Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PD 10-12
ca o~ Report to ' Planning & Development Committee ICKERING Report Number: PD 10-12 Revised Date: May 7, 2012 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2011-01 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2011-01 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/11 Emery Homes Glendale Ltd. 1880, 1876, 1872 Liverpool Road and 1863, 1865, 1871, 1875, 1877 & 1881 Glendale Drive (Lot 19, 20, 21, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 & 38, Plan 492) City of Pickering Recommendation: 1. That Report PD 10-12 Revised of the Director, Planning & Development be received; 2. That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2011-01 submitted by Emery Homes Glendale Ltd. to establish 6 Development Blocks on lands being Lot 19, 20, 21, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 & 38, Plan 492, City of Pickering, be endorsed; 3. That the Proposed Conditions of Approval to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-01 as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 10-12 Revised be endorsed; 4. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/11 submitted by Emery Homes Glendale Ltd., to amend the zoning of the subject property to permit a 62 unit (maximum) townhouse dwelling development, 45 units (maximum) of which are by a common element condominium be approved; and 5. Further, that the draft zoning by-law to implement Zoning Amendment Application A 3/11, as set out in Appendix II to Report PD 10-12 Revised, be finalized and forwarded to City Council for enactment. Executive Summary: The applicant's initial development proposal was to permit 67 three storey townhouse dwelling units. Since the May 2011 public meeting, the applicant has amended the application to address concerns/issues that have arisen. Several revisions have been undertaken since the initial submitted site plan. The applicant's most recent site plan, dated April 2012, proposes a 62 unit townhouse development with 17 freehold townhouse units directly fronting Glendale Drive and 45 townhouse units in a common element condominium. This plan also provides the required 3.0.metre road widening along the Glenanna Road frontage. i Report PD 10-12 Revised May 7, 2012 Subject: Emery Homes Glenanna Ltd. Page 2 09 The proposed development has been appropriately designed to encourage a compact urban form that will improve walkability, sidewalk networks and access to public transit. The introduction of townhouses improves housing diversity within the area. The urban design of the proposed development is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing neighbourhood and land uses. The applications propose appropriate density on an infill site resulting in transit supportive intensification. The proposed development is appropriate and implements the Official Plan. The applications are recommended for approval and include the conditions of approval for the draft plan of subdivision. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 1.0 Background: 1.1 Introduction Emery Homes Glendale Ltd. submitted amended applications for approval of a draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium and an amendment to the zoning by-law in order to implement the proposed 62 unit townhouse development on the subject lands (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The draft plan of subdivision proposes the creation of 6 development blocks to accommodate a maximum of 62 townhouse dwellings, comprised of 17 freehold townhouse units and 45 townhouse units in a common element condominium (see Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #2). The draft plan of condominium is proposed to be a common element condominium for private internal roads, visitor parking area, tot lot area, mail boxes and landscape elements (see Draft Plan of Condominium, Attachment #3). 1.2 Revised Development Plan Since the initial May 9, 2011 public meeting, two working group meetings were held. Public that expressed interest in participating in the working group were notified. The first working group meeting was held on July 14, 2011 and the second on December 13, 2011. After the first working group meeting, the applicant submitted a revised development plan to address public and planning concerns. In the second working group meeting the applicant and four area residents discussed the revised site plan, but consensus on a plan was not achieved. After the meeting the applicant requested that staff proceed with the revised application for the townhouse development. A Planning & Development report on this matter was scheduled to go before Planning & Development Committee on April 7, 2012 and those residents who had expressed interest in the application were notified. However, following the provision of notice, the applicant submitted a revised plan that accommodated a required 3.0 metre widening of Glenanna Road. Report PD 10-12 Revised May 7, 2012 Subject: Emery Homes Glenanna Ltd. Page 3 10 Con§equently, the report was withdrawn from the April 2, 2012 agenda and rescheduled to May 7, 2012 Planning & Development Committee Meeting. Revised notice was provided to the public. This report deals with the most current revised plan submitted in April 2012. The major changes in the current revised site plan (submitted April 2012) from the initial site plan (submitted in April 2011) include: • moving one of the driveway accesses from Glendale Drive to Glenanna Road • reducing the townhouse height fronting on Glendale Drive from 3 storeys to 2 storeys • reorienting the townhouse units at the south limit of the property to face Glendale Drive rather than facing south onto the proposed private roadway as initially proposed • adding a tot lot • reconfiguring the visitor parking • reducing the unit count from 67 to 62 • removing the townhouse units fronting on Glendale Drive from the common element condominium (17 freehold townhouse units and 45 townhouse units in a common element condominium) • a 3.0 metre road widening block across the Glenanna Road frontage The following chart outlines the proposed development site statistic details: Details of the Original Plan February 2012 April 2012 applications (see Attachment #4) Revised Plan Revised Plan see Attachment #5 see Attachment #6 Total site area 1.23 hectare (ha) 1.23 hectare 1.20 hectare (ha) ha Number of Units 67 62 62 Number of 0 13 17 Freehold Units Number of 67 49 45 Common Element Units Density 54.5 units per ha 50.4 units per ha 51.6 units per ha Building 44.8% (45,514 42.5% (5,228 43.7% (5,374 Coverage square metres) square metres) square metres) Landscaped 22.7% (2,791 25.9% (3,198 28.65% (3,523 Open Space square metres square metres) square metres) Roads, parking 32.5 % (3,992 31.5% (3,875 27.6% (3,401 driveway & square metres) square metres) square metres) sidewalk Building Height 3 storey 2 storey and 2 storey and 3 store 3 store I Report PD 10-12 Revised May 7, 2012 Subject: Emery Homes Glenanna Ltd. Page 4 fl ~ 2.0 Comments Received 2.1 At the May 9, 2011, Public Information Meeting (see Minutes of Public Information Meeting, Attachment #7) Numerous residents appeared at the meeting to voice their opposition to the proposed development and raised various concerns mostly related to impacts of overdevelopment of the subject lands that are not compatible with the neighbourhood. Specifically, the concerns identified are as follows: • the increase density in the neighbourhood • increased vehicle traffic and congestion in the area • the number of proposed driveways onto Glendale Drive causing additional traffic concerns • increase noise from additional traffic • on-site visitor parking • loss of mature trees • need for another access to the site such as a right-in, right-out entrance onto Liverpool Road • lack of snow storage on-site • three storey townhouses are incompatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood • perceived loss of open green space 2.2 Written'Public Submissions on the original applications Eleven area residents submitted. written objection/concern with the original applications. Many of the written submissions repeated the residents' concerns expressed in the Public Information Meeting noted in the previous section. The issues identified in the correspondence in addition to the concerns identified at the Public Information meeting are as follows: • safety of pedestrian crossing at the intersection with the increase traffic • the need for on-site amenity area • construction noise during construction of the development • stress on existing amenities of the City of Pickering • consideration for the realigning the existing sidewalk on the south side of Glenanna Road as the current sidewalk is right against the curb of Glenanna Road • inadequate curb space on Glendale Drive for on-street parking due to driveway locations • access to the site by fire service • garbage collection • sewage capacity (see Residents Comments, Attachments #8 to #19) Report PD 10-12 Revised May 7, 2012 Subject: Emery Homes Glenanna Ltd. Page 5 1? 2.3 July 14, 2011 and December 13, 2011 Working Group Meeting The first working group meeting was held on July 14, 2011. Eight area residents participated in the working group meeting to the proposed 67 unit townhouse development. A summary of the public concerns for the 67 unit townhouse development included: the negative traffic impact on Glendale Drive; increased traffic and noise; number of units proposed; visitor parking; on-site snow storage; loss of vegetation and mature trees; lack of amenity space; number of proposed lots backing on existing lots; and, 3 storey townhouses incompatible with the existing neighbourhood (see Minutes/Meeting Summary-Working Group Meeting 1, Attachment #20). The second working group meeting held on December 13, 2011 was to discuss the applicant's revised site plan that was submitted in,order to address public concerns raised at the Public Meeting and the first working group meeting. Of the eight residents who attended the first working group meeting, only four residents attended the second meeting to discuss the revised site plan. Although the residents agreed that the revised site plan was an improvement from the original site plan with the reduction from 3 storey townhouses to 2 storey and the incorporation of the tot lot, they felt that the overall density of the proposal is still not desirable for the neighbourhood. The residents also indicated concerns with the new Glenanna Road access and the impacts it will have on the existing traffic situation at the intersection of Glenanna Road and Liverpool Road. The working group residents and the applicant did not reach a consensus at the meeting in respect to density, traffic impacts and compatibility of development. proposal with existing neighbourhood. 2.4 Agency Comments Region of Durham • the proposal is permitted by the policies of the Regional Official Plan • the proposal appears to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement • the proposal generally conforms to the Growth Plan • an Acknowledgement Letter from the Ministry of Environment which acknowledges the Record of Site Condition shall be provided to the Regional Planning Department • municipal water supply and sanitary sewers are available to the subject lands • a road widening across the frontage of Liverpool Road is required in order to provide a minimum of 15.0 metres from the centerline of the right-of-way and a sight triangle of 15.0 metres x 15.0 metres at the northeast corner of the development is also required I Report PD 10-12 Revised May 7, 2012 Subject: Emery Homes Glenanna Ltd. Page 6 13 Region of Durham the Region prefers all accesses to the site be (continued) provided from Glendale Drive but are satisfied that the Glenanna Road entrance will not adversely affect the operations of the Liverpool Road signalized intersection • the Region has no objection to the applications and has provided conditions of approval (see Agency Comments, Region of Durham, Attachments #21 & #22) Toronto and Region • no objection to the applications subject to the Conservation applicant fulfilling certain technical design matter Authority (see Agency Comments, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Comments, Attachment #24) No other agency that provided any comment had any objection to the subject applications. Certain technical issues'and requirements related to the proposed uses of the site can be addressed during the subdivision approval process, if this application is approved. 2.5 City Departments Engineering & Capital • the location of the access on Glenanna Road is Works not ideal but acceptable based on the information contained within the revised Traffic Impact Study that focuses significantly on the proposed access off Glenanna Road • a 3.0 metre road widening across the frontage of Glenanna Road and a corner rounding at the intersection of Glenanna Road and Glendale Drive is required • proposed road widening along Glenanna Road will have a positive impact on the existing sidewalks and cycling lane • relocation of the existing pedestrian and cycling facilities will result from the right-of-way widening • install a new concrete sidewalk in the standard location at 0.9 metres off the new property line (see City Department Comments, Engineering Services, Attachments #25, #26 and # 27) Report PD 10-12 Revised May 7, 2012 Subject: Emery Homes Glenanna Ltd. Page 7 I 3.0 Discussion: 3.1 The Proposed Density and Housing Type are Appropriate with the Neighbourhood and Complies to the Pickering Official Plan The subject lands are designated "Urban Residential Areas - Medium Density Areas" within the Liverpool Neighbourhood in the Pickering Official Plan. Permissible uses within the designation includes, amongst others, residential uses including townhouses. The Pickering Official Plan establishes a density range of 30 and up to including 80 dwelling units per hectare for development within a "Urban Residential Areas - Medium Density Areas". However, policies for the Liverpool Neighbourhood specify that despite the density range noted above, a maximum density of 55 units per hectare apply to lands located on the east side of Glendale Drive and south of Glenanna Road that are designated as "Medium Density Areas". This special policy applies to the subject land and accordingly, the density of the project at 51.6 units per hectare complies with the maximum density restriction. The applications comply with the policies of the Official Plan and represent appropriate development for the subject lands. The proposed number of dwellings is in keeping with the housing policies goals of the Official Plan that encourage a broad diversity of housing by form, location, size, tenure,-and cost within the neighbourhoods of the City, so that the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met as they evolve over time. The subject property is appropriately designated for the proposed development and the applicant's revised plan meets the spirit and intent of the policies of the Official Plan. The proposed development is considered compatible with the surrounding uses. 3.2 The Urban Design of the Proposed Development is appropriate and compatible with existing neighbourhood The revised proposal, with a density of 51.6 units per hectare, promotes a compact urban form that increases walkability, sidewalk networks, access to public transit and housing diversity within the area. A compact urban form is desirable for the neighbourhood and serves to achieve the policy objectives of the Pickering Official Plan. Staff are supportive of the configuration of the proposed townhouses which place the front door of units facing the existing public roadways. Building setbacks of 3.0 metres from the property line promote pedestrian oriented streetscapes that encourage pedestrian activity. The proposed development introduces an improved and pedestrian friendly streetscape on Liverpool Road and provides internal and external sidewalk connections throughout the site. A pedestrian walkway along the southeast property boundary connects the proposed townhouse development to Liverpool Road. These connections are considered desirable to encourage walkability to the commercial uses on Liverpool Road and to the Downtown. Report PD 10-12 Revised May 7, 2012 Subject: Emery Homes Glenanna Ltd. Page 8 J The proposed townhouse development introduces a mix of housing to the neighbourhood that is desirable and appropriate. Dwelling unit designs were amended to reduce the height of townhouse dwellings fronting onto Glendale Drive to two storeys to be consistent with the heights of existing dwellings on Glendale Drive. The two storey townhouse units provide a gradient to the three storey townhouse units internal to the site. 3.3 Traffic Impact Resulting From The Proposed Development Have Been Considered The applicant's original development plan proposed two vehicular access points from Glendale Drive. Residents expressed concern with this design. The revised site layout was reconfigured to provide one vehicular access to Glendale Drive and one access to Glenanna Road. Glenanna Road, where it abuts the subject property, is designated as a Type C Arterial Road and Glendale Drive is designated as a Local Road. Type C Arterial Roads are designed to carry lower volumes of traffic, at slower speeds than high order arterial roads, such as Liverpool Road. Local Roads generally provide access to individual properties and to other local and collector roads. Specifically, traffic concerns that were raised by the public are addressed in the following subsections: Glenanna Road Access With the proposed vehicular access on Glenanna Road, the anticipated traffic volumes on Glendale Drive are lower than in the original development proposal. According to the Traffic Impact Study there would be minimal impact caused by the proposed development on the surrounding intersections of Liverpool Road/Glenanna Road and Glenanna Road/Glendale Drive. The location of the vehicle access on Glenanna Road will operate with acceptable standards (see City Department Comments, Engineering & Capital Works, Attachment #25). The Region of Durham reviewed the Revised Site Plan and noted that the Region's preference is for all accesses to be provided from Glendale Drive. However, the Region is satisfied that the Glenanna Road entrance will not adversely effect the operation of the Liverpool Road signalized intersection and has no objection to the proposed development (see Agency Comments, Region of Durham, Attachment #22). Proposed Number of Driveways on Glendale Drive By twining the driveways of the 17 townhouse units on Glendale Drive, a total of nine driveway cuts and one private aisle drive will be introduced. This is a .marginal increase from the existing condition which has seven driveway cuts over this same distance. The design proposal is considered acceptable as a means to minimize the number of driveways onto Glendale Drive, and will leave some room for on-street parking. Report PD 10-12 Revised May 7, 2012 Subject: Emery Homes Glenanna Ltd. Page 9 FI ~ Environmental Noise Assessment An Environmental Noise Assessment of the potential noise impact was reviewed by the Region of Durham that concluded the proposed development meets the requirement of the Region of Durham and the Guidelines of the Ministry of Environment. The need for a revision to the'Environmental Noise Assessment to reflect the revised site plan submitted in April 2012 will be assessed (see Agency Comments, Region of Durham, Attachment #22). Required conditions respecting noise attenuation will be incorporated into the related development agreements. Liverpool Road Right-in, Right-Out Vehicular Access Liverpool Road is a Regional Road that is required to comply with the Region's Access By-law 211-79 and Regional policy for entranceways. The policy states that direct access onto all Regional Roads will be discouraged when an alternate means of access is available. Therefore, the Region does not support any direct vehicle access onto Liverpool Road (see Agency Comments, Region of Durham Works Department, Attachment #23). 3.4 3.0 metre Road Widening Requirement on Glenanna Road is Accommodated Glenanna Road is designated as a Type C Arterial Road in the Official Plan, and requires a right-of-way width ranging from 26 to 30 metres. The existing right-of-way width on Glenanna Road west of Liverpool Road is 20 metres. The City identified that a 3.0 metre road widening is required to achieve the minimum width of 26 metres for Glenanna Road. In light of this requirement the applicant submitted a revised plan in April 2012 that accommodated the 3.0 metre road widening on Glenanna Road while maintaining the basic elements of the proposed townhouse development there were previously included in the February 2012 version of the proposed development. The proposed widening along Glenanna Road will have a positive impact on the existing sidewalk and bike lane on the south side of Glenanna Road and facilitate the future introduction of a right turn (south bound) lane (see City Department Comments, Engineering Services, Attachment #26). As a condition of approval, Engineering Services has requested for the installation of a new concrete sidewalk to improve pedestrian and car safety (see City Department Comments, Engineering Services, Attachment #27). 3.5 Sustainable Development Implications The applicant submitted a Sustainability Report that is based on the City's Draft Sustainability Guidelines. Staff have reviewed the report and rated the draft plan as achieving a Level 1 score. The proposed draft plan incorporates many of the elements set out in the Guidelines such as efficient use of land, increased residential density, enhanced housing diversity, enhanced access to amenities, transit supportiveness and appropriate transition. Additional opportunities for elements of sustainable development are available at the Site Plan Application and Building permit stage. i Report PD 10-12 Revised May 7, 2012 Subject: Emery Homes Glenanna Ltd. Page 10 17 3.6 All Technical Matters will be addressed as Conditions of Subdivision and Site Plan Approval Process including tree preservation, visitor parking, Glendale Drive on street parking and investigations for intersection improvements at Liverpool Road and, Glenanna Road The applicant proposes to construct 62 townhouse dwelling units on the subject property. In order to ensure appropriate development, City requirements will be imposed as conditions of approval for the subdivision application and the site plan review process. These requirements will address matters such as, but not limited to: • building massing • facade design • outdoor lighting and light intrusion • landscaping, including identification of specific trees to be retained, tree planting • on-site snow storage • stormwater management plan Specifically, the following matters that were raised by residents will be addressed: A Tot Lot is proposed as amenity space for the proposed development The applicant's revised plan introduces a tot lot of approximately 115 square metres as amenity space within the development. The tot lot is appropriately situated in the development, being highly visible for passive viewing and away from public roadways. The tot lot equipment will be determined through the site plan review process. Tree Preservation and Landscaping Plan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority recommends that the applicant and the City develop a tree replacement plan (see Agency Comments, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Attachment #24). A tree inventory report and preservation/enhancement plan identifying trees to be preserved and to be planted for the proposed development has been submitted as a part of the Site Plan application. With the grading and servicing of the lands, the great majority of vegetation on the property will be removed. The public expressed -a desire to preserve the existing mature trees along Liverpool Road. Staff will review this issue through the subdivision/site plan processes to ensure that as many healthy trees as possible are preserved within the road right-of-way. Full details of the tree preservation plan and replacement will be finalized through the site plan and subdivision processes. Report PD 10-12 Revised May 7, 2012 Subject: Emery Homes Glenanna Ltd. Page 11 1.~ A landscape plan for the development will also be required to be submitted as part of the site plan and subdivision application process to identify the location and typical landscaping to be provided on-site. Details of the landscape plan will be finalized through the site plan review process. Visitor Parking & On-street Parking Pickering's standard visitor parking ratio for a residential condominium is 0.25 parking space per dwelling unit. The proposed development provides a visitor parking ratio that meets this standard (0.26 parking spaces per dwelling unit for the condominium development). The pressure on visitor parking is further reduced given that a significant number of the condominium townhouse units provide four private parking spaces per unit. Visitor parking for the townhouse units fronting on Glendale Drive will be accommodated on-street as in other residential development in the City. The design of the townhouse units on Glendale Drive allows for approximately six parking spaces on street that will be regulated by the City's Traffic and Parking By-law. Emergency Vehicle and Garbage Collection Access The City's Fire Services has no concern with the proposed development. Details of emergency vehicle access will be finalized through the site plan review process. The Region of Durham indicated that it will provide garbage collection within the site and at curbside along Liverpool Road, Glenanna Road-and Glendale Drive. Possible Right Turn Lane from Glenanna Road onto Liverpool Road Southbound ' Staff are currently reviewing the potential introduction of a right turn lane on Glenanna Road at Liverpool Road. The road widening required though this development will assist with the design. The timing of this potential road improvement is contingent on further review by Engineering Services and Council approval through the City's Capital Budget. The City will also review the relocation of the bike lane on the south side of Glenanna Road during this process. Construction Management Plan A Construction Management Plan will be required as a condition of the site plan and subdivision approval. The Construction Management Plan will address, but not be limited to, the following public concerns: • erosion and sediment control • mud and dust control • protection of trees • building material storage • servicing of construction equipment • parking areas for construction workers Report PD 10-12 Revised May 7, 2012 Subject: Emery Homes Glenanna Ltd. Page 12 19 • road cleaning program • working hours, ensuring accordance with City By-laws • ensure adherence to all requirement of other studies and/or reports • conservation of existing wildlife Further Processing of the Development The effect of this plan of subdivision will be to establish 6 Development Blocks for townhouse development. The individual blocks and lots for the townhouse units in Block 2, 3 and 4 will be created through the plan of subdivision and part lot control. The individual blocks and lots for the townhouse units in Block 1 will be created through the draft plan of condominium process and part lot control. Detailed design issues will be dealt with through the subdivision agreement and site plan approval process. The detailed design process will include, amongst other matters, site servicing, grading, parking, landscaping, lighting, elevations and building siting. No further reports are anticipated to be brought before Council if the subject applications are approved. 3.7 Common Element Condominium Application The purpose of this application is to determine whether the common element condominium is the appropriate form of tenure for the proposed 45 townhouse dwelling unit development. A common element condominium refers to a development where each dwelling unit and lot is individually owned (freehold ownership), and where amenities or physical features such as the private road . and tot lot are collectively owned by the unit owners as tenants in common. It is anticipated that a future common element condominium corporation will be established to permit a community of individually owned homes, with maintenance of the development's joint services, amenities and physical features provided through a common element condominium corporation. If the subdivision and rezoning applications are approved the Director, Planning & Development will make a decision on the common element condominium after all comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public have been received and assessed. If appropriate the Director, Planning & Development will issue proposed conditions of approval for the subject application. This is in accordance with Council policy and Delegation By-law 5391/01. Appendices: Appendix I ' Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-01 Appendix 11 Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Report PD 10-12 Revised May 7, 2012 Subject: Emery Homes Glenanna Ltd. Page 13 20 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Draft Plan of Subdivision 3. Draft Plan of Condominium 4. Original Development Plan - Submitted April 2011 5. Revised Development Plan - Submitted February 2012 6. Current Revised Development Plan - Submitted April 2012 7. Minutes of May 9, 2011 Statutory Public Information Meeting 8. Resident Comment - Jackie Gentle 9. Resident Comment - Mary Cook 10. Resident Comment - Eugene and Heather-Lynn Kettinger 11. Resident Comment - Lois Collett 12. Resident Comment - Chuck Wurster 13. Resident Comment - Jo-Ann Wellman 14. Resident Comment - Bill Waugh 15. Resident Comment - Roger Webb 16. Resident Comment - Lynn Vickers 17. Resident Comment - Lesley Sims 18. Resident Comment - Chris and Lori Gertzos 19. Resident Comment - Ken and Valerie Curtis 20. Minutes/Meeting Summary -Working Group Meeting 1 21. Agency Comments - Region of Durham, dated May 10, 2011 22. Agency Comments - Region of Durham, dated December 21, 2011 23. Agency Comments - Region of Durham Works Department, dated October 6, 2012 24. Agency Comments-Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 25. City Department Comments - Engineering Services, dated March 9, 2012 26. City Department Comments - Engineering Services, dated March 13, 2012 27. City Department Comments - Engineering Services, dated April 12, 2012 r I Report PD 10-12 Revised May 7, 2012 Subject: Emery Homes Glenanna Ltd. Page 14 .21 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: A40 Mila Yeung Neil Ca &,o , RPP Planner II Director, Planning & Development 7z Ross Pym, MCI PP Principal Planner - Development Review MY: RP:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council 23 z© rZ Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer II Appendix I to 2 ( Report PD 10-12 Revised Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-01 I Recommended Conditions of Approval for 23 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-01 1.0 General Conditions: 1.1 That this recommendation apply to the draft plan of subdivision prepared by Sernas Associates dated February 16, 2011, with a revised date of April 2012, Project No. 11035 on lands being Part of Lot 23 Concession 1, City of Pickering, for six blocks to permit 17 freehold townhouse dwelling units fronting Glendale Drive, a single block for the development of 45 townhouse dwelling units, and road widening blocks; 2.0 Prior to the Registration of the Plan: 2.1 That the owner submit a Draft 40M-plan to be approved by the City's Planning & Development Department; 2.2 That the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/11 becomes final and binding; 2.3 That the owner enters into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: 2.3.1 Storm Drainage (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting a stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision and any provisions regarding easements; (b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department for contributions for stormwater management maintenance fee; 2.3.2 Grading Control and Soils (a) prior to the initiation of grading, the owner shall submit the following to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department: i an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan consistent with the Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities, 2007); (ii) apply to the City for a Topsoil Removal, Fill Placement and Erosion and Sediment Control Permit; (b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting submission and approval of a grading and control plan; 9 Conditions of Approval Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-01 (c) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis; (d) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting the authorization from abutting land owners for all offsite- grading; 2.3.3 Road Allowances (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting construction of roads with curbs, sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs; 2.3.4 Construction/Installation of City Works & Services (a) satisfaction of the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City; (b) satisfaction of the City respecting to the installation of concrete sidewalks; (c) satisfaction of the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar services; (d) that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the responsibility of the subdivider; 2.3.5 Easements i (a) that the Owner convey to the City, at no cost: (i) any easements as required; (ii) any reserves as required by the City; (iii) the corner rounding (sight triangle) at Glendale Drive and Glenanna Road identified as Block 5 on Draft Plan; (iv) a road widening of 3.0 metre along the frontage of Glenanna Road; (b) that the Owner convey any easements to any utility to facilitate the installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City and the utility; (c) that the Owner arrange at no costs to the City any easements required on third party lands for servicing and such easements shall be in locations as determined by the City and/or the Region and are to be granted upon request at any time after the draft approval; r Conditions of Approval Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-01 2.3.6 Construction Management Plan (a) that the owner make satisfactory arrangements with the City respecting a construction management plan, such Plan to contain, among other things: (i) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these controls; (ii) addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building materials during servicing and house construction, and ensuring that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on either existing streets or the proposed public street; (iii) insurance that the City's Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law; (iv) the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to the site; (v) type and timing of construction fencing; (vi) location of construction trailers; (vii) details of the temporary construction access; 2.3.7 Development Charges (a) satisfaction of the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act; 2.3.8 Coordinated Development (a) satisfaction of the City with respect to arrangements necessary to provide for coordination of services and roads with adjacent lands and any phasing of development that may be required; 2.3.9 Fencing (a) satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of temporary fencing around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior to the commencement of any works; (b) submit a landscaping Fencing Plan, with respect to the provision all fencing, to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department; i i 26 Conditions of Approval Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-01 2.3.10 Street Tree Planting (a) the submission of a street tree planting plan to the satisfaction of the City; 2.3.11 Tree Preservation (a) the owner satisfy the City with the submission of a tree preservation plan to the satisfaction of the City which will illustrate the protection of trees and other natural features where appropriate prior to the approval of a preliminary grading plan; (b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development, the Owner shall submit a tree replacement plan considering the size of the trees to be removed; 2.3.12 Architectural Control (a) that the owner, prior to the preparation of the subdivision agreement, shall engage a control architect to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department, who will prepare streetscape/architectural control guidelines to the City's satisfaction; (b) that the owner ensure that engineering plans are coordinated with the streetscape/architectural control guidelines and further that the engineering plans coordinate the driveway, street hardware and street trees to ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimized and all objectives of the streetscape/architectural control guidelines can be achieved; (c) that the owner satisfy the City respecting the provision of appropriate aesthetic details and design of all boundary fencing and noise attenuation fencing; 2.3.13 Engineering Drawings (a) that the owner satisfy the City respecting the submission of appropriate engineering drawings that detail, among other things, City services, roads, storm sewers, sidewalks, lot grading, streetlights, fencing and tree planting, and financially-secure such works; (b) that the engineering plans be coordinated with the architectural design objectives; (c) that the subdivider revise the draft plan, as necessary to the satisfaction of the City to accommodate any unforeseen technical engineering issues which arise during the review of the final engineering drawings. Required revisions may include reducing the number of residential building lots/blocks or reconfiguring the roads or lots/blocks to the City's satisfaction; ?7 Conditions of Approval Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-01 2.3.14 Maintenance (a) that the Owner provide a fixed payment satisfactory to the City to provide for the long term maintenance and repairs of items such as enhancements to fences, entrance feature walls, medians that exceed the City's normal standards and which are requested by the subdivider; 2.3.15 Noise (a) that the Owner satisfy the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment regarding the approval of a noise study recommending noise control features to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham, and the City of Pickering; 2.3.16 Parkland Dedication (a) the owner shall pay the City cash-in-lieu to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act, 2.3.17 Phasing (a) that if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration, the subdivider will be required to submit a plan showing the proposed phasing, all to the satisfaction of the City; 2.3.18 Utility (a) that the owner submit an Utility Coordination Plan with provisions for a community mailbox to the satisfaction of the City; 2.3.19 Other Approval Agencies (a) that the subdivider satisfy all the requirements of the Region of Durham; (b) that the subdivider satisfy all the requirements of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; (c) that any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham or the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the development of this plan be obtained by the subdivide, and upon request written confirmation be provided to the City of Pickering as verification of these approvals; 2 8 Appendix II to Report PD 10-12 Revised Recommended Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/11 D94Fr The Corporation of The City of Pickering By-law No.XXXX/12 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, Lots 19, 20, 21, 33 to 38, Plan 392, in the City of Pickering (A 3/11). Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to permit the development of single attached and multiple horizontal residential units on the subject lands being Lots 19, 20, 21, 33 to 38, Plan 392 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 Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands being Lots 19, 20, 21, 33 to 38, Plan 392, designated "SA-11" and "MD-1-17" on Schedule I attached hereto. 3. General 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. 4. Definitions In this By-law, (1) "Bay, Bow, Box Window" shall mean a window that protrudes from the main wall, usually bowed, canted, polygonal, segmental, semicircular or square sided with window on front face in plan; one or more storeys in height, which may or may not include a foundation, may or may not include a window seat; and may include a door; By-law XXXX/12 DRAFT Page 2 3' (2) (a) "Dwelling" 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) "Dwelling, Single Attached or Single Attached Dwelling" shall mean one of a group of not less than three adjacent dwellings attached together horizontally by an above grade common wall; (d) "Multiple Dwelling-Horizontal" shall mean a building containing three or more dwelling units attached horizontally, not vertically, by an above- grade wall or walls; (3) (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; (4) (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 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 Coverage" shall mean the percentage of lot area covered by all buildings on the lot; (c) "Lot Frontage" shall mean the width of a lot between the side lot lines measured along a line parallel to and 7.5 metres distant from the front lot line; (5) "Private Garage" 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; (6) (a) "Yard" 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; By-law XXXX/12 DRAFF Page 3 (b) "Front Yard" shall mean a yard extending across the full width 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) "Front Yard Depth" 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 building or structure on the lot; (d) "Rear Yard" shall mean a yard extending across the full width of a lot between the rear lot line of the lot, or where there is no rear lot line, the . junction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (e) "Rear Yard Depth" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a rear yard of a lot between the rear lot line of the lot, or where there is no rear lot line, the junction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (f) "Side Yard" shall mean a yard of a lot extending from the front yard to the rear yard, and from the side lot line to the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (g) "Side Yard Width" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a side yard of a lot between the side lot line and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; I (h) "Flankage Side Yard" shall mean a side yard immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street; (i) "Flankage Side Yard Width" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a flankage side yard of a lot between the lot line adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (j) "Interior Side Yard" shall mean a side yard other than a flankage side yard. 5. Provisions (1) (a) Uses Permitted ("MD-1-17) No person shall within the lands designated "MD-1-17" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (i) multiple dwelling-horizontal; i By-law XXXX/12 DRAFr Page 4 32 (b) Zone Requirements ("MD-H7" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "MD-H7" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building except in accordance with the following provisions: (i) Requirements for Multiple Dwelling-Horizontal: A Number of Multiple Dwelling-Horizontal Units for all lands zoned "MD-H7"(maximum) 45 B Lot Area (minimum) 110 square metres C Lot Frontage (minimum) 5.5 metres D Front Yard Depth (minimum) 3.0 metres E Side Yard Width (minimum): (1) 1.5 metres, except where dwellings on abutting lots share a common wall, no interior.side yard shall be required adjacent to that wall on either lot; (II) Despite subparagraph (1) above, a minimum 1.2 metre side yard width is required when abutting a common element amenity area and a minimum 0.2 metre side yard width is required when abutting a common element walkway area; F Flankage Side Yard Width (minimum): (1) 2.2 metres, where the dwellings are immediately adjacent to the vehicular entrances to a public street; (11) Despite subparagraph (1) above, a minimum 2.0 metres flankage side yard is required for dwellings that flank an internal private drive aisle and are not located immediately adjacent to the vehicular entrances to a public street; G Rear Yard Depth (minimum): (1) 6.0 metres, where multiple dwelling-horizontal units abut the SA-11 zone otherwise a rear yard depth minimum does not apply; By-law XXXX/12 DRAFT Page 5 13 3 H Building Height (maximum) 12.0 metres Dwelling Unit Width (minimum) 5.5 metres J Building Location and Setbacks: (1) No building, part of a building, structure or part of a structure shall be erected except within the limits of the building envelope illustrated on Schedule I attached hereto; (11) Despite subparagraph (1) above, buildings or structures associated with permitted mechanical, recreational, security, parking, refuse storage and other ancillary residential facilities shall be permitted beyond the limits of the building envelope but no closer than 1.2 metres to any lot line; (III) Despite subparagraph (1) above, uncovered steps, covered porches and platforms shall be permitted to project a maximum of 1.5 metres beyond the limits of the building envelope shown on Schedule I attached hereto or into a required front yard or rear yard; (IV) Despite subparagraph (1) above, bay, bow or box windows may encroach a maximum of 1.0 metre into the require front or rear yard; I K The minimum width for the driving aisle/private road shall be 6.4 metres; L Special Regulations: (1) Despite the provisions of Section 5.6 of By-law 3036, as amended, the requirement for the frontage on a public street shall be satisfied by establishing frontage on a common element condominium street (11) Where a lot abuts both a common element condominium street and public street, the front lot line shall be abutting the public street and where a lot abuts more than one private road the front lot line shall be the lot line opposite the main front wall; By-law XXXX/12 DRAFT Page 6 34 (ii) Parking Requirements for "MD-H7" zone: A Minimum Parking Spaces (per dwelling unit): - 2 spaces, which shall be provided through either 2 spaces within an attached garage, or through one parking space in an attached garage and one parking space in a driveway immediately in front of the parking garage for that dwelling unit; B Minimum private garage per lot 1 C Any vehicular entrance for a private garage shall be located a minimum of 6.0 metres from any lot line that abuts the street or private road that provides vehicle access to the private garage; D Garage Parking Size (minimum): (1) each parking space within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 2.9 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres provided, however, that the width may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps; E Visitor Parking Spaces (1) For all lands designated "MD-H7" on Schedule attached hereto a minimum of 12 visitor parking spaces shall be provided; F Despite clauses 5.21.2g) and 5.21.2k) of By-law 3036, as amended, all entrances and exits to parking areas and all parking areas shall be surfaced with brick, asphalt or concrete, or any combination thereof. (2) (a) Uses Permitted ("SA-11" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "SA-11" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building except in accordance with the following provisions: (i) single attached dwelling; By-law XXXX/12 DMFT Page 7 (b) Zone Requirements ("SA-11" Zone) (i) Requirements for Single Attached Dwelling: A Number of Single Attached Dwelling Units (maximum) 17 B Building Height (maximum) 10.0 metres C Lot Frontage (minimum) 7.5 metres D Lot Area (minimum) 175 square metres E Front Yard Depth (minimum) 3.0 metres F Rear Yard Depth (minimum) 7.0 metres G Side yard: (1) 1.5 metres, except where dwellings on abutting lots share a common wall, no interior side yard shall be required adjacent to that wall on either lot; H Flankage side yard to private driveway 2.4 metres I Driveway Width (maximum) 50 percent of the lot frontage J Projections: (i) Despite Section 5.7(b) of By-law 3036 uncovered steps, covered porches and platforms shall be permitted to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into any required front yard; (ii) Despite 5(2)(b)(i)E above bay, bow or box windows may encroach a maximum 1.0 metres into the required rear yard; (ii) Parking Requirements for "SA-11" Zone: A Minimum Parking Spaces (per dwelling unit): 2 spaces, which shall be provided through an attached garage, or one parking space in an attached garage and one parking space in a driveway immediately in front of the parking garage for that dwelling unit; BY-law XXXX/12 DRIFT Page 8 36 B Minimum private garage per lot 1 C Any vehicular entrance for a private garage shall be located a minimum of 6.0 metres from any lot line that abuts the street or private road that provides vehicle access to the private garage; D Garage Parking Size (minimum): (1) each parking space within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 2.9 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres provided, however, that the width may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps; 6. By-law 3036 By-law 3036, 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 with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3036, as amended. 7. Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law read'a first, second, and third time and finally passed this day of 12012. David Ryan, May Debi Shields, City Clerk i 37 i i GLENANNA ROAD 68.5m 18.8m i E 3.Om i 6.0m i Q MD-H7 co o j PLAN 492 LOTS 19-21, 33-38 i J Lij > T E i O O i . E Q E i _ _ _ L6 r /1 i i W W ~/J ' J r7 ' i > ' ! J i ~11.0m i ; W i i - - - 0 i ; 6.Om r` Ei i of - - 23.4m ' - - - - - - - / m I BUILDING ENVELOPE N SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS DAY OF 2012 MAYOR CLERK ATTACHMENT /TO REPORT 0 PD A0 -4' 33 6 = o ? Q ww PAR o C) O .v Q ° BRANDS COUR w J DA li/D FARR P K ROAD GLf top NNA J o w p w a > ~ J r w cf) O ~ Z O r r m N w C ~OPO PE T S o ~\NGS~pN c~ w J U 0 pR 0 ~pRR\Np'(pN 'o S ~ a ~pP s 401 J O O a- ce w > J City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Plan 492 Lots 21-24 & Plan 492 Lots 34-38 07\ OWNER Emery Homes Glendale Ltd. DATE Mar 4, 2011 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. SP 2011-01, CP 2011-01 & A003/11 SCALE 1:5,000 CHECKED BY MY N eeT.renetr Ent.rprl.ee Ins. nd Its u pliers. All 11. h." Reserved. Not a plan of .urvey. P~ -12 e 2005 .PAC entl Its s Ilea. All rl hte Reserved. Net a ion of Su rve ATTACHMENT# a ~TO REPORiT# PD Z,12 - Z 2 39 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS SUBMITTED REVISED SUBDIVISION PLAN EMERY HOMES GLENDALE LTD. SP-2011-01 & CP-2011-01 & A 03/11 SUBMITTED APRIL 2012 I GLENA NA R D I' I i , - i ROAD WIDE NINW BLO K TENT • D) E I ~1 - I I I ._____--___y O___ i j I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I III I I I I I III " I I Yi j j I~ ((~'~I ROA IDENIIjI I j l :ae VI j j i BLOCK 6 i j I I I 1 I I I I I III I I j j I I ;I I j j - e~ - ~1O4~DI DENSITY" MEDIU ITY ~EaC~ ~ I 11 (0.87 hal 2.1 ac.) ~D O 11 I i I I -$L K 3 , ~ I YI I I 1 (0.10 0.2 ----------J ~ I I I 1 I I`~{I I I I I I I I I 'W.I ~ L - 11 I 11 I I I I I I I ~ d I I , i l, I I i I - - - - N69'54'20'E 54.41 i i l I I I ~ ~ I I I o I J I I I I 1 I I I I ~ ✓ ~ ? I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ I I I O I 1 II 1 1 I I I U w~ _ I I I O I III I I I 1 1 I I 1 11 I I I n 11 I I I I I I I ~ I I I ICI I I I I I ~ I 1 I I I I I I I I I ~ 1 tyl I I I I I _ , 1 I I I I I I I I I ~I 11 I I I j i l I VI I I I I I I X11 ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I 121 I I 1 I J i i EDI ~..1 ITY I 1 I I Cl" I BL C-7- (0 I I I I I .15 h - 0. oc.) I I III I I I I I I I I I I I_ I ~ I I I II ' i 1, ~ r I I I ~ I I I I ff I III I I o I q I I I I I I I L.Lj II 1 11 _ I ~ I' I I III 11- „ I I III II I I I11 ~ ~ I I I m I I 1 I III I 1 1 e I I I I I r 11 I I I I I 1 , I I rOldD ~ 1, I I I I I I I 1 I I aa° ~ I I I I I _ II I I I I I I I I I 11 1 - ED] 35-E D4," NbW- -----------1 I ( 1 i t i ~ j l I III I I r I I, I I I I I I I i I I I ' I I I I I I I , I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 007\ N FULL SCALE COP/ES O! 7H£ APPL/GNTS SUBMITTED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKER/NC PLANN/NC & DEVELOPMENT OEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE C/TY OF PICKER/NC PLANN/NC & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERNCES APRIL 10, 2012. ATTAWM ENT# _TO REPORT# PD /O - / -~l 40 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED REVISED CONDOMINIUMION PLAN EMERY HOMES GLENDALE LTD. SP-2011-01 & CP-2011-01 & A 03/11 SUBMITTED APRIL 2012 C7 1 FN A hf _ ROAD ~ _ -ROAD WIDENING TO BE ROAD WIDENING TO BE P.I.N. 26339-0408 TAKEN THROUGH TAKEN THROUGH PLAN OF SUBD VISION - P A F U LVJ,~IQ1~ \ / / -----------1 I I I I I 1 I l(, I^ I I 1 \ I I I PARCEL 17 4.. 7On I h I a I n IN 1 1 I I P.O.T. I I 1 II - WtiI~~lW~1W~l~ti1~~ ,'~oa, iiI I 1 ill i I oo I wo I cio I ~o I oo I wo ~ i I I O I I Q d l~ l C¢c lI c lI ri: Q: (~~tv ~ I I I I I PARCEL 18 a 1 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ i PCr, 0• 9 I I I I I I I I I I I P.O. CL Q. a T.L. l I la la ~a7 Q Q, JI I 1 I I I I I I I I PARCEL 19 I I 1 I / / 0' I I I I I P.O.T.L. I I. I I 1 1 ~i QPQ. , I 1 III ~i I I I ~ I III I I I I I PARCEL 20 a ~Q i~ I I III I I I BLOCK 2 / PARCEL 8 ti l l I I I I I I I I 11 P.O. T. L. 3 P.O. T. L. Q I I I N I I I I I I I PARCEL 21 2 I I I I O I 111 I I I I I :E P.O.T.L. mwr PARCEL 7 I I I t I 1 na ~wr..i~:. M P.O.T.L.__ I I I tp I III I~ I I I ? PARCEL 22 PARCEL 6 I I I M I I I I II I I I P.O. T. L. I I I I 77 I IV I I I _ P.O.T.L. I I I N 1 III I I I I I PARCEL 23 PARCEL 45 2 I I I I III I I I I I P.O.T.L. --P.O.T.L.--__ PARCEL 5 } I I I O Z I III I I I O ' v J P.O.T.L. 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I ----------Q PARCEL 24 PARCEL 44 mW PARCEL L.- ~4i ---PARCEL 4 II I O I III I I I I I z P.O.T.L. a~ ~2 P. O. T. L. `I~ I I 111 I f 1 I I PARCEL 43 R~ ~N 1 I 111 I I I I I PARCEL 25 PARCEL 3 ~I.aj I I I I I I I I p l I I P.O.T.L. Qp' PARCEL 42 v P. O.T.L-_- •bl I I I~I I YI i I I I 1 1 I I BLOCK 3 _ PARCEL 26 P.O.U. -jI I PARCEL 2 IF,j I ~1 I I 1 I 1 I I ----------0 P.O. T.L ~i PARCEL 41 aa° P. 0. T. L. y 1 ¢I 11 I I M I P. O. T. L. ff``II I 13 I i I ~I I I I 1 I I I PARCEL 27 - I NI I I P.O.TL. PARCEL 40 PARCEL 1 I I 111 I I WI I I P.O.T.L. P.O.T.L. I I ? I I i Q PARCEL 28 I 1 ~I I I I I I J P.O.T..L. I I I ~I I I I I I I I PARCEL 29 wr . I I I I I NI I I I I I I I P.O. TL III I I I I I I I I I I I'- I I III I I li PARCEL T. L30 I I I I I --------_Q ____A 0. a«. LOT 2 2 III I I I III I 1 I I I PARCEL 31 I I III I I I I P.I.N. 26340-0101 1 W1 11 P-0-TL III I -1 11 I I I I I ~ PARCEL 32 I I I 1 I Lu I I I I O P.O.T.L. -----------------------------III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I-----_----f- PARCEL 33 I I I I I 121 II I I I I I BLOCK 4 P.O.T.L. 111 I I01 11 PARCEL 34-_ 1 11 I IUI 11 -----------I I~ I I I P. O. - TL. ----0. I I I PARCEL 35 L 0 T 2 3 L.___ I I I I i III 1 I I I I P.O. T.L. P.I.N. 26340-0100 I I 1 11 III L_L I I I I I Q PARCEL 36 III I I I I I 1 z P.O. T.L I I I I I I I I III ' 1 I I I I I I 1 I I PARCEL 37 I I I I I P.O. T. L. I I I I I I I I I I I I PARCEL 38 - III I I I I I I I I I I P.O. T. L. I I I I I I I I PARCEL 39 L 0 T 2 4 III I I I I I I I P.O.T.L. ~rro P.I.N. 26340-0099 111 I 1 111 I if I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I II 3 ~4 I II 1 I III'/' I I I II III I I I I I I I 1 I III L 0 T I I I III I I I I I I I I I I I I III 1 111 I I III I 1 I III I11 I I III 32 I LOT 25 III I I 1111 I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 111 P.I.N. 26340-0090 I 111 1 I III I I I I I I III N FULL SCALE COPES OF THE APPUCANTS SUBMITTED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR KEWING AT THE C17Y OF PICKERING PLANNING M DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. TH/5 MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMAITON & SUPPORT SERVICES APRIL 17, 2012. ATTACHMENT#.~TO REPORT# PD /o - a 41 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS SUBMITTED SITE PLAN EMERY HOMES GLENDALE LTD. SP-2011-01 & CP-2011-01 & A 03/11 SUBMITTED APRIL 2011 GLENANNA ROAD F F F A A A D 177 .7 Z. 17- • 9 BL CK 2 € CN nas a ERaiE LANE ""$s486 N9TOR PARKING t Y pQ A ' a s u 0 E F Y o 1." 0 0 m~ U V° w T-A _ mJ J NN EE@$ .o , s E E~ seas' o i THI-El . TNSE Z I w 0 D 9 " owmm i „ B a D 9 Y 9 J ~ ~ f axsa sacs - ~E@4 ~ sass ~ F T-I B - - Me B 4 T11c T- 0 F meAL .N 1. C. DE K B A. A A A i1REROUm A A r WpR, f1 n roo - N FULL 5CALE COPIES OF THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR WEW/NC AT THE C17Y OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. ' THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT OEPARTMENT, WFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES. APRIL 18. 2011. ATTAMENU-5 --TO REPORT# PD.1 s- - /2 42 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS REVISED SUBMITTED SITE PLAN EMERY HOMES GLENDALE LTD. SP-2011-01 & CP-2011-01 & A 03/11 SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 2012 GLEN ANNA ROADo 5 f i n.v.u O SL BL K 2 + umenn i ~ 8 ~ ~ ■ i W + ~ W a STREET B LANE w, ■ O i i TC Sr q r N~ _ "l 1 : J A - - - e • O IL n _ ■ i i - e ■ i r I i i STREET A [I ~.EnW,E i - RESIDENTIAL N FULL SCALE COPIES OF THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE C/TY OF P/CKER/NG PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE C/TY OF P/CKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES. FEBRUARY 13, 2012. ATTACHMENT ~ .--TO REPORTS PD. -O 2 43 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS SUBMITTED CURRENT REVISED SITE PLAN EMERY HOMES GLENDALE LTD. SP-2011-01 & CP-2011-01 & A 03/11 SUBMITTED APRIL 2012 GLENANNA ROAD y 5 i J w rt na•.u 3.DM D m INC, s J.DM RDAD WIDENING HOU E ` BLO K2 UR DIC ~ j C) m~ ~ 19 I~ 9-,a .S Y 03 LANE 4t P O 1 N LL 21 ~ i 22 b > - - `k g m x. 1 - - - - ; w Y7 3 e 41 - - - mf m W - w _ p 5 Q ~ LL w~ 1 z o _ - w _ N .nwww a _ sl -N-- Plan Recommended for A fie{ mx U Approval in Report of ° N ,xw ° - - PD 10/12-Revised w LL O f _ Ss 30 STREEVA i rwmwrz 1 RESIDENTIAL ~I N FULL SCALE COPIES OF THE APPLICANTS SUBM/TTEO PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR N'£W/NC AT THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING R DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF P/C--- PLANNING R DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION @' SUPPORT SERVICES, APRIL T T, 2012 . ATTACHIVIR,IT #-.,-7- TO REPORT # Nei Excerpts from c~cy o~ Joint Planning & Development ano ~Executive Committee - Meeting Minutes Monday, May 9, 2011 7:30 pm s Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean (II) Part `A' Information Reports 2. Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-01 Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2011-01 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/11 Emery Homes Glendale Ltd. 1880, 1876 & 1872 Liverpool Road and 1863, 1865, 1871, 1875, 1871 & 1881 Glendale Drive (Lots 19, 20, 21, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 & 38, Plan 492), City of Pickering A public information meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of informing the public with respect to the above noted application. Mila Yeung, Planner I, provided an overview,of zoning by-law amendment application A 3/11. Bryce Jordan, consultant for Emergy Homes, appeared before the Committee on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the lands are designated medium density and the limit of 55 units per net hectare ensures compatibility with future development. He also noted the need to achieve compatibility through architectural design. John Beresford, architect for the project appeared before the Committee. Through the aid of a power point presentation, he stated the need to take streets and transform them to more liveable spaces, noting that the proposed townhouses will encourage liveability and safety. He stated there would be provision for 208 parking spaces, including both private and visitor. parking. The townhouses would range in size from 1,700 to 2,000 square feet and some would be equipped with elevators. He also noted their compliance with sustainability guidelines. Doug Martin, 1857 Glendale Drive appeared before the Committee stating his concerns with the impact of increased traffic and noted that the 208 parking spots being proposed was unrealistic. He felt that 250 - 300 parking spots would be a more accurate estimate. He also noted his concerns with safety, stating that congestion was already at capacity . He noted concerns with the configuration as the development would be facing his backyard, reducing privacy as well as property values. He noted this development would not fit in with the community and would like to see a lower profile home, possibly semi detached. He indicated his willingness to work with staff and residents to find a solution to these issues. 1 eLf'G? # PD~_/C~ -d Excerpts from 4 ~ Joint Planning & Development and Executive Committee ING Meeting Minutes Monday, May 9, 2011 7:30 pm - Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean Jeremy Crawford, 1840 Glendale Drive, appeared before the Committee in opposition to the application, noting his concerns with traffic. He stated people currently park on the street creating safety concerns as well, making it dangerous for children to cross the street. He questioned where the greenspace would be in the proposed development. He also noted concerns with the height of the development being three storeys and felt it was not sustainable. He indicated this would also bring their property values down. Jackie Gentle, 1859 Malden Crescent, appeared before the Committee reiterating previous delegation concerns and noting her main issue was the traffic congestion, stating it would be unreasonable to consider increased traffic in the area. She noted this would impact the surrounding area as well, which would only increase the problem. Michael Lee, 1832 Bronte Square, appeared before the Committee noting concerns with traffic both during and post construction. He noted that the traffic would be diverted onto Bronte Square and questioned whether there would be traffic lights installed. D. Garland, 1310 Fieldlight Boulevard, appeared before the Committee in opposition to the application, noting the entire concept should be sent back. She stated the density is too high to fit in with the community, She stated that at least one storey should be taken off as she felt it would tower, over the existing homes. She indicated there is never enough visitor parking now and that owners would be using those spots as well. She also noted concerns with the freehold townhouses, as they would have no say in what is done. Shirley Vasey, 1841 Malden Crescent appeared before the Committee stating she felt the drawings shown were not aesthetically appropriate for the area stating that it should be matched up with the existing community. Patrick Spears, 1847 Malden Crescent appeared before the Committee and stated that most residents have 2 or 3 cars and get ticketed on the street now. He questioned how many vehicles the driveways would accommodate. He also questioned why there were survey stakes already in the ground if nothing had been approved yet. He asked where the 208 parking spots would be, stating it would be impossible to have this many. 2 AT7RCHMEPET#-- Rum Excerpts from 4 5C`tq °o Joint Planning & Development and. eA, 1~ Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, May 9, 2011 7:30 pm - Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean Donna Bell, 1879 Hansell Court appeared before the Committee, stating she was in agreement with all the issues noted already and stated that if nothing has been approved yet, the signs should come down. Lucille Dore, 1866 Glendale Drive, appeared before the Committee stating she has experienced atrocious traffic issues first hand, witnessing many close calls. She noted a huge increase in traffic after the opening of Tim Hortons. She indicated her concerns with safety and noise issues. She is not opposed to development, but within reason . The buildings are too.high and she indicated that the resale value of their properties has already been affected. Becky Arseneau, 1945 Glendale Drive, appeared before the Committee and stated she had witnessed traffic chaos on her way over here this evening on her electric bike. She stated this development does not promote a sense of community. The proposal of three storeys is not aesthetically pleasing, she felt reducing it to two storeys would be an improvement. Brian Miller, 1855 Glendale Driye appeared before the Committee stating his concerns with safety and questioned what would be done with respect to snow removal. " John Martin, 1862 Glendale Drive, appeared before Committee and noted he was also speaking on behalf of his mother Beverly Martin. He stated their concerns with traffic and the driveways. He questioned how they would get onto Highway 2. He also stated that three storeys would not fit in with the neighbourhood. Amanda Lavocque, 1791 Bronte Square, appeared before the Committee, speaking on behalf of her neighbours Norma and Renee Guay as well. She noted they have. numerous concerns, with the main issue being the increased traffic as a result of the development. She also noted concerns with the impact on the school system, noting that most of the new residents purchasing townhomes would have young families. She also stated the height and lot sizes do not fit with the existing neighbourhood. Michael O'Leary, 1907 Bowler Drive, appeared before the Committee and questioned what the developers were offering for parkland, garbage and snow removal . He stated the traffic issue was the number one priority and staff should sit down with the residents to address the issues. He was also in agreement that three storeys do not fit in with the neighbourhood and felt that the number of homes going in should be cut down. 3 TCt Ff=' }~~7r w.,,. Excerpts from L-itqo~ Jaint Planning & Development and Executive C®mmittee4- 7 Meeting Minutes Monday, May 9, 2011 7:30 m a Council Chair: Councillor McLean John Service, 1821 Bronte Square, appeared before the Committee, stating he is co- chair of the Vaughan Willard school board and noted that they would welcome more students to the school. He questioned the number of townhouse units, visitor parking and traffic issues. Angela Wurster, 1871 Malden Crescent, appeared before the Committee, stating she had moved there to raise her family but has concerns with the density, population and loss of mature trees. She also stated the space and size of the houses do not fit the neighbourhood. Bill Waugh, 1816 Bronte Square, appeared before the Committee questioning the cost of the townhouse units, whether they would be high or low end. He also noted his concerns with parking and indicated the visitor parking was too far away which would increase on street parking. Mike Farrugia, 1904 Glendale Drive, appeared before the. Committee stating his concerns with the traffic issues in an already congested area.. He questioned a roundabout or possible third road at the end of Liverpool. Norna Guay, 1793 Bronte Square appeared before the Committee with concerns regarding noise, trash, traffic and decreased property values. She stated there has been an increase in accidents since Tim Hortons opened, noting her concerns for the safety of children in the area due to the increase in traffic volumes. She also questioned the site lines.for the bungalows on Glendale Drive. Warren Davis, 1828 Bronte Square, appeared before the Committee stating that higher densities create more problems. Fred Dykstra, 1899 Glendale Drive, appeared before the Committee stating his concerns with traffic as walking across Glendale Drive is dangerous now. He also noted his concerns with safety, height of the building, noise increase, loss of greenspace and questioned where the parking would be as well as playgrounds. Chris Gertzos, 1972 Glendale Drive, appeared before the Committee noting he had purchased his home due to the lot size and greenspace. He noted the lack of greenspace in this development and noted a decrease in property values due to this development. He felt that fewer homes of a better quality would allow for a better fit in the community, more trees and greenspace. Alice Rooney, 1900 Liverpool Road, appeared before the Committee stating that the traffic is unbelievable and questioned where the children would play. She noted there were too many houses that looked like square boxes, which are not homes. 4 Al G Ai;N`JILNw 4 i Z 4 8 R,EPOVI = # Pu. Excerpts from cial q Joint Planning Development and Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday,.May 9, 2011 7:30 prn a Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean Carmen Stefanescu, 1924 Glendale Drive, appeared before the Committee stating she was in agreement with all the concerns noted, stating the development is totally inappropriate. She questioned whether there would be any allowance for handicapped parking. A question and answer period ensued with Committee members posing various questions with staff providing clarification. Staff indicated they would*be willing to meet with the residents to further discuss the issues raised regarding this development. The applicant appeared and provided clarification with respect to the possible extension of Liverpool, indicating that this would not be the case. The Committee recessed and reconvened at 9:40 pm. 5 r -TO Young, Mila - 4-9 ~a From: Roberts, Linda Sent: April-28-11 10:52 AM To: Yeung, Mila . Cc: Shields, Debbie Subject: FW: Emery Homes Glendale Limited Townhouses Hi Mila, forwarding along for your information From: Shields, Debbie Sent: April 27, 20114:30 PM To: Roberts, Linda Subject: Fw: Emery Homes Glendale Limited Townhouses From: Jackie Gentle Finailto jackie06(@sympatigq gJ int: Wednesday, April 27, 201104:19 PM j: Shields, Debbie; Yeung, Mila; McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: Emery Homes Glendale Limited Townhouses Dear sirs, madame, I am writing to officially voice my opposition to the proposed townhouse development at Liverpool Road and Glendale Drive. Anyone. who travels in this area whether by car or foot will attest to "the already crowded, congested and dangerous intersection and indeed access to homes/businesses on Liverpool Road.There are many near misses daily. A townhome development would overtax the area even more. The east side of Liverpool has considerable townhouse development already. There have been recent townhome developments along Kingston Road and these location have been much more feasible in regard to access and esthetics.Of course development is necessary but so is the maintenance of calm, already developed residential areas such as Glendale. I would ask that my comments become part of any official correspondence/ public statements concerning this development. Sincerely, Jackie Gentle !859 Malden Cres. 1_ ATUCKIR'I ,IT # _ T 'O Yeung, Mila - From: 50 Carroll, Neil Sent: May-03-11 5:47 PM To: Wouters, Margaret; Yeung, Mila Subject: FW: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/11, Emery Homes Please include this letter from Mary Cook as correspondence received related to the Emery Homes "Zoning Amendment Application. . From: McLean, Bill, Councillor Sent: May-03-11 5:10 PM To: Mary Cook Cc: Shields, Debbie; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; Carroll, Neil Subject: RE: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/11, Emery Homes Thank you Mary, I will forward your message onto the clerk and planning department .)m: Mary Cook [mary.cook@sympatico.ca] ;lent: May 3, 20114:47 PM Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A.3/11, Emery Homes Regarding the Zoning Amendment Application A 3/11 I am concerned about the increased traffic on Glenanna that this high density development. will bring to the area. I live on Malden Crescent and some mornings the traffic is backed up the the corner of my street. With 67 new residents will stop lights be needed to cross Glenanna? There doesn't appear to be adequate visitor parking space in the drawings (18?), where will their friends park? I am not looking forward to a year of construction noise and disruption this development would create in our residential neighbourhood. Sixty-seven residents need a park or common area for children to play. There does not appear to be a safe family area in their plans. Please note my concerns and include them on any pertaining correspondence and summaries. ,bject: Glendale Road Draft Plan of Subdivision- SP-2011-01 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-01 Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2011-01 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/11 Emery Homes Glendale Ltd 1880, 1876, and 1872 Liverpool Road and 1863, 1865, 1871, 1875, 1877 and 1881 Glendale Road Draft Plan of Subdivision- SP-2011-01 Cheers, Mary Mary Cook 1853 Malden Crescent Pickering, ON L1V 3G3 mary.cook cbsvmpatico.ca marycook.ca 905 839 1734 1 II~~m 17'~Jf}IIJt Li~ f Y?.0.._/f_~.-.. 't!eun , IVlila - I 6 From: Roberts, Linda Sent: May-06711 1:12 PM To: Yeung, Mila' Subject: FW: Zoning Amendment Application A03/11 Mila, here is another one for your files. From: Gene Kettinger [mailto•wholebean.gene gmail.coml Sent. May-05-11 5:54 PM To: Clerks Web Email Cc: Yeung, Mila Subject: Zoning Amendment Application A03/11 The Corporation of the City of Pickering ;kering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, ON, L1 V 6K7 Ms. Debbie Shields City Clerk ar Ms. Shields, Re; Zoning Amendment Application A 03/11 Emery Homes Glendale Limited We wish to appeal the decision of the City of Pickering to pass this Amendment Application. There are two concerns with regard to this proposal, that we feel must be addressed. i RPOR7 As 34 year residents of Glendale, we've seen many changes. This neighborhood has been predominantly a community with a low density population With the addition of 67 townhomes to replace 9 single homes, there would be a concentrated influx of people and traffic that would put stress on the amenities and lower oL-. property values. This is of paramount concern for all Glendale residents. 52 Whatever new development would be created on the existing properties, there should be serious consideration given to realign the existing sidewalk on the south side of Glenanna Road, between Glendale Road and Liverpool Road to conform with the other sidewalks on Glenanna Road. As it exists, there is no boulevard between the sidewalk and the road to accommodate snow accumulation with plowing and to ensure year `round pedestrian safety due to the proximity to traffic. We feel that now is the time to address these problems, before the approval of an amendment. i Yours truly. Eugene and Heather-Lynne Kettinger 69 Glenanna Rd. Pickering, ON, L1V3B7 2 `Bung, Mila From: Lois Collett [loisin@torontomail.coml .53 Sent: May-06-11 10:05 PM To: Yeung, Mila &ubject: Emery Homes Glendale Limited Hello Mila: File: SP 2011-01, CP 011-01 & A003/11 Plan # 492 Lots 21-24 & Plan 492 Lots 34-38 I spoke for you recently about a Magnolia tree on a property on Glendale Road. It is a old tree but it does bloom beautifully every year. It should be in bloom right now. I would like to see this tree preserved and rescued. It would be-lovely to have it in one of our parks. Nice trees such has this one deserve to be enjoyed for many more years. r"ease keep me informed about this Zoning Amendment Application: A 03/11 thanks Lois Collett 26/1310 Fieldlight Blvd Pickering Ont UV2Y8 905 420 8459 i Yeung, Mila From: J 4 Chuck Wurster [Chuck@frontline.ca] Sent: May-09-11 8:33 AM To: Shields, Debbie; Yeung, Mila Cc: Clerks Web Email Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision - SP-2011-01, Draft Plan of Condominium - CP-2011-01, Zoning Amendment Application - A03/11 To whom it may concern; I wanted to make sure my voice is heard regarding this issue, because I am unable to make it to the meeting this evening. I believe this plan of putting 67 3 story townhouses in such a small area is a terrible idea and should not go any further forward. With the amount of traffic that would be created by these houses it would turn the neighborhood unbearable for driving. Also with only 18 visitor spaces for theoretically 67 families (or more), where are the other vehicles going to park? Surrounding side streets which in itself would create a public safety issue considering sightlines while driving, would be greatly obstructed. 'so, I would like to see the voting breakdown for the city council members on this issue (if there was one yet). To be clear, I do not want this development to be completed for a myriad of reasons one of which I have detailed here. So this email is to reserve my right for appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Thanks for your time, C h u c k W u r s t e r Systems Administrator frontline t e c h n o l o g i e s 25 Adelaide Street East I Suite 600 Toronto, Ontario M5C 3A1 ttelpdesk: 416.637.3132 1 Office: 416.637.7539 1 Fax: 416.216.4598 chuck _frontline.ca helpdesk(a,frontline.ca www.frontline.ca pease ensure you copy helpdesk@frontline.ca on all technical inquiries to ensure a prompt response. 1 ATTA,K, -N Yeung, Mila - - b5 From: Roberts, Linda Sent: May-10-11 8:38 AM To: Wouters, Margaret Cc: Yeung, Mila Subject: FW: Glendale, Glenanna & Liverpool Rezoning For your information... From: Shields, Debbie Sent: May 10, 20118:34 AM Tee: Roberts, Linda Subject: FW: Glendale, Glenanna & Liverpool Rezoning From: 'oretired sympatico.ca jmailto:ioretiredC@sympatico.cal Sent: May 9, 20117:23 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; ddickeron@city fpickering.com; Shields, Debbie; Carroll, Neil ~hject: Glendale, Glenanna & Liverpool Rezoning I appologize for the short notice of this not however I was hoping that I would be able to join the meeting at 7:30 but have been detained. I can not believe that Pickering Planning dept thinks that putting 67 homes on this corner is a good idea. As a long term resident of the area I am already frustrated with the traffic flow that has increased since the Tim Hortons opened up with the drive thru which makes it difficult to get out onto Glendale from Bronte Sq not too mention trying to get out onto Glenanna with all the traffic that seems to use this a s a cut through street when Hwy 2 is backed up. Having Vaugh Willard School on Glenanna with the traffic is a major concern with all the kids walking to school not too mention all the cars parked on the road at this time of year for the Tennis Courts (should have parking lot) will only INCREASE with the extra traffic. The traffic calming zone on Glendale north of Glenanna may have reduced speed not not traffic flow for those heading to Tim's. The cars just speed up once they cross Glenanna and then get backed up while trying to get out onto Hwy 2. The planners are trying to cram in too many houses into an already busy area and need to rethink their vision.. <,se add my concerns to those of the meeting tonight and I would.be interested in receiving any information on potential further meetings on this subject. >o Ann Wellman &onte Square Home Owner 1 Ti . Yeung, Mila From: 5 J Carroll, Neil Sent: May-10-11 2:13 PM To: Wouters, Margaret; Yeung, Mila Subject: FW: Condominiums by Emery Homes Glendale Ltd. Fyi and file From: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor Sent: May-10-11 9:57 AM To: William Waugh; McLean, Bill, Councillor Cc: Ryan, David, Mayor; Carroll, Neil Subject: RE: Condominiums by Emery Homes Glendale Ltd. Thanks for your usual thoughtful insights Bill. The area that Councillor O'Connell was talking about is the south/east corner of Whites Rd. and Sheppard Ave. When it comes to visitor parking, there isn't enough anywhere in any municipality no matter what type of development there is - singles, semis, townhouses, high rises - perhaps in addition to a provincial requirement respecting park land dedication or cash in lieu, there ought to also be a requirement for more parking for residents and visitors alike. Perhaps removing a couple of units and creating some smaller (8-12 vehicles) parking lots within, or adjacent to, new developments would help to alleviate that particular problem. I am forwarding your comments along to Planning for their consideration while putting together their report and recommendation. Doug Dickerson City Councillor, Ward 2 City of Pickering From: William Waugh [williamwaugh@rogers.com] Sent: May 9, 2011 11:57 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Cc: Ryan, David, Mayor; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor Subject: Condominiums by Emery Homes Glendale Ltd. I just wanted to give you my thoughts which I expressed at the meeting tonight, and to add two additional thoughts. There is internal visitor parking, limited as it is: If there is not enough space, or if someone is visiting a unit not close to the visitor parking, Glendale, Glenanna and Liverpool roads will be used for visitor parking, resulting in blockages on roads already suffering from traffic overload. This parking problem will be first felt on Glendale as the units facing Glendale will not have sufficient parking ( I believe 2 parking spots, one of which is a garage, and we all know that garages are seldom used for cars). In addition, I imagine that there will not be any space on the road between driveways for on street parking, so cars will be parked on the opposite side of the road, in front of the long established houses. Jennifer pointed out the problems with the development at Whites and Finch. I hope the City has learned from this. The problem on Glenanna and Liverpool will stem from the fact that people will naturally park on either of these roads to avoid searching within the development for the limited visitor parking spaces. Although there is no access to the parking places from either of these streets, there are the front doors. If you go the visit someone, do you expect the be directed to the back door? Mention is made (Page 21 of the handout) on Rogers letterhead, "that there may be insufficient space available for- utility service equipment". What about fire vehicles? With 3 story buildings, what would the Fire Department need to bring in for a fire? 1 I REPO"', PLD I liked Kevin's suggestion that an entrance/ exit should be on Liverpool. He pointed out the in the development where he lives, their entrance/exit is on Finch and it is a right hand turn in and a right hand turn out. Simple, no crossing~lL is lanes. In addition, it is on a Regional road. Is this not a precedent? / I was disappointed that there was no mention made of prices for these units. Bill Waugh i 2 Ya~r~g, Mila [Crum: 5 8 Roger Webb [rogerwebb@live.ca] Sent: May-10-11 1:39 PM T,): Carroll, Neil; Yeung, Mila; McLean, Bill, Councillor; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; Shields, Debbie Subject: Opposed I am totally opposed to the 67 unit townhouse proposed development on Liverpool and Glendale Road. I am a resident of Bronte Square and proud of my detached home that I have owned for 17 years. _ It is unfair that a project of this density be planted one block from my home. If I wanted a large attached project in my backyard, I would have bought a house that had one. 'Then there are the traffic issues which are already terrible on Liverpool Road especially during rush hours. We are slowly turning this town into a collection of affordable townhouse neighbourhoods. Why not build some premium properties that will enhance the core area and bring in new and lucrative business. I am sad to say as a 30 year resident of Pickering, we have the most unappealing and boring downtown in all of Durham ...this project will not improve this `uation. My vote is NO. Reconsider upmarket alternatives, please. Please note and include my comments on any correspondence and summaries notify me of any future meeetings on this matter. Thank you. Roger i May 10, 2011 F;EF OPP City of Pickering 5 One The Esplanade 3GT n a J s'!, r.. e Pickering ON F °Ef 1 fit L1V 6K7 CITY OF 1c;'1CaKERWG PLAKINUNG a.. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTPdIENI ; Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision - SP-201 1-01 Draft Plan Condominiums - CP-201 1-01 Zoning Amendment Application - A 03/11 To whom it may concern I attended the meeting on Monday, May 9°i regarding the above mentioned plans. I most certainly agree that the section of properties mentioned are run down and a bit of an eyesore. Unfortunately I do not agree with the plan for the future use for this property. I am an original owner of my home in Glendale. Many of the people who live in Glendale are the original owners. We have raised our children there and are happy to have the walkways and parks for the use of our grandchildren. It is not urban sprawl, but single family homes in a wonderful neighbour. The new plan for three story townhouses does not fit in with the current homes in the area. Three story, narrow homes looking into our backyards will look like a low-rise apartment building, something we definitely do not want. I feel that this plan is a money grab for the owner of the property. I am sure that the area could be developed to match the current Glendale area. Townhouses that are similar to the freehold townhouse currently in the Glendale area, with green space and a place for children to play. Our children are our future and their safety is paramount. Where will these children be able to play? The traffic issue was mentioned over and over again and I agree as well. We already have traffic problems without adding another 67 homes. If I am reading the plan correctly several homes will have driveways backing onto Glenanna Road, between Glendale and Liverpool. Have you seen the backup of traffic on Glenanna waiting for the light to change? The light is so short going east and west on Glenamla Rd. I have seen cars backed up to Glendale Road waiting for the light to change. The light is so short not everyone can get through on one light and then the backup continues. The light is only green for about 30 seconds and then you wait for another minute to a minute and a half before the light changes again. Anyone with a driveway in this area will never get out of their driveway. A longer iighi at this intersection would certainly help with traffic flow. People race down Glenanna to catch that light. Putting lights at Glendale and Glenanna as mentioned last night, would cause a traffic nightmare. I would never be able to make a left turn out of my street. It is difficult at some times to make that turn as it is. I love this neighbourhood. I have lived here for 34 years and don't want to be chased away by some ones idea to make mega dollars on a ridiculous townhouse develop. Rethink this plan and make it blend in with the current area. Our homes have not increased in value as other homes in the area. The reason for this I do not know, but putting this crazy plan on that corner isn't going to help with the value of our homes. Snow removal, garbage collection would certainly be an issue. Where would the snow go? Can ATTACHM,EPdT # _._1G^ ~.T0 h REPORT # Pa- 0 a school bus drive through this develop and be able to turn around and get out. Some students are picked up at their doors due to disabilities. Buses are not allowed to back up without permission and it is a dangerous issue for bus drivers. Tight spaces for turns cause many accidents and near misses. This needs to be a consideration. In closing, I am not opposed to a something different going in on this corner, however I feel that it the area needs to have housing that is similar to what is already in the area. Respectfully yours Lynn Vickers 1855 Malden Cres Pickering, ON L1V 3G3 ORI~ GINAI CCP_Y_10 v . n t u ✓ May 10, 2011 Conn. - FILE _ 2 , TAt<C AR l~ ACTION q4 wi .3i~1 ~ Debbie Shields lu~'i, G, , to ~ r~ City Clerk "NI r~ 1A I g Pickering Civic Complex ! I t .x.0 41 One The Esplanade a 3 x-% I CITY r ~i t iW t 4~ rI Pickering, Ontario "'`,Ira ~Y GEVE?..0PJ Em- DEPARTMENT L1V 6K7 Dear Debbie: RE: Draft Plan of Subdivision- SP-2011-01, Draft Plan of Condominium - CP-2011-01; Zoning Amendment Application A 03/11 was at the Public Meeting for the subdivision for Emery Homes Glendale Limited on May 9, 2011. Listening to the public's concern for the safety of the community with regard to the traffic that this complex would generate, when Bill McLean mentioned a traffic light at the intersection of Glenanna and. Glendale, the room moaned "Are you kidding!". Obviously this is a great concern to the residence of the area. We have lived on Glenanna Rd for 3 % years and during this time we have witnessed at least eight accidents in this intersection and the majority of them are vehicles travelling westbound on Glenanna turning to go south on Glendale and end up colliding.with eastbound traffic or vehicles. travelling south on Glendale trying to continue south towards the Tim Horton's at Hwy 2. As a suggestion, I would really like to see some sort of barrier or traffic island on Glenanna preventing vehicles from either turning south on Glendale when travelling west on Glenanna, or traffic crossing Glenanna who are going south on Glendale. Hopefully you will take this suggestion into consideration when looking into the Emery Homes Glendale rezoning. Sincerely, Lesley Simi' 1267 Glenanna Rd 905-492-0888 Cc: Dave Ryan, Mayor, City of Pickering Bill McLean, Regional Councillor, Ward 2 Doug Dickerson, City Councillor, Ward 2 E2 Mila Yeung (P V E47 D, Planner 1 Pickering Civic Complex MAY 1 The Esplanade CITY (X: Pickering, ON PLANNING L1V 6K7 DEPARTMENT May 15, 2011 Dear Ms. Yeung, My husband, children and I attended the public meeting May 9 and are very opposed to the 67 homes proposed for Glendale Drive. We live at 1972 Glendale. The Glendale area is now a highly desirable neighbourhood because of its community feel and proximity to shops and amenities. Why is there a community feel? A Glendale Drive address is associated by most in Pickering with a cozy 1000 square foot bungalow on a large lot. The homes face the street with a porch, landscaping, mature trees and have a large driveway on which they have ample parking for their guests. The home profile is low with lots of green space. The definition of 'Glendale Drive' does not mean the cutting down of mature trees for the benefit of a towering three-storey fortress of skinny living spaces containing minimal to no yards for children to play. Development and progress is good but the math being presented by this proposal makes zero sense. Where there are currently 9 homes, the severance and cramming of 67, 47 or even 37 homes is honestly ridiculous and out of character with its Glendale surroundings. The newer semi-detached houses built south of the proposed development on Glendale are a better option to be considered with 10 homes on an original 3 maybe 4, lots. This is a ratio of 3 to 1. This translates to 27-30 homes tops for the 9 lots in the proposed new development. This would preserve the trees, the existing larger lots and green space, and reduce the potential traffic disaster proposed by the development. The spirit and community of Glendale would be retained. Do not spoil the neighbourhood that many people have chosen to live in for up to 60 years. I Whatever decisions are made with the input of the residents, keep all the huge trees, the big green lawns, the low profile homes and do not create an urban jungle of badly- placed infilled townhouses that Pickering seems to be catering to. Conform to what the name Glendale has come to mean, and be sure to listen to the wishes of the Glendale residents and taxpayers who call it home. Please keep us updated with any changes and do not hesitate to call us if you need community members to help improve the current proposal. Sincerely, I J3~_A~, S Chris Gertzos Lori Gertzos 905 420 1176 I ATTA(A-11`411-f'I7 ~1. / ! Yeung, Mila From: Carroll, Neil 5 Sent: May-16-11 1:12 PM To: Yeung, Mila; Wouters, Margaret Subject: FW: Proposed 67 Unit Addition Fyi From: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor Sent: May-16-11 9:14 AM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; Ken Curtis Cc: Ryan, David, Mayor; Carroll, Neil Subject: RE: Proposed 67 Unit Addition Hi Ken & Valerie: I would also like to thank you for giving this proposal thoughtful consideration and then taking the time to share your thoughts. T -free with the points that Councillor McLean has made with respect to some of your concerns. There is much left to be .a = like Councillor McLean, neither Mayor Ryan nor myself are convinced this is in the right form and the community has certainly expressed that also. While I am hopeful that we can discuss improvements in the plan with the developers, it may be that it winds up at the Ontario Municipal Board for a hearing - I hope not. Doug Dickerson City Councillor, Ward 2 City of Pickering From: McLean, Bill, Councillor Sent: May 15, 2011 1:30 PM To: Ken Curtis; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor Subject: RE: Proposed 67 Unit Addition thank you for your a mail and sharing your concerns about this proposed development, as you are well aware I share many of the concerns that the residents have and I believe councillor Dickerson does also. .,ng aside the intensification of this development and the design etc I want to just comment on a couple of your concerns that you mentioned, 1. in regards to the emergency services I do not believe that this would have a negative impact or a strain on our services. There are many more high rise buildings that are being built and proposed being built in Pickering. There are ratios of people vs. police and fire personal but I think this project would not drain our services. Obviously as the city grows we will need more police, fire and ambulance personnel . 2.Our present sewer and water capacity is built and has been built to accommodate a lot more growth than what is being proposed in our future Urban area, in this case the developer pays to hook up to the services and not the our current tax payer. The development charges also covers other cost related to development. The taxes these, new residents, if the project goes forward, will be a financial benefit to the city. 3. The West side of Glendale would not be able to intensify the same as, the East side. I hope this helps some what, it is always more difficult to explain in a mail than it is in person. Thank you again for your support on Monday night. We all have a long way to go on this project. I hope the developer will meet with a small group of residents to work out the many issues that were raised. Do not hesitate to call me at 416-567-1055, From: Ken Curtis [curtis6205@rogers.com] Sent: May 15, 2011 12:22 PM 1 64 To: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councilor W- Subject: Proposed 67 Unit Addition. Hi Bill/Doug, My wife and I live at 1738 Bronte Square and attended the meeting for the proposed 67 Units to be built at the corner of Glenanna and Liverpool. Additional to all of the comments/concerns that came up in the meeting surrounding traffic and the units not suiting the current style of the neighbourhood, I would like to address the impact this would have on the emergency services and the taxes we currently pay. I am sure that the amount of people required for emergency services in the area is directly related to the number of people living in it. That being said, would extra people need to be employed due to adding all of these units to the area? I would also like to know, what impact this would have on city services like water/sewage etc. The additional units would obviously result in a much higher usage of the current systems. Would this have an impact to taxpayers as well? I realize you would collect a lot of extra tax money on these units but for some reason this usually only ends up costing us more. Lastly, we would like to know if there are any plans to redevelop the west side of Glendale to house additional units of this nature. We are of the understanding that the people that own the properties currently being re-evaluated for the 67 Units also own some properties on the west side of the street. We look forward to hearing back from you. u^n and Valerie Curtis. 2 TL J CiOo.10 Minutes/Meeting Summary Working Group Meeting 1 July 14, 2011 PI IN 7:00 pm . Library Board Room Subject: Emery Homes Glendale Ltd. 1880, 1876 & 1872 Liverpool Road and 1863, 1865, 1871, 1875, 1877 & 1881 Glendale Drive Lot 19, 20, 21, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 & 38 File: SP-2011-01, CP-2011-01, A03/11 Attendees: Residents: Doug Martin, 1857 Glendale Drive Brian Millar, 1855 Glendale Drive Peter Selby, 1926 Liverpool Road John Service, 1821 Bronte Square Jeremy Crawford, 1840 Glendale Drive Jackie Gentle, 1859 Malden Crescent Mike Farrugia, 1904 Glendale Drive Mary.Cook, 1853 Malden Crescent Applicants: Marius Staicu, Business Analyst, Emery Homes Scott Waterhouse, Planner, Sernas Associates John Beresford, Architect, Flanagan Beresford & Patteson Architects Partners Staff: Marg Wouters, Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Mila Yeung, Planner Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action' Items/Status fief # (summary of discussion) (include deadline as appropriate) Proposal • to permit the development of 67 townhouse units T e of A lication • Draft Plan of Subdivision • Draft Plan of Condominium • Zoning By-law Amendment Preliminar Materials Available • Applicant's Proposed Site Plan, dated November 2.010, revised on March 18, 2011 • please see attached "Summary of Public Concerns for Application" and "Meeting Agenda" created b City staff Page 1 ATTACH!V~I:NT #-4.0-TO, Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items /Status Ref (summary of discussion) (include deadline as appropriate) 66 Traffic and Site Access • Residents indicated that there is an existing traffic concern on Glendale Drive generated by Tim Hortons at the corner of Liverpool Road and Glendale Drive • Residents objected to the proposed development due to the anticipated negative traffic impacts and generation of additional traffic on an already busy Glendale Drive John Beresford explained that a Traffic. Impact Study was submitted to the City of Pickering which indicated negligible traffic impacts. The traffic concern that residents have is an existing situation that could be addressed through improved traffic controls and should be addressed through Council • majority of the traffic concerns residents are experiencing are during the morning peak hours. Residents suggested a right in/right out access on Liverpool Road to reduce traffic on Glendale Drive. If a right in/right out cannot be supported by the Region, they suggested a right out access only onto Liverpool Road • Residents indicated that the Traffic Impact Study analysis was based on a conservative assumption of numbers of cars generated and therefore not realistic • Emery Homes will work with the City and Region to determine if a right in/right out or a right out only access on Liverpool is possible Visitor Parking/Parking Concerns • Residents expressed that there is an insufficient amount of parking spaces available to owners and visitors on-site. The 208 parking spaces provided on-site will be completely occupied by residents of the development and therefore, visitors will have no option but to park on Glendale Drive creating further traffic issues on the road Character of the Neighbourhood • Residents are opposed to the proposed townhouse designs (Block 3 & 4) on Glendale Drive. They prefer. semi-detached house designs such as the semi-detached houses immediately north of the Tim Horton's site at the corner of Liverpool Road and Glendale Drive. They feel that semi-detached houses better represent the existing profile of housing stock on Glendale Drive which are predominately detached dwellings on large lots • the reduction of the number of driveways onto Glendale Drive is preferred by the residents Page 2 Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Status Ref # (summary of discussion) (include deadline as appropriate) • the proposed units in Block 5 are not supported by the abutting neighbour to the south because the proposed building height will allow townhouse owners to overlook onto his property • Emery will assess other possible designs for Blocks 3, 4 &5 Density • Residents opposed to the number of units permitted under the Pickering Official Plan. They inquired how to reduce the Official Plan allowable density • City staff explained the Official Plan amendment process and what the procedures are to reduce density allowed under the Official Plan Snow Storage • lack of snow storage was identified by the residents Trees and Vegetation • Residents expressed concerns regarding the removal of 131 mature and sustainable trees for the proposed development. They wish to save the trees, especially the mature maple trees on Liverpool Road Tot Lot and Amenity Space • Residents would like to see a tot lot to be included within the proposed development due to the increase of children generated from the development and the safety concerns .of pedestrian crossing at. Glendale Drive and Glenanna Drive It was confirmed that the main concern is with Block 3, 4 & 5. Residents expressed that they would like Councillors and ` Mayor to be present at these Working Group Meetings. It was agreed that the Group should continue without Council members but that residents could arrange a separate meeting with the Councillors to discuss the existing traffic situation. Next..Ste s • once City comments on the site plan are received by the applicant, the applicant will review both City and resident comments and create possible site plan revisions in response to comments received. The Group will then be reconvened to discuss the applicants response Meeting Adjourned: 8:50 pm Page 3 a I 68 May 10, 2011 MAY I Will r; i= %E4_i7IJl~!v a is Mila Yeung, Planner I DEi ARV 0, IN !T Planning and Development Department • ® City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 The Regional Municipality Dear Ms. Yeung: of Durham Planning Department Re: Regional Review of an Application for Plan of Subdivision and an Application for Plan of Condominium 605 ROSSLAND ROAD E File Nos.: S-P-2011-01 & C-P-2011-01 4` FLOOR Cross Ref.. . A 03/11 PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON L1 N 6A3 Applicant: Emery Homes Glendale Limited CANADA Location: Part of Lot 23, Concession 1 (Lots 19, 20, 22, 33-38; 905-668-7711 Plan 492) Fax: 905-666-6208 Email: planning@durham.ca Municipality: City of Pickering www.durham.ca This application has been reviewed by the Region and the following comments A.L. Georgieff, IVICIR RPP are offered with respect to the Durham Regional Official Plan, Provincial Commissioner of Planning policies, and the proposed method of servicing. The draft plan of subdivision proposes to create a medium density block of land to accommodate 67 freehold parcels for townhouse development. The draft plan of condominium describes the common elements (roadways, laneways, etc.) within this development. Official Plan Conformity The subject lands are located within the "Living Area" designation in the Durham Regional Official Plan. The land uses within Living Areas shall be used predominately for housing purposes. The policies of the Regional Official Plan also support developments at higher densities, particularly those abutting arterial roads to take advantage of transit service. The proposed subdivision development contributes to achieving compact urban development within the Urban Area and provides housing opportunities which conforms to the intent of the Regional Official Plan. Provincial Interests and Delegated Review Responsibilities Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction for appropriate development while protecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural environment. Specifically, the PPS provides policy direction for sufficient lands to be made available through intensification to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of housing for up to 20 years. This proposal would appear to be consistent with the PPS. "Service Excellence for our communities" 100% Post Consumer .:gad... 6 9 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The subject lands are within the "Built-up Area" of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as delineated in the Built Boundary for the Growth Plan paper issued on April 2008. The Growth Plan includes policies to direct development to settlement areas, and provides direction for intensification targets within the Built-up Area. This proposal generally conforms to the Growth Plan. Potential Noise Impact The subject lands are adjacent to Liverpool Road and Glenanna Road, Type 'B' and Type'C' arterial roads respectively in the Regional Official Plan. An Environmental Noise Assessment was submitted by YCA Engineering in relation to this proposed development. The Assessment provides calculations and recommendations that would meet the requirements of the Region of Durham and the Guidelines of the Ministry of Environment. The Assessment suggests that noise attenuation barriers are not required for this development as the outdoor living areas (rear yards) are shielded from traffic sound levels from the proposed dwelling units. The Assessment indicates that the proposed.units along Liverpool Road are to be equipped with Central Air Conditioning while those units facing Glenanna Road and Glendale Drive will be equipped with a forced air heating system sized to accommodate the installation of a central air conditioning system. In this regard, appropriate warning clauses are recommended. Prior to final approval for this plan of subdivision, we would appreciate receiving a copy of the City of Pickering Subdivision Agreement or a Site Plan Agreement, which should include provisions that will implement the recommendations of the Environmental Noise Assessment. Potential Site Contamination A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report was prepared by The Hazon Group Limited, dated December 2010 for the subject lands. The report indicated there is no direct evidence of any environmental concern. Where a Phase I ESA report is submitted for an application, authorization by the author of the ESA report for use and reliance is required by the Regional Planning Department. As an alternative, the applicant may submit a Record of Site Condition (RSC) to the Ministry of Environment (MOE). An "Acknowledgement Letter" from the MOE, which acknowledges the RSC shall be provided to the Regional Planning Department. There are no other provincial interests or delegated review responsibilities applicable to these applications. ol'T 7 0 iv Municipal Services Water Supply Municipal water supply is available to the subject lands from Glendale Drive, Glenanna Road and Liverpool Road. The water service connections servicing the existing homes fronting Liverpool Road and Glendale Drive shall be disconnected and plugged at the main. The static water pressure from the designated Ajax Zone 1 system is approximately 77 psi. Sanitary Sewer Municipal sanitary sewers can be provided by connecting to the existing sanitary sewer on Glendale Drive, Liverpool Road and Glenanna Road. The sanitary service connections servicing the existing homes fronting Liverpool Road and Glendale Drive shall be disconnected per Region of Durham standards. Foundation drains will not be permitted to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. Transportation The Region will require the applicant to convey sufficient road allowance widening to provide a minimum of 15.0 m measured from the centreline of the right of way to the west street line across the total Liverpool Road frontage. In addition, the Region requires a minimum sight triangle of 15m x 15m at the northeast corner of the development (southwest quadrant of the intersection of Liverpool Road and Glenanna Road). Based on the foregoing, the Region has no objection to draft approval of this plan. The attached conditions of approval are to be satisfied prior to clearance by the Region for registration of these plans. Please call me should you have any questions or comments. Yours truly, J Richard Szarek, Project Planner Current Planning Attach: Conditions of Draft Approval cc: Sernas Associates. - Dayna Gilbert Regional Works Department - Pete Castellan Wpim\subdivision applications\pickering\s-p-201 1 -01 71 May 10, 2011 Conditions of Draft Approval of Plan of Subdivision S-P-2011-01 1. The Owner shall prepare the final plan on the basis of the approved draft plan of subdivision, prepared by Sernas Associates, identified as project number 11035, ~i dated February 2011, which illustrates 1 medium density block to accommodate 67 townhouse units and a road widening block. 2. The Owner shall convey to the Region of Durham a sufficient road allowance widening to provide a minimum 15.0 metre measured from the centre line of the right- of-way to the west street line for the purpose of widening Regional Road No. 29 (Liverpool Road). 3. The Owner shall convey a 15 metre x 15 metre sight triangle at the southwest corner of Liverpool Road and Glenanna Road to the Region of Durham. 4. The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering for review and approval if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration. 5. The Owner shall grant to the Region any easement required to provide regional services for this development and these easements shall be in locations and of such widths as determined by the. Region. 6. Prior to final approval, the Owner is required to submit a signed Record of Site Condition (RSC) to the Ministry of Environment (MOE). This RSC must be to the. satisfaction of the Region of Durham, including an Acknowledgement of Receipt of the RSC by the MOE. 7. The Owner shall agree in the City of Pickering Subdivision Agreement to implement the recommendation of the report, entitled "Environmental Noise Assessment" prepared by YCA Engineering Limited dated February 2011, which specifies noise attenuation measures for the development. The measures shall be included in the Subdivision Agreement and must also contain a full and complete reference to the noise report (i.e. author, title, date and any revisions/addenda) and shall include any required warning clauses identified in the study. 3. The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and 72 water supply facilities are to be designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of the Region of Durham. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to be made to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham, and are to be completed prior to final approval of this plan. 9. Prior to entering into a Subdivision Agreement, the Region of Durham shall be satisfied that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply plant capacities are available to the proposed subdivision. 10. The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Region of Durham. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a Subdivision Agreement between the Owner and the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other Regional services. NOTES TO DRAFT APPROVAL 1. As the Owner of the proposed subdivision, it is your responsibility to satisfy all conditions of draft approval in an expeditious manner. The conditions of draft approval will be reviewed periodically and may be amended at any time prior to final approval. The Planning Act provides that draft approval may be withdrawn at any time prior to final approval. . 2. The policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan provide that draft approval of a plan of subdivision in may be withdrawn and servicing capacity reassigned to other areas within the City of Pickering in the event a plan of subdivision is not registered within three years of draft approval. 3. All plans of subdivision must be registered in the Land Titles system within the Region of Durham. 4. Where agencies' requirements are required to be included in the local municipal subdivision agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to the agencies in order to facilitate their clearance of conditions for final approval of this plan. The address and telephone number of the agency is: a) Durham Region Planning Department, P.O. Box 623, Region of Durham, 605 Rossland Road East, 4th Floor, Whitby, Ontario, L1 N 6A3. 73 May 10, 2011. Conditions of Daft Approval of a Pan of Condominium C-P-2011-01 1. The Owner shall prepare, the final plan on the basis of the approved draft plan of Common Elements Condominium, prepared by Sernas Associates, identified as project number 11035, dated February 2011, which illustrates roadways, visitors parking, sidewalks and a 67 parcels of tied land (POTL) Y~l -v 74 P U', December 21, 2011 The Regional Mila Yeung, Planner I Municipality Planning and Development Department of Durham City of Pickering Planning and Economic One The Esplanade Development Department Pickering, Ontario L1 V 6K7 Planning Division 605 ROSSLAND RD. E. FLOOR Dear Ms. Yeung: J BOX 623 WHITBY ON L1N 6A3 CANADA Re: Regional Review of Revised Applications for a Plan of Subdivision 905-668-7711 and a Plan of Condominium 1-800-372-1102 File Nos.: S-P-2011-01 & C-P-2011-01 Fax: 905-666-6208 Email: planning@durham.ca Cross Ref.: A 03/11 Applicant: Emery Homes'Glendale Limited www.durham.ca Location: Part of Lot 23, Concession 1 (Lots 19, 20, 22, 33-38; • A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP Plan 492) Commissioner of Planning Municipality: City of Pickering and Economic Development The revised applications have been reviewed by the Region and are considered minor. The revised plan of subdivision now proposes 4 medium density residential blocks consisting of 3 freehold townhouse blocks totaling 13 units fronting on Glendale Drive and a medium density residential block containing a townhouse condominium. The revised plan of condominium now proposes to accommodate 49 freehold parcels for townhouse development. There are no Regional concerns in the reduction of the number of units proposed, although the layout has changed. The revised plan of condominium continues to describe the common elements (roadways, laneways, etc.) within this development. A revision or addendum to the Environmental Noise Assessment prepared by YCA Engineering Ltd. is recommended as the layout of the parcels within the revised plan of condominium has changed. A revision to the Noise Assessment condition (Condition 7 of the subdivision draft conditions attached to our letter of May 10, 2011) would not be required. All of the other comments in our previous letter with respect to the Regional Official Plan, Provincial Interests and Delegated Review Responsibilities remain applicable. "Service Excellence for our Communities" 100% Post Consumer 75 The previous comments with respect to municipal servicing would also remain applicable. It should be noted that the proposed entrance on Glenanna Road does not meet the minimum recommended corner clearance of 70 metres for an arterial road as identified in the TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. While the Region would prefer this site to have all access provided from Glendale Drive, staff has reviewed the Revised Traffic Assessment and are satisfied that the Glenanna Road entrance will not adversely affect the operation of the Liverpool Road signalized intersection. Based on the foregoing, the Region has no objection to these revised plans. Condition 1 for both the plan of subdivision and plan of condominium plans attached to the previous letter Would need to be modified to make reference to -these revised plans. Please call me should you have any questions or comments. Yours truly, Richard Szarek; Project Planner Current Planning cc: Sernas Associates. - Dayna Gilbert Regional Works Department - Pete Castellan. Wpim\subdivision applications\pickering\s-p-2011-01a-comments fQ ~2 Yeun , Mila From: Y J Marius Staicu [marius@emeryhomes.net] Sent: October-06-11 4:54 PM To: Wouters, Margaret Cc: Yeung, Mila; Barnett, Tyler; Scott Waterhouse; Roland Roovers; John Beresford Subject: FW: Emery Homes Importance: High Marg, The Region provided the e-mail below as their official position regarding access to Liverpool road. As per :Peter Castelan the Region does not recommend the Liverpool access. The Region would however entertain this option if the we (Emery Homes) wish to do so, however Peter advises that Emery would be responsible for any costs associated with the road widening, raised median and the re-construction of the existing signalized intersection. Given the significant cost associated with these works, this option is something that Emery will not entertain. Since we now have the Region's official position can we please proceed to the final meeting with the residents so we can finalize the issues and move forward? "Thank you in advance. MARIUS STAICU Project Manager Land Acquisition & Development Emery Homes 620 Wilson Avenue. Suite: 350 Toronto ON Canada M3 K 1?3 T: 416.636.7200 ext. 233 F: 416.636.6570 E: ma,rius.[emaryhomf VV: www.emervhomes.net From: Peter Castellan [mailto:Peter.Castellan(&durham.cal Sent: Thursday, October 06, 20114:33 PM To: Marius Staicu Subject: Emery Homes Access to the subject property should be located on Glendale Drive. This is consistent with the Region's Access By-Law (#211-79) and our Policy for Entranceways, which states that "Direct access onto all Regional Roads will be discouraged when an alternate means of access is available." Should the applicant wish to pursue an access to Liverpool Road, we would potentially consider a right-in/right-out entrance subject to it being restricted by means of a raised median on Liverpool Road. Given the existing cross-section of the road, this would necessitate the widening of Liverpool Road to accommodate the requited median width. The extent of the road widening would extend from the south limit of the property to north of Glenanna Road and would require the re-construction of the existing signalized intersection. PETE CASTELLAN Development Approvals The Regional Municit)ality of Durham Works Department 1 TORONTO AND REGION ®Y~ RECEIVED 77 Q ser B/ a tio ATT4CHMIENT#ro REPOFIT# PD /U - / 2 for The Living City JUN g l L011 May 30, 2011 CITY OF PICKERING CFN 45617 PLANNING a DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIA MAIL AND EMAIL (myeun-q(d)cityofpickerinc;.com) Ms. Mila Yeung City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering ON L1 V 6K7 Dear Ms. Yeung: Re: Plan of Subdivision Application SP-201 1-01 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2011-01 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/11 On lands municipally known as 1872, 1876 and 1880 Liverpool Road and 1863, 1865, 1871, 1875, 1877 and 1881 Glendale Drive, Lot 19, 22, 33-38, Plan 492 (Emery Homes Glendale Limited) Staff at the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) have now had an opportunity to review the applications captioned above and the following supporting materials: • Stormwater Management Design Brief, prepared by Sernas Associates dated April 11, 2011; • Site Engineering Drawings SG-1 and SS-1, prepared by Sernas Associates, dated February 2011; Functional Servicing Report, prepared by Sernas Associates, dated February 23, 2011; • Tree Preservation Report, prepared by The Tree Specialists Inc., dated February 3, 2011. No Objections to Draft Plan Approval . Based upon TRCA's mandate and specific legislative responsibility, as delegated by the Province of Ontario and others, we have no objections to the applications and are prepared to provide conditions to draft plan approval for the plan of subdivision application upon request from City of Pickering Staff. However we wish to provide the following detailed comments for consideration by City of Pickering staff and the applicant in the attached appendix. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter. Yours truly, Chris Jones, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner, Planning and Development, Extension 5718 cc: Steve Heuchert, TRCA (via email: sheuchert@trca.on.ca) FAHome\Public\Development Services\Durham Region\Pickering\Emery Homes Glendale_1.wpd Member of Conservation Ontario 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca 901 r` 8 Mila Yeung -2- May 30, 2011 Appendix Comments for Consideration by City of Pickering Staff Tree Protection and Sustainability Implications 1. Based upon our review of the Tree Pre~Prvation Report we note that there are hundreds of trees on the site, including an impressive number of very large silver maples (60-100+ cm DBH) and, other species. None of the trees are proposed for retention however most of these trees have a good or moderate suitability for conservation. TRCA staff recommend. that City of Pickering staff work with the applicant to develop a tree replacement plan. For reference purposes, we wish to provide suggested replacement ratios based on the size of the tree to be removed: Table : Performance of ecosystem services by trees by diameter at breast height (dbh) and replication (planting) ratio DBH DBH C Seq. ; Replic. Pollution Replic. Class an e cm k / r Ratio Removal: Ratio 1 2.5-7.6 0.54 1:1 0.01 1:1 2 7.7-15.2 1.66 1:3 0.02 1:2 3 23`0-30.5 .:3.43 1:6 01 1:10 4 30.6-38.1 .5.27 1:10 0.1 1:10 5 38.245.7:; 7::57 1:14 0.1 1:10 6 45.8-53311.71 1:22 02 1:20 7 53:4-61.0 11.97 1:22 02 1:20 r: 8 611.-68`6' .17.14 1:32 0:3 1:30 Detailed Design Stage Stormwater Management Comments 2. As stated in the Storm Water Management Design Brief, the intention of the stormwater design is to control the 100 year post development flow to 5 year predevelopment levels. The storage required is to be provided by underground storage and infiltration trenches at the bottom end of the storm system. The storm system upstream of the underground storage components should, be sized to collect and convey the 100 year post development storm event. Although no calculations are provided, it appears the storm system has been.sized for a 5 year event, in which case, flows greater than the 5 year post development flow will overflow and bypass the underground storage. component. 3. The applicant should confirm that a catch basin can be placed on top of (or within) a Cultec unit as has been proposed (just upstream of the oil grit separator). 4. The storm sewer design proposes the connection of foundation drains to the gravity system, including a connection directly into the underground storage unit. If basements are proposed, the impact of connecting foundation drains to the storm system should be reviewed for possible issues with hydraulic grade lines, subject to the review of the City of Pickering. F:\Home\Public\Development Services\Durham Region\Pickering\Emery Homes G1enda1e_1.wpd I 1, v 7 Q Mila Yeung -3 May 30, 2011 5. The size of the infiltration trench has been completed based on the entire site drainage area, even though only a portion of the site drains to the trench. The trench sizing should be completed based on the drainage area to the trench. Other solutions should be proposed to provide the retention of the 5mm volume for the remainder of the site. See the TRCA's Low Impact Development Guidelines (2010). For example, the volume could likely be provided by increasing the size of the proposed Cultec unit in the Right of Way, subject to the feasibility of pretreatment (dependent on the answers to Comments 6 & 7 below). 6. The slope of a section of the infiltration trench is proposed at 7.36%. The grade differential across the infiltration trench should be reduced significantly in order to promote infiltration. The system is currently designed to flow as per typical storm sewer design, which will promote conveyance fioim tiie system, and therefore prevents infiltration from occurring. The system should be designed to fill up and overflow when the 5mm event is exceeded. 7. The oil grit separator should be installed upstream of the proposed Cultec units on the road in order to provide pretreatment of stormwater before entering the infiltration units. 8. The manufacturer should confirm that the backwater impacts associated with placing the orifice plate downstream of the oil grit separator will not result in the re-suspension of previously trapped particles. 9. An erosion and sediment control plan for construction should be provided at detailed design stage. Please consult the TRCA's Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines (2006). FAHomeTublic0evelopment ServicesOurham RegionTickering\Emery Homes G1enda1e_1.wpd I I 3 . 80 Call o¢~ .a Memo PJLJIL To: Mila Yeung March 9, 2012 Planner II From: Nathan Emery Coordinator, Traffic Operations Copy: Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works Coordinator, Transportation Engineering Subject: Emery Homes - Revised Traffic Impact Study dated November 4, 2011 - File: SP-2011-11 A meeting with Mila Yeung, Tyler Barnett, Marg Wouters, Darrell Selsky and Nathan Emery was held on November 28, 2011 regarding the revised Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and site plan for the proposed Emery Homes. The revised site plan for Emery Homes has a proposed access for the development on Glenanna Road and one on Glendale Drive. Previously both accesses were off of Glendale. Drive. The revised Traffic TIS focuses significantly on the proposed access off of Glenanna Road. The TIS.stated that there would be minimal impact to the surrounding intersections of Liverpool Road/Glenanna Road and Glenanna Road/Glendale Drive, however, did note that the existing eastbound queues at the intersection of Liverpool/Glenanna may possibly go back as far as the proposed driveway off of Glenanna Road. The TIS proposed that the queuing could be improved with the addition of an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane at Live rpool/Glenanna. The intersection of Liverpool/Glenanna is under the jurisdiction of the Region of Durham and will require their comment. The TIS also stated that the left-turn lane at the intersection of Liverpool/Glenanna could be modified to allow a left-turn lane into the development. The implementation of a left-turn lane into the development may be difficult with the presence of the existing bicycle lanes on Glenanna Road. Overall the location of the access on Glenanna Road is not ideal but acceptable based on information contained within the TIS. NE:cc 7_ J) aq 41 M& 81 1 701,71 PICKERING v:t-1: ~';"Ern 9 k ,tr- Memo Lt.~F INAENT PLANNING I, f~~E DEPARTMENT To: Mila Yeung March 13, 2012 Planner II From: Darrell Selsky Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works Copy: Division Head, Engineering Services Manager, Development Control Manager, Development Review and Urban Design Senior Planner - Site Planning Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-01 Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2011-01. Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/11 Emery Homes Glendale Ltd. 1872,1876 &1880 Liverpool Road and 1863, 1865, 1871, 1.875, 1877 & 1881 Glendale Drive (Lot 19, 20, 22, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, Plan 492) City of Pickering The Development Review Team has revisited the information provided earlier in support of the above noted application and provides the following additional comments: Glenanna Road: as per Pickering Official Plan (OP) section 4.10, Glenanna Road has been identified as a Type C Arterial Road, which requires an ultimate right of way width of 26.0 metres. The existing right of way width, west of Liverpool Road, is 20.0 metres. Therefore, an additional 3.0 m road allowance from each side of Glenanna Road is required. Given the Official Plan requirement, City staff recommend a 3.Om right of way widening of Glenanna Road on the south side through this development application. Please be advised that in addition to this widening requirement, City staff also notes the requirement of a road allowance corner rounding at the intersection of Glenanna Road and Glendale Drive. Please note that, the proposed widening along Glenanna Road will have a positive impact on the existing pedestrian and cycling facilities on Glenanna Road. Currently, the sidewalk on the south side of Glenanna Road is located along the curb; and the Glenanna Road section west of Liverpool Road, consists of 1.5m wide bi-directional on-road bike lanes. Therefore, the existing pedestrian and cycling facilities on the south side of Glenanna Road can be relocated as a result of the right of way widening. Trusting that above is satisfactory, should you have any questions/concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. City 2 ATTACHMENT# Z To CEP®RT# PD RING Memo To: Mila Yeung April 12, 2012 Planner II From: Darrell Selsky Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works Copy: Division Head, Engineering Services Manager, Development Control Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-01 Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2011-01 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/11 Emery Homes Glendale Ltd. 1872, 1876 & 1880 Liverpool Road and 1863, 1865, 1871, 1875, 1877 & 1881 Glendale Drive (Lot 19, 20, 22, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, Plan 492) City of Pickering The Development Review Team (comprised of staff representing both Engineering Services and Operations) has reviewed the information provided in support of the above noted application, and provide the following comments. General Comments 1. Please install a new concrete sidewalk in the standard location at 0.9 metres off the new property line. Landscape Comments 1. No comments at this time. Traffic Comments 1. No comments at this time. Stormwater Management Comments 1. No comments at this time. DS:cc I