HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 7, 2012 City Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
KO ZE Monday, May 7, 2012
7:30 pm — Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor Dickerson
Present:
Mayor Ryan - arrived at 8:00 pm
Councillors:
K. Ashe
D. Dickerson
B. McLean
J. O'Connell
D. Pickles
P. Rodrigues
Also Present:
T. Prevedel - Chief Administrative Officer
N. Carroll - Director, Planning & Development
P. Bigioni - City Solicitor
D. Shields - City Clerk
R. Pym - Principal Planner— Development Review
A. Yearwood - Planner II
L. Roberts - Committee Coordinator
(I) Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were noted.
(II) Delegations
Destination Imagination
Brie Davis appeared before the Committee on behalf of the Destination Imagination
team. She introduced the team members present and provided a brief overview of
their Outreach project regarding mental health. She noted that this week is "Mental
Health Awareness Week". She informed the Committee that their team had held a
fundraising event comprised of a raffle and bake sale which raised over $1,000.00
which was donated to the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.
1
Cary o� = Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
/COMA-2i Monday, May 7, 2012
7:30 pm — Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor Dickerson
(III) Part `A' Information Reports
Ross Pym, Principal Planner— Development Review gave an outline of the
requirements for a Statutory Meeting under the Planning Act. He outlined the
notification process procedures and also noted that if a person or public body does
not make oral or written submissions to the City before the by-law is passed, that
person or public body are not entitled to appeal the decision of City Council to the
Ontario Municipal Board, and may not be entitled to be added as a party to the
hearing unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to do so.
1. Zoning Amendment Application A 02/12
Triple Properties III Inc.
1879 Whites Road
(Part of Lot 28, Concession 1), 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.
Ashley Yearwood, Planner II provided an overview of zoning amendment application
A 02/12. He indicated since the preparation of the information report, four concerns
had been received, noting building heights, traffic, character of the area and the
negative impact on property values.
Steve Apostolopoulos and Angella Blanas, the applicants, appeared before the
Committee to provide an overview of their proposal. Ms. Blanas noted the plans will
be consistent with the existing neighbourhood and also noted they had been in the
neighbourhood speaking to residents to make them aware of the development and
what they hoped to accomplish. She provided the City Clerk with a document and
stated that the signatures on the document were the residents she spoke to
regarding the application. She noted that the document was circulated for support of
the development.
Steve Apostolopoulos noted that they wanted to build five units for family members to
live in and were basically seeking side yard variances. He stated that all design
details would be consistent with the neighbourhood and stated that the application
was for less than the maximum allowable under the Official Plan.
A question and answer period ensued with questions raised regarding submission of
the conceptual plans and how these plans would blend into the area.
Len Rideout appeared before the Committee noting concerns with the design and
height of the buildings as well as 3rd floor balconies. He felt the height of the
buildings would dwarf the existing homes and impact the property values. He also
2
Cary oi) A Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
�T Monday, May 7, 2012
7:30 pm — Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor Dickerson
stated that he felt the lot was too narrow for five homes and noted his main concern
was that the development complements the existing neighbourhood.
Dale Pearson, 750 Stonepath Circle appeared before the Committee in opposition to
the development. He stated he was not opposed to development on this lot, but felt
five units was too much and that it should be limited to three homes. He asked for
confirmation on the size and square footage of the buildings and noted three storeys
is not in keeping with the neighbourhood. He also questioned whether the frontage
would be minimized and if there would be sufficient parking for homes of this size,
expressing concerns for street safety. He stated his concerns with water drainage
due to the slope in back as well as the height and size of the buildings reducing the
privacy and sunlight for his back yard. He requested that when issuing building
permits, the City of Pickering be sensitive to the needs of the residents and
approvals be in keeping with the existing neighbourhood.
Lloyd Lumby, 754 Stonepath Circle appeared before the Committee in opposition to
the development, stating it was not in keeping with the neighbourhood. He stated he
was in agreement with the development of the property, but noted that there was
servicing for 3 buildings and the number of buildings should be in keeping with what
they had anticipated. He also noted concerns with the distance between houses.
Mr. Lumby questioned the validity of the list of signatures on the document the
applicant submitted and noted there may have been some misunderstanding in what
was being signed. He noted that the residents that signed the document were not in
support of the application but thought they were signing as acknowledgement that
the applicant had spoken to them.
Carol Scrymegour, 758 Stonepath Circle appeared before the Committee, noting the
list of signatures was believed to be only an acknowledgement of development,
which questions the integrity of the applicants.
Donna Markou, 756 Stonepath Circle appeared before the Committee and stated she
also believed that she was signing a document of acknowledgement of the
development and noted that the residents signing this list were misinformed.
Doug Sellars, 761 Stonepath Circle appeared before the Committee in opposition to
the development. He noted that while he agrees with development here, he felt there
needs to be additional information provided. He also questioned the elevation and
the selling price of these homes.
Gary Temple, 762 Stonepath Circle appeared before the Committee, stating he was
in agreement with the delegations prior to him and noted the lack of information
provided when asked to sign the document.
3
Cal/ 4 Planning & Development
> _'I "�l Committee Meeting Minutes
�'sy a '�I� I ea
Wa 1_0[ Monday, May 7, 2012
7:30 pm — Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor Dickerson
Donna Bell, 1879 Hensall Court appeared before the Committee in opposition to the
proposed development. Further to a comment the applicant made regarding working
from the homes, she questioned what type of work would be done from the homes.
Ms. Bell also noted that the applicants stated family members would be living in the
homes but questioned how long they actually intended on staying. She requested
that Council consider the existing residents when reviewing this application.
Philip Haydicky, 752 Stonepath Circle appeared before the Committee in opposition
to the proposed development. He noted there is a water drainage issue in the area,
particularly during rain storms. He stated the look and feel of the neighbourhood is
important, indicating the proposed homes are massive and do not fit in the area. He
noted it seemed logical that only three units would be built since servicing and
addressing was already there. He agreed that development here would benefit the
neighbourhood, but also noted it must be in keeping with the area.
John Baigrie, 716 Stonepath Circle appeared before the Committee and stated that
no one had come to his door regarding the proposed development. He also stated
there is no guarantee on how long the applicant or their family members would live in
the five homes.
The applicants returned to address some of the resident's concerns. Ms. Blanas
stated she had gone around to the homes in the area to inform the residents of the
application and collected signatures of the people she spoke to and noted she should
have been clearer in what she was doing. She also stated there were no plans for a
3rd floor balcony and noted the square footage of the buildings was unknown at this
point and noted they had not submitted any design plans yet.
A question and answer period ensued. Discussion took place with respect to the
intent and purpose of canvassing the neighbourhood obtaining signatures and
whether this was a legal binding document. Staff noted that the document did not
carry any weight in the decision process. It was suggested that residents who signed
the document could write into the City of Pickering to clarify their position if they
wanted to. Also questions were raised on the design and square footage of the
proposed dwellings and whether the applicants would incorporate the concerns of
the residents into their plans. Other concerns noted were the ongoing maintenance
of the property, building heights, parking, as well as the distance between homes.
Staff provided clarification with respect to the existing services on the lot and
drainage plans. It was also requested that staff hold a community meeting once the
designs are available to work out the issues prior to a report coming forward.
4
Citq o, = Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
Ids INk lar Monday, May 7, 2012
7:30 pm — Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor Dickerson
(IV) Planning & Development Reports
1. Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 10-12 Revised
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
Scott Waterhouse, Sernas & Associates appeared before the Committee on behalf of
the applicant in support of the proposed application and to answer any questions.
He provided a brief outline on the history of this application and noted the key
revisions which were made to the application in order to address the concerns of the
residents.
Discussion ensued with respect to visitor and resident parking, tree preservation and
the garages fronting onto Glendale Drive.
Chris Gertzos, 1972 Glendale Drive appeared before the Committee in opposition to
the proposed application. He stated the area currently consists of cozy bungalows
with large lots and ample parking. He noted concerns with the high volume of traffic
which exists now and would increase with this development. He questioned whether
the two storey height of the buildings start above a garage or include the garage. He
felt this was out of character with the existing neighbourhood and was opposed to
cutting down all of the trees in order to build the development.
Becky Arseneau, 1945 Glendale Drive appeared before the Committee in opposition
to the proposed application. She noted that she could be in favour of a development
with a reduced number of townhomes. She noted her main concern related to traffic
and questioned whether there would be a dedicated left turn lane onto Glendale and
stated this was currently very dangerous.
A question and answer period ensued with respect to traffic concerns.
Donna Markou, 756 Stonepath Circle appeared before the Committee in opposition
to the development, noting her concerns with parking and traffic on the west side of
Glenanna. She stated her opposition to three storey units.
Jackie Gentle, 1859 Malden Crescent appeared before the Committee in opposition
to the application. She stated she had numerous concerns and asked that the best
plan for the area be considered and noted that while bungalows may not be
5
Cu./ vie = Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
111001-0C Monday, May 7, 2012
7:30 pm — Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor Dickerson
economically feasible for developers, it may be the best plan for the area. She also
stated concerns with parking, traffic and tree preservation.
Doug Martin, 1857 Glendale Drive appeared before the Committee noting that while
he does recognize the revisions which were made to the application, he felt they
were not significant enough. He noted it does not address the parking or traffic
concerns. He stated the only way to significantly address the concerns would be to
reduce the number of units to alleviate some of the traffic issues. He also noted
bungalows should be considered.
Jeremy Crawford, 1840 Glendale Drive appeared before the Committee in opposition
to the application. He stated traffic is already terrible in the area and noted the
backup at Glendale and Glenanna. He asked that safety be considered, noting there
were already too many vehicles travelling at excessive speeds and also stated that
the density of the plan was too high for this corner.
Sandy Stephens, 1874 Glendale Drive appeared before the Committee in opposition
to the development, stating that traffic in the area was getting worse. She also
questioned the process for notification of the public workshops, as she had not been
advised of them.
Bill Waugh, 1816 Bronte Square appeared before the Committee in opposition to the
development. He noted houses on 24 foot lots were ridiculous in comparison to the
other side of the street. He questioned why the City of Pickering would approve such
high density on one side of the street and not the other. He also questioned parking
spaces and who would be paying for the road widening.
Alice Rooney, 1900 Liverpool Road appeared before the Committee stating her
opposition to 67 units. She noted two storeys were bad enough and did not want
three. She stated it was ridiculous to think 12 parking spaces would be sufficient for
67 units and also questioned the preservation of trees.
Peter Salby, 1926 Liverpool Road appeared before the Committee in opposition to
the development. He stated this is an old established neighbourhood and this
development would be an eyesore. He felt there should be some form of
development that would appeal to the residents in the area and also noted his
concerns with traffic speed.
A brief discussion period ensued with respect to transit buses and the speed of the
buses in this area.
Fred Drummond, 1820 Glendale Drive appeared before the Committee and stated
his concerns regarding the volume of traffic in the area now and noted this
6
Citq oo Planning & Development
..� �� __-: 4 Committee Meeting Minutes
Kos-' 'r oc Monday, May 7, 2012
7:30 pm — Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor Dickerson
development would only increase traffic. He asked that the numbers be reduced in
keeping with what currently exists.
The Committee took a 10 minute recess and reconvened at 10:50 pm.
A discussion period took place with staff providing clarification on the process
involved with respect to notification for working groups.
A question and answer period ensued with staff responding to questions raised
regarding the road widening along Glenanna, protection for pedestrian traffic on the
corner of Liverpool and Glenanna, parking on Glendale, traffic studies and densities.
Recommendation
Moved by Councillor Ashe
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
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 Ito 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.
Motion Lost
(V) Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 pm.
7