The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSeptember 5, 2017c;./yo/ DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Agenda Tuesday, September 5, 2017 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean 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. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 Iroberts©pickering.ca DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Agenda Tuesday, September 5, 2017 Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean (I) Part 'A' Information Reports Pages Subject: Information Report No. 05-17 1-19 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP -2017-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/17 9004827 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Parts 1 to 5, 40R-28547 (II) Part 'B' Planning & Development Reports Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 07-17 20-22 Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited (Phase 1) Plan of Subdivision 40M-2437 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision -Blocks. 142 and 143, 40M-2437 and Part 2, 40R-26589 (Duffin Heights) Recommendation 1. That the works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Blocks 142 and 143, Plan 40M-2437 and Part 2, 40R-26589, 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; That Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Blocks 142 and 143, Plan 40M-2437 and Part 2, 40R-26589; and For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 Iroberts(a�pickering.ca DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Agenda Tuesday, September 5, 2017 Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 08-17 Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited — Phase 3 Plan of Subdivision 40M-2482 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision -Blocks 1 to 10, 12 and 14, Plan 40M-2482 (Duffin Heights) Recommendation 23-25 1. That Bronzedale Street, Byford Street, Generra Mews, Legian Mews and Pure Springs Boulevard within Plan 40M-2482 be assumed for public use; 2. That the works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2482, 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 Blocks 11 and 13; That Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-2482, save and except from Blocks 11 and 13; and 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 3. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 15-17 26-55 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Recommendation 1. That Council authorize staff to initiate a zoning. by-law amendment to the general provisions of By-law 2511 to add a maximum building height where site specific zoning amendments do not regulate maximum building height; and DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Agenda Tuesday, September 5, 2017 Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean That a line item be included for Council's consideration in the 2018 Budget to retain consulting services to complete an "Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study", generally as outlined in Appendix Ito Report PLN 15-17. (III) Other Business (IV) Adjournment L�, P1 KIER1N Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 05-17 Date: September 5, 2017 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP -2017-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/17 9004827 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Parts 1 to 5, 40R-28547 1. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by 9004827 Canada Inc., to permit a residential condominium development. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies, and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the applications, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision on these applications are being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2. Property Location and Description The subject lands are located north of Third Concession Road, south of Dersan Street, east of Tillings Road and west of Brock Road within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood (see Location Map and Aerial Map, Attachments #1 and #2). The subject lands have an area of approximately 12.42 hectares. The site is presently vacant and the trees along the westerly portion of the property within the established development limits have been removed following issuance of a Topsoil Removal, Fill Placement, Erosion and Sediment Control Permit. Surrounding land uses include: North: Abutting the subject lands to north is a hydro corridor and further north across Dersan Street is a woodlot owned by Infrastructure Ontario. To the northwest is the City's Operation Centre and a residential subdivision consisting of detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings. Information Report No. 05-17 Page 2 East: Immediately to the east, along the west side of Brock Road, are vacant lands that are designated as Mixed Use Areas within the City's Official Plan. Lands immediately to the east side, north of proposed Valley Farm Road extension, the City has received complete applications, submitted by Madison Brock Limited, for a residential condominium development consisting of 75 stacked townhouses and 119 townhouses. For the lands south of Valley Farm Road extension and north of the Hydro Corridor, Council has approved applications for official plan and zoning amendments, submitted by Duffin's Point Inc., to permit a retail/commercial development. South: Immediately to the south is a hydro corridor, and further south is the Third Concession Road. West: To the west are valley lands associated with Ganatsekiagon Creek and an existing stormwater management pond, which serves the north-western portion of the Duffin Heights community. 3. Applicant's Proposal The applicant has submitted applications for draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment to facilitate a residential condominium development. The zoning amendment also requests a bonus to increase the maximum allowable density to permit an additional 62 units., in exchange for the provision of a community benefit. The draft plan of subdivision proposes 4 blocks for residential use consisting of 764 stacked and back-to-back townhouse units. This plan also includes: two park blocks; a stormwater management block; two new local roads and the westerly extension of Valley Farm Road; and southerly extension of Tillings Road (see Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision and Submitted Conceptual Plan, Attachments #3 and #4). Proposed Blocks 3 and 4 (residential blocks) and Block 5 (public park) will also front onto a new north -south local road to be constructed on the abutting lands to the east. The table below provides a summary of the proposal: Block Area (hectares) Units Unit Type and Land Use 1 (Phase 1) 1.69 155 105 stacked townhouse units 50 back-to-back townhouse units 2 (Phase 2) 1.61 124 90 stacked townhouse units 34 back-to-back townhouse units 3 (Phase 3) 2.43 209 141 stacked townhouse units 68 back-to-back townhouse units 4 (Phase 4) 3.08 276 180 stacked townhouse units 96 back-to-back townhouse units 5 0.27 Village Green 6 0.18 Parkette Information Report No. 05-17 Page 3 Block Area (hectares) Units Unit Type and Land Use 7 1.35 Stacked Townhouses Stormwater Management Pond Municipal1 Right -of -Ways 81 Type 'B' Valley Farm Road - Type `C' Arterial (proposed right-of-way width 27.0 metres) Tillings Road — Collector (proposed right-of-way width 22.0 metres) Streets "A" and "B" — Local Roads (proposed right-of-way width 17.0 metres): Total 12.42 764 6.5 Net Developable Area 8.77 Net Residential Density 87 units per net hectare Within the 4 residential blocks, the applicant has proposed four different types of townhouses (see Submitted Conceptual Elevation Plans, Attachments #5 to #8). The table below outlines the differences between the four types of townhouses: Type Housing T olo yp gy Unit Width (metres) No. of Units -- Parking Ratio Type 'A' Stacked Townhouses 9.3 234 2 spaces per unit (one space in a private garage and one space on a dedicated driveway) Type 'B' 12.6 240 Type `C' Stacked Townhouses (Rear Loaded — vehicular access from a rear lane) 6.5 248 1.75 spaces per unit (some units will have parking spaces within driveways/garages, and some will be located in nearby designated surface parking spaces) Type `D' Stacked Townhouses (Walk -outs) 9.3 42 A total of 160 parking spaces are proposed for visitor parking at a ratio of 0.2 spaces per unit. The proposal will be developed in four phases and each phase will be subject to site plan approval. 3 Information Report No. 05-17 Page 4 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Region of Durham Official Plan The Regional Official Plan (ROP) designates the subject lands as "Living Areas". The "Living Areas" designation shall be used predominately for housing purposes. The plan also states that lands within the Living. Areas designation shall be developed in a compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas. The proposal generally confirms to the policies of the Regional Official Plan. 4.2 Pickering Official Plan and Bonus Zoning The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Urban Residential Areas — Medium Density Areas" within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended primarily for housing and related uses. The permitted residential density range for Medium Density is over 30 units and up to and including 80 units per net hectare. The proposed development will result in a density of 87 units per net hectare, which is not within the permissible density range. The applicant has made a request for Bonus Zoning (Density Bonusing) to allow for an additional 62 units, an approximate 8.8 percent increase in density. In return for the increased density, the applicant is proposing community improvements in the form of enhanced landscape features within the public parkette adjacent to the stormwater management pond. The proposal may include, but is not limited to: a gazebo, arbour, pergola, trellis, boardwalk, decorative walls/signage and vegetation. Section 37 of the Planning Act authorizes municipalities with appropriate Official Plan provisions to pass zoning by-laws for increases in height or density beyond what is permitted by the zoning by -.law, in return for the provision by the applicant of community benefits. The City's Official Plan, as amended by OPA 23, contains such policy provisions which permit City Council to pass by-laws that grant an increase in height of a building or an increase in density not exceeding 25 percent of the density permitted by the Official Plan providing: • the density or height bonus is given only in return for the provision of specific services, facilities or matters as specified in the by-law, such as but not limited to: additional open space or community facilities, assisted or special needs housing, the preservation of heritage buildings or structures, or the preservation of natural heritage features and functions • when considering an increase in density or height, and allowing the provision of benefits off-site, the positive impacts of.the exchange should benefit the social/cultural, environmental and economic health of surrounding areas experiencing the increased height and/or density • the effects of the density or height bonus have been reviewed and determined by Council to be in conformity with the general intent of the Official Plan, by considering matters such as: 4 Information Report No. 05-17 Page 5 • the suitability of the site for the proposed increase in density and/or height in terms of parking, landscaping, and other site-specific requirements; • the compatibility of any increase in density and/or height with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood; and • as a condition of granting a density or height bonus, the City requires the benefiting landowner(s) to enter into one or more agreements, registered against the title of the lands, dealing with the provision and timing of specific facilities, services or matters to be provided in return for the bonus Details of the applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Official Plan including the Bonus Zoning provisions as amended by OPA 23 during the further processing of the applications. 4.3 Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies and Development Guidelines The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies of the Pickering Official Plan require a broad mix of housing by form, location, size and affordability within the neighbourhood. New development is required to demonstrate how the proposal is consistent with the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan (ESP) to the satisfaction of the Region, City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). As a condition of approval, the landowners are required to become a party to the cost sharing agreement for Duffin Heights or receive an acknowledgement from the Trustee of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group Inc. that the benefitting landowner has made satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportion of the shared development costs. The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines provide design objectives for the neighbourhood. The Tertiary Plan identifies the lands as residential. The intent of the Guidelines is to further the objectives of -the Official Plan and to achieve the following: • an accessible pedestrian -oriented residential areas, distinct in character and harmonious with the larger neighbourhood • a streetscape which is attractive, safe and encourages social interaction with the neighbourhood • a central focus to the neighbourhood which is safe, lively and attractive • a diversity of uses to support neighbourhood and City functions, and • a mix of housing types, forms, affordability and tenure on a variety of lot frontages The applications will be assessed against the provisions of the Duffin Heights Neigbourhood policies and Development Guidelines during the further processing of the applications. 4.4 Zoning By-law 3037 The subject lands are currently zoned "A" — Rural Agriculture Zone within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended, which permits a detached dwelling, home occupation and various agricultural and related uses. The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject lands to appropriate residential zone categories with site-specific performance standards to facilitate the proposal. 5 Information Report No. 05-17 Page 6 5. Comments Received 5.1 Resident Comments As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received. 5.2 City Department Comments 5.2.1 Engineering Services Department • the owner shall satisfy the City respecting the submission of appropriate engineering drawings that detail, among other things, City services, roads, storm sewers, sidewalks, lot grading, street lights, fencing and tree planting, and financially secure such works • engineering plans shall be coordinated with the streetscape/architectural design objectives and control guidelines • Functional Grading Plan shall be revised to coordinate with adjacent lands owners to include future design grades and all retaining walls must be constructed entirely within the subdivision limits • Functional Servicing Plan shall coordinate storm servicing along the Future Collector Road with adjacent landowners • the applicant is required to revise the Stormwater Management (SWM) facility design to address technical requirements and conform to the City of Pickering Stormwater Management Design Guidelines • no pedestrian access/sidewalk shall be allowed within the SWM facility block (sidewalks along buildings 4 and 5 shall be removed) • the functional design for proposed Low Impact Development (LID) are required to be provided in the Functional Site Servicing Report • the applicant is required to extend Tillings Road, south to the Valley Farm extension, and Valley Farm Road within the limits of the development; the City will cost share a portion of the works associated with oversizing the roads from local to collector roads • where the Valley Farm Road extension terminates at Tillings Road, temporary measures must be provided until the road is extended west at the detailed design stage • the southern terminus of Street 'B' shall be designed as roundabout due to the multiple laneway connections; although the laneways are seen as private driveway, the block density generates a significant amount of traffic and eliminates the "dead end" effect typically associated with cul-de-sacs; a roundabout, complete with a centre island, shall direct traffic in a single direction and deter improper turning movements the applicant is required to provide a 3.0 metre wide multi -use path on the north side of Valley Farm Road extension with a 1.8 metre wide sidewalk on the south side • proposed Village Green (Block 5) to be moved adjacent to the Hydro corridor to provide continuous green space in this neighbourhood • tree compensation shall be provided for the removal of all trees with a caliper of 15 cm and greater Information Report No. 05-17 Page 7 5.3 Agency Comments 5.3.1 Region of Durham — Planning & Economic Development Department • the proposal contributes to providing a variety of housing options for the residents of Durham Region of all household size and income • the subject site is located east of the tributary of the Ganatsekiagon Creek; key natural heritage and/or hydrologic features shown as wooded areas and valley lands exists at the western portion of the subject site • revisions to the existing Environmental Study (EIS), Functional Servicing Report (FSR), and Stormwater Management Report (SWM) submitted in support of the development are required to further consider the development • the Brock West Landfill site is located less than 500 metres west of the subject site; the applicant must submit a "Land Use Compatibility Analysis", (LUC) prepared in accordance with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Guidelines D6 — "Compatibility between Industrial Facilities"; the LUC analysis must evaluate potential compatibly issues related to the closed landfill site (i.e., noise odour and dust), and an appropriate minimum separation distance must be provided to reduce any potential adverse impact on the development • Region is satisfied with the submitted Environmental Nosie Assessment (ENA) and will require that the noise mitigation measure in the ENA be added to the City's Subdivision Agreement to the satisfaction of the Region • the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Report exceeds the MOECC's 18 -month limitation dates; the applicant is required to submit an updated Phase 1 ESA report prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, as amended • the submitted Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archeological Assessment reports have confirmed that the subject site does not contain archeological resources and no further archeological assessment would be required • the Stage 1 and 2 Archeological Assessment reports must be forwarded to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) for final approval and MTCS's clearance letter indicating all cultural heritage concerns have been met at the site is required • one of the guiding principles of the DRT Five Year Service Strategy is that "transit services should be available within a reasonable walking distance, defined as approximately 400 metres"; preliminary analysis of the subject site concluded that the "availability" principle is not achieved, with a significant portion of the units beyond 400 metres walk distance • one of the ways to reduce walking distance is through the installation of additional bus stops at the intersection of Dersan Street and the future north -south local road to the east and at the intersection of the Valley Farm Road extension and Brock Road • the submitted Functional Servicing Report (FSR) and Transportation Impact Study (TIS) must be revised to address Region's technical requirements • a Waste Management Plan outlining the designated area for collection and storage of waste must be submitted, demonstrating how private collection will function for residents on the proposed townhouse site 7 Information Report No. 05-17 Page 8 5.3.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • TRCA has previously commented on the development limit through the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan • the forested area that was on the property was a 5.5 hectare section of a larger woodland that is over 20 hectares in size • the woodland is identified as a key natural heritage feature in the Durham Region* Official Plan and is mapped as part of the TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System • the applicant is required to update the submitted Environmental Impact Study to adequately characterize the predevelopment condition of the woodland, and expand the mitigation and restoration section to demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts on the woodland or its ecological function, and to identify all the potential effects on aquatic habitat within the Ganatsekiagon Creek as a result of a new outfall • further discussion with the City and the applicant are required to determine appropriate compensation for the removal of the woodland • TRCA highly recommends that all efforts be made to combine the proposed outfall with the new regional road outfall in order to limit the cumulative effects on the terrestrial and aquatic habitat • an Edge Management Plan is required to be developed to mitigate the effects of the creation of a new forest edge and is recommended to be implemented as soon as possible to limit sunscald, windthrow and the introduction of invasive species • Functional Grading Plan is required to be revised to show no grading should occur beyond the development limit and retaining walls are required to be setback from the property line to ensure that future maintenance will occur within the development • the submitted stormwater management report is required to be revised to evaluate the suitability of the storm outlet options and address technical quantity control requirements • a revised Water Balance Study is required to provide greater detail and analysis 5.3.3 Hydro One Networks Inc. (HONI) • the development proposal is abutting and encroaching onto HONI high voltage transmission corridor • all technical requirements are required to be addressed to HONI's satisfaction 5.3.4 Durham Catholic District School Board • no objection to the development proposal • students from this development will attend St. Wilfrid Catholic Elementary School and St. Mary Catholic Secondary School 5.3.5 Durham District School Board • no objection to the development proposal • approximately 250 elementary pupils could be generated from this development proposal and would attend an existing school facility 8 Information Report No. 05-17 Page 9 Planning & Design Section Comments The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date. These matters, and other identified through the circulation and detailed review of the proposal, are required to be address by the applicant prior to a final recommendation report to Planning & Development Committee: 6.1 Proposed Housing Type and Site Design: • provide for a broader mix of housing types and forms that are not stacked units, such as street townhouses, semi-detached and single detached dwellings with basements and apartments ® review the site design to avoid long monotonous blocks of buildings and the visual impacts on the streetscape (with utilities, air conditioning units etc.) • ensure that the common spaces proposed are adequate to support snow storage areas, landscaped areas, water meter rooms and community mail box areas ® evaluate the appropriateness of the site design and building setbacks within the four residential blocks to ensure the orientation and placement of buildings appropriately frame the streetscape and support a pedestrian oriented community ® evaluate the design of the private and public road networks, pedestrian routes connections to open spaces and location of transit stops ® ensure retaining walls, if necessary, are constructed within the development limits ® ensure sufficient resident and visitor parking is provided to support the proposed development 6.2 Location, size and configuration of public parks: • assess whether additional parkland is required from the development, given Councillor Pickles Notice of Motion, which was approved by Council Resolution #323/17 expressing concerns with the lack of neighbourhood park spaces on the west side of Brock Road ® assess the size and configuration of the proposed public park (Block 5) and explore relocating it to be adjacent to the hydro corridor to provide for an expanded green space assess whether the proposed parkette (Block 6) can adequately function as a programmable public park given that this block is also required to provide access to the proposed stormwater management pond and accommodate overland flow routes 6.3 Suitability of increase density: ® staff will assess the suitability of the site for the proposed increases in density, given that the increase in density is achieved by decreasing the area for landscaping, visitor parking, amenity areas, snow storage locations etc. ® determine what revisions are required to reduce the over building of this site and determining whether a density bonus is still required 6.4 Other significant matters to be addressed by the applicant: ® ensure that preliminary grades, municipal services and utilities, vehicle access locations and construction timelines of future roads and other infrastructure are coordinated with abutting landowners to the east ® review the location of future transit stops to ensure that the majority of the dwelling units are located within approximately 400 metre walking distance to a transit stop 9 Information Report No. 05-17 Page 10 • submit a "Land Use Compatibility Analysis", (LUC) prepared in accordance with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Guidelines D6 — "Compatibility between Industrial Facilities" to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham • submit an updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, as amended • engineering and environmental studies/plans are required to be revised to address technical matters and be consistent with the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan to the satisfaction of the Region, City and the TRCA • appropriate compensation (financial and replacement planting) is required for the removal of the woodland • ensure that the applicant becomes a party to the cost sharing agreement for Duffin Heights or receives an acknowledgement from the Trustee of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group Inc., that the benefiting landowner has made satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportion of the shared development cost • further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies, and public The City Development Department will conclude its position on the application after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies, and public. 7. Information Received Copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing on the City's website at pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Conceptual Site Plan, prepared by The Biglieri Group, dated February 2017 • Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by The Biglieri Group, dated March 2017 • Planning Justification Report, prepared by The Biglieri Group, dated March 2017 • Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by YCA Engineering Ltd., dated March 2017 • Phase 1, Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by WSP Canada Inc., dated November 2014 • Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Niblett Environmental Associates Inc., dated June 2016 • Geomorphic Assessment Report, prepared by Beacon Environmental, dated March 2017 • Water Balance Study, prepared by Geopro Consulting Ltd., dated March 2017 • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Implementation Report, prepared by Candevcon Ltd, dated March 2017 • Arborist Report and Tree Inventory, prepared by DA White Treecare, dated March 2016 • Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Candevcon Ltd., dated March 2017 • Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment, prepared by WSP Canada Inc., dated March 2017 • Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Geopro Consulting Ltd., dated March 2017 • Functional Servicing and Grading Plan, prepared by Candevcon Limited, dated March 2017 10 Information Report No. 05-17 Page 11 8. Procedural Information 8.1 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 9. Owner/Applicant Information The owner of this property is 9004827 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) and represented by The Biglieri Group. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Submitted Conceptual Site Plan 4. Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision 5. Submitted Conceptual Elevation Plan — Type 'A' 6. Submitted Conceptual Elevation Plan — Type `B' 7. Submitted Conceptual Elevation Plan — Type 'C' 8. Submitted Conceptual Elevation Plan — Type 'D' Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP Principal Planer, Development Review Nilesh Burt', MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design CC:NS:Id Date of Report: August 17, 2017 Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner 11 Attachment #oto {nfnrmation 2 1 r11pr .. 41111111111111 ei.IIIIIIIIIMI `k 1111111111 rtil11111n11111l 1111111111 01111111111111111111 1 1111111111111111111 111111111111111111' Y•0 ► SUBJECT PROPERTY "0,4 0.•••••:4 1.� VAN 41 ort•l° AIM 1001- Apo= 000.8Vt -4-E-p1114 dok moinemm 911111111�� _ � �� 111111111111 .-...7111111111147 �� i111 f - *1%11111\ i� .00mo 4w, 0 0 U 0 m tII L!iliiiiilii AIH Ukl 1 NEM NUMMI ., fp jJ 11■Il �p 1Il 111 6 ..111Hl11.�� Ak��,`,.4=IuM 11111111►3 �r�`,;•^Il■■11 =i 111111111/ p fim firma II■1111111 ::11 _F1i■■11 1111111■111I1111 �� -.r_ mrw.n-trwr °a. 11111111111111111111= = r� Bill IIIi111I11■1111111111. LI i rwr�c�_ .irnn J i 11 1 _ Z�IC1.9I'_\►SIH I� Illd NV% IS' III MEN MIMI IR 041 NW 11 MO IN II 1.1 111 IV • • �I1 • Di PICKERING City Development Department Location Map File: SP -2017-02 and A 05/17 Applicant: 9004807 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) Property Description: Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Parts 1 to 5 40R-28547 J The Corporation of the City of Pickenng Produced (In part) under!cense from: @ Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;® Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Telnet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.: Date: Aug. 17, 2017 SCALE: 1:10,000 THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY PN -RU A'tat rn nk# Z to infArvriAtirm rAinrirtit 05-17 QUSTY DRIVE +*nal+tgil. riigrimlior INN. grikiiiIIIMMIV k..71 ....1 1BRAN�Y;COLIR� �„-.� , 't '.i. Al:oirra L •.,"]f1 l rllQ�� 19111111911 E—ilw: BRIJfVY AVE... fIllEHRITIM NUE ;f *- �. ��6eti .14 4rr11-if lfgl 'dna . I!!'!IIHhIrIllft!!IIil1U WINVILLE RQAD- Il! Ii 164Er! rS4lr�il..... w_ rz, 'mmHg/fele �TNIRD.tCDIVCESSION RGAD ii+s R '�a+♦ �0.L -is-t.:6sD r1F Tw9 4,4 P•�i I i ac„�eirt �.v "teO.—r” ,wirens . 01,4 Aerial Map File: SP -2017-02 and A 05/17 P1CKERING City Development Department Applicant: 9004807 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) Property Description: Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Parts 1 to 5 40R-28547 Date: Aug. 17, 2017 CTh.c„wap.Rwc.CC, a acA.rm rloocc.l4..part) Lour 5m.<r„m: 0 Owens ren. Oa., MAW,/ ol NFwrar FErusAcasAn rigHareseruHS.05 Her Slaiesty the D Tinsel Entrpmes Ins FAO Ai wpp Omen l iall llyltareaAAct: W M.jr pal Properly AmaisMM.t Cwglafla a^ �.d As supplfla all nyllfrc.em0.; SCALE: 1:10,000I-� THIS IS NOT A P_AN OF SURVEY.rN-RU • r X4- neu t. ,I I I I ii7e t i \\ .0 _ j �u of -iu r � rl ovo23 s N mu. 1 Vitra 9r.LH3d1S S3751(5, 711.153158427 5555,4554 avowNDOES J y „ "nn o t tdninJ 35103535 3wt[lN avoa51DOa9 c4 4 PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision FILE No: SP -2017-02 and A 05/17 APPLICANT: 9004827 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Parts 1 to 5, 40R-28547 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE:August 17, 2017 LEGEND TOWNHOUSES f f TYPE•A' TYPE'S' TYPE 'C' i i TYPE '0' (Refer to section 3 of Report PLN 05-17 for" further information) a r ,c. \• \1 N TakuKWO 301 WM 314414.1 PICKER1NG City Development Department Submitted Conceptual Site Plan FILE No: SP -2017-02 and A 05/17 APPLICANT: 9004827 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Parts 1 to 5, 40R-28547 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE:August 17, 2017 Q to I Si 4;21 r o 43 33 L CD U . ti 1!.; ti PICKERING City Development Department j®®®®.0 ®®EB3:J83®®®L ®B3®EB OECD z EOM z ODD❑ L IMOD ❑❑O❑ = D❑❑❑ T ❑❑❑❑ DODO ❑❑M❑ _ ❑❑❑Dr ❑❑DO _ ❑❑❑❑ Submitted Conceptual Elevation Plan - Type 'A' FILE No: SP -2017-02 and A 05/17 APPLICANT: 9004827 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Parts 1 to 5, 40R-28547 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE:August 17, 2017 4 m ■ ■ �w r a� r1 ■ . 1r �� r m n r ■ rte® �� '�� •I� as �� Ci>a I■� ajU �Ix �• nu mfg' /l/ n 11 � me r �frl.� n �t�/III n■■��rr wow �41r rmn ��1■ n qtr :ME IN MLS ■ni r� EMI ON all n ........ Mall III ■ ' ;a;_p ■(�.' �--a lr 111 .11I 1-■lr� all llll4m 11 I-II mu, 1.1 „AM xl:ME I. ■Ir a r■� r♦• ■k■� re - er �0 `rr- Hill rw R. rr I --r .u..r. gm lr no /r n r/r uxr 11 ou r,e, rams Liras a Lir„ ur r/ FE Lir rnn lar ar Lir BM rl ■e 11 ■ 111 wt. 11 ' l/ a■ ll/ . l/ai 11 ■rrl l/ I Liras .....0 ■r. l/ ■e■■i 11 rrnr 111. MM. 'l MI l 11 .r 111 eer�w .rnn o■ x r axe r■ vea n fill ■ -r.-............,411.....-�il wu _... iti ,Lica ._waw Liu ■€. ■s �.rlele n ■cl■rrrrlr'�..rr.rr i r rm� r 2yc�err� e>=wee= �clr mer asx _ �Irer�a�c ( AL rrrw rlrrri>_� r ee �� /rtr�� l� a ■■�ilnrwrr-in■■■■.or r■■■■■ ri1n Lin ■■ n■ n II n era n ■n r iij \ ,....... ■■w ...... C. in ..» ,... . .. nr ..... r » •.•. nl ..., :`. M `• :• . !Ir ..» .:.. r en ....... x , ...... Ilr .., .... K ». «« ,. ». �a .....::: ■��■ u��■■n�s.■ 7Rls�� is��:Cis�sp,■,■��10��In••••Ca��eIV�i�■�iCiPJY��9�■��er.�I�� _� � �a � �:�:a E �=:: 11•1::: : nn•. : �e....01 ,.1 •...n.. � eN :::...... MEM. Submitted Conceptual Elevation Plan - Type `B' PROPERTY. DESCRIPTION: Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Parts 1 to 5, 40R-28547 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. 9 Attrtiko.l‘h , Zfi. 1A\NN \ IN, \/1\ •— _ -- .___ um iirm ammo a.. NUM 11_ iic®i@ MINI= ■i■ .. MINN ■i . _■ PI.. NM ei� 1=1MI . ■.= ■■ +vrn¢w I•m — Noml■III1 ■1I■■I �.IIIII = rr =IIII�1 = am. 8 " _ _ _ _ _ L.-��=-_ _°1=-21 n a- : a=tel . - .1 "`TM'^ 1.1 '� .n■111■ ■i•• 1.1111 III •--' num •1■ ■ iiim �.i• �� .o I ILIMIIEL@ a■�I■=: rI mom 111um num : l MElil.1n1■=.. EMI .' 1 _ �a��.�vl�� 11 mium { _........,,I1.1. ;1�1raa, -, 1r� 5,X12 -,W i11, rig'. �a�_. -.mt. w®wI .■■�ry 111 .■r.NIR O■-i•IM — 111 ./61111 N — ■ 111 miwNlws— ■■..■. 111 I.w 1.1111..1,N 111 #mIr.O a.m1■N'. — 111 ■w I1.111UM Yw. 1 Nnw■Iw MN1a1i 111111..1 la.■w■ I.•■N 1111 111 p.1•II • •l SAA •It.NI I-i.M 111 11M N 11•- •11 C[ MUM 4; .1 ■ ■1I* 111 1o■Ia1■B LIQ■ .1 111 111 O0:a11 ni�MlEIEil .L_ 1*i(I._I 1 *..L. 11.1 11 ®riiNMI On NMI a....„,,s _-�..---: - VNIT 4 (REV.) FRONT ELEVATION UNIT log (REVD UNIT 8 (REV,) UNIT 7 (REVD UNIT 1 11NK 8 UNIT 10 UTIIT 4 a... ` AkAtt,\‘. 'Ill r �i -- - . .. .■■..■ .. ■. ■. ■. ■... a.IN■1.. mu ■....■ .. a. n a... a.■■■a. Mi El= '' 1 z gs ___ MI MN •-- Harm I• 1•�son )t ■a a.a.ai 11111.1112 — nt>•— MINIM ��M--MIME •>• MINN a w S h� 1�* -• l<nA_NN.111iilln•iiig NN 2� of . g`�n•_� 1i. n_ �_E,P ... Eg " g, MEM anti a iltg�aIo1ao_=MI ■_.I`og gami111I� ie■M■ @E 'IM',e1twig vliall II.FstI*IRKI1 00 ■jlm ih 16 rsIL�,®.�11J111�I j — _ — _ k n.... . .�MMUMMIENNEMMINEMMEMOME/ ■.�10 Nle—A .■ roe .. ■a a■ MIN am ..... ■. ■1 ■❑❑❑❑.n■■{■1■.a❑❑❑❑■I.❑❑❑❑1■.i■■■■■❑❑❑❑y■❑❑❑❑.g❑❑❑❑i ■.'..Amenia.Awl•I 10�Sa�■■,�� a. I�1� u• no 1 1y ■I■ VI ■n amuumio Y ■■ ai. as *0 � [ 1■■I ': `.1 1: Is ■ a ®03EOM aI. ::' : OM .. .■ .n .I■ nsummiN aA*nAIN.Aoo■w.N ■■■■{.a• 111 MIN ■ ■ ala — UNIT 4 UNIT 10 UNIT $ UNIT 1 IRJIT (REV) UNIT (REVD UNIT 10 NEW UNIT 4 (REVJ REAR ELEVATION Submitted Conceptual Elevation Plan - Type 'C' C 2 4 FILE No: SP -2017-02 and A 05/17 PICKERING APPLICANT: 9004827 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) City Development PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Parts 1 to 5, 40R-28547 Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE'AU USY 17, 20i 7 9 9 I CI ■ ■ ■ Ipmom ®■ a Num ® I��r 11 11 I■: 1e NMI■■I 00 Q lop IM irabralifferIstel . la MIM. 1 .. J2''"' III 111 11 MAIO] MI i it - IMII ITTO WIN I I �1 �II 11 0 u ILI NM e i■*s 1 w�mmumo s OFICk FROM- E_E1L4-10@ lop — — • —.- MIMI DLUQDDCD= 11IMMO =DOD ❑C❑C C❑❑❑ ❑C❑C C❑❑❑ L L L MOM C❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑ DO�❑❑:❑❑CEJ❑❑ ❑❑C❑ ❑CC❑ ❑❑❑❑ ❑CC❑ ❑mWL DODD ❑❑_❑ ❑❑_❑ �mWO ❑C❑❑ ❑C❑❑ X000 ❑❑C❑ ❑❑C❑ ❑LEI❑© ❑❑C❑ ❑❑C❑ WD D' ❑CCC ❑CCC ❑CCC L1�D[E© CC❑C ❑C C DODO D❑❑❑o REAR EL:01101. c44' PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Conceptual Elevation Plan - Type 'D' FILE No: SP -2017-02 and A 05/17 APPLICANT: 9004827 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Parts 1 to 5, 40R-28547 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE:August 17, 2017 g74 A Y� Sj 20 (74Report to P ICKE RING Planning & Development Committee Report Number: LEG 07-17 Date: September 5, 2017 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited (Phase 1), Plan of Subdivision 40M-2437 Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision Blocks 142 and 143, 40M-2437 and Part 2, 40R-26589 (Duffin Heights) File: 40M-2437 Recommendation: 1. That the works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Blocks 142 and 143, Plan 40M-2437 and Part 2, 40R-26589, 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; 2. That Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Blocks 142 and 143, Plan 40M-2437 and Part 2, 40R-26589; and 3. 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-2437. Plan 40M-2437 was partially assumed by the City on March 29, 2016, save and except for Blocks 142 and 143, Plan 40M-2437 and Part 2, 40R-26589. As all works and services within Blocks 142 and 143, Plan 40M-2437 and Part 2, 40R-26589 have now been completed to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to finalize the assumption of the plan of subdivision. 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-2437. Plan 40M-2437 was partially assumed by the City on March 29, 2016, save and except for Blocks 142 and 143, Plan 40M-2437 and Part 2, 40R-26589. As the developer has now completed all of the works and services within these lands to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to: (a) assume the works and services within Blocks 142 and 143, Plan 40M-2437 and Part 2, 40R-26589; and (b) release Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement with the City and any amendments related thereto with respect to those lands. LEG 07-17 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-2437 September 5, 2017 Page 2 The roads fronting Blocks 142 and 143, Plan 40M-2437 and Part 2, 40R-26589 were assumed by the City on March 29, 2016. Attachments: 1. Location Map — Blocks 142 and 143, Plan 40W2437 and Part 2, 40R-26589 Prepared By: Brigitte Gawtrey, LaW Clerk Property & Development Services PB:bg Approyed/Endorsed By: Paul Director Corp ,rate Se) ices & City Solicitor Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Zoi Recommendation approved: Chief Administrative Officer per: Director, City Development & CBO per: if Director, Community Services per: Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor per: (Acting) Director, Engineering Services per: Director, Finance & Treasurer per: City Clerk per: CORP0227-07/01 revised 21 a• metaLT/ tQL‘Iff ilii-711si CAROUSEL DIVE .o. r N 2 BROCK z� a BLOCK 142 PART 2 40R-26589 ti 2 2 C4°.1 Location Map File: Final Partial Assumption of Plan 40M-2437 PICKERING City Development Department Applicant:City of Pickering Property Description: Blocks 142 and 143, Plan 40M-2437 and Part 2, 40R-26539 Date: Mar. 23, 2017 Corporal,. of the City of Pickering Produced (n part) under Yoonse from: © Queens Printer. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Al All rights reserved.* Her Majesty the Ocean* Right of Canada. Department of Nam. Resources. All rights reserved.;p� 0 Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers as rights reserved.; 0 Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its supphers all rights reservetl : SCALE.1:5,000 1N THIS IS NOT AKAN OF SURVEY f n G PICKERING Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: LEG 08-17 Date: September 5, 2017 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited — Phase 3 — Plan of Subdivision 40M-2482 - Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision - Blocks 1 to 10, 12 and 14, Plan 40M-2482 (Duffin Heights) File: 40M-2482 Recommendation: 1. That Bronzedale Street, Byford Street, Generra Mews, Legian Mews and Pure Springs Boulevard within Plan 40M-2482 be assumed for public use; That the works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2482, 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 Blocks 11 and 13; 3. That Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-2482, save and except from Blocks 11 and 13; 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-2482. As all works and services within this plan have been completed to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to finalize the assumption of those lands save and except for Blocks 11 and 13. 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-2482. As the developer has now completed all of the works and services to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to: (a) assume the roads and the works and services within Plan 40M-2482, save and except for: (i) Block 11 (which has been developed as a stacked and regular townhouse development in accordance with a Site Plan Control Agreement between the City and Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited dated August 29, 2012, as amended); and (ii) Block 13 (which is being developed as a stacked townhouse development in accordance with a Site Plan Control Agreement between the 23 LEG 08-17 September 5, 2017 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-2482 Page 2 City and Vastor Construction Inc. dated April 4, 2017, as amended); and (b) release Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement with the City and any amendments related thereto, as it relates to Blocks 1 to 10, 12 and 14 only. Attachments: 1. Location Map — 40M-2482 Prepared By: Brigitte Gawtrey, Law Clerk Property & Development Services PB:bg Approv-d/indorsed By: Paul Bigi ni' ector Corporate Se ides & City Solicitor Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Recommendation approved: Chief Administrative Officer per: Director, City Development & CBO per: Director, Community Services per: Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor per: (Acting) Director, Engineering Services per: Director, Finance & Treasurer per: City Clerk CORP0227-07/01 revised 24 per: D8 ATTACHMFMTi! / TC1 RFP( PTit Z_ DERSAN STREET BROCK ROAD .of. SUBJECT LANDS / Blocks 1-10,12&14 40M-2482 N \ \ ‘‘\ OC�1' `►\\ \' \ 1 &xiw .IAL23 `, maw "w \`��1 1\ u \► `\ 'm 11 1 11 \PURE-SPRINGSIBOULEVARD , X12 , . , . , ,.�vvvv\\\v\yvv\ =woe11 111may BYFORD STREET w O 0 w ,J 1'0 1 1®4 WILLIAM JACKSON DRIVE LIATRIS DRIVE KALMAR AVENUE HAYDEN LANE MISTHOLLOW DRIVE LIATRIS DRIVE C44 Location Map File: Subdivision Completion & Assumption PICKERING City Development Department Applicant:Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited Property Description:Blocks 1 to 10, 12 and 14, 40M-2482 Date: Jul. 19, 2017 <> The Corporation of the Crty of Pickering Produced (in part)under license from: 0 Queens Printer, Ontario Mmrstry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;0 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; Teanet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all right6s reserved.; @ Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; SCALE. 1.2,000 PN -6 THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY. V GCS �h PICKERING Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 15-17 Date: September 5, 2017 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods File: D-1100-096 Recommendation: 1: That Council authorize staff to initiate a zoning by-law amendment to the general provisions of By-law 2511 to add a maximum building height where site specific zoning amendments do not reg'ulate maximum building height; and 2. That a line item be included for Council's consideration in the 2018 Budget to retain consulting services to complete an "Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study", generally as outlined in Appendix I to Report PLN 15-17. Executive Summary: This report responds to Council's Resolution #236/16 respecting community character and infill. The report provides background on concerns arising from infill and replacement housing in established neighbourhoods and the resulting effect it can have on the character of these areas. Community Focus Group meetings were held. Through these meetings, participants identified: what elements of community character were important to them; and, the need to protect such character as neighbourhoods mature and grow. This report also provides an overview of practices undertaken in other municipalities, and highlights the City's current planning approaches to address this issue. As building height has been identified to be an important element in defining character and it is currently not regulated in many areas within By-law 2511, staff are recommending that Council authorize staff to initiate a zoning amendment to By-law 2511 to establish a maximum building height. Additionally, staff recommend consideration be given in the 2018 Budget to approve an. "Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study". Notice of this meeting was provided to those that attended the Focus Group meetings. Financial Implications: A line item will be included in the City Development 2018 Current Budget submission (account 2611.2392.0000 Consultative & Professional) for an "Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study"). Costs and funding will be identified at that time. 26 PLN 15-17 September 5, 2017 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Page 2 1. Background At the meeting on November 21, 2016, Council passed the following Notice of Motion as moved by Councillor Brenner and approved through Resolution #236/16: "Guidelines to Protect Community Character (Infill) Whereas the City of Pickering recognizes the importance of community character and its preservation where infill construction takes place; Whereas the Planning Act enables approvals when it involves Draft Plans of Subdivision, but provides no jurisdiction to enable municipalities to impose conditions for individual building permits not subject to Draft Plan Conditions; Now Therefore be it resolved that the City Development Department commence a community engagement process via the establishment of a focus group that will enable Pickering to establish the creation of guidelines that will encourage developers and builders to be mindful of established community character when bringing forward draft plans and/or individual building permits in communities such as Fairport Beach, South Rosebank and others within Pickering. And that City staff forward copies of this resolution to all City of Pickering community associations and ratepayer groups seeking appointments to this focus group." The purpose of this report is to present the results from hosting two Focus, Group meetings, outline other municipal practices and recommend a study be initiated to address infill housing in established neighbourhoods. Notice of this meeting was provided to everyone that attended the Focus Group meetings. 2. What is Community Character? The City's Official Plan recognizes that neighbourhoods are the fundamental building blocks of the City's urban areas, and endeavours to maintain the identity and character of the City's neighbourhoods as they evolve over time. For the South Pickering Urban Area, the Plan identifies 15 neighbourhoods (see Attachment #1). While community character can vary from neighbourhood to neighbourhood as well as within a neighbourhood, it is shaped by a number of common elements. Community character is the sum of all the attributes and assets that make a neighbourhood, or part thereof, unique and establishes a sense of place for its residents. This includes an array of natural and built characteristics. The table that follows outlines a number of these elements. The table has been derived from a variety of sources including research by other municipalities, staff's research, the focus groups, and decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board. 27 PLN 15-17 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods September 5, 2017 Page 3 Community and Other Uses • Schools • Parks and trails • Community centres • Retail opportunities Public Realm • Sidewalks • Street trees • Street lighting • Landscaping treatments and fencing • Amount and location of on street parking • Views — to lake, Hwy 401, parks/trees • Above and/or underground services (poles/wires) Building • Height of buildings — number of storeys • Number of units per building • Cladding on house — brick, siding, wood • Size of house • Architectural style of house — front door versus side door, fenestration and glazing, pitch of roof, roof material, porches, enclosed porches • Age of house • Garage versus no garage — attached, detached, style of doors (single, double, triple) • Building facade • Lighting on/around building Land • Setbacks • Lot area • Lot frontage • Lot depth • Lot coverage • Side and rear yards • Type of landscaping — front and side yards, gardens/sod, openness, views and spacing • Ratio of hard surfaces to landscaping • Shadowing/Access to sunlight • Driveways — width, length, style and number, parking on lot, parking pad, gravel versus hard surface (asphalt, brick pavers) • Type of vegetation on lot • Topography of lot • Privacy/Amenity space • Fencing Transportation • Width of street — pavement • Length of street and number of curves/bends • Volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on streets • Number of intersections with stop signs and traffic signals Neighbourhood • Density gradient formed by types of building, with highest density at the centre of neighbourhood and lowest density at the periphery or vice versa • Focal points — parks, fountain, skating rink • Walkways • Curb versus ditch — stormwater collection While not a natural or built element of the community, community spirit, involvement, and volunteerism are also important characteristics that need to be considered. 28 PLN 15-17 Subject: InfiIl and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods September 5, 2017 Page 4 3. What is `Intensification', `Infill' and `Replacement Housing'? The current Provincial, Regional and City policy framework promotes intensification and provides a strong mandate to accommodate population growth through the efficient use of existing serviced urban lands. The term `intensification' is used in many ways and it comes in different forms. It is helpful to define this term and provide the context of what each looks like as lands are developed and in some cases, buildings are replaced. Intensification may be defined as the development of a property, site or area at a higher density than currently exists. Although there is no standard definition of infill, for the purpose of this report, infill means small scale residential development in an established neighbourhood including the development of a vacant lot, additional housing units on the same lot by dividing existing homes into multiple units or creating new Tots by further subdivision or land division approval. `Replacement housing' or rebuilding, involves a smaller house being substantially altered or demolished and replaced with a new larger dwelling. While replacement housing is not considered intensification or infill, since it does not increase the number of units which occupy a lot, it can have an impact or conflict with the established character of a community. 4. What are the concerns of the community? In response to Council's direction, City Development staff commenced a community engagement process through Focus Group meetings. An eBlast invitation to participate in the focus group meetings was sent out to over 750 people, including the subscribers to the eNewsletter Your City. Right Now., Pickering 101 Class of 2016 graduates, Celebrating Sustainable Neighbourhood Groups and Pickering Ratepayer and Neighbourhood Associations. Staff invited participants to define what community character meant to them, and to identify measures for protecting that character when infill development occurs. The Focus Group meetings were held on May 2, 2017 in the evening and on May 11, 2017 in the afternoon. The participants that attended the meetings represented a variety of neighbourhoods in the City, with the majority coming from the Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association, in the West Shore Neighbourhood. 29 PLN 15-17 September 5, 2017 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Page 5 Through the focus group meetings the community expressed pride in why their neighbourhood or community was distinct or unique and their comments are summarized as follows: • many old trees and significant green/open spaces • Frenchman's Bay and waterfront trail • friendly neighbours — people talk to each other out walking, cycling • walkable • narrower streets • Targe Tots • no sidewalks • diverse housing styles and forms • large setbacks • pitch of house roofs lower than new homes • peaceful • unique community feel • diverse population culturally • heritage conservation area and valued heritage community • Whitevale is unique community • pride in community events • originally established as cottage country for Toronto residents • garages not in front of house • homes with porches When asked what challenges the neighbourhoods are facing and what is important to them in the future, they indicated the following: • infill development is not sensitive to the existing character of the neighbourhood • too many variances approved to construct large homes • need to limit building heights • need consistency in height and architectural design of homes • loss of community input into infill development • loss of privacy when small houses in shadow of larger house • new development is vertical (tall) • do not like Targe homes on small Tots • neighbourhood deteriorating over last 17 years — smaller homes being replaced with larger homes • maintain mix of housing types, sizes and styles • tree preservation important — protect mature trees • maintain wildlife habitat — natural areas • maintain heritage homes. • importance of ratepayer/neighbourhood associations • community spirit important • porches improve streetscape • control development through site plan 30 PLN 15-17 September 5, 2017 Subject: InfiII and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Page 6 Attachment #2 and #3 to this report outline the detailed notes of the comments provided at the Focus Group meetings. In addition, three written submissions were received at the focus group meetings. The submissions outline key elements to preserve character and best practices applied in other municipalities. Attachment #4 provides a summary of each of the submissions. The participants in the Focus Group meetings expressed how much they value the various elements of community character and recognized the impact that infill and replacement housing can have on a neighbourhood. The participants drew attention to the information included in the submissions of other municipal experiences as potential opportunities and tools to address their comments and concerns. The neighbourhood changes identified by the Focus Groups varied depending on the scale of development occurring. The impacts from converting or replacing an existing house are different from developing a new townhouse project or small apartment development. There has been a considerable amount of infill and replacement housing built within certain neighbourhoods of the City, where vacant or new lots have been created or where older dwelling units have been replaced. Sometimes these homes are two or three times larger than existing homes in the neighbourhood. The builder or owner often maximizes the existing zoning permissions to build houses that are larger and have smaller setbacks to the property line than what primarily exists in the neighbourhood. Although a neighbourhood may appear to be in transition due to the scale of infill housing occurring, many of the older houses may exist for some time in these neighbourhoods, and the original character of the neighbourhood may become compromised. The City of Pickering is not unique in this regard. The impact of new housing on the community character of established neighbourhoods has been studied and addressed by a number of municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). 5. How are other municipalities dealing with Infill and Community Character? A number of municipalities in the GTA have faced similar issues in their established residential areas. For this reason, City Development staff have undertaken a review of best or common practices of other municipalities that is outlined in Attachment #5. Although each municipality has its own policy framework to work within, and unique circumstances or context that have resulted in a study, there are some common approaches to addressing the compatibility of new development with the character of established neighbourhoods. Many municipalities have developed and adopted design guidelines for replacement housing and additions in the established low density residential areas. Some municipalities have also implemented policy and zoning changes, and a number of municipalities require site plan control in these specific residential areas. The municipalities have in each case, defined distinct areas or lot types where these tools would be applied. 31 PLN 15-17 September 5, 2017 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Page 7 The Town of Halton Hills, the City of Vaughan and the City of Brampton each passed an Interim Control By-law to study specific geographic areas or neighbourhoods and determine the best tools to use in addressing the issues raised in their respective municipality. Most of the municipalities reviewed have developed design guidelines to assist in assessing the compatibility of new development with the existing neighbourhood character. These guidelines often include photographs and sketches to illustrate various solutions for successful infill development. The guidelines can be used to guide the decisions of Council or the Committee of Adjustment and assist homeowners and architects with design principles to ensure new development is compatible with the community character. In some cases, the municipalities studied also amended their zoning by-law by updating regulations for building height and setbacks appropriate for the respective neighbourhood. The cities of Mississauga, Brampton, Burlington and Markham and the Town of Oakville each use site plan control as another tool to regulate infill development in established neighbourhoods. 6. How has the City dealt with Infill and Community Character? 6.1 Pickering Official Plan Building on the Pickering District Plan, the City's new Official Plan approved in 1997, recognized through residential policy and development guidelines that certain facets of the built form and lot pattern contributed to neighbourhood character. To respect the character of such areas, the Official Plan contains policies within certain neighbourhoods, which require new development to be compatible with the character of existing development. Matters to be considered include building height, yard setbacks, lot frontage, lot coverage, lot area and in some instances access to sunlight and parking provisions. The detailed policies are outlined in Attachment #6. For example, in some neighbourhoods, the City Plan policies and guidelines were established to guide the redevelopment of large lots, originally developed on private services, to ensure compatible new development, as full municipal services were extended into these areas. These neighbourhood policies together with the directions established through development guidelines were then implemented through zoning changes. The zoning changes could be area wide, such as was done for the Rougemount Drive area north of Kingston Road, or on an application by application basis such as is being done for the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. The City's 1997 Official Plan indicates that Council shall maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure and minimize the consumption of vacant land by encouraging: major intensification in designated Mixed Use Areas; infill development of vacant or underutilized blocks of land; redevelopment and conversion of non-residential uses to residential uses in Mixed Use Areas and Residential Areas; and, new methods for the provision of compact urban form. 32 PLN 15-17 September 5, 2017 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Page 8 With respect to this policy provision, the Plan also notes that, "Intensification provides an opportunity to increase the housing stock in the City. Almost all intensification activity occurring in Pickering will be on those lands designated as Mixed Use Areas, not low density areas. Infilling occurs in low density areas on vacant or underutilized parcels of land. The effect of this will be to improve the level and range of services available to most residents, without changing the character of their neighbourhoods." To implement the City's approach to intensification and bring its Official Plan into conformity with the Provincial Growth Plan, staff's efforts have focused on enabling substantial intensification in Mixed Use Areas. The City recently completed a review of its City Centre, revising population, density and built form targets of the Official Plan in order to accommodate significant growth and development through intensification. Later this year, the City will embark on a study of the Kingston Road Corridor and the Specialty Retailing Node to address major intensification opportunities within this corridor. While most intensification in South Pickering will be directed to areas outside established neighbourhoods, there will always be development interests and opportunities to build on vacant lands and in some cases redevelop lands in transition. New forms of development, such as use of common element condominium roads, instead of full public roads, now allow the possible introduction of rear lot assembly and development where previously none existed. The rapidly rising land values and housing prices are also causing more interest in creating smaller lots in established neighbourhoods to improve affordability. The City is now experiencing new challenges with development pressures in established neighbourhoods that do not have special policies, guidelines or updated zoning to address character issues. The scale and nature of redevelopment has evolved. The City must respond to an updated Provincial and Regional land use policy direction which limits opportunities for greenfield development, directs significant portions of new growth to built-up areas of the community through intensification, and limits the supply of serviced land to accommodate growth, resulting in changing housing market demands. At the same time, the City must respond to the increasing concerns from residents and Members of Council on how new development will respect the character of mature neighbourhoods. 6.2 Development Guidelines The development guidelines in the Official Pian Compendium Document, adopted by Council for various parts of the City's 15 neighbourhoods, identify design precincts, guiding principles and land use objectives for redevelopment, and in some instances, specific urban design standards for neighbourhoods. They have been used to review development applications including applications for subdivision, land division, zoning and minor variances. 33 PLN 15-17 September 5, 2017 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Page 9 As the Official Plan policies require review to ensure they are consistent with current Provincial and Regional policy directions, the new or updated development guidelines must also be prepared to address redevelopment pressures in established neighbourhoods. Development guidelines only come into play where a Planning Act application is required. Guidelines are not reviewed when processing a building permit. 6.3 Zoning By-law Zoning By-laws implement the objectives and policies of the City's Official Plan. The zoning of the lands within the City's mature neighbourhoods largely restricts the residential uses to single and semi-detached units with a variety of provisions regulating the lot frontages, front, side and rear yard setbacks, lot coverage and building height. The general provisions of the zoning by-laws regulate other matters such as parking and driveways. Within three of the City's older neighbourhoods that have predominantly low density housing forms - Rosebank, West Shore and Bay Ridges — there are 5 to 6 primary zones regulating development. Attachment #7 specifically outlines the provisions in each zone. There is a fair amount of variation between the various zone requirements, particularly with the minimum lot frontage, minimum lot area and minimum side yard requirements. In addition, there have been a number of variances to zoning by-law provisions over the years, which impact the community character and built form. Recently developed subdivisions do not often maintain surplus development potential. As such, the new neighbourhoods are often less threatened by infill and redevelopment rebuilds and loss of character. To update and address deficienciesto the current zoning by-laws, Council approved the initiation of a comprehensive zoning by-law review as part of the 2017 Budget. The intent is to review and update zoning regulations for the City by replacing the four by-laws currently in place (By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036, and 3037) with one comprehensive by-law. This review is a significant undertaking that is expected to take three to five years to complete. Building height has been identified as a key aspect to the compatibility of new infill and replacement housing in mature neighbourhoods. However, there is currently a significant deficiency in the City's By-law 2511, with no maximum building height for parts of the established neighbourhoods of Rosebank, West Shore and the Bay Ridges (see Lands Covered by By-law 2511, Attachment #8). 6.4 Lot Creation Infill can take place through the development of underutilized parcels, through the creation of new lots or multiple ownership arrangements. On a small scale, an owner may divide up to three new lots from a larger lot through the consent process, provided that each of the lot frontages and lot areas, both retained and severed, meet the requirements of the zoning by-law. On a larger scale, an owner may decide to create greater than three lots through a plan of subdivision process, or propose multiple ownership through a plan of condominium. 34 PLN 15-17 September 5, 2017 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Page 10 These larger scale developments typically require a change in zoning provisions, and often introduce a higher intensity housing form (e.g., townhouses) than exists in the community (e.g., detached dwellings) while still meeting the low density requirements. In a number of neighbourhoods within the City, there are areas of historic large lot development, where property owners and developers are interested in intensifying their properties. However such lot creation, if not properly planned, can lead to development which is fragmented, segregated, or out of character with the community. 7. What directions should the City take to address Infill and Community Character? Given the new challenges the City is facing with the update of the Provincial Growth Plan and development pressures in established neighbourhoods, the City needs to update and improve the tools to address emerging issues with residential redevelopment. Municipalities have a variety of planning tools to draw on in considering how to address the respecting community character when infill and intensification occurs. These include: • a review of Official Plan policy and amendments if necessary, to ensure it implements current Provincial and Regional policy requirements the review of zoning and the preparation of required amendments • the preparation of new and review of existing development and design guidelines • heritage district designations, and • if desired, the use of site plan control Staff recommend two separate, but related courses of actions. Firstly, staff recommends that Council authorize staff to initiate a zoning amendment to By-law 2511 to establish a maximum building height, where it is currently not regulated, and secondly, staff recommend that a planning and design study be initiated to address infill and replacement housing in established neighbourhoods. Once the planning and design study is completed, the appropriate maximum height in all or parts of the neighbourhoods covered by By-law 2511 will be revisited. The planning and design study will focus on: • replacement housing, infill of vacant lots and the creation of lots through severance • infill and redevelopment through subdivision or condominium approval The first part of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study will involve the review and development of appropriate policies, guidelines, and/or zoning to address the compatibility of replacement housing, additions, and small scale lot creation with the character of mature neighbourhoods. The results will guide the planning and design of this kind of development in established neighbourhoods to help ensure that new development fits compatibly with its surroundings. 35 PLN 15-17 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods September 5, 2017 Page 11 The second part of the study will involve the review and development of appropriate policies, guidelines, or zoning to address infill and redevelopment proposals, which meet the Official Plan density requirements, but result in a density that is higher than the current average for the surrounding area. New and updated planning tools will help guide staff and Council in considering larger scale proposals that are subject to subdivision, condominium and/or site plan applications, including various forms of townhouses. In addition to reviewing and developing planning tools as noted above, the study will also include: defining the location of and nature of mature neighbourhoods; identifying and assessing practices of other jurisdictions; and, undertaking a comprehensive community engagement program with residents, public agencies, and the development industry. It is estimated that the study could take up to 18 months to complete. It is recommended that Council consider during the 2018 Budget process a line item to engage the services of a consultant to undertake an Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, in accordance with the proposed study outline in Appendix I. Appendix Appendix I: Proposed Study Outline Attachments 1. Official Plan Map 9 South Pickering Urban Area Neighbourhoods — Edition 6 2. Focus Group Meeting Notes — May 2, 2017 3. Focus Group Meeting Notes — May 11, 2017 4. Summary of Written Submissions 5. Review of Other Municipal Practices 6. Applicable Policy Excerpts from Pickering Official Plan — Edition 6 7. Sample Zoning By-law Provisions for Detached Dwellings — Rosebank, West Shore & Bay Ridges 8. Lands Covered by By-law 2511 36 PLN 15-17 September 5, 2017 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Page 12 Prepared By: Kathleen Power, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner — Policy .4011111". 400 Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics KP:JB:Id Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Kyle Bentley, P.Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Lt7 37 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Proposed Study Outline 38 Appendix I to Report PLN 15-17 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Proposed Study Outline Study Objective: To develop the appropriate policy framework, regulations and tools so that the City has a sensitive way to transition between existing older housing stock and new contemporary housing development in established mature neighbourhoods. Study Actions: 1. Define and establish boundaries for the City's mature neighbourhoods following a detailed review of all of the urban neighbourhoods. 2. Gather background information on lot fabric including lot frontages, type of houses (singles, semis & townhouses), age of houses, size of houses, design issues (height & setbacks) and type of physical changes occurring within these neighbourhoods; the trends and factors influencing the changes. 3. Identify and evaluate the unique qualities and characteristics of each of the City's mature neighbourhoods and key issues regarding small scale infill & replacement housing that are a concern to residents in that area. Provide an opportunity for full public engagement with residents, agencies and the development industry, including focused consultation with each unique area. Identify practices of other municipalities which would be appropriate for application to specific areas within the City of Pickering. Review the City's Official Plan, Design Guidelines, and Zoning By-laws, for mature neighbourhoods and develop new and propose amendments as necessary, that respect community character and improve the ability to: a. manage replacement housing, infill of vacant lots and the creation of lots through severance; b. guide planning of infill and redevelopment through subdivision and condominium approval. 7. Make recommendations on the use of other controls such as site plan control, heritage conservation district designations as additional strategies to respect the distinct character of the City's mature neighbourhoods. 39 40 ATTACHMENT # / TO REPORT # PLM 16-t MAP 9 SOUTH PICKERING URBAN AREA NEIGHBOURHOODS Z FOUR W J S � TAUNTON ROAD FORESTREAM TRAIL TAUNTON LAKE ONTARIO 1 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DECEMBER, 2009 THIS AIAP FORMS PART OF C TT 6 ORF ATHE ICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN ANO IAUSBE ED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OTHER SCHEDULES AND THE TEM. 1. Rosebank 2. West Shore 3. Bay Ridges 4. Brock Industrial 5. Rougemount LEGEND 6. Woodlands 7. Dunbarton 8. Town Centre 9. Village East 10. Highbush 11. Amberlea 12. Liverpool 13. Brock Ridge 14. Rouge Park 15. Duffin Heights PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN EDITION 6: Chapter Two -- The Planning Framework 51 ATTACHMENT # TO REPoR1 P4, 1� Y7 Community Character and Infill Focus Group Tuesday, May 2, 2017 What makes your Neighbourhood distinct or unique? 1. Amberlea • peaceful • diversified community • traffic concerns 2. Bay Ridges — Krosno Blvd. • 1960's bungalows predominate • have not experienced the same level of change/intensification • neighbourhood stability 3. Duffin Heights • culturally diverse community • higher densities • narrower streets • parking an issue — cars hanging out over the curb into the street • small lots 4. Dunbarton — Appleview Road • likes seeing change and new big homes being built • infill is refreshing the street and the neighbourhood • detached homes • ditches 5. Liverpool — Glendale Road • mixed development — singles, semis, townhouses • former communities have been lost (Dunbarton, Fairport,...) need to protect remaining neighbourhoods • infill development has pretend front doors and does not address the street 6. Liverpool — Rosefield Road • small community • people used to know one another — however, this is changing • less communication 7. West Shore - Resident 1 • originally established as cottage country for residents from Toronto • streets lined with old trees • ditches • greenspace • only two roads in and out of the neighbourhood • diversification of housing Page 1 of 3 41 42 ATTACHMENT # .TO REPORT 4' _PLN I -q 8. West Shore — Resident 2 • distinctive • low density • long-term residents • no sidewalks • waterfront access • neighbours know one another • evolving to bedroom community • front porches important — people use the front of their houses • no need for community watch 9. West Shore — Resident 3 • beach community • walkable • people stop and chat • unique community feel 10. Whitevale • Whitevale is a personality rather than a neighbourhood • unique living space • know your neighbours — get together, do events, help them out when needed • focus around United Church • heritage conservation area • concern that sense of community will be lost with the development of Seaton • a number of young families have moved in • hard to duplicate Other matters discussed • by-laws need to be changed to address appropriate setbacks, heights, floor area • too many variances • Committee of Adjustment doesn't listen to the concerns of residents • planning by poor past precedents ® put in place tools to address massing and scale that is appropriate to the context of the neighbourhood • address shadowing and privacy issues • need to address visual aesthetics (cool versus warm appearance) Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # PSN 1 What are the challenges that your neighbourhood faces with infill and what do you view as important for the future? • concern that by-laws are allowing monster homes on small lots • want to see a mix of housing but limit monster homes • proud of community spirit and community programs — neighbourhood watch, Easter egg hunt • new homes cold and sterile • loss of diversity of housing • not proud of tall stone monster homes • not against change and new homes, just want to see it done right and complement and fit in with the neighbourhood • front porches are important • do more to encourage a sense of community and community spirit • new areas are being developed in a vertical sense rather than a horizontal sense resulting in parking problems • importance of ratepayer/neighbourhood associations some areas are changing more rapidly than others and are under greater threat • need to protect mature trees • need to limit building heights • provide clear standards for side, front and rear setbacks to address potential privacy and shadowing issues • chain link fences allow for neighbours to talk to one another from their backyards • do not like houses with garages out front • want consistency in standards for the design for infill which allow for limited variation • infill must be sensitive to the existing character of a neighbourhood • Whitevale is unique in that it is on private services which dictates the size of Tots • Whitevale is a different way to live, and is a cultural investment more attention needs to be paid to transportation Page 3 of 3 43 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT Community Character and Infill Focus Group Thursday, May 11, 2017 What makes your Neighbourhood distinct or unique? 1. City Centre — Diefenbaker Court • local amenities: the rec centre, civic centre, soccer fields, parks • local shopping: Loblaw's, Walmart • walkable neighbourhood — doesn't drive • access to transit • good for seniors 2. Liverpool — Storrington Street • lots of trees, older homes, land that backs onto the greenbelt • has a "country like atmosphere" • good community 3. Bay Ridges — Bayview Street • lots of small older homes (the old cottages) • on one side of the street is the old cottages, on the other is new houses • friendly neighbourhood — the neighbours all know each other, you can just walk over and knock on people's doors to say hi 4. Brock Ridge — Major Oaks Road • primarily street townhouses • there used be trees, but they have all died or been removed (ash borer) • narrow streets with cars parked on the streets, hanging off curbs — parking issues • not accessible for walking or transit • the community has changed much over the last 17 years — not all for the better 5. Fairport Beach/West Shore — Marksbury Road, West Shore Blvd, Cliffview Road • old cottages mixed with newer homes • no sidewalks, but little traffic — sidewalks not needed • nearby lake • access to the waterfront trail and greenbelt area • new homes are just starting to be built — concern with "monster homes" • new homes are out of character and their height and large decks infringe on neighbours' privacy • the area has a lot of history 6. Duffin Heights — Brandy Court • large mix of housing types • it is a new area with a very diverse community • need for a school in the neighbourhood 44 Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT # 3 TO RE POP Other matters discussed • parking issues on Major Oaks Road and poor by-law enforcement • the example of Brampton's design guidelines for infill development • poor implementation of the Pickering Official Plan • the renaming of old streets in the Fairport Beach community What are you proud of in your neighbourhood and what would you like to protect in the future? 1. Fairport Beach/West Shore — Marksbury Road, West Shore Blvd, Cliffview Road • house size and distance between houses is a priority — setbacks and privacy should be maintained into the future • a variety of front yard setbacks is good for making an interesting street • porches are important to create a good streetscape • fewer fences in the front yard to encourage resident interaction • the need to limit building heights • the need for strong tree preservation policies • the dirt and dust created during construction is an issue • the need to ensure adequate services are available and that stormwater management is considered in new developments • keep the naturalized open spaces — room for wildlife — natural corridors for deer • street signage recognizing the different historical communities of Pickering would be good for the community • eliminating some sidewalks would be good idea — forces drivers to slow down and pay attention — sidewalks are not needed everywhere (especially in some new communities) 2. Brock Ridge — Major Oaks Road • no big issue with "monster homes" in the neighbourhood • a mix of uses would be nice — would like more local commercial uses that you could walk to 3. Duffin Heights — Brandy Court • parking on the street should only be allowed on one side of the street, not both • would like to see fencing put up around natural features to prevent kids getting in and causing trouble • insufficient lighting along some paths 4. Bay Ridges — Bayview Street • general agreement with the Fairport Beach folks • would like to see some of the quaint little cottages maintained, but the pressure to develop is huge • affordability concerns if only large homes are available — lack of options for the younger generation 5. Liverpool — Storrington Street • too many stacked townhouses are being approved • would like to see more notification about local events Page2of3 45 ATTACHMENT # . TO REPORT # _OA 6. City Centre — Diefenbaker Court • maintain the parks and open space • would like to see more "open" trails and tracks — like in the hydro corridor — not obscured by trees Other matters discussed • Planning staff, Building staff and Engineering staff should be cross -trained to better deal with issues • concerns about the behavior of contractors — swearing, bad behavior during all hours of the day • poor by-law enforcement — cars parked illegally are rarely ticketed and there is no service on weekends • insufficient lighting and a dead lamp post have been left unaddressed for the past two years in Duffin Heights • kids using the nearby forest in Duffin Heights for drugs and alcohol • the City's website is not accessible — can't find information on development applications or construction occurring in neighbourhoods • not enough advertisement for community events • better and more signage is needed on-site for development applications • the City lacks the tools to control development — "developers calling the shots" • the City has design guidelines that are rarely followed — e.g. the townhouses on Wharf Street do not fit in with the Nautical Village • need to update the Zoning By-laws and implement Site Plan Control for residential properties 4 6 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT REPORT # �� i J ►1 Summary of Written Submissions Commenter Submission Summary Llewellyn Pereira Number of studies have been conducted on the subject of preserving community character. Three municipal examples and the University of Waterloo were cited. The submission also outlines some of the common findings of the various studies and key elements to preserve character. Craig Bamford An excerpt from the Brampton website regarding Mature Neighbourhood Area standards for additions and replacement housing, including a copy of the Guide to Applications — Site Plan Mature Neighbourhood Development and the Guide for Infill Housing in Mature Neighbourhoods from Brampton. Paul White Excerpt from City of Toronto website — Improving Response to Infill Construction Sites, which outlines the Toronto strategy to improve the City's response to minimize impacts of residential infill construction activity. 47 ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPOP T # - N i5-a Review of Other Municipal Practices Municipality Requirements for Infill/Replacement Housing Mississauga • Design Guidelines and Site Plan Requirements for New • • Dwellings, Replacement Housing and Additions to assist homeowners and architects with the design principles of site plan approval to ensure development is compatible with the character of existing low-rise neighbourhoods addresses the scale and character, massing, building height, materials, grades, garages, driveways and preservation and protection of the natural environment Brampton • • Guide for Infill Housing in Mature Neighbourhoods two distinct and defined geographic areas of the City • • • • Guide for homeowners and architects to inform design choices for new dwellings, replacement housing and additions (greater than 50 square metres) properties located in these areas are subject to site plan approval guide outlines the elements of neighbourhood character with examples using diagrams and pictures of what to consider and alternatively avoid, in considering design solutions includes building setbacks, height and massing, garage and driveway location, front entrance and landscaping Oakville • • • • Design Guidelines for Stable Residential Communities that set expectations for preferred design outcomes and assist in� assessing whether new development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood character of stable residential communities based upon the following guiding principles: sense of identity, compatibility, connectivity, sustainability, legacy and creativity apply to new residential dwellings and significant additions, subject to site plan control stable residential communities are specifically identified as low density residential areas on an Official Plan schedule Burlington • • • Site Plan Requirements and Urban Design Guidelines for low density residential zones new detached and semi-detached dwellings and additions greater than 75 square metres to existing detached and semi-detached dwellings are subject to site plan control within specific residential zones primary objective of the design guidelines and approval process is to ensure the design and site layout of dwellings retain and complement the overall character of the community's existing housing stock and natural areas 4 8 Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT REPORT Municipality Requirements for Infill/Replacement Housing ® Guidelines deal with general design considerations such as site layout; character and context; materials; height, mass and scale; garages and driveways; site grading; and boundary vegetation and city tree preservation Vaughan ® Draft Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development in 0 ® ® ® Established Low -Rise Residential Neighbourhoods that apply in the Stable Community Areas identified geographically on a map included in the guidelines is a companion document to the Vaughan Official Plan 201.0 established low-rise neighbourhoods are categorized as large, medium and small lot neighbourhoods general guidelines applicable to all lots and some that are specific to the lot size infill guidelines applicable for detached and semi-detached houses and separate guidelines applicable to townhouse units within low-rise residential neighbourhoods Halton Hills ® ® • Mature Neighbourhoods Character Study is underway, with the release of the Options and Proposed Recommendations Report in December 2016 objective of this study is to determine how to better accommodate residential replacement housing and additions while ensuring the character of the mature neighbourhood areas intent of the study is to ensure geographically defined areas within Georgetown and Acton, are maintained • Study involves review of existing Official Plan policies and Zoning By-law provisions including, building height, side yards, lot coverage, floor space index, driveways and tools such as tree protection Newmarket ® ® studied the intensification of stable residential areas, that are geographically identified on a detailed study map in response to a Council direction to review the compatibility of residential infill in established residential neighbourhoods ® Official Plan policies distinguish between Stable Residential ® ® Areas and Emerging Residential. Areas policies to protect Stable Residential Areas are intended to ensure new development is compatible with existing neighbourhood character results of this study have been amendments to the Zoning By-law regulating the building height, reducing the permitted lot coverage increasing the setbacks Page2of9 ATTACHMENT REPOR 1 Municipality Requirements for Infill/Replacement Housing Ottawa • Urban Design Guidelines for Low -Rise Infill Housing help implement design strategies outlined in the Ottawa Official Plan • Guidelines include photographs and sketches to illustrate various solutions for successful infill development • Guidelines address public streetscapes, landscaping, building design, parking and garages, heritage building alterations/additions and service elements (e.g. utility meters, transformers) Kitchener • completed Study on Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods • • Study reviewed the planning approval process for development in established neighbourhoods, to determine if changes were necessary & determine how to encourage compatible development number of changes to the Zoning By-law were recommended to recognize the character of development in established neighbourhoods • Zoning By-law regulations updated included: building height, garage width, projection and driveway width and front yard setback • Study suggested application of site plan control in certain designated neighbourhoods, for single detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings, as a pilot project • City will be undertaking a comprehensive review of the Urban Design Manual in 2017 which is intended to incorporate changes to guidelines affecting infill development 5 0 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT /i `PLN; 15-17 Applicable Policy Excerpts from Pickering Official Plan — Edition 6 The following specific Official Plan policies address the consideration of neighbourhood character: Policy 2.9, the City policy on Neighbourhoods states, City Council, (b) shall endeavour to maintain the different identities and characters of its neighbourhoods as they evolve over time. Policy 3.2, the City policy on Land Use Objectives states, City Council shall, (d) while maintaining the character of stable residential neighbourhoods, increase the variety and intensity of land uses and activities in the urban area, particularly on lands designated Mixed Use Area, Regional Nodes and Employment Areas; Policy 3.9, the City policy on Urban Residential Areas states, City Council, (c) in establishing performance standards, restrictions and provisions for Urban Residential Areas, shall have particular regard to the following, (i) Protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods, considering such matters as building height, yard setback, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking provisions and traffic implications. Policy 9.2, the City policy on Community Design Objectives states, To achieve the community design goal, City Council shall: (e) encourage developments that are designed to fit their contexts by considering the mix of uses, and the massing, height, scale, architectural style and details of existing, adjacent buildings; Policy 11.2, the City policy on Preparation of Urban Neighbourhood Plans states, City Council shall, (e) once development guidelines for a Detailed Review Area are adopted, shall ensure that any development proposal complies with the adopted guidelines (adopted guidelines area included in the Compendium Document to this Plan); Page 1 of 3 51 52 ATTACHMENT # ' TO REPORT # Policy 11..3, the Rosebank Neighbourhood policies state, City Council shall, (a) in the established residential areas along Bella Vista Drive, Dyson Road, Pine Ridge Road, Rodd Avenue, Rosebank Road, Rougemount Drive, Toynevale Road and Woodgrange Avenue encourage and where possible require new development to be compatible with the character of existing development. Policy 11.7, the Rougemount Neighbourhood policies state, City Council shall, (a) in the established residential areas along Woodview Drive, Twyn Rivers Drive, Sheppard Avenue and Rougemount Drive, encourage and where possible require new development to be compatible with the character of existing development. Policy 11.8, the Woodlands Neighbourhood policies state, City Council shall, (a) in the established residential areas along Highbush Trail, Old Forest Road, Rosebank Road and Sheppard Avenue, encourage and where possible require new development to be compatible with the character of existing development. (e) to provide direction for land use within the lands covered by the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines: (v) recognize the existing low density development on Sheppard Avenue, and to this end, require the design of new residential or commercial development to be compatible with existing development with respect to such matters as building heights, yard setbacks, building orientation and massing, access to sunlight and privacy; Policy 11.9, the Dunbarton Neighbourhood policies state, City Council shall, (a) in the established residential areas between Spruce Hill Road and Appleview Road, including Fairport Road and Dunbarton Road, encourage and where possible require new development to be compatible with the character of existing development. Policy 11.12, the Highbush Neighbourhood policies state, City Council shall, (a) in the established residential areas along Pine Grove Avenue and Woodview Avenue, encourage where possible require new development to be compatible with the character of existing development and preserve to the greatest extent possible significant vegetation, Page 2 of 3 1. ®� r$T TACf HM ilii LNfiTf y�✓1 �9�� l2�] REPORI E (v) which character is reflected by features included but not limited to: Tots with low lot coverage; the existing lot pattern; style and siting of dwellings; and the significant mature vegetation; and, (vi) to this end, City Council shall, in the introduction of new dwellings and creation of new Tots, use strategies including but not limited to: lower lot coverages, wider lot frontages, deeper lot depths, wider side yards, deeper front yards, lower building heights and lower densities along the existing older roads; density and lot frontage gradients between development fronting the existing older roads and development fronting new internal streets; buffering between new development and existing older development; careful establishment of lot lines, and siting of new dwellings to reflect existing building setbacks and yard depths, to assist in protection of significant vegetation; and tree preservation plans; Policy 13.10, the City policy on Design of Buildings states, City Council shall, (c) where new development is proposed within an existing neighbour or established area, encourage building designs that reinforce and complement existing built patterns such as form, massing, height, proportion, position relative to street, and building area to site area ratios; Page 3 of 3 53 01 Sample Zoning By-law Provisions for Detached Dwellings - Rosebank, West Shore & Bay Ridges Uses Permitted Minimum Lot Frontage Minimum Lot Area Minimum Front Yard Minimum Rear Yard Minimum Side Yard Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Building Height "R3" in 2511 Detached dwelling 18.0 m 550 sq. m 7.5 m 7.5 m One side 1.8 m Other side 3.0 m 33% With attached garage: 1.8 m "R4" in 2511 Detached dwelling 15.0 m 465 sq. m 7.5 m 7.5 m One side 1.5 m Other side 2.4 m 33% With attached garage: 1.5 m "R4-22" in Detached 16.0 m 460 sq. m 7.5 m 7.5 m 1.2 m 33% Between 9.0 m 2511, as dwelling or or or or and 10.7 amended by 14.0 m 4.5 m 2.0 m 40% 7312/13 "S" in 2511, as amended by 1001/79 Detached dwelling 15.0 m 17.0 m for corner lots 450 sq. m 6.0 m or 7.5 m 7.5 m 1.5 m 35% 12.0 m "R4" in 2520 Detached dwelling 15.0 m 465 sq. m 7.5 m 7.5 m One side 1.5 m Other side 2.4 m 33% 10.5 m With attached garage: 1.5 m Lands Covered by By -Law 2511 Li ier:pool G�, �driursf Heigh Rouge t,ilrsf e5 , Atrillage East Glenann escenl Highbush Brock Industrial Kollin() Strom Dunbar"•tvn Alljo t LS,rPPt Bay Ridges Qett- Creel, Rosebank MTV 0 BY-LAW 2511 L 1 BYLAW 2520 BY-LAW 3036 1:32,000 0.5 1 2 Kilometers i 1 PICKERING