Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 24, 2020 Page 1 of 7 Minutes/Meeting Summary Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee June 24, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Attendees: S. Croteau J. Dempsey J. Irwin W. Jamadar A. Khan R. Smiles E. Martelluzzi, Planner II Heritage R. Perera, Recording Secretary Guests: B. George, Local History & Genealogy, Pickering Public Library M. Kish, Principal Planner, Policy, City of Pickering Absent: D. Felin E. John C. Sopher Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 1. Welcome & Introductions E. Martelluzzi welcomed everyone to the electronic meeting. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Review and Approval of Agenda Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by J. Dempsey E. Martelluzzi reviewed the agenda items. Agenda approved. Carried 4. Approval of Minutes -May 27, 2020 Page 2 of 7 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) Moved by A. Khan Seconded by W. Jamadar That the minutes of the May 27, 2020 meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be approved. Carried 5. Business Arising From Minutes There were no items of business arising from the minutes. 6. New Business 6.1 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. Draft Planning Recommendations Report (Draft Phase 3 Report) Margaret Kish, Principal Planner, Policy, City of Pickering, appeared before the Committee to provide an overview of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Study). M. Kish noted that the Study is currently in phase 3, and that the draft recommendation report is available on the City’s website for information, and that members of the Committee are invited to submit their comments via email or phone. Through the aid of a pre-recorded PowerPoint presentation, M. Kish provided an overview of the work completed in phases 1 and 2 of the study and the draft recommendations developed in phase 3. The focus of the Study is to update and improve the City’s tools to address compatibility issues related to infill and replacement housing in established residential neighborhoods. SGL Planning & Design Inc. (SGL) are the consultants tasked with undertaking the Study for the City. Phase 1 identified compatibility issues and impacts, reviewed best practices of other municipalities, conducted a public engagement session, and identified key elements of Neighbourhood Character – built form, streetscape, Page 3 of 7 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) and neighbourhood composition. Phase 2 identified tools for addressing compatibility, identified and analyzed options, conducted further public engagement sessions, and developed a preferred strategy. Based on the feedback received in Phases 1 and 2, SGL has developed draft recommendations for infill and replacement housing. Draft Official Plan recommendations include:  New definitions for “infill” and “replacement housing”;  New policies that require new development to be compatible with existing conditions by: o Minimizing compatibility impacts; o Reinforcing established pattern of side yard setbacks and separation distances; o Reinforcing established pattern of lot widths; o Reinforcing established pattern of front yard setbacks; o Promoting garages and carports flush with or behind main wall; o Maximizing landscaping; and, o Encouraging preservation of mature trees. Draft Zoning By-law recommendations include:  New definitions for “infill”, “replacement housing”, and “front entrance”;  Identification of “Established Precinct Overlay Zone”;  New performance standards for the Overlay Zone: o Maximum dwelling height; o Maximum height of front entrance o Maximum dwelling depth; o Maximum lot coverage; o Minimum/maximum front yard setback; Page 4 of 7 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) o Maximum width of garage or carport; and, o Maximum driveway width. Draft Recommendations for other tools include:  Implementation of a private tree by-law; and,  Driveway by-law for width of driveways for public lands Draft urban design guidelines have been recommended as part of this study to assist in the implementing of new infill and building additions. Urban design guidelines:  Help to refine the sense of character of a place through Design Principles;  Provide detailed design direction to help implement a municipality’s vision of a particular area or neighbourhood;  Help implement policies in the official plan and provisions in the zoning by-law;  Used by staff, developers, and the public for evaluation and preparation of development or re-development applications; and,  These draft guidelines are intended to apply to neighbourhood precincts within the focus neighbourhoods – Bay Ridges, Dunbarton, Highbush, Liverpool, Rosebank, Rougemount, Village East, West Shore, and Woodlands. The recommended Draft Urban Design Guidelines examine:  Built Form - Design guidance for dwelling height and roof pitch, height of front entrances, and dwelling length width and depth  Streetscape - Side yard setback and separation distance between dwellings, Page 5 of 7 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) garage or carport placement, and driveway width  Neighbourhood composition – front yard landscaping and street trees  And include an Urban Design Guideline Checklist – to ensure urban design guidelines are considered and included as part of an application M. Kish concluded the presentation and surveyed members for questions and comments and noted that the consultant will incorporate feedback from the Phase 3 public engagement portion of the Study, and finalize their recommendations. SGL’s Final Planning Recommendations Report will be presented at a future Planning & Development Committee meeting for Council’s consideration. Members noted the following questions and comments:  Questions were raised regarding the concept of a precinct, with M. Kish noting that a precinct is a smaller area identified within an established neighbourhood;  The rules/guidelines should apply to the entire neighbourhood rather than just the precincts;  Is the Tree removal by-law/permit in conjunction with another department in the City? M. Kish noted that, if endorsed by Council, it would be an initiative involving other departments in addition to the City Development Department ;  Will the study apply to the houses within the Kingston Road Corridor Study? M. Kish noted that the Infill Study will not apply to any houses or properties within the Kingston Road Corridor Study Area;  There should be specific guidelines for Liverpool Neighbourhood;  Have there been discussions between the consultants and the individual residents in the focus neighbourhoods? M. Kish noted Page 6 of 7 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) that there have been opportunities for the residents to communicate directly with the consultants throughout the Study;  How does the consultant plan to deal with areas where the dominant houses are infill houses?;Will the guidelines apply to houses that have already been built to limit further expansion? M. Kish noted that only future development and building permit applications will be required to comply with any new policies or regulations, and then, only once those new policies and regulations are in effect. M. Kish further explained the process to implement any recommendations resulting from the Study;  A member of the Committee questioned the rationale for the size of the Bay Ridges precinct;  How is Lot Coverage calculated? Does it include accessory structures such as sheds or out buildings etc? M. Kish noted that she will look into the matter and respond to the Committee Member ;  What is the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee’s role in this study? M. Kish explained the Phase 3 public engagement process and how Pickering Heritage can contribute. M. Kish thanked members for their comments and questions and asked members to continue to submit their comments via email or phone. 7. Correspondence There were no items of correspondence. 8. Other Business Page 7 of 7 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) There were no items of other business. 9. Next Meeting September 23, 2020 Adjournment Meeting Adjourned: 7:50 pm Copy: City Clerk