Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 5, 2017 Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, June 5, 2017 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 lroberts@pickering.ca Anything highlighted denotes an attachment or link. By clicking the links on the agenda page, you can jump directly to that section of the agenda. To manoeuver back to the agenda page use the Ctrl + Home keys simultaneously, or use the “bookmark” icon to the left of your screen to navigate from one report to the next. -Crf:jof- PJCKERJNG Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, June 5, 2017 Council Chambers-7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt (I) Part 'A' Planning & Development Reports Pages 1 . Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 05-17 1-4 Cougs (Tillings) Ltd. Plan of Subdivision 40M-2461 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision -Lots 1 to 128, Blocks 129 to 131 and Block 133, Plan 40M-2461 -Parts 2 and 7, 40R-27228 (Zents Drive)/Part 2, 40R-27282 (Winville Road) Recommendation 1. That Scenic Lane Drive, Elmsley Drive, Edgecroft Drive, Teak Mews, Winville Road within Plan 40M-2461 and Zents Drive within Parts 2 and 7, 40R-27228 and Winville Road within Part 2, 40R-27282 be assumed for public use; 2. That the works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2461, Parts 2 and 7, 40R-27228 and Part 2, 40R-27282, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance, save and except for the stormwater management pond obligations as defined in Schedule E; 3. That Cougs {Tillings) Ltd. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan · 40M-2461, Parts 2 and 7, 40R-27228 and Part 2, 40R-27282, save and except from the stormwater management pond obligations as defined in Schedule E; and 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 lroberts@pickering.ca -CJ:;cJ- PlCKERJNG Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, June 5, 2017 Council Chambers -7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 2. .Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 10-17 VIA Rail Activities -Delivering Sustainable Mobility to Canadians Recommendation 5-30 1. That Council request VIA Rail and Metrolinx to move forward with identifying, planning and implementing a joint Pickering GO and VIA Rail station within the Pickering City Centre; 2. That Council support the efforts of VIA Rail in investigating the introduction of high frequency rail service in the CN Havelock rail corridor; and 3. . That a copy of this report, PLN 10-17; be forwarded to VIA Rail, Metrolinx, the Ministry of Transportation, and the Region of Durham. 3. · Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 11-17 31-54 . City Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application -Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan Recommendation 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 17-001/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to remove the density cap for the City Centre, within Table 6 of the Pickering Official Plan, as set out in Exhibit "A" to Appendix I to Report PLN 11-17, be approved; and 2. That-the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan, to remove the density cap for the City Centre, within Table 6 of the Pickering Official Plan, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 11-17, be forwarded to Council for enactment. -Gf;joi- PJCKERlNG Report to. From: Subject: Planning & Development Committee Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Cougs (Tillings) Ltd., Plan of Subdivision 40M-2461 Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision Report Number: LEG 05-17 Date: June 5, 2017 Lots 1 to 128, Blocks 129 to 131 and Block 133, Plan 40M-2461 Parts 2 and 7, 40R-27228 (Zents Drive) I Part 2, 40R-27282 (Winville Road) File: 40M-2461 Recommendation: 1. That Scenic Lane Drive, Elmsley Drive, Edgecroft Drive, Teak Mews, Winville Road within Plan 40M-2461 and Zet:~ts Drive within Parts 2 and 7, 40R-27228 and Winville Road within Part 2, 40R-27282 be assumed for public use; 2. That the works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2461, Parts 2 and 7, 40R-27228 and Part 2, 40R-27282, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance, save and except for the stormwater management pond obligations as defined in Schedule E; 3. That Cougs (Tillings) Ltd. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-2461, Parts 2 and 7, 40R-27228 and Part 2, 40R-27282, save and except from the stormwater management pond obligations as defined in Schedule E; and 4. That the appropriate City_ of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Plan 40M-2461, Parts 2 and 7, 40R-27228 and Part 2, 40R-27282. As all works and services within Plan 40M-2461, Parts 2 and 7, 40R-27228 and Part 2, 40R-27282 have been completed to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to finalize the assumption of those lands save and except for the stormwater management pond obligations as defined in Schedule E. Financial Implications: Not Applicable Discussion: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Plan 40M-2461 , Parts 2 and 7, 40R-27228 and 1 -Gf:joJ- PlCKERJNG Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 10-17 Date: June 5, 2017 From: Subject: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO VIA Rail Activities Delivering Sustainable Mobility to Canadians File: T 2800-001 Recommendations: 1. That Council request VIA Rail and Metrolinx to move forward With identifying, plan·ning and implementing a joint Pickering GO and VIA Rail station within the Pickering City Centre; 2. That Council support the efforts of VIA Rail in investigating the introduction of high frequency rail service in the CN Havelock rail corridor; and 3. That a copy of this report, PLN 1 0-17, be forwarded to VIA Rail, Metrolinx, the Ministry of Transportation, and the Region of Durham. Executive Summary: In June 2016, Council passed a resolution requesting the Province and Metrolinx to incorporate provisions in Metrolinx's Regional Transportation Plan (The Big Move) to expedite the introduction of passenger rail service in 'the CN Havelock rail corridor. In January 2017, City Staff requested that Metrolinx consider the development of a joint GO and VIA rail station at the current Pickering GO station site, through its ongoing review of the Big Move. Recently, VIA Rail indicated that it will be focusing efforts on maximizing its operations within its current service corridors (i.e., improvements in the CN Mainline rail corridor) and investigating the introductionof high speed dedicated passenger rail track serving residents within the Quebec City-Windsor corridor (i.e., potential service in the CN Havelock rail corridor). Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report do not present any financial . implications for the City. 1. Background In June 2016, Council passed a resolution requesting the Province and Metrolinx to incorporate provisions in Metrolinx's Regional Transportation Plan (The Big Move) that would: a) Establish new timelines that would see commencement of construction of a coordinated transitway into Pickering and alignment with a potential Regional rail station, north of Highway 7 and Brock Road, aligning with the Havelock rail line. 5 6 Report PLN 1 0-17 June 5, 2017 Subject: VIA Rail Activities (T 2800-001) Page 2 b) Extend the proposed route 13 Regional rail line using the Havelock line to Peterborough, and establishing a time line of no more than ten years for its implementation. In January 2017, City staff submitted a list of projects that should be considered by Metrolinx through the review of the Regional Transportation Plan (The Big Move). This list included the upgrade of the Pickering GO Station to include a VIA station. On April 19, 2017, Councillor Brenner and City staff met with Jacques Fauteux, Director of Government and Community Relations for VIA Rail Canada to discuss future VIA rail services in the City of Pickering (see VIA Presentation -Delivering Sustainable Mobility to Canadians, Attachment #1 ). · From 2011 to 2013, VIA Rail experienced a dramatic decline in both ridership and revenue. To ensure the continued long term viability of VIA Rail, VIA established a long term strategy focusing on: meeting the needs of its customers; simplifying the travel experience; maximizing the use of its current infrastructure; introducing a new corridor fleet; and identifying and implementing dedicated passenger rail tracks. To date, much of VIA's attention has been focused on customer service and travel experience improvements, including improved on-train and in-station services, and new customer centres and customer relations services. The result has been steady improvement in both ridership and revenue from 2014 to 2016. With this success, VIA's efforts are now shifting to maximizing operations within its current service corridors, and establishing a new high speed dedicated passenger rail track serving residents within the Quebec City-Windsor corridor. 2. Maximizing Operations within the CN Mainline Corridor The Pickering City Centre corresponds to the Downtown Pickering Urban Growth Centre designated in the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The vision for the Pickering City Centre is that it will be a vibrant, sustainable, accessible and distinct city centre for all people and all seasons. It will be a place to inspire, a place to gather, a place to work, and a place to live, all in a compact and walkable environment. To support growth and travel to and from the Pickering City Centre, the City Centre contains a Mobility Hub that is designated in Metrolinx's Regional Transportation Plan. Mobility hubs act as gateways and key entry points to the community, providing a critical link between the City, the surrounding Region, and its transportation system. With this in mind, the City of Pickering has taken steps to focus growth and development around the Pickering GO Station, allowing people to be nearer to higher speed and higher frequency transit services. The mobility hub in Pickering links the community to transit services both north and south of Highway 401 via a pedestrian bridge, the only one of its type along the Highway 401 corridor. Report PLN 1 0-17 Subject: VIA Rail Activities (T 2800-001) June 5, 2017 Page 3 The establishment of a joint VIA and GO Station within Pickering would complement the development of this mobility hub, providing opportunities for business travel to and from Pickering, to locations outside the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. As part of the review of its Regional Transportation Plan, Metrolinx has identified the development of a joint GO and VIA rail station in its long list of potential infrastructure and transit service improvements. 3. Creating a Dedicated Passenger Track A dedicated passenger rail track within the Quebec City-Windsor corridor is an important part of Canada's transportation system. Since 2015, VIA has increased ridership and revenue, demonstrating the relevance oftrains within this corridor. However, as the number of freight trains, commuter trains and VIA Rail trains continue to climb in the CN Mainline along Lake Ontario, it will become increasingly difficult for VIA's passenger trains to improve on-time performance. Without the reliability of on-time trains, Canadians will continue to choose their cars for shorter trips within the corridor, which will increase congestion and create unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. As such, VIA is considering the development of a dedicated track, using a new, more efficient train car fleet. This dedicated track would be within the current CN Havelock rail corridor and it is expected that this track will: • Relieve congestion, particularly in and out of major urban centres • Boost economic development and benefits along the railway corridor • Deliver a safer rail infrastructure and a more sustainable rail transportation system • Maximize ridership and revenue potential of passenger routes where market demand warrants • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants that contribute to climate change and smog • Create a self-funding project that will significantly reduce government subsidies within the corridor The dedicated passenger track project would also allow the improvement to the· current frequencies operating on the shared environment to better meet regional needs for increased service. It is important to note that within Pickering the CN Havelock rail corridor would provide an intermodal transportation hub that could serve the Pickering Innovation Corridor and the proposed future airport site. 4. Supporting the Activities of VIA Rail Staff recommend that Council request VIA Rail and Metrolinx to move forward with identifying, planning and implementing a joint GO and VIA rail station within the Pickering City Centre. Staff also recommend that Council support the efforts of VIA Rail in investigating the introduction of high frequency rail service in the CN Havelock rail corridor. 7 VIA P·resentation Attachment No. 1 to Report No. PLN 10 -17 Developing Sustainable Mobility to Canadians 9 ....... 0 02 .§. <( GOVERNANCE MANDATE Provide a safe, cost-effective and environmentally sustainable service from coast to coast in both officiaflanguages SHAREHOLDER Government of Canada I Minister of Transport BOARD OF DIRECTORS 13 Members appointed by the Government (4 vacancies) Gender Balanced ....... c.n 6 VISION 2020 ~ Grow in both revenues and ridership by focusing on the customer and the employees ~ Develop a strategy to ensure long term viability: focus on what we control ....... m WHAT VIA RAIL CONTROLS: OUTSTANDING CUSTOMER SERVICE On Train Services ~ In Station Services ~ Customer Centres 7 ~ Customer Relations --.I 8 ..... r; N WHAT VIA RAIL CONTROLS : BE AN EMPLOYER OF CHOICE ::.. 40% of our employees will be retiring over the next five years Priorities ::.. Attract and develop talent; ::.. Diversity and inclusion; ::.. Health and well-being; :. Employee engagement. 2020 Objectives :. Increase the talent pool :. Increase gender diversity to 50% for management positions :. Hire 10%. from Armed Forces, veterans and reservists 1 0 CHANGE IS UNDER WAY: REVEN UES AND RIDERSHIP 2014-2016 REVENUS ET ACHAlA D GE 2014-2016. ·········•··•·•···•·······•·•·•·•······••·•·•·•·•···•·•••·•···•·•·······•·······•·······•···········•·•· . 270,000,000 265,000,000 260,000,000 255,000,000 250,000,000 245,000,000 240,000,000 235,000,000 230,000,000 4,150,000 4,100,000 4,050,000 4,000,000 . 3,950;000 3,900,000 3,850,000 3,800;000 3,750,000 3,700,000 ~_._,___;_-,--'--ir--:-'-r-.<.....>-,-:>..+ 3 '650; 000 2011 2012 2013 :2014 2015 491\3 -Revenues . -Passengers •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• i ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• N C) 11 ,.__ c; N VIA RAIL'S PERFORMANCE ~ Commercial strategy is yielding r~sults :a. Greater focus on passengers and improved frequencies works Since 2014, ridership and revenues have grown by 4.6 % and 15.6 o/o respectively. :a. Trend continues. End of Q1 2017 = 12th straight quarter of revenue growth, and 5th consecutive quarter of increasing ridership. ~ Corridor fleet renewal and ded_icated tracks projects are essential for the medium to ,long -term viability of VIA Rail ......., ...... 12 ,.._ 0 N :r: "-<( LONG TERM STRATEGY: SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY Meeting customer needs Inter-modality -a simplified travel experience Inter-operability-maximizing infrastructure usage • • • • • Simplicity Flexibility Accessibility Efficiency • • . . . . . . . . . . .. Reliab~ ~ ··········~············································································~·······················~······························ :. A new corridor fleet :. Dedicated passenger rail tracks • • • Frequencies Speed Reliability N N N w 14 ,.... 0 N ~ <( DISCLAIMER !II. !II. The project for dedicated passenger rail is a VIA Rail management initiative and does not reflect Government of Canada policy or decisions. This data i_s part of a VIA Rai~ senior management project and is provided solely for information purposes. Certain information-financial or other-is preliminary and represents possible alternatives for this project. N (}'I 16 "" c; N :c a. <( FLEET RENEWAL · ~ Via's fleet is one of the oldest in the industry ~ ~ Corridor fleet serves over 90°/o of VIA Rail customers · ~ Increasing costs to maintain .~ Half of the Quebec-Windsor Corridor fleet at end of life-cycle Renewing the fleet would : ~ Maintain levels of train service in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor ~ Further enhance safety and security of passengers ~ Enhances accessibility for persons with disabilities ~ Enhance reliability of the service and reduces maintenance costs ~ Improve customer experience -increase passengers by 17 °/o over 10 yrs · ~ Improve environmental footprint-Tier 4 diesel locomotives would reduce local air quality impacts by over 90o/o annually N -.I 18 HIGH FREQUENCY RAIL :::. More frequencies for commuters, business travelers, tourists, students: ~ Fares......: affordable entry p-oint similar to today · =--More trains at peak hours i :::. Tailored services to presently, and future, served communities : ~ Serving big and small communities =--Improved connections with Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal -~ Morning and late trains to/from major centres Impact on quality of life of middle class Canadians:· ~ Productivity =--Access to property ~ Sustainable travel, reduced impact on the environment ~ . Economic Development N (0 FEDERAL BUDGET 2016 AND 2017 BUDGET 2016 2o -$7.7 million for pre-procurement studies for renewal of VIA Rail's fleet, for safety upgrades at grade· crossings on tracks owned .by VIA Rail, and for improved security at VIA Rail stations. -$3.3 million over three years to Transport Canada to support an in depth assessment of VIA Rail's high-frequency rail proposal. -$34 million for improvements at stations and maintenance centres, 2017 BUDGET 2017 -$867.3 million over three years on a cash basis, starting in 2017-18, to . support its operations and capital requirements w 0 . QUESTIONS? ~~Cdgof~~ PlCKERlNG Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 11-17 Date: June 5, 2017 From: Subject: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO City Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application -Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 17-001/P Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 17-001/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to remove the density cap for the City Centre, within Table 6 of the Pickering Official Plan, as set out in Exhibit "A" to Appendix I to Report PLN 11-17, be approved; and 2. That the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan, to remove the density cap for the City Centre, within Table 6 of the Pickering Official Plan, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 11-17, be forwarded to Council for enactment. Executive Summary: Following the endorsement of a new City Centre Zoning By-law in January2017, concerns were expressed by some landowners that, in certain instances, a development proposal would meet the Floor Space Index and height requirements of the zoning by-law, but would not meet the density requirements of the Pickering Official Plan. As a result, City Staff initiated Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan to remove the density cap for the City Centre area. The removal of the cap will provide further opportunities for intensification, allowing for a greater number of units to be achieved within the same building envelope. The removal of the cap will also allow developers within the City Centre greater flexibility to provide a variety of residential unit sizes, while having consideration for matters such as housing affordability, tenure, and market demand. Further, removal of the cap will facilitate the ability of the City and other public agencies to acquire land for community and public purposes. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed Amendment. 31 32 PLN 11~17 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application (OPA 17-001./P) · 1. Background June 5, 2017 Page 2 The Pickering City Centre corresponds to the Downtown Pickering Urban Growth Centre, designated in the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (see Location Map, Attachment #1 ). The area of the City Centre is bounded by Bayly Street to the south, the hydro corridor to the east, the limits of properties fronting onto Kingston Road to the. north, .and Pine Creek and Liverpool Road to the west. The Provincial Growth Plan stipulates that the City Centre is to: • be a focal area for investment in institutional and region-wide public services, as well as commercial, recreational, cultural and entertainment uses; • accommodate and support major transit infrastructure; • serve as high density major employment centres that will attract provincially, nationally or internationally significant employment uses; and • accommodate 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare. To meet these Provincial Growth Plan directions, the City has: developed a Vision for the City Centre; approved new Official Plan policies and designations; adopted urban design guidelines; and, approved a new comprehensive zoning by-law. 1.1 Development of a Vision for the City Centre In 2013, the City endorsed "Downtown Pickering: A Vision for Intensification and a Framework for Investment". The vision for·the City Centre (Downtown Pickering) expressed that: "Downtown Pickering will be a vibrant, sustainable, accessible and distinct city centre for all people and all seasons. It will be a place to inspire, a place to gather, a place to work, and a place to live, all in a compact and walkable environment." More specifically, the following features were considered key elements of the built form vision for the CitY Centre (DoWntown Pickering):-·· ·· · · · · • A Civic Precinct acting as the downtown's cultural and institutional hub with destinations and distinct public realm treatment. • An extraordinary public realm formed through new public spaces that populate the downtown. A variety of small and large gathering places are within a five minute walk anywhere in the downtown. • A gateway at Kingston & Liverpool Road characterized by distinct buildings and public plazas at each of the four corners. • The Transit Hub at the heart of an enhanced transit system is a waiting area, meeting place and entry-way to.the downtown. It is integrated with the rest of downtown through streets and pedestrian-ways, and surrounded by exceptional buildings. • The extension of Pickering Parkway west of Liverpool Road, connecting Downtown from east to west. PLN 11-17 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application (OPA 17-001/P) June 5, 2017 Page 3 • Distinct tall buildings that line Highway 401, signalling that Downtown is the core of Pickering to surrounding areas of the City. Enhanced connectivity is achieved by new bridges and street connections. • New destinations enhancing the range of activities, amenities and economic vitality of the downtown. 1.2 Official Plan Amendment 26 to the Pickering Official Plan To implement the ·city Centre Vision and achieve the directions of the Provincial Growth Plan, Council adopted Amendment 26 to the Pickering Official Plan, which was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on March 4, 2015. Amendment 26 added new policies and changed existing policies to the Pickering Official Plan to· create a framework for redevelopment and intensification, and identified infrastructure improvements and transportation connections within and from the City Centre, in support of anticipated population and employment growth. To accommodate future growth, Amendment 26 introduced the following performance targets: the population and employment targets for the City Centre were increased to 13,500 residents and 13,500 jobs by 2031; the maximum permitted residential density in the City Centre was increased from 180 to 570 dwellings per net hectare; and, the maximum permitted Flbor Space Index (FSI) in the City Centre was increased from 3.0 to 5.75 (FSI is the ratio of the total floor area of a building in relation to the site area). 1.3 Urban Design Guidelines To complement Amendment 26, Urban Design Guidelines were also crafted for the City Centre. These guidelines provide design direction for intensification, including: the orientation, massing and integration of buildings; the re-design of streets to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and motorists; and, the connection, design and use of public spaces. The design guidelines rest principally on two pillars: placemaking and sustainability. These pillars are intertwined and form part of one of the five corporate strategies of the City of Pickering name_ly "Sul:)tainable Placemaking" which, in the context of the City Centre, can be described as a process to improve the long-term social, environmental, economic and cultural health of the City Centre. To ensure a consistent approach to plan implementation, the approval of the guidelines was undertaken in concert with the development of a new comprehensive zoning by-law for the City Centre. 1.4 Comprehensive Zoning By-law On January 9, 2017, Planning & Development Committee endorsed the draft City Centre Zoning By-law and authorized staff to finalize and forward the recommended Zoning By-law to Council for enactment at such time as the Krosno Creek Natural Heritage System Zone boundary has been agreed to by the City, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Downtown South Pickering Landowners Group. After further agency and stakeholder consultation, Council enacted the recommended zoning by-law and approved the recommended urban design guidelines on April11, 2017. 33 34 PLN 11-17 June 5, 2017 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application (OPA 17-001/P) Page4 The City Centre Zoning By-law includes: new zone categories; permits a broad range of uses; incorporates new development standards to regulate the size, location, massing and height of buildings; identifies minimum and maximum floor space indices; and, introduces new vehicle and bicycle parking standards. On May 10, 2017, OPB Reality Inc.~ the property managers for the Pickering Town Centre (PTC), appealed City Centre Zoning By~law 7553/17 to the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to Section 34(19) of the Planning Act. OPB Realty Inc. has expressed concerns that the expectations for stormwater and replacement flood storage on PTC lands may negatively impact future development or redevelopment opportunities. 1.5 Proposed Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan Following the endorsement of a new City Centre Zoning By-law, concerns were expressed by some landowners that in certain instances a development proposal would meet the · Floor Space Index (FSI) and height requirements of the zoning by-law, but would not meet the density requirements of the Pickering Official Plan. While FSI is defined in the Official Plan and further detailed in the zoning by-law, density is only defined in the Official Plan, and height is only defined in the zoning by-law. FSI and height are the two main determinants for defining the basic shape or form of buildings, whereas density measures the number of residential units that can be achieved within buildings. Secondary zoning requirements such as building setbacks, building step-backs, on-site parking and landscaping requirements, and urban design guidelines further assist in designing a development proposal that is befitting to a site and its context. FSI and height regulate the form and scale of development regardless of whether the use is residential, commercial, office or other permissible uses. As a result, City Staff initiated Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan to remove the density cap for the City Centre area (see text of Information Report 02-17, Attachment #2). The removal of the cap will provide further opportunities for intensification, allowing for a greater number of_units to be achieved within the same building envelope, and will better enable the acquisition of land for community and public purposes. The removal of the cap will also allow developers within the City Centre more flexibility to provide a greater variety of residential unit sizes, while having consideration for matters such as housing affordability, tenure and market demand. 2. Comments received on Proposed Amendment 29 2.1 Comments from the February 27, 2017 Statutory Open House There were 14 people in attendance at the February 27,2017 Open House. Questions for clarification were asked, and one anonymous submission was made at the Open House, which has been listed and addressed in the Agency and Public Comment Table in Appendix II to this report. PLN 11-17 June 5, 2017 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application (OPA 17-001/P) Page 5 2.2 Comments from the March 6, 2017 Statutory Public Meeting One verbal submission was made in support of the proposed amendment at the March 7, 2017 Statutory Public Meeting. In addition to providing general clarification, members of the Planning & Development Committee also asked questions related to: the future transportation studies, and the need and timing for road improvements; the resolution of stormwater management issues related to Krosno Creek; and, the availability of affordable rental units. These matters are outside the scope of the proposed amendment, but will be addressed through subsequent stages of the development approval process, including the preparation .and Council approval of Block Development Plans, Council's lifting of "(H)" Holding Provisions, and the site plan approval, or in the case of municipal infrastructure, through future environmental assessments. 2.3 Written and oral submissions received There were 12 written and oral submissions received on Proposed Amendment 29, inclusive of agency comments. Summaries of the written and oral submissions received from the agenci.es and members of the public and staff's response are contained in Appendix II. 2.4 Region of Durham comments Regional staff note that Proposed Amendment 29 is consistent with the policies of the Regional Official Plan and the Provincial Growth Plan and is exempt from Regional approval. Regional staff also indicated that the proposed amendment does not present any significant impacts on municipal services or the Regional transportation network, but did specify that further studies will be required when development applications are submitted to confirm servicing capacity and to identify measures to mitigate traffic. 3. Staff review of submissions 3.1 Staff have reviewed the submissions received and provided a response in the table contained in Appendix II to this. report. No modifications to the proposed amendment are recommended. 4. Staff recommend that the Draft By~law to Adopt Recommended Official Plan Amendment 29 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment Staff recommend that Council support the Recommended Amendment by passing the by-law to adopt Amendment 29, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 11-17. Appendices: Appendix I Draft By-:law to adopt Recommended Amendment 27 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix II Table-Response to Agency and Public Comments Received on Proposed Official Plan Amendment 27 35 By-law to Adopt Amendment 29 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Appendix I to Report No. PLN 11-17 37 Exhibit "A" to By-law ___ _ Recommended Amendment 29 to the City of Pickering Official Plan 39 40 Recommended Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 1 Purpose: Location: Basis: Amendment: The purpose of this Amendment is to delete the maximum residential density figure from the Pickering Official Plan for lands in the City Centre. The Amendment applies to all lands within the City Centre. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe designates Pickering's City Centre as an Urban Growth Centre, and stipulates that it will be planned to achieve, by 2031 or earlier, a minimum gross density of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare. The removal of the maximum residential density of 570 dwellings per net hectare, will provide opportunities for greater residential intensification within the City Centre, allow development to respond efficiently to changing demands in residential unit size, and better enable the acquisition of lands for public purposes necessary to create complete communities through redevelopment. The Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: 1. Revising Table 6, Mixed Use Areas: Densities and Floor Areas by Subcategories, in Chapter Three-Land Use, so that it reads as follows: (Excerpt from Table 6) r~~:~;~;~:r ~;;~~~d~;~~:t~~~J~~~~s : -~~ ~~; := i i Areas i Net Residential Density ! Leasable Floorspace for ! Floorspace Index i i Subcategory i (in dwellings per hectare) ' the Retailing of Goods i (total building ! b~:::~:-1-~~:~~~ ~;~~::~ -::;~:I~:§~~: --~~~i:.~~§~~-~ i I including 570 !. 300,000 i and including 5. 75 · i l. ................................................... t ............................................................................................ ; ............................................................................................. l ............................................................................. J Implementation: Interpretation: . The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment, except as revised by this amendment. Appendix II to Report No. PLN 11-17 Table : Responses-to Comments Received from the Public and Agencies on Proposed Amendment 29 to the City of Pickering Official Plan 41 Table: Comments Received on Proposed Official Plan Amendment 29 and Staff Response # Commenter Comments Staff Response 1 Anonymous submission • Please keep multi-use communities .as a • The Pickering Official Plan provides for a received at the priority and, if possible, return good land diverse mixture and intensity of uses Public Open House to agriculture use. within urban neighbourhoods, and identifies agricultural lands for long term protection within the rural area. 2 Lisa Gaspar • Expressed concerns related to the • Although concerns have been raised with pressure that new development will have respect to the effects of increased on roads, parks and community services; population resulting from greater in particular, expressed concerns related intensification on municipal infrastructure to the loss of ice rinks. and services, such impacts will be closely monitored through the development of individual block plans and the approval of condominium and site plans. This will include, but not be limited to: traffic impact studies addressing necessary transportation improvements; parkland dedication and cash-in-lieu of parkland to address future park needs; and, servicing studies addressing the capacity of infrastructure. 3 Carolyn Huston 1. Concerned that the ratio of parking per 1. Through the development of the new City unit is adequate. Centre Zoning By-law, the City retained consulting services to undertake a review of best practices for parking in other jurisdictions and make recommendations on standards for the City Centre which were incorporated into the by-law. Page 1 of 5 Table: Comments Received on Proposed .Qfficial Plan Amendment 29 and Staff Response # Commenter Comments Staff Response 2. Would like the municipality to take 2. Future parkland in the City Centre will be parkland dedication rather than cash-in-lieu. achieved through a combination of parkland dedication and monies received through cash-in-lieu contributions. 3. Development within the City Centre 3. Future development in the City Centre should absorb all of the costs associated will be subject to Development Charges. with infrastructure improvements within Development Charges are one-time fees the City Centre. levied by the City and Region on new residential and non-residential properties to help pay for a portion of the growth-related capital infrastructure requirements. Development charges are determined and accounted for by type of service component. 4. High density development along 4. The City, the Region, and Bayly Street could impede the safe exit Ontario Power Generation have from the Bay Ridges neighbourhood emergency management plans in place, during the event of a nuclear emergency. which take into consideration future daytime and evening populations, and identify evacuation routes and centres. Theseplans are tested and updated on a regular basis. Page 2 of 5 Table: Comments Received on Proposed Official Plan Amendment 29 and Staff Response # Commenter Comments Staff Response 5. Development should take into 5. CN was consulted during the preparation consideration the potential of train of the City Centre Zoning By-law, and derailments, given that the CN mainline appropriate setback provisions have runs through the City Centre. been put in place. In addition, as previously mentioned the City and Region have emergency management plans in place to address a variety of emergencies. 6. Will homes on the south side of Bayly be 6. The widening of Bayly Street will be the expropriated for the future widening of this subject of a future environmental street? Will there be compensation assessment study by the Region. provided to home owners? However, preliminary discussions with the Region indicate that the right-of-way width will likely be 40m and future widenings will be taken from the north side of Bayly. 7. High density development should not 7. The amendment is specific to the City extend into Bay Ridges. Centre neighbourhood. 8. In the event of further development in 8. The amendment is specific to the City Bay Ridges, public access to the Centre neighbourhood. waterfront needs to be protected. 4 Manjit Binning • Expressed concerns related to traffic • See staff response to Commenter 2 congestion, the need to maintain greenspace, and a desire not to become like Toronto. Page 3 of 5 Table: Comments Received on Proposed Official Plan Amendment 29 and Staff Response # Commenter Comments Staff Response 5 Stephen Davidson G Concerned that there are insufficient • See staff response to Commenter 2. schools, recreation, parking, and support services to support increased development. 6 Keith Ward Ill Sought clarification on the wording of the 411 Clarification on the wording of the amendment and wanted to be added to amendment was provided and Mr. Ward the notification list. was added to the circulation list. 7 Brooks Masterton G Expressed concerns related to the impact 1111 See staff response to Commenter 2 increased densities will have on Ill With respect to schools, an additional transportation, recreation, parking, school site is designated in City Centre schools, and support services. south of Highway 401. This designation was identified in consultation with the school boards. 8 Donna and Willy Bell 1111 Expressed concern about @ See staff response to Commenter 2. "importing conflict"-high congestion, noise, increased crime, stressed infrastructure and added service dependency as a result of increased density 9 C. Del Degan • Would prefer to see the density limit • The City Centre is designated an Urban maintained. Believes that the beauty of Growth Centre within the Provincial Pickering is that it is not as densely Growth Plan. Such locations are to be populated as other suburbs. the focal points of their communities and are to be designed to accommodate a wide variety of uses at the highest levels of intensity and density within the Region. Page 4 of 5 Table: Comments Received on Proposed Official Plan Amendment 29 and Staff Response # Commenter Comments Staff Response 10 Veridian Connections • No objection to the proposed amendment. 11 Toronto and Region • No objection to the proposed amendment. Conservation Authority 12 Region of Durham • Regional staff note that Proposed Amendment 29 is consistent with the policies of the Regional Official Plan and the Provincial Growth Plan and is exempt from Regional approval. • Regional staff also indicated that the proposed amendment does not present any significant impacts on municipal •, services or the Regional transportation network, but did specify that further studies will be required when development applications are submitted to confirm servicing capacity and to identify measures to mitigate traffic. Page 5 of 5 · Text of Information Report 02-17 48 Attachment 2 to Report No. PLN 11-17 -~61- PJCKERJNG Information Report to Planning & Development Committee From: Catherine Rose Chief Planner Report Number: 02-17 Date: March 6, 2017 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2017-001/P Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan City Initiated Proposed Revision to the Residential Density Cap in the Pickering City Centre 1. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information on a City initiated official plan amendment application. This report contains background information on the existing Official Plan and the purpose of the proposed amendment. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning matters. This report is to be received, and no decision is to be made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for" consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a review of the comments received and revisions to the amendment where appropriate; 2. Background The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe designates Pickering's City Centre as an Urban Growth Centre, and stipulates that it will be planned to achieve, by 2031 or earlier, a minimum gross g_?nsity of_20Q residents §nd jp~s combif1ed per hectare. Building on this Growth Plan directive, the City retained consultants to prepare a planning and urban design study for the redevelopment and intensification of the City Centre. The final planning study culminated in a report entitled "Downtown Pickering, A Vision for Intensification and Framework for Investment", which was endorsed in principle by Council on July 8, 2013. This new City Centre Vision formed the basis for Amendment 26 to the Pickering Official Plan, which was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on March 4, 2015. Among other matters, Amendment 26: increased the population and employment targets for the City Centre to 13,500 residents and 13,500 jobs by 2031; revised the maximum permitted net residential density in the City Centre from 180, to 570 dwellings per hectare; and, increased the maximum permitted ·Floor Space Index (FSI) in the City Centre from 3.0, to 5.75 (FSI is the ratio of the total floor area of a building in relation to the site area). The caps on residential density and FSI were set with the understanding that these maximums would not be achieved in all circumstances due to site constraints, zoning, and restrictions imposed on particular sites by adjacent land uses. 49 50 Information Report No. 02-17 Page2 On January 9, 2017, Planning & Development Committee endorsed the new City Centre Zoning By-law and Design Guidelines. To implement the provisions of the Official Plan, and the related Design Guidelines, the new by-law includes traditional provisions such as permitted uses, parking standards, and definitions, but also form-related provisions such as minimum and maximum building heights, minimum and maximum FSI, maximum area for a tower floorplate, and minimum building separation. The by-law uses FSI, but does not include provisions related to the minimum and maximum number of residential units per net hectare. FSI and height regulate the form and scale of development regardless of whether the use is residential, commercial, office or other permissible uses. However, as landowners continued to review the draft by-law, concerns were expressed by some landowners about the use of the residential density provisions in the Pickering Official Plan. Certain landowners were concerned that, in the future, staff would check the various site plans against the density provisions in the Offi~ial Plan and could determine that a proposal did not comply with permissible residential densities, yet the proposal would still meet the height and FSI provisions of the by-law. The issue is further complicated in that residential density is measured on a "net" basis (excluding lands for public roads, road widenings, parks, open space, and other land for community facilities) whereas FSl does not require the exclusion of such lands. Staff also note that the background work associated with the Vision Documenffor the City Centre assumed an average dwelling unit size of approximately 100 square metres. By today's standards, this is quite large. Developers, responding to trends to smaller unit sizes, would be able to achieve more residential units within a building of a given height and FSI. Recognizing that the Growth Plan objectives are to plan to achieve a gross density of minimum ·of 200 jobs and persons per hectare in Pickering's Urban Growth Centre, there is merit in reconsidering how the resid~ntial density provisions of the Official Plan are applied in the City Centre. · · FoiTowing discussion with thEfChlef Administrative Officer, staff was requested to initiate an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to provide additional flexibility in the allowable residential densities while maintaining the built form vision for the City Centre. Accordingly, staff initiated a formal Official Plan amendment process under the Planning Act to remove the residential density cap of 570 dwelling units per net hectare . within the City Centre, and is releasing a draft amendment for comments. 3. What is being proposed? The proposed policy change to the Pickering Official Plan is identified in Appendix 1: Proposed Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan. Information Report No. 02-17 Page 3 4. What notice was given? In addition to the standard departments and agencies, written notice of both the Open House and the Statutory Public Meeting was provided to all landowners inside the City Centre, and to landowners within 150 metres of the outer boundary of the City Centre. In addition, the notice was posted on the City's website, and an advertisement appeared in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks on February 15 and February 22, 2017. 5. Comments Received to Date Manjit Binning (email) expressed concerns related to traffic congestion, the need to maintain green space, and a desire not to become like Toronto. Lisa Gaspar (telephone) expressed concerns related to the pressure new development will have on roads, parks and community services; in particular, expressed a concern related to the loss of ice rinks. Brooks Masterton (email) expressed concerns related to the impact increased densities will have on transportation, recreation, parking, schools, and support services. Keith Ward (email) 6. Planning Rationale. sought clarification on the wording of the amendment and wanted to be added to the notification list. Clarification was provided, and Mr. Ward has been added to the notification list. The City's Official Plan and proposed City Centre By-law contain three key performance measures: Residential Density (the number of residential units in relation to the "net" residential land area); Floor Space Index or FSI (the ratio of the total floor area of a . building, regardless of the_use, in relation to the site area); and, the height of a building. FSI and height are the two main determinants for defining the basic shape or form of buildings, whereas density measures the number of residential units that can be achieved within buildings. Secondary zoning requirements such as building setbacks, building step-backs, on-site parking and landscaping requirements, and urban design guidelines further assist in designing a development proposal that is befitting to a site and its context. City Development staff have identified two potential means to allow further density without compromising the built form vision for the City Centre: changing the calculation of residential density from dwellings per "net" hectare to dwellings per "gross" hectare; or removing the cap for the maximum number of dwellings per hectare. 51 52 Information Report No. 02-17 Page 4 · There are various methods to calculate residential density, e.g., units per hectare, people per hectare, or the number of habitable bedrooms per hectare. Some methods use a "net" land area and some use a "gross" land area. The approach currently used by Pickering, is to measure residential density by the number of units per "net" hectare, treating all units the same, regardless of size. The calculation of "net" land area requires the exclusion of lands that will be required for public uses (such as roads, schools, park sites, or open space). City Development staff have undertaken a cursory review of best practices of other municipalities (see Attachment #1 ). The majority of municipalities use a net residential density definition, as opposed to a gross residential density definition. However, some municipalities are only using FSI and height within downtown environments. Some of the reasons for moving away from using residential density, and residential density caps include: • Using a single residential density measurement is limited, and does not reflect the complexity and the various dimensions of downtown districts. For example, higher residential density does not always equate to more people or higher buildings, because the number of persons per unit vary for different housing types (e.g., ·1, 2, or 3 bedroom units); e Achieving a certain net residential density in the City Centre will not guarantee the desired design outcome. There are various performance standards (e.g., massing, height transition, building setbacks and step-backs, shadow impacts, spacing requirements, sunlight optimization, privacy, and street relation), which assist with creating the desirable urban design and quality of place in the City Centre; • Using a "net" residential density calculation will result in two parcels of the same size eligible to construct different "maximum" numbers of dwelling units, if one parcel has to convey land for public park, public road, road widenings, or land for other similar essential community services and facilities. By contrast, using a "gross" residential density calculation would result in both parcels being eligible to construct the same maximum numb~r otdwelling units and still provide the land for essential community needs; • Measuring activity intensity instead of residential den·sity, is more vital to the long term . viability and sustainability of a downtown district (such as the City Centre) that will be undergoing a metamorphosis over time. Removing the density cap allows for a greater number of units to be achieved within the same building envelope, and allows developers within the City Centre more flexibility to provide a greater variety of residential unit sizes, while having consideration for matters such as housing affordability, tenure and market demand. Information Report No. 02-17 Page 5 Either option could address the inequity that arises between those property owners that are required to provide lands to public ownership for essential community services and facilities in the developing areas, and those property owners who do not need to provide such land. While both options could contribute to the desired result of providing further opportunities for intensification, removing the density cap within the City Centre simplifies the calculations to height and FSI. Density can still be calculated on a net basis as in the remainder of the municipality. The use of planning policy tools to create site specific exceptions, such as density bonusing and density transfer, would no longer be applicable or required within the City Centre. Although concerns may be raised with respect to the effects of increased population resulting from greater intensification, on municipal infrastructure and services, such impacts will be closely monitored through the development of individual block plans and the approval of plans of condominium and site plans. This will include, but not be limited to: traffic impact studies addressing necessary transportation improvements; parkland dedication and cash-in-lieu ofparkland to address future park needs; and, servicing studies addressing the capacity of infrastructure. The City Development Department will submit a recommendation report after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. 7. Procedurallnformation 7.1 General ~ written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department • oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 7.2 Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority • the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional approval if such applications are determined to be locally significant, and do not exhibit matters of Regional and/or Provincial interest • at this time, the Region has not yet determined whether this official plan amendment application is exempt from Regional Approval 53 ~-C4o}~~ PlC ER1NG Report to Planning & Development Committee From: Subject: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Report Number: PLN 12-17 Date: June 5, 2017 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/11 BanCan Homes Inc. Part of Lot 10, Plan 509, Part 3, 40R-2509 (1954 Valley Farm Road) Recommendation: 1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/11, submitted by Ban Can Homes Inc., to facilitate a residential development consisting of 4 freehold townhouses fronting Valley Farm Road on lands being Part of Lot 10, Plan 509, Part 3, 40R-2509, be endorsed subject to the provisions contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 12-17, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward the implementing Zoning By-law Amendment to Council for enactment. Executive Summary: BanCan Homes Inc., has submitted an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 4 townhouse units on the lands located at the southwest corner of Valley Farm Road and Fieldlight Boulevard (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The applicant's original proposal was for 5 freehold townhouse units fronting onto Fieldlight Boulevard (see Original Concept Plan, Attachment#2). In response to technical concerns identified by City staff, and comments from the public, the applicant made a number of improvements to their proposal (see Revised Concept Plan, Attachment #5). The key revisions include: reducing the number of townhouses from 5 units to A units; fronting the townhouse units ontoValley Farm Road; providing vehicular and pedestrian access from Valley Farm Road; and reducing the building · height from 11.0 metres to 9.0 metres by redesigning the townhouses to a modern flat roof design. The applicant will be required to submit applications for Land Division to the Region of Durham to create 4 lots. Staff supports the revisions to the original proposal. Re-orientating the townhouse units to front onto Valley Farm Road, providing the vehicular and pedestrian access from Valley Farm Road, and ensuring that the proposed zoning standards are similar to the existing zoning standards in the community will ensure that the proposed townhouse units will be compatible with existing residential properties. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/11 be endorsed, subject to the provisions contained in Appendix I to this report, and that the final implementing zoning by-law amendment be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment. 55 56 Report PLN 12-17 June 5, 2017 Subject: Ban Can Homes Inc. (A 14/11) Page 2 Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City area anticipated as a result of the recommendation of this report. · 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Valley Farm Road and Fieldlight Boulevard within the Liverpool Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1 ). The subject property has an area of approximately 0.105 of a hectare with approximately 27 metres of frontage along Valley Farm Road and 37 metres of frontage along Fieldlight Boulevard. The subject property is currently occupied by a single storey detached dwelling and a detached garage fronting onto Valley Farm Road. Surrounding land uses include detached dwellings to the north across Fieldlight Boulevard, and to the west and south on abutting lots. To the east, across Valley Farm Road, is the Village Retirement Centre. The 'T' intersection at Fieldlight Boulevard and Valley Farm Road is signalized with a pedestrian crossing. 1.2 Applicant's Proposal The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property to facilitate a freehold townhouse development. The original proposal consisted of 5 townhouse units havi~g minimum lot frontages along Fieldlight Boulevard ranging between 6.1 metres and 8.6 metres. The townhouses were three storeys in height with an overall building height of approximately 11.0 metres. Vehicle and pedestrian access to each townhouse unit was proposed from Fieldlight Boulevard. Parking was proposed at 2 spaces per unit (1 space in the garage and 1 space on the driveway). Minimum rear yard setbacks of 6. 7 metres were proposed . (see Original Concept Plan; Original Concept Elevation-Front and Rear Elevations; and Original Concept Elevation-West and East Elevations Attachments #2, #3 and #4 ). Based on concerns identified by area residents and City staff regarding, among other matters, the compatibility of the proposal with existing abutting residential development, and the appropriateness of driveway entrances onto Fieldlight Boulevard, the applicant has made a number of revisions to the original proposal. The following are the revisions to the original concept plan (see Revised Concept Plan and Applicant's Preliminary Elevations, Attachments #5 and #6): • reduced the total number of townhouses from 5 units to 4 units • reoriented the townhouse units from Fieldlight Boulevard to front onto Valley Farm Road • reoriented the vehicular and pedestrian accesses from Fieldlight Boulevard to Valley Farm Road Report PLN 12-17 Subject: BanCan Homes Inc. (A 14/11) June 5, 2017 Page 3 • redesigned the townhouses to a modern flat roof design as opposed to a traditional dormer peaked roof design fll revised the minimum lot frontages from a range of 6.1 metres to 8.6 metres to a range of 5.8 metres to 8.6 metres • increased the minimum rear yard setback from 6.7 metres to 11.8 metres • decreased the minimum front yard setback from 7.2 metres to 6.1 metres The revised proposal retains the provision of parking at 2 spaces per unit (1 space in the garage and 1 space on the driveway). To facilitate the proposal, the applicant will be submitting applications for Land Division to the Region of Durham to create a total of 4 townhouse lots. 2. Comments Received 2.1 April 2, 2012, Statutory Public Meeting; September 26, 2012, Open House; January 17., 2017, Open House and Written Submissions The Public Information Meeting was held on April2, 2012 at which 14 households attended the meeting and voiced their comments regarding the original proposal consisting of 5 townhouse units fronting onto Field light Boulevard. Key comments and concerns identified were insufficient building setbacks; inappropriate density and building height; loss of trees and privacy; increase in traffic; impacts on existing storm drainage patterns; and a suggestion that the proposed units front onto Valley Farm Road. Furthermore, the residents also commented that the proposed three-storey units do not fit with the aesthetics of the area, and that high density will decrease property values. On April2, 2012, a petition was received with 77 signature indicating opposition to the proposal. An Open House meeting hosted by the applicant was held on September 26, 2012. At this Open House, the applicant presented an interim revised proposal to the area residents .. The proposal consisted ofS two-storey townhouse units reoriented to front onto Valley Farm Road. Vehicular access was proposed via a private driveway from Field light Boulevard to access the garages located at the rear of the townhouse units. Private amenity decks were proposed above the garages. Parking was proposed to be provided at 2 spaces per unit (2 spaces in the garage). A total of 9 households were represented at this meeting. Key concerns and comments included that the proposed setbacks remain insufficient, building heights remain inappropriate for the neighbourhood, the private amenity decks above the garages further reduced privacy, visitor parking is not provided, and the private easements over the private driveway required to facilitate access from Fieldlight Boulevard would be difficult to implement. In January 2017, an Open House meeting was hosted by City Development to present a further revised concept plan to the area residents. The revised plan illustrated 4 three-storey freehold townhouse units fronting onto Valley Farm Road. Vehicular and pedestrian access is from Valley Farm Road. 57 58 Report PLN 12-17 Subject: Ban Can Homes Inc. (A 14/11) June 5, 2017 Page 4 A total of 5 households were represented at this meeting. The following is a summary of key concerns and comments: • abutting property owners to the west were not aware of the development proposal at the time of purchasing their property in 2016 as the original development notice sign was not noticeable • concerned about the lack of privacy for abutting residents • concerned that there is no visitor parking • concerned that the development will create congestion at the Field light Boulevard and Valley Farm Road intersection and be unsafe for residents using the crosswalk and bus stop • concerned about the removal of trees along Fieldlight Boulevard • suggested that a semi-attached dwelling would be better suited for the subject property and the neighbourhood • commented that the lot is too small to accommodate 4 townhouse units, and that 3 townhouse units would be supported • ·concerned regarding overflow parking onto Field light Boulevard and increased traffic • commented that the proposed three-storey units do not conform to the existing building heights within the surrounding neighbourhood development 2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments 2.2.1 Region of Durham • the Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Living Areas", which shall be used predominately for housing purposes and shall be developed in a compact form through higher order densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along arterial roads • the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Canada Engineering Services, concludes that the site is appropriate for the proposed development; the Region requiresa Reliance Letter and Certificate of Insurance be submitted in support of the application • the submitted Noise Control Feasibility Study requires that the townhouse units be equipped with central air conditioning systems and appropriate noise warning clauses be implemented through a development agreement with the City of Pickering and/or a Land Titles Agreement to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham • the proposed infill development implements the intensification policies of the Regional Official Plan 2.2.2 City of Pickering Engineering Services Department • no objection to the proposal • the proposed 3.0 metre wide road widening across the Valley Farm Road frontage is acceptable 'Report PLN 12-17 Subject: Ban Can Homes Inc. (A 14/11) June 5, 2017 Page 5 • matters with respect to grading and drainage, tree preseNation and protection, fencing details and requirements, and stormwater management details will be further reviewed at detailed design .through the Land Division process 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 The proposal conforms to the density provisions of the Pickering Official Plan The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property as "Urban Residential -Medium Density Areas" withi'n the Liverpool Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended primarily for housing at a net residential density range between 30 and up to and including 80 units per net hectare. Following the conveyance of a 3.0 metre wide road widening along Valley Farm Road to the City, the land area will be reduced to 0.097 of a hectare. The proposed development will result in a density of 41.2 units per net hectare, which is within the permissible density range. 3.2 Revisions to the proposal address various concerns identified by area residents and achieves compatibility with the surrounding community Area residents identified a number of concerns with respect to building height and setbacks; number of residential units; privacy concerns; and reorienting the dwellings to front onto Valley Farm Road in order to maintain the current streetscape. The lands along the west side of Valley Farm Road south of Field light and most of the lands along the east side of Valley Farm Road are designated as Medium Density Residential. These lands are within a transition area and are anticipated to be further intensified in the long-term. The applicant has revised the proposal to address a number of concerns raised by the community and comments provided by the City and agencies by ensuring that the building height and setbacks are generally in keeping with the existing zoning provisions In the area, but also further intensifying the subject lands in accordance with the City's Official Plan policies. The revised concep.t plan reduced the total number of townhouse units from 5 units to 4 units and reoriented the townhouse units from Fieldlight Boulevard to front onto Valley Farm Road. The larger lots resulting from the reduced number of units will allow for zoning performance standards that are generally consistent with existing standards in the community in order to ensure that the proposed building height and setbacks are in keeping with the general character of the · neighbourhood and adverse impacts on adjacent lots are minimized. With the reorientation of the lots to Valley Farm Road, the applicant is proposing minimum rear yard setback of 11.0 metres, whereas the minimum rear yard setback requirement is typically 7.5 metres. 59 60 Report PLN 12-17 June 5, 2017 Subject: BanCan Homes Inc. (A 14/11) Page 6 The increased rear yard setback will provide for greater separation between the proposed townhouse units and the existing dwelling to the west thereby minimizing concerns related to privacy and overlook. Also proposed is a minimum south side yard setback of 1.8 metres and a minimum flankage yard setback of 2.7 metres, which is generally similar to the existing zoning. · As noted earlier, the applicant is now proposing a modern townhouse design with a flat roof as opposed to a traditional dormer peaked roof design. The redesign of the townhouses will assist in reducing the overall height of the proposed townhouse building, from approximately 11.0 metres to 9.0 metres. The changes implemented by the applicant will ensure that the proposed town house development will be compatible with the existing development in the immediate area. · 3.3 Technical matters will be addressed as conditions of land division approval and through a development agreement with the City · Area residents also raised concerns regarding impact on the existing storm drainage patterns and additional traffic impacts as a result of this development. Detailed grading plans will be required as a condition of final approval. These plans will be reviewed by City staff to ensure compliance with City standards. The required detailed grading plan for the development will ensure that drainage from the development will not impact adjacent properties. Engineering Services has also advised that the proposed development and the location of the proposed driveways will not have any operational impacts on Valley Farm Road or the intersection of Valley Farm Road and Field light Boulevard. 3.4 Development matters related to the City will be addressed through conditions of Land Division lfCouncil approves this rezoning application to facilitate the future creation of four lots for townhouse units, the City will have the opportunity to provide comments and recommend conditions of severance to the Region of Durham Land Division Committee to address development/technical matters such as, but not limited to: • preparing a tree inventory and protection/removal plan, which includes an appropriate compensation plan for the removal of significant vegetation • removing the existing dwelling • preparing a preliminary lot grading and drainage plans • proposed driveway locations and driveway widths • paying cash-in-lieu of conveying land for park purposes • preparing a construction management plan • requiring the applicant to prepare pre-condition surveys of abutting homes Report PLN 12-17 Subject: Ban Can Homes Inc. (A 14/11) June 5, 2017 Page 7 ® entering into a Development Agreement with the City to address any offsite works such as, but not limited to: road restoration; service connections; boulevard restoration; boulevard tree planting; driveway locations and entrances; and con~truction management and erosion and sediment control 3.5 Zoning by-law be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject lands from a "R3" Third Density Residential Zone to an appropriate residential zone category to facilitate the proposal. Staff supports the rezoning application, and recommends that a site specific implement by-law, containing the standard attached as Appendix I to this Report, be finalize and brought before Council for enactment. 3.6 Applicant's Comments The applicant has been advised of the recommendations of this report. Appendix Appendix I Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/11 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Original Concept Plan 3. Original Concept Elevation-Front and Rear Elevations 4. Original Concept Elevation -West and East Elevations 5. Revised Concept Plan 6. Preliminary Elevation -Front · 7. Preliminary Elevation -Rear 61 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/11 Appendix I to Report PLN 12-17 That the implementing zoning by-law permits the establishment of townhouse dwellings in accordance with the following: A. General Provisions 1. Permitted Use-Townhouse Dwellings 2. Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 4 3. Minimum lot area-185 metres 4. Minimum lot frontage-5.8 metres 5. Minimum front yard depth-6.0 metres 6. Minimum interior side yard width (south side yard width)-minimum interior side yard width of 1.8 metres on one side and on the side where dwellings on adjacent lots are attached, no side yard is required 7. Minimum flankage side yard width (north side yard width)-2.7 metres 8. Minimum rear yard depth-11.0 metres 9. Maximum building height-9.5 metres 10. Minimum one private garage per lot attached to the main building, any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from the front lot line 11. Maximum width of driveway-3.7 metres 12. Projections such as window sills, chimney breasts, fireplaces, belt courses, cornices, pilasters, eaves, eave troughs and other similar architectural features may be permitted in any required yard, provided that no such feature projects into the required yard more than 0.6 metres 13. A porch, uncovered deck or balcony not exceeding 1.5 metres in height above established grade may encroach a maximum of2.0 metres into the required minimum front, rear and flankage yards 14. Stairs to a porch or uncovered deck may encroach to within 0.3 metres of the front lot line or flankage lot line, and to within 0.6 metres of a side lot line 15. A bay, box or bow window; with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres may encroach into any required yard to a maximum of 0.6 metres 16. Air conditioners are permitted on a lot provided they are located in the rear yard or side yard or on a balcony or roof, provided that such air conditioning units shall not be located any closer that 0.6 metres to a side lot line and shall not be located on any easement in favour of the City 17. A balcony located above the first floor projecting or inset in the rear wall of a building are prohibited 18. Minimum 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit 63