sale of our home would be adversely affected by lmving a multi-family dwelling in place with a potential transitory rental group. Since the widening of Rosebank Road and the building of new homes to the north, traffic and speeds have increased on our street. Mr. Mastrorillos home is located, very ciose to the busy intersection of Rosebank and Sheppard. The potential vehicle increase and possibility of street parking created, by three basemen t apartments could addto this safety issue. ' I urge you to preserve our neighb0urhood as a single-family zoned area by not allowing Mr. Matrorillo to amend the existing by-law. Chris and Donna Ellis 1494 Rosebank Road Picketing, Ontario L1V 1 P4 (905) 421L7673 cc: Nell Carroll, Director of Planning / ~rlaurice Brenner, Councilor / Dave Ryan, Councilor ATTACtiM, EN'T ¢~ '~ TO RE?GR'; ,r PD / F'- 0 2--- ATTACHMENT# ~' TO INFORMATION REPORT# ,"~0 ~ 01 .... The City of Pickering Planning Department One, The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario RECEIVED NOV 27 2001 CITY OF PIOKERING PL~ t'~Nll,,fG DEVELoPMEH7 DEPARTMENT November 22, 2001 Dear Mr. lLoss Pyro, I am xvriting today iii response to the sign posted in front of Mr. E Mastrorillo's home, Zoning Bylaw Amendment A 18/01, to turn his single-family home into a multi-tenant dwelling. We would like to state that we are absolutely opposed to Mr. Mastrorillo's proposal to change his home from a single-fanfily dwelling into a multi-tenant one. The neighbourhood is a single-family neighbourhood, and shonld remain this way. Allowing Mr. Mastrorillo's proposal will set a precedent for the street's future, especially since the house next to his burned down, and will probably be slated for redevelopment. The house beside ours already has already been divided into two apartments -- something we, nor our neighbours, are at all happy about. We have just sold our home, and the purchaser xvas also concerned about the sign outside Mr. Mastrorillo's home. We have assured her xve xvill voice our opimon for her as we are still the current owners for 1498. ~osebank. Please do not allow Mr. Mastrorillo to change his single-fanfily dwelling into a mnlti-tenaut unit. This move will be the catalyst for a slippery slope of development on l~.osebank -- a street which is under constant change fi-om small, older cottages to newer style homes. Kind regards, Deborah Peterson 1498 Rosebank Road 905.831~5460 John Andresen ~_,;~-c~ ~ p~ /~/- o ~_ Excerpts from the Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes Pursuant to the Planning Act Thursday, December 20, 2001 7'00 P.51. The Principal Planner - Development P, cvicxx, provided an overview of thc requirements of thc Planning .:kct and the Ontario Municipal Board rcspoctin~ this mooting and matters tinder consideration there at. (II} ZONING BY-LAW ASIENDXlENT APPI.ICATION A 18/01 FRANK iMASTRORI I,l.O L()T 2, PLAN 473 1495 ROSEBANK ROAD '7 0. Ness Pyro, Principal })lani~cr-Development Revicxv. provided an explanation of thc application, as outlined in Information Report .--30-01. Gordon D'Eri, 1495 Rosebank Road. representing the applicant, provided supporting infommtion to the application. Lin I)'Eri 'adxiscd that tho applicant has lived in this 5000 fl: home fbr approximately 12 years and Ibr thc past 3 years i}~crc have been tenants living in the [louse stated years. issues (although he admitted this x~as non-cont'ormin~ re the/onino bx-law). Mr. D'Eri fln'ther that the owner has not received iUlV COlXqplaint> regarding thc tenants during the past three raised. Ifc also expressed concern ubout some of the t~ci~hbot~rhood properties. Frank Mastrorillo, 1495 Roscbank P, oad. thc apl,licu, nt. expressed COI1CeFIas with thc actixity of some of the neighbourhood properties. Ho advised flmr t}~c oi~Iv ucceptablc tenants are bachelors who are employed. Each of tho basement apatgn~cnt~ consists of a living area, a bedroom and a bathroom. Mr. D'Eri assured thc residents that thc exterior of the hottso'propcrty would not change and that traffic would not increase as a rcsult el' the additional tellallt5. Lech Okolotowicz, 1488 Rosebank Road. spoke in opposition of the application. Mr. Okolotowicz retbrs to this street as "old Picketing" xxhich includes cottage-style homes on large lots, and does not want this environment to evolve into areas such as Jane Street in Toronto. stated that ahhough there may be x.~u){) illegal basement :q>artnqcnts in thc City, it doesn't provide justification tbr suppo~ the applicant in itn~ Doug Lamacrafl, 1492 Rosebank Road, stated that he does not have an,,,, concerns with increased traffic, but he is veu' concerned that il' the application is approved, it will set a precedent of basement apartments in the area. Mt-. Lamacraft is concerned dmt the vacant lots in the area may be used for multi-unit dwellings if this application is approved. Donna Ellis, 1494 Rosebank Road. is opposed to the application. She bclievesthataprecident of permitting basement apartments xxilI he set xvtni,:h w/il undermine the irate,2ritv c)f tile area. Frank Pitrull, 405 Strathmore, Toronto, ox~n,,, 149= Ftosebank Need, stated that he intends on building a single family ch~elling at 1q. 97 P, oscbank t,~oad. [le is concerned that approval o£ tile application will change tile ncighbourhood and will enable ~t to evolve into a more densely populated area. If the application is approx'cd, he indicated that he miglnt reconsider the type of structure for his property. Glen Hunt, 1467 Rosebank Road. is concerned that a nlulti-family dwelling will impact the area. Mr. Hunt ti~nher stated that he moved t?om a dcnsclx populatcd neighbourhood to Rosebank Road because of the large lots. (ierda \Villonlitzer, 1490 Rosebank Road. stated that she has lived at this acldrcss tbr ~ years. Sheisconcenaedthatachan,e= to the zonin~ bv-law will alloxx the construction ofmulti-tiimily dwellings on the vacant lots. 2 HCKERiNG ATTACHU, ENT #--?~-------TO REPORT,~ PD_ / 'fT~;d Excerpts from the Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes Pursuant to the Planning Act Thursday, December 20, 2001 7:00 P.M. 10. Gordon D'Eri responded to the comments of the residents. He indicated that the area has already started to change, as is indicated with the type of housing further down the street, and in fact, he believes that the construction of these larger homes xvill increase the value of the smaller, older homes. He reiterated his earlier comments that neighbours haven't previously complained about the tenants and questions why they are so concerned now. Mr. D'Erie indicated that the neighbours should be monitoring activities related to the vacant sites, not existing the existing houses. Barbara Kotyk? t454 Rosebank Road, Picketing, Ontario L1V 1P4 December 19, 2001 Planning and Development Committee, CiD' of Pickering, One The Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario. Dear Committee Members, This letter states my objection to the recent proposal by Mr. Frank Mastrohllo of 1495 Rosebank Road to rezone his home from that of a single family d~.velIin2 to one which is multi-tenanted. My reasons for opposing this are: Concern that other property owners in the neighbourhood will do the same. once a precedent has been set, thus changing the current single-family atmosphere, flavour and status of this street to a more congested one. Presently, there are at least eighlproperties on the Rosebank Road block between Sheppard .Avenue and Old Forest which are not owner-occ~pied Five are rental properties in various states of disrepair, and the remaining are uninhabitable or vacant lots. (l will provide you with a list of these owners if requested, or they are on City tax roll records). If the present zoning is changed to allow multi-tenanted zoning, any property owner could then £ollow suit. I believe owners such as the non-residents of these eight rental and other properties would do so. .After all, these owners are already in the rental business, and such zoning changes encourages the building of multiple rental units to maximize an owner's investment. The potential for increased congestion, overcrowding, transient population, parking problems, etc. is present and would impact negatively on the stabiliD- of our present communiD,. I, and all other property owners on my street, bought our properties on Rosebank Road with full knowledge of its single-family zoning status. The purchase of our properts' implies our acceptance of this zoning and the laws and regulations that come with it. X~,~ile i can appreciate Mr. Mastrorillo's desire, a property owner who wishes to build multi-tenanted facilities should seek out land appropriately zoned, or one in which his neighbours do not object Sincerely, Barbara Kotyk 2 ~T'rACHM£N'f ,~ ~"~ TO ,C;,5POR'T # PD 1 ~ ' (-} DEC--Si--~B1 MON ~2 : 1~ PM 905 420 0302 :: ;, i'.,; Regional ~f Durham )a~?,,ment 1615 Dundas St. E. lth Fi©or. Lang Tower Building Box 623 ON L1N 6A3 905i ~28-7731 ~05i 436-6612 · "~,v, re_ g!~n:durha_rq,~_n.ca Georgieff, MC~P, RPP )f P!anntng December 19, 2001 Ross Pym, Principal Planner Planning & Development Department One the Esplanade Pickering, Ontario LlV 6K7 Dear Mr. Pym: Re: Zoning Amendment Application A18/01 Applicant: Frank & Josephine Mastrorillo Location: Lot 2, Plan 423 Municipality: City of Pickering We have reviewed this application and the following comments are offered with respect to compliance with the Durham Regional Official Plan, the proposed method of servicing and delegated provincial plan review responsibilities. The purpose of the application is to permit the continuation of the existing building containing four (4) dwelling units consisting of the primary dwelling unit for the owner and three (3) basement apartment dwelling units. The subject property is designated "Living Area" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands within this designation shall be used predominantly for housing purposes and shall be developed to incorporate the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure. The proposed amendment is in conformity with the Durham Regional Official Plan. Regional water and Sanitary sewer services are available to the subject property. This application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial plan review responsibilities. No provincial imerests appear to be affected. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me. Yours truly, Ray'-Davies, Planner Current Operations Branch R ,tra nlcg-cd zonin§'4~ckenng a 18 01 doc vice!Excellence ') q :2 ATTACHME/',~T #_ .~ _TO ,~FPORT ~ PD_ / '-/- - © Veridian 12/18/01 10:09 PAGE 2/2 RightFAX PROJECT NAME: VERIDIAN CONNECTIONS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW Frank and Josephine Mastmrillo [', 'ADDRESS/PLAN: '[, MUNICIPALITY: 1495 Rosebank Road Lot 2 Plan 423 Picketing REF. NO.: Al8/01 SUBMISSION... DATE: November 29, 2001 The existing service to this building may be inadequate. Details w_garding a service upgmcte can be obtained from our offices. Other: The applicant is required to contract Veridian to obtain Technical Bulletins and Standards regarding residential services. Technical Representative: Sham Kennedy ext. 3235 Or Mike Duck ext 3263 Telephone 427-9870 Canadian Propri~t6s National ferroviaircs du Railway Canadien Properties Inc. National Inc. 277 Front Street Floor ~ Toran',Or O~tarln M5v l'elephone: (415:2 ! 7-676 Fae~lmlle:,'4~6~2 74 ';43 277, rue F~ant OL'eS! Toronto (Ontario) MSV 2X7 T616phone: (416) 217.6961 '[616copleur: (416) 21 ?-6743 ViA FACSIMILE - (905} 420-968.5 December 19, 2001 · ..' Mr. Bruce Taylor,'AMCT ci~.(2fefk City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex, 1 The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario I.IV 6K7 Your File: A18/01 Our File' TZ-4500-P-02 Dear Mr. Taylor: Re: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Lot 2 Plan 423 1495 Rosebank Road, City of Picketing We have reviewed your letter, dated November 29, 2001, regarding the above noted application and request that the following clause be inserted in all development agreements, offers to purchase, agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease and include in a Noise Impact Statement: "Warning: Canadian National Railway Cornpany or Its ~]ssigns or successors in interest has or have a right-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the rail facilit:ies on such right-of-way in the future including the possibility that tthe railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expa.~d ILs operations, which expansion may affect the livtng environment o? the residents in the vidnib/, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNR will not be responsible for any complainL~ or da]ms arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under tt~e aforesaid right-of-way." Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (~16) 217-6961. Yours truly, Geoff Woods Development Review Coordinator A wholly ow~led subsidiary cfi Canadian N,~t:onaJ k~:tw~ (cmpany, Un( f',~ale oY pr~pd~t~ ~x:lu;[ve ao !:~ Csmpaqmc d¢~ ..her-tn; dc (er na~mn~'ux dt~ Canada ~TT/~CHMEI'~T ~ /~ TO ~E~L",R'r ~ PD~ OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM December 18, 2001 To: Ross P>xn Principal Planner-Development From: Richard ttolbom Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Stlbject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application Al 8/01 Frank and Josephine Mastrorillo Lot 2 Plan 423 1495 Rosebank Road City of Pickering The Municipal Property & Engineering iDivision is in receipt of the above noted zoning application. This Division's main concern is that with inadequate availably of parking for thc four dwelling units, the result would be on-street parking that would conflict with u-affic operation of the intersection, and would impede maintenance operations. RH:ds c~/S/e~ Copy: Director, Operations & Emergen rvices I:LS ITEPLAN"~A 18-01 Lot2Plan423.docDec-01 ATTACHMENT #_~.~_TO INFORMATION REPORT# I)on l]ri Enterprises I.td. 31 Ben Stanton 13lx, d. Toronto, ON M l}I ! N7 Tel. 416-438-2320 Fax: 416-439-9933 Xlarch 21, 2002 Attention: Mr. Ross Pvm. M('IP. RPP Plamdng & Building Departmen~ Picketing Civic Complex ()ne The Esplanade Picketing, ON L 1 \; 6K7 RE ZONIN(iXPPI.I('\110'4 .XNII]NI)Nlf£N I Dear Mr. Pym: I represent Mr. & Mrs. 17. & J. Xlastrorillo of 1495 Roscbank R,~ad. \Vard I in thc CJI3' of Pickering, Ontario. In their rc zoning a?plica~icm -~:'~ 1 ~-,i' 1 under thc present Zoning bv-Laxv. .~.t this time my client's x~ ould appreciale an opporT~nit5 t,J a~ncnd tho rc zonin~ application -~18-0l Lot.-~2 Plan =473 municipallx 1, n~x~n as 13,95 Rosebank Road to apply the re zoning to accept three units and not four units as orisinallv applied tbr. A~nend~nent to the re zoning_3.~licati_on #Al8-01 to be as follo~vs: One unit to be the Main dwelling of'the upper Two exclusively Batchelor units corasiNtira5 o:t'one m each of the two units. Trxtsting this amendment to the rs zonin~ application ~.'~1 ~-(., 1 max receix prior to the Planning Development & Btiiidin5 Depann~otnt~ C',~n~m~ttoo meeting Monday the 8th day of.~kpril 2002 Sincerely. .",Ir. G. 17. D'Eri. LC Per Don Eri Enterprises Ltd. Client Ot~ce 1Tile Councillor Maurice Brenner. \Vard [ :Lldme CorLstruction Ltd. Plamnng Department Building Department Fire Prevention O1~icer RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY 1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/01, submitted bv Grant Morris. on lands being South Part of Lot 31, Concession 1. (Part 2.40R-17618), City of Pickering, to amend the zoning of the lands to permit the establishment of a second dwelling unit in the main dwelling, and to convert the existing barn in the rear yard into a garage and dwelling unit, on the subject property, be APPROVED AS REVISED to permit the establishment of a second dwelling unit in the main dwelling; subject to conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report No. 17-02. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Plannin¢, & Development DATE: March 26, 2i)0£ REPORT NUMBER: PD17-02 SUBJECT: Zoning Bv-laxx Amendment Application A 20 689629 Ontario Limited 420 Sheppard Avenue South Part of Lot 31. Concession 1. (Part 2, Plan 40R- 1701S ) City o£ Picketing RECOMMENDATION' That Zoning Bv-lax~ Amendnnent Application A 20 0l. submitted by Grant Morris, on lands being South Pan of Lot 31. Concession 1. (Part 2.4()R-1701S1. City of Picketing, to amend the zoning of tile lands to permit thc establishinent ot'a second dwelling unit in the main dwellinn, and to convert the cxistin~ barn iin the rear yard into a ,,ara,,e and dxx cllin~ unit, on the subject propert>, be APPROVED AS REVISED to pcnnit thc establishment of a second dxvelling unit in thc man~ dx~olling: sub.jeer to conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report No. 17-~C. ORIGIN: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26 01 submitted to the C'itx of Picketing. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 199i). chapter P. 13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of tine proposed developinent. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Tiao subject property is located on thc north side of Sheppard Axcnue just west or' Old Forest Road and cu~enth' suppo~xs a detached dx~elling, an existing ban~. a~td a~ I~ai220 slned. (see Attachment ~1 - Location Map). The subject lands arc currently zoned "R4" - Detached Dxxelling Residential Zone, which pcmqits the establishmeint of one dx~elling unit per lot. The applicant has requested an amendment to tine existin,g zoning bx-taxx to permit tine establishment ora second dwelling unit within the basement of the existing dx~ellin<, and the conversion of the existing barn in the rear yard to include a dx~oiIing unit. tbr a total of 3 units on the property (sec Attachment =2 Applicant's Submitted Plan). A second dxvelling unit. can be accommodated xvithin tile main dxvellin~ without detection from outside, thus maintaining the visual impact and character of tile nei~hbourhood. Report to Council PD 17-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/01 Date: March 26. 2002 })age '~ The introduction of a third dwelling unit on the subject property is not supported. A dwelling unit within the existing accessory 'barn' structure would not be in keeping with the detached residential dwelling character of the neighbourhood. Furthermore the structure is in close proximity to a railway line and an abutting property line, with the potential for land use conflicts. It is recommended that Zoning By-law Amendment A 26/01 be Approved as Revised to permit only one additional dwelling unit within the main dwelling and that an implementing by-law be adopted by Council at a later date. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Information Meeting A Public Information meeting was held on Februa~ 21, 2002, to discuss the applicant's proposal. Information Report No. 08-02, which summarizes the applicant's proposal and outlines the issues identified through circulation of the application, was prepared lbr the meeting. The text of the Information Report is provided for reference (see Attachment #3). At the Public Information Meeting, Planning staff gave an explanation of thc application. Several members of the public were in attendance at the meeting in opposition..x, linutes of the meeting are included as Attachment #4. 2.0 Additional Information Since the preparation of Information Report No. 08-02, the following agency comments have been received: Resident Comments in Objection - The City has received three letters and a petition signed by 35 area residents, in objection to the proposed zoning amendment. The objections are based on concerns respecting parking (both street and front yard parking)~ noise (from neighbour and abutting CN Railway line), safety, playing area for kids and dogs, along with the appropriateness of this type of development within their neighbourhood (see Attachments #5-8). Applicants Response Addressing Residents Concerns - Grant Morris stated that this proposal will not devalue the neighbourhood. He also advised that he intends to build two homes approximately 3,400 sq.ft., on the south side of Sheppard Avenue from ~vere he moved the house now at 420 Sheppard Avenue. He has considered moving the garage and lowering the ramp. He has also engaged a consultant with regards to the noise from the abutting Canadian National Railway and has advised that other residences in the neighbourhood have apartment units and all renters for the subject property units will be screened (see Attachment #9). The Durham District School Board has advised that under the mandate of the Durham District School Board, there are no objections (see Attachment # 10). The Region of Durham Planning Department has advised that applicant's proposal to amend the zoning by-law is in conformity with the Durham Regional Official Plan. Also they have suggested that the pre-service water pipe of 19mm may not be large enough to maintain sufficient pressure and may need to upgrade to a 25mm water service at the applicant's expense. With regards to the provincial plan policies, a noise vibration feasibility study would be required to ensure that new sensitive land uses (barn) are separated from the abutting railway effects (see Attachment #11). Report to Council PD 17-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendlnent Application A £0 Il1 Date: March 26, 2002 Pa~,e '~ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Canadian National Rail~'a¥ Properties Inc. has advised that the applicant's proposal is inappropriate without proper mitigation measures to reduce incompatibility. Also it is required that adjacent residential properties be setback a minimum of 30 metres from the railxvav right-of-v,'ay, with a 2.5 m high earttncn bernn and a 1.83 metre tnigtn chain link Fence. The RaiN, ay cannot support thc proposed intensification (barn) of an existing incompatible development, particularly tile conversion of tine existing barn in tine rear yard itl to a d~'elling unit {see Attacimlent = 12 ). City of Picketing - Municipal Properties & Engineering has advised that tlney tmve concerns with tine parking requirements, and ttnat tile length of thc culvert be indicated on tine plan, including invert elevations and distance from tile fire tnvdrant/see Attachment ~13). City of Pickering- Fire Prevention has advised that tile applicant must meet all applicable requirements of the Ontario Building and Fire Codes. That during the building process and before final occupancy tile applicant provide documentation from the Electrical Authority indicating ttmt arc no electrical deficiencies, and that the common drivcx~ ax be used by the -existing barn" occupants, also that thc drix exxax not cause any obstruction emergency response personnel I sec .-httachincnt :: 14 ~. Veridian Corporation has advised that they have no objection to the proposed developlnent. Discussion City Wide Zoning Review of Txvo-Unit Houses The Planning & Developlnent Department will be z-ex iexvin~ potential amendments to thc City's Zoning By-laws. in 2002, to allow the introdtiction of second dwelling units as of right within certain housing t)?es in the City of Picketing. How ever, until such time as this review is complete it is appropriate that individual zoning amendments for second dwelling units be considered on their oxvn merits. Approval of this application will not prejudice the City's future review process. Visual Impact and Neighbourhood Ctnaracter The introduction of second dxvelling units xx itlain existing dx~ elling, s and their impacts on the establistned streetscape must be reviex~ed to ensL~re that the existim,: dx~ellin~ COlmnues to appear as one dwelling. Tine visual impact et' this proposal will be of two separate units on tile same property: the main dx~ &ling xvitln a second dwelling unit, and the converted barn in the rear yard to a two bedroom unit. The main dwelling will have two units, with ilo indication of tine existence of the second dwelling unit within tine main dxvelling. This second unit can be accommodated within the building without detection from outside, and thereby ensures that the xisual impact and neighbourhood character x~ ithin tiao \Voodlands Neighbourhood is maintained. The impact of the proposed converted barn. tao~ex'cr, will be greater on tile ncighbourhood due to its location on the subject property. It is located in thc nortlqxvest comer of the prope~y, approximately ~2.82 mort'es ~rom the nortt~ property line and ~;.SO metres from the west property linc. A Committee of A4justment Application (5690) reco~dzed these yards relating to an accessory strnct~re, not lbr residential use. The proposed converted barn does not reflect the intended character of tile ncighbourhood. A residential unit at this location has potential for land usc conflicts duc to tile proximity of the railxvav line. Also it ~s desirable to) avoict dissinliiar uses and maintain the predominate detached dwelling expectations. Tine overall function of tine proposed converted barn is inappropriate with the surroundings, which are predominate!> detached residential homes. Report to Council PD 17-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/01 Date: March 26, 2002 Page 4 3.3 4.0 It is recommended that the application be approved as revised, to permit only the establishment of a second dwelling unit within the main dwelling. Vehicle Parking Provisions for Proposed Additional Units The subject property can currently support two parking spaces in the existing detached barn/garage and one in the driveway. The introduction of two additional units is likely to increase the on-site parking demand. The applicant advises that seven (7) cars can be accommodated on the property; two (2) in the garage, at least four (4) in the driveway, and one (1) on the pad in front of the barn. Concern with the parking has been addressed by the City's Division Head of Municipal Property & Engineering and the Fire Prevention Department. Municipal Property & Engineering stated that their concern was with the possibility of' parking occurring along the shoulder of Sheppard Avenue, if three dwelling units are approved on the property. Fire Prevention advise that the common driveway serving the proposed converted barn residential unit would be primarily used for vehicles associated with the principal residence. They express concern that vehicles parked in the driveway may obstruct emergency response personnel in efforts to reach the converted unit at the rear of the property. Adequate parking may be provided on site for one additional dwelling unit. Applicant's Comments The applicant is still requesting three units on the lot, please see Attachment #9 for applicant's comments. Report to Council PD 17-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment .Application .A 20 01 Date: March 20. 2002 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS' 0. 7. 8. 9. Property Location Map .Applicant's Submitted Plan In l'onnation Report Minutes of Public Information Meeting Correspondences with Public Letter I¥om Mrs. Gavle Dobson Correspondences Correspondences Correspondences Correspondences Correspondences Correspondences Correspondences Correspondences Correspondences with with with with with with with with with Public Letter from Nits. Marjorie Hancock Public Letter IYom Nit. AnthonvNIiceli Public- Petition handed m by Mr..Al Sacco Applicant Grant Morris' handora Durham District School Board Region of Durham Planning Department Canadian National Raihvav Properties Inc. City of Picketing - Municipal Properties 8,: Engineering CityofPickerinz FirePrcxention Prepared By: '~ //; i ' Planning'Tc~chnician .:~ppro~cd Endorsed By: Director. Planning & Development ~ :~:~.~:~ ~ ' ~ Lynda Taylor, MCIP RPP~ Manager, Development Revie'a GXWjf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Picketing City Council ~ /. ,,,,~,~ r-~-.~.-t~.-c r -'5 '/t. Tl~'on~as J. Ou,nn,~:~hief Adm~c APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 17-02 RECCOMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 26/01 (a) That the implementing by-law zoning by-law: (i) (ii) amend Zoning By-law 3036 by amending the zoning on the subject property to permit the establishment of a second dwelling unit within the existing dwelling. include a provision to require detached dwellings containing two units to provide a minimum of three parking spaces on the lot. REPORT ~' PD.~,~=.7. 4' ~ ATTACHMENT #/._.,~.TO INFORMATION REPORT # ~ -~? 2 LA.NE FOXWOOD TRAIL AUTUMN CRE$. C.N.R. PROPERTY C.N.R, ROU~EI~OUNT SHEPPARD DRIVE CRESCEN¥ PLACE ~-~JNY DAY STEEPLE HILL SHEPP~D AVE. City of Pickering )UGE HILL ROAD ~o~ Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOT 31, CONCESSION 1; PART 2, 40R-17618 OWNER 689629 ONTARIO LTD. I DATE JAN 17, 2002 APPLICATION No. A 26/01 I SCALE 1:7500 FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-6 PA- DRAWN BY RC / % CHECKED BY GR REPORT ~ PD .... /7- c ~_ ATTACHMENT # ?~__TO · INFORMJ~TIONREPORT# ~)~ - ~ -'~--- INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN A 26101 689629 ONTARIO LTD. C. N..R. 0.60 UNDISTURBED ~ S~RIP BREAK oUT EX. CONC. RAMP ALLOW FOR SWALE · .N 72' 58' 40' E.t..\\:> 15.g7 EX. COliC. RAMP --0.80 UNDISTURBED ~\h ST~P CENTREUNE OF DITCH EDGE OF SHOULDER, t~X~E OF p^VEuE~ CENTRELINE OF RO..~ SHE-PPARD AVE' UE THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, JANUARY 21,20O2. - ~ ; = - TO PiCKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 08-02 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF February 21, 2002 IN ACCORDANCE WITll TI|E PUBI.IC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF TIlE PI.ANNING .,kC]', R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/01 689629 Ontario Limited South Part of Lot 31, Ctmcessiol~ 1, tPart 2, 40R-17618) 420 Shcppard Avcnuc City of Picketing 1.0 2.0 3.0 PROPERTY LOCATION ANI) I)ESCRII'TI¢)N thc subject property is located on the Iloith side of Shcppard Avenue just west off Old Forest Road and is aptgroximatcly 015 square metres iu size with a lot frontage of 15.94 metres (see location map Attactuncnt ;:1 ): the subject property cu~cntly supports a cietachcd dxvelling, an existing b~n, and a flame shed; the sun'ounding l~d uses are primarily residential to thc west, east, and south, with a Canadian National Railw% linc adjacent to thc north property linc. APPLICANT'S PRO POS:\ L the applicant proposes to amend the existing zoning on the subject lands to permit tile establishment of a second dwelling unit in the main dv, elling, m~ct to convert the existing barn in the rear yard into a garage and dwelling unit-two bedroom apartment (see applicant's submitted plan - Attachment #2). OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING 3.1 3.2 Durham Regional Official Plan the Durham Regional Official Plan identities thc subject lands as being designated "Living Area", wtmre lands are to be used predominately for housir~g purposes; the Durham Regional Official Plan designates Sheppard Avenue as a Type C - Arterial Road; the applicant's proposal appears to comply with this designation. Pickering Official Plan - the subject property is designated "Urbai~ l~,esictential Area - Low Density Area" within the Woodlands Neighbourhood: - Section 11.8 (a) of the OlEcial Plan, Woodlands Neighbourhood, states that City Council shall, in established residential m'eas along llighbush Trail, Old Forest Road, Rosebank Road and Sheppard Avenue, encourage and where possible require new development to be compatible with the character o£ tile existing developments; this designation pemfits residential development up to and including 30 milts per net hectare for development within an Urban residential Area - Lox,,' Density Area, the proposed development would provide a net density of 16.19 traits per net hectare; - Schedule 1i of the Pickering Official Plan -"Transportation Systems" desigmates Sheppard Avenue as a Type C - Arterial Road; Information Report No. 08-02 Page 2 ATTACHMENT the applicant's proposal appears to conform to the applicable Official Plan policies. 3.3 Zonina By-law 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.0 6.0 6.1 the subject property is currently zoned "R4" - Detached Dwelling Residential Zone by By-law 3036; this zone permits the establishment of one detached dwelling unit on a lot with a nfinimum lot frontage of 15 metres and a minimum lot area of 460 metres square; an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to permit the establishment of a second dwelling in the main dwelling, and the conversion of the existing barn in the rear yard to include a dwelling unit. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION Resident Comments - no written resident Cormnents have been received to date; A~encv Comments - no agency comments have been received to date; Staff Cominents - in reviewing the application to-date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: · the compatibility with the surrounding lands and uses; · the impact of the uses and site configuration on the surrounding neighbourhood; · thc impact of on-site parking and access to Sheppard Avenue; · the impact of noise fi.om the northerly abutting Canadian National Railway line; · the appropriateness of the location and building tbrm (garage & main dwelling) of two additional units, for a total of 3 units, on the lot and within the neighbourhood. - this Department will conclude its position on the application after it has received and assessed comments fi.om the circulated departments, agencies and the public. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION - written comments regarding tlfis 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 Cotmcil 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 ttfis proposal; - if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk. OTHER INFORMATION Appendix I list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing report; Intbrmation Report No. 08-02 't~rrACt.~ZNT ~~TO Page 3 REPORT~ PD, ," -J ~ 6.2 6.3 hlformation Received ~t~ [ - copies of the Applicant's submitted plan are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department; Company Princi~ - the principal of 689629 Ontario Limited is Mr. Grmlt Morris. Pla~ming Tectnfician Attachments Lynd[t IJ. Taylor/xl~.r? m'p .Nlanager, Development Review Copy: Director, Plmming & Development ATTACHMENT ~~TO APPENDIX I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 08-02 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS (1) none received to date; COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) none received to date; COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS (1) Plmming & Development Department; 31 J ATTACMM£NT# / TO INFORMATION RF_PORT# p~ -O ,2 FOXWOOD FOXWOOD TR~JL AUTUMN CRES. PROPERTY C.N.R. SHEPPARD SHEPPARD ROUGE. MOUNT DRIVE CRESCENT RAINy STEEPLE HILL ROAD City of Pickering OUGE HILL ~--~-- ~0 ~ Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOT 31, CONCESSION 1; PART 2, 40R-17618 OWNER 689629 ONTARIO LTD. DATE JAN 17, 2002 APPLICATION No. A 26/01 SCALE 1:7500 FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-6 PA- tDRAWN BY RC CHECKED BY GR ATI'AOHMENT # .~ i b ~PORT ~ PD / -;7- 8,.2. ATTACHMENT#? TO INFORMATION REPORT# INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN A 26101 689629 ONTARIO LTD. C. N. R. 0.60 UNDIS'IIlRBED ~ $'I'I~P BREAJ( OUT EX. CONC. RAMP ALLOW FOR SWALE ~ 0.80 UNDISTURBED .~sy,-~ s~P_ CE~NTREU___NE OF DITCH EDGE OF SHOULDER EDGE OF PAvEMENrr W. BOX CENTRELINE OF RO..~ SHEPPARD AVENUE THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CiTY OF PICK~RING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, JANUARY 21.20O?_ Excerpts from the Statutory Public lnt'ormatio Meeting Minutes Pursuant to the Planning Act Thursday, February 21, 2002 7:00 P.M. Chair: Councillor Holland '['he Ik'l;~l~ageY, Policy, provided an overview o~' tt~c vcquiveme~ts or' ttxc Plaummg .Act and the Ontario N'lu~icipal Board respecting this meeting a~ad matters [t~dcv cor~sidcratio~ there at. (VI) ZONING B¥-LAV~: ASIEND~NIEN'I' Ai'I'I~ICATION A 26/01 689629 ONTARIO LISIITED SOUTII PART OF 1~O'I' 31, CONCESSION 1. (PART 2.40R-17618) 420 SItEI~'PARD AVICNUE ©eoI't' t,[omamoxvski, Pla~mmg A-ceh~xiciaz~. pvox'idcd z,~a expla~aatio~a off the applicatio~, as outlined i~a hll-ovmatio~ Rcpo~'t ~¢08-02. Grant Morris, applicator and oxx't~cv. 2S9 Star-x~exx' ('oL',~-t. stated l~e was present to answer questions. Norm Barraclough, 407 St~eppard :\ye.. :idx'/scct tiiat i~c oxx t~< risc pya, port>' directly diagoi~al a~d want to see single Gmilv dwelli~gs tl~a~i~tai~lcd. Itc stated }lis oppos~;ioi~ to this applicatioil. questioi~cd it' permits were applied roi-;illti ~l'atlltCti tut' tiao Dase~cI~t which was built, tie stated his co~lceri~ with respect to increased tl'aI'tic ai~d }>ossiblc accidc~ts. Iff a rcside~ce is built on top of the barn, privacy will be taken a~av ti'o~i ti~c ~c~5}~botiri~g i'csidcz~ts. Gall Dobson, 418 Sheppard Ave., submitted a letter l'ro~a~ Lit. & Nits. ttancock at 440 Sheppard Ave. She stated that the existing dwellii~5 t~as ~xot xct bee~ completed a~d they are already asking for chmxges. She stated her coi~cem~s xvitt~ respect to parking, ~oise, safety, playing area for kids and dogs, and privacy. She stated i~cr oppositio~ to this applicatio~. Tony Mechelly, 414 Sheppard Ave., ad,.'iscci tt~att lie shaves tlac concer~s as the previous speakers. Compatibility witt~ surrou~dmg area should be maintained, it is not appropriate to have tlu:ee dwetlia~gs o~ o~e site. Stated his coiacema with respt:ct to on street parking, ti~ont yark parking, impact o~ neighbours, impact off i~oise £rom CN}4, ired appropriateness of location of garage. A1 Sacco, 1498 Old Forest Road, stated that t~e co~acuvs xvitt2 previous speakers and does not want to see this happen in their neighbot~rhood. Grant Moms, applicator, advised that ttais ho~a~: ~x'as l~ox'ed Fro~x~ the south off Sheppard Ave. This proposal will not devalue the ~eigNboui'i~ood. t to stated that he intends to build two homes, approximately 3,400 sq. fi., oil tl~e south side off Shcpl>ard ,qxc. ifc stated his COllCCnl lbr thc cot~sultai~t concerning thc ixoisc l}'Olll tile %'N[<. [lc advised tidal ot}~cr residciicc i~ ttic ~eighbourhood have apartmei~t uixits alld ail] VCliteFs tk~t- ttlcsc traits will be screeched, tie [hrther advised that pets will not be allowed. AT't-ACH~..',ENT ,i,_ -~' TO REPORT # PD /"7' -c ~_ The City of Pickering Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario Canada L 1V6K7 CITY OF PicKERING ~ Re~ Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 26/01 689629 Ontario Limited South Part of Lot 31, Concession 1, Part 2, 40R17618 (420 Sheppard Avenue) City of Pickering Dear Sir/Madam My name is Gayle Dobson, owner of 418 Sheppard Avenue, City ofPickering. I bought my home on February 27, 1981. I have owned my home and lived here for 21 years. I bought my home in a single family residential area. This letter is to acknowledge that I oppose the above application. Questions - ls there enought room to make a proper driveway and be separate from ours? - Is the barn within regulation height? - Is the house withing regulation height? ~ Is the barn as a dwelling far enough away from the property line? back and west side? - As a dwelling, is barn far enough away from the railway tracks? - Would each of the 3 or 4 families be allowed pets? how many? where would they stay with no yard? - Who would pay the taxes? - How many garbage bags would there be allowed? Who would be responsible for the excess garbage? - Will the barn be 1 family with 2 bedrooms or would it be a duplex? - Is a residence allowed on top of a garage? - If this is allowed, is the 2 houses across the road going to be rentals as well? - Will this turn into "rental valley"? - Is the owner going to sell it when it is finished as a income property or will he be the property manager? - Who will take care of the upkeep? - By converting the barn into a residential dwelling, does this mean we could all'build another house in our back yards? - Is the house conforming? It sits sideways from its original state, it sits in front of the house on either side, it sits back behind the house on either side, and it is alot taller than the houses on either side. - are there enough fire hydrants to accomodate 3 or 4 separate living compartments? - where will the sewers go through? Comments - There is not enough parking spaces for 3 or 4 separate families. - Parking would go right from the road tight up past our house and along our bacleyard. - The noise from all the vehicles would be unbearable. - If not enough parking, vehicles Would be parked on the road infront of our house, which is happening now, and everyone elses in the valley. - He would have to have a wider driveway so people are not in our driveway and would have to make it a separate driveway. - There would be no yard for 3 or 4 families. - There would be no owner liv/ng on the premises. - This neighborhood-has never had homes built for rentals and shouldn't be now. ~TTACHMENT ~, ~ TO - This will decrease the marketable value of our home and all the homes around us - Noise will be an issue with 3 or 4 families in one tot - The barn as a barn, garage, or a residence does not conform - The last couple of'years this pv-openy has been rented as a garage, no one upkept it and 1 had to report it to the City of Picketing for it Nochtious Weeds -['his was in the summer or 2i~,.)1 and can be confirmed with the City o£Pickering - [t slates there can be 30 units in the area of 1 hectre bu~ in a sinale t'amiI~ residential it does not mean all on one lot. - By converting the barn into livin~ units, this would mean ~hat INs would be a two home residential tot to be used by 3 or 4 separate livin~ compartmems - The garage was built up on a concrete base 'a Jot hiuher than our backxard The front of the ~ara~e dwelling, and the side of the man house and the back of thc house o~edook our back yard The driver, ax line the east side of our property.' from front to beyond back of house endin~ up ~tit the ~arage dwellin~ ttomes often have side by side driveways ending at the ~zara_oes This one will go front ro back As you see I have a few concerns. I don't think that riss application should be approved Gayle Dobson Owner 418 Sheppard Avenue City of Picketing LlV 1ES (905 839-5076) cc: Maurice Brenner Area Counciller 3 1 4 ATTACHMENT f~T0 REPORT f PD, / -~-C -~- RECEIVED FEB 2 5 2002 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 440 Sheppard Ave. Pickering Ontario, L1V 1E5 February 17, 2002 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Araendment Application A26/01 689629 Ontario Ltd. South part of Lot 31, Concession 1, Part2,40R17618 (420 Sheppard Ave.) Dear Sir/Madam, As property owners in the immediate vicinity of the above subject property, we strongly object to the proposal submitted. Properties in our area are zoned R4, single family residential, permitting the establishment of one detached dwelling unit. Homeowners here bought property in this area because of the low density zoning which fits the character of the neighbouuhood. We do not want the zoning in our neighbonrhood changed to allow for the establishment of multiple rental units. The properties are not zoned, designed or suitable for this purpose. The owner of the property does not live in this neighbourhood and we do not se% why we should suffer re-zoning to satisfy a non-resident/who wishes to maximize the potential income from'a slngle residential lot. Once one such proposal is allowed, the door is then opened for future investors to do the same, inevitably brlnging our nelghbourhood into decllne. The idea of housing three tenant families on one lot is outrageous and raises a number of concerns. Three families who are strangers would have to co-exist in close proximity, sharing one driveway for access. The inevitable parking of vehicles on the property would leave little room for children to play. As the property fronts on a very busy road and backs to the railway, safety would become an issue. The A,'FI'ACHMENT ~., - TO REPORT~ PD__ /-Y-': ¢ Zoning By-Law Amendme~t Application subject barn on the p~:operty is ve~:)' close to the rea~ a[]d the railway embanknlent which has on a nun~ber o£ occasions suffered fires causer] by train sparks during sumn~- when the grass is dry. We hope you wilt take these safety issues i~to account wt~en making a decision in addition to the objections of local resident property owners who sirnplv don'~ want ~o see their neighbourhood altered and used in tinis way as a source income for non-resident owners. Yours Sincerely, Marjorie Hancock Jim Hancock 316 ATTACHMENT ~ ~..__....~TO REPORT ~ PD_ / -'-c ~_ Anthony Miceli 414 Sheppard Ave. Picketing, Ontario L1V IE5 Dear Neighbour: February 1, 2002 ECEIVED CiTY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT My wife Fitomena, and I, have decided to relay our concerns retarding the recently circulated notice of Zoning By-law Amendment Application as filed by~589629 Ontario Li-mited As I am sure you are aware, The subject property has had the house which was formertv located at 397 Sheppard Avenue moved to the site. The content of proposed amendments amo~mts to the Ontario numbered company developing three separate dwelling units on the property, which is represented on the site plan as being of less than fifty feet in frontage, and certainly no ~vider than most of our own single dwelling properties. One of these dwelling units involves the %onversion" of the metal-clad barn which appears on the site plan as being within three feet of railway property. We must ask ourselves some fundamental questions regarding the potential of this proposat's approval to either enhance or erode our neighbourhood's character. I would tike to pass along some questions that we have been asking one another, and trust you will ask amongst yourselves as thought-starters. 1 ) Do we really want to stand in the way ora homeowner creating some extra living space for in-laws or other extended family? We decided absolutely not, but then we were hard pressed to think of any homeowner we knew whose home was owned by a numbered company. We did come up with several examples of numbered companies whose principals were absentee landlords of rental properties that did considerably less than enhance the neighbourhoods in which they were located. We even found examples of real estate speculators that developed investment properties at bargain basement costs by utilizing demolition - ready structures and performing a face-lift, then in turn selling to a second party to be used as income property. 2) What makes us think we are above ha~,Sng rental or multiple-family dwellings in our neighbourhood ? That was a tough one, after all, the home at 397 was a rental property for more than ten years and we enjoyed the company of more than six different sets of tenants. Entertainment came in many forms, twice with Durham's finest answering domestic dispute calls for wife and child abuse, once with our boys in blue and seven support vehicles surrounding the house with weapons drawn during a break-in as if in re-enactment of Custer's Last Stand. In several instances there was an ongoing party atmosphere with festivity and celebration in the air, all day, every day, with twelve months of Octoberfest how could anybody not be happy? The wood deck out front was the venue of choice for consumption of good cheer, and tenants or guests fell through rotted deck boards on only two occasions, but entertainment value was negligible because nobody was hospitalized. The weekly exibits of oxydized vintage Detroit iron which was scattered around the grounds were the focal points and conversation pieces of choice. The grounds were maintained ATTACH,VSNT # ~--~------FO 31/ on a regular basis, snow was shovelled tx, ice per winter on ax'era,ge, and ahvavs ,aithin two weeks of a major snowstorm. In 2001, the ~ass and vetlow flowers were cut tbur times, twice at mv insistance after I phoned the landlord directly, and txvice upon my_ contactin~ the city,_ inquiring about the bumper crop of pretU, yellow flowers x~ here my la~.n once was Grass and assorted vegetation was atwavs cut down to size in an efficient manner by the landscape contractors and their chain flailing machine. Since the house ;vas moved, we haxle discussed the Feasabiltv of having the properly declared a historic battle site which was dispatched dudn,a_ an air strike, as is evident by the exposed bomb crater and subsequent nibble heap ~ hich remains untouched after four months. We place considerable value on out' "Urban Residential - I.o~v Density area desianation and it is quite evident that the City' of Pickerin~g does as ,aell as is reflected b,] our property taxes. Does anybody tigure our property taxes xvilt be reduced by. the same amount as our property value if we allow tbr this project to happen? It'so. please act back to me and explain the concept. If you can imagine the situation of three Families in such close proximity, the logistics of parking, children with limited play space, no sidewalks, no trat}Sc calmin,.z~ initiatives, busy railway tracks out back and open ditches, ask yourselves who wins and w'ho loses Sincerely City of Pickermg Plamling, Zoning Departmenl LTTACHMENT,~. '~ TO February 16, 2002 Sllbjecl; Zoning By-law Ameudment Application A 26/01 689629 Outario Limited South Part of Lot 31. Concession 1. Part 2, 40R17618 (420 Sheppard Avenue) City of Picketing As residents and immediate neighbours to fl~e subject property, as outlined above, we are opposed to this application proposing mnenchnents to the current official plan md curreut Zoning.as it concerns us in nmncroas ways: 1. Deteriorating property values 1o the inunediate area due to rental units created 2. Due to the increase in rile nmnber of vehicles with three milts instead of single-family residential, there are several issues raised· Parkiug is a defi~fite problem. Fire access is restricted due to increased vehicular traffic. As well, the increase in vehicle traffic creates a safety issue of it's OWlI. - , , . - , ' .-; :. '.,, ::, .:, .., . :... . / :',:. : . .:::.,:. .~ , /~, ~' Cil~ of Picketing Planning. Zolm~g Deparlment FebmaD' 16. 2002 Su~iecl' Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26, tll 689629 Ontario Limiled South Part of Lol 31. Concession 1. P~ul 2.40R17618 ~420 Sheppard Avenue) City of Picketing As rcsideuts and inunediale neighbours to rile subject property, as outlined above, xv¢ arc opposed to tiffs applicatiou proposing amenchnents to rite current official plan ,mid current Zoning as ii concerns us in ;mmerous xvavs: I. Deteriorating property values to the inunediate area due to rental urals created Due to rite increase in the number of vehicles with tluee routs instead of single-flintily residential there are several issues raised Parking is a definite problem Fire access is reslricled due to increased vehicular tr,-,Xfic. As well. tile increase in vehicle trat]Sc creates a safely issue of it's own. ATTACHMENT .-------__TO REPORT ~ PD. / TOWN PLANNING · ARBITRATION · LAND MANAGEMENT · INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CANADA ' USA: CARRIBBEAN CST N-° R 1304-' File No. BC.21 2002 03 08 Mrs. Lynda Taylor Manager, Planning Department City of Picketing One the Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1 V 6K7 CITYOF PICKE ~iNG PL,,*r4i',tlr-,iG & DEVELOF'MENT DEPAF1TMENT Re: Application for Rezoning at 420 Sheppard Avenue, Pickering Dear Mrs. Taylor: Barcana Consultants Ltd is the owner of the above property and I am the President of the company. Located on the property at the time of purchase were a barn and a shed. The barn was used for the storage of automobile parts and the rebuilding of automobiles, while the shed was used for storage of residential items. The CNR property lies immediately north of the property. Bac__~_~kround~ The property was purchased for the purpose of moving an existing frame house (rather than demolish same), located at 397 Sheppard on the south side of Shepard Avenue (Sheppard). Tlfis is obliquely opposite 420 Sheppard. The cost to move the structure was approximately $16,000. We felt the cost to be justified since the majority of the structure was in excellent condition. In purchasing the property, we intended to completely renovate the tgame structure by gutting same and installing new insulation and drywall, adding flxree dormers in the roof section; a new double car garage with a master bedroom above, a front entrance foyer and covered porch. The existing metal/siding of the structure will be replaced with brick. We also intended to create three (3) residential units on the property for rental purposes, with two SPECIALIZED PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING SERVICES 289 Starview Court, Pickering, Ontario Canada L1V 5V1 Tel: Office/Fax (905) 509-2614 · Emaih grant.morris@sympatico.ca Mrs. Lynda Taylor Mana~arnnent (2) units in the main house and convert the existing barn into a one-bedroom (Granny) fiat with a separate garage. Proposed front eleq,ationsfor the barn and the main house are shown as Schedule 'A '. With the renovation o£ the barn and the main house, we estimate the total value of tile property to be worth about $375.000 when completed We believe that the renovation of the barn as a one bedroom flat will make this structure~ aesthetically pleasing. To date we have advanced the sum of $2,000 for the ptu-chase of' 27 feet of road widening in front of the property. This widening, together with tile 20- foot set back and 19-foot boulevard, will provide a frontage depth of 20 metres between the garage wall and the edge of the road. We anticipate that a minimum of seven (7) cars can be accommodated on the property: two (2) in the garage, at least four (4) in the driveway and one il) on a pa~t in front of the barn. Notwithstanding this, we expect that a maxnnum of three to four cars will be parked in the driveway of the property on a regular basis. ~CNR Pro~ The CN property abuts the northern boundap,, of the subject site. The CN tracks are approximately 28 metres from the north face of the barn. We note that Jeff Wood of CN, in his letter to you, dated January 7~, 2002. indicated that CN's standard principal main line requirements ~include a tninimum of 30 metres building setback from the properO, line. For your information, we have reviewed the properties on both sides of the CN pre}pert?~, between Woodview Avenue and the CN Bridge at Highway 2 and note that all the existing houses within this stretch of raihvay property lie within 30 metres of the CN property boundary. This includes both the existing old development and the new subdivision development built within the last 5 to 10 years. Also, within this stretch of the railway propert>,', lies three houses Flanking the railway property.. 3 9 2. :q£?URT # PD /-7-6; ~ Mrs. Lynda Taylor Manager, Plannin Dg_Og_pment One is at Woodview Avenue where the existing house is approximately two metres from the CN property boundary and about thirty-four (34) metres from the house to the centre line of the CN tracks, which is at grade at that location. The second is at Altona Road where the existing house is approximately 2 metres from the railway property line. The centre line of the tracks to the house is about 30 metres. The third is at 1732 Spruce Hill Road. We understand that CN sold part of its property at this location. A residential house xvas constructed on this property sometime in 1996, flanking the CN property. I have reviewed the building permit file at the City and I could £md no information about anv special studies required by CN for this property. I will therefore be seeking further clarification from CN on this matter. We have shown, on Schedule 'B', the existing properties which back onto the CN property together with the 3 flankage units. Concerning the renovation of the barn as a residential fiat, we have consulted our Noise Consultant, Hazem Gidamy of SS Wilson Associates, on this matter. He has advised that with the introduction of improved construction techniques for the barn and the design of a protected specific outdoor living area, that acceptable indoor and outdoor sound levels, based upon the M.O.E. guidelines can be achieved. ~Barn: The existing metal clad barn is located in the north west comer of the property, approximately 0.87 metres (2.8 feet) from the northern boundary and 0.83 metres (2.72 feet) from the west boundary of the property. The lower floor of the barn is a slab on grade which was used at the time of purchase for the rebuilding of old carols. The upper wood floor was used for general storage and the storage of automobile parts. These uses in the barn continued for many years. 4 Mrs. Lynda Taylor Mana~n tz Department We propose to renovate the e~sting barn into a fiat, having a kitchen, dining and living rooms on the first floor and one-bedroom with a washroom on the 2nd floor. In order to beauti~' the barn, we propose to remove the existing metal siding and replace same with attractive xhnvl siding. Theproposed front elevation of the barn is shown on the attached Schedule ',4' and the proposed floor plan is shown on Schedule 'E' Statutory Public Meetin_.g2: At the Statutory Public Meeting, held on Febma~~ 2 l~, 2002, four (4) residents spoke in opposition to the rezoning application. These included the owners of 414 Sheppard, (3 properties to the west); 418 Sheppard (the adjoining properly to the west) 411 Sheppard (the ox~er of the propert?' to the south opposite the site) and the ox~.-ner of the property at the corner of Old Forest Road and Sheppard, who is a Real Estate agent with whom we were originally negotiating to purchase a 15-metre frontage lot from his property to locate the frame house to accommodate two (2) residential units. However, after reviewing the additional costs, we decided to purchase 420 Sheppard Avenue. The concerns of the residents can be summarized as fbllows: 1) Safety- Sheppard Avenue is a busy street. Hence cars backing onto Sheppard from this location will present a safety hazard. Additionally, they believe that some six (6) cars w/Il be parked at 420 Sheppard as a result of the rental of the property. This, in their v/ew, would look like a parking lot. 2) A rental propert}', including the renovation of the barn for residential purposes, will devalue the existing properties in the area and will, in particular, negatively impact upon the adjoining property at 418 Sheppard. 3) All houses on the street are single famih' homes and the proposal would not be in the best interest of the neighbourhood. ~ o 4 ^FTACHMENT ~_ ? " Mrs. Lynda Taylor Manager, Planning Department 4) Barn too close to the railway. 1) Safe~. Issues: The opposing residents believe that the creation of the proposed three (3) units on the property will present a safety issue. Response: I have reviewed the properties in the area which use their front yards for parking and note in particular that the majority of houses have front yard parking and very few use the existing garages on their properties. I have taken pictures of a number of properties in the area with front yard parking. These pictures are included as Schedule '¢'. You will note that some properties between Altona Road and Rosebank have five (5) cars on their front driveways. One property approximately seven properties to the west of the subject property has ten (10) cars parked on its driveway. It is interesting to note that 418 Sheppard has two cars and a trailer parked on a single driveway. As noted earlier, we anticipate that a maximum of 3 to 4 cars will be parked on the driveway at 420 Sheppard on a regular basis and not 6 as suggested by one of the objecting residents. However, there would be ample room for visitor parking in the front yard given that the house is set back approximately.20 metres (66 feet) from the edge of the road and the ditch in front of the driveway will be covered. Notwithstanding this, I believe it would make good sense to use the boulevard area as a turn around to provide an opportunity for cars to enter Sheppard Avenue "front first". This would still allow adequate room for visitor parking in the driveway. The anticipated parking layout is shown on the attached Schedule 'D'. I therefore disagree that the development of three residential units on this property, as proposed, wouM create a safety issue. Given the depth of the front yard, there will be an opportunity to turn around on the lot in the front yard so that cars entering Sheppard A venue could be "front first". This opportunity does not exist for rnost properties on the street. Mrs. Lynda Taylor Manager, Planning Department 6 2} .Impact of the Development on the Character of the .Neighbourhood: Some residents believe that tile proposal would negatively impact upon the character of the neighbourhood Response: On this section of Sheppard Avenue. there is a mixture of houses on the street. Some are ora frame construction and some of brick construction. From my observation, the majoriU' of tile houses on the street are in good condition. Staff should be aware that we plan to construct two 2-storey brick three-car garage dwellings on the south side of Sheppard obliquely opposite the site. Since the barn already exists on the property and was used for tile rebuilding of motor vehicles, we believe that the renovation of this into a one-bedroom flat would be the best use of the properb'. In saying this. careful consideration must be given to tile proximity of this structure to the CN tracks and the adjoining properly to the west. (The owner of the adjoining property to the east has no objections to the proposed development). To minimize tile impact of the use of the barn for residential purposes and to improve privacy, we propose to remove all tile existing xvindows on the west side of the barn, remove tile existing double garage and remove the existing rmnp providing access to tile barn by approximately 1,2 metres (4 feet); provide a quiet area and a parking pad in from of tile barn structUre and erect a 1.8-metre wood privacy fence along tile common westerly property line from tile front of the barn to the rear of the garage of 418 Sheppard. Tile owner of418 Sheppard has voiced an objection of utilizing tile subject property for rental purposes. She believes that this would devalue the properties in the area. Since tile properts.~, when completed, will be valued at approximately $375,000, we intend to screen all "would be;' renters to ensure that they are capable of meeting their rent commitment, that they are of good character, that they do not smoke, that no pets w/Il be allowed, that thev are stable and have reasonably good.jobs and that children may be allowed under certain circumstances. Before signing a lease, I will be Mrs. Lynda Taylor Manager, Planning Department interviewing all "would be" tenants in their current living environment to see how they live. A financial check on all individuals will be a prerequisite for "would be" tenants. We will also undertake periodic checks of the property to ensure that the property is adequately maintained. Such standards are necessary to ensure that the property will be properly looked after by the tenants. I believe that the proposal when completed would be architecturally pleasing and will add value to the properties in the area and would maintain the existing character of the area. 3) Single Family Houses in the Area: One of the objecting residents believes that the houses m the area should remain as single family homes. Response: Within recent years in the Metropolitan Toronto Area and surrounding .areas, given the migration of people into Toronto and Durham Regions and given the lack of new rental accommodation in the said Regions to accommodate the growing population, many municipalities m these Regions permit apartment units m existing detached houses as a right. These municipalities include Toronto, Markham, Ajax, etc. In the City of Picketing, such additional umts require a rezoning. It is my position that Sheppard Avenue in this vicinity is an ideal candidate for the proposed extra units. In saying th/s, ! am aware that there are existing rental traits within existing houses in close proximity to the subject site and I am not aware of any problems created by these units. Hence, the statement that all houses on the street are single family is false. 4) Barn too close to the Railway: One resident believes that the renovation of the existing barn for residential purposes is too close to the railway. 3?7 Mrs. Lynda Tavlor Manager, Plannina Department Response: We have addressed this Issue earlier under the heading "Adjoining CNR Property. Given the location of the eristing structures on both sides of the railway properO~, we do not belitn,e that the conversion of the barn for residential purposes in keeping with the M. O.E. guidelines is too close to the centre line of the railway tracks. Conclusion: I believe that the proposal including the renovation of the barn for residential purposes represents a reasonable intensification of the proper~ and will make efficient use of the e.risting infrastructure; that the properO, can be developed in a safe environment which is compatible with the surrounding properties and fitrther, that it will provide much needed rental accommodation in the CiO' of Picketing. We are aware that there are many illegal aparnnent units currently in the City of Pickering. Notwithstanding this, we have chosen to ensure that our units are properly considered and are legal. 1 trust the above sets out our proposal and provides an adequate response to the concerns raised by the residents. Yours very truly, Grant Moms Property Owner t, TTACH~ENT ,~_./~ TO '~:. ORT # PD / '7 - c' THE DURHAM DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Facilities Services 400 Taunton Road East Whitby, Ontario LIR 2K6 _~le, .~e: {905) 666-5500 1-800-265-3968 Fax: (905) 666-6439 February 5, 2002 The Corporation of the City of Picketing Planning Department Picketing Civic Centre One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Mr. GeoffRomanowski Dear Mr. Romanowski, Zoning By-law Amendment Application A26/01 689629 Ontario Limited South Part of Lot 31, Concession I, Part 2, 40R17618 (420 Sheppard Avenue) City of Pickering Staff has reviewed the information on the above noted application and under the mandate of the Durham District School Board, has no objections. Yours truly, · Christine Nancekivell, Planner CN:em 13,PROPLAI'~DATAXP LNG~ZB LLA2 6-01 -~.2: JF,? ~ PD 1 7 '£ 2-- February 14, 2002 The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department 1615 Dundas St. E. 4th Floor Lang Tower West Building RO. Box 623 '~' :~by, ON L1N 6A3 ,) 728-7731 ~905) 436-6612 Georgieff, MCIP, RPP Planning Geoff Romanowski, Planning Technician Planning & Development Department One the Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Romanowski: Re: Zoning Amendment Application A26/01 Applicant: 689629 Ontario Limited Location: South Pan of Lot 31, Concession 1 Municipality: City of Picketing We have reviewed this application and the foltowinq comments are offered with respect to compliance with the Durham Regional Official Plan, the proposed method of servicing and delegated provincial plan review responsibilities. The purpose of the application is to amend the existing zoning to permit the establishment of a second dwelling unit in the main dwelling, and to convert the existing barn in the rear yard into a garage and dwelling unit (two bedroom · apartment). The Subject property is designated "Living Area" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands within this designation shalt be used predominantly for housing purposes and shall be developed to incorporate the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure. The proposed amendment is in conformity'With the Durham Regional Official Plan. Regional sanitary sewer and water supply services are available from ShePpard Avenue. Regional records indicate that the existing dwelling is not currently connected to municipal services, but has paid applicable frontage charges and connection fees as part of the related land severance application LD 146/96. Also, development charges for a singie-family dwelling were paid October 17, 2001. The applicant will be required to pay additional levies for the proposed two bedroom apartment and this should be included as a condition of the local building department approval for the conversion of the barn. Only one set of connections will be permitted to service the three proposed dwellings. A pre-serviced 19mm water service has been installed to the property line. However, it may not be large enough or provide sufficient water pressure to accommodate the applicant's proposal and may need to be upgraded to a minimum 25mm water service. The cost of abandoning the existing 19mm water service and upgrading to a 25mm water service will be borne by the applicant. This application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial plan review responsibilities. The subject property abuts a Canadian National Railway line. A noise and vibration feasibility study is required to address the subject proposal in the context of site design and the extent of IOCQo ::~st Czr'$b~er $.T"F&CNMENT ~~TO Page 2 control measures such as barriers, ventilation requirements and building components. This study is needed to ensure that new sensitive land uses are separated or otherwise buffered from committed railway corridors tO avoid or satisfactorily mitigate the adverse effects of noise and vibration. No further provincial interests appear to be affected. If you have any questions or require additional information, ~lease call me. Ray Davies, Planner Current Operations Branch R:~lrainin 9'¢d"zoning'cicken n 9 ~a2 6-O 1 ,doc 33i Canadian Propri~t{s Nat~0nal ferroviaires du Railway Canadien Properties Inc. Natmnai FAX: 905-420-9685 Toronto. C'nb~ rio Mr. Bru~, Cib, Clerk ic?r,n Pickenng Cwlc Complex, ~ ~e Pickering ON LJ.V 6K7 Our F31e: TZ-4500-P-02 Dear Mr. Taylor: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment 420 Sheppard Avenue South Part of Lot 31t Concession 1, Part 2, 40R17618 689629 Ontario Ltd. We have reviewed your letter datec 30 Jans~ar, 2002, regardinc the above noted application. Residential development adjacent to the railwa5 right-of-way is inappropriate without impact mitigation measures t:o reduce the inconlpaUbilits,. CN's guidelines for residue, rial adjacent ~o the railway right-of-way include a requirement for- minimum 30 rnetre buiidincj setback from the railway right-of-way, a 2.5 metre high ea~hen berm, a 1.83 metre high chain link fence along the mutual pro;)er~;' line ant noise acd vibration measures in order to reduce theincompatibilib/. From 2ne infoi-ma~on prov~dec, ~ does not appear that any mitigation is proposed. The Railway cannot suppoc the proposed ' in~_nsl,~c,~tl,~n ~; an existing incompatible development, particularly the pro:~osed conversion of the ex~st;n9 barn in the rear yard into a dwelling unit, We would appreciate the opportuniP? to comment on any proposed modification pnor to its adoption, and ultimately, request notice of passing of the Amendment ff approved. Should you have any further ouestions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (~16) 2~Z-696Z, Yours Geoff Woods, B.E.S. Development Review Coordinator ATTACHMENT # //-~ TO OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION February 20, 2002 To: Geoff Romanowski Planning Technician From: Richard Holborn, P. Eng. Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A26/01 689629 Ontario Limited South Part of Lot 31, Concession 1, Part 2, 40R17618 (420 Sheppard Avenue) City of Picketing The Municipal Property & Engineering Division is in receipt of the above noted application and provides the following comments. This Division has concerns with the parking requirements for this proposal. Convenience for the three dwelling units may result in some-tenants parking along the shoulder on Sheppard Avenue. The proposed, resultant length of culvert must be indicated on the plan, including invert elevations, and distance from the existing fire hydrant. RH:ds Copy: .,~. hard t-~born, P. Eng. Director, Operations & Emergency Services I:kS ITEPLANkA26-01 .docFeb-02 Date: To: Interdepartmental Memorandum Fire Prevention Tuesday, February. 26. GeoffRomanowski Planning Technician From: Rex Heath Fire Prevention O~cer RECEIVED FES 2 6 2OO2 CiTY OF PICKERING PL~-NNING AND DEV~[LOPMENT DEPARTMENT' Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/01 689629 Ontario Limited South Part of Lot 31, Concession 1, Part 2, 40 R17618 (420 Sheppard) City of Pickering This department has reviewed the applicant's proposal to amend the existing zoning on the subject lands to permit the establishment of a second dwelling unit in the main dwelling, and to convert the existing barn in the rear yard into a garage and dwelling unit (two-bedroom apartment), and fbrwards the following comments. 1) The applicant meet all applicable requirements of the Ontario Building and Fire Codes 2) During the building process and before final occupancy the applicant provide documentation from the Electrical Safety Authority indicating that there are no outstanding electrical deficiencies, shock or fire hazards. 3) The structure on the north west corner of the properts.' referred to as the "existing barn' is assigned the municipal address of 420 Sheppard Avenue 4) The structure on the south east corner of the property' referred to as the "main dwelling" is assigned the following municipal addresses Upper level 420 A, lower level 420 B. 5) The common driveway serving the "existing barn" be used primarily for principle residents of the structure when occupied and that the driveway not to be used in a fashion whereby it may cause obstructions for emergency response personnel. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Council receive ibr inIbrmation, Report to Council CAO 05-02 concerning a growth management study: and That Council authorize the establishment of a working group made up of council, staff and landoxvner representatives to draft detailed terms of reference for the growth management study, and that Council appoint the lbllowing members of Council to sit on this working group: (Council to appoint members to sit on working group) That the working group use the ground rules and elements of the growth management study as set out in this Report as the basis for preparing the detailed terms of reference lbr the study, and that the working group complete and forxvard these terms of reference to Council for consideration in June 2002. That a copy of this Report be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Region of Durham, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for information. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL t:}%()*1' l'honaas J. Q)uinn [).\TI'i: May 3. 2002 b~IiP()NT X[ NI[315R: C/kO 05-02 I~t!C'( I'hat Coul¥.2il aut}aori×c thc cstabliMannent ,~I' al x~o:king group made up off council, stalT this working group: consideration in June 21)~ ~2. inlk>rmation. ( )l<l(ilN' ()n February 4, 2002. ('ouncil passed I.~cNolultion =2~; <)2. dirccti:a: :iqait :t :cpor; bc prepared on thc clements ot'a "(]roxxth Management S~udx" xxhic}~ t~,,uid pr,)xidc thc basis lk)r an Official Plan Review of all lands in the City' of Picketing a5 sci ,:ut in :lac Iot'onto Region Conservation Authority Resolution--:X__8,()l. fkom tho Seaton i.and5 in thc cam to thc ]'ork/l)urham Town Line in the west. within the northern botHldt~rv oI' tti~hxxa~x - amd thc soutlacrn boundary of the C.P. Belleville Rail line. :XtTTt I()RITY: I"IN.,\N('I.\I, INIPIACATIONS: landoxxnors in order to proceed xxith this studx. REPORT NUMBER CAe 05-02 Subject: Growth Management Study May ~..00_ Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In response to Council Resolution #29/02. staff has provided infbrmation in this Report on the kcx elements cfa growth management studv. In addition, staff'has also recommended a number of ground rules lbr undertaking the studv in order to ensure that the study is completed in a professional, timely and cost-effective manner for the City. Should Council agree to proceed, detailed terms of reference would then be prepared for Council's consideration in June. Following Council's approval of the terms of reference, staff would then issue a Request for Proposal for the hiring of a qualified consulting team that has the experience and capability to undertake the grox~h management study. The study could then commence in September or October of this year. and be completed within approximately eight months. BACKGR()[ YNI): On Februarx 4, 2002. Council passed Resolution #29/02. which directed that a report be prepared on thc clements of a Groxxth Management Study. in order to provide thc basis tbr an official plan review. The study area was described as all lands set out in Resolution #A228/01 of tiao l'oronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) as defined by the northern boundary of llighxxay 7 and the southern boundary as C.P. Belleville Rail line. Council also requested that the rcviexv include consideration of any existing studies conducted either for the City. Region or Province. and that the review tbrm the basis for hoxx Picketing will manage future growth pressures. ~\ cop>' of Council Resolution #29/02 is attached as Attachment No. 1. wlnile the study area boundary is shown m Attachment No. 2. This Report makes recommendations Ibr Council's consideration on the ground-rules and key elements of a Groxxth Management Study, as well as the next steps in the process should Council agree to proceed on this basis. Ground Rules for Undertaking the Growth Management Study Staff' propose that the following six ground rules be established for the ~rowth management study. GROUND RULES FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY The study terms of reference would be approved bv Council, and prepared bv a working group comprising council members, City and external agency' staff (c.g. Durham Region and TRCA), and landowner representatives. The study would be completed by an independent, qualified consulting team selected by Council through a Request fbr Proposal process, with the input of external agency staff (e.g. Durham Region and TRCA) and al'footed landowners. The study area boundaD~ would be as set out in Council Resolution #29/02 (see Attachment No. 2 to this Report). The City's "ultimate" official plan population and employment targets lk)r Seaton would be used in the studv (i.e. 90,000 people and 45.000 jobs). Cont'd... RI:!PORT N[ :NIBER C:\() 0~-0. ~kl~iect: (~l'o\vt}~ Nlanagcmcnt %tudx (;ROt NI) RI'LES FOIl THE (;R()\%'TIt MANA(iI-]~iENI S'FI-I)~' (cont'd) [ho *tudv findinos~, and recommendations xxould bc b'xscd ~t2 up-to-date data and inlbrmation, includin~ xxork heinz completed bx thc [R(.X. ['nix'ersitv of Toronto and others. 0. '['lnc studx would be completed xxithin appr,>×imatcl> ti?at months conlnlcnccl21ent (i.e. mid 2003 ). Kev Ele~nents of the (;rCm th Manag~ement htuth include thc lbllox¥ing kcx clements' 1. Overall %tructurc t)lan 2. Detailed 7Ncighbourh,x~d Plans 3. Communitx ()utrc.xch I)ro~rcmn I'ach clement is described in more dctuii t-,c]~w~. ()x erall Structure Plan The Structure Plan xxould be a "plan" For all thc lands xxithin thc %ruth area (both urban and non-urban) illustrating and or dcscribinu 'a InUI3q}~CI' ~I' maxtor'>, ilncluding: The boundarx bctxxccn urban Primarx land usc The open space ilctxk oi'~ An overall scrxicin~ and phasin~ Neighbourhood boundaries Genera] strate~ies Ibr housing, enx ironmcntal protection, economic development, communitx recreational I~tcilities. inffnstmcturc. cultural heritage, etc. It is also expected that a series of back?ound studtc> und ,~r i>sucx pxpcrs xxould prepared in support of thc Ntructurc Plan. such us ~tudic> xndor papers agricultural viability, financial impact and other rcicx aunt issue>. REPORT NUMBER CA() 05-02 Subject: Growth Management Study May 3, 2002 Page 4 Detailed Neighbourhood Plans Neighbourhood Plans would be prepared tbr those neighbourhoods identified in the Structure Plan that are intended to be developed in the earl>.' phases of the pro. iect. Each Neighbourhood Plan would illustrate and/or describe: · The neighbourhood boundaU' · Neighbourhood population and employment targets · The general location of community facilities including schools, parks. libraries, community centres, places of worship, and storm water ponds · The location of public roads, walkwavs, trails, crc. · Guidelines for specific areas where more detailed design and/or development objectives are required Community Outreach Program A community outreach program would be required to convex: and obtain infimnation and comments from members of the community on an on-going basis during tiao studx. An outreach program would be needed during tiao preparation of thc Overall Structure Plan as well as thc preparation of the Detailed Ncighbourhood Plans. Next Steps in the Process Should Council agree to proceed with the Growth Management Study as described in this Repork the next steps in the process would be as follows. 1. I Step Council / staff,/landowner working group to prepare Terms of Reference for Council's consideration. Cotmcil to approve Terms of Reference and authorize staff to approach affected land(m nets to determine interest in funding study. Staff to issue "Request for Proposal" to qualified consulting teams capable of undertaking study. Consulting teams to submit proposals to City for evaluation. The evaluation process would involve a "study steering committee" made up of Council, staff and landox~ner representatives to review the proposals and make a recommendation to Council. Council to consider study steering committee recommendation and select consulting team. Consulting team to commence study (subject to funding availability) Consulting team to complete study and present findings and conclusions to Timing [ Max .lune 2002 Juno 2002 Juh' 2002 August 2002 September 20(12 September October 2002 Council Council to authorize staff'to initiate appropriate official plan and zoning amendments as may be required May' June 2003 May/' .lunc RI{f'ORT NI'MBER CAO 05-02 5;ub. icct: (mu~th hlana~emcnt ATTACHMENTS: 1. City ofl>ickcrin~ Council Resolution \ppr~cd ~nd~i'scdb~: I)ivision l lead. Corporate th'o. jcctx & I · \ttaclmqcnts Cop)': Director. ()potations & i(mcrgcnc} >;crx icc> Director. Corporate Scrxiccs & l rcusurcr Solicitor lbr thc Citx Recommended tbr the consideration o1' P ickcfinu iCity Council Attachment No. 1 to Report to Council cae 05-02 City of Picketing Council Resolution #29/02 PICKERING Excerpt from Council Meeting Minutes Monday, Februam' 4, 2002 7:30 p.m. Resolution #29/02 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Rvan \VI IERIi:\S thc Toronto Region Conservation Authority has requested that thc "Citx of I'ickcring conduct a review of the Official Plan for tine north area of Picketing from thc Scat(m l~ancts in tine cast to thc York/Durham Town Line in tine west": N()\V Tt tEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Director of Planning and Developmen~ bc directed to report at the March 18rh Planning Committee Meeting the dements of a "( irowtla Management Study" which would provide thc basis Ilar an Official Plan Reviexx of all lands as set out in the Toronto Region Conservation Authority Resolution and that said lands bc defined within the northern boundary of Highway 7 and thc southern boundary as C. P. Belier il lc Rail linc: and Tt tAT sucln review include consideration of anv existing studies conducted either tbr tine City (To\va). Region or Province. e.g.. Environmental Study conducted by Dr. N. Evlcs in 1907: and THAT sucln review will form the basis for how Pickering will manage future groxvth pressures. CARRIED Recorded Vote: Yes: ('ouncillors Brenner. Holland. Johnson, McLean, Pickles. Rvan and Mayor Arthurs Attachment No. 2 to Report to Council CA() 05-02 Study Area Boundar).~ as per Council Resolution//29/I)2 LANDS