Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 14, 2013 Ca o� Planning & Development • Committee Agenda "' '1 1 Monday, January 14, 2013 PICKERIN G Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe Part "A" Planning & Development Reports Pages 1. Director, Planning & Development, Report PLN 01-13 1-5 Review of Front Yard Parking Standards within Residential Areas City of Pickering Recommendation 1. That Report PLN 01-13 of the Director, Planning & Development, regarding Review of Front Yard Parking Standards within Residential Areas in the City of Pickering be received; and 2. Further, that Council authorize staff to proceed with the Work Plan for the Review of Front Yard Parking Standards, attached as Attachment#1 to Report PLN 01-13. 2. Director, Planning & Development, Report PLN 02-13 6-8 Architectural Control Peer Review Services Recommendation 1. That Report PLN 02-13 of the Director, Planning & Development,, regarding Architectural Control Peer Review Services be received; and 2. Further, that Council authorize staff to prepare terms of reference and issue a request for proposals to retain the services of a Control Architect. 3. Director, Planning & Development, Report PLN 04-13 9-29 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2/12 Triple Properties Ill Inc. 1879 Whites Road Recommendation Accessible • For information related to accessibility requirements please contact PICKS Nr Linda Roberts Phone: 905.420.4660 extension 2928 TTY: 905.420.1739 Email: Irobertsapickerina.ca • Cali 00 4.1. Planning & Development Committee Agenda ,�.,. , ., .:::....... .....:::; Monday, January 14, 2013 PICKERING Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2/12, submitted by Triple Properties III Inc., to amend the zoning of the subject lands to permit the creation of five (5) lots for detached dwellings on lands municipally known as 1879 Whites Road, be approved; 2. That the request made by Triple Properties III Inc., to permit the division of the subject lands, municipally known as 1879 Whites Road, through land severance rather than by draft plan of subdivision, be approved; and 3. Further, that the draft zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2/12, as set out in Appendix Ito Report PLN 04-13, be finalized and forwarded to City Council for enactment. (II) Other Business (III) Adjournment • • • cis 4 Report to Planning & Development Committee PICKERING Report Number: PLN 01-13 Date: January 14, 2013 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Review of Front Yard Parking Standards within Residential Areas City of Pickering File: D-3300-002 Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 01-13 of the Director, Planning & Development, regarding Review of Front Yard Parking Standards within Residential Areas in the City of Pickering be received; and 2. Further, that Council authorize staff to proceed with the Work Plan for the Review of Front Yard Parking Standards, attached as Attachment#1 to Report PLN 01-13. Executive Summary: This report recommends that staff be authorized to undertake a review of regulations respecting front yard parking standards in residential areas and report back to Planning and Development Committee with recommended changes to the City's Zoning By-laws to better regulate this matter. This matter has been raised by Councillors on various occasions in the past. • The purpose of this review is to examine front yard parking in relation to driveway widths and open space requirements in residential areas throughout the City. The objective is to establish new Zoning By-law standards related to front yard parking which support and respect streetscape and urban design principles, and to implement a consistent and contemporary set of front yard parking standards throughout the City. It is anticipated that the review will take approximately 12 -18 months to complete. Financial Implications: There are no financial implications to the City at this time. The review will be conducted by Staff. 1. Background 1.1 Front Yard Parking The issue of excessive vehicle parking within front and exterior side yards in residential areas is becoming very common across the municipality. The matter of controlling vehicle parking in front yards has been raised by Councillors in response to concerns and complaints about impacts on drainage and Report PLN 01-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Review of Front Yard Parking Standards Page 2 neighbourhood aesthetics. Staff has also been requested to review the policies of other municipalities related to driveway widening for additional off street parking. In order to deal with this matter, staff is proposing to initiate a City-wide review to regulate front yard parking related to ground oriented dwellings with direct motor vehicle access from a public street. 1.2 Issues with Front Yard Parking The general provisions of the City's current zoning by-laws do not have specific regulations limiting the amount of allowable area within the front yard to accommodate additional off-street parking. Consequently, residents are able to pave their entire front yard in order to park additional vehicles on the driveway. Front yard parking can adversely impact several streetscape elements including: • Streetscape and neighbourhood aesthetics — neighbourhood aesthetics and streetscapes are compromised when the majority of the front yard is paved and parked on • Supply of temporary on-street parking — little opportunity for on-street parking due to inadequate spacing between widened curb cuts • Stormwater management— a decrease in permeability, due to a wider driveway, reduces the amount of soft landscaping areas, which allow for more efficient natural stormwater management • Reduction in greenspace —further widening of curb cuts and access driveways will result in the reduction of available "soft" landscaping to provide an attractive streetscape • Insufficient space for boulevard planting —widened driveways reduce the size of soft landscaping areas which are required for the appropriate growth of trees in the public boulevard This review will attempt to establish appropriate zoning by-law standards to mitigate the negative impacts of front yard parking. 1.3 Current Driveway width standards and guidelines The City has recently implemented new zoning by-law provisions stipulating maximum driveway standards in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood and other infill projects in South Pickering to address concerns with respect to front yard parking. It is anticipated that the new zoning by-law for Seaton will have similar zoning provisions to regulate the width of driveways. As part of this study, staff Report PLN 01-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Review of Front Yard Parking Standards Page 3 will evaluate whether the current zoning provisions within Duffin Heights, to regulate front yard parking through restrictions on driveway widths in other areas of the City, has been effective. The Review of Front Yard Parking Standards meets the objectives of the City's Draft Sustainable Guidelines. Draft Guideline 2.17 refers to the need for residential site design to maximize permeability through limitations on paved driveway widths. Based on the house form (single, semi or townhouse dwelling) the guideline recommends a maximum paved driveway width. This study will review the maximum driveway widths recommended in the Draft Sustainable Development Guidelines. 1.4 Ensuring Appropriate Standards are in place The City has reviewed and implemented various zoning standards incrementally over the years to address issues and accommodate changing requirements. As a result, there are different definitions, standards and provisions related to front yard parking across the City. The objective of this study is to update the City of Pickering Zoning By-laws to implement a consistent and contemporary set of definitions and zoning by-law standards throughout the municipality. A work plan for the Front Yard Parking Study is outlined in Attachment #1 to this Report. The study is expected to take approximately 12 to 18 months to complete. 2. Communication Strategy 2.1 Residents • open houses will be held in each ward to discuss the Background Study and understand potential issues throughout the municipality • comments received will be considered for incorporation into proposed amendments 2.2 Building Industry • Staff will host a meeting with representatives from the building industry to seek input 2.3 News Media and Website • all open houses and public meetings will be posted on the City of Pickering website and in the News Advertiser • comment sheets and forms to become an interested party will be posted on the City's website Report PLN 01-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Review of Front Yard Parking Standards Page 4 Conclusion: It is recommended that Council receive this report and authorize staff to undertake the work plan for the Front Yard Parking Study as outlined in Attachment#1. Attachments 1. Front Yard Parking Study—Work Program Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Meliss Markh m, MCIP, RPP Neil Carroll, V. IP 'PP Principal Planner, Development Review Director, Planning & Development ' Niles :u ', MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design MM:jf Recommended for the consideration of.Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer • co C)CO Cr) CO Cr) N- C N- c- N- r- C) E N N N N N N L L Z H p O) a) J N C C ,.. C CD Q. > V) U) > U) C E � "U U U a) 0 co (a U " Li) U) = U) O = as o U 0 U Q U)a) -0 -a -0 a C c C CO CO CO CO CO CO 4 CI) (/) (I) U C U) L a) >, Q as E >+ C >, Ca Q C C .0 ._ E a)E C '� a) C a) O C) a) E L D C 0 a) 0) (L C E LE O oZS U)�.+ E> V c E L a L • •- 0) 4 Co a) ( O _ O) a) c E —O Q L >' 0 C 4--' U 03 L i V p o E C C L a s Q > - t 3 0 o ° 0 c o c 4- 0 0 -0 4- >, C a) °' c` C ° o o ca) a) E Co c E a) ° o C c — U o L (a o O a) U a) Q a) O _ co o c 4- U oc a) o. E N o co •p c N (� (/) O 0 a) ° ±-2. (a O Rf L- = •- •- (2 " cn CO I1 a Q o � 13 E — U (0 � o . oEaG - E " 0- f2 � O °) o > >, E C +r L c ca U m`u CD p L L U L U Q X III Co o W Co U ( c C O �Y>/ 0 0 > 0 0 Co ID Ca OC 0.2 2 E o •E Co a) C '-co 0 >,0- � co a) 4- U a) z, 4. l E • o �- Qa) = n a) a) .0 as .o is o U ._� nQ , c o = (7)i N as > > > > Q _ O a) a) > U L o lA fn L a) Cl) O a) "L x Co a) boo nowc) ct -0 wa_ 0. 2 aawoa_ a) = p a. • • • • • • • • • • • • • a) a) -t : O E > aa)) U E = a) • O > O) O C C 0_ "O 0 O 0) c C X c a) RT a) C•c O LL1 C C O O 0) ° - E E Ira Cl) U c _ co m as a) O d. U U Z' a) a) Y . n a) E U cn � c � EE 0 � C L I- UJ 0 a0 CL Cl) iLCD co Calf 00 Report to Planning & Development Committee PICKERING Report Number: PLN 02-13 Date: January 14, 2013 From: Neil Carroll, MCIP, RPP Director, Planning & Development Subject: Architectural Control Peer Review Services File: D-1220-007 Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 02-13 of the Director, Planning & Development, regarding Architectural Control Peer Review Services be received; and 2. Further, that Council authorize staff to prepare terms of reference and issue a ' request for proposals to retain the services of a Control Architect. Executive Summary: This report recommends that staff be authorized to prepare terms of reference and issue a request for proposals to retain the services of a Control Architect to peer review architectural drawings. As the City continues to evolve and mature, it is anticipated that new and more complex development projects and initiatives will be proposed that will raise the City's profile in Durham Region and the Greater Toronto Area. These projects will include a greater variety and range of built forms and uses that will contribute to creating vibrant mixed use nodes and corridors and an • exciting downtown. In order to achieve and uphold a high standard of architecture and urban design, the City would benefit from the services of a qualified Architect to provide objective and professional advice to staff on matters relating to urban design and architecture. Financial Implications: There will be no financial impact to the City as a result of retaining the services of a Control Architect to peer review architectural drawings. Staff propose to include a provision in the updated User Fee By-law requiring the applicant to be responsible for the full cost for peer review of studies and drawings. The Co_ntrol Architect will bill the City for the peer review services, and in turn the City will bill the development proponent. Therefore, although the City retains the service of the Control Architect, the City is reimbursed by the developer for the cost of the service. Report PLN 02-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Architectural Control Peer Review Services Page 2 1. Background 1.1 Need for Architectural Control The City of Pickering is maturing from a suburban municipality to a more urban City that is expected to see a greater variety and range of built forms and uses. The Provincial Growth Plan has also identifies downtown Pickering as an Urban Growth Centre (UGC). The scale at which intensification is projected to occur within the downtown and along key corridors will result in vibrant mixed use• communities that reflect compact, transit-oriented development. As the City continues to grow through the introduction of new development and the redevelopment of existing buildings and properties it will be necessary to establish new and higher standards for architecture and urban design. To help achieve and uphold these standards, the City would benefit from the services of a qualified Architect to provide objective and professional advice on matters relating to urban design and architecture. Through the review of development proposals and residential building permits, the Control Architect will assist staff to: • establish a positive visual image for built form within the City • promote harmonious and attractive developments through attention to the exterior architectural quality and appearance of new development • encourage built form which results in safe, active and pedestrian-friendly communities • encourage a variety of attractive, innovative and environmentally sustainable building designs which combine the best of contemporary and traditional architectural design principles, and • ensure new buildings blend with existing communities/neighbourhoods and to advance the emerging character of a new or redeveloping community/neighbourhood Through the review of site plans and residential building permits, architectural control will address specific and significant design elements of submissions, including the review of architectural styles, building articulation and treatments, roof styles and pitches, model home review, review and approval of colour and material packages, priority lot identification and treatment review. The Control Architect will be strategically engaged only when staff determine that peer review would bring value to the project. Report PLN 02-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Architectural Control Peer Review Services Page 3 1.2 Architectural Control is currently being implemented in Duffin Heights The use of Architectural Control by a municipality is a common practice for the development industry within the Greater Toronto Area and has recently be implemented in Pickering in the Duffin.Heights neighbourhood. As a condition of draft plan approval, Mattamy Homes and Coughlan Homes were required to engage the services of a Control Architect to prepare streetscape/architectural control guidelines to the satisfaction of the City. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all models offered for sale are reviewed and approved by the Control Architect to ensure that all building permit plans comply with the City's approved urban design guidelines. This approach has assisted the City in ensuring that the development community understands the City's design expectations, and that resulting development upholds a high quality of architectural design. 2. Next Steps Staff will prepare terms of reference and issue a request for proposals to retain the services of a Control Architect in accordance with the City's Purchasing Policies and Procedures. The submitted proposals will be evaluated based on weighted criteria and the proponent with the highest scoring proposal will be recommended to Planning & Development Committee. The length of the contact will be for a period of one year with an option to renew the contract for an additional two one year periods, subject to a satisfactory performance review at the anniversary date of the contract. 3. Conclusion It is recommended that Council receive this report and authorize staff to prepare terms of reference and issue request for proposal to retain the services of a Co trol Architect. Prepar: • By: Approved/Endorsed By: "A Al. MI i / 0► Niles" Su i, MCIP, RPP Neil Carron ' RPP Manager, Development Review & Director, Planning & Development Urban Design NS:Id Recommended for the consideration . of Pickering ity Coun it /J/� 4 '`a 2, 2_0 l cia4t , Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer °4 Report to Planning & Development Committee PICKERING G Report Number: PLN 04-13 Date: January 14, 2013 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2/12 Triple Properties Ill Inc. • 1879 Whites Road Recommendation: 1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2/12, submitted by Triple Properties III Inc., to amend the zoning of the subject lands to permit the creation of five (5) lots for detached dwellings on lands municipally known as 1879 Whites Road, be approved; 2. That the request made by Triple Properties III Inc., to permit the division of the subject lands, municipally known as 1879 Whites Road, through land severance rather than by draft plan of subdivision, be approved; and 3. Further, that the draft zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2/12, as set out in Appendix Ito Report PLN 04-13, be finalized and forwarded to City Council for enactment. Executive Summary: The subject property is located on the east side of Whites Road between Strouds Lane and New Street with dual frontage along Whites Road and Stonepath Circle (see Location Map —Attachment#1). The application proposes to rezone the subject property from an agricultural zone to a residential zone in order to facilitate the future creation of five two-storey detached dwellings consisting of minimum lot frontages of 9.0 metres fronting onto Stonepath Circle (see Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachment#2). The applicant is also requesting authorization from Council to create the new lots through land division instead of through a plan of subdivision. The applicant has made incremental changes to their proposal to address concerns raised by area residents and planning staff. However it is staff's view that the combination of the size, massing and scale of the detached dwellings as currently proposed by the applicant is not in keeping with the character of the established neighbourhood. Furthermore, the applicant's requested performance standards for building height, yard setbacks, and lot coverage would result in an undesirable streetscape. • Report PLN 04-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application (A 2/12) Page 2 Planning staff has provided revised performance standards in the recommended implementing zoning by-law which protect and maintain the character of the existing neighbourhood. The recommended zoning provisions will restrict maximum building height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, garage and driveway widths. These provisions are generally consistent with the existing setbacks, lot coverage and building height along Stonepath Circle. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this report. 1. Background: The residential lands surrounding the subject property were developed in the late 1970's and early 1980's. At that time, a large agricultural property was subdivided to accommodate residential plans of subdivision consisting of detached and garage-linked semi-detached dwellings. The subject property was not included in the development at that time and currently retains its agricultural zoning. Municipal service connections were installed along Stonepath Circle to facilitate the future development of the subject property for three residential lots. The purpose of this report is to recommend approval of the application by Triple Properties III Inc., to facilitate the future division of the subject property, municipally known as 1879 Whites Road, for five new lots for detached dwellings fronting onto Stonepath Circle. This report addresses the proposal's conformity with the City of Pickering Official Plan and other related policies and recommends a zoning strategy that will serve to mitigate potential land use conflicts. Furthermore, the report outlines how the staff recommended zoning performance standards will allow the applicant to build comparable homes on Stonepath Circle without compromising the existing character of the street. 1.1 Property Description The subject property is located on the east side of Whites Road between Strouds Lane and New Street and is approximately 0.2 hectares in area (see Location Map —Attachment#1). The site has dual frontage of approximately 51 metres along Whites Road and approximately 45 metres along Stonepath • Circle. In 2010, a demolition permit was issued by the City for the removal of an existing detached dwelling and an associated barn building on the subject lands. The property is presently vacant with no significant vegetation. Surrounding land uses fronting Stonepath Circle include detached dwellings to the north, and a mixture of detached and linked semi-detached dwellings to the east and south. To the west, across Whites Road, is the Amberlea Shopping Centre and an established residential neighbourhood comprising of detached and semi-detached dwellings. Report PLN 04-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application (A 2/12) Page 3 1.2 Applicant's Proposal The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property from an agricultural zone to a residential zone in order to facilitate the future creation of five new lots for detached dwellings fronting onto Stonepath Circle. The applicant is also requesting authorization from Council to create a total of five new lots through land division, whereas the Pickering Official Plan limits the number of new lots that can be created by land severance to a maximum of three. Since the initial public meeting on May 7, 2012, the applicant has proposed minor changes to their proposal in an attempt to address various concerns raised by area residents and Planning staff. The following chart outlines changes to the application made by the applicant since the initial submission: First Second Final Submission Submission Submission (July 31, 2012) (Oct. 26, 2012) (Nov. 22, 2012) Lot Frontage 9.1 m 9.1 m 9.1 m Lot Area (min.) 377 m2 377 m2 377 m2 Front Yard (min.) 6.8 m 6.8 m 5.9 m Side Yard (min.) 0.6 m one side 0.6 m one side 1.2 m 1.2 m other side 1.2 m other side Aggregate Separation 1.8 m 1.8 m 2.4 m Between Buildings (min.) Rear Yard (min.) 7.5 m 10.3 m 10.3 m Lot Coverage 50 percent 46 percent 35 percent (max.) Building Height 11.6 m 11.6 m 11.6 m (Mid-Point) Max. Number of 3 3 3 Storeys Gross Floor Area 511 m2 511 m2 415 m2 Vehicular 6.4 m 6.8 m 6.8 m Entrance Driveway Width 3.4 m 4.8 m 3.8 m Report PLN 04-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application (A 2/12) Page 4 2. Comments Received 2.1 At the May 7, 2012 Public Information Meeting Approximately ten neighbouring residents appeared at the meeting to voice opposition to the proposed development and raise various concerns. The majority of their concerns related to the total number of lots proposed, and the overall size and height of the proposed dwellings. Specifically, the concerns identified are as follows: • size and square footage of proposed dwellings not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood • impact on privacy and loss of natural sunlight due to the proposed building height and depth • insufficient details illustrating proposed dwelling design • existing number of municipal services available to service only three lots • insufficient off-street parking and • the development of the subject property will further worsen the existing water drainage problems currently affecting neighbouring properties To address the above-noted concerns, the applicant agreed to hold a community meeting to show proposed building designs and discuss concerns raised by area residents, prior to staff bringing forward a Recommendation Report to Planning & Development Committee. 2.2 At the September 5, 2012 Community Meeting The applicant hosted a community meeting on September 5, 2012, which was attended by appropriately 20 area residents. At the meeting, the applicant provided detailed plans of the proposed dwellings and a site layout. Residents expressed similar concerns raised at the Public Information Meeting regarding the total number of lots proposed, as well as compatibility with the existing neighbourhood regarding size and height of the proposed dwellings. The applicant advised area residents that they would take into consideration their concerns and submit revised plans for review by the City's Planning Department. 2.3 Written Public Submissions Twelve area residents provided written objections/concerns. Many of the written submissions repeated the residents' concerns expressed at the Public Information Meeting and Community Meeting as noted in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. The issues identified through written correspondence include: • increased density in the neighbourhood • number of families potentially occupying each dwelling • increased traffic • neighbourhood safety • perceived devaluation of neighbouring properties Report PLN 04-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application (A 2/12) Page 5 A letter of support acknowledged by a number of area residents was submitted by the applicant requesting to rezone the subject property in order to permit the development of five lots for detached homes (a copy of the letter is available at the Planning & Development Department). A petition signed by 51 area residents was submitted by Garry Temple (resident of 762 Stonepath Circle) opposing the applicant's proposal (a copy of the petition is available at the Planning & Development Department). 2.4 Agency Comments Durham of Region • subject lands are located within the "Living Areas" designation in the Durham Region Official Plan • the policies of the Regional Official Plan support developments at higher densities, particularly those abutting arterial roads to take advantage of transit service • the proposed 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 • the Region of Durham Planning Department has advised that the proposal complies with the policies with the Regional Official Plan • Durham Region Transit requests a three metre wide walkway through the subject lands between Stonepath Circle and Whites Road • sanitary and municipal water supply are available to the subject property from the existing municipal services on Stonepath Circle • the applicant will be required to convey a road widening of approximately 4.5 metres along the Whites Road frontage Engineering Services • as conditions of approval for future severance Division application, a stormwater management report and a tree inventory and preservation plan are required • Report PLN 04-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application (A 2/12) Page 6 3.0 Planning Analysis 3.1 The proposal to establish five lots complies with the density provisions of the Pickering Official Plan The Pickering Official Plan designates the property as "Urban Residential — Low Density Areas" within the Amberlea Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended primarily for housing at a net residential density of up to and including 30 units per net hectare. The proposal to create five new lots for detached dwellings represents a net density of approximately 25 units per net hectare, which falls within the permitted density range. 3.2 Staff's recommended zoning performance standards are consistent with the established neighbourhood character The policies of the Official Plan recognize that density, by itself, does not control housing form. Housing form is controlled by established performance standards, restrictions and provisions to protect and enhance the character of the existing neighbourhood. Section 3.9(c)(i) of the Pickering Official Plan recognizes that the character of an established neighbourhood is reviewed through the consideration of matters such as building height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking provisions and traffic implications. Stonepath Circle is a mature residential street in an established stable neighbourhood. The established character along Stonepath Circle can generally be viewed as follows: • two-storey residential development consisting of detached and garage-linked semi-detached dwellings with the majority of lot frontages between 9 metres to 15 metres (see Attachment#3) detached dwellings having various building widths, with substantial separation distances between dwellings as compared to more current small lot plans of subdivisions; and • consistent front yard setbacks with large rear yard amenity areas The following chart summarizes existing conditions, the applicant's most recent zoning provisions and staff's recommended zoning provisions: Report PLN 04-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application (A 2/12) Page 7 Applicant's Staffs Zone Existing Recommended Requirements Conditions Final Plan Zoning Submission Requirements Detached and Detached Detached Built Form Semi-Detached Dwellings Dwellings Dwellings Lot Frontage Singles — 11.0 m (min.) Semis — 9.0 m 9.0 m 9.0 m Lot Area (min.) 320 m2 377 m2 350 m2 Front Yard (min.) 6.0 m 5.9 m 6.0 m Singles — 1.2 m Side Yard (min.) Semis — 0 m & 1.2 m 1.2 m 1.2 m Separation Between 2.4 m 2.4 m 2.4 m Buildings (min.) Rear Yard (min.) including 4.5 metre deduction 15.0 m 10.3 m 15.0 m for Regional Road Widening Lot Coverage 28 percent* 35 percent 35 percent (max.) Building Height 9.0 m 11.6 m 9.0 m Mid-Point (max.) Vehicular 6.O m 6.8 m 6.O m Entrance (min.) Driveway Width Singles —6.0 m (max.) Semis —4.5 m 3.8.m 4.5 m * lot coverage does not include lot area deductions for future regional road widening The five lots proposed by the applicant for detached dwellings complies with the density requirements of the Pickering Official Plan. However, staff considers that the combination of size, massing and scale of the proposed detached dwellings is not in keeping with the character of the established neighbourhood. Furthermore, the applicant's requested performance standards for building height, yard setbacks, and lot coverage would result in an undesirable streetscape creating dwellings that are higher and deeper with a proposed massing greater than other existing dwellings along Stonepath Circle. This building form would not be in keeping with the character of the established neighbourhood. Report PLN 04-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application (A 2/12) Page 8 In order to protect and maintain the neighbourhood's character, staff are proposing site specific zoning provisions restricting maximum building height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, garage and driveway widths. Staffs recommended zoning provisions are generally consistent with the existing setbacks, lot coverage and building height along Stonepath Circle and would allow the applicant to construct 2-storey detached dwellings with a total gross floor area of up to approximately 245 square metres (2,650 square feet) not including the garage floor area, or an unfinished basement (see chart in Section 3.1). Furthermore, the amending by-law would permit a loft space fully integrated • within the pitched roof of the dwelling. Staff's recommended zoning performance standards will establish building heights and yard setbacks that are comparable with the existing pattern of development along Stonepath Circle. 3.3 Reverse Grade Driveways are not encouraged as part of this proposal A reverse grade driveway is when a driveway slopes downwards into a garage located in the lower level of a house. Staff generally do not encourage reverse grade driveways. Reverse grade driveways would raise the ground floor elevation on each dwelling allowing the garage to be fully incorporated into the basement, instead of near established grade. Driveways being proposed will require retaining walls for vehicular entrance, as well as potentially cause surface draining problems, safety concerns with respect to ingress and egress, and would create a streetscape that will be different from the established neighbourhood. The proposed amending by-law will include a provision prohibiting reverse grade driveways. 3.4 Whites Road Widening and the erection of a Noise Attenuation Fence will be required through a future subsequent development application Whites Road is classified as a Type A Arterial Road that is under the jurisdiction of the Regional Municipality of Durham. According to the Region, Whites Road requires a minimum right-of-way width of 45 metres. The Region of Durham advised that a road widening of approximately 4.5 metres adjacent to Whites Road will be conveyed to the Region and taken off the westerly limits of the subject lands once the new lots are created. To ensure reasonable noise levels are maintained in the rear yard, a noise attenuation fence will be required. The required fence will be offset • approximately 4.5 metres from existing rear fences abutting Whites Road. Report PLN 04-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application (A 2/12) Page 9 The owner will be responsible for erecting the noise attenuation fence to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. The owner will also be responsible for planting trees and other types of vegetation which will provide temporary screening until the Whites Road widening is implemented. A tree inventory and enhancement plan illustrating tree species will be required for review by the City of Pickering through the land division process. 3.5 . Proposed public walkway will not be provided as part of this redevelopment Durham Region Transit (DRT) advised that a three metre public walkway between Stonepath Circle and Whites Road should be incorporated into this development. DRT also advised that the public walkway would help reduce long walk times for residents accessing the nearest transit stop off Whites Road. The Planning Department does not support a public walkway through the subject lands connecting Stonepath Circle with Whites Road for the following reasons: • the Pickering Official Plan policies does not recognize or illustrate a future public walkway connection through the subject lands • a bus stop does not exist in close proximity to the subject lands along Whites Road, and • a walkway currently exists at the southerly limit of Stonepath Circle, connecting to Strouds Lane (just east of Whites Road) 3.6 Sustainability Implications Staffs review of the application against the City's Draft Sustainable Development Guidelines resulted in a score below the Level 1 standard. Given the small scope of the application, there is limited opportunity to achieve Level 1. The proposed development would increase the residential density and will utilize existing services along Stonepath Circle. Further opportunities exist for the applicant to implement additional sustainable options through future development and building permit processes. 3.7 Council's approval is required to permit the new lots to be created through land severance Section 15.26 of the Pickering Official Plan requires that land capable of being divided into more than three additional lots be developed by a draft plan of subdivision rather than through land severance, except where it is demonstrated to Council's satisfaction that a subdivision plan is neither appropriate nor necessary. Report PLN 04-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application (A 2/12) Page 10 A plan of subdivision is typically a lengthier approval process than land division and may require the owner's obligation to incorporate municipal services and other related development matters through a subdivision agreement with the City. The applicant's request to create four new residential lots (totalling five) through land severance requires Council's authorization. However, if it can be demonstrated to Council's satisfaction that a subdivision plan is neither appropriate nor necessary, the division of land can be facilitated through a land severance process with the Region of Durham. Planning staff are of the opinion that a plan of subdivision is neither appropriate nor necessary since existing services are available along Stonepath Circle. To facilitate the creation of new lots, the City will have the opportunity to provide comments and recommend conditions of severance to the Region of Durham Land Division Committee addressing development matters such as but not limited to: • the requirement for a development and noise agreement • the installation of servicing connections • an architectural design statement (to ensure the proposed housing design is in keeping with the character of the established neighbourhood) • a tree preservation (where practical) and enhancement plan • stormwater management report • preliminary lot grading and drainage plans • proposed driveway locations and entrances • cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication taken as if the property was being developed by draft plan of subdivision (five percent) • securities and insurance, and • the authorization to proceed by land division 3.8 By-law to be forwarded to Council The lands are currently zoned "A"— Rural Agricultural Zone. The draft zoning by-law attached as Appendix I to this report replaces the "A" zone with a residential zone which will permit a maximum of 5 detached dwellings. It is recommended that the draft by-law be finalized and forwarded to Council. 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant is aware of the recommendations of this report. Report PLN 04-13 January 14, 2013 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application (A 2/12) Page 11 Appendix: Appendix I Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Submitted Plan 3. Lot Frontage Map Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Ashley Yearw•od CIP, RPP Neil Car` , J,P', RPP Planner II Director, 'panning & Development "Ad Ni esh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design AY:NS:jf Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council 4a.it. z 20 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng Chief Administrative Officer Appendix Ito Report PLN 04-13 Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2/12 DRAFT The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/13 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, in Part of Lot 28, Concession 1 in the City of Pickering (A 02/12) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to permit the development'of five lots for detached dwellings with a minimum lot frontage of 9.0 metres on the subject lands, being Part of Lot 28, Concession 1, in the City,of Pickering; And whereas an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended, is therefore deemed • necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule I Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2. Area Restricted The provision of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Part of Lot 28, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering, designated "S4-10" — Single Residential — Exception 10 Zone on Schedule I attached hereto. 3. Definitions In this By-law, (1) "Building Height" shall mean the vertical distance between the established grade, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height level between eaves and ridge. A penthouse, tower, cupola, steeple or other roof structure which is used only as an ornament upon or to house the mechanical equipment of any building shall be disregarded in calculating the height of such building; By-law No. XXXX/13 DR4p7' Page 2 (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, Detached or Detached Dwelling" shall mean a single dwelling which is freestanding, separate, and detached from other main buildings or structures; (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 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) "Lot Coverage" shall mean the percentage of lot area covered by all buildings on the lot; (6) "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; (7) "Storey" shall mean that portion of a building other than a basement, cellar, attic, or below-grade parking structure, including between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor, roof deck or ridge next above it; (8) (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; (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; By-law No. XXXX/13 DRAFT Page 3 (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; (h) "Interior Side Yard" shall mean a side yard other than a flankage side yard. 4. Provisions Single Residential Zone — Exception 10 (S4-10) (1) Uses Permitted No person shall within the S4-10 zone, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (i) detached dwelling (2) Zone Requirements No person shall within the S4-10 zone, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building except in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Lot Area (minimum): 350 square metres (b) Lot Frontage (minimum): 9.0 metres By-law No. XXXX/13 DI4FT Page 4 (c) Front Yard Depth (minimum): 6.0 metres (d) Interior Side Yard (minimum): 1.2 metres (e) Rear Yard Depth (minimum): 15.0 metres (f) Building Height (maximum): 9.0 metres (g) Lot Coverage (maximum): (i) Main Dwelling 35 percent (ii)Accessory Structures 15 square metres (h) Parking Requirements: (i) minimum garage setback 6.0 metres from front lot line (ii) maximum garage width 3.5 metres (iii)minimum size of parking space within a 2.9 metres (width) private garage (the width may include one by 6.0 metres interior step and the depth may include two (length) interior steps) (iv)maximum driveway width 4.5 metres (i) Yard Encroachments Permitted (i) Front Yard Maximum projection of uncovered/covered 1.5 metres platforms/porches (ii) Rear Yard Maximum projection of uncovered steps and 3.0 metres platforms less than or equal to 1.5 metres above grade (j) Special Regulations: (i) maximum garage projection from front wall 4.5 metres of dwelling (ii) reverse grade driveways are prohibited • By-law No. XXXX/13 DR4FT Page 5 Y (iii) for the purposes of this by-law, a lot line adjacent to Whites Road is deemed to be the rear lot line 5. 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. 6. 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 XX day of 2013. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk 45.2m 0 III 0 E U N — � CON 1 PT LOT 28 I- Q 45.7m In'ICI 0 C T 1 SCHEDULE I TO B T DAY OF -,_ •_�. 2013 MAYOR CLERK _ . ATT CHMENT#J- -TO REPORT#' Px-tidi-/3 e 0— m m . . .,. . , .A V 1 Q -UBLIC SCHOOL volim PARK 0 O a_ ‘1111111 O z - CC z ERAMOSA vawi W C\\ �� i o J. McPHERSON 0 ST. MARY • _ CATHOLIC J�� PARK o HIGH SCHOOL ' G� Y CRESCENT �I,( Q 0 ■ m (If Qc$0* MILLBANK ROAD J°- c a HIGHVIEW 1 /t - ROAD J I I v --: =11 ' w ,�" NEW STREET•III ���o �_�� ��� Q QII► VIM 8 r-t °°� w M= UNA �_ _ =MOM l'-' U CRESCENT •g.. J11111 111111111111\\�C/I ARCADIA SQUARE gr.•—zo miniu :=J_ ' I � WOODRUFF /=N CRESCENT -- �_� me ram .... mom N=ill limo`���� E111111111 .. mown SUBJECT ..w --a•11• ' I�" =,'11� PROPERTY '--' C∎ F�' 1Z 1 ■ CRICK O . MIRANDA a iiimmi=_ H.. �� mill - w I li �IIIIIIIII m -� ��i��i�0 ... PRESBYTERIAN jjEl] ENE i . — CHURCH 00*4 STROUDS � � LANE STROUDS MINI U • I Q o'L* �* 2 - �= HEDGEROW PL.- 40_ _,,,p1,_ MN at, , . �' c.„..... , , .0- , `, SHADYBROOK T _, • 2 III, ' �, > PARK Y O 0 -1 / 7�- Q W """ o— CO 0 SQUARE W III` FLAVELLE COURT ~ —� - ST MA UERITE f~/) d = 11'— rn BOURGQYS Q, iY 1 / 1 j>. J E SEPARATE S'HOOL W U) City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Concession 2,Part of Lot 24 OWNER Triple Properties III Inc. DATE Apr.4,2012 DRAWN BY JB , /\ FILE No. A 02/12 SCALE 1:5,000 CHECKED BY AY N -to bouroee• Terenet Enterprises Inn. nd its suppliers. All rights Reserved. Not a plan of survey. PN-11 a 2072 MPAC and its supplisns. All rights Rsssrvsd. Net a plan of SurvsY. ATTtMENT#_--_TO 'REPORT#'- /04A//9 /3 Information Compiled from Applicant's Submitted Plan . A 02/12 Triple Properties Ill Inc. • 45.7m E co 4 PART 5 E ai 41.2m 1 .•n Q E I! E - W•PART 4 J Q of 41.2m 0 V) (D 'E € �i U W a ai PART 3 F- . D- . PIN. 26356-0367(LT) _ 41.2m CI- E E ", W ai PART 2 of Z 41.2m O CO PART. 1 . rn ai ,, 1 �.oB, — -- 41.2m ! r — • II This map was produced by The City Of Pickering Planning&Development Department, Planning Information Services Division Mapping And Design,Apr 5,2012. ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# PL-A/ o ■ O Q - Chi to 114 nr 12.0 12.0 ro N O 6 V N m N Cu s N <r,,_ 0 15,0 n 16.7 15.0 15.0 1 N n N Q 2 ICI III Q N 0 Cu b) In cr n/J _ M in SQ ., AR - e Q M 13.010.010.010,01 9.29.29.2 9.29,29.2 13.6 o ui .- o - o ui -. 1 .=. / o ICI i