Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 13, 2020Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda July 13, 2020 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Order to prohibit public events and limit gatherings, Pickering City Hall is currently closed to the public until further notice and this meeting will be held electronically. Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by accessing the livestream. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City’s website following the meeting. Page 1.Roll Call 2.Disclosure of Interest 3.Statutory Public Meetings Statutory Public Meetings are held to receive input and feedback on certain types of planning applications. Due to the need to hold electronic meetings during the COVID -19 pandemic, members of the public who wish to address the Planning & Development Committee for any matters listed under Statutory Public Meetings may do so via an audio connection into the electronic meeting. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca by 12:00 noon on the business day prior to the meeting. Please ensure that you provide the telephone number you wish to be called at so that you can be connected via audio when it is your turn to make a delegation. Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 3.1 Information Report No. 09-20 1 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/20 Universal City Six Developments Inc. Part of Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2, 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) 4.Delegations Due to COVID-19 and the closure of City Hall, members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Planning & Development Committee for any matters listed under Planning and Development Reports, may do so via electronic participation. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. Delegation requests must be received by Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda July 13, 2020 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca noon on the last business day before the scheduled meeting. All delegations for items not listed on the agenda shall register ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the Chair and invited to join the meeting via audio connection. A maximum of 10 minutes shall be allotted for each delegation. Please ensure you provide the phone number that you wish to be contacted on. Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the publi c record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 4.1 Stewart Stevenson Re: Report PLN 13-20 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19 - Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. - (591 Liverpool Road) 4.2 Glenn Brown Re: Report PLN 13-20 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19 - Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. - (591 Liverpool Road) 4.3 Adrian Patrascu Re: Report PLN 13-20 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19 - Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. - (591 Liverpool Road) 4.4 Christopher Lundy Re: Report PLN 13-20 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19 - Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. - (591 Liverpool Road) Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda July 13, 2020 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 4.5 Ainsley Perez Re: Report PLN 13-20 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19 - Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. - (591 Liverpool Road) 4.6 Yvonne Polonsky Re: Report PLN 13-20 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19 - Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. - (591 Liverpool Road) 5. Planning & Development Reports 5.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 12-20 25 The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan: - Transportation System Discussion Paper, October 2019 Recommendation: 1. Beyond the “In Delivery” and “In Development” transit projects, City staff identifies the following transit projects that would assist in attracting transit riders and transit supportive development: a) the establishment of the Whites Road Priority Bus, extending from the Pickering GO Station along Bayly Street to Whites Road to Highway 7 (and providing connections to lands in Seaton designated high density residential and Community Node, and to lands in the Seaton Innovation Corridor); b) the implementation of light rail transit along Kingston Road; and, c) the extension of GO rail service to Seaton. 2. Staff recommends that the Region only designate Regional Corridors adjacent to the arterial road corridors that are part of the High Frequency Transit Network; Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda July 13, 2020 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 3. Staff recommends that Transit Oriented Development policies and guidelines for Strategic Growth Areas (SGA) be tailored to the planned level of transit service, providing there is sufficient flexibility at the area municipal level to respect the local context of the specific SGA; 4. Staff supports the development of strategic and transportation - related policies in furtherance of Transit Oriented Development in Major Transit Station Areas, similar to those currently applied to Regional Centres; 5. Staff advises that a key issue that needs to be addressed to increase ridership from transit-supportive development is to allow closer traffic signal spacing to facilitate pedestrian crossings; 6. Staff supports the designation of additional Transit Hubs in the Regional Official Plan, corresponding with designated or future Urban Growth Centres, Regional Centres, or Major Transit Station Area, and providing there is sufficient flexibility at the area municipal level to respect the local context of the specific location; 7. Staff advises that when assessing new development, and reconstructing or building new public roads, new Regional Official Plan policies that would better support planning for all road users include: a) policies indicating that a “complete street” includes the provision of sidewalks/multi use paths, boulevard planting and street lighting, and that it is a Regional responsibility to provide the pedestrian/cycling, planting and street lighting components of a complete street on Regional roads; b) policies allowing closer entrance and intersection spacing along arterials; and, c) policies allowing closer traffic signal spacing along arterials to assist pedestrian crossings, and in keeping with transit- supportive development; Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda July 13, 2020 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 8. Staff advises that the Regional Official Plan could recognize or plan for enhanced trail connections through areas such as hydro corridors, by including: a) an informational map in the Regional Official Plan showing existing cycling and pedestrian trail networks, identifying gaps and opportunities; and, b) a policy encouraging stakeholders (such as the area municipalities, conservation authorities, cycling and trail associations and committees, etc.) to collaborate with the Region to pursue new cycling/trail connections. 9. Staff supports incorporating into the Regional Official Plan future right-of-way width requirements for specific segments of arterial roads, particularly those sections within or adjacent to Strategic Growth Areas, as this may assist with development application review and Class Environmental Assessments (Class EA); 10. Staff advise that it is appropriate that the Regional Official Plan address using an integrated Class EA and Planning Act process in new growth areas to optimize the alignment and design of arterial roads as the combined processes would allow for a comprehensive evaluation, reduce duplication in meeting Provincial requirements, and expedite development; 11. With regards to the Region continuing its support for carpooling, staff recommends the Region: a) play a larger role in the provision of purpose-built commuter lots beyond the Small Urban and Rural Carpool Lot Program to implement commuter lots along major arterial roads and highways; b) continue its role engaging with area municipalities and businesses to promote carpooling programs in key destinations that provide connectivity to transit and active transportation networks both within and between municipalities in the GTHA; and, Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda July 13, 2020 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca c) seek the use of more social media tools and real-time information to facilitate user participation and parking availability to enhance the effectiveness of carpool programs; 12. Staff identifies that the potential implications of emerging technologies on the Region’s transportation system may include: a) opportunities to adapt existing infrastructure to improve mobility options, such as taking away a vehicular lane and reallocating it for cyclist and pedestrians; b) continued transformation and impacts to industry, labour, and consumer behaviour, and the resulting changes in travel patterns; c) increased demand for secure, reliable and widespread broadband infrastructure across the Region so that the many technologies (such as on-demand travel options for Uber or Lyft, car and bike sharing, etc.) are available to all; d) reduced individual auto use and ownership, and decreased share of transit users as users take advantage of the increase in fast, flexible, and convenient mobility options; e) an increasing need for well connected and integrated physical transportation infrastructure so that users can easily transfer between transportation services and modes; and , f) increased disparity between lower and higher income communities, as many of the emerging technologies may be more expensive than traditional public transportation (since they require the use of a smart phone and internet connection). 13. Staff recommends that, in addition to supporting the Regional economic role of the ports, the Regional Official Plan also include a policy about the importance of maintaining the safety, security, and environmental protection of these waterfront employment lands to ensure the long-term use of the lands and future expansions or redevelopment, as necessary; Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda July 13, 2020 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 14. Staff recommends that supporting the Strategic Goods Movement while preserving a complete streets approach include design standards that not only best manage the movement of goods (e.g., implementing street elements for loading and deliveries, traffic calming, off-hour delivery programs), but also supports Durham Vision Zero to mitigate pedestrian/cyclist and freight conflicts; 15. Staff suggests the Region consider introducing an electric mobility strategy in relation to infrastructure, land use, and goods movement strategies as part of the Transportation System; 16. The Region is requested to assist Pickering in: a) working with VIA Rail and Metrolinx to implement high frequency service on the CPR Havelock rail line; and, b) identifying the appropriate location for a VIA Rail station along the CPR Havelock rail line within, or in proximity, to the Federal Pickering Lands as part of the transportation system component of Envision Durham. 17. The Region is requested to support Pickering’s interest in establishing a VIA Rail stop at the Pickering GO Statio n to help increase higher order transit connections to and from the Region. 5.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 13-20 46 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19 - Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. - (591 Liverpool Road) Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19 -001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19, submitted by Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. to facilitate the development of a mixed -use development consisting of two 15-storey condominium apartment buildings located on lands municipally known as 591 Liverpool Road; be refused; and, Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda July 13, 2020 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 2. That if the applications are appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, that Council authorizes City staff, its outside legal counsel and outside experts in the fields of planning, transportation, environmental, urban design and other specialties, as may be required, to present and defend Council’s position on Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19 001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19, submitted by Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 09-20 Date: July 13, 2020 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/20 Universal City Six Developments Inc. Part of Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2, 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding an application for Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Universal City Six Developments Inc., to permit a high-density residential condominium building. 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. Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision on this application is 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 property is located at the northwest corner of Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road within the City Centre (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The property has an area of approximately 0.404 of a hectare with approximately 66.0 metres of frontage along Bayly Street and 41.0 metres of frontage along Sandy Beach Road. A detached dwelling currently occupies the subject property, which is proposed to be demolished. Surrounding land uses include (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2): North: Immediately to the north is a surface parking lot, owned by Metrolinx that is currently being used for the Pickering GO Station. East: Across Sandy Beach Road is an industrial building, occupied by FedEx and further east are multi-tenant industrial buildings. South: Across Bayly Street is an established low-density residential neighbourhood. At the southwest corner of Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road is a multi-tenant commercial plaza. - 1 - Information Report No. 09-20 Page 2 West: Immediately to the west is the Universal City mixed-use development consisting of 5 towers ranging in heights between 17-storeys and 50-storeys, and will introduce approximately 2,057 new residential units and approximately 2,417 square metres of commercial/retail space at grade. Applications for Site Plan Approval have been submitted for Buildings 1, 2 and 3, which are currently under review. 3.Applicant’s Proposal Universal City Six Developments Inc. has applied for a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the construction of a 25-storey residential condominium building consisting of 286 units. Subsequent to the applicant’s submission, on June 24, 2020, the applicant amended their rezoning application to permit the construction of a 26-storey residential condominium building consisting of 297 units (see Submitted Concept Plan and Submitted Renderings, Attachments #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7). The proposal will form Phase Six of the Universal City Master Plan Development (see Master Plan for Universal City, Attachment #8). The table below summarizes the key details of the proposal: Provision Proposal Net Developable Areas 0.333 of a hectare Gross Floor Area (GFA) 24,641 square metres Net Floor Area (NFA) 22,239 square metres Number of Residential Units 297 residential units, including 1 guest suite Residential Density approximately 892 units per net hectare Floor Space Index (FSI) 5.5 (based on proposed amendments to definitions for Net Floor Area and FSI) Tower Floor Plate Size 850 square metres Number of Storeys and Building Heights 26 storeys (75 metres) Unit Types 1 bedroom: 177 units 2 bedroom: 119 units Guest suite: 1 unit - 2 - Information Report No. 09-20 Page 3 Provision Proposal Vehicular Parking Resident – 213 spaces at a ratio of 0.71 parking spaces per unit (all located within a 3-level underground parking garage) Visitor – 45 spaces at a ratio of 0.15 parking spaces per unit (11 surface spaces and 247 spaces within the underground parking garage) Bicycle Parking 149 spaces Amenity Area Indoor – 592 square metres Outdoor – 592 square metres Total – 1,184 square metres Vehicular access to and from the site is from Sandy Beach Road. The main entrance to the residential building is located at the rear of the building, and a secondary entrance, which connects to municipal sidewalks, is located at the southwest corner of Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road. The submitted concept plan identifies a 10 metre wide road widening along the entire frontage of Bayly Street and a daylighting triangle to be conveyed to the Region of Durham to facilitate the future widening of Bayly Street. The ground floor consists of: a residential lobby; four residential units with associated outdoor private amenity space facing Sandy Beach Road; indoor bicycle storage area, garbage and loading areas; and, indoor and outdoor amenity areas adjacent to Bayly Street. On different levels of the residential building, the applicant is proposing to include green roofs, as a sustainable development feature. Indoor and outdoor amenity space s are proposed on the fifth floor, including an outdoor swimming pool. To facilitate the proposal, the applicant is requesting site-specific exceptions to the City Centre Zoning By-law. The list of requested amendments is outlined in Section 4.4 of this report. An application for Site Plan Approval has been submitted and is currently under review. 4.Policy Framework 4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Growth Centre in the Regional Official Plan. Urban Growth Centres (UGCs) are focal points for intensive urban development and the main concentrations of institutional, public services, major office, commercial, recreational, residential, entertainment and cultural uses. They also serve as major employment centres and shall accommodate a minimum density target of 200 persons and jobs per gross hectare and a floor space index (FSI) of 3.0. The built form in UGCs should be a mix of predominantly high-rise with some mid-rise development. - 3 - Information Report No. 09-20 Page 4 4.2 The subject lands are within a Regional Corridor in the Regional Official Plan. Regional Corridors shall be planned and developed in accordance with the underlying land use designation, as higher-density mixed-use areas, supporting higher-order transit services and pedestrian-oriented design. Regional Corridors are intended to support an overall, long-term density target of at least 60 residential units per gross hectare and an FSI of 2.5, with a wide variety of building forms, generally mid-rise in height, with some higher buildings, as detailed in municipal official plans. Bayly Street is designated as a Type ‘A’ Arterial Road in the Regional Official Plan. Type 'A' Arterial Roads are designed to carry large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speeds and connect to freeways and arterial roads. The right-of-way width requirement for Type ‘A’ arterial roads is 36 to 45 metres. Sandy Beach Road is a local road. Local roads generally provide access to individual properties, and to other local or collector roads. Local roads have a right-of-way width of up to 20 metres. Vehicular access to the site will be provided from Sandy Beach Road. The proposal generally conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan. Pickering Official Plan In July 2014, Council approved Official Plan Amendment 26 (OPA 26), which introduced new designations and policies and changed existing policies to create a framework for the redevelopment and intensification of the City Centre. OPA 26 was approved with modifications by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on March 4, 2015, and has been in full force and effect since then. Subsequent to the approval of the City Centre Zoning By-law, on June 12, 2017, Council approved Official Plan Amendment 29 (OPA 29) to remove the density cap for the City Centre. The removal of the cap will allow developers within the City Centre greater flexibility to provide a variety of residential unit sizes while having consideration for matters such as housing affordability, tenure, and market demand. The subject lands are designated “Mixed Use Areas – City Centre” within the Pickering Official Plan. This designation permits high-density residential uses, retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants, hotels, convention centres, community, cultural and recreational uses, community gardens and farmers’ markets. The designation has a minimum net residential density of 80 units per hectare and no maximum density; a maximum gross leasable floorspace for the retailing of goods and services of up to and including 300,000 square metres; and, a maximum FSI of over 0.75 and up to and including 5.75. The proposal has a density of 715 units per net hectare, and an FSI of 5.31 based on the proposed amendments to definitions for Net Floor Area and FSI, which is discussed further in Section 4.4 of this report. OPA 26 introduced various new policies for the City Centre Neighbourhood with respect to enhancements to the public realm; active uses at grade; performance criteria for tall buildings to minimize adverse impacts concerning shadowing, sky view and privacy; transition to established low-density development; and pedestrian network and mobility. The key policies within the City Centre neighbourhood as it relates to the proposal are summarized in Attachment #9 to this report. - 4 - Information Report No. 09-20 Page 5 The applicants’ proposal will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Official Plan during the further processing of the application. 4.3 Pickering City Centre Urban Design Guidelines The City Centre Urban Design Guidelines (UDG) provide design direction for intensification, to guide buildings and private development, as well as investments in public infrastru cture in the City Centre. Some of the key guiding principles of the UDG include: make the City Centre highly walkable, with new streets and pathways, a compact block pattern, traffic calming measures, and visually interesting streetscapes; encourage a mix of land uses to create vitality at all times of the day, by enhancing the range of activities, amenities and uses that will attract and serve all ages for all seasons; offer distinct living options, urban in format, and in close proximity to shopping, entertainment, culture, and work; and create bold entry-points to City Centre through design excellence in architecture, public art and public plazas at key gateway locations and areas of high visibility. The key urban design objectives with respect to built form, site design, landscaping, building design, and pedestrian connections as it relates to the proposal are summarized in Attachment #10 to this Report. 4.4 City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17 The subject lands are zoned “City Centre Two – CC2” within the City Centre By-law 7553/17, as amended. Uses permitted include a broad range of residential and non-residential uses, such as apartment dwellings, townhouse dwellings, commercial, office, retail, community, recreational and institutional uses. The applicant is requesting the following site-specific amendments to facilitate the proposed development: increase the maximum permitted building height from 47 metres (approximately 15 storeys) to 75 metres (approximately 26 storeys); reduce the residential parking rate from 0.8 parking spaces per dwelling unit to 0.71 parking spaces per dwelling unit; reduce the main wall stepback from the building along Sandy Beach Road from 3.0 metres to 0.5 of a metre; and reduce the minimum building setback from the daylight triangle from 0.6 of a metre to 0.25 of a metre. In addition to the requested site-specific amendments above, the applicant is also requesting to introduce a new definition for “Net Floor Area” and to amend the definition for “Floor Space Index” to exclude inhabitable floor space from the calculation of FSI. The existing zoning on the lands permits the applicant to include the future road widening along Bayly Street in the calculation of FSI. - 5 - Information Report No. 09-20 Page 6 As part of the City Centre Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/19, to facilitate the joint venture project between the City of Pickering and OPB Realty Inc., the City introduced a new Net Floor Area definition (NFA) and a revised Floor Space Index definition. Council approved the City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment in September 2019, but the decision was appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) by CAPREIT. Given the evolving COVD-19 situation, the Case Management Conference scheduled for April 9, 2020, was postponed and a revised date has not been issued by LPAT. Given the By-law is not in effect, the applicant has requested that the new NFA and revised FSI definitions be included as a site-specific amendment as part of their rezoning application (see Proposed Definitions, Attachment #11). 5.Comments Received 5.1 Public comments Comments in opposition to the proposed 25-storey residential building were received from 2 residents. The residents stated the proposed building is too large for the parcel of land; it would negatively impact the existing streetscape and views; and, the building design does not harmonize with the architectural design of the other Universal City phases of development. 5.2 City Department Comments 5.2.1 Engineering Services Engineering Services has no objection to the requested rezoning application, but has requested the following information be provided : an updated Geotechnical Investigation Report for the revised proposal; an alternative strategy to address foundation drainage for the site; a comprehensive Hydrogeological Report for the entire Universal City Master Plan; and a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report with corrected design and calculations. 5.2.2 Fire Services As of writing this report, no comments have been received from Fire Services. 5.3 Agency Comments 5.3.1 Region of Durham As of writing this report, no comments have been received from the Region of Durham. 5.3.2 Durham District School Board (DDSB) As of writing this report, no comments have been received from DDSB. 5.3.3 Durham Catholic District School Board Durham Catholic District School Board has no objections with the proposal ; and students from this development will attend Father Fenelon Catholic Elementary School and St. Mary Catholic Secondary School.- 6 - Information Report No. 09-20 Page 7 6.Planning & Design Section Comments The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date. These matters, and others identified through the circulation and detailed review of the proposal, are required to be addressed by the applicant before a final recomme ndation report to Planning & Development Committee: ensuring conformity with the City of Pickering Official Plan and the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines; ensuring sufficient parkland is provided to all future residents for the Universal City Master Plan; assessing the suitability and appropriateness of the site for the proposed increase in height; reviewing the requested site-specific exceptions to ensure the proposed design of the building maintains the general intent and purpose of the City Centre Zoning By-law and the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines; ensuring the architectural treatments of the building are enhanced (e.g., architectural projections, use of high-quality building materials, glazing, transparent windows at street level) given that the site is located at a corner location; evaluating the locations, size and functionality of the proposed private and public amenity space, and reviewing whether the outdoor amenity area is sufficiently screened to mitigate negative impacts caused by wind; and reviewing the resident and visitor parking standards proposed and ensure that sufficient parking is provided to support the proposal. 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 department, agencies and public. 7.Information Received Full-scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: Planning Justification Report, prepared by Weston Consulting, dated February 2020; Sustainable Development Report, prepared by Weston Consulting, dated February 3, 2020; Urban Design Brief, prepared by Weston Consulting, dated February 2020 ; Land Use Compatibility Summary Letter, prepared by Weston Consulting, dated March 13, 2020; Architectural Drawing Package, prepared by Kirkor Architects and Planners, dated February 3, 2020; Civil Drawing Package, prepared by Schaeffers Consulting Engineers, dated January 31, 2020; Environmental Noise Feasibility Study, prepared by HGC Engineering, dated January 29, 2020; Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, prepared by Schaeffers Consulting Engineers, dated January 2020; - 7 - Information Report No. 09-20 Page 8 Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by Alston Associates Inc., dated February 22, 2016; Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Terrapex, dated September 4, 2019; Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Terrapex, dated September 4, 2019; Urban Transportation Considerations, prepared by BA Group, dated February 3, 2020 ; and Final Pedestrian Level Wind Study, prepared by Theakston Environmental, dated January 17, 2020. 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 Electronic Statutory Public Meeting all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Recommendation 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 8.2 Owner/Applicant Information The owner of the property is Universal City Six Developments Inc. and is represented by Weston Consulting. Attachments 1.Location Map 2.Air Photo Map 3.Submitted Concept Plan 4.Submitted Rendering – Looking North West 5.Submitted Rendering – Looking North (South Elevation) 6.Submitted Rendering – Looking North East 7.Submitted Rendering – Entrance from Bayly Street 8.Master Plan for Universal City 9.City Centre Neighbourhood Policies Related to the Proposal 10.City Centre Urban Design Guidelines Related to the Proposal 11.Proposed Definitions - 8 - Information Report No. 09-20 Page 9 Prepared By: Tanjot Bal Original Signed By: Planner II Original Signed By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design TB:NS:ld Date of Report: June 26, 2020 Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner - 9 - Pickering Park w a y Tatra Dr i ve Drava StreetKr o s n o B o u le va rd Rey t a n B o u le va rd SandyBeachRoadBayly Street Morden Lan e Poprad Av e n u eAlliance RoadFordon A v e nu e Highway 401 MitchelPark Bayview HeightsPublic School 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license 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.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: A 01/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jun. 16, 2020 Universal City Six Development Inc.Pt Lt 21, Con 1 S Now; Pt 2 40R-18785(1010 Sandy Beach Road) SubjectProperty L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2020\A 01-20 Universal City (Phase 6)\A01_20_LocationMap.mxd Attachment #1 to Information Report 09-20 - 10 - Pickering P a r k w a y Tatra Dr i ve Drava StreetKrosno Bou leva rd Reytan Bou leva rd SandyBeachRoadBayly Street Morden L a n e Poprad AvenueAlliance RoadFordon A ve nu e Highway 4 0 1 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license 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.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Air Photo MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jun. 16, 2020 SubjectProperty L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2020\A 01-20 Universal City (Phase 6)\A01_20_AirPhoto.mxd A 01/20 Universal City Six Development Inc. Pt Lt 21, Con 1 S Now; Pt 2 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) Attachment #2 to Information Report 09-20 - 11 - -04;ll/­P1CKER1NG City Development Department L:\Planning\01-MapFlles\A\2020 JAA,N8f� �OFUIO ----r i - • i � :! ! i i� � � ' '!'1 ! .,._,....,..,.... ...... -�--cirr� -· ,j••u•""'•- 26STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING I 297 UNITS BAYLY STREET Submitted Concept Plan File No: A 01 /20 Applicant: Universal City Six Development Inc. ft Property Description: Pt Lt 21, Con 1 S Now; Pt 2 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: June 15, 2020 Attachment #3 to Information Report 09-20 - 12 - /?3ODQQLQJ?0DS)LOHV?$?-XQH'$7($SSOLFDQW3URSHUW\'HVFULSWLRQ)LOH1R6XEPLWWHG5HQGHULQJ/RRNLQJ1RUWK:HVW)8//6&$/(&23,(62)7+,63/$1$5($9$,/$%/()259,(:,1*$77+(&,7<2)3,&.(5,1*&,7<'(9(/230(17'(3$570(17&LW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW$8QLYHUVDO&LW\6L['HYHORSPHQW,QF3W/W&RQ61RZ3W5 6DQG\%HDFK5RDG Attachment #4 to Information Report 09-20- 13 - /?3ODQQLQJ?0DS)LOHV?$?-XQH'$7($SSOLFDQW3URSHUW\'HVFULSWLRQ)LOH1R6XEPLWWHG5HQGHULQJ/RRNLQJ1RUWK 6RXWK(OHYDWLRQ )8//6&$/(&23,(62)7+,63/$1$5($9$,/$%/()259,(:,1*$77+(&,7<2)3,&.(5,1*&,7<'(9(/230(17'(3$570(17&LW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW$8QLYHUVDO&LW\6L['HYHORSPHQW,QF3W/W&RQ61RZ3W5 6DQG\%HDFK5RDG Attachment #5 to Information Report 09-20- 14 - /?3ODQQLQJ?0DS)LOHV?$?-XQH'$7($SSOLFDQW3URSHUW\'HVFULSWLRQ)LOH1R6XEPLWWHG5HQGHULQJ/RRNLQJ1RUWK(DVW)8//6&$/(&23,(62)7+,63/$1$5($9$,/$%/()259,(:,1*$77+(&,7<2)3,&.(5,1*&,7<'(9(/230(17'(3$570(17&LW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW$8QLYHUVDO&LW\6L['HYHORSPHQW,QF3W/W&RQ61RZ3W5 6DQG\%HDFK5RDG Attachment #6 to Information Report 09-20- 15 - /?3ODQQLQJ?0DS)LOHV?$?-XQH'$7($SSOLFDQW3URSHUW\'HVFULSWLRQ)LOH1R6XEPLWWHG5HQGHULQJ(QWUDQFHIURP%D\O\6WUHHW)8//6&$/(&23,(62)7+,63/$1$5($9$,/$%/()259,(:,1*$77+(&,7<2)3,&.(5,1*&,7<'(9(/230(17'(3$570(17&LW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW$8QLYHUVDO&LW\6L['HYHORSPHQW,QF3W/W&RQ61RZ3W5 6DQG\%HDFK5RDG Attachment #7 to Information Report 09-20- 16 - 0 Cl) z 0 (") m� \ \ UC-4 I SO S0!.4 PUBUC SOI/ARE I \ADJACENT DEVE.LDPEMENT I I \ • D BAYLY STREET --O�o/-­p](KERJNG Master Plan for Universal City File No: A 01 /20 Applicant: Universal City Six Development Inc. UC-6 ; 26 storeys City Development Department Property Description: Pt Lt 21, Con 1 S Now; Pt 2 40R-18785 l'.\Planning\01-MapFlleslA\2020 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) FUU SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CllY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: June 15, 2020 Attachment #8 to Information Report 09-20 - 17 - City Centre Neighbourhood Policies Related to the Proposal Encourage the highest mix and intensity of uses and activates in the City to be in this neighbourhood. Encourage the development of streetscapes, public spaces and pedestrian routes that are safe and comfortable for all genders and ages, accessible and easy to navigate regardless of physical ability. Encourage street-facing façades to have adequate entrances and windows facing the street. Encourage publicly accessible outdoor and indoor spaces where people can gather. Encourage new development to be designed, located and massed in such a way that it limits any shadowing on the public realm, parks and public spaces in order to achieve adequate sunlight and conform in the public realm through all four seasons. Shall strive to locate either a park or square, within a 5 minute walk of all residences and places to work located within the City Centre. Require active frontages at grade along Bayly Street. Require new development in close proximity to established low density residential areas to be gradually transitioned in height. Consider in review of development applications for buildings taller than 5 -storeys, the following performance criteria: that buildings be massed in response to the scale of surrounding buildings, nearby streets and public open spaces; that upper levels of buildings be set back or a podium and point tower form be introduced to help create a human scale at street level; that shadowing impacts on surrounding development, publicly accessible open spaces and sidewalks be mitigated/minimized to the extent feasible; that sufficient spacing be provided between the building face of building towers to provide views, privacy for residents and to minimize any shadowing and wind tunnel impacts on surrounding development, streets and public spaces; that buildings be oriented to optimize sunlight and amenity for dwellings, private open spaces, adjoining open spaces and sidewalks; that living areas, windows and private open spaces be located to minim ize the potential for overshadowing adjoining residential properties; that informal or passive surveillance of streets and other public open spaces be maximized by providing windows to overlook street and public spaces and using level changes, floor and balcony spaces elevated above the street level to allow views from residential units into adjacent public spaces whilst controlling views into these units; and that protection be provided for pedestrians in public and private spaces from wind down drafts. Attachment #9 to Information Report 09-20 - 18 -  Select transit junctions and related pedestrian connections as priority areas for design excellence and capital improvements including landscaping, public seating, weather protection and public art.  Require new development adjacent to the transit junction to be designed to frame the junctions with active uses at grade and entrances oriented towards them .  Require the redevelopment of properties fronting Bayly Street to dedicate lands for future road widening that includes a minimum 3.0 metres wide multi-use path.  Consider in the review of development applications, the following performance criteria with regard to on-site parking and access drives/aisles:  that parking be situated either in parking areas located at the rear or side of the building or on-street, where the development fronts on a collector or local road;  that the parking format be structured or below grade parking;  in phased development, that surface parking may be permitted if the proponent has demonstrated how parking will be accommodated in structures at full build out;  that where active uses at grade are required, parking structures feature active uses at grade to contribute to an animated street environment;  that parking structures be treated architecturally as building fronts with no blank walls;  that shared parking be encouraged in mixed use areas to minimize land devoted to parking;  that the implementing zoning by-law may permit a reduction of customer parking for ground floor commercial uses through the provision of on-street parking;  that surface parking areas be well landscaped and lit to provide a safe and comfortable pedestrian environment; and  that access driveways to side and rear parking areas be consolidated where practical, and be accessible by a public laneway or drive aisle. - 19 - City Centre Urban Design Guidelines Related to the Proposal Site Design The design of sites and buildings shall seek to create and enhance view portals and vistas of parks and signature buildings within the City Centre. Site grades shall be matched to the street grade and surrounding properties, where possible. The placement and orientation of buildings should define and augment the public realm (streets and open spaces) and places on properties where routes and people congregate, such as private squares. The coordination of building location along a street edge and the placement of buildings on prominent corners help create an active and attractive streetscape. Buildings shall be aligned to contribute to a consistent street wall with minimal gaps or courts between buildings, except to allow for pedestrian access to internal lanes, walkways. Throughout the City Centre, the building face shall be articulated through recessions, projections and change of materials. Buildings on Major Streets shall have a minimum of 40 percent of transparent windows at street level, with clearly marked building entrances connected to the public sidewalks in order to create visual interest for pedestrians. The ground floor shall be occupied by a mix of active uses such as restaurants, retail, personal service and other similar uses to animate the street edge. The installation of awnings or canopies is encouraged to provide weather protection and to animate storefronts. These elements may project over the sidewalk subject to the f ollowing criteria: that safe unobstructed clearance be provided for pedestrians retractable awnings are encouraged because they provide greater flexibility and control for business over sun and shadow impacts and during storm events or heavy snow falls; and that encroachment agreements be entered into with the Region of Durham or the City of Pickering where canopies or awnings extend over the sidewalk or public right-of-way. Building setbacks may vary between 1.0 metre and 4.0 metres to maintain a visually consistent streets edge. Building setbacks could be increased to create public accessible open spaces such as court yards or plazas along a streetline. Within setbacks of buildings with residential at grade, semi-private open space, such as yards or landscaped area, will act as amenity and/or a privacy buffer for at grade residential units, or the residential units may be slightly elevated from the sidewalk in order to assure privacy and security. For buildings 8 storeys in height or greater, a minimum building separation of 18.0 metres is required, but it may be reduced if there are no primary windows in the wall facing an abutting building. Tower portions of a building (those over 12 storeys) are subject to a minimum tower separation distance of 24.0 metres, to provide outlook, daylight access and privacy for residents. Attachment #10 to Information Report 09-20 - 20 -  In order to encourage public activity at street level along Major Streets and Pedestrian Streets with required active frontages at grade, building entrances should be provided generally at a minimum of every 18.0 to 20.0 metres.  The design of pedestrian walkways on-site shall seek direct connectivity to adjacent public spaces, transit stops and amenities.  Primary entrances of buildings along the street edge shall be encouraged to face the streets. Entrances at grade should be highly visible, accentuated through design, and of appropriate scale to their function and frequency of use.  Weather protection should be incorporated into new development, with particular attention along Pedestrian Streets. Such features may include: inset lobbies, architectural projections, canopies, and awnings. Recessed frontages such as arcades and colonnades are generally discouraged.  Inactive areas within a building, such as storage, corridors and vacant areas, are strongly discouraged in building frontages on Major Streets.  Pedestrian walkways between building entrances and the street shall have a minimum width of 1.8 metres, be barrier-free and provide curb ramps at grade changes with minimum cross gradient.  Pedestrian-scaled lighting shall be encouraged along pedestrian walkways to improve security and visibility.  Landscaping elements such as planters or benches shall be encouraged along pedestrian walkways to define the paths and to create an attractive and pleasant pedestrian realm.  Any surface parking areas, drive-aisle and accesses will be located at the rear and sides of development, and shall generally not exceed 30 percent of the total width of any street frontage of a lot.  Access to parking and automobile drop-off areas will be designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflict. The number of vehicular access points will be kept to a minimum to reduce potential conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles.  Parking lots shall be appropriately lit to provide safety a nd safe passage. Lighting shall be designed to minimize light pollution.  Adequate short-term bicycle parking should be provided at grade for larger developments. At grade short-term bicycle parking should be located close to building entrances (residential lobbies, retail store entrances and office entrances).  Loading areas shall be located at the side or the rear of buildings, or below grade or within the building where feasible.  Waste and recycling facilities shall be fully enclosed and encouraged to be integrated with the principal building on a site.  Internal routes to loading areas and waste and recycling facilities are encouraged to be designed to avoid crossing primary vehicular circulation routes and walkways.  Transformer vaults, utility meters and other services shall be located within the building and/or internal to the site and away from public view. - 21 -  Service and utility areas shall be concealed with fencing, screens, and landscaping, and use materials that coordinate or blend with the main structure. Cluster or group utilities to minimize the visual and other impacts on the streetscape and public spaces.  Building exhaust and other service intake or output vents shall be located and concealed to avoid impact on public sidewalks, outdoor spaces a nd adjacent development. Service intake vents shall generally not project 1.2 metres above finished grade and no closer than 4.0 metres to a street line.  At least 10 percent of each lot shall be landscaped.  A landscape buffer of at least 3.0 metres wide shall be encouraged along surface parking lots situated adjacent to a street, to limit its visual impact on the public realm, to ensure a safe and comfortable pedestrian realm, and to mitigate stormwater runoff from paved areas.  Landscape buffers or landscaping within properties shall include a combination of indigenous deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs that are hardy, tolerant to de-icing agents; and adaptable to urban conditions. Building Design  The shadow impacts of buildings on public open spaces and private amenity areas shall be minimized.  Structured underground parking is preferred over surface parking, where possible and feasible, to promote compact development and to reduce the urban heat-island effect. Structured above grade parking with high quality architectural and landscape treatment that is visually and physically designed to be part of a larger development, is also acceptable  Design buildings with a defined base, middle and top section to emphasize human scale dimensions, reduce appearance of bulk and to create an interesting skyline.  The base component (podium) of a building generally establishes the height of the street wall along a street and establishes human scale at the street level. The building podium should be at least 3 storeys before any building step-backs are introduced.  The middle component of a building generally constitutes the bulk of the building and typically consists of office or residential uses. The floor plate above the podium shall not exceed 850 square metres.  The top of a building is where the building wall meets the roof. The top of towers should be attractively designed using setbacks, articulation and other means to contribute positively to the skyline. The tower tops should screen rooftop mechanical equipm ent through roof parapets or by incorporating mechanical penthouses and elevator cores into the design of the building top to contribute to an attractive skyline profile.  All buildings should be built with high quality, enduring materials such as brick, stone, and glass. Materials that do not age well, such as stucco, vinyl, and highly reflective glass will be discouraged.  Large expanses of blank walls should be avoided by façade articulation (i.e., recessions or projections), fenestration, cornices, vertical pillars, and prominent entrances that respond to the massing and architectural style of the building. - 22 -  Development within the City Centre shall be encouraged to incorporate sustainable development practices such as optimizing energy efficiency of buildings, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification or alternative equivalent for new private and public buildings, providing vehicle charging stations, and low impact development practices (i.e., the use of grey water systems).  Roof tops are encouraged to include green roof spaces for environmental sustainability, amenity space for residents or urban agriculture.  Bird-friendly glazing should be installed on tall buildings in locations that are within known migratory routes.  Landscape opportunities should be maximized within the City Centre in order to increase the tree canopy, improve air quality and groundwater infiltration.  Buildings with significant heights and massing should be located at key gateways to, and intersections within, the City Centre. Signature buildings at key gateway locations shall include architectural features that signify the importance of the corner. This can be attained by bold and expressive building design through the use of high quality building materials, highly articulated building façades and unique massing details. - 23 - Proposed Definitions New Definition: “Floor Area, Net” means the total area of all floors of a building measured from the interior faces of the exterior walls or demising walls, but does not include the following areas: (a)Motor vehicle parking and bicycle parking below established grade; (b)Motor vehicle parking and bicycle parking at or above established grade; (c)Loading spaces and related corridors used for loading purposes; (d)Rooms for storage, storage lockers, washrooms, electrical, utility, mechanical and ventilation; (e)Indoor amenity space required by this By-law; (f)Elevator, garbage and ventilating shafts; (g)Mechanical penthouse; and (h)Stairwells in the building. Revise Existing Definition: “Floor Space Index” means the total net floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the total area of the lot. Attachment #11 to Information Report 09-20 - 24 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 12-20 Date: July 13, 2020 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan: -Transportation System Discussion Paper, October 2019 -File: A-2100-020 Recommendation: 1.Beyond the “In Delivery” and “In Development” transit projects, City staff identifies the following transit projects that would assist in attracting transit riders and transit supportive development: a)the establishment of the Whites Road Priority Bus, extending from the Pickering GO Station along Bayly Street to Whites Road to Highway 7 (and providing connections to lands in Seaton designated high density residential and Community Node, and to lands in the Seaton Innovation Corridor); b)the implementation of light rail transit along Kingston Road; and c)the extension of GO rail service to Seaton; 2.Staff recommends that the Region only designate Regional Corridors adjacent to the arterial road corridors that are part of the High Frequency Transit Network; 3.Staff recommends that Transit Oriented Development policies and guidelines for Strategic Growth Areas (SGA) be tailored to the planned level of transit service, providing there is sufficient flexibility at the area municipal level to respect the local context of the specific SGA; 4.Staff supports the development of strategic and transportation-related policies in furtherance of Transit Oriented Development in Major Transit Station Areas, similar to those currently applied to Regional Centres; 5.Staff advises that a key issue that needs to be addressed to increase ridership from transit-supportive development is to allow closer traffic signal spacing to facilitate pedestrian crossings; 6.Staff supports the designation of additional Transit Hubs in the R egional Official Plan, corresponding with designated or future Urban Growth Centres, Regional Centres, or Major Transit Station Area, and providing there is sufficient flexibility at the area municipal level to respect the local context of the specific location; 7.Staff advises that when assessing new development, and reconstructing or building new public roads, new Regional Official Plan policies that would better support planning for all road users include: - 25 - Report PLN 12-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 2 a)policies indicating that a “complete street” includes the provision of sidewalks/multi use paths, boulevard planting and street lighting, and that it is a Regional responsibility to provide the pedestrian/cycling, planting and street lighting components of a complete street on Regional roads; b)policies allowing closer entrance and intersection spacing along arterials; and c)policies allowing closer traffic signal spacing along arterials to assist pedestrian crossings, and in keeping with transit-supportive development; 8.Staff advises that the Regional Official Plan could recognize or plan for enhanced trail connections through areas such as hydro corridors, by including: a)an informational map in the Regional Official Plan showing existing cycling and pedestrian trail networks, identifying gaps and opportunities; and b)a policy encouraging stakeholders (such as the area municipalities, conservation authorities, cycling and trail associations and committees, etc.) to collaborate with the Region to pursue new cycling/trail connections; 9.Staff supports incorporating into the Regional Official Plan future right-of-way width requirements for specific segments of arterial roads, particularly those sections within or adjacent to Strategic Growth Areas, as this may assist with development application review and Class Environmental Assessments (Class EA); 10.Staff advise that it is appropriate that the Regional Official Plan address using an integrated Class EA and Planning Act process in new growth areas to optimize the alignment and design of arterial roads as the combined processes would allow for a comprehensive evaluation, reduce duplication in meeting Provincial requirements, and expedite development; 11.With regards to the Region continuing its support for carpooling, staff recommends the Region: a)play a larger role in the provision of purpose-built commuter lots beyond the Small Urban and Rural Carpool Lot Program to implement commuter lots along major arterial roads and highways; b)continue its role engaging with area municipalities and businesses to promote carpooling programs in key destinations that provide connectivity to transit and active transportation networks both within and between municipalities in the GTHA; and c)seek the use of more social media tools and real-time information to facilitate user participation and parking availability to enhance the effectiveness of carpool programs; 12.Staff identifies that the potential implications of emerging technologies on the Region’s transportation system may include: a)opportunities to adapt existing infrastructure to improve mobility options, such as taking away a vehicular lane and reallocating it for cyclist and pedestrians; b)continued transformation and impacts to industry, labour, and consumer behavio ur, and the resulting changes in travel patterns; - 26 - Report PLN 12-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 3 c)increased demand for secure, reliable and widespread broadband infrastructure across the Region so that the many technologies (such as on-demand travel options for Uber or Lyft, car and bike sharing, etc.) are available to all; d)reduced individual auto use and ownership, and decreased share of transit users as users take advantage of the increase in fast, flexible, an d convenient mobility options; e)an increasing need for well connected and integrated physical transportation infrastructure so that users can easily transfer between transportation services and modes; and f)increased disparity between lower and higher income communities, as many of the emerging technologies may be more expensive than traditional public transportation (since they require the use of a smart phone and internet connection); 13.Staff recommends that, in addition to supporting the Regional economic rol e of the ports, the Regional Official Plan also include a policy about the importance of maintaining the safety, security, and environmental protection of these waterfront employment lands to ensure the long-term use of the lands and future expansions or redevelopment, as necessary; 14.Staff recommends that supporting the Strategic Goods Movement while preserving a complete streets approach include design standards that not only best manage the movement of goods (e.g., implementing street elements for loading and deliveries, traffic calming, off-hour delivery programs), but also supports Durham Vision Zero to mitigate pedestrian/cyclist and freight conflicts; 15.Staff suggests the Region consider introducing an electric mobility strategy in relation to infrastructure, land use, and goods movement strategies as part of the Transportation System; 16.The Region is requested to assist Pickering in: a)working with VIA Rail and Metrolinx to implement high frequency service on the CPR Havelock rail line; and b)identifying the appropriate location for a VIA Rail station along the CPR Havelock rail line within, or in proximity, to the Federal Pickering Lands as part of the transportation system component of Envision Durham; and 17.The Region is requested to support Pickering’s interest in establishing a VIA Rail stop at the Pickering GO Station to help increase higher order transit connections to and from the Region. Executive Summary: On October 1, 2019, the Regional Municipality of Durham released the Transportation System Discussion Paper, the fifth in a series of discussion papers to be released as part of “Envision Durham” – The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Regional Official Plan. Comments were requested by December 30, 2019. City staff informed Regional staff that we were unable to meet their deadline. - 27 - Report PLN 12-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 4 Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report do not present any financial implications. 1.Purpose The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval of staff’s recommendations to the Region of Durham, on the Transportation Discussion Paper. Appendix l contains the comments and recommendations on the Discussion Paper. 2.“Envision Durham” – The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan An Official Plan provides a vision for the future orderly development of a municipality through a set of policies and maps. The Planning Act, which is provincial legislation governing land use planning in Ontario, requires that a municipality regularly review and update its Official Plan. With this in mind, the Region is reviewing the Durham Regional Official Plan. Once the Region has completed its Official Plan review, the City will be in a position to review the Pickering Official Plan. The first stage of the Region’s Official Plan Review focuses on public engagement, and includes the preparation of a series of discussion papers. These discussion papers address the following major areas: agriculture and rural systems; climate change and sustainability; growth management; the environment and greenlands system; transportation system; and housing; (see Overview of the Region of Durham’s Municipal Comprehensive Review of its Official Plan, Attachment #1). 3.The Transportation System Discussion Paper The Region has released the fifth of its discussion papers, Transportation System. The paper provides observations about transportation trends within Durham and the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) and the background of the current provincial and regional policy context. Further, the paper provides an overview and discussion of numerous transportation related land use planning and policy matters, including: transit oriented/supportive development; public transit; active transportation; roads and corridor protection; travel choices; and goods movement. The paper can be found online at: https://www.durham.ca/en/doing- business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/2019 -P-41-Envision-Durham- Transportation-System-Discussion-Paper-CR-and-Attachment-1.pdf 4.Staff Comments The paper poses 16 questions for discussion. City staff have undertaken a detailed review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper (see Appendix I), and the response to the questions form the recommendations of this Report. - 28 - Report PLN 12-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 5 Appendix Appendix I Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper Attachment 1.Overview of the Region of Durham’s Municipal Comprehensive Review of its Official Plan Prepared By: Original Signed By: Doris Ho, MCIP, RPP Planner I Original Signed By: Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics DJ:CR:ld Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By: Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Interim Chief Administrative Officer - 29 - Appendix I to Report PLN 12-20 Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper - 30 - Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper 1. Questions for Consideration On October 1, 2019, the Region, as part of the second stage (“Discuss”) of their public engagement program, released the Transportation System Discussion Paper (the Pape r), the fifth in a series of discussion papers to be released as part of “Envision Durham”. The Paper provides an overview of the current provincial and Regional policy framework related to transportation planning; highlights key travel trends for Durham residents and their impacts on the Transportation System; outlines new provincial and Regional policy requirements and directions; and identifies preliminary approaches to update the Region’s transportation system. The Paper also poses a number of questions to leverage discussion and feedback, including: 1. Beyond “In Delivery” and “In Development” transit projects, which projects do you feel will have the greatest benefit to increase transit use and promote transit supportive development in Durham? 2. Should the Region only designate Regional corridors adjacent to the High Frequency Transit Network? 3. Should Transit Oriented Development policies and guidelines for Strategic Growth Areas be tailored to the planned level of transit service? 4. Do you support Major Transit Station Areas having specific transportation-related policies to support their development as Transit Oriented Development places, similar to those already applied to Regional Centres? 5. What up-front considerations should the Regional Official Plan provid e with respect to transit supportive development outside of Strategic Growth Areas? 6. Do you support a new Transit Hub designation and policies as part of the Regional Official Plan? 7. How can Regional Official Plan policies support planning for all road users when assessing new developments and reconstructing or building new roads? 8. How should the Regional Official Plan recognize or plan for enhanced trail connections as key active transportation linkages within hydro corridors and Waterfront Areas? 9. Would providing clearer future right-of-way requirements for specific sections of arterial roads in the Regional Official Plan be beneficial for development application review or Class Environmental Assessment studies? 10. Is it appropriate that the Regional Official Plan address an integrated Class Environmental Assessment and Planning Act process in new growth areas to optimize the alignment and design for arterial roads? 11. Are there aspects of Transportation Demand Management beyond employer and school trips, and review of development applications, that should be addressed in greater detail in the Regional Official Plan? - 31 - Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper Page 2 of 14 12. What should the Region’s role be in supporting carpooling, and in what locations would this be most appropriate? 13. What are the potential implications of emerging technologies on the Regional Transportation System? 14. How should the Regional Official Plan be enhanced to better support the role of ports to the regional economy, such as the Port of Oshawa and the St. Marys Cement dock facility? 15. What should the Region consider in supporting the Strategic Goods Movement Network while preserving a complete streets approach for all road users? 16. Have we missed any trends that you feel should be reviewed and considered in the Transportation System context as part of Envision Durham? This Discussion Paper, through Envision Durham, is focusing on those actions and recommendations of Durham’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) (see section 5.3 of this Appendix) that have broad implications on land use and design aspects of the Regional Official Plan (ROP), particularly through the Growth Management Study work and additional review of the Transportation System. Questions for discussion and feedback will help further articulate the vision of the TMP and how it can be better integrated with land use change and development. The following sections provide a high level overview of the Paper, and provide comments and responses to the questions posed with recommendations highlighted in bold on matters that should also be addressed through the Municipal Comprehensive Review. 2. Transportation Trends in Durham The Paper identifies some of the transportation trends and observations in Durham compared to the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) over the last decade. During this period, both population and employment have grown in Durham resulting in an increased number of trips during the weekday. Increase in travel demand has facilitated growth of the transportation system but also contributed to increased congestion and travel delays. Some of the key commuting and travel patterns are:  Durham Region Transit (DRT) ridership has increased from 6.94 million passengers in 2006 to 10.26 million passengers in 2016.  Out-commuting by Durham residents to locations of employment outside the Region has increased, mostly to Toronto and York Region.  The 2016 Census revealed Durham residents had the longest average commute of 35 minutes, compared to other upper-and single-tier municipalities in the GTHA.  Durham residents who took public transit as their primary mode of travel had the longest average commute time of 62.5 minutes (largely accounted by GO train trips) compared to other GTHA municipalities.  Elementary and secondary school travel by active modes or public transit are declining while auto trips are increasing, which is generally consistent with trends across the GTHA. - 32 - Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper Page 3 of 14  Public transit represented about 11 percent of morning peak period work trips made by Durham residents compared to 10 percent in 2006, and is forecasted to reach 20 percent by 2031.  The percentage of Durham residents staying in Durham to work is expected to rebound from 48 percent in 2016 to 58 percent in 2031.  Pickering has the highest share of travelers arriving at the GO Station by walking or cycling (8 percent) compared to travelers by the same modes to other GO Stations within Durham. 3. Transportation Infrastructure Expansion Travel demand has consistently increased since 2006. Accordingly, DRT, Metrolinx, and the Province of Ontario have completed expansions to the road network, the addition of commuter parking facilities, and enhancements of public transit services within the Region. The most significant additions to the provincial highway network have been the extension of Highway 407 from Brock Road in Pickering to Highway 35/115 in Clarington, and the construction of Highways 412 and 418 in Whitby and Clarington respectively. In 2018, there was approximately 50 km of cycling facilities on Regional road rights-of-way. Enhancements, such as boulevard multi-use paths and paved shoulder bike lanes, were added during the last several years. In Pickering and Ajax, buffered bike lanes on sections of Kingston Road were constructed as part of the initial phasing of the Highway 2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) (i.e., frequent bus service between downtown Oshawa and Scarborough City Centre). Multiple key transit expansion and infrastructure initiatives have been implemented since 2006, including service expansion along the GO Lakeshore East rail line and the launch of the BRT lanes along Kingston Road for the Pulse 900 Highway 2 service. As of year-end 2018, annual ridership on the Pulse 900 Highway 2 service was almost three million passengers. 4. Provincial Policy for Transportation Planning Through Envision Durham, multiple provincial and regional transportation-related plans are being reviewed. These plans include: the Provincial Policy Statement (2020); A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which identifies Priority Transit Corridors; Metrolinx’s Regional Transportation Plan, which identifies a Frequent Rapid Transit Network; Metrolinx’s Mobility Hub Guidelines; the Ministry of Transportation’s (MTO) Greater Golden Horseshoe Transportation Plan, which will incorporate transit and other transportation networks included in the Metrolinx Plan; MTO’s Transit-Supportive Guidelines; and MTO’s Freight-Supportive Guidelines. These plans and guidelines provide policies and direction on the planning and development of transportation infrastructure, corridors, and networks for the movement of pedestrians, vehicles, goods, and the integration of transportation planning with land use. - 33 - Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper Page 4 of 14 Metrolinx has identified Frequent Rapid Transit Network projects across the GTHA that are either “In Delivery” (i.e., projects in the engineering design stage or under construction) or “In Development” (i.e., projects in advance stages of planning and design). In Durham Region, Metrolinx introduced 2 “In Delivery” transit projects – the GO Rail 15-minute Two-Way All-Day service along the Lakeshore East GO line to Oshawa, and peak two-way 15 minute service on the Lakeshore East GO Rail extension to Bowmanville (subject to the alignment being confirmed). The Durham-Scarborough BRT along Highway 2/Kingston Road is identified as an “In Development” project within Durham Region. In response to Question 1, beyond the “In Delivery” and “In Development” transit projects noted above, City staff identifies that the following transit projects would assist in attracting transit riders and transit supportive development: a)the establishment of the Whites Road Priority Bus, extending from the Pickering GO Station along Bayly Street to Whites Road to Highway 7 (and providing connections to lands in Seaton designated high density residential and Community Node, and to lands in the Seaton Innovation Corridor); b)the implementation of light rail transit along Kingston Road; and c)the extension of GO rail service to Seaton. 5.Regional Policy for Transportation Planning The Discussion Paper provides an outline of the Regional policy plans, guidelines, and strategies that apply to Durham’s transportation system. These policy documents provide direction for infrastructure needs, design requirements, transit service, and programs to support the growth and development of communities through the efficient movement of people and goods. Through Envision Durham, the various policy documents will be reviewed for the consideration of incorporating or strengthening transportation policies into the ROP. 5.1 Durham Region Strategic Plan Durham’s current Strategic Plan, 2015-2019, supports goals and strategies that transportation planning fulfill in the vision for growth and development in various communities across the Region. A new Strategic Plan is in the process of being developed. Its directions will be considered and incorporated into the ROP through Envision Durham. 5.2 Durham Regional Official Plan The Transportation System comprises one of the primary components of the ROP, with the Urban System, Greenlands System, and the Rural System being the other three. The Transportation System of the ROP contains specific designations for existing and planned facilities, as follows: Road Network – consisting of freeways and a hierarchy of roads, currently referred to as Type A, B and C Arterials; Transit Priority Network – with freeways, arterial road transit corridors, and commuter rail lines; and Strategic Goods Movement Network – including roads, railways, airports and ports. - 34 - Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper Page 5 of 14 The designations are shown on a series of maps in Schedule ‘C’ of the ROP. The ROP has supporting policies for these network elements, and for active transportation related to pedestrian connectivity and cycling/trail facilities. Additionally, the ROP contains transportation related policies supporting the development of healthy and complete communities, and the various components of the Urban System. 5.3 Durham Transportation Master Plan In December 2017, Regional Council endorsed Durham’s TMP, which defines the Region’s transportation needs to 2031 and beyond. Regional Council adopted Amendment #171 to the ROP in June 2018 to implement key transportation network recommendations and supporting policies made in the TMP. The Durham TMP supports planned growth and development consistent with the current ROP, and contains a multi-modal approach in its recommendations and actions reflecting “complete streets” principles. The TMP provides a foundation for the Envision Durham review of the Transportation System. 5.4 Regional Cycling Plan and Regional Trail Network The Regional Cycling Plan, approved by Regional Council in 2012, provides direction for a Region-wide cycling network through recommendations for planning, design, and implementation. A Primary Cycling Network was implemented in 2012, comprising existing and planned cycling facilities that connect major centres, destinations, GO Stations and other transit hubs, and external municipalities (e.g., Toronto) on arterial roads. The Cycling Plan also recognizes a Regional Trail Network and local routes defined by area municipal active transportation plans or within TMP’s. The Regional Trail Network identifies existing off-road public trails throughout Durham, including inter-regional routes such as the Waterfront Trail and The Great Trail (formerly the Trans Canada Trail), and proposed or desired linkages. An update to the Cycling Plan commenced in early 2020. It will review the Cycling Network in the context of area municipal and other provincial and regional plans for the implementation of cycling routes and facilities. The City of Pickering’s Integrated Transportation Master Plan, which is nearing completion, will include recommendations and plans regarding active transportation to build upon and complement the Region’s T MP. 5.4 Ar terial Corridor Guidelines Durham’s Arterial Corridor Guidelines, approved by Regional Council in 2007, are a set of potential strategies and common reference points to be applied when planning and designing arterial roads in the Region. The guidelines provide design criteria for arterial rights-of-way to help balance mobility and access. The Durham TMP recommended an update to the Arterial Corridor Guidelines to contemporize the criteria to reflect “complete streets” principles for road, cycling, and transit facility design standards and guidelines. - 35 - Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper Page 6 of 14 5.5 Durham Region Transit Strategy DRT completed a Five-Year Service Strategy in 2016. The Strategy’s objective is to grow ridership throughout Durham via service improvements and service expansions to new neighbourhoods and developments. The Strategy’s High Frequency Transit Network, terminals and stations, form the basis for further infrastructure investments. An update to the Five-Year Service Strategy was planned for early 2020. 6.0 Policy Considerations The following six themes provide the framework for analyzing the transportation system as part of Envision Durham:  Land use and transportation  Public transit  Active transportation  Roads and corridor protection  Travel choices  Goods movement 6.1 Land Use and Transportation The ROP contains a series of policies that supports the integration of land use and transportation as part of the Regional structure. As noted in section 5.2 above, the Transit Priority Network is one of the three components of the ROP’s Transportation System. The Transit Priority Network operates on freeways, arterial roads, and commuter rail. Focusing on the role of arterial roads, the Region had further classified arterials that contribute to the Transit Priority System, as follows:  Rapid Transit Spines have dedicated transit lanes in most sections that intersect with local transit services. In Durham, Kingston Road/Highway 2 from Pickering to Highway 418, and Simoce Street from Bayly Street to Highway 7, are Rapid Transit Spines ;  High Frequency Transit Network consists of buses in planned High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, or buses in mixed traffic, with transit signal priority at major intersections. Planned HOV lanes may be converted to dedicated bus lanes a s growth in ridership warrants. Most Type A and B Arterial roads in the urban area of Durham are identified as part of the High Frequency Network; and  Other Transit Connections facilitate longer distance trips, providing direct links to transportation hubs and commuter stations from smaller urban and rural areas. Lands designated ‘Regional Corridor’ are to be planned as higher density, mixed use areas, supporting higher order transit service and with an extensive pedestrian network. With the recent updates to the ROP arising from Amendment #171, certain arterial roads were identified to be part of the High Frequency Transit Network. However, not all roads identified as part of the High Frequency Transit Network have a Regional Corridor designation adjacent to them, and some roads that are not part of the High Frequency Network do have Regional Corridors designated next to them. The Regio n is asking for input on how this mismatch should be addressed. - 36 - Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper Page 7 of 14 In response to Question 2, in addition to maintaining the Regional Corridor land use designation adjacent to Rapid Transit Spines, staff recommends that the Region only designate Regional Corridors adjacent to the arterial road corridors that are part of the High Frequency Transit Network. 7.2 Transit-Oriented Development Transit Oriented Development (TOD), or as the Province is now calling it, “Transit Oriented Communities”, is the clustering of high density, compact, mixed use development that supports transit ridership and pedestrian access to transit infrastructure. In order to support TOD, the Region’s TMP recommends the development of TOD guidelines and enabling policies in the ROP to ensure Strategic Growth Areas (SGA) (such as locations next to a GO Station) develop as TOD places in the near and long-term. A TOD Strategy was drafted as part of the Durham Long-Term Transit Strategy Study. Although the Strategy is not officially approved by Regional Council, it is used as a resource for development application review and other projects. Through Envision Durham, an update to the TOD Strategy is being considered to articulate TOD policies and practices for new development. The Growth Plan requires the area around Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) (such as Pickering’s GO Station), to be planned as areas that will achieve a higher density mix of uses within an approximate 500 to 800 metre radius of a transit station (approximately 10 minute walk). MTSAs are to be supported by TOD in the immediate surrounding area, but TOD places may also become destinations themselves if, for example, they also provide a hub of office jobs. Ideally, a Major Transit Station Area becomes both an origin and a destination In response to Question 3, staff recommends that TOD policies and guidelines for SGA be tailored to the planned level of transit service, providing there is sufficient flexibility at the area municipal level to respect the local context of the specific SGA. From a transportation perspective, MTSAs are intended to become areas where transit, active transportation and vehicular access is in high demand due to the transit station. Supporting development of the MTSAs will require a review of the Region’s current approaches for planning new intersections, accesses and act ive connections to these areas. In response to Question 4, staff supports the development of strategic and transportation-related policies in furtherance of TOD in Major Transit Station Areas, similar to those currently applied to Regional Centres. These include establishing a grid network of roads, and using design that favours pedestrian traffic and public transit with direct street pedestrian access to buildings, provision of potential transit, and parking areas sited at the rear or within buildings. While “Transit Oriented Development” and “transit-supportive development” are similar in concept, the latter is generally applied to areas outside of Strategic Growth Areas that are not planned as areas of significant intensification. The objective of the design strategies is to increase the number of residents (or businesses) that ca n reach a transit route stop in 5 to 10 minutes. These design strategies include connectivity between neighbou rhoods, walkways, a grid road pattern, and restricting lots from backing onto a road. - 37 - Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper Page 8 of 14 City staff notes that transit-supportive development requires both supportive land use patterns and the effective delivery of transit services. As noted above, the objective is to increase the number of users who can reach a transit stop in 5 to 10 minutes. However, traffic signal spacing on arterial roads is optimized for traffic progression. This conflicts with conveniently spaced traffic signals for pedestrian crossing. In response to Question 5, staff advises that a key issue that needs to be addressed to increase ridership from transit-supportive development is to allow closer traffic signal spacing to facilitate pedestrian crossings. 7.3 Public Transit Through Envision Durham, the relationship between transportation and land use is intended to be strengthened. There will be an emphasis on public transit supporting intensification in Strategic Growth Areas, specifically at Transportation Hubs and Commuter Stations, where transfers between different transfer routes and/or services take place. Currently, the Region’s TMP and DRT’s Five-year Service Strategy identifies 11 existing and proposed transit stations and terminal locations. These locations, if designated in the ROP, could be supported by policies emphasizing active transportation connectivity, passenger amenities, and prioritizing buses to and from these sites enhancing the first –last mile experience. Within the City of Pickering, the TMP currently identifies the Pickering GO Train Station as a Transportation Hub, and a future GO Train Station in Seaton west of Brock Road on the CPR Belleville line as Commuter Station. In response to Question 6, staff supports the designation of additional Transit Hubs in the ROP, corresponding with designated or future Urban Growth Centres, Regional Centres, or Major Transit Station Area, and providing there is sufficient flexibility at the area municipal level to respect the local context of the specific location. 7.4 GO Lakeshore East Extension The Paper summarizes recent updates to the GO Lakeshore East Extension, including a proposed future train service to Bowmanville to be completed by fall 2024. Metrolinx is re-examining the previously approved alignment of the train service to Bowmanville. The previously approved alignment, which results in the stations being located along the CP Rail line in Living Areas/Centre designations, provides the most opportunity for intensification at station locations in accordance with ROP policies and vision. 7.5 407 Transitway The Province is planning a 407 Transitway, which is a high-speed public transit facility on a separate right-of-way within the Highway 407 corridor. Highways 407, 412 and 418 are currently designated in the ROP as Freeway Transit routes in the Transit Priority Network schedule. Through Envision Durham, there is the opportunity to elevate the importance of the 407 Transitway as a future BRT or Light Rail Transit facility and connection to York Region, the planned Pearson Transit Hub, and to serve a future airport and employment lands in Pickering. - 38 - Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper Page 9 of 14 7.6 Active Transportation The ROP currently supports active transportation through a wide range of mobility options, including walking and cycling, and ensuring an integrated, safe, efficient, and reliable Transportation System. The Durham TMP recommends adopting a Multi-modal Level of Service to accommodate all road users through a comprehensive consideration of road design and rights-of-way for road expansion or reconstruction projects. In response to Question 7, staff advises that when assessing new development, and reconstructing or building new public roads, new ROP policies that would better support planning for all road users include: a) policies indicating that a “complete street” includes the provision of sidewalks/multi use paths, boulevard planting and street lighting, and that it is a Regional responsibility to provide the pedestrian/cycling, planting and street lighting components of a complete street on Regional roads; b) policies allowing closer entrance and intersection spacing along arterials; and c) policies allowing closer traffic signal spacing along arterials to assist pedestrian crossings, and in keeping with of transit-supportive development. Cycling and Trails Durham’s Primary Cycling Network in the Regional Cycling Plan is part of a broader network consisting of the Provincial Cycling Network, Metrolinx’s Regional Transportation Plan cycling network for the GTHA, and networks developed by Durham area municipalities. Several initiatives have commenced to support cycling infrastructure such as, the Short-Term Cycling Network (i.e., cycling facilities to be constructed within the next 10 years), and proposed cycling projects identified within the Region’s capital road p rogram and 9-year forecast. The importance of offering a variety of mobility choices is highlighted by 78 percent of respondents of the Envision Durham public opinion survey who think it is “very” to “extremely important”. Despite public opinion of the importance of mobility choices including cycling, the Paper indicates the lack of direction from the ROP with respect to monitoring and promoting cycling within Durham. Support for documenting the progress of new infrastructure, programs, and services is a valuable component for long-term sustainable growth of cycling. The Regional Trail Network is a component of the Region’s active transportation system and includes making connections between publicly owned lands, such as parks, conservations areas, open space lands, and right-of-ways, and hydro corridors. The Waterfront Trail (on Lake Ontario) and Waterfront Areas (on Lake Scugog and Lake Simcoe) are key components of the Regional Trail Network, and connecting northern parts of the Region to the GTHA. In response to Question 8, staff advises that the ROP could recognize or plan for enhanced trail connections through areas such as hydro corridors, by including: a) an informational map in the ROP showing existing cycling and pedestrian trail networks, identifying gaps and opportunities; and - 39 - Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper Page 10 of 14 b) a policy encouraging stakeholders (such as the area municipalities, conservation authorities, cycling and trail associations and committees, etc.) to collaborate with the Region to pursue new cycling/trail connections. Roads and Corridors The Region’s TMP recommends a right-of-way map be added to the ROP identifying the required right-of-way widths for Type A, B and C Arterials based on the ultimate widening needs for arterial road sections, and for the purpose of future Class Environmental Assessment (EA) studies and review of development proposals. The right-of-way would be determined based on a multiple factors such as auxiliary lanes, transit and cycling facilities, potential stormwater management measures, and provincial studies. In response to Question 9, staff supports incorporating into the ROP future right-of-way width requirements for specific segments of arterial roads, particularly those sections within or adjacent to Strategic Growth Areas, as this may assist with development application review and Class Environmental Assessments (Class EA). Protection of future arterial road corridors is essential and the TMP recommends feasibility studies for road links in which engineering or environmental impacts may affect their potential construction. The Province is reviewing the Environmental Assessment Act to streamline requirements to implement an integrated Planning Act and Class EA for a comprehensive review of new arterials in new growth areas. The Region will consider policies for this integrated process applicable to new growth areas. In response to Question 10, staff advise that it is appropriate that the ROP address using an integrated Class EA and Planning Act process in new growth areas to optimize the alignment and design of arterial roads as the combined processes would allow for a comprehensive evaluation, reduce duplication in meeting Provincial requirements, and expedite development. The Region supports programs and initiatives that adapt road infrastructure to climate change and mitigate the impacts of climate change on Regional roads, such as through the Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan; the use of low impact development storm water management techniques; developing complete communities; and implementing Transportation Demand Management to reduce auto congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. The Region intends to reinforce the goals and actions to reduce auto trips and mitigate impacts from climate change. 8. Transportation Demand Management The ROP supports implementing the TMP, which includes recommending the establishment of trip reduction strategies and creating more travel choices in the Transportation System. New technological advances are also emerging and transforming transportation modes, travel patterns, and trip information. - 40 - Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper Page 11 of 14 8.1 School and Employer Trips The ROP supports implementing Transportation Demand Management programs and strategies to reduce trips, such as carpooling, high occupancy vehicle lanes, telework, park-and-ride, and pedestrian and cycling facilities. There are opportunities through Envision Durham to strengthen Regional action and advocacy on Transportation Demand Management, and create more travel choices for those using the Transportation System. The Region has been operating Smart Commute Durham in partnership with Metrolinx since 2007. The program encourages employers to reduce dependency on motor vehicles through strategies, such as providing DRT passes, ridesharing and vanpooling programs, carpool spaces, alternative work hours, telecommuting, and developing facilities that supports cycling. Metrolinx withdrew its participation from the Smart Commute program in 2019. Through Envision Durham, there are multiple strategies that could be developed to advance the mandate of supporting Transportation Demand Management. The Region’s TMP recommends that: 1. Transportation Demand Management development guidelines be developed to ensure that a rigorous and consistent review of new developments support active transportation; 2. A parking strategy be developed to identify areas to optimize parking to support transit and non-automobile travel; and 3. Active school transportation portfolio be developed to encourage student travel to school via active transportation. Question 11 asks if there are aspects of Transportation Demand Management beyond employer and school trips, and review of development applications that should be addressed in greater detail in the ROP. In response, staff has no further comments. Through Envision Durham, the Region will consider the opportunity to further develop the Region’s role in the provision of carpool spaces. With regards to Question 12, and the Region continuing its support for carpooling, staff recommends the Region a) play a larger role in the provision of purpose-built commuter lots beyond the Small Urban and Rural Carpool Lot Program to implement commuter lots along major arterial roads and highways; b) continue its role engaging with area municipalities and businesses to promote carpooling programs in key destinations that provide connectivity to transit and active transportation networks both within and between municipalities in the GTHA; and c) seek the use of more social media tools and real-time information to facilitate user participation and parking availability to enhance the effectiveness of carpool programs. - 41 - Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper Page 12 of 14 8.2 Age-Friendly Communities The Region’s Age-Friendly Durham Strategy and Action Plan (2017) is a series of actions focused on enhancing transportation infrastructure and services for adults aged 55 and older, and addressing gaps to improve the transit passenger experience. The Action Plan emphasizes active transportation options, as the tendency is for fewer seniors to drive than other adults. Through Envision Durham, the Region will be reviewing age-friendly communities and the promotion of active transportation for all users from a broader active transportation perspective. 8.3 Emerging Transportation Technologies Recent technological advances in transportation such as paid ridesharing services (e.g., Uber, Lyft) are transforming travel. The emergence of the “sharing economy” has created “Mobility as-a-Service”, which includes paid ridesharing, bike sharing and car sharing, which enables access to on-demand travel without owning a vehicle. Technological advances are enabling access to travel information and provide real-time traffic or construction information. Other emerging technologies transforming transportation include electric vehicles, automated vehicles, and connected vehicles that have the potential to significan tly change travel by optimizing the operation and interaction of vehicles within the road network. At the same time, the performance of these technologies and their impacts are uncertain as well as consumer responses, which will require monitoring as the t echnologies are deployed. In response to Question 13, staff identifies that the potential implications of emerging technologies on the Region’s transportation system may include: a) opportunities to adapt existing infrastructure to improve mobility options, such as taking away a vehicular lane and reallocating it for cyclist and pedestrians; b) continued transformation and impacts to industry, labour, and consumer behaviour, and the resulting changes in travel patterns; c) increased demand for secure, reliable and w idespread broadband infrastructure across the Region so that the many technologies (such as on-demand travel options for Uber or Lyft, car and bike sharing, etc.) are available to all; d) reduced individual auto use and ownership, and decreased share of transit users as users take advantage of the increase in fast, flexible, and convenient mobility options; e) an increasing need for well connected and integrated physical transportation infrastructure so that users can easily transfer between transportation servic es and modes; and f) increased disparity between lower and higher income communities, as many of the emerging technologies may be more expensive than traditional public transportation (since they require the use of a smart phone and internet connection). - 42 - Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper Page 13 of 14 9. Goods Movement The ROP includes the Region’s Strategic Goods Movement Network that identifies preferred haul routes for commercial vehicles, which is inherently linked to employment, retail, and residential lands as home deliveries are increasingly supporting truck traffic. The two ports in Durham – Port of Oshawa and the St. Marys Cement dock (in Clarington), provides valuable economic activity for the Region. Both the Strategic Goods Movement Network and the Transportation Master Plan identify St. Marys Cement dock as a future harbour. In response to Question 14, staff recommends that, in addition to supporting the Regional economic role of the ports, the ROP also include a policy about the importance of maintaining the safety, security, and environmental protection of these waterfront employment lands to ensure the long-term use of the lands and future expansions or redevelopment, as necessary. 9.1 Federal Airport Site The ROP designates the federal airport lands in Pickering in anticipation of an airport, and recognizes it as part of the Transportation System. The airport would be well connected to Highway 407 via Brock Road and the Whites Road extension, the 407 Transitway and the CP Havelock rail line. The airport lands are recognized for their potential as a strategic goods movement centre to handle air cargo and support the development of an employment cluster, which could include Seaton employment area lands (Innovation Corridor). 9.2 Traffic Management Guideline for Hamlets In 2014, a Traffic Management Guideline for Hamlets was released by the Region to provide guidance on the process and techniques to address traffic concerns on Regional roads within hamlets and smaller urban areas. Approaches to address issues include education, enforcement and engineering solutions, similar to the Region’s Vision Zero Strategic Road Safety Action Plan. The guideline will be considered part of the Arterial Corridor Guidelines update, and the mitigating impacts from goods movement in hamlets and small urban areas will be further reviewed through Envision Durham. The Region notes that supporting the Strategic Goods Movement Network, while mitigating traffic impact from goods movement in hamlets and small urban areas is a delicate balance. The Region will be reviewing this further through Envision Durham. In response to Question 15, staff recommends supporting the Strategic Goods Movement while preserving a complete streets approach include design standards that not only best manage the movement of goods (e.g., implementing street elements for loading and deliveries, traffic calming, off-hour delivery programs), but also supports Durham Vision Zero to mitigate pedestrian/cyclist and freight conflicts. - 43 - Staff Review of the Transportation System Discussion Paper Page 14 of 14 Question 16 asks if there are any other trends or issues that the Region should review and consider. City staff notes that with the increase of personal electric vehicles, the future emergence of electric commercial long haul vehicles or more immediate opportunities to use electric delivery cargo trucks or cargo bikes for first and last mile deliveries will require continuous monitoring and examination to optimize the benefits of these technologies. Additionally, although delivery drones are still being experimented as a viable option for ground-based delivery, drones have the potential to significantly redefine and influence the goods movement network, and would require the implementation of infrastructure and drone traffic management systems to accommodate such technology. In response to Question 16, staff suggests the Region consider introducing an electric mobility strategy in relation to infrastructure, land use, and goods movement strategies as part of the Transportation System. On October 10, 2017, Pickering Council passed Resolution #355/17, which a mong other matters, resolved “That Council request VIA Rail Canada and Metrolinx to move forward with identifying, planning and implementing high frequency rail service on the CP Havelock rail corridor, which in turn will help attract key investment to the Pickering Innovation Corridor and the Federal Pickering Lands; and that the appropriate Environmental Assessment (EA) process for high frequency rail service on the CP Havelock rail corridor commence no later than September 30, 2018; …”. Also in response to Question 16, the Region is requested to assist Pickering in: a) working with VIA Rail and Metrolinx to implement high frequency service on the CPR Havelock rail line; and b) identifying the appropriate location for an VIA Rail station along the CPR Havelock rail line within, or in proximity, to the Federal Pickering Lands as part of the transportation system component of Envision Durham. There have also been a number of meetings between senior City staff and representatives from VIA Rail regarding the establishment of a VIA Rail stop at the Pickering GO Station, in conjunction with the implementation of high frequency service. Such a stop would increase the number of higher order transit connections to and from Durham Region. Lastly, in response to Question 16, the Region is requested to support Pickering’s interest in establishing a VIA Rail stop at the Pickering GO Station to help increase higher order transit connections to and from the Region. 10. Next Steps The above review provides a synopsis of the Region’s Transportation System Discussion Paper, provides responses to the questions posed for discussion and feedback, and highlights key issues, which in the opinion of staff, should be considered through the Municipal Comprehensive Review process. - 44 - Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 12-20 Overview of the Region of Durham’s Municipal Comprehensive Review of its Official Plan 1. Background The Planning Act requires that municipal official plans be reviewed every five years to ensure that the plans have regard to matters of Provincial interest, are consistent with Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and conform to Provincial Land Use Plans. The current Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) was approved in 1993 and has over 150 amendments to keep it up-to-date with changing provincial plans and policies. On May 2, 2018, Regional Council authorized staff to proceed with the Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) of the ROP titled “Envision Durham, 2041 Our Region, Our Plan, Our Future” (or “Envision Durham”). “Envision Durham” offers a strategic opportunity to create a completely new plan with an advanced planning vision for the Region to 2041. 1.1 What are the key components of the Region’s MCR? The MCR is structured around the following strategic planning themes:  The Agriculture and Rural System (Discussion Paper released March 5, 2019; Pickering Council commented through Council Resolution #94/19, dated May 27, 2019);  Climate Change and Sustainability (Discussion Paper released May 7, 2019; Pickering Council commented through Council Resolution #150/19, dated October 21, 2019);  Growth Management (Urban System Discussion Paper released June 4, 2019; Pickering Council commented through Council Resolution #205/19, dated December 16, 2019);  Environment and Greenlands System (released September 3, 2019; subject of Report PLN 04-20; Pickering Council commented through Resolution #257/20, dated March 23, 2020;  Housing (Discussion Paper released December 3, 2019; to be considered at the June 29, 2020 Council meeting); and  Transportation System (released October 1, 2019; subject of this Report; to be considered at the July 13, 2020 Planning & Development Committee, and July 27, 2020 Council meeting). 1.2 The MCR and Public Engagement The public engagement program and its timeline associated with the MCR consists of four stages: Discover (2019), Discuss (2019), Direct (2020), and Draft (2021 -2022). On February 5, 2019, the Region initiated the first stage (“Discover”) of the “Envision Durham” public engagement program by launching the project website: durham.ca/Envision Durham, as well as a public opinion survey, which closed on April 6, 2019. The Region also created an introductory video on the project, which can be viewed on the project website. In addition, the Region set up “pop-up” information kiosks in various locations, as part of their public engagement launch. In accordance with the public engagement program, each stage of the project will be promoted through news releases, the project website, social media platforms, and public service announcements. - 45 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 13-20 Date: July 13, 2020 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19 - Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. - (591 Liverpool Road) Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19, submitted by Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. to facilitate the development of a mixed-use development consisting of two 15-storey condominium apartment buildings located on lands municipally known as 591 Liverpool Road; be refused; and 2. That if the applications are appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, that Council authorizes City staff, its outside legal counsel and outside experts in the fields of planning, transportation, environmental, urban design and other specialties, as may be required , to present and defend Council’s position on Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19, submitted by Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. Executive Summary: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. has applied for site-specific exceptions to both the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law to facilitate the development of a high-density mixed-use condominium development on lands located on the east side of Liverpool Road, south of Wharf Street within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The applicant originally proposed a mixed-use development on lands municipally known as 505 and 591 Liverpool Road. The proposal consisted of 2 buildings having heights of 23-storeys, containing 498 apartment units and 1,900 square metres of grade related commercial uses (see Original Submitted Concept Plan and Rendering and Original Submitted Landscape Plan, Attachments #3 & #4). In response to identified concerns, the applicant revised their proposal (see Revised Submitted Concept Plan and Revised Submitted Landscape Plan, Attachments #5 & #6). The key revisions to their proposal include:  the removal of the City lands (505 Liverpool Road) from the applications;  an increase in the environmental buffer from the Provincially Significant Wetland (Hydro Marsh), from 20.0 metres to a fully vegetated buffer ranging in width between 24.1 metres and 38.0 metres;  the removal of the City lands and the increase in the environmental buffer reduces the net developable area from 1.46 hectares to 1.11 hectares; - 46 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 2  a reduction in the total Gross Floor Area from 58,174 square metres to 48,132 square metres, and an increase in the Floor Space Index from 3.98 to 4.34;  the removal of 200 public parking spaces proposed in the original plan;  a reduction in the proposed number of units from 498 to 377 while maintaining the prop osed density of 340 units per net hectare;  a reduction in the height of the towers from 23-storeys to 15-storeys;  a reduction of the commercial area from 1,900 square metres to 1,400 square metres;  the relocation of the proposed boardwalk outside of the en vironmental buffer area;  the addition of a 1,700 square metre indoor boat storage area on the ground floor of the north building; and  the addition of a 625 square metre public assembly hall to the ground floor of the south building The purpose of this report is to obtain Council's position on these applications. In addition, if the applications are appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), to authorize staff and the City’s outside legal counsel and outside experts to attend an LPAT hearing and defend Council’s position. The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node has not been identified in the City’s Official Plan as an appropriate area for intensification. The revised proposal, although reduced in its height and massing from the original proposal, will result in a form of development that is still too tall, too dense, compromises views to the waterfront and is not in keeping with the scale and character of the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposal for a mixed-use development consisting of residential uses is prohibited to be located within the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS) exclusion zone for public health and safety reasons and Ontario Power Generation is not in support of the applications. The location of the shoreline hazard on or near the site has not been identified and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) advises that the proposal is inconsistent with TRCA Living City Policies. The proposal is not consistent with the growth policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and does not conform to the growth management policies of the Growth Plan. Accordingly, staff is of the opinion that the revised proposal for a mixed-use development consisting of 2 buildings with heights of 15-storeys in this location does not represent good planning, and recommends that Council deny the applications. Financial Implications: No direct cost to the City is anticipated as a result of the proposed development. However, should the applicant appeal Council's decision, there will be costs associated with defending Council's position at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) as outside Counsel, planning and related experts will be required. These costs will be funded from the General Government – Purchased Services Account. - 47 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 3 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject lands, municipally known as 591 Liverpool Road, are located on the east side of Liverpool Road, south of Wharf Street within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands comprise of one property, having an area of approximately 2.16 hectares with approximately 86 metres of frontage along Liverpool Road. The lands municipally known as 591 Liverpool Road are owned by Pickering Harbour Company Ltd., and are occupied by the Frenchman’s Bay Marina office and boat storage yard. Surrounding land uses include (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2): North: Immediately north is the Region of Durham Pumping Station, and further north is the Nautical Village development consisting of live-work units fronting Liverpool Road and associated parking area. East: Immediately east is the Provincially Significant Frenchman’s Bay Coastal Wetland Complex (also referred to as Hydro Marsh). South: Immediately southwest is the City parking lot, and further south is the Hydro Marsh, Millennium Square at the foot of Liverpool Road, Beachfront Park and the Waterfront Trail, and beyond is Lake Ontario. West: Across Liverpool Road is the Tenkey Marina (formerly known as the Frenchman's Bay Marina) and a restaurant, and north of the Marina is the Nautical Village development consisting of townhouse dwellings and live -work units along Liverpool Road. Further west is Frenchman's Bay. 1.2 Applicant’s Original Proposal and Vision Pickering Harbour Company Ltd.’s original plan proposed a high-density mixed-use development on lands located at 505 and 591 Liverpool Road consisting of 2 buildings having heights of 23-storeys and containing 498 apartment units (see Original Submitted Concept Plan and Rendering and Original Submitted Landscape Plan, Attachments #3 & #4). The lands located at 505 Liverpool Road are owned by the City of Pickering; however, the City was not a co-applicant in the applications. The application also included approximately 1,900 square metres of grade related commercial uses, a pedestrian promenade through the centre of the site and a public boardwalk along the south and east edges. The primary vehicular access was proposed at the north end of the site, accessed from a private road off of Liverpool Road. A secondary parking access was proposed from Liverpool Road to the south building, and an at grade vehicular connection through the promenade area was proposed between both buildings. Two levels of underground parking and one level of above ground parking containing a total of 739 parking spaces for residents, visitors, commercial uses and 200 public parking spaces. - 48 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 4 The applicant proposed an opportunity for a future road connection between Liverpool Road and Sandy Beach Road in the vicinity of the terminus of Liverpool Road to improve connectivity and alleviate traffic congestion. As part of the original supporting information for the development, the applicant identified a broader vision for their landholdings including creating a "Pickering Waterpark", consisting of a waterfront boardwalk connecting the east and west sides of Frenchman's Bay. The waterpark design vision was not included in the subject development applications. 1.3 Applicant’s Revised Proposal On March 11, 2020, Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. submitted a revised proposal in response to public and technical comments received throughout the planning review process (see Revised Submitted Concept Plan and Revised Submitted Concept Landscape Plan, Attachments #5 & #6). The following key revisions have been made to the original proposal:  the removal of the City lands (505 Liverpool Road) from the applications;  the removal of 200 public parking spaces proposed in the original plan;  a reduction in the total Gross Floor Area (GFA) from 58,174 square metres to 48,132 square metres, and an increase in the Floor Space Index (FSI) from 3.981 to 4.34;  a reduction in the height of the towers from 23-storeys to 15-storeys;  a reduction in the proposed number of units from 498 to 377, while maintaining the proposed density of 340 units per net hectare;  an increase in the environmental buffer from the Provincially Significant Wetland (Hydro Marsh) from 20.0 metres to a fully vegetated buffer ranging in width between 24.1 metres and 38.0 metres;  the removal of the City lands and the increase in the environmental buffer reduces the net developable area from 1.46 hectares to 1.11 hectares;  the relocation of the proposed publicly accessible boardwalk outside of the environmental buffer area; 1 The FSI number of 4.4 that was used in the February 3, 2020 Information Report 03-20, was incorrect. Figure 1: Applicant’s comparison of Origin al and Revised Proposal - 49 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 5  the publicly accessible pedestrian promenade has been maintained and the width on the ground level has been increased from 20.0 metres to 26.0 metres;  a reduction of the commercial area from 1,900 square metres to 1,400 square metres;  a slight reduction in the total amount of parking from 539 spaces to 535 spaces;  an increase in the resident parking ratio from 0.8 space per unit to 1.0 space per unit;  the addition of shared parking formula between visitors, commercial and office uses;  the removal of the proposal for a future road connection between Liverpool Road and Sandy Beach Road;  the removal of the vision for a pedestrian park and bridge over Frenchman’s Bay;  the addition of a 625 square metre public assembly/event hall located on the ground floor of the south building; and  the addition of a 1,700 square metre indoor boat storage facility located on the ground floor of the north building. The submitted Official Plan Amendment application is to re-designate the developable portion of the subject lands to “Mixed Use – Community Node” and the environmentally sensitive lands, including the vegetation protection buffer, to “Open Space System – Natural Areas”. As noted above, the applicant proposes site-specific permission for an increase in the residential density from 140 units per net hectare to approximately 340 units per net hectare and an increase in the maximum permitted FSI from 2.5 to 4.34. The submitted Zoning By-law Amendment Application is to rezone the subject lands to an appropriate mixed-use zone category to facilitate the proposal. The proposed uses include: apartment dwellings; animal care establishment; assembly hall; art gallery; bake shop; financial institution; café/restaurant; marina uses; medical office; commercial fitness/recreation centre; convenience store; daycare centre; dry-cleaning establishment; home improvement centre; tavern/bar/pub; office; personal service establishment; retail store; supermarket; veterinary clinic; and, indoor boat storage/outdoor boat storage. Attachment #7 to this report summaries the key site statistics of the original and revised proposal. 2. Comments Received 2.1 Public Open House, Statutory Public Meeting and Written Comments On October 17, 2019, a Public Open House meeting was hosted by the City Development Department to inform area residents about the development proposal. Approximately 250 people attended the Open House meeting. Subsequently, the Statutory Public Meeting was held on February 3, 2020, where approximately 300 people attended and over 30 people spoke in opposition to the proposal. A copy of an on-line petition and copies of letters of objection were submitted to the City Clerk at the Statutory Public Meeting. The online petition submitted contained approximately 15,000 names, including approximately 2,200 Pickering residents. Approximately 150 letters of objection were also submitted. - 50 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 6 The key concerns in the written submissions, and voiced at the Public Open House and Statutory Public Meetings, are summarized in Appendix I. The major concerns/comments can be described as follows:  the proposal is too dense; the buildings are too tall and not compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood;  there is insufficient capacity in the existing road network to accommodate the development, which will lead to more congestion and more parking issues;  the development of these lands will worsen the significant flooding recently experienced in the area and have adverse environmental and ecological impacts ;  it is important to protect the existing City parking lot and existing boat storage facility that support marina and recreational boating activities; and  additional residents in the area will have impacts on safety and increase the delay for emergency evacuation of the area. Approximately 10 comments were received after the submission of the revised proposal. The comments and concerns expressed were similar to the comments received from the original proposal. 2.2 Notice of Motion At the February 13, 2020, Planning & Development Committee Meeting, Councillor McLean gave notice that he would bring forward a Notice of Motion to be considered at the February 24, 2020 Council Meeting. At the February 24, 2020 Council Meeting, the following Notice of Motion was Moved By Councillor McLean and Seconded by Councillor Brenner: That the Council for the Corporation of the City of Pickering under the powers of authority granted under the Planning Act R.SO. 1990, c.P.13 recommends: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19 -001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19 submitted by Pickering Harbour Company Ltd., to facilitate a mixed-use development consisting of two buildings having heights of 23-storeys containing a total of 498 apartment units, and approximately 1,900 square metres of grade related commercial uses, and 200 public parking spaces to serve the public be refused; 2. In the event that the Applicant appeals to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), Council authorizes City staff, its outside legal counsel and outside experts in the fields of planning, environment, transportation, urban design and other specialties, as may be required, to present and defend Council’s position on Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19, submitted by Pickering Harbour Company Ltd., at the LPAT; and, - 51 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 7 3. Staff be directed through the CAO’s Office, to advise the Applicant that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering is not interested in including the City owned lands at 505 Liverpool Road as part of the Applicant’s visioning exercise for their lands at 591 Liverpool Road, and is not interested in either selling nor conveying to the Applicant the lands owned by the City. Approximately 250 people attended the February 24, 2020 Council Meeting, and 11 people spoke in support of the Notice of Motion to refuse Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. proposal. Council resolved that the Notice of Motion to refuse Pickering Harbour Company Ltd., to amend the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law for 505 and 591 Liverpool Road, be referred to City Development for consideration and to report back to the Planning & Development Committee meeting on May 4, 2020, or earlier, if deemed appropriate, in accordance with standard process utilized to review, assess and make recommendations on all planning applications (Council Resolution #234/20). At that time, staff anticipated that a recommendation report could be available for the May 4, 2020 Planning & Development Committee meeting as requested in Council Resolution #234/20. However, with the ongoing events regarding COVID-19 and the closure of City facilities, the May Planning & Development Committee meeting was cancelled. In addition, staff did not receive all required City and agency comments on the revised proposal to complete the review of the applications. At this time, staff have received all required City and agency comments, which have been incorporated into the subject recommendation report. The comments were assessed and considered and form part of staff’s recommendation to Council. 2.3 City Departments & Agency Comments 2.3.1 Ontario Power Generation (OPG) The following is a summary of key comments from OPG (see OPG letter dated April 28, 2020, Attachment #8) based on the revised proposal:  the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS) has a restrictive zone (an exclusion zone), measuring 914 metres from the exterior face of any reactor building, that precludes residential uses from locating in this area for public health and safety reasons (see Exclusion Zone Map to PNGS, Attachment #9);  the applications propose changes to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law that would introduce policies contemplating sensitive residential land uses within the existing federally related exclusion zone, which has been in place since 1971; and  OPG is not in support of the applications, as it is premature in nature with respect to the exclusion zone. - 52 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 8 2.3.2 Region of Durham The following is a summary of key comments from the Region of Durham (see letters dated March 18, 2020 and April 23, 2020, Attachment #10) based on the revised proposal:  the proposed development generally conforms with the waterfront policies of the Region of Durham Official Plan; and, the Official Plan Amendment application is exempt from Regional Approval;  Regional Works staff did not review the revised Traffic Impact Study (TIS), dated March 2020, given that the applicant did not address the Region’s comments that were provided for the previous TIS, dated November 2019;  the Region requests the applicant prepare an Addendum TIS Report that addresses outstanding comments;  Durham Region Transit (DRT) advises that they do not support the looping of a DRT bus through the City Parking lot as suggested in the TIS;  DRT recommends that a turnaround loop (cul-de-sac) be located at the bottom of Liverpool Road to allow buses to come to the bottom of Liverpool Road;  it is recommended that canopy heights and access to the main doors of buildings are designed to allow for specialized transit service buses the ability to travel under the structure and along and around the entrance;  further information is required regarding the circulation of traffic through the site ; and  a waste management plan is required at a future development application stage. 2.3.3 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) The following is a summary of key comments from the TRCA (see TRCA letter dated April 20, 2020, Attachment #11) based on the revised proposal:  the subject lands are within the TRCA Regulated Area of the Krosno Creek Watershed and Lake Ontario Shoreline, and a permit is required from the TRCA before any development taking place within the Regulated Area limits;  TRCA’s policy document, the Living City Policies (LCP) for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the TRCA apply to this application ;  an appropriate Shoreline Hazard Study must be provided to identify the location of the shoreline hazard on or near the site prior to TRCA being able to comment further ;  consistency with the PPS and the TRCA Living City Policies has not been demonstrated as the location of the shoreline hazard has not been identified; TRCA staff cannot determine whether a permit application would be supported without an appropriate Shoreline Hazard Study;  TRCA supports the variable fully vegetated buffer of 24.1 metres to 38.0 metres from the Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW ) with an overall buffer area of 0.53 hectares; TRCA staff agree that the proposed increased ecological function within the buffer along with the restoration opportunities identified in the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) will mitigate the small deficit of 137 square metres; and  TRCA supports the proposed fully naturalized buffer to the PSW ; and, the buffer and the remaining natural features are required to be placed in an open space block and conveyed into public ownership for long-term protection. - 53 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 9 2.3.4 City of Pickering – Engineering Services The following is a summary of key comments from Engineering Services (see Engineering Services memo dated, May 19, 2020, Attachment #12) based on the revised proposal:  given the high groundwater table and proposed underground parking garage, the Functional Servicing Report (FSR) should address a foundation drainage strategy, supported by preliminary calculations, detailed geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations;  discharge of foundation drainage to the City’s storm sewer system is not permitted;  Engineering Services does not support the proposed use of the City’s parking lot for the turnaround of public transit vehicles and other public traffic other than parking lot users, as also noted by DRT;  Engineering Services concurs with the City’s peer review transportation report prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions found in Attachment #14 to this report;  regarding the proposed installation of a new traffic signal located at Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road; the City requires a functional plan be prepared for the dedicated southbound left lane given that the queue will increase the intersection delay and block the Haller Avenue access;  an increase in the amount of soft landscaping is required and it is recommended that raised planting areas, particularly over the parking garage are provided ; and  an overall landscape plan is required for outdoor spaces including outdoor commercial and residential spaces. 3. Policy Context 3.1 The Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 3.1.1 Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction for land use planning and development in Ontario and with which municipal planning decisions must be consistent. On February 28, 2020, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing released the PPS, 2020, which came into effect on May 1, 2020. All decisions on or after that date under the Planning Act, or that affect a planning matter will be required to be consistent with the new PPS. Section 1 of the PPS, Building Strong Healthy Communities, states that healthy, livable and safe communities are to be sustained, including among other matters, promoting efficient development and land-use patterns; accommodating an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential types, employment, institutional, recreation, park and open space and other uses to meet long-term needs; and promoting the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing cost. - 54 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 10 Section 1.1.3.3 of the PPS states that planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for transit-supportive development, accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs. Section 1.1.3.5 of the PPS states that planning authorities shall establish and implement minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment within built-up areas, based on local conditions. However, where provincial targets are established through provincial plans, the provincial target shall represent the minimum target for affected areas. Section 1.2.6.1 of the PPS states that major facilities and sensitive land uses shall be planned and developed to avoid, or if avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate any potential adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, minimize risk to public health and safety, and to ensure the long-term operational and economic viability of major facilities in accordance with provincial guidelines, standards and procedures. Section 2.1.8 of the PPS states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands have been eva luated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. Section 3.1.3 of the PPS states that planning authorities shall prepare for the impacts of a changing climate that may increase the risk associated with natural hazards. Section 4 of the PPS outlines methods in which the PPS should be implemented and interpreted. Section 4.6 of the PPS states that the official plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of this PPS. Comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning is best achieved through official plans. 3.1.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (the Growth Plan) is a provincial plan that builds on the policy foundation of the PPS providing a more specific framework for municipalities on how to grow, the provision of infrastructure to support growth, and the protection of natural systems. Unless provided otherwise by legislation, the Growth Plan takes precedence over the PPS in cases where there is a conflict. Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that all municipal planning decisions shall conform or not conflict with, as the case may be, to the Growth Plan. Section 2.2.2 3.b) of the Growth Plan states that all municipalities are required to develop a strategy to achieve the minimum intensification target and intensification throughout delineated built-up areas. The strategy is also required to identify the appropriate type and scale of development and transition of built form to adjacent areas. Furthermore, Section 5.2.5 5.a) of the Growth Plan requires the minimum intensification targets to be identified in the upper tier plan (i.e., the Durham Regional Official Plan) and requires the lower tier municipality (i.e., the City of Pickering) to undertake studies to establish the permitted uses, densities, heights, and other elements of site design to implement the minimum targets. - 55 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 11 3.2 Durham Regional Official Plan The subject lands are designated “Greenlands System – Waterfront Areas” in the Durham Regional Official Plan and Frenchman’s Bay is identified as a “Waterfront Place”. Lands within the “Waterfront Areas” designation shall generally be developed as “people places”. To the north, lands are designated “Living Areas”. Lands within the “Living Areas” designation are predominantly for housing purposes and incorporate a variety of housing types, sizes and tenure. Living Areas shall be developed in a compact form through higher densities, especially along arterial roads by intensifying and redeveloping in existing areas, provided that it complies with the provisions of the area municipal official plan and zoning by-law. The boundary between “Waterfront Areas” and “Living Areas” are approximate and shall be identified in the area municipal plans and zoning by-law. The “Waterfront Places – Frenchman’s Bay” designation requires waterfront areas within the vicinity of Frenchman’s Bay to be developed as focal points along the Lake Ontario waterfront having a mix of uses, which may include residential, commercial, marina, recreational, tourist, and cultural and community facilities. The scale of development shall be based on and reflect the characteristics of each Waterfront Place. The boundaries and land uses of Waterfront Places are to be defined in local official plans. Where appropriate, Waterfront Places shall be planned to support an overall, long-term density target of at least 60 residential units per gross hectare and a floor space index of 2 .0. The built form should vary, and be developed in a manner that is sensitive to the interface with the natural environment, as detailed in area municipal official plans. In addition to the above-noted policies, the Regional Official Plan also provides policy direction for area municipal intensification strategies. These strategies are based on, but not limited to the following:  the growth management objectives of the Regional Official Plan (Policy 7.3.9);  the identification of intensification areas, ensuring they are in appropriate locations throughout the built-up areas;  the recognition of Urban Growth Centre, Regional and Local Centres, Corridors, Waterfront Places and Transportation Hubs and Commuter Stations as the key focus for intensification;  the provision of a range and mix of housing, taking into account affordable housing needs; and  the provision of a diverse and compatible mix of land use, to support vibrant neighbourhoods, providing high quality public open spaces with site design and urban design standards that create attractive and vibrant places, support transit, walking and cycling and achieve an appropriate transition to adjacent areas. - 56 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 12 3.3 Pickering Official Plan The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as “Open Space System – Marina Areas” and “Open Space System – Natural Areas” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. The “Open Space System – Marina Areas” designation provides for marinas, yacht clubs, marina supportive uses such as restaurants, limited retail sales, limited residential uses in conjunction with marinas and yacht clubs, and aquaculture, in addition to conservation, environmental protection and agriculture uses. The “Open Space System – Natural Areas” designation provides for conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education, passive recreation, and similar uses. The subject lands are adjacent to the Hydro Marsh, which is a Provincially Significant Wetland Complex. An Environmental Impact Study is required for any proposed development within 120 metres of a key natural heritage or key hydrologic feature. The purpose of the study is to identify and evaluate the natural heritage features and hydrologic features, determine the minimum required vegetation protection zones (VPZ), and determine the site's development limits to prevent potential negative impacts from the proposed development on the natural heritage features. The Official Plan requires a minimum 30 metre wide VPZ abutting wetlands. The VPZ could be reduced where the conservation authority determines it to be appropriate and where it can be demonstrated that there is no increase in risk to life or property; no impact to the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beach or pollution; and where a net environmental benefit can be established on the property. The subject lands are located within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood and the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node area in the southern part of the neighbourhood. The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node is described as an area that exhibits a unique mix of built and natural attributes. Building form and public spaces within the Waterfront Node are to be of high-quality design with a nautical theme as detailed in the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines. The Official Plan policies for this Node restrict permitted uses to non-residential uses that promote the Waterfront Node as a boating, tourism and recreation area. Specifically, Official Plan Section 12.5 states that City Council shall:  recognize that the area generally situated from Commerce Street stretching south to the Lake Ontario shoreline, on either side of Liverpool Road, exhibits a unique mix of built and natural attributes that establishes the area as the ‘L iverpool Road Waterfront Node’;  promote the Waterfront Node as a boating, tourism and recreational area;  require that future development within the Waterfront Node capitalize upon these unique attributes, which include Frenchman’s Bay, Lake Ontario, the Hydro Marsh, City parks, Millennium Square, marine activities, and the historic Village of Fairport; and  for lands within the Waterfront Node, require building forms and public space to be of high-quality design with a Great Lakes Nautical Village theme as detailed in the Council-adopted Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines, to create a vibrant pedestrian environment. - 57 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 13 Furthermore, for lands identified as the Liverpool Road Corridor:  restrict the permissible uses to retailing of goods and services, restaurants, offices, and community, cultural and recreational uses, to serve the tourist, recreational, boating and other community needs;  further permit, despite above, the establishment of residential uses, up to a maximum density of 55 units per net hectare, subject to conditions; accordingly, City Council, in considering rezoning applications for residential development for lands in the Liverpool Road Corridor, shall be satisfied that:  a significant public benefit is achieved through the design and construction of the dwellings to allow the ground floors facing the street to be easily converted to accommodate a range of uses including the retailing of goods and services, and offices by incorporating the Ontario Building Code construction requirements applicable to commercial uses. The Pickering Official Plan, Chapter 9 outlines the City Community Design goal, which states “City Council shall promote development at various scales which, through their adherence to principles of good, high-quality community design, will produce built and natural environments in Pickering that offer enjoyment, comfort and safety for all uses, and evoke a desirable image and sense of place for the City”. To achieve the community design goal, City Council shall, amongst other objectives:  encourage private and public developments that offer pedestrian and users a high level of comfort, enjoyment and personal protection;  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; and  encourage developments that create spaces between and along with buildings that are of high architectural landscape quality, and contribute to and enhance the overall quality of Pickering's public realm. The Pickering Official Plan, Chapter 14 establishes the City’s position on a variety of municipal concerns revolving around attractive and effective community design. Urban design related policies include:  Community Image: requires that development at all scales creates, reinforces, and enhances distinctive neighbourhoods, nodes and corridors, and enhances the specific character of existing developments and neighbourhoods.  Development and Subdivision Design: encourages designs of streets and blocks that create a public realm supporting comfortable and safe pedestrian activity and movement both within and beyond the development; and introducing public roads into large blocks of developable land.  Views & Vistas: endeavours to maintain and enhance views of natural features, including bodies of water and across open spaces.  Human Scale: encourages development that establishes and reinforces a human scale. - 58 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 14  Design of Buildings: encourages buildings proposed within an existing neighbourhood or established area to be designed to reinforce and complement existing built patterns such as form, massing, height, proportion, position relative to the street, and building area to site area ratios. 3.4 Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines were adopted by Council in 2002 to guide the waterfront area of the Bay Ridges neighbourhood. As shown in Figure 2, the lands are designated as follows:  Marina Mixed Use Area  Natural Areas and Open Space Area  Liverpool Road Corridor  Public Use Parking Boat Storage Area The centre of the lands are shown as Marina Mixed Use Area and are intended to develop in a manner that creates a high quality built form that is sensitive to views of the water, provides a critical link for visual and physical public accessibility to the waterfront where appropriate, has an attractive pedestrian scale and builds upon existing neighbourhood patterns. The easterly limits of the lands are shown as Natural Areas and Open Space Area, which includes the Hydro Marsh lands. The Hydro Marsh is an environmentally sensitive wetland in which development is not permitted. The northwest corner of the lands are shown as Liverpool Road Corridor. Development along Liverpool Road is intended to achieve a high level of design and architectural quality, featuring a vibrant pedestrian environment. This area represents the tourism and service commercial uses that complement the marina, recreation and waterfront trail uses within the Waterfront Node. Residential uses within the Liverpool Road Corridor will be permitted provided that a significant public benefit is provided. The remaining lands are shown as Public Use Parking and Boat Storage Area. This area includes lands east of the City’s parking lot which includes a marina office and boat storage. Figure 2: Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines - 59 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 15 The guidelines set out detailed development standards and policies that recognize the importance of development to be appropriate for the area by addressing the protection of views and vistas, maintenance of the existing road network, opportunities for additional off-road trail connections, continuance of street and block patterns, provision of pedestrian-friendly built form, creative parking strategies, compliance with relevant environmental management policies, and stormwater best management practices ensuring post-development flows are equal or better quality and quantity to that of predevelopment flows. 3.5 City’s Intensification Strategy The City’s current intensification strategy as set out in the Pickering Official Plan is to maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure and minimize the consumption of vacant land by accommodating additional residential units within the South Pickering Urban Area by encouraging:  major intensification in Mixed Use Areas as designated on Schedule I of the Official Plan (which includes among other areas, Pickering’s City Centre and a majority of the Kingston Road corridor and Specialty Retailing Node along which bus rapid transit service is available);  in mixed-use areas and residential areas, redevelopment and conversion of non-residential uses to residential uses, including the addition of residential uses in mixed-use forms; and  methods for the provision of compact housing form, with regard to housing type, architectural design and cost-effective development standards, where technically feasible. Major intensification is primarily intended to occur on those lands designated as Mixed Use Areas, not low-density residential areas. Infill occurs in low-density areas on vacant or underutilized parcels of land. The effect of this is to increase the number of people close to higher-order transit infrastructure, without significantly changing the character of the established neighbourhoods. In 2009, the City initiated a growth strategy program as part of the comprehensive review of the Pickering Official Plan to bring it into conformity with provincial and regional plans. The first component, which resulted in the approval of Pickering Official Plan Amendment 22, addressed the provincial and regional conformity exercise for future development within the City’s designated greenfield area (Seaton). The next component of the program focused on the City Centre, identified as an urban growth centre in the provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. On March 4, 2015, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approved Amendment 26 to the Pickering Official Plan, the planning framework for the redevelopment and intensification of the City Centre. Council adopted urban design guidelines and a new comprehensive zoning by-law for the City Centre in April 2017. - 60 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 16 The next component of the program focused on examining intensification opportunities on the remaining lands in South Pickering. In 2015, the first phase of the South Pickering Intensification Study started with a community engageme nt exercise regarding where and to what extent growth should occur in South Pickering. The key themes that emerged throughout the community engagement exercise included focusing intensification and higher density development in the City Centre and along co rridors such as Kingston Road, maintaining stable neighbourhoods, and creating vibrant, mixed -use, well designed, transit-supportive communities. In light of these findings, staff then undertook a review of the City's Official Plan structure, policies and densities for intensification, against the 2006 Growth Plan and the Regional Plan requirements. Staff also tested whether land available for infill and intensification using current density ranges in the Official Plan could meet the population identified f or South Pickering by the Region of Durham. Staff concluded that the basic framework of the Plan, which establishes the primary areas for intensification within the City Centre and the Mixed Use Nodes and Corridors, is sound and consistent with the community engagement results. Further, staff determined that the 120,000 population allocated by the Region of Durham for South Pickering can be accommodated by 2031. A major change to the Official Plan policies for the established neighbourhoods was not required. In 2017, Council authorized staff to undertake the Kington Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study to prepare a vision and intensification strategy for these mixed-use areas, located in South Pickering outside of the City Centre. In December 2019, Council endorsed in principle an Intensification Plan and Draft Urban Design Guidelines for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Study Area, dated November 2019, providing a framework for the redevelopment and intensification for the lands within the Kingston Road Corridor and the Specialty Retailing Node, and authorized staff to initiate an Official Plan Amendment to implement the vision and Intensification Plan for the Corridor and Node. Staff have commenced the Official Plan Amendment process, which will include opportunities for stakeholder and community participation later this fall. The City acknowledges that the Province has proposed an amendment to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. This amendment proposes changes to the population and employment forecasts for all upper- and single-tier Greater Golden Horseshoe municipalities including the Region of Durham, the horizon year for planning to 2051, and other policies to increase housing supply, create jobs, etc. The Region of Durham is currently reviewing its official plan, which includes a Land Needs Assessment Study that will determine, among other things, an appropriate distribution of the population and employment forecasts for the lower tier municipalities. It is City staff’s opinion that population growth should continue to be directed to the City Centre and the mixed use corridors and nodes in accordance with Council’s previous direction where these areas support higher-order transit and have supporting infrastructure to support higher density development. - 61 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 17 3.6 Infill and Replacement Housing Study The City has initiated an Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. The purpose of this study is to provide direction for the preparation of appropriate Official Plan policies, zoning regulations and other implementation tools, and to develop design guidelines that will facilitate a sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction in the City's established neighbourhoods in South Pickering. As part of the consultation portion of the Study, an online survey was made available to the public. Question 24 asked respondents to comment on what was important to them for the future of the Liverpool Waterfront Node. The results of the survey question are attached to the February 3, 2020 Information Report 03-20. In summary, respondents noted a desire for the future of the Liverpool Waterfront Node area to be connected to the natural environment, filled with walking trails, an updated boardwalk, and protected waterfront views for residents and visitors. A desire for the area to be protected as a park to support tourism was also noted. Respondents indicated a desire for new development to be low-rise buildings not higher than 3-storeys and higher buildings located further north. The Phase 3: Draft Planning Recommendations Report, dated April 2020 is available to the public for comment. This report provides the final draft design guidelines and direction regarding other implementation tools that the City can use to review and consider future infill and replacement housing options. Public consultation regarding the final recommendations is anticipated to be late this summer. 4. Planning Analysis 4.1 Existing Community Character The Bay Ridges Neighbhourhood consists of a mix of old cottage-type houses as well as 1950's and 1960's houses and later detached, semi-detached, townhouse and apartment buildings. Bay Ridges is subdivided into several smaller sub-areas and communities. The subject lands are located in the southern part of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood in the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node. The character of this area and surrounding neighbourhood context makes it distinct from other parts of this neighbourhood, and other neighbourhoods and areas in Pickering. This includes the unique combination of waterfront location, history closely linked to the waterfront and nautical land uses. The predominant building types include the early cottages that were established on the streets east of the Bay that remain today, but the majority of the houses in this area date from the post-war era, consisting of housing ranging in heights from 1 to 3-storeys, including some recently constructed detached and townhouse dwellings at 3-storeys. The Nautical Village is located below Wharf Street and extends over to Frenchman’s Bay on the west and lining both sides of Liverpool Road. The design of this neighbourhood took its cues from the nautical themes in the surrounding neighbourhood a nd consists of 3-storey, clapboard-style townhouses, residential on the inner blocks and mixed-use, with some ground-floor retail along both sides of Liverpool Road. - 62 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 18 Boating and nautical uses have remained an important part of the community to this day with several yacht clubs, boat storage and repair facilities, and nautical businesses located in the vicinity. The strong ties to the waterfront and to boating have helped to shape the community character. 4.2 The proposal is not consistent with the growth policies of the PPS and does not conform to the growth management policies of the Growth Plan The proposal is not consistent with the growth policies of the PPS, 2020, which requires that growth and intensification be directed by local municipalities to appr opriate locations based on the local context. As further discussed in Section 4.1 of this report, the area in which the proposed development is located is described as a generally low-density neighbourhood with some pockets of medium density townhouses of up to 3-storeys in height. The proposal is not located within a designated growth area in the Pickering Official Plan. The area within which the subject lands are located has not been identified as suitable for major intensification, and high-density residential uses continue to be directed to more appropriate locations within the City, including the City Centre and Mixed Use Nodes and Corridors. The proposal represents a density increase of a minimum of six times greater than the maximum established density in the immediate area resulting in a built form that is not well-designed to “fit in” with the established neighbourhood setting. The proposal is not in keeping with the scale and character of the existing Waterfront Node and surrounding development and what is envisioned for this area by the City of Pickering Official Plan. The proposal does not conform to the growth management policies of the Growth Plan, 2019. While the Growth Plan generally promotes redevelopment and intensification, the Growth Plan also provides direction on where and how this growth should occur in settlement areas and directs upper and lower-tier municipalities to strategically plan for growth within their communities. Within Pickering, the Growth Plan identifies Downtown Pickering (now referred to as the City Centre) as an Urban Growth Centre in the Golden Horseshoe. As required by both the Growth Plan and Durham Regional Official Plan, the City of Pickering continues to direct growth within the City through a growth management strategy which establishes the primary intensification areas as the City Centre (Downtown Pickering), Mixed Use Nodes and Corridors along Kingston Road and Brock Road where high-density residential uses will be directed. The South Pickering Intensification S tudy reviewed the City's Official Plan structure, polices and densities to accommodate projected growth within the City, confirming that the growth policies in the City's Official Plan can appropriately accommodate projected growth as allocated by the Region to 2031 without the need to introduce high-density housing into the mature neighbourhoods. - 63 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 19 The Waterfront Node in which the subject lands are located was not identified as a focus of intensification. The mixed use areas to which, high-density development is directed support higher-order transit services, are located along regional corridors and/or within growth centres. These locations provide the infrastructure and level of services required to support higher density development. 4.3 Staff is of the opinion that the proposal does not conform to the Waterfront Places policies of the Durham Region Official Plan The regional policies require the scale of redevelopment in Waterfront Places to be based on and reflective of the local characteristics. Based on the existing conditions, staff concluded that Pickering’s waterfront had low potential for intensification at the level identified in the Regional Plan Waterfront Place policies (a residential density of at least 60 units per gross hectare and floor space index of 2.0). Accordingly, the City did not delineate a Waterfront Place in its Official Plan. Further, through the Region’s current municipal comprehensive review, EnVision Durham, the City has recommended that the Region of Durham remove the "Waterfront Places" symbols from its Official Plan and that local municipalities be provided with greater discretion regarding the identification of areas for growth, and the distribution and density of development within their municipalities. The proposal is not reflective of the scale and intensity of the neighbourhood. The revised proposal is too dense, buildings are too tall and the proposal is not compatible nor in keeping with the scale and character of the Waterfront Node and surrounding area. High-density residential uses are directed to mixed-use areas, in particular in Nodes and Corridors and the City Centre. The City has determined that these areas have the appropriate infrastructure to support high density uses being along or near higher-order transit services. Therefore, it is staff’s opinion that the proposal does not conform to Waterfront Places policies of the Durham Region Official Plan, which require that the development reflect the characteristics of the Waterfront Place in which it is located. 4.4 The proposal does not conform to the growth and intensification policies of the City’s Official Plan The City has been building on an intensification strategy that started with the approval of the City’s Official Plan in 1997. The approval of OPA 26 and related urban design guidelines and new zoning by-law for the City Centre, bring the Official Plan into conformity with the provincial and regional policies for the urban growth centres. A subsequent official plan amendment (OPA 29) eliminated the maximum density provision of all lands within the City Centre. With this amendment, the City was able to demonstrate that it could accommodate the population allocated by the Region to South Picke ring, by 2031. - 64 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 20 The City’s growth management strategy has been to direct major intensification and high-density residential uses to the City Centre and to Mixed Use Nodes and Corridors. The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node, at the south end of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood, has not been identified in the City’s Official Plan as an appropriate area for major growth or intensification. This site is located at the foot of Liverpool Road, at the south end of the neighbourhood, with limited roads in and out. The area is serviced by limited bus service and the Pickering GO Station platform is located approximately 2.5 kilometres away. A typical walking distance is considered to be approximately 800 metres, which means that the GO Station is located approximately two and a half times the distance that the average person is prepared to walk. The location of the site, at the bottom end of a low rise neighbourhood and far from higher-order transit, is not a suitable location for high-density residential development. The revised proposal for a high-density mixed-use development consisting of two 15-storey towers, at 340 units per net hectare and an FSI of 4.34, is introducing a scale and intensity of development that was not contemplated for this area and is approximately six times higher than the highest density currently found in the area. The density of the proposal does not relate to the density in the su rrounding neighbourhood context. The Nautical Village to the west and north of the subject lands have a maximum residential density of 55 units per net hectare and a maximum building hei ght of 3-storeys. The remaining area of Bay Ridges predominant building forms are detached houses and townhouses having residential densities ranging from a low of approximately 11 units per net hectare to a high of approximately 55 units per net hectare. Staff find that the proposal does not conform to the growth and intensification policies of the City’s Official Plan, which directs major intensification and high-density residential uses to the City Centre and to Mixed Use Nodes and Corridors. 4.5 The proposal is not in keeping with the neighbourhood vision as planned by the policies developed in the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node and does not appropriately address the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines The proposal is in not keeping with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood and, in particular, the character envisioned by the policies that guide development in the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node. The proposal does not appropriately address the development guidelines provided by the City of Pickering Official Plan and the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines. The City retained Robert Freedman, of FUSL, an urban design consultant, to peer review the original and revised proposals to provide an urban design assessment and opinion regarding policy and contextual fit and impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding neighbourhood. The “Urban Design Opinion Report”, prepared by Robert Freedman, FUSL is found in Attachment #13 to this report. - 65 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 21 The urban design analysis assessed the proposal’s contextual fit and compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood context using several urban design attributes, including height, density, massing and scale, and examined impacts of the proposal on the neighbourhood. The consultant's conclusions are as follows: Building Height: The revised proposal at 15-storeys (approximately 46.5 metres, down from 29-storeys or 70.5 metres) is approximately 3.5 to 4 times taller than the tallest buildings in the neighbourhood. The majority of the buildings within the neighbourhood context are 3-storeys or less (approximate range of 9.0 metres to 12.0 metres), and the majority are detached houses or townhouse forms with sloped roofs. This excessive height is an issue not only because it does not fit into or enhance the neighbourhood context, but also because it leads to other negative impacts including overlook, compromised privacy and loss of views to the waterfront from the surrounding neighbourhood. Residential Density: The revised developable area of the subject lands is 1.11 hectares, which is approximately 13 percent smaller than the original developable area of 1.46 hectares. The GFA for the revised proposal has been reduced . However, with the smaller site area, and the introduction of a commercial indoor boat storage area and an assembly hall, the overall FSI as increased slightly by 9 percent. It should be noted that the residential density remains the same at 340 units per net hectare. The density of the revised proposal does not relate to the density in the surrounding neighbourhood context, which ranges from a low of approximately 11 units per net hectare to a high of approximately 55 units per net hectare. The proposed density is approximately 6 times higher than the densities currently found in the area. Massing & Scale: The revised proposal is a scaled-down version of the original proposal. It does not take its cues from the surrounding neighbourhood context in terms of building massing or how the buildings relate to the site and other buildings in the area. The revised proposal continues to introduce a new, podium-tower built form within a large block that is not subdivided by any public or private roads. This new urban form makes little ef fort to fit harmoniously into the existing neighbourhood. There are no substantial shadow impacts on adjacent sites or buildings. However, from March to September, the proposed central promenade area will experience considerable shadowing in the middle of the day which will have negative impacts on the usability of the space. The result of the excessive height, density and massing is a development that, if approved, will have negative impacts on its surroundings including:  neighbourhood character disruption  creation of a negative development precedent  loss of views to the waterfront from the surrounding neighbourhood  overlook and loss of privacy  shadowing of the central pedestrian promenade area - 66 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 22 Based on Robert Freedman’s peer review of the proposal, the overall massing, height, form and architectural design is inappropriate for this location because it does not enhance or reinforce the established character of the surrounding neighbourhood as required by several Official Plan policies and as recommended in the Waterfront Node Guidelines. These policies and guidelines speak to the importance of new development fitting into the neighbourhood context in terms of height, built form, scale and architectural character. The Waterfront Node Guidelines speak to development fitting into the surroundings with a particular emphasis on the area’s nautical heritage. 4.6 The parking supply proposed is insufficient to support the development An updated Traffic Impact Study (TIS), prepared by HDR, dated March 2020, was submitted in support of the revised proposal. The TIS was undertaken to assess the road, traffic control and parking requirements for the proposed development. The City retained Paradigm Transportation Solutions to peer review the TIS. The “Technical Review – 591 Liverpool Road Traffic Impact Study” is found in Attachment #14 to this report. To determine an appropriate parking ratio and supply, HDR examined three similar residential condominium development sites (proxy sites) located within the City Centre, a shared parking formula in the City Centre Zoning By-law, and incorporating parking standards found in the Seaton and City Centre Zoning By-laws. The revised proposal provides for a higher allocation of parking spaces dedicated to residential use. The proposed parking supply for residents has increased from 0.8 spaces per unit to 1.0 space per unit (377 residential spaces proposed), which is higher than the parking demand the applicant observed in the City Centre proxy sites. The increased parking supply for residential use is appropriate and has been accepted for other residential developments outside the City Centre. The proposed assembly hall use bases parking requirements on both the Seaton and City Centre Zoning By-laws and the parking supply appears to be sufficient. Depending on the programming of the assembly hall, the parking supply may occasionally serve as overflow parking for residential visitors and commercial uses. However, when surplus on-site parking may be available is unknown. The revised proposal introduces a shared parking formula for mixed-used developments that is based on the City Centre Zoning By-law. As shown in Figure 3 below, the applicant proposes a shared parking rate of 0.25 spaces per unit which combines parking requirements of visitor and commercial uses and office uses. Figure 3: Traffic Impact Study, prepared by HDR, dated March 10, 2020: Table 38: Proposed Parking Supply Rates (without or with shared parking applied) - 67 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 23 The proposed residential visitor parking rate of 0.15 spaces per unit is used for the shared parking analysis. This rate is lower than a typical visitor parking requirement of 0.25 spaces per unit for medium and high-density developments and lower than the visitor rate of 0.20 spaces per unit that has been accepted for other residential developments outside the City Centre. The TIS report provides that since specific commercial uses are not yet defined, the commercial floor area is assumed to be split evenly between retail and office uses. Although the TIS report proposed a 50/50 split of office and commercial uses, the applicant does propose several non-residential uses within their proposal, including but not limited to: restaurants, personal service establishments, medical offices and daycare centre. This variety of uses would require different or higher individual parking requirements if based on the Seaton Zoning By-law for example, and require different shared parking standards within the City Centre Zoning By-law shared parking formula, than those relied upon in the TIS in the analysis of residential visitor and commercial parking requirements. The rationale compares the lands to the City Centre proxy sites which have locational advantages compared to the subject lands and makes the comparison not entirely appropriate. The subject lands do not relate to lands located within the City Centre given limited access to public transportation, not connected to or within convenient walking distance to any higher-order transit services, and limited access to services. As noted, the subject lands are located approximately 2.5 kilometres from the Pickering GO Station platform. The lands are within walking distance to Durham Regional Transit (DRT) bus lines 193 and 101. A bus stop is located at Liverpool Road and Annland Street, which is approximately 320 metres from the subject lands. Line 193 loops at Annland Street and runs only 6 times per weekday. Route 101 turns off Liver pool Road at Krosno Road. The subject lands are not within convenient walking distance to any higher-order transit services. The lands are about a 6 to 7-minute drive, a 10-minute bus-ride (not including wait times), an 8-minute bike-ride and a 25 to 35-minute walk to the Pickering GO Station. The rationale also relies on improvements in public transit that have not yet been committed to, as well as the implementation of a variety of long-term and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. Even with these improvements and commitments, the subject site would still differ from those other areas due to it being further from higher -order transit facilities and complementary services. In summary, the City’s peer review consultant has advised that HDR's analysis results in an aggressively low parking rate for the combination of residential visitor and commercial uses. The initial parking demand rate for residential visitors is too low for the site and the future commercial uses are unknown. Several non-residential uses are being sought by the applicant that have different individual parking requirements within the Seaton Zoning By-law and different shared parking factors within the City Centre Zoning By-law shared parking formula compared to those relied upon by the consultant in their analysis. Therefore, the shared parking analysis of one theoretical mix of retail and office uses along with a residential visitor parking demand based on City Centre proxy sites does not provide compelling support for the site-specific parking rate recommended by the consultant. - 68 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 24 4.7 The submitted Traffic Impact Study includes several deficiencies to assess whether the proposal can be accommodated on the existing road network As described in The Technical Review – 591 Liverpool Road Traffic Impact Study, Attachment #14, the City’s transportation peer review consultant advises that the updated TIS, prepared by HDR, dated March 2020 generally follows the TIS Guidelines of both the City and Durham Region. Notwithstanding, there are several deficiencies in the traffic assessment that would have to be addressed to support the consultant's conclusion that the proposed development could be accommodated by the study area road network. The applicant would be required to update base year traffic data at selected locations to confirm the validity of the traffic forecasts; and, to conduct a more rigorous assessment of improvement alternatives for the Liverpool Road/Krosno Boulevard intersection. Regarding the proposed traffic signals at the Liverpool Road/Krosno Boulevard intersection ; the City requires a functional plan to be prepared for the dedicated southbound left lane given that the queue will increase the intersection delay and block the Haller Avenue access. With the removal of the City parking lot lands from the proposal, the City parking lot will continue to function as a vehicle turnaround at the foot of Liverpool Road for re gular traffic. Furthermore, the parking lot will continue to provide public parking for visitors. The TIS report proposes that the City parking lot could accommodate a public transit bus loop to allow buses to come to the bottom of Liverpool Road. DRT staf f and City Engineering staff both advise that they do not support the looping of a DRT bus through the City parking lot. DRT recommends that a turnaround loop be constructed and located at the bottom of Liverpool Road to allow buses to come to the bottom of Liverpool Road. As part of the original submission, the applicant advised that discussions with the City regarding an opportunity for a future road connection between Liverpool Road and Sandy Beach Road in the vicinity of the foot of Liverpool Road, to improve connectively in this area. In the revised submission, the applicant advises that the road connection is not feasible from an environmental and economic standpoint and is not part of the revised concept plan. 4.8 OPG is not in support of the applications and advises it is premature for the City to consider the applicant's request OPG owns and operates the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS), a 6-unit station which is located less than a kilometre from the subject lands. The PNGS has a restrictive zone (an exclusion zone), measuring 914 metres from the exterior face of any reactor building, that precludes sensitive residential use from locating in this area for public health and safety reasons (see Attachment #9, Exclusion Zone Map to PNGS). OPG has advised that the PNGS is anticipated to continue commercial operations until at least 2024 and decommissioning of the PNGS is to begin in 2028. Notwithstanding the planned decommissioning of the PNGS, OPG advises that there are no planned changes to amend the exclusion zone and direction, and any changes to the exclusion zone require approval from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. - 69 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 25 The applications propose changes to the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law, which would introduce policies contemplating sensitive residential land use within the existing federally regulated exclusion zone that has been in place since 1971 . OPG advises they are not in support of the applications and it is premature for the City to consider the applicant’s requests. 4.9 Consistency with the TRCA Living City Policies has not been demonstrated as the location of the shoreline hazard has not been identified The subject lands are located within the TRCA Regulated Area of the Krosno Creek Watershed and Lake Ontario Shoreline. A permit from TRCA is required before any development may take place on the subject lands. TRCA staff has reviewed the revised proposal as per their delegated responsibility from the Province to represent provincial interests regarding natural hazards identified in PPS as a regulatory authority under Ontario Regulation 166/06 and under Partnership Memorandum with the Region of Durham. The revised proposal includes a variable width fully vegetated buffer of 24.1 metres to 38.0 metres from the Provincially Significant Frenchman's Bay Coastal Wetland Complex (PSW) with an overall buffer area of 0.53 hectares. This buffer area is marginally smaller (by 137 square metres) than the area of 0.54 hectares that would be provided by a continuous 30 metre buffer. However, TRCA staff agree that the proposed increased ecological function within the buffer along with the restoration opportunities identified in the EIS (removal of the buttress, fencing within the PSW) will mitigate this deficit. TRCA also agrees that the bird-friendly design should be included in the design. The revised concept landscape plan illustrates that the proposed buffer to the PSW will be fully naturalized, and the buffer and the remaining natural features placed in an open space block. The proposed buildings appear adequately set back from the open space block. However, there is no indication where the underground parking is to be located. The underground parking should be located at a minimum of 3 .0 metres from the open space block to allow for future maintenance. It is the opinion of the TRCA that an appropriate Shoreline Hazard Study must be provided to identify the location of the shoreline hazard on or near the site prior to TRCA being able to comment further. Consistency with the PPS and the TRCA Living City Policies has not been demonstrated as the location of the shoreline hazard has not been identified. TRCA recommends that the applicant work with TRCA to provide a Shoreline Hazard Study for review. If the shoreline hazard is at least 10 metres from the proposed development limit, then TRCA can support the proposed development with conditions. If the shoreline hazard is within 10 metres of the proposed development limit, then the development limit will need to be revised. - 70 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 26 4.10 Dewatering of the underground parking garage Given the groundwater conditions of the area and the proposed construction of an underground parking structure, both the TRCA and the City’s Engineering Services Department require more information on the permanent dewatering that m ay be required and has flagged potential concerns with the constructability of the underground garage component of the development. Engineering Services advises that the Functional Servicing Report should address a foundation drainage strategy, supported b y preliminary calculations, detailed geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations. Engineering Services also advises that discharge of foundation drainage to the City’s storm sewer system is not permitted. 4.11 Indoor boat storage is not in keeping with the objectives of the Waterfront Node Guidelines The revised plan proposes a 1,700 square metre indoor boat storage use within the podium of the northern building providing approximately 100 boat storage spaces to store boats in the off-season. The applicant advises that approximately 200 boats are currently stored on the property from the fall to spring, and the lands are primarily unused during the summer months, except for the Pickering Harbour Company office building. As noted, the Waterfront Node Guidelines speak to the importance of retaining and enhancing the nautical character of the neighbourhood, some of which have to do with the visible, outdoor boat storage facilities found in various locations around the neighbourhood. Staff support the opinion of the urban design consultant analysis which states that while an indoor boat storage facility may help to retain the use, it does so in a very different way and with a different and less visible impact on the area. The proposal drawings provide very little detail about the proposed storage facility: it is unclear how tall the ground floor of this space will be; and, what size boats can be stored and exactly how many. Also, there appears to be no windows to allow views into and out of the space, and it is unclear whether the space will have alternative uses during the months when boats are in the water. Staff is of the opinion that an indoor facility will not provide a visible reminder of the area’s nautical character the same way that the surface boat storage facilities are able to do. 4.12 Conclusion Staff conclude that the proposal is not appropriate for the subject lands for the following reasons:  The proposal is not consistent with the growth policies of the PPS which requires that growth and intensification to directed by local municipalities to appropriate locations based on local context; - 71 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 27  The proposal does not conform to the growth management policies of the Growth Plan which also requires that municipalities strategically plan for growth by identifying appropriate areas for growth and intensification;  The proposal is not reflective of the scale and intensity of the n eighbourhood, and therefore, does not conform to the Waterfront Places policies of the Durham Region Official Plan which require that development reflect the characteristics of the Waterfront Places in which it is located;  The proposal does not conform to the growth and intensification policies of the City of Pickering Official Plan which directs major intensification and high density development to the City Centre and to mixed use nodes and corridors;  The proposal is not in keeping with the neighbourhood chara cter and vision as planned by the policies developed for the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node and does not appropriately address the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines;  OPG is not in support of the applications and advises it is premature for the City to consider the applicant's request given that the proposal introduces permissions for sensitive residential land uses within the existing federally related exclusion zone;  The submitted Traffic Impact Study includes several deficiencies to assess whether the proposal can be accommodated on the existing road network and the parking supply proposed is insufficient to support the development; and  Consistency with the TRCA Living City Policies has not been demonstrated as the location of the shoreline hazard has not been identified. Based on these reasons, staff recommends that the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to facilitate the development of a mixed-use development consisting of two 15-storey condominium apartment buildings located on lands municipally known as 591 Liverpool Road; be refused. If the applications are appealed to the LPAT, it is recommended that staff and its agents be authorized to defend Council’s position at the LPAT. Appendix: Appendix I Key Comments and Concerns of the Public Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Original Submitted Concept Plan and Rendering 4. Original Submitted Concept Landscape Plan 5. Revised Submitted Concept Plan 6. Revised Submitted Concept Landscape Plan 7. Site Statistics 8. Ontario Power Generation Comment Letter, dated April 28, 2020 9. Exclusion Zone Map to PNGS - 72 - Report PLN 13-20 July 13, 2020 Subject: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. (OPA 19-001/P & A 05/19) Page 28 10.Region of Durham Comment Letters, dated March 20, 2020 & April 23, 2020 11.Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Comment Letter, dated April 20, 2020 12.Engineering Services Comment Letter, dated May 19, 2020 13.Urban Design Opinion Report, prepared by FUSL, dated May 11, 2020 (updated June 25, 2020) 14.Technical Review – 591 Liverpool Road Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions, dated May 6, 2020 Prepared By: Original Signed By: Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Development Review Original Signed By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design CC:ld Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By: Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Interim Chief Administrative Officer - 73 - Appendix I to Report PLN 13-20 Key Comments and Concerns of the Public Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19 Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. - 74 - The following is a list of key resident comments and concerns that have been expressed, either in writing or verbally, at the Public Open House held on October 17, 2019, at the Statutory Public Meeting held on February 3, 2020 and at the Council Meeting held on February 24, 2020: Use of the properties  commented that the proposal is not appropriate for the waterfront and is not in keeping with the character of the Nautical Village  commented that the City should not sell the surface parking lot for a residential development  commented that the proposal would eliminate the boat storage facility  commented that the proposal is not the best use of the subject lands  commented that the proposal is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, does not conform to the Growth Plan and does not adequately consider the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines Traffic and Parking  concerned that there is insufficient capacity on the existing road network to accommodate the development and that will lead to more congestion  commented that the traffic impact study submitted in support of the applications should include data from the summer months (particularly during weekend events )  concerned that the proposal will result in an increase in traffic congestion particularly during the summer months  commented that there are existing problems with available parking and this development would further exacerbate these issues  commented that the area is not well served by public transit to be a real transportation alternative  commented that the proposal provides insufficient resident parking and each unit will require parking for two or more vehicles Environmental Impacts  concerned that the proposal will worsen the significant f looding experienced in the area  concerned that the proposal will have adverse environmental and ecological impacts on the surrounding Provincially Significant Coastal wetland, including Hydro Marsh and Frenchman’s Bay  concerned that the proposal will have adverse impacts on migrating birds  concerned that the proposal will result into run off into Frenchman’s Bay  concerned with the existing and future erosion along the Spit due to the high water levels of Lake Ontario Height, Massing and Scale  concerned that the proposed buildings are too tall, out of scale, and do not fit into the surroundings neighbourhood  concerned that the proposed height of the buildings will have shadow impacts on the nautical village townhouse units  concerned that the size and height of buildings will block the waterfront views  concerned that the density proposed is out of character and far higher than the density in the surrounding neighbourhood and more app ropriately located near the GO Station and along Kingston Road - 75 - Waterfront and Frenchman’s Bay  concerned that the proposal will have negative impacts on the waterfront including the loss of lake views and the loss of access to the waterfront  commented that the waterfront should be preserved for parkland for all residents to enjoy  commented that the City should buy lands in the area for public use as a park or for boating uses  commented that the “waterpark” design vision for Frenchman’s Bay is not desirable or appropriate Recreational Boating  concerned that the proposal will contribute to the declining support of recreational boating in the area  concerned that the proposal would eliminate boat storage on dry land  concerned that the proposal would eliminate boat launch Pickering Nuclear Generating Station  concerned that additional residents will increase the delay for emergency evacuation of the area  concerned with the City’s interest in obtaining a minor variance to the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station Exclusion Zone to allow for the subject proposal and not consulting with area residents Other Comments  concerned that this proposal may be the catalyst for similar developments in the area  concerned that the quality of life for existing surrounding residents will be negatively impacted  concerned with impacts of construction on the local area as well as environmental impacts  recommended the implementation of Bird Strike Mitigation Measures - 76 - Colmar Avenue Annland Street Liverpool RoadF r o n t R o a d Balaton AvenueCommerce Street Pleasant StreetWharf Street Broadview Street SandbarRoad 1:5,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license 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.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: OPA 19-001/P and A 05/19Pickering Harbour Company Ltd.Part of Lot 22, Range 3 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jun. 04, 2020 Alderwood Park Lake Ontario Frenchman'sBay BeachfrontPark (591 Liverpool Road) L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2019\OPA 19-001P, A005-19 - Pickering Harbour Company\OPA19_001P_A05_19_LocationMapV2.mxd Subject Lands Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 13-20 - 77 - Colmar Avenue Annland Street Liverpool RoadFr ont RoadBalaton AvenueKingfisher DriveAl derwoodPl aceCommerce Street Pleasant StreetWharf Street Broadview Street Sandba r R o a d 1:5,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license 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.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Air Photo MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: OPA 19-001/P and A 05/19 Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. Part of Lot 22, Range 3 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jun. 04, 2020(591 Liverpool Road) L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2019\OPA 19-001P, A005-19 - Pickering Harbour Company\OPA19_001P_A05_19_AirPhoto.mxd Subject Lands Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 13-20 - 78 - Original Submitted Concept Plan City Development Department Dec 12, 2019FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. OPA 19-001/P and A 05/19 Pickering Harbour Company Ltd.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: Part of Lot 22, B.F.C Range 3 (505 & 591 Liverpool Road) L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2019 Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 13-20 - 79 - Original Submitted Concept Landscape Plan City Development Department Dec 12, 2019FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. OPA 19-001/P and A 05/19 Pickering Harbour Company Ltd.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: Part of Lot 22, B.F.C Range 3 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2019 N (505 & 591 Liverpool Road) Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 13-20 - 80 - Revised Concept Plan City Development Department Mar 25, 2020FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. OPA 19-001/P and A 05/19 Pickering Harbour Company Ltd.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: Part of Lot 22, B.F.C Range 3 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2019 (591 Liverpool Road) Attachment #5 to Report #PLN 13-20 - 81 - Revised Landscape Plan City Development Department Mar 25, 2020FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. OPA 19-001/P and A 05/19 Pickering Harbour Company Ltd.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: Part of Lot 22, B.F.C Range 3 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2019 N (591 Liverpool Road) Attachment #6 to Report #PLN 13-20 - 82 - Site Statistics Original Proposal Revised Proposal Property Addresses 591 Liverpool Road 505 Liverpool Road (City Lands) 591 Liverpool Road (505 Liverpool Road removed from proposal) Total Area 2.42 hectares 2.16 hectares Total Net Developable Area 1.46 hectares 1.11 hectares Density 340 units per net hectare No change Floor Space Index 3.98 FSI 4.34 FSI Total Number of Units Building 1 – 309 units Building 2 – 189 units Total: 498 units Building 1 – 184 units Building 2 – 193 units Total: 377 units Total Gross Floor Area 58,174 square metres 48,132 square metres Residential Gross Floor Area Building 1 – 35,163 square metres Building 2 – 21,138 square metres Building 1 – 21,469 square metres Building 2 – 22,519 square metres Number of Storeys & Building Height 23 storeys 70.5 metres 15 storeys 46.5 metres Unit Types Mix of Bachelor, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom No change Commercial Gross Floor Area 1,900 square metres 1,400 square metres Boat Storage Not included in proposal 1,700 square metres Commercial Parking Ratio 3 spaces per 100 square metres of gross floor area Total: 66 parking spaces Introduction of Shared Parking Rate of 0.25 spaces per unit for visitors, and commercial uses Total: 95 parking spaces Visitor Parking Ratio 0.15 space/unit Total: 75 parking spaces Residential Parking Ratio 0.8 space/unit Total: 398 parking spaces 1.0 space/unit Total: 377 parking spaces Attachment #7 to Report #PLN 13-20 - 83 - Original Proposal Revised Proposal Assembly Hall Use Not included in proposal 625 square metres 10 spaces/100 square metres of f gross floor area Total: 63 parking spaces Public Parking 200 spaces Removed from proposal Total Parking 739 spaces 535 spaces Rooftop Private Amenity Area Building 1 – Outdoor Courtyard: 1,258 square metres Building 2 – Green Roof: 335 square metres Building 1 – 3rd Floor Rooftop Amenity Area: minimum 368 square metres maximum 1523 square metres Building 2 – 3rd Floor Rooftop Amenity Area: minimum 386 square metres maximum 1109 square metres Publicly Accessible Ground Level Amenity Area (inclusive of all private lands, excluding the driveway/aisle and areas dedicated for Environmental Protection) 4,867 square metres 5,588 square metres - 84 - Ray Davies, RPP Senior Manager, Real Estate Services 700 University Avenue, Toronto ON M5G 1X6 416-592-1743 Ray.davies @opg.com April 28, 2020 City of Pickering City Development Department One the Esplanade Pickering ON L1V 6K7 Attention: Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP, Principal Planner, Development Review Re: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19, Pickering Harbour Company Ontario Power Generation Inc. (“OPG”) received a copy of a notice of revised applications submitted by Pickering Harbour Company to amend the City of Pickering Official Plan and a related zoning by-law amendment proposing a mixed-use development. The revised applications propose two buildings, having heights of 15-storeys containing a total of 377 residential apartment units with approximately 1,400 m2 of grade-related commercial uses. The subject lands are located on the east side of Liverpool Road and south of Wharf Street, municipally known as 591 Liverpool Road. The lands located at 505 Liverpool Road (which are owned by the City of Pickering) have been removed from the applications. In the revised submission, the applicant has indicated that “an exclusion zone prohibits permanent residential dwellings from being built and occupied, but does not prohibit a landowner from planning for the future use of their land once the exclusion zone has been removed from their land.” The applicant further indicates that the applications would not necessarily intend the physical development of the lands at this time, as there are other municipal tools, such as a holding by-law, available that could be utilized to control the timing of the development of the lands. OPG is not in support of this application, as it is premature in nature with respect to the exclusion zone. The comments submitted by OPG to the City on November 19, 2019 remain applicable with respect to the siting of residential uses within the 914 metre exclusion zone for the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (“PNGS”). The applications propose changes to the Official Plan and zoning by-law that would introduce policies contemplating sensitive residential land uses within the existing federally regulated exclusion zone, which has been in place since 1971. OPG will remain engaged on this application as an interested party, and requests to be notified when related agenda items are scheduled for Planning and Development Committee and/or Council meetings. Attachment #8 to Report #PLN 13-20 - 85 - If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ray Davies, RPP Senior Manager Copies: Mark Knutson, OPG, SVP, Pickering Nuclear Generating Station Saad Haseen, OPG, Manager, Pickering Regulatory Affairs Analiese St. Aubin, OPG, Manager, Stakeholder Relations Laura Andrews, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission - 86 - BROCK RD MONTGOMERY P A R K R D L IV ER POO L RD SAND Y B EA CH RD ANNLAND STMCKAY RD COMMERCE ST WHARF ST COLMAR AVE BALA TON AV E BROADVIEW ST PARKHAM CRES FR O N T R D P L EA SAN T S TILONA PARK RD HEWSON DR A L D E R W O O D P LILONA PARK RD Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity 654400 654400 655000 655000 655600 655600 656200 656200 656800 6568004851400485200048526004853200 ´ PICKERING NGS OPG Application OPA 19-001/P& A 05/19 Exclu sion R ailway 0 150 300 450 60075Meters electronic filenam e sh eet version RealEstateServices date - yr/m onth /day requ ested b y coordinate system zo ne datu m scale u nits client grou p desig ned b y 1:9,000 2020/06/24 Meters N. BR YAN NAD 1983 CSR S UTM 17N NA 1983 CSR S 011 of 1 DISCLAIMER:© Ontario Power Generation Inc. 2020. Th is m ap h as b een produ ced and distribu ted forOntario Power Generation Inc. pu rposes only. No part of th is m ap m ay b e reprodu ced,pu blish ed, converted, or stored in any data retrieval system , or transm itted in any form or b yany m eans (electronic, m ech anical, ph otocopying, recording, or oth erwise) with ou t th e priorwritten perm ission of OPG. Th e inform ation on th is m ap m ay not be accu rate or u p to date.OPG m akes no representations or warranties, eith er express or im plied, regarding th is m ap. Anyth ird party relies on th e inform ation in th is m ap at its own risk and neith er OPG nor any agentacting on OPG’s b eh alf assu m es any liab ility with respect to th e u se by a th ird party of th is m ap.Th is m ap m ay contain data and oth er inform ation sou rced from Ontario Ministry of Natu ralR esou rces & Forestry and ESR I. Th is inform ation is greatly acknowledged. R . DAVIES R ES PickeringNGS_OPA19-001P_A0519_v01_2020-06-24.pdf Attachment #9 to Report #PLN 13-20 - 87 - The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department Planning Division 605 ROSSLAND RD. E. 4TH FLOOR PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON L1N 6A3 CANADA 905-668-77111-800-372-1102Fax: 905-666-6208Email: planning@durham.ca www.durham.ca Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact Planning Reception at 1-800-372-1102, extension 2551. April 23, 2020 Ms. Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner City Development Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Ms. Celebre: Re: Regional Comments on a Revised Application to Amend the City of Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 19-001/P Cross Ref: A 05/19 Applicant: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. Location: 591 Liverpool Road City of Pickering The revised application has been reviewed and the following comments are offered in addition to the Regional comments provided in letters dated October 28, 2019 and March 18, 2020. The revised application proposes an amendment to the City of Pickering’s Official Plan to designate the site as Mixed Use Area – Community Node, permit a maximum net residential density of up to 340 dwellings per hectare and a maximum Floor Space Index (FSI) of 4.4. This will facilitate the development of two, 15 storey buildings, containing a total of 377 units and approximately 1,400 square metres of grade related retail. Durham Regional Official Plan As noted in our October letter, the subject site is designated “Waterfront Areas” in the ROP. Lands located within the Waterfront Areas designation are intended to be developed as “people places”, with the exception of significant natural areas. The subject site is also identified as the Frenchman’s Bay “W aterfront Place”. Waterfront Places shall be developed as focal points along the Lake Ontario waterfront having a mix of uses, including residential, commercial, marina, recreational, tourist and cultural and community facilities. Where appropriate, Waterfront Places shall be planned to support an overall, long term density target of at least 60 residential units per gross hectare and an FSI of 2.0. The Attachment #10 to Report #PLN 13-20 - 88 - 2 built form should be developed in a manner that is sensitive to the interface with the natural environment. The revised development appears to conform to the waterfront policies of the ROP. Servicing Municipal Sanitary Sewer Servicing and Water Supply Comments related to municipal servicing were provided in the letter from October 2019. The revised information was reviewed and there are no additional comments. Waste Management The required waste management plan will be addressed by the Region at the site plan application stage. Traffic Impact Study The revised Traffic Impact Study (March 2020) was not reviewed by Regional Works staff, as comments were recently provided on the November 2019 TIS which have not been addressed. Once an addendum TIS is prepared which addresses the Region’s most recent (March 2020) comments then it will be reviewed. Transit The revised application was reviewed from a transit perspective and Durham Region Transit (DRT) offers the following comments and recommendations: • The turning radius and lane width of the entrance driveway to the site, must be of sufficient width to allow a specialized transit service bus the ability to travel along and around the entrance driveway. • If there is a covered pick up / drop off area, it should be of sufficient height to allow a specialized transit bus to travel under the structure. DRT’s specialized transit buses currently have a height of approximately 3.3 metres. DRT can provide additional information concerning canopy heights and access to the main doors of buildings. • It is not clear how traffic will circulate through the site. The site plan identifies the access road, but no other indications of where the entrances to the towers are located. The following comments are offered on the Traffic Impact Study - 89 - 3 • Page 10: Route 193 does not operate in the PM peak. Route 101 does not operate in the AM peak. Only the 101A. Route 110 operates every 30 minutes in the AM peak. There is no 10 minute service period. • Page 60: The looping of a DRT bus through a parking lot, as shown on Page 60 is not possible. DRT does not operate buses through parking lots in this fashion and has been modifying service where this was occurring. • It is recommended that a turn around loop be included at the south end of Liverpool Road, to allow possible bus service to turn around. As noted above, a TIS Addendum Report should be submitted to the Region for review. Please contact the undersigned with any questions or concerns. Yours truly, Lori A. Riviere-Doersam Lori Riviere-Doersam, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner c.c. Lino Trombino, Planning Division Pete Castellan, Regional Works Christopher Norris, Durham Region Transit Mike Pettigraw, The Biglieri Group - 90 - The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department Planning Division 605 ROSSLAND RD. E. 4TH FLOOR PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON L1N 6A3 CANADA 905-668-77111-800-372-1102Fax: 905-666-6208Email: planning@durham.ca www.durham.ca Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact Planning Reception at 1-800-372-1102, extension 2551. March 18, 2020 Ms. Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner City Development Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Ms. Celebre: Re: Regional Comments on an Application to Amend the City of Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 19-001/P Cross Ref: A 05/19 Applicant: Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. Location: 505 & 591 Liverpool Road City of Pickering Please find attached Regional comments on the November 2019 Traffic Impact Study for the above-noted application. If you have any questions, please let me know. Yours truly, Lori A. Riviere-Doersam Lori Riviere-Doersam, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner Attach: Traffic Impact Study comments c.c. Pete Castellan, Regional Works Melinda Holland, The Biglieri Group Via Email only - 91 - INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Lori Riviere-Doersam, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner From: Peter Castellan Development Approvals Division Date: March 16, 2020 Re: Review of Updated Traffic Impact Study - HDR Zoning By-law Amendment Application A05/19 Local Official Plan Amendment OPA 19-001/P Applicant: Pickering Harbour Company Limited 591 Liverpool Road City of Pickering Our File: 2019-P-011 The Region of Durham Works Department has reviewed the above-noted zoning amendment and official plan amendment applications and offers the following comments. The above-noted report by HDR (the consultant) is an updated submission to a May 2019 report that was previously reviewed and commented on. The current report was accompanied by a separate 10-page document prepared by the consultant that summarizes how the previous comments have been addressed. This new information has been reviewed by staff from the Transportation Infrastructure, Planning and Traffic Engineering and Operations Divisions with assistance from Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd. The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) has been done in support of the redevelopment of Frenchman’s Bay Marina at the foot of Liverpool Road in Pickering for residential (498 condominium units) and commercial uses (1,900 SM gross floor area). The site would include 739 parking spaces, which consists of 539 spaces for the residential and commercial uses and 200 spaces for the use of the general public. The proposed public parking supply represents a net addition of 128 public parking spaces since there is an existing public parking lot with 72 spaces. The focus of this review is on how the consultant addressed the previous comments and the related additional technical content in the updated study. Our major findings can be summarized as follows: • While the consultant has addressed most of the previous comments satisfactorily, there are some remaining technical areas of the report that should be improved. • The updated report does not contain detailed on-site peak period observations of existing traffic operations and the base year data for “existing conditions” is now approaching three years old. …2 The Regional Municipality of Durham Works Department 605 ROSSLAND ROAD PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON L1N 6A3 CANADA (905) 668-7711 Fax: (905) 668-2051 E-mail: works@durham.ca www.durham.ca Susan Siopis, P. Eng. Commissioner of Works - 92 - - 2 – • The consultant’s identified potential improvement to the southbound approach of Liverpool Road at Bayly Street is not acceptable to Region staff. • The basis for the consultant’s recommendation for a new traffic signal at the Liverpool Road/Krosno Boulevard intersection is not acceptable to Region staff. As well, alternatives to signalization have not been fully explored as requested in the initial set of comments. Given these findings, we will require the submission of an Addendum letter to address the above general findings and the detailed comments provided below. Our detailed comments on the response comments and the updated report are as follows: 1. Existing Conditions Analysis: • The report notes in Section 2.2 that the nearest transit stop during peak hour has changed recently due to DRT service alterations. The report should clarify where the nearest bus stop is to the subject site on and off of peak hour and display their location on the map in Exhibit 3. • The presentation of operational results, which now includes the overall v/c ratio and Level of Service, is now satisfactory. There are still no documented observations of existing operations that can be related to the operational assessment. Traffic observations during the peak periods are a requirement of the Region’s TIS Guidelines. The consultant’s responses are vague, i.e. they state that AM and PM peak hour observations were conducted (presumably as part of the original work) and, “… we did not note any major issues other than what was already documented under existing conditions” and, “We will document in future versions of the report if additional field observations are carried out” and, “We visited the study area again during October 2019 and there was no congestion/operational issues.” Given the known peak period operational issues that can occur at the Liverpool Road/Bayly Street intersection as related to the proximity to the Pickering GO station, it would be beneficial to include detailed field observations that could be related to the technical results produced by the operational analysis. This additional commentary would provide increased confidence that the consultant understands the local context and has accounted for it in the interpretation of their analysis results. For example, the consultant notes that the analysis shows some hourly volume demands at this intersection exceeding the capacity, which they say is not theoretically possible. This is better stated that the volume demands recorded in the traffic counts exceed the theoretical capacity. A finding like this could be supported by observations of more aggressive driving (e.g. higher than typical volumes of left turn movements occurring during clearance intervals) as well as the extra pressure for drivers to react more quickly and/or follow more closely that can be created by extensive and regular queuing on each cycle. …3 - 93 - - 3 – A finding like this could be supported by observations of more aggressive driving (e.g. higher than typical volumes of left turn movements occurring during clearance intervals) as well as the extra pressure for drivers to react more quickly and/or follow more closely that can be created by extensive and regular queuing on each cycle. • Satisfactory clarification has been provided to better explain the gap studies done on Liverpool Road at Tatra Drive and Radom Street as well as the qualitative Level of Service analysis results for bicyclists and pedestrians. • While not commented on previously, we note that the base year data for this study was collected in June 2017. The Region’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines require traffic data for impact studies to be no more than one year old. The consultant should obtain the most recent available traffic data and/or collect new traffic data at key intersections such as Liverpool Road/Bayly Street and Liverpool Road/Krosno Boulevard for comparison with the 2017 data. Since the consultant is recommending signalization of the Liverpool Road/Krosno Boulevard intersection, eight hours of traffic data should be collected for a typical weekday and Saturday in order to conduct a comprehensive signal justification analysis. 2. Background Traffic Forecasts: • Information for two background developments has now been included in an Appendix and is satisfactory. • The explanation provided for why turning movements would experience no growth is acceptable (i.e. mature corridor, historical trends, etc.). 3. Background Traffic Analysis: • The consultant continues to suggest that the Region could realign the southbound left turn, through, and right turn lanes at the Liverpool Road/Bayly Street intersection to extend the southbound left turn storage. Region staff remain concerned that the proposed changes would result in weaving conflicts similar to what occurs on southbound Simcoe Street between Highway 407 and Winchester Road, and therefore, cannot support this suggestion. The consultant’s response that the Region’s concerns and alternatives are to be discussed is unclear since the identified storage constraints are not specifically related to this development. 4. Proposed Development Traffic Generation: • The presentation of trip generation for the expansion of the public parking lot has been clarified and is now satisfactory. • Other minor errors related to the proposed residential and commercial development trip generation have been corrected and it is now satisfactory. …4 - 94 - - 4 – 5. Total Traffic Analysis: • Liverpool Road/Krosno Boulevard is a T-intersection that currently operates under all-way stop control. As part of supporting the consultant’s recommendation for signalizing this intersection to accommodate 2027 total traffic forecasts, the consultant has now provided the previously omitted “1-hour signal warrant” in Appendix E of the updated study. This analysis was intended to follow Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 12 and specifically “Justification 7 – Projected Volumes”, however, the consultant uses the 2027 PM peak hour traffic forecast as input to the analysis rather than the average hour as prescribed in OTM Book 12. As well the PM peak hour traffic volumes in this analysis are slightly different than the 2027 forecasts shown in Exhibit 13 in the report, including the addition of some movements to and from the west despite this being a T-intersection with no west leg. • The average hour should be derived by dividing the AM plus PM peak hour volumes by four, or where only one peak hour forecast is available, dividing the available peak hour by two. Even with the use of double the volume that should have been input into the analysis, the consultant found that the signal justification criteria would not be met. • Since all traffic signals are operated by the Region regardless of road jurisdiction, there is a significant Regional interest in new signals. The original staff comment was that the need for signalization was not clearly demonstrated and no other improvement alternatives were considered. Without the support of OTM Book 12 signal justification criteria, the consultant’s recommendation for signalization is based on their operational analysis of 2027 PM peak hour total traffic forecasts, which showed that the southbound single lane approach would have a poor level of service (F) and would exceed the theoretical capacity (v/c 1.17). The consultant attempts to address the comment about alternatives by stating there is insufficient public right-of-way available at this intersection to accommodate either a roundabout or the addition of an exclusive left turn lane without reducing boulevard widths. This rationale is unclear considering that boulevards are within the public right-of-way. • The Region does not agree with the recommendation for traffic signals based on the information provided. As noted previously, it would be beneficial to update at least some of the base year traffic data and this should include an 8-hour traffic count on a weekday and a Saturday to provide the basis for a comprehensive signal justification analysis. As noted in OTM Book 12, eight hour projections are the preferred approach. The alternatives to signalization should be explored more fully and could include examining whether the current all-way stop control is warranted following the OTM Book 5 “Regulatory Signs” analysis and criteria since this form of control is a constraint on north-south capacity. …5 - 95 - - 5 – Assuming signalization would not be warranted, functional design drawings for alternatives that could accommodate the forecasts at a good level of service and within capacity in all peak hours should be prepared to determine whether property would be required outside of the public right-of-way. 6. Traffic Demand Management Measures: • It is encouraging to see that a minimum of 25% of the bicycle parking spaces on site will be secure, indoor bicycle parking. However, the remaining on-site bicycle parking should be covered wherever possible. This section should also note the percentage of bicycle parking at-grade. • The consultant clarifies that the walk time to the Pickering GO station, which was previously stated as 28 minutes (approximately two kilometres), was intended to indicate that some residents could walk to the station. Based on information in OTM Book 15 “Pedestrian Crossing Treatments”, where it is stated that threshold for walking trips to a destination is approximately 1.6 kilometres, we note that the potential for walking trips to the station would be low. This suggests that in terms of vehicle trip reduction, the emphasis should be on modes other than walking. • Similar to the comment for Section 2.2 above, this section should provide more detail on distance to the nearest transit stops. For example, consider adding a column to the table in this section showing the walking distance to the nearest stop for each transit route listed. • It is very encouraging to see that most of the resident parking will be unbundled from the sale of the units; this encourages alternative modes and makes the hidden cost of driving more visible to occupants. In addition, consider organizing transit or cycling information packages or displays for residents upon purchase, to illustrate other available modes of transportation. • The consultant notes in the response document that their client’s commitment to the various TDM measures outlined in the report will be discussed with Region and City staff outside of the scope of the traffic study. This is generally acceptable given that the consultant’s trip generation estimates, and assessment of traffic impact, didn’t rely on any potential trip reductions due to TDM. Yours truly, Peter Castellan Development Approvals Division - 96 - T: 416.661.6600 | F: 416.661.6898 | info@trca.on.ca | 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan, ON L4K 5R6 | www.trca.ca J:\DSS\Durham Region\Pickering\60787.01 PL 2 Letter to Celebre April 20 2020.docx April 20, 2019 CFN 60787.01 VIA E-MAIL ONLY Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Development Review City of Pickering City Development Department One the Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Ms. Celebre: Re: Official Plan Amendment OPA 19-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/19 505 and 591 Liverpool Road City of Pickering Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. Thank you for the opportunity for TRCA to review the following materials received on March 19, 2020 in connection with the above referenced applications: Cover Letter, prepared by Biglieri Group, dated March 11, 2020; Infographic, prepared by Biglieri Group; Conceptual Site Plan, prepared by Biglieri Group, Revision 1, revised March 10, 2020; FSR, prepared by SKA, dated March 10, 2020; EIS, prepared by Beacon, dated March 2020. Staff has reviewed the revised applications as per our delegated responsibility from the Province to represent provincial interests regarding natural hazards identified in Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014); as a regulatory authority under Ontario Regulation 166/06; and under our Partnership Memorandum (2011) with the Region of Durham regarding the requirements for and adequacy of studies which assess impacts of and propose mitigation measures to the natural heritage system and hydrologic features, and stormwater management. The applications have also been reviewed through our role as a public body under the Planning Act as per our CA Board-approved Living City Policies. We offer the following comments: Our Understanding of the Revised Proposal We understand that the revised proposal no longer includes lands owned by the City of Pickering and now consists of a mixed-use development including two 15-storey buildings containing a total of 377 apartment units, approximately 1,400 square metres of grade related commercial space and public uses (pedestrian promenade, boardwalk and assembly hall/event space), and indoor boat storage. The buffer between the wetland and the limit of development has been increased and the pedestrian park and bridge over Frenchman’s Bay removed from the visioning exercise. An OPA is required to change the Natural Area and Marina Area designation to Mixed Use – Community Node (amongst other changes), and to re-zone to Community Node (“CN”) and lift the Holding Designation. Attachment #11 to Report #PLN 13-20 - 97 - Cristina Celebre - 2 - April 20, 2020 J:\DSS\Durham Region\Pickering\60787.01 PL 2 Letter to Celebre April 20 2020.docx We offer the following comments using the same numbering scheme as our letter of August 26, 2019: Natural Hazards 1. As mentioned in our letter to the City and copied to the applicant on August 26, 2019, an appropriate Shoreline Hazard Study must be completed. While some discussions have occurred between the applicant and TRCA, the extent of shoreline hazard that may impact this site has not been determined. This matter needs to be resolved before TRCA can consider the application further. 2. Comment addressed, thank you. The preliminary grading plan shows proposed minimum east and south grade elevations at 76.92 masl - well above the required 76.26 masl floodplain elevation plus 0.3m freeboard. Natural Heritage 3. Section 2.1.8 of the PPS states that “Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions”. TRCA’s Living City Policies are designed to implement the PPS. A 30 metre naturalized buffer from the Provincially Significant Frenchman's Bay Coastal Wetland Complex (identified in Section 2.1.4 of the PPS) is required under the LCP. The revised proposal includes a variable fully vegetated buffer of 24.1 m to 38.0 m from the PSW with an overall buffer area of 0.53 ha. This buffer area is marginally smaller, 137 m2 (0.01 ha), than the area of 0.54 ha that would be provided by a continuous 30 m buffer; however, TRCA staff agree that the increased ecological function within the buffer along with the restoration opportunities identified in the EIS (removal of buttress, fencing within the PSW) will mitigate this deficit. We also agree that bird friendly design should be included in the design. This comment is addressed subject to securing the restoration opportunities through the planning process. 4. Revised Drawing No. L1-01, Landscape Master Plan, illustrates that the proposed buffer to the PSW will be fully renaturalized, and the buffer and the remaining natural features placed in an open space block. The proposed buildings located above-grade appear adequately set back from this open space block; however, there is no indication where the underground parking is to be located. The underground parking shall be located a minimum 3 metres from the open space block to allow for future maintenance. This comment is addressed subject to conveying the open space block into public ownership for long term protection through the planning process, and ensuring that the implementing ZBA includes a minimum 3 metre setback from the open space block for any above or below-grade structures. Our previous comment regarding the exceedances at BH14 remains valid. Further discussion as to the future landownership should take place with TRCA and the City of Pickering. - 98 - Cristina Celebre - 3 - April 20, 2020 J:\DSS\Durham Region\Pickering\60787.01 PL 2 Letter to Celebre April 20 2020.docx 5. Comment addressed. Additional information was provided. Stormwater Management 6. Comment addressed. Conceptual LIDs have been identified. 7. Comment addressed. Catchbasin shields, OGS and bioswales are proposed as part of a treatment train approach for water quality. 8. Comment addressed. Green roofs and bioswales are proposed to achieve 5mm on-site retention. Hydrogeology 9. No response necessary. Advisory only. Recommendation Given the above comments, it is the opinion of the TRCA that:  An appropriate Shoreline Hazard Study must be provided to identify the location of the shoreline hazard on or near the site prior TRCA being able to comment further. Consistency with Section 3.1 of the PPS and the TRCA Living City Policies has not been demonstrated as the location of the shoreline hazard has not been identified.  Ontario Regulation 166/06 applies to the site. A permit from TRCA will be required prior to any development taking place. TRCA staff cannot determine whether a permit application would be supported without an appropriate Shoreline Hazard Study. We recommend that the applicant work with TRCA to provide an appropriate Shoreline Hazard Study for review. If the shoreline hazard limit plus the 10 metre buffer from that limit is outside of the currently proposed development limit then TRCA can support the proposed development with conditions. If the shoreline hazard limit is within 10 metres of the proposed development limit then the development limit will need to be revised. We trust these comments are of assistance. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Steven Heuchert, MCIP, RPP, MRTPI Associate Director, Development Planning and Permits Development and Engineering Services Ext. 5311 cc. Lino Trombino, Region of Durham Irina Marouchko, City of Pickering Melinda Holland, The Biglieri Group Nancy Gaffney, TRCA Jill Attwood, TRCA - 99 - Attachment #12 to Report #PLN 13-20- 100 - - 101 - - 102 - PICKERING HARBOUR REVISED PROPOSAL URBAN DESIGN OPINION REPORT - MAY 2020 SUBMITTED BY: ROBERT FREEDMAN FRAIC AICP Principal FUSL 50 Park Road Toronto, Ontario M4W 2N5 May 11, 2020 (Revised June 25, 2020) Image: The Biglieri Group Ltd - March 2020 Attachment #13 to Report #PLN 13-20 - 103 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION: 1.1 Objective The overall objective of this work is to review the revised application for 591 Liverpool Road (the “Subject Site” or the “Site”) and provide my urban design assessment and opinion regarding policy and contextual fit and impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood. 1.2 Background Original Proposal – April 2019 The Applicant (Pickering Harbour Company Ltd.) had applied in April 2019 for approval of an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) for a proposed mixed-use development on a site for 505 and 591 Liverpool Road, consisting of two buildings with heights of 23 storeys containing a total of 498 apartment units with approximately 1,900 square metres of grade related commercial uses and a pedestrian promenade through the middle of the site and a public boardwalk along the south and east edges. Revised Proposal – March 2020 The Applicant has, through their Planning Consultant The Biglieri Group Ltd (TBG), revised their proposal based on feedback from public and technical comments received throughout the planning process. The revisions to the Application include the following: 1. Removal of the City’s Lands (505 Liverpool Road) from the Application for a reduction in Site Area of 2,600 square metres (sm); 2. An increase in the environmental buffer adjacent to the waterfront, which reduces the Net Developable Area from 1.46 hectares to 1.11 hectares (ha); 3. A reduction in the ground floor area of both buildings from 9,085 sm to 4,835 sm; 4. A reduction in the total GFA from 58,174 sm to 48,132 sm, with an increase in FSI from 3.98 to 4.34; 5. A reduction in the proposed number of units from 498 to 377 while maintaining the proposed density of 340 units per hectare (u/ha); 6. A reduction in the height of the towers from 23 storeys to 15 storeys; 7. A relocation of the proposed Boardwalk outside of the environmental buffer area; 8. A widening of the central pedestrian promenade from 20 metres (m) to 26m through a 3 m inset of the ground floor of both buildings; 9. An increase in the site area dedicated for public open spaces and use to 56% from 38%; 10. A reduction in the commercial area from 1,900 sm to 1,400 sm 11. The addition of a new 625 sm Public Assembly/Event Hall to the ground floor of the south building; - 104 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 2 12. The addition of an indoor boat storage area to the ground floor of the north building; 13. A reduction in the total amount of parking from 539 spaces to 535 spaces and the removal of the 200 public parking spaces proposed in the original concept. 1.3 Summary Opinion The Revised Proposal, although reduced in its massing and height from the Original Proposal, is still too large, too tall and not of a form that is compatible with, or complementary to, the surrounding context. The City of Pickering has established areas in the municipality where higher density development is appropriate and welcome – such as the Urban Growth Centre and Anchor Mobility Hub surrounding the GO Station. However, the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood, and particularly the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node, at the south end of the neighbourhood surrounding the Subject Site, has not been identified in the Official Plan (OP) as appropriate for intensification. The Site is located at foot of Liverpool Road, which is classified in the OP as a Local Road (below Annland Street). There is no higher-order transit in this area, which is only serviced by two bus routes with relatively infrequent service. The GO station is located over 2 km away. A typical transit walking distance is considered to be approximately 800 m, which means that the GO station is located approximately 2-½ times the distance that the average person is prepared to walk. The neighbourhood surrounding the Subject Site (the Site) consists primarily of low-rise, 1- to 3-storey detached houses and townhouses arranged along a typical grid of streets and blocks. The location of the Site, at the bottom-end of a low-rise neighbourhood and far from higher- order transit, does not make it a good or appropriate location for high-density, tall development. In terms of its built form, the Revised Proposal is inappropriate for this location because even with the proposed reduction in height, GFA and massing, it still does not fit into, reinforce or enhance the character of the surrounding neighbourhood as required by several Official Plan policies and as recommended in the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (the “Waterfront Node Guidelines” or the “Guidelines”). These policies and guidelines speak to the importance of new development fitting into the neighbourhood context in terms of height, built form, scale and even architectural character. The Waterfront Node Guidelines speak to development fitting into the surroundings with a particular emphasis on the area’s nautical heritage. The Urban Design analysis section of this report reviews the Revised Proposal and assess its contextual fit and compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood context using a number of urban design attributes — including height, density, massing and scale — and then goes on to examine the impacts of the Proposal on the neighbourhood. My conclusions from this analysis include the following: - 105 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 3 § Height: The Revised Proposal, at 15-storeys (approximately 46.5 m – down from 29 storeys or 70.5 m), is still close to four times taller than the tallest buildings in the neighbourhood. This excessive height is an issue not only because it does not fit into or enhance the neighbourhood context, but also because it leads to other negative impacts including overlook and compromised privacy. § Density: The developable area of the Subject Site is 1.11 hectares, which is 13% smaller than for the Original Site at 1.46 hectares. The Revised GFA has been reduced but with the smaller site the density remains the same at 340 units/net residential hectare (u/nrh) while the Floor Space Index increased from 3.98 to 4.34 FSI. The density and FSI far exceed the 140 u/nrh and 2.5 FSI permitted under the OP Mixed Use Community Node land use designation – a designation that the Applicant is seeking as part of their Official Plan Amendment. (The current OP land use designation is Open Space: Natural Areas and Marina Areas, which promotes primarily open space, recreation and marine related uses.) § Massing & Scale: Contrary to the City’s OP policies and the Waterfront Node Guidelines, the Revised Proposal is a scaled down version of the Original Proposal and it does not take its cues from the surrounding neighbourhood context in terms of building massing or the way in which buildings relate to the site and to other buildings in the area. The Revised Proposal continues to introduce a new, podium-tower built form within a large block that is not subdivided by any inter-connected public or private roads. This new urban form makes little effort to fit harmoniously into the existing neighbourhood. • The Negative impacts that will result from the Revised Proposal include: • neighbourhood character disruption; • creation of a negative development precedent; • overlook and loss of privacy; • loss of views to the waterfront from the surrounding neighbourhood; • shadowing of the Site’s proposed pedestrian promenade and surrounding open spaces; Despite the reduction in the scale and height, for all of the reasons stated above, the ZBA and OPA should not be approved and the Revised Proposal should not be permitted to proceed in its current form. The Subject Site is, in my opinion, suitable for a residential development – but only at a more modest scale and height and with more concerted efforts made to fit harmoniously within the neighbourhood context. - 106 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 4 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA 2.1 The Revised Site The Revised Site is located at 591 Liverpool Road in Pickering and has a total developable area of 1.1 ha – a reduction of about half a hectare from the Original Site, which included the City- owned parking lot at 505 Liverpool Road. The developable site area takes into account mandatory setbacks from Liverpool Road and the waterfront/Hydro Marsh. The Site is currently occupied by the Frenchman’s Bay Marina Office and a boat storage yard. Subject Site 591 Liverpool Road 2.2 Surrounding Context: North: § Immediately to the north of the Site, on the east side of Liverpool Road, is a row of townhouses that are part of the Nautical Village residential development that consists of three-storey, live-work units with a surface parking in the rear to the east. § The Nautical Village extends on the west side of Liverpool road with two- and three- storey townhouses. The Village has a nautical theme that reflects the area’s heritage. The townhouses along Liverpool Road are mixed-use are designed with at-grade entrances to facilitate retail, personal service commercial and office uses on the first floor. - 107 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 5 Subject Site in context (Image: DTAH/FUSL) § Northeast of the Site is a Pumping Station, owned and operated by the Region, and Alderwood Park. The Pumping Station is accessed via a driveway, just to the north of the Subject Site, that runs east-west from Liverpool Road. § Further north is the southern part of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood – consisting primarily of by low-density, single, detached houses ranging in height from 1 to 3+ storeys – including some recently constructed houses at 3 storeys (up to 12.5m) § Further to the northwest is an older neighbourhood (also part of Bay Ridges Neighbourhood) which consists primarily of low-density, single, detached houses – including some recently constructed houses on Pleasant/Annland Street and Commerce Street (Historic Village of Fairport). § To the north of the Subject Lands and west of Front Road, is waterfront park known as Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park. § The Pickering GO station is located approximately 2.25 km to the north. - 108 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 6 Subject Site in context looking north up Liverpool Road from over Millennium Square (Image: Google Maps) Subject Site in context looking south down Liverpool Road to Lake Ontario (Image: Google Maps) - 109 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 7 South: § To the south of the Site is Lake Ontario and the City Boardwalk along Pickering Harbour, and Millennium Square. East: § To the east is a Wetland associated with the Frenchman’s Bay Wetland Complex, Krosno Creek and Alex Robertson Park. § Further southeast is the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station owned and operated by the Ontario Power Generation. West: § To the west of the Site on the other side of Liverpool Road is Tenkey Marina, surface parking and an entrance driveway to the Frenchman’s Bay Marina. § Further west is Frenchman’s Bay. § In this area of Frenchman’s Bay there are boat docking facilities located along the eastern edge of the Bay. 2.3 Transportation Network The Subject Site is located at the foot of Liverpool Road, a north-south Local Road that becomes a Collector Road above Annland Street (per OP Schedule II). Closer to the 401 Highway, Liverpool Road connects to Bayly Street, which provides east-west Regional access as well as access to the 401. The Site is within walking distance to Durham Regional Transit (DRT) bus lines of 193 and 101. Line 193 loops at Annland Street and runs only 6 times per weekday. Route 101 turns off Liverpool Road at Krosno Road. The Site is not connected to or within convenient walking distance to any higher-order transit services. The Site is about a 6-7 minute drive, 10-minute bus-ride (not including wait times), 8-minute bike-ride and 25 to 35 -minute walk to the Pickering GO Station. The GO Station provides regional and provincial transit connections. - 110 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 8 Official Plan Road Classifications (Image: City of Pickering & DTAH) Transit Service (Image: City of Pickering & DTAH) - 111 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 9 3.0 THE REVISED PROPOSAL 3.1 Revised Proposal Overview The Revised Proposal for 591 Liverpool Road calls for approval of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development with two structures—each consisting of a ground-related base building topped by a tower. Both buildings are now 15- storeys or approximately 46.5 m (down from 23-storeys or approximately 70.5 m) in height. The base buildings step up from 3- to 4-storeys with the two L-shaped towers stepping up from 5- to 7-storeys and then from 8- to 12-storeys and ultimately to 15-storeys along the east side of the site. The two buildings are separated by a commercial, pedestrian-oriented promenade that bisects the site and provides views through the site to the water. In total the Proposal contains 377 apartment units (down from 498) with approximately 1,400 sm of grade related commercial uses ( down from 1,900 sm). A new 625 sm Public Event Hall is now proposed within the ground floor of the southern building and an indoor boat storage area is proposed for the north building. The Revised Proposal also includes a publicly accessible boardwalk along the south and east sides of the Site – now set further back from the waterfront than the original proposal. The revised design now proposes a 3 m inset on the ground floor around the edges of both buildings, which is intended to widen the public space and provide shelter from the sun, wind, and rain and to permit access around the building within the permitted development limit. The area between the edges of the Proposed Building and the Boardwalk include a number of different landscape treatments including hard and planted surfaces as well as shrubs, trees and seating. While it appears that the Boardwalk does not circle the entire site – the ground floor insets seem to allow pedestrians to circumnavigate the property. In terms of parking, the Revised Proposal includes a total of 539 parking spaces, (down from 579 spaces in the original proposal - and removing the proposed 200 public parking spaces that were to replace and add to the 72 public parking spaces on the City-owned parking lot at 505 Liverpool Road, which has been removed from the Proposal). The total developable area of the Subject Site 1.11 ha (down from 1.46 ha in the original proposal). It is important to note that the Toronto and Regional Conservation Authority (TRCA) asks for a 30 m setback from the shoreline -- compared to the original proposal that showed a setback of 20 m). The TRCA also requires a shoreline hazard limit plus a 10 m area that would need to be an open space block conveyed to public ownership The total GFA proposed is approximately 48,132 sm (down from approximately 58,174 sm). Despite the reduction in GFA, because the revised Site is smaller than the Original Site, the total - 112 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 10 density and FSI remains unchanged at 340 units / net residential hectare (u/nrh) while the Floor Space Index increased from 3.98 to 4.34 FSI. 3.2 Required Approvals City of Pickering Official Plan currently designates the property as Open Space - Natural Areas and Open Space -- Marina Areas. An Official Plan Amendment is needed for the following: § Designation: Change the OP designation to Mixed Use – Community Node; § Density: Permit site-specific permissions for an increase in Net Residential Density for the Mixed Use Community Node from 140 u/nrh to 340 u/nrh § FSI: Permit a site-specific permission for an increase in the maximum permitted FSI from 2.5 to 4.34. § Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines: Change the Public Use/Parking and Boat Storage Area designation to Marina Mixed Use Areas and Liverpool Road Corridor; § Zoning: Change the current zoning -- Waterfront Area, “(H) O3B-2” (City of Pickering Zoning By-law 2520) – by removing the “H” holding provision and rezoning the Site to Community Node “CN” Zone with site-specific permissions for increased height and density. OP Schedule 1 – Land Use Structure - 113 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 11 4.0 OVERVIEW OF THE POLICY & GUIDELINE FRAMEWORK 4.1 The Pickering Official Plan (OP) The Pickering OP was adopted by Pickering City Council on March 3, 1997 and approved by the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham on September 24, 1997. Since that time there have been a series of updates and consolidations. The most recent consolidated version of the OP is Edition 8, dated October 2018. In the introduction to the OP it states: “The official plan lays the “foundation” for building a good community. As a foundation, it provides a vision of the City, identifies how the vision can be reached…All development in the City must conform to the Council approved official plan.” 4.2 Official P lan Urban Design Related Policies The OP contains design-related policies throughout the plan – including: 1. Part 1 Principles & Framework; 2. Part 2 Strategic Policies - including Chapter 3 – Land Use, Chapter 6 – Housing and Chapter 9 – Community Design; 3. Part 3 Neighbourhoods and Settlements -- specifically the Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges policies; and 4. Part 4, Detailed Design Considerations. 4.2.1 OP Part 1 – Principles and Framework Pickering’s Urban System: OP Section 2.7 states -- City Council shall: (a) encourage a variety of uses in close proximity to one another through a well-designed, compact urban form; (g) improve the physical design of neighbourhoods, streets and the public realm, making them safer, more attractive, more comfortable, more human in scale, and more respectful of cultural and natural heritage. (emphasis added) 4.2.2 OP Part 2 Strategic Policies: OP Chapter 3 – Land Use: The land use strategy involves 11 primary land use categories. Subcategories are established where more detailed land use classification is needed. Subcategories are distinguished primarily on the basis of the level or intensity to which an area is designed or intended to be used (i.e., the “intensity of use” expected in an area). OP 3.2 states: City Council shall: - 114 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 12 (c) promote the City Centre as the City’s main focus for business, employment, entertainment, shopping…. high density residential accommodation, and as an Anchor Mobility Hub for integrated transit service including GO transit, regional rapid transit and local bus service (OP 3.2 (c)). (d) promote a land use pattern in the urban areas in support of compact urban form, active transportation, placemaking, public transit and energy conservation; (e) 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 Areas, and Employment Areas; (emphasis added) It is important to note that the Site is not located within the City Centre, a Mixed Use Area or an Employment Area – but rather is currently categorized as Open Space System – Natural Areas and Marina Areas. (As stated above, the Applicant is applying to change the OP designation to Mixed Use – Community Node.) The City has studied carefully and provided areas in the City where high density mixed-use development should occur – and this part of South Pickering, for a number of reasons, is not suitable for this scale and intensity of development. 4.2.3 OP Designations & The Proposed Site: In terms of land use the Site is designated as Open Space System, specifically the Natural Areas and Marina Areas subcategories in the City of Pickering Official Plan Schedule I. The City of Pickering OP describes the Open Space System designation as follows: The Open Space System is Pickering’s “greenspace”, important not only for its role in maintaining ecological health, including maintaining and, where possible, improving the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Natural Heritage System, but also in promoting physical, spiritual and mental health for the City’s residents… Lands designated as part of the Open Space System are intended to be used primarily for conservation, restoration, environmental education, recreation, and ancillary purposes. (OP Chapter 3) The OP “Open Space System - Natural Areas” designation includes permissible uses such as conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education, passive recreation, and similar uses, subject to the provisions of the Regional Official Plan … as well as existing lawful residential dwellings; a new residential dwelling on a vacant lot; community gardens …existing, expanded or new infrastructure … Stormwater management facilities and related works … The OP “Open Space System – Marina Areas” – designation provides for marinas, yacht clubs, marina supportive uses such as restaurants, limited retail sales and limited residential uses in conjunction with marinas and yacht clubs, and aquaculture in addition to conservation, environmental protection and agricultural uses. (OP 3.5 Table 3) - 115 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 13 OP Land Use Structure - closeup (Map based on OP Schedule 1) (Image: DTAH/FUSL) It is important to note that the OP designation of the lands just to the east of the Subject Site is a Natural Heritage System ( OP Schedule III A) and a Shoreline and Wetland area ( OP Schedule III C). 4.2.4 Proposed OP Re-designation As stated above, the Applicant is proposing to change the OP designation to Mixed Use – Community Node with site-specific permissions to more than double the Net Residential Density for the Mixed Use Community Node from the permitted 140 u/nrh to 340 u/nrh – as well as an increase in the maximum permitted Floor Space Index from 2.5 to 4.4. The OP states that Mixed Use Areas are areas and corridors of development having: the highest concentration of activity in the City and the broadest diversity of community services and facilities. … To ensure the Mixed Use Areas are appropriately sized relative to the people and area intended to be served, minimum and maximum residential densities, maximum floorspace limits for the retailing - 116 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 14 of goods and services, and maximum building floor space indices are established for each of the subcategories. (emphasis added) Official Plan Policy 3.6, dealing with Mixed Use Areas, states - City Council: (f) shall ensure Mixed Use Areas are designed and developed consistent with the community design provisions of this Plan (Chapters 9 and 14), and any development guidelines that may be established in a Part 3 Neighbourhood Plan (Chapter 12); OP Table 6 sets out the permissible densities and FSI for Mixed Use Areas. For Community Nodes the net residential densities range from over 80 and up to 140 u/nrh, while the Maximum FSI is up to and including 2.5 FSI. As noted above the Proposal calls for a density of 340 u/nrh and an FSI of 4.34 – both well in excess of what the OP permits in the Mixed Use Areas – Community Nodes land use designation area. 4.2.5 OP CHAPTER 9 – Community Design Chapter 9 OP urban design related Policies include: • Policy 9.1 -- dealing with adherence to principles of good, high quality community design, and a desirable image and sense of place for the City. • Policy 9.2 - Community Design Objectives – encouraging, among other things, the creation of an overall physical form for Pickering that is related to the scale and pace of pedestrians; and 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; buildings that are of high architectural and landscape quality, and contribute to and enhance the overall quality of Pickering’s public realm; • OP 9.3- Implementing Community Design requires that development at all scales be designed and built in accordance with OP Part 4 Detailed Design Considerations (Chapter 14). 4.2.6 OP Chapter 12 – Urban Neighbourhoods: The City of Pickering is divided into a number of Neighbourhoods and the Site is located within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood (City of Pickering OP Map 13). The Bay Ridges Neighbourhood contains several sub-areas and the Site is located within the southernmost sub-area known as the “Liverpool Road Waterfront Node,” which is described as an area that exhibits a unique mix of built and natural attributes. Building form and public space within the Waterfront Node are to be of high-quality design with a nautical theme as detailed in the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines. The OP Policies for this Node (OP 12.5) restrict permitted uses primarily to non-residential uses that promote the Waterfront Node as a boating, tourism and recreation area . - 117 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 15 Specifically, OP Section 12.5 states: City Council shall: (a) recognize that the area … exhibits a unique mix of built and natural attributes that establishes the area as the ‘Liverpool Road Waterfront Node; (b) promote the Waterfront Node as a boating, tourism and recreational area; (c) require that future development within the Waterfront Node capitalize upon these unique attributes, which include Frenchman’s Bay, Lake Ontario, the Hydro Marsh, City parks, Millennium Square, marine activities, and the historic Village of Fairport (d) for lands within the Waterfront Node, require building forms and public space to be of high- quality design with a Great Lakes Nautical Village theme as detailed in the Council-adopted Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines, to create a vibrant pedestrian environment; (emphasis added) 4.2.7 Official Plan CHAPTER 14 – Detailed Design Considerations The introduction to OP Chapter 14 states: This chapter complements and expands upon the goals and policies of Chapter 9 - Community Design. It establishes the City’s position on a variety of municipal concerns revolving around attractive and effective community design. OP Chapter 14 urban design related policies include: • Policy 14.2 – Community Image: Requires that development at all scales creates, reinforces, and enhances distinctive neighbourhoods, nodes and corridors, and enhances the specific character of existing developments and neighbourhoods. • Policy 14.5 – Development and Subdivision Design: Encourages designs of streets and blocks that create a public realm supporting comfortable and safe pedestrian activity and movement both within and beyond the development; and introduce public roads into large blocks of developable land. • 14.6 Views & Vistas: Endeavours to maintain and enhance views of natural features, including bodies of water and across open spaces. • Policy 14.9 – Human Scale: Encourages development that establishes and reinforces a human scale. • Policy 14.10 – Design of Buildings: Encourages buildings proposed within an existing neighbourhood or established area to be designed to reinforce and complement existing built patterns such as form, massing, height, proportion, position relative to street, and building area to site area ratios. - 118 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 16 4.3 Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines were adopted by Council on January 21, 2002 to provide guidance on the waterfront area of the Bay Ridges neighbourhood. As noted above, Official Plan Policy 12.5 contains policies relating to the Guidelines. The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node is located at the south end of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood on both sides of Liverpool Road, including the Historic Village of Fairport. See OP Map 13 below. The Guidelines note in the introduction that the Waterfront Node’s history is closely linked with its waterfront location and that over the years numerous marinas, boat storage and marine service businesses have operated in the area In terms of a guiding vision, the Guidelines state: (C1.2 Guiding Vision) The guiding vision for the entire Node is that of a “Great Lakes Nautical Village” with a mix of uses and an ambiance that is inviting. …. The nature of the Village will be geared toward pedestrian comfort, including street amenities. The character of the Great Lakes Nautical Village will be established by its series of small blocks with frequent and regular views out to the water. The streets will form view corridors and act as public open space… Due to the proximity of the Bay and the relatively intense marina uses established in this area, the entire neighbourhood has been influenced by a “nautical heritage”. The existing marinas have provided a focal point and key character-setting element for many years; the continuation of marina uses in these areas will persist as a key character-setting element of the Village. Accordingly, lands adjacent to the Bay, Krosno Creek and Hydro Marsh will feature a variety of marine-related activities, and in some instance’s public amenities. In addition to the marine-related activities, the Village will offer a variety of other uses that provide opportunities for people to live, work, shop and play within the area. These additional uses include residential development subject to certain restrictions, retail operations like craft stores, boutiques and bookshops, as well as other uses such as restaurants, art studios, and offices. (emphasis added) Within the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node, the Site is included in a number of sub-areas: • Marina Mixed Use Area (centre of Site) • Liverpool Road Corridor (top left corner) • Public Use Parking & Boat Storage (top and middle) • Natural Area & Open Space Area (Hydro Marsh) (right side of Site) The Lands in the “Marina Mixed Use Area.” designation are intended to develop in a manner that creates a high-quality built form that is sensitive to views of the water, provides a critical link for visual and physical public accessibility to the waterfront where appropriate, has an attractive pedestrian scale and builds upon existing neighbourhood patterns. (emphasis added) The Guidelines set out detailed development standards that speak to such issues as protection - 119 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 17 of views, maintenance of existing road networks, opportunities for additional trail connections, continuance of street and block patterns, provision of pedestrian friendly built form, creative parking strategies, compliances with relevant environmental management policies and stormwater best-practices. (emphasis added) City of Pickering Official Plan Map 13 – Neighbourhood 3 – Bay Ridges (black outline) with the Liverpool Waterfront Node (blue) and the Subject Site (red) 4.4 Zoning The Site is currently zoned as Waterfront Area, “(H) O3B-2” in the City of Pickering Zoning By- law 2520. An Zoning By-law Amendment is required to: • Remove the “H” holding provision on the Site. • Rezone the Site to Community Node “CN” Zone with site permissions for increased height and density. - 120 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 18 5.0 URBAN DESIGN ANALYSIS & OPINION – Compatibility & Contextual Fit This urban design analysis examines a number of urban design parameters—including height, density massing and scale in order to determine whether the Revised Proposal fits within the context and is compatible with the neighbourhood character. The analysis begins with an examination of the context and the neighbourhood character and then reviews the urban design parameters one-by-one against the relevant sections of the Official Plan, the Zoning By-law and the Waterfront Node Guidelines. This section of the Report is divided into the following sub- headings: 5.1 Introduction: Context & Neighbourhood Character 5.2 Overview: Height, Density, Massing & Scale 5.3 Height 5.4 Density, Massing & Scale 5.1. Introduction: C ontext & Neighbourhood Character 5.1.1 Context & Policy/Guidelines: Both the Official Plan and the Guidelines speak to the importance of new development, of all scales, fitting into, being compatible with and enhancing the character of the surrounding context. The first component of this urban design analysis therefore is an examination of the context—to determine and define both the geographic extent and the character of surrounding neighbourhood context. The character of a place consists of all the qualities they have that make them distinct from other places. In terms of general Official Plan policies that speak to new development and contextual fit, the following policies are relevant: OP Policy 9.2 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; (emphasis added) OP Policy 14.2 states that – City Council shall: require that development at all scales creates, reinforces, and enhances distinctive neighbourhoods, nodes and corridors, and enhances the specific character of existing developments and neighbourhoods; (emphasis added) In terms of Official Plan polices specific to the Bay Ridges neighbourhood the OP speaks to the special character of sub-areas within the neighbourhood – including the Waterfront Node: OP 12.5 States: City Council shall: - 121 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 19 a) recognize that the area generally situated from Commerce Street stretching south to the Lake Ontario shoreline, on either side of Liverpool Road, exhibits a unique mix of built and natural attributes that establishes the area as the ‘Liverpool Road Waterfront Node’; … c) require that future development within the Waterfront Node capitalize upon these unique attributes, which include Frenchman’s Bay, Lake Ontario, the Hydro Marsh, City parks, Millennium Square, marine activities, and the historic Village of Fairport; (emphasis added) 5.1.2 Study Area: The Subject Site is located within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood, which stretches from Highway 401 down to Lake Ontario and from Frenchman’s Bay over to the Hydro Corridor, and consists of a mix of old cottage-type houses as well as 1950’s and 1960’s houses and later detached, semi- detached, townhouse and apartment buildings (see OP Map 13 above). Bay Ridges is subdivided into a number of smaller sub-areas and communities including the three Detailed Review Areas within its boundary: (i) the Waterfront Node (lands and water surrounding the existing marinas); (ii) the lands around the Plaza at Liverpool Road, Old Orchard Road and Krosno Boulevard; and (iii) the redevelopment lands around the old Bay Ridges Plaza, west of Liverpool Road. Pickering City Council has also adopted development guidelines for both the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node area and for the Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment area. Within the Bay Ridges neighbourhood there are two community shopping areas – one on Krosno Boulevard near Liverpool Road and another on Bayly Street at Sandy Beach Road. The Site, as stated above, is located in the southern part of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood in the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node, which is bounded roughly by Commerce Street to the north, Frenchman’s Bay on the west, Lake Ontario on the south and Liverpool Road (above Wharf Street) Alex Robertson Park on the east. 5.1.3 The Surrounding Neighbourhood Context: in terms of what is typically considered to be the “neighbourhood context” of a proposed development – a good rule of thumb is look at a radius of approximately 800 m – or an 8- to 10- minute walking distance – surrounding the site. This is a distance that many people tend to associate with, and relate to as, their neighbourhood. It is a scale that typically includes the distance covered when going for a walk, accessing a small shopping/convenience centre, or the catchment area for a neighbourhood elementary school. It is also used by many transportation agencies, including Metrolinx, as a practical walking distance to a higher order transit station. In my opinion, the most important context for this review is the area roughly circumscribed by the 800 m walking radius. - 122 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 20 Surrounding Neighbourhood Context Aerial: 8-10 minute, 800 m Walking Radius (Source: Google Maps) Surrounding Neighbourhood Context – Current Land Use Diagram: (Image:DTAH/FUSL) 8-10 minute, 800 m Walking Radius - 123 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 21 5.1.4 Neighbourhood Character The character of the surrounding neighbourhood context (approximately an 800 m or 8- to 10- minute walking radius from the Subject Site) can be determined by the qualities that makes it distinct from other neighbourhoods and areas in Pickering, which includes the unique combination of waterfront location, history, land uses (including nautical uses), predominant building types (and the massing, size, architectural style of those building types) and the nature of the landscapes and streetscapes surrounding the buildings. 5.1.5 Waterfront Location & History: From the earliest settlements, development in the area has had a close relationship to the Lake and to Frenchman’s Bay, first for commercial shipping and later for pleasure boating. In the early 1800’s land in the area was cleared for agriculture and soon after, grain elevators and warehouses were built near the water for storage and shipment. In 1843 an opening was cut into Frenchman’s Bay from Lake Ontario, which allowed cargo ships to access the relatively calm waters of the Bay and enhanced the importance of the area as a transportation hub. In 1853 the Pickering Harbour Company (PHC -- the Applicant of this Proposal) was created and was deeded ownership of the land under Frenchman’s Bay. In the early 1900’s as the number of rail lines in Ontario continued to expand and the importance of commercial water transportation declined, Frenchman’s Bay became known as a recreational boating and beach area. It also became a popular summer cottage area for the growing population in southern Ontario in and around Toronto. In the 1920’s some of the area residents (including summer residents) began holding services in a Church near Commerce Street on the east side of the Bay – known as Fairport Church. Summer services were held there until 1947. The church was torn down after the congregation amalgamated with the Dunbarton United Church congregation in 1975. The Fairport cemetery remains at the corner of Liverpool Road just north of Commerce Street. In the mid-1920’s, Glen-Avis Park and Pavilion located on the east shore of Frenchman’s Bay near Wharf Street, became a popular park for picnics and camping. As the popularity of recreational boating increased, the Frenchman’s Bay Yacht Club was founded (1937) with a clubhouse on the east shore of the Bay. The Club eventually moved to the west side of the Bay and still exists today. Over time, the population of the area continued to grow, slowly at first, and then much more rapidly after World War II. Some of the early cottages that were established on the streets east of the Bay remain today – but the majority of the houses in this area date from the post-war era. In 1972, the Pickering Harbour Company established the East Shore Marina – with offices housed in the Glen Avis Pavilion – offering boat moorings for rent to recreational boaters. The - 124 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 22 Marina later changed its name to the Frenchman’s Bay Marina when the offices moved to the other side of Liverpool Road (the Subject Site) The character of the neighbourhood was, and continues to be, very much influenced by the boating community with many businesses catering to their needs – such as boat repair and storage. In 2000 a major waterfront revitalization project in the area was undertaken – that included the construction of Millennium Square at the foot of Liverpool Road and a boardwalk connecting a series of parks along the waterfront. Millennium Square has become a focal point for the area and draws locals and tourist down to the waterfront. Around the same time Marshall Homes and Joe Winters began the design and construction of a major new waterfront neighbourhood known as the Nautical Village – located below Wharf Street and extending over to Frenchman’s Bay on the west and lining both sides of Liverpool Road. The design of this neighbourhood took its cues from the nautical themes in the surrounding neighbourhood and consists of 3-storey, clapboard-style townhouses – residential on the inner blocks and mixed-use - with some ground- floor commercial - along both sides of Liverpool Road. The scale of the village is a good fit within the surrounding context. Boating and nautical uses have remained an important part of this community to this day with several Yacht Clubs, boat storage and repair facilities and nautical businesses located in the vicinity. The strong ties to the waterfront and to boating have helped to shape the community character. With a good sense of the context and neighbourhood character —and its long-standing and intimate connection to the water and to nautical activities — the next question is whether the Proposed Development is compatible with that neighbourhood character. Does it fit in and enhance the surrounding context or is it out of character and will it result in negative impacts on neighbouring properties, parks and public spaces? In my opinion, the Revised Proposal, despite its lower height and reduction in GFA, is still of a form and massing that does not fit into the surrounding neighbourhood context and will result in negative impacts. In support of my conclusion I have examined a number of the Proposal’s urban design parameters in turn – beginning with height, density, massing and scale and concluding with a review of the impacts. 5.2 Overview: Height Density, Massing & Scale 5.2.1 Height, Density, Massing & Scale As the height, massing and scale of the Revised Proposal are far in excess of what is envisioned by the City of Pickering Official Plan, Zoning By-law or Waterfront Node Guideline—it is important to review these documents to determine what is currently deemed to be appropriate for the Site. - 125 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 23 As stated above the Proposed Building built-form parameters are as follows: Height: 15 storeys (46.5 m based on 4.5 m ground floor & 3 m residential floor-to-floor heights ) GFA: 48,132 sm SITE: 1.11 ha = Developable Area– taking into account the 30 m shoreline setback and the 16 m setback easement along Liverpool Road) FSI: 4.34 FSI Density: 340 units / nrh 5.2.2 Height, Density, Massing, Scale & the Pickering Official Plan: While the Official Plan does not contain specific height requirements, it does speak to the issue of height, massing and scale in terms of how new buildings relate to the surrounding context. As discussed above, the existing OP Designations for the Site — Open Space System: Natural Areas and Marina Areas — only anticipate very limited opportunities for residential development and therefore the Applicant is seeking an Official Plan Amendment to have the Site re- designated as Mixed Use Areas: Community Node (OP 3.6) with site-specific permissions for an increase in Net Residential Density for the Mixed Use Community Node from 140 u/nrh to 340 u/nrh – as well as an increase in the maximum permitted Floor Space Index from 2.5 FSI to 4.34 FSI. Section 3.6 of the OP makes it clear that even within Mixed Use Areas there need to be limits placed on the scale of development to ensure that it fits within its context. Specifically, OP 3.6 states that City Council: (c) in establishing performance standards, restrictions and provisions for Mixed Use Areas, shall have particular regard to the following: … (ii) encouraging intensification over time, up to the maximum net residential densities and maximum floorspace indices; (d) despite Section 3.6(c)(ii) and Table 6, may limit net residential densities, floorspace indices,… (i) to address concerns related to such matters as design, compatibility and scale of development; … (emphasis added) It should be emphasized again that not only is the Applicant seeking to re-designate the Site to permit the type of development they are proposing – but also to increase the density and Floor Space Index to permit a structure that is considerably larger than what Council has anticipated and approved as appropriate for this land use designation. Official Plan policies 9.1 and 9.2 -- Community Design– together speak to the issue of new development fitting in to the context in terms of a number of design elements – including height. OP 9.1 sets out a broad community design goal that includes adherence to principles of good, - 126 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 24 high quality community design that will offer a desirable image and sense of place for the City. OP 9.2 builds on this general statement and 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; (emphasis added) Finally, in OP 14.10 – Design of Buildings it states that City Council shall: c) where new development is proposed within an existing neighbourhood 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. (emphasis added) 5.2.3 Height, Density, Massing, Scale & the Waterfront Node Development Guidelines The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines address height, density and massing in a more direct way. As stated above, the Site is included in a number of sub-areas within the Liverpool Waterfront Node: • Natural Area & Open Space Area (Hydro Marsh) (right side of Site) • Marina Mixed Use Area (centre / centre-left of Site) • Liverpool Road Corridor (top left corner along Liverpool Road) • Public Use Parking & Boat Storage (top, middle, bottom-left Tertiary Plan - Liverpool Road Waterfront Node - 127 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 25 In Section C1.3 Land Use Objectives, the Guidelines set out the type and general scale and look of development that is anticipated within each these various sub-areas: • Guideline C1.3.1 Natural Areas & Open Space Area (Hydro Marsh): The Hydro Marsh is an environmentally sensitive wetland in which development is not permitted. Development adjacent to the wetland must be designed in a manner, which mitigates detrimental impacts on the wetland.(emphasis added) • Guideline C1.3.3 Marina Mixed Use Area: These lands will develop in a manner that creates a high-quality built form that is sensitive to views of the water, provides a critical link for visual and physical public accessibility to the waterfront where appropriate, has an attractive pedestrian scale and builds upon existing neighbourhood patterns. … This area is the primary marina area…. Residential uses may be permitted subject to conditions. These conditions include the requirement that a functional marina operation is maintained on the remaining lands and that a significant public benefit is provided. The provision of publicly accessible space at the water’s edge would qualify as a significant public benefit … (emphasis added) • Guideline C1.3.4 Liverpool Road Corridor: Development along Liverpool Road will achieve a high level of design and architectural quality, featuring a vibrant pedestrian environment… Residential uses within the Liverpool Road Corridor will be permitted provided that a significant public benefit is provided. To qualify as a significant benefit for residential development, the ground floor of the residential units fronting on Liverpool Road must be designed and constructed in such a way that the ground floor can be easily converted in the future to accommodate a range of uses.(emphasis added) • Guideline C1.3.5 Public Use Parking & Boat Storage: These lands represent an area where the City is investigating the opportunity for additional public parking facilities, alone or in partnership with other landowners. The Applicant is seeking to change the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines designation for the portion of the site designated Public Use/Parking and Boat Storage Area to Marina Mixed Use Areas and Liverpool Road Corridor. In terms of built form, Guideline C1.4.4 - states: New buildings should be designed to be welcoming and friendly to pedestrians. … Methodologies that include various design elements for reducing the bulk of a building’s appearance should be developed as part of the architectural design. The materials, rooflines, design elements and details of new buildings should harmonize with the Great Lakes Nautical Village theme. .(emphasis added) In addition, Appendix A of the Guidelines provides detailed Architectural, Landscape and Streetscape Guidelines and the section dealing with Built Form state: Generally, as-of-right building height for new development along public streets south of Annland should be 3-storeys or 11 m. However, new building should not exceed 3 storeys when located - 128 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 26 adjacent to existing residential buildings. … Decorative features – such as towers, turrets, etc. – encouraged to rise above the height limit, provided no habitable space exists above the 3rd floor; With respect to Buildings the Guidelines state: Nautical Village elements for buildings include: • Maintaining a scale of smaller historic buildings, so that larger buildings need to be broken down visually into smaller components; • Front entrances encouraged to have large and generous porches with upper floor balconies or decks above porches; ground floor windows encouraged to be part of extended front porch, or have awnings or canopies, which can also contain signage;… • Roofs not to be flat, but to be steeply pitched. (emphasis added) With this general overview of City Policies and Guidelines with respect to height, density, massing and scale this report will now review each of these design parameters in turn to determine if the Revised Proposal is providing a good contextual fit. 5 .3 Height 5.3.1 Height Context: In terms of the prevailing height of buildings in the surrounding neighbourhood, a review of the Context Height Map (below) reveals that the approximate height of buildings ranges from 1- to 4-storeys: o 1-Storey (approx. 6.0 m) bungalows / cottages o 2-storey (approx. 6.7 m to 10 m) detached houses & attached townhouses o 3-4 Storeys (approx. 9.3 to 12.5 m) recent detached houses/attached townhouses Among the existing buildings in the surrounding neighbourhood context area the predominant building form is detached one- and two-storey houses ranging in height from bungalows to 2- strorey houses – with some more recent houses of 3 storeys (up to 12+ m). In 2018 the City of Pickering undertook the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Infill Study) to provide direction for the preparation of appropriate official plan policies, zoning regulations and to develop draft design guidelines to facilitate sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction in the City’s established neighbourhoods. Also, in 2018, the City adopted By-law 7610/18 which established a 9.0 metre height maximum in R3 and R4 zones where no height limit existed before, for the area covered by Zoning By-law 2511. Some recently built houses in the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood have been approved with minor variances, or at the OMB, with heights that are in the range of approximately 10 to 12 m. The Infill Study is ongoing and is considering what is an appropriate maximum height for infill and replacement housing in the City’s established neighbourhoods. - 129 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 27 Context Height Map (Image:DTAH/FUSL) 5.3.2 Height & Zoning By-law 2520 Site Zoning: The majority of the Site is currently zoned as Waterfront Area, (H) O3B. The portion of the site closer to the Lake and the Salt Marsh is zoned Open Space – OS-HL-5 in the City of Pickering Zoning By-law 2520. A Zoning By-law Amendment – ZBA -- is required to: • Remove the “H” holding provision on the Site • Rezone the Site to Community Node “CN” Zone with site permissions for increased height and density. - 130 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 28 Current Zoning By-law Proposed Zoning By-law Context Zoning & Height: Immediate North: The area immediately to the north of the Site (Nautical Village east side of Liverpool Road is zoned MU-13 & MU-14 and M3. The permitted heights in these zones are as follows: MU-13: 7.5 m to 11 m MU-14: 4.5 m to 11 m M3: Municipal Zone: only permitted use is water filtration plants and sewage plants operated by or for the Township - no height restrictions. Zoning (Image: DTAH/FUSL) - 131 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 29 North: The area to the north and northeast of the Nautical Village on the east side of Liverpool Road is zoned R-4 and RM-1. The permitted heights in these zones are as follows: R-4: 9 m max Residential Fourth Density Zone -- Zoning By-law 7610/18 - one family detached dwelling RM-1: 10.5 m General Provisions S. 5.10 no building or structure shall exceed 35 ft (10.5 m) in height in any residential or open space zone West: The area immediately to the west of the Site (Nautical Village west side of Liverpool Road) is zoned RM-1, O3B-1 and MR-1. The permitted heights in these zones are as follows: RM-1 7.5 m to 11.0 m -- Residential 1 Zone (Multiple Dwellings – Horizontal) O3B-1 11 m MR-1 12 m East: The area immediately to the east of the Site is zoned Open Space - O1 and O2. O1 and O2. General Provisions S. 5.10: no building or structure shall exceed thirty-five feet (10.5 metres) in height in any residential or open space zone The Applicant has requested as part of this Revised ZBA Application that the Subject Lands be rezoned to an appropriate residential zone to permit the proposed mixed-use condominium developments with two 15-storey towers. 5.3.3 Proposed Height: Compared to the 1- to 3+ storey heights of the prevailing buildings in the area — the Proposal’s large base-buildings and two, 15-storey towers stand out in stark contrast. The proposed base buildings start at 3 storeys (approximately 10.5 m) and steps up to 4 storeys. The two -L-shaped towers step up from 5 to 12 storeys, with the slab-form east portions of the towers rising to the full height of 15 storeys (approximately 46.5 m). (Approximate heights are based on a 4.5 mixed-use first floor and 3 m residential floor-to-floor heights for residential floors.) There is nothing similar in building form or height in the surrounding neighbourhood context. There are a few slab-form and newer point-tower apartment buildings in the north part of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood closer to the 401 and the GO Station – but nothing close to this form or height in the 800 m radius neighbourhood context. - 132 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 30 Proposed Height– March 2020 (Image: The Biglieri Group Ltd - Sun & Shadow Study Addendum, Revised March 2020) 5.3.4 OPINION re Height Based on this review of the City of Pickering OP, Waterfront Node Guidelines, Zoning, and the prevailing heights of buildings in the surrounding neighbourhood – the Revised Proposal is, in my opinion, too tall and out of scale and does not fit within, reinforce or enhance the character of the surrounding neighbourhood context. There are no buildings of this height, or even close to this height, within the surrounding 800 m radius context – and even for a considerable distance beyond. The majority of the buildings within the neighbourhood context are 3-storeys or less (the tallest being in the range of 9 to 12 m) and the majority are house or townhouse form with sloped roofs. The Proposal is approximately 3.5 to 4 times the height of the taller buildings in the area. As noted above, while tall buildings do exist within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood, they are located closer to the 401 and the GO Station in areas designated as Mixed Use- Mixed Corridors in the OP, which were identified by the City as appropriate for intensification and the highest level of density and height after careful review and study. Specifically, the proposed height does not conform to OP Policy 14.10 which states that where new development is proposed in an existing neighbourhood Council shall encourage building designs that reinforce and complement existing built patterns—including height. In addition, the Revised Proposal does not come close to following the Waterfront Node Guideline height recommendations which speak to maintaining the scale of the area’s smaller historic buildings and limiting the height of development along public streets to 3-storeys or 11 m. While the Guidelines are not City policy – they do inform policy and efforts should be made to meet their - 133 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 31 intent, which is to ensure that new development fit compatibly within the waterfront node context. In my opinion, the height of the Proposal ignores both the OP policies and guideline recommendations with respect to height and as a result does not fit within, nor complement the existing neighbourhood context. 5.4 D ensity, Massing, Scale 5.4.1 Proposed Density: As stated above, the Applicant is seeking an OPA in order to re-designate the Site from Open Space: Natural Areas and Marina Areas to Mixed Use – Community Node and is seeking a site- specific permission for an increase in Net Residential Density for the Mixed Use Community Node from 140 u/nrh to 340 u/nrh. In terms of Floor Space Index, they are seeking a site- specific permission for an increase in from 2.5 FSI to 4.34 FSI. The Mixed Use Community Node does permit residential development – but at a more modest rate than what is being proposed. 5.4.2 Density, Massing & Scale: Surrounding Neighbourhood Context: Within the surrounding neighbourhood context, the predominant building massing shape can be described as attached townhouse form to the west in the Nautical Village, and traditional house- form and townhouse-form in the area to the north. The general building shape can be seen clearly in the Figure Ground Massing Diagram below with the house-form buildings showing up as individual, square/rectangular black dots and the townhouse buildings as longer black bars. Within the neighbourhood context there are also some older storage sheds and mixed-use and commercial buildings and some recent flat-roof houses and townhouses. There are also a couple of larger footprint buildings which are the retail building of the Market at Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road, a garden apartment building. There are no buildings massed as mid-rise or tower structures. Outside of the Neighbourhood to the east are the larger buildings of the industrial park and to the southeast the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. Within the neighbourhood context, the Revised Proposal building footprints appear to be overly large and not in keeping with the predominant building forms in the area. - 134 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 32 Figure Ground Diagram (with Revised Proposed Building Footprints) (Image: DTAH/FUSL) 5.4.3 Density - Surrounding Neighbourhood Context: The Proposal calls for a density of 340 u/nrh. It is important to emphasize that the Proposed Development exceeds what is considered high density for the OP Mixed Use Community Node where permitted density is defined as “over 80 and up to and including 140 u/nrh (OP table 6) As reviewed above, OP Policy 9.2 (e) - Community Design Objectives – states that Council is to encourage developments that are designed to fit their contexts by considering – among other things -- the massing, height and scale, of existing, adjacent buildings. From the density map below, it can be seen that the approximate densities in the surrounding neighbourhood context range from 11 to 20 u/nrh for blocks with detached houses, to 21 to 30u/nrh for the larger townhouse developments (Nautical Village and Madison-Liverpool) to 44 u/nrh (4 Townhouses toward the west end of Wharf Street). - 135 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 33 Approximate Residential Density Map (units/net residential hectare (u/nrh)) (Image: DTAH/FUSL) The Proposal calls for a density of 340 u/nrh. 5.4.4 OPINION re Density, Massing & Scale: The Proposal is massed as a large, stand-alone, mixed-use development consisting of two, stepped base-buildings, each topped by a tall L-shaped tower. There are no buildings of this massing, scale or density – or even close to this massing, scale or density, in the surrounding neighbourhood context. The predominant building forms in the area are detached houses and rows of townhouses – the majority with sloped roofs the footprint of the Proposal stands out as very large in contrast to the footprint of the surrounding houses and townhouses. The density of the Proposal is 340 u/nrh – which is far higher – and in no way relates to the densities in the surrounding neighbourhood context, which range from a low of approximately 11-20 u/nrh to a high of approximately 41-50 u/nrh. Not only is the proposed density uncharacteristically high for this area of the City, but it would also be considered high even in the areas of the City where high density buildings are permitted, as the OP defines high density as “over 80 and up to and including 140 u/nrh.” As discussed above, the Applicant is seeking to re-designate the Site to Mixed Use Areas: - 136 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 34 Community Node and at the same time to increase net residential density for this designation to 340 u/nrh. The permitted density in this land use designation (140 u/nrh) would be approximately 3 times the highest densities found in the area, while the proposed density of 340 u/nrh is approximately 7.5 times higher than the highest densities currently found in the area. The Proposal, if permitted, will result in a building form, scale and density that will not be compatible with, nor relate well to, the built form context but rather will stick out in a way that is not sensitive or compatible to this low- to mid-density context. The Applicant has, in my opinion, provided no compelling or convincing argument as to why their Proposal should be so much denser and larger in scale than the buildings in the surrounding context – particularly when the OP speaks to the importance of contextual fit. In addition, the Proposal does not conform with a number of other OP Policies: • With respect to OP Policy 9.2 - Community Design Objectives the Revised Proposal is not achieving the community design goal of encouraging a building that fits the context in terms of its massing, height, scale, architectural style and details of existing, adjacent buildings; • With respect to OP 14.10 – Design of Buildings - the design of the Proposed Development is not fitting within an existing neighbourhood or established area nor is it reinforcing and complementing the existing built patterns such as form, massing, height, proportion. • Sometimes proposed developments with modest increases in height and density can – with sensitive design – be made to fit within a lower scale context. However, in my opinion, the height, scale, massing, form and design of the Proposal is neither a modest increase over what is found in the surrounding context – nor has sufficient design effort gone in to making the increased height, massing and density a good fit within the context. • The Waterfront Node Development Guidelines, (which as guidelines do not carry the same force as Policies) suggest that in general the building height south of Annland Street should be no more than 3-storeys or 11 m. (other than decorative features – such as towers, turrets, etc.) The Proposed Building has not met the intent of the guidelines in either the recommended height or with respect to design features. • Context Zoning: The existing zoning for the surrounding neighbourhood context permits heights from 9 to 12 m. There are no zoning permissions for taller buildings in the area. The Proposal is calling for a completely new scale to be introduced into this area that will not only block views and compromise privacy, but also introduce an inappropriate precedent for future development in this low-density neighbourhood. In summary – while the Mixed Use designation may be appropriate for this area, the Proposal’s height massing and scale are not. Buildings of this scale are not part of the character of the surrounding neighbourhood and are not compatible with, nor do they complement the immediate surrounding context - 137 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 35 6.0 IMPACTS 6.1 Impacts Overview As discussed briefly above, introducing a development that has stark differences in terms of height, density, massing and scale from the neighbourhood around it creates a number of negative impacts on the neighbourhood that can be quite disruptive. The impacts of the Proposed Development include: • neighbourhood character disruption; • overlook and loss of privacy; • loss of views to the waterfront; • shadowing. Each impact is discussed in turn below. 6.2 Neighbourhood Character Disruption 6.2.1 Policy – Guidelines & Neighbourhood Character Disruption Both the City of Pickering OP and the Waterfront Node Guidelines place a great deal of emphasis on maintaining and reinforcing existing neighbourhood character—especially in the low-density, established residential neighbourhoods. Proposed developments in these neighbourhoods that do not reinforce existing neighbourhood character can therefore be said to have a negative impact on the existing neighbourhood that is often referred to as “neighbourhood character disruption.” Once a character disrupting development is permitted within a neighbourhood it establishes a negative precedent for other similar developments in the future. People move to established residential neighbourhoods for many reasons, but one important reason is neighbourhood character. If that character is permitted to erode through inappropriate new developments, then the neighbourhood runs the risk of destabilizing. One out-of-scale development establishes an inappropriate precedent for subsequent developments to follow. That is not to say that these neighbourhoods should be static or that new development must look exactly like the existing buildings in terms of architectural style, but rather that residents in these areas (that have not been identified in the OP as areas suitable for intensification) should reasonably expect that new development will be similar in terms of basic massing, scale, height and built-form. Increases in density may be permitted by paying careful attention to design details that limit impacts. This view is supported by City Policies and the Guidelines (many of which have been discussed above) including: • OP Policy 3.2, which states City Council shall promote compact urban forms in the urban areas… while maintaining the character of stable residential neighbourhoods, … (emphasis added) - 138 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 36 • OP Policy 3.9 (c) Urban Residential Areas, which states that in establishing performance standards, restrictions and provisions for Urban Residential Areas Council shall have particular regard to (among other things: (i) “protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods, considering such matters as building height, yard setback, lot coverage, access to sunlight, … (emphasis added) • OP Policy 9.2 Community Design Objectives, which 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; (emphasis added) • In the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Policies OP 12.5 the Subject Lands are within the “Liverpool Road Waterfront Node” – which is described as an area that exhibits a unique mix of built and natural attributes. Building form and public space within the Waterfront Node are to be of high-quality design with a nautical theme as detailed in the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines. • The introduction to OP Chapter 14 states that “Community image is an important design matter warranting detailed policy consideration. Through effective community design, the City can foster an image of Pickering that recognizes the collective perceptions residents hold of the City and of their respective neighbourhoods.” • OP Policy 14.2 states that City Council shall: require that “development at all scales creates, reinforces, and enhances distinctive neighbourhoods, nodes and corridors, and enhances the specific character of existing developments and neighbourhoods;” (emphasis added) • OP 14.10 – Design of Buildings – states that City Council shall: (c) “where new development is proposed within an existing neighbourhood 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;” (emphasis added) • Waterfront Node Guidelines Appendix A – Architectural Guidelines -- Nautical Village elements for buildings include: (among other things) - Maintaining a scale of smaller historic buildings, so that larger buildings need to be broken down visually into smaller components; - Front entrances encouraged to have large and generous porches with upper floor balconies or decks above porches; ground floor windows encouraged to be part of extended front porch, or have awnings or canopies, which can also contain signage - 139 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 37 Revised Proposed Site Plan in Context (Site Plan by The Biglieri Group Ltd., Aerial Photo by Google Maps) Aerial view of the Revised Proposal – looking north (Image: DTAH/FUSL) - 140 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 38 6.2.2 The Proposal and Neighbourhood Character Despite the numerous Official Plan Policies and the Waterfront Node Guidelines that speak to the importance of new development fitting into the surrounding context, the Revised Proposal seeks to introduce a completely new and alien building form into the neighbourhood context. As can be seen in the aerial photo plan and 3-D Model images above, the Revised Proposal in no way resembles the surrounding buildings in terms of site design, massing, height, scale, and details. There has been no attempt to visually break down the large building mass into smaller components to maintain the scale of the surrounding smaller buildings. The Proposal’s built form differs from the surrounding neighbourhood in a number of specific ways including building footprint size, shape and general massing, building orientation, height of both the base buildings and towers, roof shape and lack of guideline-recommended nautical detailing - including such elements as front porches, towers and turrets. In terms of site plan, the Proposal also differs from the site plan patterns of both older and more recent development in the area. The traditional neighbourhood site pattern on the internal residential streets consists of houses or townhouses on individual lots – with the building set back from the street behind generous front lawns, with driveways and garages, and front porches or front stoops that are raised a few steps above sidewalk level and that provide a gradual transition from the public street to the more private front stoop. Even along busy streets such as Liverpool Road there is a clear and well-established pattern of how buildings, even ones with commercial uses at-grade, address the street – which is very different from what is being proposed here. The newer, large-scale developments in the area, including the Nautical Village and the Madison townhouse development, are subdivided into smaller development blocks by private roads and consist mostly of attached townhouses – but in many ways continue the traditional relationship between the building and the street. This includes the use of front lawns (other than along Liverpool Road), raised front stoops and porches and individual entrances facing the street. In contrast the Proposal is comprised of two main buildings both of which are large scale apartment complexes with limited entrances, internally accessed units and underground parking – all of which combine to create a completely different relationship to the street and the public realm. The arrangement is typical for large podium-tower buildings (which are suitable in other parts of the City such as the City Centre) —but is very different from, and not supportive of, the surrounding neighbourhood context. It is possible for larger developments to make an attempt to provide a better fit into their surroundings by stepping back taller elements of the building and allowing carefully designed base buildings to provide a more, scale-appropriate relationship with the context. With the Revised Proposal, however, the 3-storey base-buildings have massive footprints when compared to the adjacent townhouses in the Nautical Village. In addition, the ground floors of the base - 141 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 39 buildings are recessed by 3 m, which again stands in stark contrast to the prevailing built-from pattern in the neighbourhood. From a design perspective, it is important to provide ground-floor retail spaces visual prominence. The fact that along this portion of Liverpool Road there is a deep setback required for an underground utility easement, is already making it difficult to design an intimate relationship between the proposed ground-floor commercial spaces and the street. The additional 3 m setback, in my opinion, exacerbates the problem. This issue continues into the Pedestrian Promenade between the two proposed buildings where it may be difficult to draw people into a linear space that does not connect to other streets or public spaces – but that ends at the Hydro Marsh. (A problem that will be compounded by shadowing of this space at many times of the year – as detailed below) A site plan with an interconnected road or path system would provide better opportunities and reasons for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles to want to move through the space and likely provide better opportunities for retail spaces to thrive. Another issue related to neighbourhood character is the proposed indoor boat storage facility located on the ground floor of the north building. As noted above, the Waterfront Node Guidelines speak to the importance of retaining and enhancing the nautical character of the neighbourhood, some of which has to do with the visible, outdoor boat storage facilities found in various locations around the neighbourhood. While an indoor boat storage facility may help to retain the use, it does so in a very different way and with a different and less visible impact on the area. The Proposal drawings provide very little detail about the proposed boat storage facility, It is unclear therefore how tall the ground floor of this space will be – and therefore what size boats can be stored and how many. Also, will there be windows to allow views into and out of the space, will the space have alternative uses during the months when boats are in the water, etc. What is clear is that an indoor facility will not provide a visible reminder of the area’s nautical character the same way that the surface boat storage facilities are able to do. The 3-D model images below, highlight the difference in character between the Proposal and the surrounding context and provide a sense of just how dominant an appearance they will have from many different vantage points around the neighbourhood. The model is a simplified massing model with no landscaping. While during the warmer months of the year, it is acknowledged that some of these views toward the Proposed Development will be obscured by trees in full-leaf, during the colder months of the year, when deciduous trees are bare – the Proposal will be more prominent. Again – the intention of the massing model is to show the contrast in massing, scale and height between the proposal and the surrounding neighbourhood. - 142 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 40 Eye-level view– looking southeast from Progress Frenchman’s Bay East Park (Image: DTAH/FUSL) Eye-level view– looking south along Liverpool Road from Commerce Street (Image: DTAH/FUSL) - 143 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 41 Eye-level view– looking south along Liverpool Road from Wharf Street (Image: DTAH/FUSL) Eye-level view– looking south from Annland Street (Image: DTAH/FUSL) Eye-level view– looking southwest from Alderwood Park at the east end of Wharf Street (Image: DTAH/FUSL) - 144 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 42 6.2.3 Opinion re Neighbourhood Character Disruption: In my opinion, the Revised Proposal (although lower in height than the former proposal) if permitted to proceed in its current form will impose the negative impact of neighbourhood character disruption. The City of Pickering, through its Official Plan policies, zoning and related design guidelines—has placed a great deal of emphasis on contextual fit and the importance of new developments in established residential neighbourhoods both fitting in with and reinforcing the character of those neighbourhoods. Buildings that do not fit in with and reinforce neighbourhood character can have a destabilizing effect on the neighbourhood and can act as negative precedents for future neighbourhood developments. In particular the Proposal fails to: • protect and enhance the character of the surrounding established neighbourhoods considering such matters as building height, yard setback and lot coverage (contrary to OP 3.9 (c); • fit into the context by considering the massing, height, scale, architectural style and details of existing adjacent buildings (contrary to OP 9.2); • follow the requirement that development should reinforce and distinctive neighbourhoods and enhance the specific character of existing neighbourhoods (contrary to OP 14.2); • follow the policy that encourages building designs in existing neighbourhoods to complement existing built patterns including form, massing, height, proportion, position relative to the street and building area to site area ratios. (contrary to OP 14.10). Permitting a development with the proposed out-of-character height, massing, scale and site design will set a negative development precedent for the area, which in turn can have a destabilizing impact on the neighbourhood. 6.3 Overlook & Loss of Privacy 6.3.1 Building Separation & Height – Reasonable Expectations: Another negative impact, that can occur when taller buildings are proposed within low-rise areas, is that of overlook and loss of privacy. The Subject Site’s north property line is 12 m from the property line of the Nautical Village townhouses to the north and 150 m to the rear property line of the houses along Wharf Street. The Site’s west property line is separated 20 m from the townhouses to the west by the Liverpool Road right-of-way and there is a utility set-back on the east side of Liverpool Road. For a low or mid-rise development, these setbacks and separation distances would be considered adequate and would ensure that there would be little to no opportunity for overlook onto adjacent properties. However, because of its height, the - 145 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 43 Proposal’s 15-storey towers provide sightlines from its windows and balconies to adjacent lots, buildings, backyards and balconies – not just immediately adjacent to the Subject Site, but also to blocks further into the surrounding neighbourhood. The overlook issue is exacerbated by the fact that a development of this scale has a large number of units facing all directions. Aerial view of the Revised Proposal – looking northeast (Image: DTAH/FUSL) In areas of the City where, through study and public process, higher density and taller buildings have been deemed to be appropriate (for example in the City Centre) there is a reasonable knowledge and expectation among existing residents that taller buildings are permitted in the area, and that existing and future buildings may provide overlook into the surrounding area. In this neighbourhood context, however, where low-rise houses and townhouses are the norm, and where no public process has been undertaken to change the Official Plan designations or zoning for the area – there is no such expectation. Residents of this area, in contrast, have a reasonable expectation that future development in the area will follow, in general, the built-form patterns that currently exist in the area. - 146 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 44 6.3.2 Opinion re Privacy & Overlook: In my opinion the height and scale of the Proposed building—its proximity to the Nautical Village and the single family houses and townhouses in the surrounding neighbourhood—leads to a situation where the occupants of the higher-floor podium units and tower units will have views from their windows and balconies into the yards, balconies and windows of the surrounding residential properties resulting in a loss of privacy for those affected neighbouring properties. In a low-density, residential neighbourhood like this, there is a reasonable expectation among property owners that adjacent properties -- if and when they redevelop – will follow similar rules as other properties in the neighbourhood with respect to heights and general building form. While there is built-from variation within the Surrounding Neighbourhood Context (i.e., houses and townhouses) the general scale of the neighbourhood is preserved, and new developments are not permitted to tower over their neighbours in a way that permits overlook and compromises privacy. Permitting a building to rise approximately 5-times higher than prevailing neighbourhood building heights will create overlook and privacy issues and, in my opinion, would result in an unacceptable negative impact for this low-rise neighbourhood context. 6.4 Views & Vistas Impacts 6.4.1 Views & Vistas: Official Plan & Guideline As outlined above – the City of Pickering OP Section 12.5 recognizes the area around the Subject Site as ‘Liverpool Road Waterfront Node,’ which should be promoted as a boating, tourism and recreational area that requires future development to capitalize upon these unique waterfront attributes, which include Frenchman’s Bay, Lake Ontario, the Hydro Marsh, City parks, Millennium Square, marine activities, and the historic Village of Fairport. This Section of the OP also states that lands within the Waterfront Node require high quality design with a Great Lakes Nautical Village theme as detailed in the Council-adopted Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines. In the introduction to OP 14.6 Views and Vistas it states that another important objective of community design is to preserve and enhance existing views and vistas of Pickering’s built and natural features and identify and develop opportunities to establish new views and vistas, including intimate views that create a relationship between indoor and outdoor activities. More specifically, OP 14.6 states: City Council shall: (b) preserve “landmark” views of unique features, including the Pickering Civic Complex and Frenchman’s Bay, to provide visual reference points within Pickering’s urban area, and to enhance the significance of those features - 147 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 45 c) evaluate new development proposals for their opportunity to maximize, create or enhance views and vistas; (d) endeavor to maintain and enhance views of natural features, including woodlots, topographic features, bodies of water and across open spaces; (emphasis added) The Guidelines designate a large portion of the Subject Lands as a “Marina Mixed Use Area.” Lands in this designation are intended to develop in a manner that creates a high-quality built form that is sensitive to views of the water. Views & Vistas: Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines The Guidelines also set out detailed development standards that speak to such issues as protection of views. Section C1.4.1 Views & Vistas state: “Currently, there are open views to Frenchman’s Bay from Liverpool Road, south of Wharf Street, which provide a sense of place to the waterfront location. Views such as these are considered to be of primary importance to the establishment and preservation of a sense of place. These views create the unique atmosphere of the area and help define the vision for the Node. To preserve, enhance and maximize opportunities for views from the area towards Frenchman’s Bay and Lake Ontario, is of primary importance and shall be a key consideration in the review of any development proposal… - 148 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 46 6.4.2 Opinion re Views & Vistas: In my opinion – the Proposed Development has not conformed to key subsections of OP Section 14.6 dealing with Views & Vistas, nor has it met the intention of the Waterfront Node Guidelines to preserve views from the neighbourhood to the Hydro Marsh, Krosno Creek and Lake Ontario. The Guideline C1.4.1 Views & Vistas speaks directly to the area south of Wharf Street and provides a diagram (above) showing view corridors along streets and between buildings. The Proposal does meet the spirit of this Guideline as it provides an angled view corridor along the proposed Pedestrian Mews/Promenade, which would provide views from Liverpool Road, through the development to the southeast. However, the OP speaks to the importance of preserving views in general from the neighbourhood to the water, not just along view corridors. The intent of the view protection policies, in my opinion, is to ensure that from the perspective of the neighbourhood as a whole there is consideration of views to the water and that the neighbourhood experience includes a significant connection to the waterfront. It is not the intent of these policies to encourage landowners to create taller developments that will block the view of other residents. While the Proposed 15-storey building may create very good views of Frenchman’s Bay, the Hydro Marsh and Lake Ontario from many of its windows and balconies, that is not the intent of OP Policy 14.6 c), which is about maximizing, creating of enhancing public, not private, views. The Proposed development is located close to Frenchman’s Bay, Krosno Creek and the Lake and, if approved at this height, will interfere with neighbourhood views and the experience of connection to the water—particularly from the areas to the north, northeast and east of the Site, contrary to the intention of the OP and Council approved Guidelines. 6.5 Shadow Impacts: 6.5.1 Shadow Studies The Pickering Official Plan Policy 15.5A (iii) requires a shadow study be submitted at the time of an OPA and ZBA application for any proposal over 13 m (4 storeys) in height. The mandated test dates and times are March 21, June 21, September 21 and December 21 at the following hours: 9:18 am, 11:18 am, 1:18 pm, 3:18 pm, 5:18 and 7:18 pm My review of the Shadow Study diagrams reveals the following observations: September 21st , (March 21st): 9:18 a.m. Shadow impacts extend across Liverpool road to the northwest and across the first two groupings of townhouses to the north of the Proposal on the east side of Liverpool Road. 11:18 a.m. The Proposal’s shadow is cast onto the right-of-way access to the pumping station. In - 149 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 47 addition, the Proposal’s south building casts a shadow across the Site’s central pedestrian promenade. During the “shoulder seasons” outdoor public spaces that are not in shadow are much more comfortable for pedestrians and therefore much more likely to be used for strolling, window shopping and even outdoor cafes. The fact that this space is mostly in shadow at this time is an issue if the aim is to make it a comfortable and attractive public space. 1:18 p.m. By this time of day, the shadow has moved away from the north building’s west end, creating a small sun-lit area in front of the proposed commercial space. The remainder of the central promenade, however, remains in shadow. 3:18 p.m. A larger area of the promenade in front of the north building is no longer in shadow, but the majority of the promenade is still within the shadow cast by the south building. To the north of the Site, the tower shadows are cast over the pumping station and the adjacent wetlands to the northeast. (Note - shadows cast onto the wetlands may have environmental impacts, but this is beyond my area of expertise). 5:18 p.m. No urban design impacts. With the sun low in the sky at this time of year the towers cast very long shadows over the adjacent wetlands. June 21st 9:18 a.m. No urban design impacts. With the sun high in the sky the shadows are cast almost entirely on the Subject Site. 11:18 a.m. to 3:18 p.m. While there is some shadowing of the central pedestrian mews during mid-day – the area around the commercial spaces at the west end of the space is mostly free of shadows. 5:18 p.m. No urban design impacts. The towers cast long shadows over the adjacent wetlands. 7:18 p.m. No shadow diagram provided. December 21st 9:18 a.m. With the sun very low in the sky at this time of year the Proposal casts very long shadows over the townhouses to the north of the Site. 11:18 a.m. No urban design impact on adjacent buildings. Long shadows are cast over the open space to the north. Other than a small area at the very west end of the north building, the central, pedestrian promenade is completely in shadow. 1:18 p.m. No urban design impacts. The Proposal’s shadow is cast onto and beyond the Pumphouse. Other than a slightly larger area at the very west end of the north building, the central, pedestrian promenade is still completely in shadow. 3:18 p.m. No urban design impacts. The tower shadows are cast over the adjacent open space and wetlands to the northeast. The central pedestrian promenade remains largely in shadow. - 150 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 48 6.5.2 OPINION re Shadows: Based on my review of the shadow studies I offer the following conclusions and opinions: • In general, there are no substantial shadow impacts on adjacent sites or buildings – other than on the townhouses to the north at 9:18 in December and September/March. • During the “shoulder seasons” March 21/September 21 the Site’s proposed central pedestrian promenade will experience considerable shadowing in the middle of the day which will have a negative impact on the usability of the space. From a design perspective, observations of outdoor spaces, during the cooler months of the year show that the majority of people tend to gravitate toward outdoor public areas that are not in shadow. This space will likely not be as well used at this time of the year – compared to a similar space that is not shadowed. • Also, during the morning hours of March21/September 21, while there is no shadowing of existing adjacent buildings, there are shadows being cast onto the parking area behind (to the east of) the existing townhouses. If the townhouse site is redeveloped in the future, these shadows could negatively impact the redevelopment potential of this area. • There are shadows cast onto the adjacent open spaces and wetlands, but the impacts of this shadowing is beyond my area of expertise. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS The Revised Proposal, which includes two large, L-shaped 15-storey podium-tower buildings, is too large and too tall and is not compatible with, supportive of, nor will it enhance the surrounding neighbourhood context. The City of Pickering has established areas in the municipality where higher density development is appropriate and welcome—but the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node at the south end of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood is not one of these areas. The location of the Site at the far end of a low-rise neighbourhood and far from higher-order transit does not make it a good or appropriate location for this scale of development. In terms of its built form, the Proposal is inappropriate for this location because it does not fit into and reinforce the character of the surrounding neighbourhood as required by several Official Plan policies and as recommended in the Waterfront Node Guidelines. This lack of appropriate fit is made evident by the fact that Proposed height of 15-storeys is about 4-times higher than the tallest of the new houses and townhouses in the neighbourhood. This excessive height is an issue not only because it does not fit or enhance the neighbourhood - 151 - FUSL Revised Pickering Harbour Proposal – UD Opinion Report 49 context, but also because it leads to other negative impacts. In terms of density and FSI — the Proposal, at 340 u/nrh and 4.34 FSI — far exceed the 140 u/nrh and 2.5 FSI permitted under the Mixed Use Community Node OP land use designation – a designation that does not even yet apply to the Site – but that is part of the OPA request – and far in excess of the highest densities currently found in the area. This excess density manifests itself in a Proposed building complex whose massing and scale, contrary to the City’s policies and guidelines, does not take its cues from the surrounding neighbourhood site and built-form context, but instead introduces a new, podium-tower built form and site plan that makes little effort to fit harmoniously into the context. The result of the excessive height, density and massing is a development that, if approved, will have a number of negative impacts on its surroundings—including: neighbourhood character disruption, overlook and loss of privacy, loss of views to the waterfront, and shadowing of the central pedestrian promenade and adjacent private properties and natural areas. In addition, the insertion of buildings of this scale and design into this low-rise, residential neighbourhood will establish a development precedent that could lead to other similarly over-scaled developments in the area. For all of these reasons, in my opinion, the Revised Proposal should not be permitted to proceed in its current form and the official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications should be declined. The Subject Site is suitable for a residential development, but only at a more modest scale and height and with more concerted efforts made to fit within the neighbourhood context. Robert Freedman FRAIC, AICP - 152 - 5A-150 Pinebush Road Cambridge ON N1R 8J8 p: 416.479.9684 905.381.2229 519.896.3163 www.ptsl.com 6 May 2020 Project: 190672 Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Development Review City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Celebre: RE: TECHNICAL REVIEW – 591 LIVERPOOL ROAD TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (DATED MARCH 10, 2020) The purpose of this letter is to document the technical review of the report, “591 Liverpool Road, Traffic Impact Study, Pickering Harbour Company Ltd., March 10, 2020” prepared by HDR Corporation (the consultant). The subject study was preceded by two earlier reports (same title, dated May 2019 and November 2019) as well as a separate 10-page document prepared by the consultant that summarized how agency comments on the May 2019 report were addressed in the November 2019 report. The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was undertaken to assess the road, traffic control, and parking requirements for the proposed redevelopment of 591 Liverpool Road (foot of Liverpool Road) in Pickering. The proposed uses include 377 residential condominium units, 1,400 SM of commercial gross floor area (GFA), 625 SM for a public assembly hall, and indoor boat storage. Compared to the previous proposal, there would now be 121 less residential units (reduced from 498) and 500 SM GFA less commercial space (reduced from 1,900 SM). The public assembly hall and indoor boat storage represent new uses. Other key differences between the previous and current development are related to parking. The total parking supply now proposed is 535 spaces and a higher allocation of parking to the residential use has been made. As well, there would be no change to the existing 72-space public parking lot immediately south of the subject site. In the earlier proposal, the proponent incorporated this lot in the site plan concept and added 128 more spaces for a total of 200 public parking spaces. Maintaining the public parking lot as is also allows it to continue functioning as a vehicle turnaround at the foot of Liverpool Road for regular traffic. This was a concern with the previous concept since it was unclear where or how the turnaround maneuver would be provided. It should also be noted that based on a comment on this application from Durham Region Transit (DRT) staff, the parking lot should not be used as a public transit Attachment #14 to Report #13-20 - 153 - Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 2 turnaround and it is understood that City Engineering Services staff agrees with DRT staff in this regard. There is no change in the study area for the TIS, and as previously, it includes several intersections along the Liverpool Road corridor between Bayly Street and the subject site. The consultant has updated the traffic forecasts to reflect the change in uses and intersection operations analyses were conducted for the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday peak hours for existing conditions, 2027 horizon year conditions, and 2032 horizon year conditions. Like the earlier studies, the consultant’s key conclusion related to traffic impact is that the proposed development can be accommodated by the study area road network with adjustments to signal timing at the Liverpool Road/Bayly Street intersection and the installation of traffic signals at the Liverpool Road/Krosno Boulevard intersection. The consultant also provides a rationale to justify that the proposed parking supply would be sufficient for the needs of the proposed development. The technical review comprises a Summary section to present the major findings and a Detailed Commentary section to present the assessment of the technical content. Summary The subject study generally follows the TIS Guidelines of both the City of Pickering and Durham Region. Notwithstanding, there are several deficiencies in the traffic assessment that would have to be addressed to support the consultant’s conclusion that the proposed development could be accommodated by the study area road network. This would require completion of the following tasks:  Updating base year traffic data at selected locations to confirm the validity of the traffic forecasts; and  Conducting a more rigorous assessment of improvement alternatives for the Liverpool Road/Krosno Boulevard intersection. With regard to the parking component of the study, we find that the proposed parking supply for residents at 1.0 space per unit is reasonably well-supported by residential proxy site survey information. It is a higher resident parking demand rate than the average demand rate of 0.85 spaces per unit recorded at residential proxy sites located in the Pickering City Centre area, which have locational advantages with respect to being less dependent on a private automobile, and we understand that 1.0 space per unit is a rate that the City has accepted for other residential developments located outside of the Pickering City Centre. Conversely, the proposed shared rate of 0.25 spaces per unit to address the combined parking requirements of residential visitors and commercial uses is not well-supported and could result in a parking supply that is insufficient. The approach to developing this rate included adopting virtually the same residential visitor parking demand rate observed at the residential proxy sites (despite the latter’s locational advantages) and using it in a shared parking analysis where an assumption was made that the commercial floor area would be split evenly between retail and office uses. This represents one of many possible scenarios for the commercial - 154 - Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 3 space, which the consultant acknowledges in the report when they note that, “the commercial land use tenants are not yet defined”. For the shared parking analysis, the consultant based the retail and office initial parking demand rates on those contained in Seaton Zoning By- law 7364/14 and the shared parking formula contained in Pickering City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17. Pickering Planning staff advise that there are several non-residential uses being sought by the applicant that have different individual parking requirements within the Seaton Zoning By-law, and different shared parking factors within the City Centre Zoning By-law shared parking formula, than those relied upon by the consultant in their analysis of residential visitor and commercial parking requirements. Therefore, the shared parking analysis of one theoretical combination of retail and office uses along with a residential visitor parking demand based on Pickering City Centre proxy sites is not sufficiently rigorous to support the site specific parking rate recommended by the consultant for the combination of residential visitors and commercial uses. The parking requirements for the proposed Assembly Hall use were also based on both the Seaton and City Centre Zoning By-laws and the resultant parking supply should be sufficient for its needs. Depending on the programming of the Assembly Hall, its parking supply may occasionally serve as overflow parking for residential visitors and commercial employees on various days and at different times of the day. The uncertainty of when surplus on-site parking may be available represents another unknown in terms of confirming the overall sufficiency of the proposed parking supply. Detailed Commentary Traffic 1. In the review of the description and assessment of Existing Traffic Conditions, the following is noted:  The consultant has now provided a new report section to document observations of existing traffic operations, which now meets the requirements of the Durham Region’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. The observations satisfactorily describe typical peak hour traffic operations in the study area; and  All versions of the TIS (May 2019, November 2019, and March 2020) are based on traffic data collected in June 2017. While this data is within the City’s Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines (three years), it is also well beyond the Region’s guideline of data being no more than one year old. While it can be anticipated that there have been no substantial changes in peak hour traffic at most Liverpool Road intersections in the study area, newer traffic counts for the Liverpool Road/Bayly Street intersection should be obtained either from the Region or by arranging data collection (at an appropriate time) to compare and verify the base year data used in the study. As well, an eight hour traffic count should be undertaken on a weekday and a Saturday (when possible) to provide an update to the June 2017 peak period traffic data for the Liverpool Road/Krosno Boulevard intersection and to provide the - 155 - Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 4 information needed for a comprehensive signal justification analysis. The consultant has recommended signalization of the Liverpool Road/Krosno Boulevard intersection in the assessment of future conditions but did not have sufficient base year data to conduct the Ontario Traffic Manual’s (OTM) preferred method for justifying signalization. Unless the Region or City have more current data available, the suggested data collection would have to be undertaken during typical traffic conditions (i.e. at some date after current COVID-19 restrictions on work, school, and social activities are lifted). 2. In the review of the description and assessment of Background Traffic Forecasts (2027 and 2032), the following is noted:  The consultant addressed Region staff comments on the May 2019 TIS as related to the background traffic growth rate and other development components of the background traffic forecasts in their November 2019 TIS, and no further changes were required in the March 2020 TIS. Therefore, the background traffic forecasts are satisfactory, subject to confirmation of the reasonableness of the base year traffic volumes as described in comment 1 above; and  For future background traffic conditions, the consultant finds that no geometric or traffic control improvements would be required. The one deficiency they note is that the 95th percentile southbound left turn queue on Liverpool Road at Bayly Street would exceed the storage lane length (as it does today). As in previous reports, they suggest re-aligning the pavement markings on the southbound approach to increase the left turn storage, however, it is understood that Region staff are not supportive of this due to weaving concerns and related safety implications. 3. In the review of the methodology used to estimate the Site Traffic Generation and Site Traffic Assignment, the following is noted:  In response to City and Region staff comments on the May 2019 TIS, the consultant has provided additional supporting information in the November 2019 TIS for the peak hour trip generation associated with the residential, commercial, and public parking lot components of the development. With the public parking lot component removed from the current development, and a public assembly hall added, the consultant has made the required adjustments to the site trip generation;  The consultant bases the residential trip generation for the 377 condominium units on trip rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) for Land Use Code (LUC) 232 “High-Rise Condominium/Townhouse”. For the 9th Edition of the ITE manual, it would generally be preferred to use LUC 230 “Residential Condominium/ Townhouse” since its data is based on many more field studies than LUC 232. The latter land use, which only has four to five field studies for the peak hours, is denoted in the manual with the warning, “Caution – Use Carefully – Small Sample Size”. As noted in City staff comments on the May 2019 TIS, the use of LUC 232 results in lower trip generation than that under LUC 230 (10% to 20% lower). However, a comparison can also be - 156 - Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 5 made to the current version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) and LUC 222 “Multifamily Housing (High-Rise)”, which would be the appropriate use for the proposed development and is based on 25 field studies for the weekday peak hours and nine studies for the Saturday peak hour. Compared to the current ITE manual and LUC 222, the consultant’s trip estimates are 5% to 15% higher in each peak hour. Therefore, the trip generation for the residential component can be considered satisfactory;  Regarding the site trip generation for the residential component, we note two typos under Section 4.2 where ITE LUC 230 is referred to (although LUC 232 was used for the calculations) and where the number of condominium units is referred to as 428 rather than 377 (the correct number was used for the calculations although minor rounding errors are noted in Table 24);  The consultant bases the commercial trip generation on the average trip rates in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) for LUC 820 “Shopping Centre”. This is a reasonable approach considering the consultant’s stated rationale as well as the guidance provided in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition) for selecting either average rates or fitted curve equations in estimating trip generation. We noted that later in the report in discussing parking provisions, the consultant assumes the commercial space may be split evenly between retail and office uses. The use of the ITE “Shopping Centre” trip rates for the whole commercial space represents a conservative approach since retail would typically generate higher numbers of trips compared to an equal mix of retail and office;  For the proposed new Assembly Hall use, the consultant uses a first principles approach to estimating the peak hour trip generation since this use is not found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The consultant’s assumption that there would be negligible traffic activity associated with this use during the weekday AM peak hour is reasonable. Basing the weekday PM and Saturday peak hour trip generation use on the assumption there would be one trip in and one trip out per parking space allocated to this use (63 spaces in total according to City by-law requirements) is conservative (errs on the higher side) and is considered reasonable given the unknowns related to the specifics of the events that may occur at this type of facility;  In combining the site trip generation for the various components of the development in Table 24 of the report, the consultant applies a 10% reduction to the residential site trip generation to account for the convenience of the on-site commercial uses – i.e. it is assumed that goods or services that residents would typically travel off-site for would be available on-site. With no other adjustments applied to the residential or commercial trip generation, this approach is reasonable; and  The site trip distribution and assignment of trips to the study area road network are satisfactory. We note a typo in the title of Section 4.2 where Traffic Generation is referred to rather than Traffic Distribution. - 157 - Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 6 4. In the review of the assessment of Total Traffic Forecasts (2027 and 2032), the following is noted:  For the 2027 horizon year (and same applies for 2032), the consultant finds that the southbound approach of Liverpool Road at Krosno Boulevard would operate at a poor level of service and would have volume demands that exceed the theoretical capacity with the existing all-way stop control during the weekday PM peak hour. They recommend signalization of this intersection to address these concerns. The consultant also finds that there are no other intersection improvements required in the study area with the exception of future signal timing adjustments at the Liverpool Road/Bayly Street intersection;  For the Liverpool Road/Krosno Boulevard intersection, the consultant undertook the signal justification methodology contained in OTM Book 12, specifically “Justification 7 – Projected Volumes”, and found that signals would not be justified. Notwithstanding that this analysis did not justify signalization, it should be noted that there were some errors in the application of the methodology, including: o The consultant used the 2027 PM peak hour traffic forecast as input to the analysis rather than the average hour as prescribed in OTM Book 12. The average hour is to be derived by dividing the AM plus PM peak hour volumes by four, or where only one peak hour forecast is available, dividing the available peak hour by two. By not averaging the peak hour volume, the consultant used double the volume that should have been input into the analysis. Even with the higher volumes, the consultant found that the signal justification criteria would not be met; o The PM peak hour traffic volumes in this analysis are slightly different than the 2027 forecasts shown in Exhibit 13 in the report, including the addition of some movements to and from the west despite this being a T- intersection with no west leg;  With signalization, the consultant finds that the intersection operations would be greatly improved (levels of service ranging from A to C for each approach). In response to a City staff comment on the May 2019 TIS regarding the longer southbound queuing that would occur with signalization, the consultant responded that they had report included recommendations for a southbound left turn lane or an advanced southbound signal phase in November 2019 TIS. However, that study did not contain analysis of or recommendations for those additional improvements but noted that they could be “considered” and also that there is “insufficient public right- of-way” available at this intersection to accommodate either a roundabout or the addition of an exclusive left turn lane “without reducing boulevard widths”. The March 2020 TIS repeats what is in the earlier reports. It is now understood that the consultant is not stating that the public right-of-way isn’t sufficient to accommodate the required widening for a southbound left turn lane, but rather that this couldn’t be done without reducing boulevard widths. The implication is that reducing boulevard widths would be undesirable. The consultant also notes that the land use near the - 158 - Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 7 intersection would be a constraint to an intersection improvement, and we assume that this is in reference to redesigning the intersection as a roundabout;  While signalization or a roundabout would be alternatives to consider, it is clear that additional work is required to justify the most appropriate form of intersection design and traffic control. This would include: o Confirming whether the current all-way stop control is warranted according to the methodology in OTM Book 5 “Regulatory Signs” and/or the City’s “All-way Stop Sign Policy”. This would involve collecting current traffic data. It should be recognized that this control acts as a constraint on the north-south capacity of Liverpool Road at the Krosno Boulevard intersection. Notwithstanding if all-way stop is warranted or not, consideration would also have to be given to other “community purposes” that are being served by the all-way stop – i.e. while stop signs are not technically a traffic calming device, in this case the north-south stop acts as a mid-point break in the otherwise uninterrupted traffic flow along the subject section of Liverpool Road, and it provides controlled pedestrian crosswalks on each of the three legs of the intersection with virtually no delay to pedestrians; o Conducting a comprehensive signal justification analysis based on the OTM Book 12 preferred approach of using eight hour traffic volumes. Again, this would involve collecting current traffic data. It should be recognized that while signalization would address the identified future capacity issue for the weekday PM peak hour, a signalized operation would not provide the mid-point break in north-south traffic flow as described above for the all-way stop control (except during the north-south red phase) and pedestrians would generally experience higher levels of delay due to the need to wait for a crossing phase; o Determining the need for and operational/safety effect of providing a separate southbound left turn lane with either the existing all-way stop control or signalization; o Preparing functional design drawings to illustrate the physical impact of adding a southbound left turn lane or implementing a roundabout design and determining if any property is required outside of the public right-of- way. For the signalized intersection alternative, this would include critically examining lane widths to determine the potential for maintaining part of the existing boulevard width; and  The consultant also refers to an opportunity for a future road connection between Liverpool Road and Sandy Beach Road in the vicinity of the foot of Liverpool Road. This would be a significant undertaking to assist in offloading traffic from Liverpool Road. In the November 2019 TIS, the consultant referred to discussions with City staff regarding this opportunity. In the current March 2020 TIS, this is changed to the consultant stating their understanding that the City is undertaking a study to consider this new road connection. Since this potential road network improvement is not part - 159 - Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 8 of the study in terms of forecasting and analysis, it is unclear why this information is included. 5. Based on the consultant’s responses to the comments on the earlier TIS, there are also several key transportation issues that will have to be resolved through the site plan review process, including:  For the site plan review process, the proponent will be expected to provide design drawings for the proposed accesses to Liverpool Road, the internal roadways, parking layout and loading areas, and related vehicle maneuvering diagrams to demonstrate the feasibility of the site plan for vehicle access and circulation. Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Measures 1. The consultant notes in the November 2019 response document that their client’s commitment to the various TDM measures outlined in the report will be discussed with City and Region staff outside of the scope of the traffic study. These measures, which are also listed in the March 2020 TIS, include:  Bicycle parking for residents and commercial customers;  Providing transit maps and schedules on-site to encourage use of these modes (and subject to a DRT route change to provide a stop within reasonable walking distance);  Offering “unbundled” parking (separating unit costs and parking space costs) such that there would be a financial incentive to prospective residents to either not own a private vehicle or to own fewer private vehicles;  The potential for a dedicated shuttle bus between the site and the Pickering GO station (who would be providing this service should be clarified); and  The potential for on-site carshare and bikeshare (subject to having providers of those services). 2. This approach to establishing TDM commitments outside the scope of the subject TIS is reasonable with regard to the traffic assessment since the consultant’s trip generation estimates did not rely on trip reductions directly associated with the successful implementation of TDM measures. As discussed in the next section, however, the proposed reduction in parking requirements would be more dependent on TDM and this makes it more critical to establish TDM commitments early in the review and approval process. 3. In the vicinity of the subject site, Liverpool Road has a relatively narrow right-of-way and is constrained by private property, pedestrian facilities, and natural features. The consultant demonstrates with vehicle maneuvering diagrams that the existing parking lot at the foot of Liverpool Road could accommodate the turnaround requirements of larger public or private transit vehicles if this type of service were provided. It is understood that DRT staff have commented that they do not operate new bus routes through - 160 - Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 9 parking lots and have been modifying service where this was occurring, and it is also understood that the City Engineering Services staff would not support this type of operation either. In summary, this means that a separate turnaround loop would be required if public transit service is extended to the foot of Liverpool Road. Parking 1. Section 6 of the TIS provides the justification for reduced parking rates for the proposed development. The justification analysis is needed since the proposed parking supply is less than the requirements in Zoning By-law (ZBL) 25201. It is understood that ZBL 2520 is considered to be out of date and there is a need to establish a site specific parking requirement for the subject application. Notwithstanding, the requirements under ZBL have been noted in the following points for comparison with the proposed parking supply. 2. The proposed parking supply for the 377 residential units is 377 spaces (1.0 space per unit) versus the 566 spaces (1.50 spaces per unit2) that would be required under the ZBL. This results in a theoretical parking deficiency of 189 spaces for residents. The consultant uses a rate of 0.15 spaces per unit for visitors as the starting point in later calculations of shared parking between visitors and on-site commercial uses. The consultant notes that these residential rates were determined through studies of proxy sites, which are discussed below:  The consultant conducted parking surveys at three residential condominiums located near the Liverpool Road/Bayly Street intersection. The parking supply rate at the proxy sites ranged from 0.95 to 1.02 spaces per unit for residents and 0.25 to 0.27 spaces per unit for visitors (with some visitor spaces signed specifically for the on- site commercial uses), which is higher than the proposed supply rates of 1.0 space per unit for residents and 0.15 spaces per unit for visitors. The average parking demand measured at the proxy sites (actual parking usage), however, does show a closer comparison with the proposed residential parking rate, i.e. demand rates of 0.85 spaces per unit for residents and 0.14 spaces for visitors (after removing the designated commercial spaces from the survey results);  The demand rate information supports the proposed lower parking rates only if it is accepted that the proxy sites and the subject site are similar in terms of their locations, and especially with regard to locational advantages that would be conducive to less reliance on auto ownership such as proximity to inter-City and regional rapid transit services;  The locations of the proxy sites are significantly closer to the Pickering GO station than the subject site. The straight line distance to the train platform is approximately 1 City staff advise that ZBL 2520 applies to the subject lands. HDR does not include a reference to this ZBL or the related theoretical deficiency between proposed and required parking. 2 ZBL 2520 shows the parking rate for “Residential – Multiple Family Vertical” as 1¾ spaces per unit, for occupants and visitors. We assume that this would represent 1.5 spaces per unit for residents and 0.25 spaces per unit for visitors (the latter a common rate for visitor parking requirements). - 161 - Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 10 750 meters (12 minute walk at 1.0 m/second walk time) for the proxy sites versus approximately 2,000 meters (33 minute walk at 1.0 m/second walk time) for the subject site (approximately 20 minute difference). Similarly, the proxy sites are within approximately 1.5 kilometres of the DRT Pulse service on Kingston Road versus 2.5 kilometres for the subject site. This strongly suggests that walking to the GO station or to the DRT Pulse would be much more likely for the proxy sites than for the subject site. With regard to the GO station, it is noted that the consultant minimizes this difference by stating that the proxy sites are “only a 10 to 15-minute walk closer than the proposed site”;  Notwithstanding the distance factor, the proposed resident parking rate (1.0 space per unit) is higher than the measured demand rate at the proxy sites (0.85 spaces per unit), which provides for some accounting of the differences in locational advantages (i.e. more parking for the subject site since it would likely be more auto dependent than the proxy sites). As well, it is understood that the City has permitted a resident parking rate of 1.0 space per unit in other locations that are similarly distant from higher order transit services. With the implementation of the TDM measures outlined in the report, the proposed parking supply for residents could be supported;  The proposed residential visitor parking rate at 0.15 spaces per unit that is used as the starting point for the shared parking analysis is lower than a typical visitor parking requirement of 0.25 spaces per unit for medium and high density development and lower than the visitor rate of 0.20 spaces per unit that is understood to have been approved by the City in other non-City Centre locations (e.g. Duffin Heights). While the proposed rate is marginally supported by the parking demand recorded at the proxy sites (0.14 spaces per unit), there is virtually no accounting for the locational advantages of the proxy sites as is evident in the proposed resident parking rate versus the observed resident parking rate. It would be more logical to have a higher resident parking rate due to locational differences paired with a higher visitor parking rate; and  It is recognized that a shared parking analysis is appropriate for this proposed mixed use development. There should be potential for sharing parking between residential visitors and commercial customers since their individual peak parking demands would typically occur at different times of the day. It should also be noted that this type of analysis relies on reasonable initial parking demand rates for each use. Considering the location of the subject site, an initial residential visitor parking demand rate of 0.20 spaces per unit would be more appropriate in the shared parking analysis than the proposed 0.15 spaces per unit. 3. For the proposed 1,400 SM GFA of commercial use, the consultant assumes that half will be occupied by retail uses and half will be occupied by office uses. To arrive at a proposed parking supply for these uses, the consultant uses the rates in the Seaton ZBL (ZBL 7364/14) as a starting point, which are discussed below: - 162 - Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 11  The proposed parking supply for 700 SM of retail is 32 spaces (4.5 spaces per 100 SM) versus the 42 spaces (5.5 spaces per 93 SM) that would be required under ZBL 2520. This results in a theoretical parking deficiency of 10 spaces;  The proposed parking supply for 700 SM of office is 25 spaces (3.5 spaces per 100 SM) versus the 38 spaces (5.5 spaces per 93 SM) that would be required under ZBL 2520. This results in a theoretical parking deficiency of 13 spaces;  The total theoretical parking deficiency for the stated commercial uses would be 23 spaces (57 spaces proposed, and 80 spaces required); and  No rationale is provided by the consultant to support the use of the Seaton Centre ZBL rates at the subject site, but staff have advised that it is reasonable approach since this ZBL applies in a non-City Centre area. 4. The consultant uses the City Centre ZBL shared parking formula to assess the potential for sharing parking spaces between retail uses, office uses, and residential visitors. The shared parking adjustment factors contained in the ZBL are reasonable for non-City Centre sites since the temporal differences in parking demand reflect the characteristics of the land use not the site location. The consultant uses the proposed parking for each of these uses as the starting point for applying the shared parking percentages. Typically, a shared parking formula would be applied to the required parking under the governing ZBL to assist in justifying a parking reduction. As previously noted, however, ZBL 2520 is considered to be out of date, and therefore, the approach is reasonable to assist in developing a site specific parking requirement notwithstanding the concern that the initial residential visitor parking rate is considered to be too low. The consultant finds that the sum of the parking required for residential visitors, retail uses, and office uses based on the rates used as the starting point is 114 spaces. The application of the shared parking formula reduces this number by 25 and results in a minimum requirement of 89 spaces. Some key points related to the shared parking calculations should be noted:  The critical time period in the shared parking formula is a weekday evening;  During a weekday evening, the retail parking demand would be high (90% of its proposed supply) and the residential visitor parking demand would also be high (100% of its proposed supply). The office parking demand would be very low (10% of its proposed parking supply); and  The low office parking demand during this critical time period contributes virtually all of the reduction in parking in the application of the shared parking formula (22 of the 25-space reduction). As noted previously, the consultant has assumed that the commercial space will be split equally between retail and office uses so if this assumption is not correct, there could be more (>50% office ) or less (>50% retail) of a parking reduction depending on the actual future tenants. As noted by the consultant, “the commercial land use tenants are not yet defined”. 5. The proposed parking supply for residential visitors, retail, and office is shown in Table 38 of the report to be 95 spaces, which is six spaces more than the 89 spaces - 163 - Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 12 determined through the shared parking formula. The consultant relates the proposed parking supply for these uses to the number of residential units to define a “shared rate” of 0.25 spaces per unit. This is the same as a typical visitor parking supply rate and the consultant notes that it is similar to the combined visitor and commercial parking supply rate at the proxy sites. As noted previously, the proxy sites have locational advantages compared to the subject site that make this comparison tenuous. Further, the consultant does not state the amount of commercial floor area at the proxy sites so it is not clear if they are comparable in that regard to the subject development. 6. In summary, the consultant’s analysis results in an aggressively low parking rate for the combination of residential visitor and commercial uses. As noted in the review of the methodology, the initial parking demand rate for residential visitors is too low for this site and the future commercial uses are unknown. Pickering Planning staff advise that there are several non-residential uses being sought by the applicant that have different individual parking requirements within the Seaton Zoning By-law and different shared parking factors within the City Centre Zoning By-law shared parking formula compared to those relied upon by the consultant in their analysis. Therefore, the shared parking analysis of one theoretical mix of retail and office uses along with a residential visitor parking demand based on Pickering City Centre proxy sites does not provide compelling support for the site specific parking rate recommended by the consultant. 7. The proposed parking supply for the 625 SM GFA Assembly Hall is 63 spaces (10 spaces per 100 SM), which is a common requirement in both the Pickering City Centre ZBL 7553/17 and Seaton ZBL 7364/14. In ZBL 2520, the place of assembly parking requirement is one space for each four persons that can be legally accommodated. The latter number is not known at the time of writing so no comparison can be made of proposed and required parking, although the proposed 63 spaces would represent an occupancy of approximately 250 persons based on the ZBL 2520 parking rate. The consultant correctly points out that Assembly Hall parking could be made available for other on-site uses or for public parking at times when no events are scheduled. The availability of this parking would mitigate the concerns expressed above regarding the proposed supply of parking for residential visitors, retail, and office but only during non-event times. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Yours very truly, PARADIGM TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS LIMITED Garry Pappin LEL Senior Project Manager - 164 -