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