Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 7, 2020 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda December 7, 2020 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles 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 Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, the City of Pickering continues to hold electronic Council and Committee Meetings. Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing 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. 16-20 1 Official Plan Amendment OPA 20-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/20 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Part of Lots 25 and 26, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 and 2, 40R-24268 and Part of Lot 3, 40R-29614 (1034 Reflection Place) 4. Delegations Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Planning & Development Committee for any matters listed under Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda December 7, 2020 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Planning and Development Reports, 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. Persons who wish to speak to an item that is on the agenda must register by 12:00 noon on the last business day before the 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 ca lled 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 public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 4.1 Paul White, Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association Re: Report PLN 28-20 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 10/18 City Initiated: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park 4.2 Paul White, Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association Re: Report PLN 29-20 Official Plan Amendment OPA 19-004/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/19 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2019-04 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2019-05 Katanna Oklahoma LP Part of Lot 28, Broken Front Concession Range 3, Now Part of Part 1, 40R -2401 (755 Oklahoma Drive) 5. Planning & Development Reports 5.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 24-20 17 City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Ecosystem Compensation Recommended Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 19-003/P Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19 -003/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to amend existing policies and introduce Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda December 7, 2020 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation, as set out in Exhibit ‘A’ to Appendix I to Report PLN 24-20 be approved; 2. That the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan, to amend existing policies and introduce new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 24-20, be forwarded to Council for enactment; and, 3. That the City Clerk forward the Notice of Adoption to the Region of Durham and to each person or public body that provided written or verbal comments at the Open House, the Public Meeting, the Planning & Development Committee or the City Council meetings. 5.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 25-20 29 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regarding the administration and collection of fees and technical guidance in relation to the TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, June 2018 Recommendation: 1. That Council approve the draft Memorandum of Understanding, contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 25 -20, between the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for the administration and collection of fees and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation in terms of the TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, dated June 2018; 2. That the draft Memorandum of Understanding be forwarded to the TRCA’s Board of Directors for endorsement, prior to its execution; 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding; and, 4. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda December 7, 2020 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 5.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 28-20 49 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 10/18 City Initiated: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Recommendation: That City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 10/18 to zone lands within Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park from “R4” – Detached Dwelling Fourth Density and “G” – Greenbelt to “OS” – Open Space, be approved and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 28-20, be enacted by Council. 5.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 29-20 63 Official Plan Amendment OPA 19-004/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/19 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2019-04 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2019-05 Katanna Oklahoma LP Part of Lot 28, Broken Front Concession Range 3, Now Part of Part 1, 40R-2401 (755 Oklahoma Drive) Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19 -004/P, submitted by Katanna Oklahoma LP, to re-designate the lands located on the southeast corner of Eyer Drive and Oklahoma Drive from “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to allow a residential common element condominium development be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 41 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 29-20 be forwarded to Council for enactment; 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/19, submitted by Katanna Oklahoma LP, to facilitate a residential common element condominium development consisting of 27 townhouse units on the lands located at the southeast corner of Eyer Drive and Oklahoma Drive, be endorsed subject to the provisions contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 29-20, and that staff be authorized to finalize and Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda December 7, 2020 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment; and, 3. That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2019-04, submitted by Katanna Oklahoma LP, to establish a single development block to facilitate a common element condominium, and a block for a road widening, as shown on Attachment #6 to Report PLN 29-20, and the implementing conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix III, be endorsed. 5.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 30-20 99 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) Recommendation: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/20, submitted by Universal City Six Developments Inc., to permit a high-density residential condominium building, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 30-20 be forwarded to Council for enactment. 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 16-20 Date: December 7, 2020 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Official Plan Amendment OPA 20-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/20 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Part of Lots 25 and 26, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 and 2, 40R-24268 and Part of Lot 3, 40R-29614 (1034 Reflection Place) 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval, submitted by Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, to permit a residential condominium development. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies a nd identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholde rs to understand the proposal. Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the applications, ask questions of clarification and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision on these applications are being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2.Property Location and Description The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Taunton Road and Sapphire Drive within the Seaton Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The property has an area of approximately 1.05 hectares with frontages along Taunton Road, Sapphire Drive and Reflection Place. The subject property is currently occupied by temporary construction trailers for Mattamy Homes. Immediately to the west, and to the north, across Taunton Road, are lands owned by Infrastructure Ontario (IO) and are designated as Seaton Natural Heritage System within the City’s Official Plan. To the east, across Sapphire Drive, and to the south across Reflection Place, is a medium density residential subdivision recently constructed by Mattamy Homes consisting of freehold detached and townhouse dwellings (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2). -C¾of- PJ(KERJNG - 1 - Information Report No. 16-20 Page 2 3. Applicant’s Proposal Mattamy (Seaton) Limited has submitted applications for an Official Plan Amendment, a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval, to permit a residential condominium development consisting of 28 stacked back-to-back townhouse units and 50 block townhouse units accessed from an internal private road (see Attachment #3, Submitted Conceptual Site Plan). The applicant is proposing to amend the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood official plan policies to reduce the minimum residential density from 203 to 78 units per net hectare and to permit townhouses instead of apartment buildings. The applicant is proposing to transfer the density from the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood to the Thompson’s Corner Neighbourhood . Details regarding the requested official plan amendments and density transfer are discussed in Section 4.3 of this report. The intent of the Zoning By-law Amendment is to request site-specific exceptions to the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, is to permit a reduced residential density, permit stacked back-to-back townhouses and block townhouses, and establish appropriate zoning standards to implement the proposal. The proposed development consists of 6 residential blocks accessed by an internal private road from Reflection Place. Blocks 1 to 5 consists of 50 3-storey rear lane block townhouse units, approximately 8.6 metres in height. Each unit can be accessed at grade through the front door and a private garage in the rear (see Submitted Conceptual Elevations for Block Townhouses, Attachments #4 and #5). The second and third stories shift into back-to-back townhouse units, sharing a common rear wall. Individual private balconies are provided on the second floor. Two parking spaces are provided for each townhouse unit, one space within a private garage and one space on the driveway. No visitor parking spaces are provided for the block townhouse units. Block 6 consists of 28 4-storey stacked back-to-back townhouse units. The applicant is proposing a greater height (approximately 11.3 metres), than the rest of the site, along the frontage of Taunton Road. Each entrance is shared amongst 2 dwelling units, 1 unit comprised of the basement and ground levels, and the second unit comprised of the third and fourth levels (see Submitted Conceptual Elevations for Stacked Back-to-Back Townhouses, Attachments #6 and #7). Individual private balconies are provided on the ground floor for the lower units and on the second floor for the upper units. A total of 35 surface parking spaces are provided for the future residents of the stacked back -to-back townhouse units at a rate of 1.25 parking spaces per unit, and 7 visitor parking spaces are provided at a rate of 0.25 visitor parking spaces per unit. To the west of Block 5, the applicant proposes a 40 square metres of outdoor amenity area (future tot lot). The waste collection area for the stacked back-to-back townhouse units is located south of the future tot lot. The applicant is proposing a landscaped entrance feature at the intersection of Sapphire Drive and Taunton Road. As part of the proposed development, the applicant is proposing to direct rear yard and roof drainage to a headwater feature to maintain predevelopment flows to this feature. This stormwater management infrastructure is located on lands immediately adjacent to Natural Heritage lands to the west, that are owned by IO. - 2 - Information Report No. 16-20 Page 3 The City’s Official Plan policies encourage developments within Seaton to include sustainable features. Although density contributes to sustainability, the applicant is proposing to develop this site using a more sustainable and innovative approach, while still providing a 3 to 4 storey massing (i.e., townhouses). The following sustainable features are proposed to reduce the use of energy, water and waste wherever possible:  geothermal heating and cooling district system to produce 100 percent clean renewable energy;  solar panels within the entrance feature at Sapphire Drive and Taunton Road, and 2 solar car public chargers located in the visitor parking stalls;  energy-efficient buildings, which includes low flow toilets and fixtures that reduce water consumption, meeting and/or exceed the Ontario Building Code Supplementary Standard SB-12;  all private garages with charging infrastructure in place for electric vehicles;  use of low impact development best practices to promote smart planting and waste-wise landscaping;  use of high albedo permeable pavers for driveways and parking areas to facilitate stormwater management and reduce the heat island effect ;  establish urban bee enclosures and implement bee and butterfly friendly pollinator planting;  limit construction waste and use regionally sourced materials for landscaping and use solar panels made in Canada; and  educational program for owners with respect to the site’s sustainability features and inclusion of signage for these features. As noted, Mattamy Homes, has formally applied for Site Plan Approval, which is currently under review. 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Central Pickering Development Plan The Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) sets out the principles and goals that outline the general development vision for the overall Seaton Urban Area, including the integration of new sustainable urban development while ensuring the protection, maintenance and enhancement of the natural heritage system. The objectives and policies of the CPDP are designed to achieve the vision of Seaton. The subject applications generally conform to the intent of the CPDP. 4.2 Durham Regional Official Plan The Seaton Community falls under ‘Special Policy Area A (Pickering)’, in the Durham Regional Official Plan. These lands shall be developed in accordance with the CPDP and implementing Neighbourhood Plans. The design, structure and uses proposed in the subject applications are consistent with those permitted in the CPDP and the Neighbourhood Plans. The applications comply with the Durham Regional Official Plan. - 3 - Information Report No. 16-20 Page 4 4.3 Pickering Official Plan The subject property is designated as “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors” in the City’s Official Plan. Within the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood, the subject property is further designated as Mixed Corridor Type 2 and identified as a Gateway site. The permitted density for lands subcategorized as Mixed Corridor Type 2 is a minimum of 60 units per net hectare and a maximum of 180 units per net hectare, provided the overall density of lands within Mixed Corridors Type 1 and Type 2 designations, within each draft plan of subdivision, is no more than 140 units per net hectare. Also, lands identified as Gateway sites within the Mixed Corridor Type 2 subcategory shall be reserved for apartment buildings at or near the highest density and height permission. The subject property is within the approved Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13, which requires a minimum of 470 dwelling units. To achieve this minimum density, the subject lands must construct an apartment building with 203 dwelling units. The applicant proposes a site-specific amendment to the neighbourhood policies to permit 78 townhouse dwellings. The density shortfall of 129 dwelling units is proposed to be transferred to the Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood. The applicant’s proposal will be assessed against the policies of the Official Plan during the further processing of the application. 4.4 Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines The Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines provide greater guidance on urban design and sustainability performance measures discussed in Chapter 11 – Seaton Urban Area of Pickering’s Official Plan. Some of the key guiding principles of the Guidelines include:  residences should be located within a 200 to 400 metre radium to a village green and within close proximity to other passive recreational elements such as trails and neighbourhood parks;  rear lanes should be a maximum length of 180 metres, or an on -street hydrant location is required;  pedestrian walkways should be distinctly marked and designed to include Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles;  sufficient space along streets for sidewalks, street furniture, public utilities, tree plantings and transit shelters should be provided;  physical barriers, such as lot fencing, should be reviewed and considered in areas where access and encroachment into the Natural Heritage System is to be restricted;  homeowner education and stewardship should be encouraged through the distribution of a homeowner’s pamphlet as a consider of draft approval;  parks should be located and oriented to maximize sunlight and be sheltered from the wind, noise and traffic of adjacent streets;  parks should be designed and located to utilize the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles; - 4 - Information Report No. 16-20 Page 5  where there is a need to discourage public access to stormwater management ponds, living fences and barrier planting may be utilized in place of fencing;  a variety of architectural styles, elements, and material detailing should be considered to create a distinctive and complementary character, as well as provide visual interest;  townhouses should achieve the development standards within the Guidelines (e.g., garages accessed from the rear lane for units with less than 6.0 metres of frontage);  front entry elements should be articulated through the use of framing materials, colour and built form including porches, arches or articulated front steps;  every effort should be made to screen utility meters on townhouse units from public view through the use of recessed walls, in setting within walls, landscaping, or other screening solutions that may be provided by the builder;  driveway widths should generally be no wider than the interior width of the garage;  units facing or flanking onto arterial or collector roads, or at a gateway corner should be given special consideration in architectural design, massing, orientation, siting and materials and should be of high architectural quality;  for units flanking an arterial or collector road, the main front door should be visible from, and oriented to, the exterior side elevation of the house with access to the sidewalk;  side and rear elevations adjacent to a public space such as a park should use materials that are consistent with those used on front elevations;  alternative energy sources such as photovoltaic panels are encouraged;  grade related residential unit driveways, roofs and hardscaped areas such as parking areas, are encouraged to be paved with a light-coloured material to reduce the heat island effect;  charging stations that would supply electricity for electric vehicles are encouraged in developments;  grade related residential unit driveways should be paved with permeable material to reduce stormwater runoff; and  innovative sustainable technologies in the capture, conveyance, and treatment of storm run-off to reduce potential pollutants/contaminants are encouraged. The applicants’ proposal will be assessed for conformity with the Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines during the detailed design stage. 4.5 Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, implements the City’s Official Plan Amendment 22, and the CPDP. The subject property is currently zoned “MC3-1” – Mixed Corridor Type 3 Exception One Zone within the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended. The MC3-1 Zone permits apartment buildings, a nursing home or long-term care/retirement home, or a building with only retail/commercial uses. The applicant is proposing to amend the list of permitted uses to include stacked back-to-back townhouse dwellings and block townhouse dwellings. 5. Comments Received 5.1 Public comments As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received from the public. - 5 - Information Report No. 16-20 Page 6 5.2 City Department Comments 5.2.1 Engineering Services  consideration shall be made to align the easterly driveway with Toffee Street instead of Elmcreek Mews;  enhance the proposed landscape treatment at the corner of Taunton Road and Sapphire Drive;  maintain a sufficient separation between the garbage facility and the future children’s playground area; and  technical revisions required to the submitted plans and reports. 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 (DCDSB) As of writing this report, no comments have been received from D CDSB. 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 recommendation report to Planning & Development Committee:  ensure conformity with the City’s Official Plan and the Seaton Neighbourhood policies;  ensure the proposal is consistent with the City’s urban design goals and objectives in the Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines;  review the appropriateness of transferring density from the subject property to lands in the Thompson’s Corner neighbourhood, and if the density transfer is deemed appropriate, ensure that the lands receiving the density are concurrently rezoned for the additional density;  require the development to provide a minimum of 0.25 visitor parking spaces per dwelling unit for the block townhouses, resulting in an additional 13 visitor parking spaces;  explore opportunities for below-grade parking for the stacked back-to-back townhouses to accommodate the required on-site visitor parking and increase on-site landscaped area; - 6 - Information Report No. 16-20 Page 7  explore the opportunity to replace the block townhouses within additional stacked back-to-back townhouses to increase the density on-site;  ensure that the implementing documents (OPA, ZBA and Site Plan Agreements) secure the proposed sustainable features as outlined in Section 3 of this report;  require that Mattamy Homes obtain appropriate authorization from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and IO to permit stormwater management infrastructure on IO lands within the natural heritage system;  ensure the architectural design of the buildings are enhanced (e.g., architectural projections, use of high-quality building materials) given that the site is located at a proximate gateway location;  require the waste collection area to be relocated away from the central outdoor amenity space;  review internal circulation for emergency access and waste collection routes; and  ensure the overall size and location of the outdoor amenity spaces (private tot lot) is of sufficient size and has appropriate frontage along the private road. 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 Copies of the plans and studies submitted in support of the applications are listed below and available for viewing on the City’s website at pickering.ca/devapp or in person by appointment at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department:  Planning Justification Report, prepared by Korsiak Urban Planning, dated June 2020;  Planning Justification Report Addendum, prepared by MSH, dated September 22, 2020;  Taunton MC Block Proposed Residential Development Urban Transportation Considerations, prepared by BA Group, dated May 29, 2020;  Sustainable Development Checklist and Report, prepared by Mattamy Homes;  Technical Memorandum for Natural Heritage Evaluation, prepared by Burnside & Associates Limited, dated April 29, 2020;  Technical Memorandum for Scoped Environment Impact Study, prepared by Burnside & Associates Limited, dated April 15, 2020;  Stormwater Management Technical Design Brief, prepared by Burnside & Associates Limited, dated April 6, 2020; and  Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by YCA Engineering Limited, dated February 2020. - 7 - Information Report No. 16-20 Page 8 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; and  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 Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority  the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional approval if such application is determined to be locally significant, and does not exhibit matters of Regional and/or Provincial interest; and  the Region has not yet advised if the application for Official Plan Amendment is considered to have no significant Regional or Provincial concerns and would therefore be exempted from Regional approval. 8.3 Owner/Applicant Information The owner of the property is Mattamy (Seaton) Limited and is represented by Korsiak Urban Planning. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Conceptual Site Plan 4. Submitted Conceptual Elevations for Block Townhouses (North and South Elevations) 5. Submitted Conceptual Elevations for Block Townhouses (East and West Elevations) 6. Submitted Conceptual Elevations for Stacked Back-to-Back Townhouses (North and South Elevations) 7. Submitted Conceptual Elevations for Stacked Back-to-Back Townhouses (East and West Elevations) - 8 - Information Report No. 16-20 Page 9 Prepared By: Original Signed By: Tanjot Bal, MCIP, RPP Planner II Original Signed By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design TB:NS:ld Date of Report: November 20, 2020 Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner - 9 - Taunton Road Skyridge Bouleva r d Cameo Street BurkholderDriveBelcourt Stre et Dragonfly AvenueReflection PlaceToffee StreetSapphire DriveFall Harvest CrescentSilk Street Clipper LaneMoonlightCrescent Orenda Street Foxtail Crescent 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 No:Applicant:Property Description: OPA 20-005 and A 09/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Oct. 19, 2020 ¯ Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Part of Lots 25 and 26, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 and 2, 40R-24268 and Part of Lot 3, 40R-29614 (1034 Reflection Place) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020\OPA 20-005, A 009-20 - Mattamy(Seaton) Limited\OPA 20-005 A009-20_LocationMap.mxdE Attachment #1 to Information Report 16-20 CT\\ I 11 I Ir I \\\lllll/JWD \ll I I I I 11l ___ //Ill§ -C40/- PlCKERING - 10 - BurkholderDriveCameo S t r e e t Belcourt Stre et Dragonfly AvenueReflection PlaceToffee StreetDashwood Court Fall Harvest CrescentSkyridge Boulevar d Keystone MewsSapphire DriveTaunton Road M a r a t h o n A v e n u e Silk Street Clipper Lane Elmcreek MewsHollow Oak MewsMoonlig htCrescentOrenda Street F oxtail Crescent 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 Air Photo MapFile No:Applicant:Property Description: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 02, 2020 SubjectLands EL:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020\OPA 20-005, A 009-20 - Mattamy(Seaton) Limited\OPA 20-005P_AirPhoto.mxd ¯ OPA 20-005 and A 09/20Mattamy (Seaton) LimitedPart of Lots 25 and 26, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 and 2, 40R-24268 and Part of Lot 3, 40R-29614 (1034 Reflection Place) Attachment #2 to Information Report 16-20 -C¾cf- P](KER]NG - 11 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020 Nov 16, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Conceptual Site Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 20-005/P and A 09/20 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Part Lots 25 and 26, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 and 2, 40R-24268 and Part of Lot 3, 40R-29614 (1034 Reflection Place) Stacked Back-to-Back Townhouses Stacked Back-to-Back Townhouses Resident and Visitor Parking Garbage Collection Area Block Townhouses Visitor Parking Amenity Area Attachment #3 to Information Report 16-20 -at,+- PJCKERJNG C..._ ______ ....,/ - 12 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020 Nov 2, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Conceptual Elevations for Block Townhouses (North and South Elevations) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 20-005/P and A 09/20 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Part of Lots 25 and 26, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 and 2, 40R-24268 and Part of Lot 3, 40R-29614 (1034 Reflection Place) Front Elevation (North) Rear Elevation (South) Attachment #4 to Information Report 16-20 -at,J- P1CKER1NG 2 i-lR, FIREWALL ~ ©----ev=-----~ ~ ~ 0----~ 0WJL---~ F RONT ELEVATION ST ACKEO DUPLEX TO'ANHOUSE 6LOCK 1 -10 UNITS 2 ..iR. FI R&.IALL ©~ 0 ~· &---~ @ :;" 0 ~ ~ 0--'-©----~ REAR ECEVATION STACKED DUPL EX TO'AN!401J5E B LOCK 1 -10 UNITS - 13 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020 Nov 2, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Conceptual Elevations of Block Townhouses (East and West Elevations) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 20-005/P and A 09/20 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Part of Lots 25 and 26, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 and 2, 40R-24268 and Part of Lot 3, 40R-29614 (1034 Reflection Place) Side Elevation (West)Side Elevation (East) Attachment #5 to Information Report 16-20 ., ,. CORN ER U N IT 1,,!EST S IDE EL EVATION STACKED D UP L EX TOi,,1N~OUSE BLOCK I -10 UNITS -at,J- PJCKERJNG D CT -------- I, EIJ L __ _ • i tIJ ID rn EN D UNI T EAST S I DE EL EVAT ION S TACKED D U PLEX T OWN~OUSE B LOCK I -10 UNITS - 14 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020 Nov 2, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Conceptual Elevations of Stacked Back-to-Back Townhouses (North and South Elevations) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 20-005/P and A 09/20 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Part of Lots 25 and 26, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 and 2, 40R-24268 and Part of Lot 3, 40R-29614 (1034 Reflection Place) Front Elevation (South) Front Elevation (North) Attachment #6 to Information Report 16-20 -at,J- PJCKERJNG !"IWNT !L.EVA.TION &TA.CK!D TOWN3,,IQJ5~ BL«< t a 2& UNITS R!~ !LEVA.Tlo-4 &TAC!<!:D TO"~~SI:: ~1..0!:.<. t a ::l& UNITS - 15 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020 Nov 2, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Conceptual Elevations of Stacked Back-to-Back Townhouses (East and West Elevations) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 20-005/P and A 09/20 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Part of Lots 25 and 26, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 and 2, 40R-24268 and Part of Lot 3, 40R-29614 (1034 Reflection Place) Side Elevation (West)Side Elevation (East) Attachment #7 to Information Report 16-20 -at,J- PJCKERJNG m WEST S I DE ELEVATION STACKED TOWN~OUSE BLOCK h -2& UNITS __ J ~l ffl EAST SIDE ELEVATION STACKED TOXN~OUSE B L OCK h -2& UNIT S - 16 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 24-20 Date: December 7, 2020 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Ecosystem Compensation Recommended Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 19-003/P Recommendation: 1.That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-003/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to amend existing policies and introduce new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation, as set out in Exhibit ‘A’ to Appendix I to Report PLN 24-20 be approved; 2.That the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan, to amend existing policies and introduce new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 24-20, be forwarded to Council for enactment; and 3.That the City Clerk forward the Notice of Adoption to the Region of Durham and to each person or public body that provided written or verbal comments at the Open House, the Public Meeting, the Planning & Development Committee or the City Council meetings. Executive Summary: The purpose of Amendment 35 is to amend the City of Pickering Official Plan by adding new policies and changing existing policies in the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation . The full amendment is contained in Exhibit ‘A’ to Appendix l to this report. A general description of the amendment is provided in Section 5.1 of this report. Financial Implications: The implementation of Amendment 35 would provide a new revenue stream to the City to compensate for ecosystem loss through tree planting and project -specific restoration projects in accordance with conditions of approval for new development. Discussion: 1.Purpose 1.1 The Planning Act identifies the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions as a matter of Provincial interest. Similarly, the Provincial Policy Statement requires that the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems should be maintained, restored o r enhanced where possible. -C¾of- PJ(KERJNG - 17 - Report PLN 24-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-003/P Page 2 1.2 Although the principle of compensation is already e stablished in the Pickering Official Plan, the current policies regarding compensation are specific to only infrastructure expansions, certain urban neighbourhoods and certain natural heritage features, and do not directly address ecosystem loss and compensation due to development impacts, on a City-wide basis. 1.3 The City works with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the development industry to seek favorable outcomes where the loss of critical ecological functions and components are unavoidable. Yet, the absence of City-wide policies in relation to ecosystem loss and compensation leaves a policy void. This void can hamper the City and TRCA’s efforts to achieve shared objectives for a connected and robust natural heritage system and to reach a satisfactory level of compensation to provide meaningful replacement of or enhancement to the natural heritage system. 1.4 Council’s passing of the By-law to adopt the Recommended Amendment will strengthen the principle of ecosystem compensation (where all options for protection have been exhausted) in the Pickering Official Plan, and provide a stronger basis for collaboration between parties and to achieve consistent and transparent approach to compensation through the implementation of approved development proposals. 1.5 A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and TRCA, regarding the Implementation of Ecosystem Compensation in accordance with TRCA’s Guideline to Determine Ecosystem Compensation (the “Guideline”), dated June 2018, will guide the City in its implementation of Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan. For more information regarding the MOU, please refer to Report PLN 25-20 dated December 7, 2020. 2.Statutory Public Meeting and Open House In accordance with the Planning Act, a notice of the statutory public meeting and open house was published in the Pickering News Advertiser on May 29, 2019 and again on June 5, 2019. In addition, notice of the open house and the statutory public meeting was advertised on the City of Pickering website. The open house and statutory public meeting were held on June 17, 2019. The open house drew one attendee, a planner from Evans Planning Inc., inquiring about the applicability of the proposed policies to approved but not yet built plans of subd ivisions. Evans Planning also submitted a follow-up email, inquiring about the same matter. No members of the public spoke to the Proposed Amendment at the statutory public meeting. 3.Agency Consultation 3.1 The Proposed Amendment and Information Report 09-19 were circulated to public agencies on May 24, 2019. Written submissions were received from TRCA and the Regional Municipality of Durham (Region). 3.2 TRCA had no comments to offer in regard to the Proposed Amendment, and expressed its appreciation of the City’s efforts on this matter and that it was looking forward to working with the City on a MOU to administer and implement ecosystem compensation. - 18 - Report PLN 24-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-003/P Page 3 3.3 The Region’s comments are contained in Attachment #1 to this report. As noted in their response, Recommended Amendment 35 is exempt from Regional approval, in accordance with the Region’s By-law 11-2000. 4.Minor modifications to the Amendment text 4.1 In response to the Region’s comments, staff has made a minor technical change to Amendment item #1, Policy 2.5 (d), by splitting the long sentence into 2, as suggested. 4.2 In response to Evans Planning Inc.’s inquiry (concerning the applicability of the proposed policies to approved but not yet built plans of subdivisions), and following consultation with TRCA regarding the MOU to administer and implement Ecosystem Compensation in accordance with the TRCA Guideline, staff re-examined the location of the new policy language in Policy 2.5 (d) (Ecological System) and the policy language in relation to conditions of approval for previously approved developments, and determined that the following minor revisions be incorporated in the amendment: 4.2.1 that the new policy language initially proposed in Policy 2.5 (d) be removed and inserted in Policy 10.12 (Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Features) and numbered 10.12 (f). Note: Policy 10.12 is better suited because it deals with the Management of the Natural Heritage System whereas Policy 2.5 deals with the goals of Pickering’s Ecological System. 4.2.1 that Policy 10.12 be further revised by adding a new subsection (g) to read as follows, and renumbering the subsequent subsections accordingly: “….; accordingly, City Council shall: (g)not require ecosystem compensation in accordance with Section 10.12 (f ) of this Plan where removal of features and/or ecosystem functions without compensation has been determined as part of a previous approval under the Planning Act, or where compensation for the loss of the features and/or ecosystem functions has already been determined in accordance with an approved Master Environmental Servicing Plan or Environmental Assessment. However, the relevant conservation authority’s guideline shall apply to any new or revised approvals under the Conservation Authorities Act permitting process.” Note: The above clarification clause would alleviate any fears of developers from being required to pay compensation twice for the removal of features and/or ecosystem functions. 4.2.3 that the initial revision to Policy 16.10 (h), Environmental Report Contents, in Chapter 16 – Development Review be removed from the amendment. Note: Since the same policy language will be contained in Policy 10.12 (f), duplicating the same policy language in Policy 16.10 (h) is deemed superfluous. - 19 - Report PLN 24-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-003/P Page 4 4.3 The 3 minor technical modifications do not detract from the original intent or purpose of Amendment 35. 5.Recommended Amendment 5.1 Exhibit ‘A’ to Appendix I is the Recommended Amendment 35 to the City of Pickering Official Plan. It introduces revisions to Pickering’s Resource Protection and Enhancement policies in Chapter 10 – Resource Management of the Pickering Official Plan. More specifically, the key proposed amendments to the Official Plan text: expand the requirement for restoration and rehabilitation of degraded and damaged ecosystems, to also include the option of ecosystem compensation due to development impacts (where all options for protection have been exhausted), through the implementation of approved development applications; and clarifies the condition under which previously approved developments would be exempted from ecosystem compensation. 6.Conclusion 6.1 Strengthening the policy framework in relation to ecosystem loss and compensation though this official plan amendment provides a stronger basis for collaboration between parties, and achieves a consistent and transparent approach to compensation through the implementation of approved development. 6.2 Recommended Amendment 35 incorporates appropriate modifications to the initial amendment, based on comments received through the consultation process. 6.3 Staff recommend that Council endorse Recommended Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan by passing the by-law to adopt Amendment 35, as set out in Appendix I to this report. Appendix Appendix l Draft By-law to Adopt Recommended Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan Attachment: 1.Regional Municipality of Durham comments, dated July 17, 2019 - 20 - Report PLN 24-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-003/P Page 5 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Chief Planner Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO DJ:ld Original Signed By:Original Signed By: Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Interim Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By - 21 - Appendix No. I to Report No. PLN 24-20 By-law to Adopt Amendment 35 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 22 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/20 Being a by-law to adopt Amendment 35 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 19-003/P) Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering may by by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; Whereas pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; Whereas the Planning Act identifies the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions as a matter of Provincial interest, and the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 requires that the long term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems should be maintained, restored or enhanced where possible; Whereas the Region has advised that, in accordance with By-law 11-2000, Amendment 35 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. That Amendment 35 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, is hereby adopted; 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments; 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2020. ________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft Draft Draft - 23 - Exhibit “A” to By-law XXXX/20 Recommended Amendment 35 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 24 - Recommended Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to add new policies to and change existing policies in the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation. Location: The Amendment applies City-wide. Basis: There is a strong policy framework in Ontario to protect and expand the natural heritage system. The Planning Act identifies the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions as a matter of Provincial interest. Similarly, the Provincial Policy Statement requires that the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems should be maintained, restored or enhanced where possible. The natural heritage system and features continue to be compromised or lost through development and the effects of climate change. Embedding the principle of ecosystem compensation (where all options for protection have been exhausted) in the Pickering Official Plan will provide a stronger basis for collaboration between parties and achieves a consistent and transparent approach to compensation through the implementation of approved development proposals. The compensation will enable the replanting, restoration and/or enhancement of the natural heritage system. Actual The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: Amendment: (New text is shown as underlined text, deleted text is shown as strikeout text, and retained text is shown as unchanged text.) 1. Revising Section 10.12, Key Natural and Key Hydrologic Features, in Chapter 10 – Resource Management, by deleting “and” at the end of subsection (d); deleting the period “.”and adding “; and” at the end of subsection (e); and adding new subsections (f) and (g) to read as follows: “10.12 City Council recognizes the significance and sensitivity of key natural heritage and key hydrologic features and their inter-related systems of water resources, biotic habitat, natural and cultural heritage, and landform; accordingly, Council shall: (a) to (c) …; (d) …; and (e) ….; and - 25 - Recommended Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 2 (f) require compensation for the loss of ecosystem functions due to development impacts, after all other options for protection, minimization and mitigation have been exhausted, in accordance with the relevant conservation authority’s guideline for determining ecosystem compensation, with the exception of tree removal that falls under the purview of the City’s Tree Removal Compensation Fee, where applicable; and (g) not require ecosystem compensation in accordance with Section 10.12 (f) of this Plan where removal of features and/or ecosystem functions without compensation has been determined as part of a previous approval under the Planning Act, or where compensation for the loss of the features and/or ecosystem functions has already been determined in accordance with an approved Master Environmental Servicing Plan or Environmental Assessment. However, the relevant conservation authority’s guideline for determining ecosystem compensation shall apply to any new or revised approvals under the Conservation Authorities Act permitting process. Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. In light of the numerous components of the Official Plan that are being revised concurrently, the numbering of the policy sections in this amendment is subject to change in accordance with the sequencing of approvals. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment, except as revised by this amendment. Cross Reference: OPA 19-003/P City Initiated - 26 - Attachment #1 to Report#PLN 24-20 The Regional Municipality of Durham. Planning and Economic Development Department Planning Division 605 ROSSLAND RD. E. 4TH FLOOR PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON L 1N 6A3 CANADA 905-668-7711 1-800-372-1102 Fax: 905-666-6208 Email: planning@durham.ca www.durham.ca Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, APP Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development _ _ "Service Excellence for our Communities" July 17, 2019 Mr. Dean Jacobs Principal Planner City Development Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L 1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Jacobs: Re: Regional Comments on a Proposed Amendment to the City of Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 19-003/P Applicant: City of Pickering Location: All lands in the municipality City of Pickering The proposed amendment has been reviewed and the following comments are offered with respect to the Regional Official Plan (ROP) and Provincial Plans and policies. The purpose of the proposed amendment to the City of Pickering's Official Plan is to add a new policy and to change an existing policy with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation. Durham Regional Official Plan The ROP identifies the general location of key natural heritage/key hydrologic features and requires that the location and extent of the feature be confirmed through an appropriate study such as an Environmental Impact Study. The planning and development process often identifies features that are not considered "significant" under Provincial Policy. The proposed amendment, requiring compensation for the loss of these features would help to address the loss of the ecosystem function. The proposed amendment is consistent with the policies of the ROP. Moreover, through the Region's Municipal Comprehensive Review process "Envision Durham", the Region is examining the concept of ecosystem loss and compensation and will consider adding policies in this regard to the ROP. Provincial Policy The Provincial Policy Statement and Provincial Plans, such as the Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan requires that Planning Authorities protect natural heritage features that are considered significant. However, there exist a number of features that may not be If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact Planning Reception at 1-800-372-11 02, extension 2551 . - 27 - considered "significant" but still provide an important role in the ecosystem. These features are often impacted in the planning and development process. The proposed compensation policies recognize this loss, and recommends the use of compensation, as a last resort when protection and mitigation options have been exhausted. This will provide funding to restore ecosystem functions, through actions such as tree planting, or meadow or wetland restoration. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and Provincial Plans, such as the Greenbelt Plan, the Growth Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Amendment Item 1 It is suggested, for clarity purposes, that Amendment Item 1, Policy 2.5 (d), be broken into two sentences, so that the policy reads as follows: "require compensation for the loss of ecosystem functions due to development impacts, after all other options for protection, minimization and mitigation have been exhausted. Compensation shall be in accordance with the relevant conservation authority's guideline for determining ecosystem compensation, with the exception of tree removal that falls under the purview of the City's Tree Removal Compensation Fee, where applicable." Exemption In accordance with By-law 11-2000 the Official Plan Amendment application is exempt from Regional Approval. Please advise the Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development of your Council's decision. If Council adopts an Amendment, a record must be submitted to this Department within 15 days of the date of adoption. The record must include the following: • two (2) copies of the adopted Amendment; • a copy of the adopting by-law; and • a copy of the staff report and any relevant materials. Please contact myself or Lori Riviere-Doersam, Principal Planner, in this Department with any questions or concerns. Gary Mu er, MCIP, RPP Directo f Planning c.c. Kristy Kilbourne, Policy Planning 2 - 28 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 25-20 Date: December 7, 2020 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regarding the administration and collection of fees and technical guidance in relation to the TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, June 2018 File: D-8000-046 Recommendation: 1.That Council approve the draft Memorandum of Understanding, contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 25-20, between the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for the administration and collection of fees and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation in terms of the TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, dated June 2018; 2.That the draft Memorandum of Understanding be forwarded to the TRCA’s Board of Directors for endorsement, prior to its execution; 3.That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding; and 4.That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the n ecessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: This report relates to item #3 of Council Resolution #68/19 dated April 23, 2019, that directed staff to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for the administration and collection of fees and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation in accordance with the TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, dated June 2018. Staff is requesting that the Memorandum of Understanding, contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 25-20, be approved and executed. Background: On April 23, 2019, Council passed the following Resolution #68/19 in relation to Report PLN 07-19 (see Attachment #1): 1.That Council support the use of the TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, dated June 2018, as a technical guideline to determine compensation for ecosystem loss due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, when required through conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land divisions, and site plans, with the exception of tree removal that falls under the purview of the City’s Tree Removal Compensation Fee; -C¾of- PJ(KERJNG - 29 - Report PLN 25-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Draft Memorandum of Understanding Page 2 TRCA’s Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation 2.That the City collect compensation for ecosystem loss due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted , when required through conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land divisions, and site plans, under the circumstances set out in Table 1 in Report PLN 07-19; 3.That staff be authorized to develop a Memorandum of Understanding in consultation with TRCA regarding the administration and collection of the fees and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compe nsation in terms of the Guideline; and 4.That staff be authorized to initiate an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to introduce policies that address ecosystem loss and compensation due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, on a city-wide basis. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval of the draft Memorandum of Understanding, contained in Appendix I, between the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for the administration and collection of fees and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation in terms of the TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, dated June 2018. Subject to the subsequent approval by TRCA Board of Directors, the Memorandum of Understanding will be executed by the parties involved. Discussion: The background and basis for the development of the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) are contained in Report PLN 07-19 dated April 1, 2019 (see Attachment #1). In response to item #3 of Council Resolution #68/19, City Development staff, with the assistance of the Senior Coordinator, Landscape & Parks Development and Legal Services, developed a draft MOU in consultation with TRCA staff. The review of the draft MOU went through various iterations. City and TRCA staff are in agreement with the contents of the draft MOU. A copy of the draft MOU is contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 25-20. The draft MOU follows a standard format addressing: Parties Involved; Purpose; Basis; Applicability; Duration; Management Guidance and Interpretation; Collection and Administration of Fees; and Monitoring and Reporting. The next steps is to execute and implement the MOU, subject to the approval of Pickering Council and the TRCA Board of Directors. In response to item #4 of Council Resolution #68/19 (see Background above), a recommendation to adopt City Initiated Official Plan Amendment 35 (OPA 35), is contained in Report PLN 24-20. The adoption of OPA 35 will provide a stronger planning policy basis to implement ecosystem compensation through the review of development applications, in accordance with the MOU. It is important to clarify that although TRCA is in the process of developing a memorandum of understanding in accordance with the Conservation Authority Act for the provision of programs and services on behalf of municipalities, the Act also allows for other agreement to be entered into with the municipality in respect of the programs and services, such as this MOU. - 30 - Report PLN 25-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Draft Memorandum of Understanding Page 3 TRCA’s Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation This report was prepared in consultation with the City’s Corporate Services and Engineering Services Departments. In order to effectuate the implementation of the MOU, staff request that the draft MOU contained in Appendix I be approved by Council, and that the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute the MOU once TRCA’s Board of Directors has endorsed it. Appendix Appendix I Draft Memorandum of Understanding Attachment 1.Report PLN 07-19 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics DJ:ld Original Signed 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 - 31 - Appendix I to Report PLN 25-20 Draft Memorandum of Understanding - 32 - Memorandum of Understanding Ecosystem Compensation Implementation 1.Parties involved: The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the “City”) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) 2.Purpose: The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the City and TRCA in the City’s implementation of TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation (the “Guideline”), dated June 2018, within the boundaries of the City of Pickering. These roles and responsibilities address: a)the collection and administration of ecosystem compensation fees; b)the mechanisms with which agreements and conditions may be made for ecosystem compensation; c)the types of natural features that may be the subject of ecosystem compensation; d)the location of natural features, whether inside or outside of TRCA regulated areas; e)the overlap with the City’s Tree Removal Compensation Fee; and f)the provision of technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of ecosystem compensation in accordance with the Guideline. 3.Basis On April 23, 2019 the Council of the City, in accordance with Resolution #68/19 resolved: to support the use of TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, dated June 2018, as a technical guideline to determine compensation for ecosystem loss due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, in accordance with conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land divisions, and site plans, with the exception of tree removal that falls under the purview of the City’s Tree Removal Compensation Fee; that the City collect compensation for ecosystem loss due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, in accordance with conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land divisions, and site plans, under the circumstances set out in Table 1 in Report PLN 07-19; that City staff be authorized to develop a memorandum of understanding in consultation with TRCA regarding the administration of the fees collected and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation in terms of the Guideline. - 33 - Page 2 On xxx (insert date) through Resolution # xxx (insert date) the Council of the City adopted Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan which added new policies and changed existing policies within the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation. 4.Applicability: a.Table 1 in Appendix I to this MOU clarifies the application of the Guideline in relation to the City’s Tree Removal Compensation Fee, and outlines which agency collects and administers the Ecosystem Compensation Fee by type and location of features to be removed. b.Ecosystem Compensation in accordance with the Guideline does not apply to buffer zones or vegetation protection zones associated with natural features identified on the Schedules of the Pickering Official Plan or through an environmental impact study. c.Where the Ecosystem Compensation Fee collected is to be used for planting or ecosystem improvement, the land base for planting or ecosystem improvement shall, as a first priority, be located on the same site where the removal is taking place, as a second priority, be located within the same watershed within the City of Pickering, or as a third priority, be located within the same watershed or another watershed that is within or partly within the City of Pickering. d.The Guideline shall not apply where removal of features and/or ecosystem functions without compensation has been determined as part of a previous approval under the Planning Act, or where compensation for the loss of the features and/or ecosystem functions has already been determined in accordance with an approved Master Environmental Servicing Plan or Environmental Assessment. Notwithstanding, the Guideline shall apply to any new or revised approvals under the Conservation Authorities Act permitting process. 5.Duration: a.This MOU takes effect on the date the parties sign this MOU. b.This MOU can be terminated in writing by either party, at any time and for any reason, provided that: i.in the event the City resolves to terminate this MOU, such authorization shall be obtained from the Council of the City, and in the event TRCA resolves to terminate this MOU, such authorization shall be obtained from the TRCA Board of Directors. If either party terminate this MOU in accordance with this Section, neither party shall be subject to penalties or liabilities arising from such termination; - 34 - Page 3 ii.where any compensation in accordance with the Guideline has been collected prior to or at the time of termination of this MOU, such compensation amount shall continue to be administered in accordance with the applicable conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land divisions, or site plan approval, or as agreed upon through the Environmental Assessment or Conservation Authorities Act permitting process or other agreement as further described in Section 8(b) of this MOU. 6.Management: The following persons are appointed to manage/administer the compensation process: The City of Pickering: The Director, City Development & CBO or designate; TRCA: TRCA Development Planning and Permits or Infrastructure Planning and Permits staff. 7.Guidance and Interpretation regarding Compensation for Ecosystem Loss: a.Technical guidance regarding the interpretation of the Guideline and determining compensation payable for ecosystem loss, shall be provided to the City, by TRCA staff authorized for such purposes. b.There will be no extra costs charged to the City or the proponent regarding the interpretation of the Guideline and determining compensation for ecosystem loss. c.In the event of a dispute or disagreement regarding the amount of compensation payable with regard to the land base component of ecosystem compensation, TRCA or the City, whichever party is responsible, may at their discretion, procure their own appraisal with the costs borne by the development proponent. 8.Collection and Administration of Fees: a.Table 1 in Appendix I to this MOU clarifies which party collects and administers the compensation fee and administration fee (where applicable). b.The party that collects a compensation fee for planting or ecosystem improvement shall be responsible for the planting or ecosystem improvement, including the land base component (if applicable), in accordance with an agreement to be entered into with the development proponent, stipulating where the planting or ecosystem improvement shall occur and the timeframe associated. Section 3.1 (Agreements) of the Guideline outlines the factors to be considered when contemplating such agreements. c.Financial record of each planting or ecosystem improvement project/program undertaken in accordance with section 3.2 of the Guideline, shall be maintained by the relevant party. - 35 - Page 4 9.Monitoring and Reporting: a.Meetings between the parties shall be held at least once every 12 months, for purposes of monitoring and reporting, tracking, and evaluation to gauge success and inform program improvements. b.Monitoring shall be undertaken by the party that received the compensation funds after completion of the Guideline’s costs breakdown process, whether that is TRCA or the City, following 1, 3, and 5 years after construction and/or planting is complete in accordance with section 3.2 of the Guideline. 10.This MOU shall be made available to the public on request. Signature & Date Signature & Date The Corporation the City of Pickering Toronto and Region Conservation Authority - 36 - Table 1 Appendix I Location of Feature & Implementing Mechanisms What Features and/or Ecosystem Functions? Tool Who Collects and Administers the Compensation Fee? Within the City of Pickering (outside TRCA’s regulated area1), through a City condition of site plan approval, draft plan of subdivision, zoning, or land division Individual trees2 Council’s adopted Tree Removal Compensation Fee The City of Pickering Within the City of Pickering (outside TRCA’s regulated area1), through a City condition of site plan approval, draft plan of subdivision, zoning, or land division Significant Woodlands, woodlands, areas of natural and scientific interest, and other non-regulated1 features, and their related ecosystem functions, (which could include the associated land base) TRCA’s Guideline The City of Pickering, except that any compensation collected in relation to lands or features within the Seaton Natural Heritage System, as shown on the Schedule I of the Pickering Official Plan will be collected and administered by TRCA Within the City of Pickering (inside TRCA’s regulated area1), through TRCA permit process, a condition of site plan approval, draft plan of subdivision, zoning, or land division Individual trees2 Council’s adopted Tree Removal Compensation Fee The City of Pickering - 37 - Location of Feature & Implementing Mechanisms What Features and/or Ecosystem Functions? Tool Who Collects and Administers the Compensation Fee? Within the City of Pickering (inside or the majority inside TRCA’s regulated area1), through TRCA permit process, a condition of site plan approval, draft plan of subdivision, zoning, or land division Significant Woodlands, woodlands, wetlands, valley lands, shorelines, areas of natural and scientific interest, and their related ecosystem functions, (which could include the associated land base) TRCA’s Guideline TRCA Within the City of Pickering (outside or the majority outside TRCA’s regulated area1), through TRCA permit process, a condition of site plan approval, draft plan of subdivision, zoning, or land division Significant Woodlands, woodlands, wetlands, valley lands, shorelines, areas of natural and scientific interest, and their related ecosystem functions, (which could include the associated land base) TRCA’s Guideline The City of Pickering, except that any compensation collected in relation to lands or features within the Seaton Natural Heritage System, as shown on the Schedule I of the Pickering Official Plan will be collected and administered by TRCA Note 1: TRCA’s Regulated Area – the text of TRCA’s Ontario Regulation 166/06 describes the areas that are regulated , which prevails over the mapping. Features and hazards do not have to be shown on TRCA Regulated Area mapping to be regulated. Note 2: The term “Individual trees” refers to trees with a caliper of 15 centimetres or more, that do not functionally form part of significant woodlands (identified on Schedule IIIB of the Pickering Official Plan) or other woodlands that are neithe r mapped on Schedule IIB of the Pickering Official Plan nor defined as being “significant”. - 38 - Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 25-20From: Subject: Kyle Bentley r Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 07-19 Date: April 1, 2019 Director, City Development & CBO Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Guideline for Dete'rmining Ecosystem Compensation, June 2018 File: D-8000-046 Recommendation: 1. That Council support the use of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, dated June 2018, as a technJcal guideline to determine compensation for ecosystem loss due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, when required through conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land divisions, and site plans, with the exception of tree removal that falls under the purview of the City's Tree Removal Compensation Fee; 2. That the City collect compensation for ecosystem loss due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, when required through conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land divisions, and site plans, u.nder the circumstances set out in Table 1 in Report PLN 07-19; 3. That staff be authorized to develop a memorandum of understanding in consultation with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regarding the administration and collection of the fees and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation in terms of the Guideline; and 4. That staff be authorized to initiate an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to introduce policies that address ecosystem loss and compensation due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, on a city-wide basis. Executive Summary: This report provides information regarding the Toronto. and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation (the Guideline), issued in June 2018. It also contains a discussion regarding the purpose and scope of the Guideline, the principles that guide its application, its applicability, how it fits into the development approval process, and its implications for the City: The report concludes with a number of recommendations regarding the use of the Guideline, defining its relationship to the · City Tree compensation practice, and requesting authorization to initiate an Official Plan Amendment to introduce policies that address ecosystem loss and compensation. - 39 - PLN0?-19 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation . 1. Background 1.1 How are natural heritage systems protected? April 1, 2019 Page 2 There is a strong policy framework in Ontario to protect and expand the natural heritage system. The Planning Act identifies the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions as a matter of Provincial interest. Similarly, the Provincial Policy Statement requires that.the long term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems should be maintained, restored or enhanced where possible. Municipalities and other agencies protect these systems through various processes. Regional and local official plans designate lands as natural heritage systems where development is generally not permissible. Municipalities may pass Tree Protection By-laws to further regulate natural heritage system lands and/or the destruction of indiviC!lual trees, and to establish penalties for unlawful, removal of frees in the areas covered by the by-laws. Additionally, municipalities may establish compensation protocols to calculate a value for · the lost feature, function, or area, and require the value to be used towards enhancing the natural heritage system in a nearby location. The Pickering Official Plan designates and provides policies to protect a robust natural heritage system. The City has passed a Tree Protection By-law in 2003 that prohibits and regulates the injuring, destruction or removal of trees within defined areas of the City. Further, the City passed Tree Inventory, Preservation and Removal Compensation .. Requirements in January 2018 to address the loss of trees during the development review proces·s, with the exception of the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood, which has its own compensation agreement in place. TRCA is one of the City's partner agencies that plays a strong role in protecting and enhancing the natural heritage system through its regulatory authority, land stewardship, and as a commenting agency on development applications. The Conservation Authorities and municipalities have been continuously working together to reduce the losses to the natural heritage system through the promotion of best practices, strengthening environmental policies, education programs, and compensation requirements. 1.2 Why is a compensation guidelin~ required? In spite of the strong policy framework, and the efforts and initiatives from the City and TRCA to protect, restore, or enhance the natural heritage system, losses to the natural heritage system and features continue to occur due to unavoidable losses associated with urbanization and infrastructure expansion. These losses may become even more apparent due to impacts associated with climate .change. In November 2014, TRCA adopted their Living City Policies. These policies, among other matters, introduced stronger policy direction regarding "compensation", defining it in the context of conservation and land use planning, as "the replacement of lost/altered ecosystem services or ecological functions". The Living Cities policies also recommended that after all other options for protection, minimization and mitigation have been exhausted, and where no other federal, provincial and municipal requirements exist to protect a natural heritage feature being impacted by development or infrastructure, that compensation for · the loss of ecosystem services be provided. - 40 - PLN 07-19 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation · April 1, 2019 Page 3 Although compensation has been partially successful in restoring natural heritage systems and ecological functions, TRCA recognized that there have been various challenges in its application. For example, these challenges include the lack of consistent standards and transparency, lengthy negotiations that delay the development approval process, and the lack of direction on selecting sites for ecological restoration. Initial discussions between TRCA and the development industry also revealed that developers would welcome the development of a transparent and standardized compensation protocol or guideline. Subsequently, TRCA investigated best practices for compensation, and produced a Draft Terrestrial Ecosystem Services Compensation Protocol in mid-2015. A consultation process followed with key stakeholders, the building industry, and municipalities. Staff, in their comments on the Draft Protocol, supported in the principle the concept of a standardized ecosystem compensation protocol and provided technical comments. Following a review of the comments received, TRCA revised the Draft Protocol, and renamed it "Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation". The TRCA Board endorsed the Guideline in June 2018 and directed TRCA staff to work with municipalities and public agencies to implement it, recognizing their distinct regulatory frameworks. The Guideline is posted on TRCA's website and can be accessed via the following link: https://trca.ca/app/uploads/2018/07/TRCA-Guideline-for-Determining-Ecosystem-Compensation-June-2018.pdf. 2. The purpose and scope of the Guideline? The Guideline was developed in support of TRCA's Living City Policies. The Guideline provides direction for compensation in a consistent and transparent manner, after it has been decided through a planning, environmental assessment and/or permit process, that the impact on a natural heritage feature cannot be avoided, minimized or mitigated. The Guideline determines requirements for replacing the natural features and related functions that are lost to development or infrastructure. It deals with the loss of the feature and the land base associated with the ecosystem function. Other important aspects that have been clarified by the Guideline are the following: • the roles of the parties (TRCA, municipalities, and proponents) • the applicability of the Compensation Guideline, specifically with regard to the type of features and how it relates to other replacement tools, and • the method to determine the compensation amount, and the simplification thereof. TRCA will be regularly reporting to their Board on the status of compensation projects undertaken by TRCA, financial bookkeeping, and project monitoring results. 3. Principles that guide its application _ The following seven principles help guide the application and implementation of the Guideline: • Compensation must be considered only as a last resort within the established mitigation hierarchy of: Avoid, Minimize, Mitigate, Compensate. - 41 - PLN 07-19 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation April 1, 2019 Page 4 • The compensation process should be transparent, helping to ensure accountability of all parties involved. • The compensation process should strive to be consistent and replicable. • Compensation outcomes should strive to fully replace the same level of lost· ecosystem structure and function in proximity to where the loss occurs, and where possible, ach_ieve an overall gain. • -Compensation should be directed to on-the-ground ecosystem restoration and be informed by strategic watershed and restoration planning. • Implementation of compensation should be completed promptly so that ecosystem functions are re-established as soon as possible after (or even before) losses occur. • The compensation process should use an adaptive management approach incorporating monitoring, tracking, and evaluation to gauge success and inform program improvements. 4. The Applicability of the Guideline The Guideline contains a comprehensive overview of its applicability. The Guideline: • applies to all new applications or project undertakings that come before TRCA on or after June 22, 2018, and to any existing applications or project undertakings before TRCA that have not received approval as of June 22, 2018; • applies to all cases where money is directed to TRCA, through an agreement, to implement ecosystem restoration and conservation land securement; • applies to any natural feature (e.g., woodlands, wetlands, thickets and meadows) that has been determined through the review of development applications, infrastructure or TRCA permits, to require compensation; • does not apply to street trees or trees in parks that are not associated with natural features; • requires compensation be applied to re-establish natural ecosystems; . • is not intended for the provision or improvement of engineered green infrastructure, such as green roofs; · • does not contain stipulations for determining compensation for the loss of fish habitat -and defers to provincial and federal ministries; • recognizes and supports other compensation programs such as municipal by-laws for tree replacement; _ • stipulates that TRCA will continue to support other compensation programs by providing technical guidance and coordinating with municipal staff to avoid duplication, and to assist in the development of new or updated by-laws, as needed; • acknowledges that municipalities may have enabling policies in their official plans regarding compensation, in which case the Guideline may be used as technical guidance in implementing such policies; and • recognizes that municipalities may have their own unique approach to compensation, and may wish to adapt the Guideline to their own needs. - 42 - PLN 07-19 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation April 1, 2019 Page 5 5. How does Compensation fit into a. development or infrastructure approval process? · . Figure 1 (contained in the Guideline) and provided as Attachment #1 to Report PLN 07-19, illustrates how compensation might fit into the current review and approval process for development applications and infrastructure. The figure illustrates that the Guideline is a . tool that is used by TRCA, in cooperation with the municipality, once a decision has been made that ecosystem loss is unavoidable. 6. What are the implications for the City? In answering this question, it is important to first point out the mechanisms or regulatory means the City currently uses to request compensation. a. The Pickering Official Plan The Official Plan contains a number of policies on the subject of compensation, which pertain only to a few specific geographic areas in the City and to major infrastructure projects. , · While the principle of compensation is already embedded in the Official Plan, the current policies regarding compensation are specific to only infrastructure expansions, certain urban neighbourhoods and certain natural heritage features, and do not directly address ecosystem loss and compensation due to development impacts, on a city-wide basis. Nonetheless, policy 2.5.a) of the Plan states that critical ecological functions and components should be protected from inappropriate human uses and activities. The City consults and collaborates with TRCA and the development industry to seek favorable outcomes where these functions and components cannot be protected through the unavoidable loss of key natural heritage .or key hydrologic features due to development or infrastructure impacts. Yet, the absence of City-wide policies in relation to ecosystem loss and compensation leaves a policy void. This void can hamper the City and TRCA's efforts to achieve shared objectives for a connected and robust natural · heritage system and to reach a satisfactory level of compensation. A more complete policy framework on ecosystem loss and compensation will create a level playing field and a greater degree of consistency for all development proposals in the City, irrespective of the geographic area in the City or the type of natural feature impacted; It is therefore recommended that new enabling policies be developed for the Pickering Official Plan, providing a stronger basis for collaboration between parties and to achieve consistent and fair compensation. · With respect to municipal infrastructure projects, the Guideline acknowledges that such projects may face challenges. The Guidelines stipulate that TRCA will work with municipalities to explore offsetting losses to the natural heritage system through such means as ecological restoration and enhancement programs. - 43 - PLN0?-19 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation b. Council's Tree Protection By-law a.nd Compensation Practice April 1, 2019 Page 6 Council has a Tree Protection By-law (6108/03) in place. It prohibits and regulates the removal of trees within defined areas of the City (within shoreline and stream corridors, wetlands and environmentally significant areas identified in Schedule Ill of the Pickering Official Plan, and areas within 30 metres on lands adjacent thereto), subject to certain exemptions such as woodlots that are governed by By-law #031-:2012 of the Regional Municipality of Durham. A person who wishes to remove a tree within the defined area, must apply for a p~rmit to do so. The provisions of the City's By-law does not apply to the removal of trees imposed as a condition to the approval of a site plan, a plan of subdivision or consent, or any agreement entered into to that effect. In order to formalize the City's tree removal compensation practice when required by conditions of draft plan of subdivision, zoning, land division or site plan approval, the Council adopted a compensation fee for tree removal in January 2018. Tree compensation is one of the tools used by the City to implement the policies in the Pickering Official Plan regarding the protection, restoration, management and expansion of the City's urban forest. The scope of this policy is limited to "tree removal", and does not extend to the loss of ecosystem functions and the associated land base. In a manner similar to TRCA's Compensation Guideline, the priority for compensation is replacement plantings on the development site. If there is insufficient room for these plantings on site, it may take place on other publicly owned lands in proximity to the development site. If there is insufficient space to plant all the trees required for compensation, the City may take cash-in-lieu to be used for tree planting initiatives within a neighbouring community, if possible. Prior to TRCA's Compensation Guideline and Council's adoption of a Tree Compensation fee, the decision on who collects the compensation for tree loss was often part of a negotiation process between TRCA and the City. Any compensation in relation to other ecosystem losses was mainly a matter TRCA took up with developers, but in the absence of a formal compensation guideline, there was confusion and uncertainty as to when, why and how compensation should be collected. Hence, the need for the -Guideline. In order to: clarify the application of the City's Tree Removal Compensation fee in relation to the Guideline; distinguish the type and location of the features for which -compensation is required; and to prevent any duplication of compensation ·efforts, staff recommends the following approach: - 44 - PLN 07-19 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation April 1, 2019 Page 7 Table 1 Location of feature What features and/or Authority IT ool ecosystem functions? Within the City of Pickering Individual trees Council's adopted Tree (outside TRCA's regulatory Removal Compensation area), through a City condition of Fee, and the Pickering site plan approval, draft plan of Official Plan subdivision, zoning, or land division Within the City of Pickering Woodlands, areas of natural TRCA's Guideline, and the (outside TRCA's regulatory and scientific interest, and Pickering Official Plan area), through a City condition of other non-regulated features, site plan approval, draft plan of and their related ecosystem subdivision, zoning, or land · functions, (which could include division the associated land base) Within the City of Pickering Individual trees Council's adopted Tree (inside TRCA's regulatory area), Removal Compensation through TRCA permit process, a Fee, and the Pickering condition of si_te plan approval, Official Plan · draft plan of subdivision, zoning, or land division Within the City of Pickering Woodlands, wetlands, valley TRCA's Guideline, and the (inside TRCA's regulatory area), lands, shorelines, areas of Pickering Official Plan through TRCA permit process, a natural and scientific interest, condition of site plan approval, and their related ecosystem draft plan of subdivision, zoning, functions, (which could include or land division the associated land base) To advance the implementation of the Guideline in accordance with the table above, staff will be developing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in consultation with TRCA with respect to matters such as the administration and collection of fees, and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation in accordance with the Guideline. Once the MOU has been developed, it will be presented to Council for endorsement. · 7. Conclusion Acknowledging and strengthening of the natural heritage system and its functions through a more holistic, integrated approach to compensation is important for the health and sustainability of the watersheds and the ecosystem in the City. - 45 - PLN 07-19 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation April 1, 2019 Page 8 TRCA's Compensation Guideline: sets consistent standards and a transparent process in place; creates a greater level of predictability; clarifies the roles of all parties; leads to shorter negotiations and development approval timelines; and puts in place a strategic site selection method for ecological restoration. To ensure consistent application of the Guideline and coordination with the City's current compensation practices, staff recommends that: • Council support the use of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Comp~nsation, dated June 2018, as a technical guideline to determine compensation for ecosystem loss due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, when required through conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land· divisions, and site plans, with the exception of tree removal that falls under the purview of the City's Tree Removal Compensation Fee; • the City collect compensation for ecosystem loss due to development impacts, where all options for protection have been exhausted, when required through conditions of draft plans of subdivision, zoning, land divisions, and site plans, as illustrated in Table 1 in Report PLN 07-19; • Council authorize staff to develop a memorandum of understanding in consultation with TRCA regarding the administration and collection of the fees and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation in terms of the Guideline; and · • Council authorize staff to initiate an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to introduce policies that address ecosystem loss and compensation due to development impacts_, where all options for protection have been exhausted, on a city-wide basis. This report was prepared in consultation with TRCA and the City's Engineering Services Department. Attachment 1 Figure 1: Compensation and Review and Approval Processes - 46 - PLN 07-19 Subject: TRCA's Guidelines for Determining Ecosystem Compensation April 1, 2019 Page 9 Prepared By: n Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Arnold Mostert, OALA · Senior Coo_rdinator, Landscape & Parks Development DJ:ld Recommended .for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Approved/Endorsed By: !~~ Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner /: ~ t::ntley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO . ~, Rich d Holb rn, P. Eng. · Dir tor, Engineering services - 47 - ATTACHMENT# I TO RtPORi II fLN O}-\C( Figure 1: Compensation and Review and Approval Processes ' ' -PRIVATE LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AVOID MINIMIZE MITIGATE If there remains unavoidable loss PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE UNDERTAKINGS TRCA COMPENSATION GUILDELINE <---- - - - - - - ----Other public agency Determine Compensation How much compensation Is required to address loss Apply Compensation Stakeholder agreements, Implementation plans and actions I~ Track Compensation Document decisions and actions Guideline is separate off-setting from other off-setting requirements but may requirements be influenced or replaced by them , --I I A Restoration Opportunities Strategic direction on restoration locations and design TRCA Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation Page4 - 48 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 28-20 Date: December 7, 2020 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 10/18 City Initiated: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Recommendation: 1.That City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 10/18 to zone lands within Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park from “R4” – Detached Dwelling Fourth Density and “G” – Greenbelt to “OS” – Open Space, be approved and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 28-20, be enacted by Council. Executive Summary: On June 25, 2018, Council passed a motion requesting that City staff initiate a rezoning of the lands within Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park (RFBWP) from predominantly residential to an open space/environmental park zone, including those lands within the park that are privately owned. At the Statutory Public Meeting, in response to delegations objecting to the privately owned properties being rezoned, Committee members directed staff to exclude the privately owned properties from this amendment. The draft by-law now excludes the 5 privately owned properties located in the RFBWP. Also since the Statutory Public Meeting, an update to the RFBWP Master Plan has been completed. The Master Plan no longer includes a location for the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club within the Park due to new high water levels posing a safety risk. Accordingly, staff have revised the text of the draft by-law to delete the definitions and use permissions for Private Club and Waterfront Activity, and the building setback zone provisions. Staff have also revised the maximum building height for any building or structure within the Park be decreased from 9.0 metres to 5.0 metres. Staff recommends that Council approve of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 10/18 and enact the draft by-law as set out in Appendix I to this report. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this report. -C¾of- PJ(KERJNG - 49 - Report PLN 28-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: City Initiated: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 2 Discussion: 1. Background 1.1 Council Resolution #468/18 On June 25, 2018, Council passed a motion (see Council Resolution #468/18, Attachment #1) requesting City staff to initiate the necessary steps to amend Zoning By-law 2511 to change the zoning of all lands within Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park from “R4” – Detached Dwelling Fourth Density and “G” – Greenbelt to an appropriate zone category that recognizes these lands as Open Space/Environmental Park , and those properties in private ownership be granted non-conforming status. 1.2 Property Description The subject lands are located south of Sunrise Avenue, east of West Shore Boulevard, within the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park (RFBWP) and are owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) (see Location Map, Attachment #2). 2. Comments Received 2.1 February 4, 2019 Statutory Public Meeting A Statutory Public Meeting was held on February 4, 2019 at which 3 residents made an oral submission to the Planning & Development Committee. After the meeting, 1 written comment was also received. The following is a summary of the key concerns and comments:  landowners of the privately owned properties expressed concerns that rezoning their properties would restrict their abilities to make changes or enlarge the footprint of their homes, and requested to be excluded from the City initiated amendment ;  requested clarification on how the amendment would affect the continuation of the Pickering Canoe Club;  supports the City initiated zoning by-law amendment and recommends that the RFBWP remain as a naturalized park. At the Public Meeting, the Committee Members expressed concerns with placing restrictions on the existing private residential properties, noting that the intent of the City initiated zoning by-law amendment was to protect the park, not negatively impact the residential properties. Committee Members asked for clarification on whether TRCA had an interest in purchasing the residential properties and whether staff considered excluding the residential properties from the rezoning. Staff were requested to remove the private residential properties from the by-law amendment. - 50 - Report PLN 28-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: City Initiated: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 3 3. Agency Comments 3.1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) TRCA has reviewed the draft zoning by-law amendment and is supportive of the proposed rezoning of their lands to an Open Space Zone category. 3.2 Region of Durham The Region of Durham has advised that they have no concerns with the City initiated rezoning. 4. City’s Update to the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park (RFBWP) Master Plan The RFBWP Master Plan was originally endorsed by Council in 2012. The first phase of the Master Plan was constructed by late 2018. During the spring and summe r of 2017 and 2019, the west spit experienced extremely high water levels, which resulted in excessive erosion and physical damage to the spit. Staff identified the need to revise the Master Plan to respond to these high lake levels and flooding, by permanently restricting vehicular access and prohibiting any structures along the west spit. The Pickering Canoe Club (PCC) can no longer be accommodated on the west spit. The revised Master Plan was endorsed by Executive Committee on November 2, 2020 (details on the revised Master Plan can be found in Report ENG 05-20). 5. Planning Analysis 5.1 Exclusion of Privately Owned Residential Properties from Zoning At the Public Meeting on February 4, 2019, owners of privately owned properties expressed concerns with respect to the inclusion of their properties within the city initiated zoning by-law. These landowners were concerned that rezoning their lots to an Open Space zone would make their existing properties legal non-conforming and restrict them from making any alterations or enlargements to the existing buildings and/or structures on their properties. At the meeting, Committee also expressed similar concerns noting that the rezoning application intended to protect the park, not negatively impact residential properties. The revised draft zoning by-law, attached as Appendix I to this report, removes the 5 privately owned residential properties from the rezoning application. The properties are: 907, 909 and 911 Beachpoint Promenade, 621 West Shore Boulevard and 913 Sunrise Avenue. These properties are currently used for residential purposes and contain detached dwellings and accessory buildings/structures. TRCA has also advised that they have no concerns with removing the privately owned residential properties from the rezoning application. The 3 residential properties along Beachpoint Promenade are within a dynamic beach and within the TRCA screening area. Any site alteration to these properties is subject to permits from both the City and TRCA. - 51 - Report PLN 28-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: City Initiated: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 4 The remaining 2 properties are located along West Shore Boulevard and Sunrise Avenue. These properties are outside of TRCA's screening area. Therefore, any site alteration is only subject to permits and approval from the City. 5.2 Draft Zoning By-law Amendment is consistent with the City’s Official Plan The subject lands are currently designated as “Open Space System – Natural Areas” and “Open Space System – Marina Areas” in the City’s Official Plan. Within the Natural and Marina Areas, the Official Plan permits the conservation, environmental protection, restoration, and similar uses, existing lawful residential dwellings, a new residential dwelling on a vacant lot, and community gardens. In addition, marinas, yacht clubs, ancillary uses, uses that support the marina or yacht club, and active recreational, community and cultural uses are permitted within the Marina Areas. The majority of the subject lands are currently zoned as “R4” – Residential Zone, permitting detached dwellings and does not conform to the Official Plan. The “OS” – Open Space Zone category in the draft zoning by-law permits Public Parks, Community Gardens and Conservation Uses, which uses conform to the City’s Official Plan. 5.3 Implementation of the Updated RFBWP Master Plan In light of the updated Master Plan for RFBWP, which no longer accommodates the PCC, the draft zoning by-law has been revised by removing the definitions, use permissions and building setback provisions for Private Club and Waterfront Activity. Also, in keeping with the nature of buildings and structures that are contemplated within the Park, the maximum building height in the draft zoning by-law has been decreased from 9.0 metres to 5.0 metres. 5.4 Staff Recommend an Implementing Zoning By-law Amendment be Forwarded to Council for Enactment Staff recommend the Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Appendix I, that will amend Zoning By-law 2511 to zone all lands within Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park from “R4” – Residential and “G” – Greenbelt to “OS” – Open Space, be enacted by Council. Appendix: Appendix I Draft Zoning By-law Amendment A 10/18 Attachments: 1. Council Resolution #468/18 2. Location Map - 52 - Report PLN 28-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: City Initiated: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 5 Prepared By: Original Signed By: Tanjot Bal, MCIP, RPP Planner II Original Signed By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design TB:NS: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 - 53 - Appendix I to Report PLN 28-20 Draft Zoning By-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 10/18 - 54 - Appendix I to Report PLN 28-20 Draft Zoning By-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 10/18 - 55 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/20 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, in Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park (A 10/18) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering passed Resolution #468/18 requesting the lands within Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park be rezoned from “R4” Zone and “G” Zone categories to “OS” Zone category within Zoning By-law 2511; And whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it advisable to amend By-law 2511 to regulate the land uses within the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park in accordance with the Updated Master Plan for the Park; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Schedule I Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2.Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park, in the City of Pickering, designated “OS” – Open Space on Schedule I to this By-law. 3.General Provisions No building, structure, land or part thereof shall here after be used, occupied, enacted, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4.Definitions In this By-law: (1)“Park, Public” shall mean an area of land under the jurisdiction of a public authority that is designed or maintained for active or passive recreational purposes, that may include a playground, sports field, botanical garden, boat launch for non-motorized boats, or public swimming pool, and may also include accessory buildings or structures such as a maintenance building, washroom or canteen, and other uses authorized by the City and Conservation Authority. Draft - 56 - By-law No. XXXX/20 Page 2 Draft (2) “Community Garden” shall mean land used for the growing and harvesting of plants, vegetables or fruits and provided the crops are for the sole use, donation or consumption by the individual or individuals growing or working the community garden. It shall not be considered as landscaped area, landscaped strip or landscaping. (3) “Conservation Use” shall mean a use dedicated towards the preservation, protection and/or improvement of components of the natural environment through management and maintenance. 5. Provisions (1) Uses Permitted No person shall within the lands zoned “OS” on Schedule “I” to this By-law, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purposes except the following: a) Park, Public b) Community Garden c) Conservation Use (2) Zone Requirements No person shall within the lands zoned “OS” on Schedule “I” attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purposes except in accordance with the following provisions: a) Maximum height of all structures and buildings shall be 5 metres 6. By-law 2511 By-law 2511, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2511, as amended. - 57 - By-law No. XXXX/20 Page 3 Draft 7.Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2020 _________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor _________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft Draft - 58 - West Shore BoulevardOklahoma Drive BreezyDriveBayviewStreet ChipmunkStreetSunrise AvenueLeaside StreetYeremi StreetMink Street Beachpoint Pr o m e n a d e i NClerk Mayor Schedule I to By-Law XXXX/20 Passed This XXDay of XXX 2020 Frenchman's Bay OS Lake Ontario -~ ~ r~ 'Hl lUWbillB - 59 - Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum June 27, 2018 To: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO From: Debbie Shields City Clerk Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on June 25, 2018 Notice of Motion Removal of Remaining R4 Designations Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Council Decision Resolution #468/18 Whereas: The Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park encompasses lands at the southwestern end of Frenchman’s Bay, lands northerly to the south side of Sunrise Avenue, the eastern side of West Shore Boulevard, and the northern shore of Lake Ontario; Whereas: These lands were previously designated as a special study area where TRCA was encouraged to continue its acquisition program to acquire any lands within the designated area that may become available; Whereas: With the exception of three properties located on the south side of Beachpoint Promenade, all lands within the park have been acquired; Whereas: Zoning By-law 2511 was approved in the early 1960’s and zones portions of the Frenchman’s Bay West Park land as “G” - Greenbelt and “R4” - Detached Dwelling Fourth Density; Whereas: In 2012, the City of Pickering adopted Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Master Plan; Now Therefore be it resolved that City staff initiate the necessary steps to amend Zoning By-law 2511 as follows: 1.To change the zoning of all lands currently zoned “R4” - Detached Dwelling Fourth Density to an appropriate zone category that recognizes these lands as Open Space/Environmental Park. 2.To change zoning on lands currently zoned “G” - Greenbelt to an appropriate zone category that recognizes these lands as Open Space/Environmental Park. And that those properties remain in private ownership be granted non-conforming status. Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 28-20 - 60 - Notice of Motion: Frenchman’s Bay June 27/18 Page 2 Please take any action deemed necessary Debbie Shields Copy: Chief Administrative Officer - 61 - Batory AvenueWest Shore BoulevardBreezyDrive VistulaDrive Oklahoma Drive ElviraCourt Chipmunk StreetLynx Avenue Sunrise AvenueLeaside StreetYeremi StreetMink StreetOliva StreetB e a c h p o in tP ro m e n a deEssa Crescent1:7,500 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 10/18City Initiated: Rotary Frenchman's Bay West ParkPart Lots 24 to 26, Range 3, Broken Lot Concession THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: May. 03, 2019 SubjectLands Frenchman's Bay 907, 909, and 911 Beachpoint PromenadeE621 WestShore BoulevardEE 913 Sunrise Avenue Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 28-20 -~of- PlCKERlNG I - 62 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 29-20 Date: December 7, 2020 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Official Plan Amendment OPA 19-004/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/19 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2019-04 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2019-05 Katanna Oklahoma LP Part of Lot 28, Broken Front Concession Range 3, Now Part of Part 1, 40R -2401 (755 Oklahoma Drive) Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-004/P, submitted by Katanna Oklahoma LP, to re-designate the lands located on the southeast corner of Eyer Drive and Oklahoma Drive from “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to allow a residential common element condominium development be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 41 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 29-20 be forwarded to Council for enactment; 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/19, submitted by Katanna Oklahoma LP, to facilitate a residential common element condominium development consisting of 27 townhouse units on the lands located at the southeast corner of Eyer Drive and Oklahoma Drive, be endorsed subject to the provisions contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 29-20, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment; and 3. That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2019-04, submitted by Katanna Oklahoma LP, to establish a single development block to facilitate a common e lement condominium, and a block for a road widening, as shown on Attachment #6 to Report PLN 29-20, and the implementing conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix III, be endorsed. Executive Summary: The subject lands are located on the southeast corner of Eyer Drive and Oklahoma Drive within the West Shore Neighbourhood (see Location Map and Air Photo Map, Attachments #1 and #2). Katanna Oklahoma LP has submitted applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan of Condominium (common element) to facilitate a medium-density residential condominium development consisting of 27 townhouse units, accessed through an internal private road from the east side of Eyer Drive (see Submitted Conceptual Plan, Attachment #3; Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #6; and Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium, Attachment #7). -C¾of- PJ(KERJNG - 63 - Report PLN 29-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Katanna Oklahoma LP Page 2 (OPA 19-004/P, SP-2019-04, CP-2019-05, A 14/19) Through collaboration with City staff, the applicant has made minor refinements to their proposal to address concerns raised by area residents that include a decrease in the overall height of the proposed dwellings and an increase in the minimum rear yard setback for units abutting existing residential dwellings. The proposed site layout and design represent a logical and orderly development that is in keeping with the built form of the existing residential condominium developments within the immediate area, and is compatible with the established housing forms within this neighbourhood. The proposed development will contribute to an improved streetscape along Eyer Drive and will maintain a similar architectural design treatment that is consistent with the existing dwellings within the immediate neighbourhood. Several concerns were expressed by area residents about parking, traffic, pedestrian safety, construction activities, garbage collection, property maintenance, shadowing and privacy impacts, and greenspace. These matters have been satisfacto rily addressed by the applicant through revisions to the plan, submission of additional support materials, and conditions of draft plan approval. City Development staff are in support of the proposed development. The proposal is consistent with Provincial Plans and conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan. While the current Pickering Official Plan designation does not permit the requested number of unit s, the request can be supported based on the relatively small development area, the inclusion of appropriate private amenity space, and the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council approve Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-004/P, Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/19, and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2019-04 and the related conditions of approval. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Oklahoma Drive and Eyer Drive within the West Shore Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject property has an area of approximately 0.46 of a hectare with approximately 50.0 metres of frontage along Oklahoma Drive and 87.3 metres of frontage along Eyer Drive. The subject lands are currently occupied by a single building that is used as a place of worship and a daycare facility and associated parking area. The existing building is proposed to be demolished to accommodate the development (see Air Photo, Attachment #2). - 64 - Report PLN 29-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Katanna Oklahoma LP Page 3 (OPA 19-004/P, SP-2019-04, CP-2019-05, A 14/19) Surrounding land uses include: North: Immediately to the north, across Oklahoma Drive, is the Fairport Beach Public Elementary School. At the northwest corner of Oklahoma Drive and Eyer Drive is a commercial plaza with various uses, including but not limited to retail, restaurants and personal service uses. East: Immediately to the east is an established residential condominium complex, consisting of 56 3-storey townhouse dwelling units. South: Immediately to the south is a private driveway providing access to the residential condominium complex to the east from Eyer Drive. Further south is an established residential subdivision consisting of 2-storey semi-detached and detached dwellings. West: Immediately to the west, across Eyer Drive, is an established residential subdivision consisting of 2-storey detached dwellings fronting onto Abingdon Court. Southwest of the subject lands is a residential condominium complex consisting of 111 2-storey townhouse units. 1.2 Applicant’s Proposals The applicant has submitted applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Draft Plan of Condominium to facilitate a residential common element condominium development consisting of 27 townhouse units accessed through an internal private road having a width of 6.5 metres (see Submitted Conceptual Plan, Attachment #3). The conceptual site plan proposes 2 rear lane townhouse blocks (Blocks 1 and 2), having a total of 13 units, fronting Eyer Drive with parking and garage access at the rear of the dwelling units. The private amenity space for these units will be a deck above the garage. The remaining 3 townhouse blocks (Blocks 3, 4 and 5), consisting of 15 units, will have parking and garage access at the front of each dwelling unit. Each unit will also have a private rear yard amenity space. All of the townhouse units are proposed to be 3 storeys in height (see Submitted Conceptual Elevations, Attachments #4 and #5). The rear lane townhouse units fronting Eyer Drive will have a minimum width of 4.5 metres, and the townhouse units with frontage along the private road will have a minimum width of 5.5 metres. Vehicular access to the internal private road will be provided through a full-move access from Eyer Drive. A 1.5 metre wide pedestrian walkway is proposed along the west side of the private road. Resident parking is provided at a ratio of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit (1 parking space within a private garage and 1 space on the driveway). Visitor parking is provided at a rate of 0.25 spaces per unit for a total of 7 parking spaces, includ ing 1 accessible parking space. A 180 square metre outdoor amenity area is located immediately north of Block 1 abutting the intersection of Oklahoma Drive and Eyer Drive. - 65 - Report PLN 29-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Katanna Oklahoma LP Page 4 (OPA 19-004/P, SP-2019-04, CP-2019-05, A 14/19) Through collaboration with City staff, the applicant has made minor refinements to their proposal to address concerns raised by area residents. The following key changes have been made to the proposal following the Statutory Public Meeting:  maximum building height has been slightly reduced from 12.0 metres to 11.0 for Blocks 1 and 2, and from 12.0 metres to 10.5 metres for Blocks 3, 4 and 5; and  minimum rear yard setback for Blocks 3, 4 and 5 has been slightly increased from 6.0 metres to 6.5 metres. The draft plan of subdivision will create a single block for residential uses and a block for a sight triangle abutting the corner of Oklahoma Drive and Eyer Drive that will be conveyed to the City (see Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #6). Obtaining draft plan approval is a technical requirement to allow the applicant to create the privately-owned parcels of tied land through a process called "lifting part lot control”. The application for Draft Plan of Condominium will establish the common elements of the proposal (see Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium, Attachment #7). The common element features include the community mailbox, the private amenity space, the water meter room, visitor parking areas, the private road, and the internal pedestrian walkway . The development will be subject to site plan approval. 2. Comments Received 2.1 January 28, 2020 Public Open House, July 15, 2020 Electronic Statutory Public Meeting and Written Comments On January 28, 2020, a Public Open House meeting was hosted by the City Development Department to inform area residents about the development proposal. Approximately 30 residents attended the meeting. An Electronic Statutory Public Meeting was held on July 15, 2020, where 2 area residents provided a delegation. As of the date of this report, the City has received 7 written comments from the public. The following is a list of key comments and concerns expressed by the residents at the meeting, and written comments received:  concerned that the front yards along Eyer Drive and the common outdoor amenity area will not be maintained appropriately;  commented that the proposed building heights are out of character with the existing dwellings in the surrounding neighbourhood;  concerned that the proposal will result in shadowing and privacy concerns for the abutting residents immediately to the east;  concerned with the potential dust, vehicle and noise nuisances during the construction process;  commented that the proposed density and population increase will result in negative traffic impacts along Oklahoma Drive and Whites Road, which is already congested;  concerned the intersection of Oklahoma Drive and Eyer Drive cannot accommodate the additional vehicles that will be generated by this development; - 66 - Report PLN 29-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Katanna Oklahoma LP Page 5 (OPA 19-004/P, SP-2019-04, CP-2019-05, A 14/19)  questioned if any improvements or signalization were proposed for the Oklahoma Drive and Eyer Drive intersection;  concerned that there is an insufficient amount of resident and visitor parking proposed to support the development, which will result in vehicles being parked along Eyer Drive and Abingdon Court;  commented that each unit will require more than the 2 parking spaces proposed;  requested that the applicant provide information on how much traffic was generated by the previous property owners, and the townhomes to the east of the subject property, on Oklahoma Drive;  questioned how garbage generated from the condominium will be addressed and if there will be a garbage enclosure area;  concerned there is insufficient greenspace proposed; and  concerned that the development will result in the closure of the existing daycare facility and the loss of daycare spaces in the West Shore neighbourhood. 2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments 2.2.1 Region of Durham  no objection to the proposal subject to the conditions of draft approval of the plan of subdivision and plan of condominium (common element) provided;  the Official Plan Amendment application is exempt from Regional approval;  the proposed development is consistent with Provincial Policy Statement policies that encourage the efficient use of land, infrastructure and planned public service facilities ;  the applications are generally in conformity with the objectives of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which supports building compact communities and providing for a variety of housing options;  the Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as “Living Areas”, which are intended to be used predominantly for housing purposes with a mix of housing types, sizes, and tenure;  municipal water supply and sanitary sewer services are available to the subject site; and  the proposed internal private road does not meet the requirements of the Region’s Waste Collection By-law #46-2011, and therefore the proposed development is required to be serviced by private collection at the expense of the Condominium Corporation. 2.2.2 City of Pickering Engineering Services Department  no objection to the proposal;  concur with the findings of the submitted Transportation Impact Study and Safety Review, and have no additional comments; and  the owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise of the City of Pickering including, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the owner and the City concerning the provision and installation of roads, services, grading, drainage, utilities, tree compensation, construction management, cash -in-lieu of parkland, noise attenuation and any other matters. - 67 - Report PLN 29-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Katanna Oklahoma LP Page 6 (OPA 19-004/P, SP-2019-04, CP-2019-05, A 14/19) 2.2.3 City of Pickering Fire Services  no objection to the proposed development;  the proposed private road will allow for adequate access for emergency vehicles; and  fire hydrants will be required within 90 metres of all principal unit entrances. 2.2.4 Durham District School Board  no objections to the approval of the proposed development;  approximately 9 elementary students could be generated through the proposed development; and  pupils generated through this developm ent will attend existing schools. 2.2.5 Durham Catholic District School Board  no objections to the proposed development; and  students from this development will attend Father Fenelon Catholic Elementary School and St. Mary Secondary Catholic School. 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (PPS) provides provincial policy direction on land use planning. The PPS provides for appropriate development while protecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment. The PPS supports improved land use planning and management, which contributes to a more effective and efficient land-use planning system. The PPS indicates that healthy, livable and safe communities are to be sustained by, among other matters, promoting efficient development and land use patter ns and accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential. The proposed development promotes modest residential intensification and provides appropriate density where existing infrastructure and public service facilities are available. The proposed development is consistent with the PPS policies that encourage the efficient use of land, infrastructure and planned public service facilities. The proposed development is consistent with the PPS. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2019 sets out a planning vision for growth throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The subject lands are located within the “built-up area” of the City of Pickering. The proposed development provides for a compact form of development that conforms to the Plan. - 68 - Report PLN 29-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Katanna Oklahoma LP Page 7 (OPA 19-004/P, SP-2019-04, CP-2019-05, A 14/19) 3.2 An amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to increase the density on the subject lands is appropriate The subject lands are located within the West Shore Neighbourhood and are designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area”, which provides for housing and related uses. This designation permits a maximum net residential density of up to and includin g 30 units per net hectare. The applicant’s proposal will result in a residential density of approximately 59 units per net hectare, which exceeds the permitted density range. An amendment to the City’s Official Plan is required to re-designate the subject lands to “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to facilitate the proposal. The “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” designation provides for housing at a net residential density of over 30 units and up to and including 80 units per net hectare. The policies of the Official Plan state that the City Council shall encourage a broad diversity of housing by form, location, size, tenure and cost within the neighbourhoods and villages of the City so that the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met as they evolve over time. Oklahoma Drive and Eyer Drive are identified as municipal collector roads within the City’s Official Plan. These roads are intended to carry local and neighbourhood traffic in greater volumes than local roads, and provide access from local roads to other collector roads and to Type ‘C’ arterial roads. Despite being identified as “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” within the Official Plan, the existing townhouse condominium complexes located immediately to the east (765 Oklahoma Drive) and to the southwest of the subject lands (580 Eyer Drive) have a net residential density of approximately 38 units per net hectare. The density of the existing condominium developments falls within the density range of the “Medium Density” designation. The proposed residential development, consisting of street and rear lane townhouse units, is appropriate and desirable and in keeping with the existing build form of the immediately surrounding neighbourhood. The proposal is located along two collector roads that can accommodate the traffic generated by this development. The proposal will also assist in providing for a mix of housing forms and tenure within an area that is well serviced by existing infrastructure, and will assist the City in achieving its intensification targets. 3.3 The proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding Neighbourhood The Official Plan states that in establishing performance standards, regard shall be had to protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods by considering matters such as building height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking provisions and traffic implications. The Official Plan also states that where new development is proposed within an existing neighbourhood or established area, City Council shall encourage building design that reinforces and complements existing built patterns such as form, massing, height, proportion, position relative to the street, and building area to site ratio. - 69 - Report PLN 29-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Katanna Oklahoma LP Page 8 (OPA 19-004/P, SP-2019-04, CP-2019-05, A 14/19) The surrounding neighbourhood consists of a variety of housing forms, which include townhouse, detached and semi-detached dwellings. The townhouse, detached and semi-detached dwellings within the immediate area range between 2 and 3 storeys in height. The existing condominium developments immediately east (765 Oklahoma Drive) and to the southwest of the subject lands (580 Eyer Drive), are subject to site-specific zoning by-laws, previously approved by City Council that permit townhouse dwelling units with a maximum height of 3 storeys. Currently, the townhouse units located immediately to the east of the subject lands are 3 storeys in height. The proposed rear-lane townhouse units (Blocks 1 and 2) will have a maximum height of 11.0 metres and the proposed traditional townhouse units (Blocks 3, 4 and 5) will have a maximum height of 10.5 metres. Figure 1 below, provides a comparison between the overall height of the proposed units in relation to the existing 3-storey townhouse dwellings to the east. The proposed townhouse blocks will have similar building heights to the existing dwellings within the abutting condominium complex to the east. Due to the grading of the subject lands, the townhouse Blocks 3, 4 and 5 will appear to be 2-storeys in height (approximately 8.0 metres) when viewed from the rear yards of the adjacent residential condominium development. Furthermore, the proposed townhouse blocks will maintain a total distance separation of approximately 15.6 metres from the existing dwellings to the east. A 4.0 metre wide landscape area is currently maintained by the condominium development along the east property line that will contribute to visually screening the development and minimize any concerns regarding privacy and overlook for existing residents. Where there are no trees, the applicant has agreed to plant trees on the subject property to provide additional screening. The proposal will achieve compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood by ensuring building heights are generally in keeping with existing built form, maintaining sufficient separation distance to existing dwellings, and continuing a similar architectural design treatment that is consistent with the existing dwellings in the immediate neighbourhood. Figure 1: Cross Section Elevation ! ~I ~1· !, ill I ISJO I 6LOCK I ~ I 1 1,liiiiii,liiii,,, .... --... =1 J i I ~I ii r ! ,,__ I I ':2 I "' I ........ __ __ _J - 70 - Report PLN 29-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Katanna Oklahoma LP Page 9 (OPA 19-004/P, SP-2019-04, CP-2019-05, A 14/19) 3.4 The recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study do not apply to the subject lands The City retained SGL Planning and Design Inc. (SGL) to undertake the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Infill Study), which examined how to guide the future evolution of the City’s established neighbourhoods by recommending an appropriate scale of infill and replacement housing, and how the City can ensure that neighbourhood character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. The Planning Recommendations Report, which was endorsed by Council in September 2020, completes the Study. The Report provided final recommendations for implementation tools that the City can use to address the compatibility of future infill and replacement housing in specific areas within the Study Area identified as “Established Neighbourhood Precincts”. The tools include new Official Plan policies, Urban Design Guidelines and zoning by-law performance standards. The subject lands are not identified to be within the “Established Neighbourhood Precinct” of the West Shore Neighbourhood and therefore, the recommendations of the Infill Study do not apply to the proposed development. Despite the subject lands being located beyond the limits of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct of the West Shore Neighbourhood, the proposed development has been reviewed keeping in mind the intention of the Infill Study. The proposal represents a modest infill develo pment that will be compatible and consistent with the character of the immediate neighbourhood. 3.5 The proposal will have minimal traffic impacts on the surrounding road network Some area residents expressed concern that the proposed development will cause a negative traffic impact on the existing road network and the intersection of Eyer Drive and Oklahoma Drive. The applicant has submitted a Transportation Study, prepared by Nextrans Consulting Engineers, which investigated the traffic conditions and effects of the proposed development on the surrounding area and the intersections of Eyer Drive/Oklahoma Drive; Eyer Drive and Abingdon Court/proposed west site access; and Oklahoma Drive/existing school access on the north side of the roadway. The Study collected data on existing traffic levels on Wednesday, November 7, 2018, and examined new vehicle trips generated from the development. Traffic volumes included in the Study capture any traffic generated from the existing uses within the area, including the adjacent townhouse complex immediately to the east. - 71 - Report PLN 29-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Katanna Oklahoma LP Page 10 (OPA 19-004/P, SP-2019-04, CP-2019-05, A 14/19) The study found that during the morning (7:00 am to 10:00 am) and afternoon (4:00 pm to 7:00 pm) peak hours, all study intersections are operating and will operate with acceptable levels of service, and roadways will continue to function with minimal delay. The Study outlined that the existing daycare facility has a capacity of 129 children and up to 12 staff members, which results in approximately 100 vehicles entering and exiting the site each weekday. It also outlined that the existing place of worship has approximately 34 to 48 vehicles on-site during evening and weekend programming. This information was collected before the COVID-19 Pandemic. The proposed residential development will generate a total of 24 trips during the morning peak hours (18 out and 6 in -bound trips) and 29 trips during the afternoon peak hour (11 out and 18 in-bound trips). Overall, the redevelopment of this site is anticipated to eliminate approximately 76 two-way auto trips during the morning peak hours and 11 two-way auto trips during the afternoon peak hours. When taking this into account, the Study concluded that the proposed residential development will result in far fewer trips from the site in the morning and afternoon peak hours than the existing place of worship and daycare uses. 3.6 The Eyer Drive and Oklahoma Drive Intersection is operating safely At the Public Open House on January 28, 2020, many area residents expressed concerns regarding the safety of the existing intersection at Eyer Drive and Oklahoma Drive for pedestrians and vehicles and outlined that the proposed development would worsen this issue. At the request of City staff, the applicant undertook a Safety Review of the intersection at Oklahoma Drive and Eyer Drive, which examined the current road conditions and any movement conflicts with the school to ensure that the road network will operate safely and efficiently upon completion of the proposed development . The submitted Safety Review, prepared by Nextrans Consulting Engineers: reviewed the collision history for the intersection and immediate roadways; reviewed the existing signage; assessed the potential impact of traffic generated by the proposed development; and prepared a signal warrant analysis and review of existing Intersection Pedestrian Signal (IPS). The review outlined that within the last 5 years, only 3 collisions have been reported. All 3 collisions were rear-ending incidents that did not involve pedestrians. The review included a signal warrant analysis. Based on the consultant's review, the Oklahoma Drive and Eyer Drive intersection does not meet the minimum requirements for signalization. The review outlined that the current signage and IPS at the Oklahoma Drive and Eyer Drive intersection are sufficient and should remain in place and that full signalization is not warranted at this time. The review recommended that the City monitor the intersection of Oklahoma Drive and Eyer Drive for future signalization or protect for signalization to improve the overall operations of the intersection once empirical data supports a warranted signalized intersection. Engineering Services has reviewed the submitted Safety Review and is satisfied with the consultant's recommendations. - 72 - Report PLN 29-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Katanna Oklahoma LP Page 11 (OPA 19-004/P, SP-2019-04, CP-2019-05, A 14/19) 3.7 Response to Additional Key Concerns The table below summarizes the key concerns raised to date and staff’s response. Concerns Staff’s Response Ensuring sufficient resident and visitor parking Sufficient number of parking spaces are available to accommodate the proposal The applicant is providing resident parking at a ratio of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, with 1 space within a private garage and 1 space in the driveway. Visitor parking is provided at a rate of 0.25 spaces unit for a total of 7 parking spaces. The applicant has also agreed to provide, wherever possible, a dedicated storage room and/or storage shelves within the garage to ensure there is sufficient space to accommodate the parking of a vehicle and the storage of household items. The proposed private garages will have a minimum interior dimension of 2.9 metres in width by 6.0 metres in length, which will provide adequate space for the storage area of household items and the parking of a vehicle. Insufficient amenity and greenspace is proposed The proposal will be well served by private rear yards, deck amenity space, a private amenity area and neighbourhood open space Appropriate outdoor amenity space is being provided. The street townhouse units (Blocks 3, 4 and 5) will have private rear yards with a minimum depth of 6.5 metres. The rear lane townhouse units (Blocks 1 and 2) will have private amenity space areas above the driveway and private garages. Also, a 180 square metre private outdoor amenity area is proposed immediately north of Block 1. The applicant has provided a landscape plan demonstrating that the size and configuration of this amenity area can support a passive walkway connection to the sidewalk along Eyer Drive, a seating area , landscaping, and a bike rack. Also, a number of existing public parks and open spaces are located within a 5-minute walking distance of the development including the Fairport Beach Public School, the Bidwell Tot Lot located on the east side of Eyer Drive immediately to the north, and Lookout Point Park to the south. - 73 - Report PLN 29-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Katanna Oklahoma LP Page 12 (OPA 19-004/P, SP-2019-04, CP-2019-05, A 14/19) Concerns Staff’s Response Shadowing and privacy concerns for the abutting residents immediately to the east The proposal will not result in a negative visual or privacy impact on adjacent property owners to the east The townhouse dwelling units (Blocks 3, 4, and 5) proposed adjacent to the existing condominium complex to the east will be a maximum of 3 storeys (approximately 9.9 metres) in height and will be setback 6.5 metres from the east lot line. The adjacent townhouse units to the east are also 3 storeys in height and are currently setback a total of 9.14 metres from the mutual lot line, which includes a 4.0 metre wide landscape area that runs the length of the property and the rear yard setback of the units. When taking into account the grade of the subject property, the proposed townhouse units will appear to be 2 storeys at the rear and will be a similar height to the existing townhouse units immediately to the east. An existing 1.8 metre high wood privacy fence and mature trees on the adjacent lands will significantly screen the proposed dwelling units. The submitted Landscape Plan indicates that the applicant will plant trees on the subject property in locations where there are no existing trees on the adjacent lands. Given the heights of the dwelling units, the separation distance to the existing townhouse dwellings to the east and the existing mature vegetation, the proposal will not negatively impact the adjacent property owners to the east concerning privacy, overlook and shadowing. Negative construction impact, including noise, dust and vehicles A Construction Management Plan will outline mitigation measures to minimize negative construction impacts The Recommended Conditions of Approval (see Appendix I II) require that the applicants prepare and submit a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services, which addresses a variety of mitigation measures to be implemented during the construction process to minimize any negative noise, dust and traffic impacts. The mitigation measures could include a gravel mud mat and a construction staging area, sediment fencing and a tree protection zone. The Recommended Conditions of Approval require that the applicants enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the City. A condition of the Subdivision Agreement will require that the applicants implement the measures outlined in the submitted Construction Management and Erosion/Sediment Control Plan as approved by City staff. - 74 - Report PLN 29-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Katanna Oklahoma LP Page 13 (OPA 19-004/P, SP-2019-04, CP-2019-05, A 14/19) Concerns Staff’s Response Questioned garbage collection Garbage collection will be provided by a private service, paid for by the Condominium Corporation The Region of Durham has advised that the proposed private road does not meet the requirements of the Region’s Waste Collection By-law #46-2011. The applicant has submitted a Waste Management Plan, which outlines that private collection will be provided for the removal of recyclables, solid waste, organic waste and yard waste of the individual unit owners and paid for by the Condominium Corporation. Collection will be provided along the private road at the driveway of each property and will not require a central garbage location or commercial sized bins. The Site Plan Agreement, which will be registered on title, will require the owner to acknowledge garbage will be through private collection and will specify it will be at the expense of the Condominium Corporation. Concerned regarding the maintenance of front yards along Eyer Drive and common areas Front yards along Eyer Drive and common elements will be maintained by the Condominium Corporation The maintenance of front yards of dwelling units along Eyer Drive and the common-elements, including the repair and/or replacement of fencing and landscaping, will be the responsibility of the condominium and paid for collectively by the future property owners. This requirement will be included in the Condominium Declaration. Loss of daycare spaces Some daycare programs operate within the neighbourhood A YMCA daycare facility currently operates at the Father Fenelon Catholic School located immediately north of the subject property at 795 Eyer Drive. This facility provides daycare services for children from 0 to 12 years of age. Additionally, a before and after school child care program is offered by the YMCA at the Frenchman’s Bay Public School east of the subject property at 920 Oklahoma Drive. - 75 - Report PLN 29-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Katanna Oklahoma LP Page 14 (OPA 19-004/P, SP-2019-04, CP-2019-05, A 14/19) 3.8 Technical matters will be addressed as conditions of subdivision approval and through site plan approval Detailed design issues will be dealt with through the subdivision agreement and site plan approval process. These requirements will address matters such as, but not limited to:  drainage and grading  site servicing  cash-in-lieu of parkland  tree compensation  requirements for a Construction Management Plan  landscaping  resident, visitor and accessible parking spaces  emergency vehicle access  waste management collection  location of community mailboxes  location of water meter room, hydro transformers, gas meters and other utilities 3.9 Draft Approval of the Draft Plan of Condominium is delegated to the Director, City Development & CBO Applications for standard and common element condominiums are delegated to the Director, City Development & CBO for final approval. No further approvals are required at this time. 3.10 Conclusion Staff supports the site-specific Official Plan Amendment to re-designate the subject lands from "Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas" to "Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas" (see Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 41, Appendix I), and recommends that the By-law to adopt Amendment 41 be forwarded to Council for enactment. Staff recommends Council endorse Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2019-04 as shown on Attachment #6 to this Report and the Conditions of Approval set out in Appendix III to this Report. Furthermore, staff supports the Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/19 and recommends that the site-specific implementing by-law, containing the standards set out in Appendix II to this Report, be finalized and brought before Council for enactment. 3.11 Applicant’s Comments The applicant supports the recommendations of this report. - 76 - Report PLN 29-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Katanna Oklahoma LP Page 15 (OPA 19-004/P, SP-2019-04, CP-2019-05, A 14/19) Appendices Appendix I Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 41 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix II Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/19 Appendix III Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2019-04 Attachments 1.Location Map 2.Air Photo Map 3.Submitted Conceptual Plan 4.Submitted Conceptual Elevation – View from Eyer Drive 5.Submitted Conceptual Elevation – View from Internal Road 6.Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision 7.Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium Prepared By: Original Signed By: Cody Morrison Planner II Original Signed By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design CM: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 - 77 - Appendix I to Report PLN 29-20 Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 41 to the Pickering Official Plan - 78 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/20 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 41 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 19-004/P) Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may, by by-law, adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; And whereas pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; And whereas on February 23, 2000, Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000 which allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; And whereas the Region has advised that Amendment 41 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enac ts as follows: 1. That Amendment 41 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, is hereby adopted; 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments. 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2020. __________________________ David Ryan, Mayor __________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft Draft Draft - 79 - Exhibit “A” to By-law XXXX/20 Recommended Amendment 41 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 80 - Recommended Amendment 41 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to re-designate the lands located on the southeast corner of Eyer Drive and Oklahoma Drive from “Urban Residential Area s – Low Density Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to facilitate a residential common element condominium development. Location: The site specific amendment affects the lands located on the south-easterly corner of Eyer Drive and Oklahoma Drive, described as Part of Lot 28, Broken Front Concession Range 3, Now Part of Part 1, 40R-2401, City of Pickering. Basis: Through the review of Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-004/P, Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/19, Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2019-04 and Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2019-05, City Council determined that the Amendment facilitates a development that is compatible with the surrounding community, and is an appropriate intensification project in Pickering’s urban area. The Amendment is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, and conforms to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019) and the Durham Regional Official Plan. Actual Amendment: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: 1. Amending Schedule I – Land Use Structure by replacing the “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” designation with “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” designation for lands located on the southeast corner of Eyer Drive and Oklahoma Drive, as illustrated on Schedule ‘A’ attached to this amendment. Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amend ed, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. OPA 19-004/P A 14/19 SP-2019-04 CP-2019-05 Katanna Oklahoma LP - 81 - WestShoreBoulevardC.N.R.ªª38 ¹ City of PickeringCity Development Department© November, 2020This Map Forms Part of Edition 8 of the Pickering Ofiicial Plan andMust Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Extract ofSchedule I to theEdition 8 PickeringOfficial PlanCityofPickeringAreaShownonThis Map TownofAjax City of TorontoCity of MarkhamTownship of Uxbridge Town of WhitbySchedule 'A' to Amendment 41Existing Official Plan Oklahoma Drive Whites RoadLand Use Structure Urban Residential Areas Mixed Use Areas Low Density Areas Local Nodes Prestige Employment Employment Areas!Redesignate from "Urban Residential Areas - Low Density Areas" to"Urban Residential Areas- Medium Density Areas"Eyer Drive-- - 82 - Appendix II to Report PLN 29-20 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment A 14/19 - 83 - Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/19 That the implementing zoning by-law permit residential condominium developments in accordance with the following provisions: A. Zoning Provisions Permitted Uses 1. Permitted uses include Block Townhouse Buildings, Private Parks and Water Meter Room. Building Restrictions Unit Type Block Townhouse fronting Eyer Drive (Blocks 1 & 2) with integrated garage at the rear of the dwelling (Rear Lane Townhouse) Block Townhouse fronting private road (Blocks 3, 4 & 5) with integrated garage at the front of the dwelling (Street Townhouse) 1. Number of Dwelling Units (maximum) 27 2. Lot Frontage (minimum) 4.5 metres 5.5 metres 3. Lot Area (minimum) 87 square metres 120 square metres 4. Front Yard Depth (minimum) 3.0 metres 4.5 metres 5. Side Yard Depth (minimum) 1.2 metres except where dwellings on abutting lots share a common wall, no interior side yard shall be required adjacent to that wall on either lot 6. Rear Yard Depth (minimum) 4.5 metres or; 3.0 metres, where a corner unit flanks a private road. 6.5 metres 7. Flankage Yard Depth (minimum) 2.0 metres to a private road or; 2.5 metres to a public road 8. Building Height (maximum) 11.0 metres 10.5 metres 9. Driveway Width (maximum) Shall not exceed the width of the private garage - 84 - 2. Private amenity area (Block Townhouse with integrated garage at the rear of the dwelling): a. Minimum Area – 4.0 square metres b. Shall be located above the garage at the rear of the dwelling unit and shall not be enclosed c. Accessory structures such as pergolas, sheds or other similar structures shall not be permitted on the private amenity area above the garage at the rear of the dwelling unit. Parking Requirements 3. Minimum 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit to be provided plus 0.2 5 of a parking space per dwelling unit for visitors. 4. Garage requirements: minimum one private garage per lot attached to the main building, the vehicular entrance of which shall be located a minimum of 6.0 metres from the common element condominium street. 5. Interior garage size: a private garage shall have a minimum width of 2.9 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres; however, the width of a private garage may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps. 6. The minimum right-of-way width for a private street shall be 6.5 metres. Model Homes 7. A maximum of 2 blocks together with no fewer than 2 parking spaces per Model Home is permitted. General Provisions 8. The west property line shall be considered the front lot line for all units within Blocks 1 & 2. 9. Projections such as window sills, chimney breasts, fireplaces, belt courses, cornices, pilasters, eaves, eave troughs and other similar architectural features may be permitted in any required yard, provided that no such feature projects int o the required yard more than 0.6 metres or half the distance of the required yard, whichever is less. 10. Uncovered deck, uncovered or covered porch, and uncovered steps are perm itted to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard. 11. Second and/or third storey decks or balconies are not permitted within the rear yards of Blocks 3, 4 or 5. 12. Uncovered Steps to an uncovered deck, uncovered or covered porch may encroach to within 0.3 metres of the front lot line for units within Block 1 & 2; 13. A bay, box window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres may encroach into any required yard to a maximum of 0.6 metres or half the distance of the required yard, whichever is less. 14. Air conditioners are permitted on a lot provided they are located in the rear yard or side yard or on a balcony or roof. In addition, such units shall not be located any closer than 0.6 of a metre to a side lot line. - 85 - Appendix III to Report PLN 29-20 Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2019-04 - 86 - Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2019-04 General Conditions 1. That the Owner shall prepare the final plan generally on the basis of the approved draft plan of subdivision, prepared by GHD Inc., identified as project number 11198397-DP1, dated July 3, 2020, which illustrates one medium density residential block and one block for road widening. Region of Durham 2. The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering for review and approval if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration. 3. The Owner shall grant to the Region, any easements as may be required to provide Regional services for this development. The easements shall be in locations and of such widths as determined by the Region of Durham. 4. Prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, the Region of Durham shall be satisfied that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply capacities are available to the proposed subdivision. 5. The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of the Region of Durham. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to be made to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham, and are to be completed prior to final approval of this plan. 6. The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Region of Durham. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Region of Durham concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other Regional services. Subdivision Agreement 7. That the Owner enters into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City’s requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the conditions outlined in this document. 40M-Plan 8. That the Owner submits a 40M-Plan to the satisfaction of the City Development Department. Zoning 9. That the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/19 becomes final and binding. - 87 - Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2019-04) Page 2 Katanna Oklahoma LP Street Names and House Numbers 10. That street names and signage be provided to the satisfaction of the Region and the City. 11. That house numbers are assigned as per the City’s addressing conventions. Development Charges & Development Review Fees 12. That the Owner satisfies the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act. 13. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to payment for the Development Services Engineering Review fee, Road Degradation fee, Residential Lot Grading Review fee and Development Services inspection fees. Dedications/Transfers/Conveyances 14. That the Owner conveys to the City, at no cost: i. A 0.006 hectare road widening, identified as Block 2 on the draft plan of subdivision, prepared by GHD Inc., identified as project number 11198397 -DP1, dated July 13, 2020 and any other easements as required. Stormwater 15. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision, and any provision regarding easements. 16. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services for contributions for stormwater maintenance fees. Grading 17. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services resp ecting submission and approval of a grading plan for the development. 18. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting authorization from abutting landowners for all offsite grading. Geotechnical Investigation 19. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical investigation. Fill & Topsoil 20. That the Owner acknowledges that the City’s Fill & Topsoil Disturbance By-law prohibits vegetation or soil disturbance, vegetation or soil removal or importation to the site unless a permit has been issued. No on-site works prior to draft plan approval is permitted. A Fill & Topsoil Disturbance Permit will be required should vegetation removal or grading works proceed prior to the subdivision agreement being executed. - 88 - Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2019-04) Page 3 Katanna Oklahoma LP Construction/Installation of City Works & Services 21. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the submission of appropriate engineering drawings that detail, among other things, City services, construction of roads with curbs, storm sewers, pedestrian walkways/sidewalks, boulevard design, lot grading, streetlights, fencing and tree planting, and financially secure such works. 22. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City. 23. That the Owner satisfies the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements and/or the conveyance of any easements to any utility to facilitate the installation of their services including the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar services for the development. 24. That the Owner agrees that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary maintenance of existing services necessitated by the developer shall be the responsibility of the Owner. Phasing & Development Coordination 25. That if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration, the Owner will be required to submit a plan showing the proposed phasing, all to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the City. Easements 26. That the Owner convey to the City, at no cost, any easements as required, and any reserves as required by the City. 27. That the Owner conveys any easements to any utility provider to facilitate the installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City and the utility provider. 28. That the Owner arrange at no cost to the City any easements required on third party lands for servicing and such easements shall be in a location as determined by the City and/or the Region and are to be granted upon request at any time after draft approval. 29. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services with any required on -site or off-site easements for works, facilities or use rights that are required by the City. Construction Management Plan 30. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting the submission and approval of a Construction Management/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan with such Plan to contain, among other matters: i. Details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these controls as per the City’s Erosion & Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction; - 89 - Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2019-04) Page 4 Katanna Oklahoma LP ii. Addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building materials during servicing and construction, and ensuring that such location s will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on existing streets; iii. Confirmation that the City’s Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law; iv. The provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to the site; v. Type and timing of construction fencing; vi. Location of construction trailers; vii. Details of the temporary construction access; and viii. Temporary stockpile locations with side slopes to be 3:1 max, 3.0 metres maximum height, and appropriate silt fence surrounding. Fencing 31. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the provision of temporary fencing around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior to the commencement of any works. 32. That the Owner agrees to install a 1.8 metre high board-on-board wood privacy fence along the east property line, where there is adjacent existing residential development. Landscaping 33. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the submission and approval of a Boulevard Tree-Planting Plan. 34. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services with the submission of a tree preservation plan which will illustrate the protection of trees and other natural features where appropriate, with specific attention to preservation in all public open spaces prior to the approval of a Preliminary Grading Plan. Engineering Plans 35. That the Owner ensures that the engineering plans are coordinated with the streetscape and architectural control guidelines and further that the plans coordinate the driveway, street hardware and street trees to ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimized and all objectives of the streetscape/architectural control guidelines can be achieved. 36. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting arrangements necessary to provide for coordination of services and roads with adjacent lands and any phasing of development that may be required. 37. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting the submission of appropriate en gineering drawings that detail, among other things: City services, roads, storm sewers, sidewalks, lot grading, streetlights, fencing, tree planning and financially secure such works. - 90 - Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2019-04) Page 5 Katanna Oklahoma LP Noise Attenuation 38. That the owner agrees in the subdivision agreement to implement noise control measures and warning clauses as recommended in the “Noise Impact Study”, prepared by J.E. Coulter Associates Limited, dated October 30, 2020. Parkland Dedication 39. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to its obligation to provide parkland or payment of cash-in-lieu on accordance with the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act. Fire 40. That the Owner agrees that no development will proceed on any lands until adequate services are available including adequate water pressure to the satisfaction of the City’s Fire Services Department. Model Homes 41. That the Owner enters into a model home agreement with the City, if applicable for this draft plan. All model homes must be in compliance with the approved site plan drawings. Other Approval Agencies 42. That any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham, Canada Post or any utility for the development of this plan be obtained by the Owner and upon request written confirmation be provided to the City as verification of these approvals. Plan Revisions 43. That the Owner acknowledges and agrees that the draft plan of subdivision and associated conditions of approval may require revisions to the satisfaction of the City, to implement or integrate any recommendation resulting from studies required as conditions of approval. 44. That the Owner revises the draft plan as necessary to the satisfaction of the City, to accommodate any technical engineering issues which arise during the review of the final engineering drawings. Required revisions may include revising the number of residential building lots or reconfiguring the roads or lots to the City’s satisfaction. 45. That the Owner agrees to implement the requirements of all studies that are required by the City for the development of this draft plan of subdivision to the satisfaction of the City. Notes to Draft Approval 46. This draft approval shall lapse three years from the date the draft approval has been granted if the noted conditions have not been fulfilled, or if it has not been extended by the City of Pickering. - 91 - ParkCrescentWhitesRoadSanok DriveCreekviewCircle Atwood Crescent Vicki Drive Eyer DriveOklahoma Drive Layt o n CourtDownlandDrive HillcrestRoadGallantCourtEdge LaneEngelCourtHillviewCrescent GraniteCourt Abingdon Court Cliffview Road Hampton Court Sandc as t le CourtBaylyStreetStonebridge Lane LookoutPoint Park BidwellTot Lot Fairport BeachPublic School Our LadyOf The BaySeparate 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: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Mar. 16, 2020 ¯EKatanna Oklahoma LPLot 28, Range 3, B.F.C., Now Pt of Part 1, 40R-2401(755 Oklahoma Drive) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2019\OPA 19-004P, A 14-19, SP 2019-04 & CP 2019-05 - Katanna Oklahoma LP\OPA 19-004P_LocationMap.mxd OPA 19-004/P, A 14/19, SP-2019-04 & CP-2019-04 Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 29-20 -~of- PJ(KERJNG , I I I I I ) I I - 92 - Eyer DriveAbingdon Court Hampton Court Oklahoma Drive Stonebridge Lane1:2,500 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 Air Photo MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Mar. 16, 2020 SubjectLands EL:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2019\OPA 19-004P, A 14-19, SP 2019-04 & CP 2019-05 - Katanna Oklahoma LP\OPA 19-004P_AirPhoto.mxd ¯ OPA 19-004/P, A 14/19, SP-2019-04 & CP-2019-04Katanna Oklahoma LPLot 28, Range 3, B.F.C., Now Pt of Part 1, 40R-2401(755 Oklahoma Drive) Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 29-20 -~of- PJ(KERJNG - 93 - Submitted Conceptual Plan City Development Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2019 OPA 19-004/P, A 14/19, SP-2019-04 & CP-2019-04 Katanna Oklahoma LP Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C., Now Pt of Part 1, 40R-2401 (755 Oklahoma Drive) Nov. 02, 2020 N Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 29-20 ~ w > Cl,:'. 0 <{ ~ 0 I <{ _J ~ 0 EXISTING RESIDENTIAL I [ ~~I " /2e . BLOCK 4 I FLTrWNS, 7" v I 4 U ITS 1 11, I . ,~ .. * j ~·, ~ l~ , . i go c ~ t:ll.lf.'.l ;:; g O.N ~ ,,., I ' I i Ill I~ .. -11·····<·,;·•·:·i:.,.•.···•.•·.1 I J i I BLOf=K2 · ._;j,_t :?•'r --~ mYI ,,~ I ·l ' . , c -~· -~; " ! .\ :i.;s :· .:f :•_:~\~TL~=~io =----'----..L. ..:'L_ -" = '= "-1, ! .II I " , -, " I , 1 11 ;'1 ',' ' "la I '1~ • ,, \·' -~ ) \.ROAD WIDENING ~ f>,·~y --~~,:.:7 EYER DRIVE 2 EXISTING RESIDENTIAL -,; tlt~-1 'd • ~~'"'---❖-::.,::_ w EXISTING RESIDENTIAL -' 4'. i== z w 0 tB a::: (j z i== (./) x w l:J z -~~ s~ u -Q.. - 94 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2019 Mar 2, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Conceptual Elevation - View from Eyer Drive FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 19-004/P, A 14/19, SP-2019-04 & CP-2019-04 Katanna Oklahoma LP Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C., Now Pt of Part 1, 40R-2401 (755 Oklahoma Drive) Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 29-20 -0/,pc/- P](KER]NG - 95 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2019 Mar 2, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Conceptual Elevation - View from Internal Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 19-004/P, A 14/19, SP-2019-04 & CP-2019-04 Katanna Oklahoma LP Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C., Now Pt of Part 1, 40R-2401 (755 Oklahoma Drive) Attachment #5 to Report #PLN 29-20 -0/,pc/- P](KER]NG - 96 - Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision City Development Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2019 OPA 19-004/P, A 14/19, SP-2019-04 & CP-2019-04 Katanna Oklahoma LP Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C., Now Pt of Part 1, 40R-2401 (755 Oklahoma Drive) Nov. 02, 2020 N Attachment #6 to Report #PLN 29-20 /1 -~ -j PlCKERlNG I , __ --- OURHAU , __ --- - 97 - Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium City Development Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2019 OPA 19-004/P, A 14/19, SP-2019-04 & CP-2019-04 Katanna Oklahoma LP Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C., Now Pt of Part 1, 40R-2401 (755 Oklahoma Drive) Nov. 02, 2020 N Common Element Attachment #7 to Report #PLN 29-20 ',, ' \ I I I I I I I I I I J _____ / I ~ ::,; ~ '~ ffi f ~ Gj ' ,, '\ ------"' \ -C/40/- PlCKERlNG 1 i I I I I ~ / l P. I, ,8 < i I I I I _Jj,,_9!<!__ ··~ ,, .. ~-- 1 I I I OKLAHOMA DRIVE ~ ~ ; : ' l . ' I ~ ~~ ~; ~ .. ~ ! I ! ; ~ , . ; ', H ~ "' ' ,. , y ,' --- \ ,· ---- ·--- ·--- I - 98 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 30-20 Date: December 7, 2020 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO 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) Recommendation: 1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/20, submitted by Universal City Six Developments Inc., to permit a high-density residential condominium building, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 30-20 be forwarded to Council for enactment. Executive Summary: Universal City Six Developments Inc. has submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the construction of the 26-storey residential condominium building at the northwest corner of Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road consisting of 302 dwelling units (see Location Map, Attachment #1). Following the Statutory Public Meeting, the applicant made some minor changes to the proposal to ensure consistency with the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines and address technical comments. These changes included: creating a centralized building lobby at the corner of Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road and reorienting the main entry towards Bayly Street; incorporating 2-storey apartment units on the ground floor fronting Bayly Street; adjusting the configuration of the balconies to create a more uniform building elevation by focusing the wave articulations towards the prominent corner of the building; increasing indoor and outdoor amenity areas; and, increasing the number of dwelling units by 5 units. City Development staff are in support of the revised plan. The proposal conforms to the City’s Official Plan policies and density requirements. The increase in building height will have minimal shadow impacts on the surrounding lands. The proposed architectural treatment of the building incorporates a wave articulation creating a signature design located at a gateway location in the City Centre. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to address any outstanding technical requirements through the Site Plan Approval process. Staff recommend that Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment A 01/20 and enact the draft by-law attached as Appendix I. -C¾of- PJ(KERJNG - 99 - Report PLN 30-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Universal City Six Developments Inc. (A 01/20) Page 2 Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 1. Background 1.1 Property 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 0.4 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 , which is proposed to be demolished, currently occupies the subject property. Surrounding land uses include (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2): 1. North: Immediately to the north is a surface parking lot, owned by Metrolinx that is currently being used for the Pickering GO Station. 2. East: Across Sandy Beach Road is an industrial building, occupied by FedEx and further east are multi-tenant industrial buildings. 3. 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. 4. 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. 1.2 Applicant’s Proposal The applicant initially proposed 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. Following the Statutory Public Meeting, the applicant made the following refinements to the proposal to address technical comments from the City and the Region (see Submitted Conceptual Plan, Attachment #3, and Submitted Renderings, Attachments #4 to #7):  increased the total number of apartment units from 297 to 302 units;  reconfigured the layout of the ground floor to include a centralized building lobby at the corner of Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road, and adjusted the main entry to orient towards Bayly Street;  revised the 1-storey ground floor units along Bayly Street into 2-storey units;  adjusted the configuration of the balconies to create a more uniform building elevation by focusing the wave articulations towards the prominent corner of the building; - 100 - Report PLN 30-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Universal City Six Developments Inc. (A 01/20) Page 3  modified and increased the indoor and outdoor amenity areas on the fifth storey and reoriented the ground floor indoor amenity area towards the Sandy Beach Road frontage;  increased the proposed parking by 4 parking spaces;  incorporated screening between Sandy Beach Road and the stairwell to the underground parking garage, and associated ventilation shafts; and  proposed parkland conveyance as part of an expanded Public Park/Piazza space within the existing Universal City Master Plan. This proposal will form Phase Six of the Universal City Master Plan Development (see Master Plan for Universal City, Attachment #8). The purpose of the zoning by-law amendment is to permit an increase to the maximum building height from 15-storeys to 26-storeys, and allow other minor exceptions to zoning standards to facilitate the proposal. 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 site plan identifies a 10.0 metre wide road widening along the entire frontage of Bayly Street and a daylighting triangle , which will be conveyed to the Region of Durham before Site Plan Approval to facilitate the future widening of 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 spaces are also proposed on the fifth floor, including an outdoor swimming pool. Attachment #9 to this report summarizes the key statistical details of the proposal. An application for Site Plan Approval (S 02/20) is currently under review. 2. Comments Received 2.1 Statutory Public Meeting and Written Comments An electronic Statutory Public Meeting was held on July 13, 2020. No residents spoke at the meeting. Before the Public Meeting, staff received 2 written comments expressing their opposition to the proposed development. Key concerns included: the proposed building is too large for the parcel of land; the development will 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. Key comments raised by members of the Planning & Development Committee at the electronic Statutory Public Meeting included:  ensure sufficient parking spaces, of adequate size, be provided for the future residents ;  requested clarification regarding the proposed amendment to the definition of Floor Space Index;  requested clarification whether commercial space is to be provided on the ground floor; - 101 - Report PLN 30-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Universal City Six Developments Inc. (A 01/20) Page 4  commented that the proposed building should complement the rest of the Universal City development by incorporating similar design elements;  ensure sufficient green space is provided for the future residents; and  ensure sufficient commercial space is provided within the Universal City Master Plan . 2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments 2.2.1 Region of Durham  no objections with the rezoning application subject to the applicant satisfying the Region’s noise and site contaminations requirements through the site plan approval process 2.2.2 Engineering Services Department  no objections to the proposed zoning by-law amendment application; and  technical matters related to grading, drainage, servicing, and landscaping will be addressed through the site plan approval process. 2.2.3 Durham Catholic District School Board  no objections to the proposal; and  students from this development will attend Father Fenelon Catholic Elementary School and St. Mary Catholic Secondary School. 2.2.4 Ministry of Transportation  no objections to the proposed zoning by-law amendment application; and  technical matters related to grading, drainage, and traffic will be addressed through the site plan approval process. 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 Proposed development conforms to the City’s Official Plan Policies The subject lands are designated as “Mixed Use Areas – City Centre” within the City’s 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 floor space for the retailing of goods and services of up to and including 300,000 square metres; and a maximum Floor Space Index (FSI) of over 0.75 and up to and including 5.75. - 102 - Report PLN 30-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Universal City Six Developments Inc. (A 01/20) Page 5 The Official Plan includes policies for the City Centre Neighbourhood with respect to: enhancements to the public realm; 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 proposed high -density residential building improves the public realm along Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road through upgraded landscaping; enhances the pedestrian entrance at Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road; locates the indoor and associated outdoor amenity area along Sandy Beach Road; and, provides for 2-storey units with associated private amenity areas fronting Bayly Street. Also, the proposal provides adequate stepbacks and podium height to help create a human scale at street level and reduce shadow impacts. The proposal conforms to the policies within the City’s Official Plan. 3.2 The requested increase in building height is consistent with the approved City Centre Urban Design Guidelines The applicant is proposing to increase the maximum building height from 47 metres (15-storeys) to 78 metres (26-storeys). The City Centre Urban Design Guidelines provide design direction for intensification, to guide buildings and private development. The proposed 26-storey residential condominium building maintains the key urban design objectives of the Guidelines by:  proposing a signature building that provides a gateway condition with increased heights, massing and high-quality architectural design (waved balcony design and modern colour pallet) at the corner of Sandy Beach Road and Bayly Street, which welcomes Pickering residents into a more urbanized City Centre;  articulating the building at the corner of the property improves the prominence of the site;  locating the primary building entrance at the intersection of Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road improves access to the building from the street and creates a pedestrian-friendly and animated entryway;  creating weather protection for pedestrians along Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road through architectural design (waved design of balconies and canopies);  locating the tower portion of the building closer to the corner to provide sufficient separation from adjacent towers and allow greater infiltration of light into the amenity areas and interior site spaces;  providing adequately screened private amenity space to assure privacy and security;  providing outdoor bicycle parking at the corner of Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road and adjacent to surface parking, as well as indoor bicycle parking within the building and underground parking garage;  locating loading areas in the interior side yard of the building, and waste and recycling facilities within the principal building;  landscaping a minimum of 10 percent of the lot and providing a sufficient buffer along surface parking areas; and  including green roof spaces for environmental sustainability and amenity space for residents. - 103 - Report PLN 30-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Universal City Six Developments Inc. (A 01/20) Page 6 The intersection of Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road is a key entry gateway into the City Centre. The combination of the proposed building height and the high -quality architectural design of the building will facilitate a bold entry p oint into the City Centre. Also, the proposed 26-storey building maintains the minimum building separation from Universal City Phase 1, to minimize any privacy concerns. In addition, the increase in building height will have minimal shadow impacts on surrounding properties. For these reasons, staff support the applicant’s request to increase the maximum building height. Through the site plan review process, staff will continue to ensure the site design and architectural treatment of the building is consistent with the approved City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. 3.3 Proposed Net Floor Area and revised Floor Space Index definitions 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 (FSI) definition. The new NFA and revised FSI definitions were minor technical amendments to provide greater clarity concerning how FSI is to be calculated within the zoning by-law. The Official Plan defines FSI as a total floor space of all buildings on a lot divided by the total area of the lot. Based on the current definitions for Gross Floor Area (GFA) and FSI within the City Centre Zoning By-law, only some of the ancillary indoor areas servicing the occupants of the building (including areas dedicated for parking, porches, verandas, cellars, mechanical rooms, and penthouses) would be excluded from the calculation of FSI. This requested zoning amendment excludes additional non-residential/saleable areas, including but not limited to, stairwells, ventilation shafts for elevators and garbage; and rooms for storage lockers, washrooms, electrical, and utilities. Council approved the City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment (By-law 7713/19) in September 2019, but the decision was appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal by CAPREIT. CAPREIT owns the rental apartment buildings in the City Centre that front onto Glenanna Road, Pickering Parkway and Valley Farm Road. A Case Management Conference was held on October 20, 2020 about the appeal. Since the City and CAPREIT are engaged in settlement discussions, both parties requested that a second Case Management Conference be scheduled for January 29, 2021. Since the Council approved By-law 7713/19 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. Staff have no objection to including the new NFA and revised FSI definitions as part of the applicant's site-specific amendment. 3.4 Requested site-specific zoning exemptions 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. - 104 - Report PLN 30-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Universal City Six Developments Inc. (A 01/20) Page 7 The City Centre Zoning By-law also includes various requirements for building setback, podium heights for tall buildings, size of the tower floor plate, building separation, building setbacks, landscaping, indoor and outdoor amenity requirements, and vehicular and bicycle parking. In addition to the applicant's request to increase the maximum building height and introducing a new NFA definition and a revised FSI definition, the applicant has requested the following technical site-specific exceptions:  reduce the minimum required stepback between the podium and the tower potions of the building along Sandy Beach Road from 3.0 metres to zero metres;  replace the minimum balcony depth requirements with a minimum balcony size requirement (see Figure 1 below);  increase the maximum building setback from Bayly Street from 4.0 metres to 4.5 metres;  reduce the minimum building setback to a daylighting triangle from 0.6 of a metre to 0.25 of a metre; and  permit air vents and stairways associated with an underground parking garage to be permitted within the exterior side yard along Sandy Beach Road. The purpose of these site-specific exceptions is to create a distinctive architecture, maximize the number of parking spaces within the underground parking garage, maximize the outdoor amenity space on the fifth floor, and ensure there are sufficient usable private balcony areas for residents. The air vents and stairways associated with the underground parking garage are located within the exterior side yard along Sandy Beach Road in order to maximize the number of parking spaces within the underground parking garage. The applicant has indicated that relocating the air vents and stairways would cause a reduction in parking. Through the review of the site plan application, staff will ensure the air vents and stairways are appropriately screened through the use of decorative fencing and landscaping. Staff are supportive of the requested exceptions. Reduction in balcony depth to create wave design Figure 1: Example of Proposed Dwelling Unit and Waved Balcony I , _) ,, ,_ I < " I 1, . I I 1G I I 53 .9 6 m 2 I -I , 581 f t 2 I I I I •· - 105 - Report PLN 30-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Universal City Six Developments Inc. (A 01/20) Page 8 3.5 Parkland dedication to be provided off-site All proposed residential development is required to provide parkland dedication to ensure there is sufficient parkland for future residents. If parkland cannot be provided, the City can request cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication. The Universal City Master Plan includes a 1,250 square metre public urban square to be conveyed to the City for the future residents of the Master Plan development, located north of the future public road (Celebration Drive). To ensure sufficient parkland is provided off-site to all future residents for the Universal City Master Plan, staff requested that the urban square be increased by 202 square metres to satisfy the minimum parkland dedication requirements under the Planning Act for Universal City Phase 6. The applicant has agreed to convey an additional 202 square metres of land for park purposes. In addition to the conveyance of the parkland, the applicant will be responsible for the design and construction of the urban square. Staff will secure the conveyance and development of the parkland through the site plan agreement. Future 1,250 sq. metre Public Urban Square Additional 202 sq. metre Park Block ADJACENT OEVELOPEME,_,T BAYLY STREET - 106 - Report PLN 30-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Universal City Six Developments Inc. (A 01/20) Page 9 3.5 Sufficient amenity space provided for residents of the Universal City Master Plan development The City Centre Zoning By-law requires apartment dwellings to provide a minimum of 2.0 square metres of indoor amenity space and 2.0 square metres of outdoor amenity space per dwelling unit. Based on these ratios, the applicant is providing 602 square metres of indoor amenity space and 602 square metres of outdoor amenity space, which meets the minimum requirements of the By-law. At grade, indoor and outdoor amenity space is provided along Sandy Beach Road. On the fifth floor, outdoor and indoor amenity space is provided along Bayly Street, as well as outdoor amenity space within the interior of the site. The applicant is also proposing green rooftops on the fifth floor and rooftop of the residential building. 3.6 Adequate parking is provided for the future residents of Universal City Phase 6 The proposal includes a total of 216 residential parking spaces and 46 visitor parking spaces. The City Centre Zoning By-law requires a minimum 0.8 spaces per dwelling unit and an additional 0.15 of a space per dwelling unit for visitors. The applicant is requesting to amend the parking rate from 0.8 spaces to 0.71 spaces (a reduction in required parking by 27 spaces). The proposal also includes 151 indoor and outdoor bicycle parking spaces and is close to the Pickering GO Station (approximately 9-minute walk). To support the proposed reduction in parking, a Traffic Impact Study and Parking Justification were prepared by the BA Group. The Study identified that the proposed reduction in residential parking is appropriate, for the following reasons:  the reduction is based on the parking sales trend observed at the Universal City Phases 1, 2 and 3 buildings which have a parking demand of 0.71 parking spaces per unit;  recent resident buildings within the GTA have received parking reduction approvals when located within close proximity to an existing transit hub;  the reduction is consistent with Ontario’s New Five Year Climate Change Action Plan which supports reduced parking and supports cycling, walking and use of transit;  the proposed development is located close to a major transit station (Pickering GO Station), located along a future east-west road which will be part of the pedestrian network, and situated along a future cycling corridor;  the implementation of sustainable Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures for all Universal City phases, to reduce overall reliance on single-occupancy vehicles while promoting more active modes of transportation, by:  allowing purchasers to only pay for the amount of parking they require;  advertising the different modes of transportation available (i.e., GO Transit, indoor bicycle lockers); and  providing sidewalks on all new public and private streets within the project area. - 107 - Report PLN 30-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Universal City Six Developments Inc. (A 01/20) Page 10 Staff are supportive of the proposed reduction in residential parking based on the sale trends observed with Universal City Phase 1, 2 and 3 and the proposed TDM strategie s and initiatives. 3.7 Proposed road network will adequately accommodate the traffic generated by the Universal City Master Plan In 2019, the applicant completed a comprehensive Transportation Master Plan (TMP) for the entire Universal City development in support of the Universal City Precinct Plan. This Plan was approved by City Council in December 2019. Since the TMP used details about the previous application for this site, the applicant has submitted a scoped Traffic Impact Study prepared by the BA Group, to revise the findings of the TMP and ensure the proposed development will have no negative traffic impacts to Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road. The Study concludes that, for the shorter term (2022) horizon year, the intersection of Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road will function below capacity, and site-generated traffic volumes will require modest signal timing improvements in the future (increase signal timing during peak hours from 100 seconds to 120 seconds). The study has assumed that by 2037, Universal City Phases 1 to 6 are fully built, along with Durham Live. To accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes, Bayly Street will need to be widened to 6 or 7 lanes. Staff are supportive of the recommended improvements and have no concerns with the projected traffic generated by the proposed development. 3.8 Sufficient commercial space will be provided for the residents within the Universal City Master Plan At the Statutory Public Meeting, Committee members requested clarification wh ether the proposal includes any commercial space and if there is sufficient commercial space provided within the Universal City Master Plan. The proposed development does not include any commercial space. Buildings 1, 2 and 3 within the Universal City Master Plan includes a total of 983 square metres of grade related commercial space. It is anticipated that approximately 865 square metres of grade related commercial space will be provided in Buildings 4 and 5, resulting in a total of approximately 1,848 square metres of commercial/retail space at grade. Staff are satisfied that sufficient commercial space will be provided within the overall Universal City Master Plan, to provide convenient services to future residents such as convenience stores, restaurants, and personal services (such as hair and nail salons). 3.9 Technical matters will be addressed through site plan a pproval Detailed design issues will be dealt with through the site plan approval process. These requirements will address matters such as, but not limited to:  refining building design and materials;  finalizing landscaping;  reviewing illumination plan to reduce impacts to the residential units to the north; - 108 - Report PLN 30-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Universal City Six Developments Inc. (A 01/20) Page 11  concluding environmental site assessments;  requiring construction management/erosion and sediment controls;  controlling drainage and grading; and  detailing site servicing. 3.10 Zoning By-law be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment The applicant is requesting a site-specific exception to facilitate the development of a high-density residential condominium building. Staff support the rezoning application and recommend that By-law 7553/17 be amended to permit a site-specific exception. It is recommended that the Draft Zoning By-law as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 30-20 be forwarded to Council for enactment. 4 Applicant’s Comments The applicant has been advised of and concurs with the recommendations of this report. Appendix Appendix I Draft Zoning By-law Amendment A 01/20 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Conceptual Plan 4. Submitted Rendering – Looking Northwest 5. Submitted Rendering – Looking North (South Elevation) 6. Submitted Rendering – Looking Northeast 7. Submitted Rendering – Submitted Rendering - Looking Southeast, into the courtyard 8. Master Plan for Universal City 9. Summary of Key Details of Proposal - 109 - Report PLN 30-20 December 7, 2020 Subject: Universal City Six Developments Inc. (A 01/20) Page 12 Prepared By: Original Signed By: Tanjot Bal, MCIP, RPP Planner II Original Signed By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design TB: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 - 110 - Appendix I to Report PLN 30-20 Draft Zoning By-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/20 - 111 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/20 Being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, to implement the Official of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, Part of Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2, 40R-18785 in the City of Pickering (A 01/20) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to permit a high-density residential condominium building on lands being Part of Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2, 40R-18785, City of Pickering; And whereas an amendment to By-law 7553/17, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Section 6, Exceptions, and Schedule 7 of Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, is further amended by adding a new Exception E14 as follows: 6.14.1 Definitions a) “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. b) “Floor Space Index” means the total net floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the total area of the lot. 6.14.2 Zone Provisions The following regulations apply: a) Notwithstanding Section 4.2 b) ii) and Schedule 5, related to Maximum Building Height, the height of a building or structure shall not exceed a building height of 78 metres (26-storeys). b) Notwithstanding Section 3.1, Table 1, related to Parking Space Requirements, the minimum parking ratio shall be 0.71 parking spaces per apartment dwelling unit for residents and 0.15 parking spaces per apartment dwelling unit for visitors. Draft - 112 - By-law No. XXXX/20 Page 2 Draft c) Notwithstanding Section 4.2 j) i) related to Minimum Main Wall Stepback for Buildings greater than 37.5 metres, the minimum main wall stepback from the main wall of a point tower and the main wall of a podium on the building face abutting Sandy Beach Road shall not apply. d) Notwithstanding Section 2.4 c) related to permitted encroachments, a balcony, porch or uncovered platform may encroach into any required setback to a maximum of 2.2 metres. e) Notwithstanding Section 2.4 d) related to Building Setback from Street Line, the residential building along Bayly Street may be setback to a maximum of 4.5 metres. f) Notwithstanding Section 4.2 k) i) related to Balcony Requirements, the minimum area of a balcony is 4 square metres. g) Notwithstanding Section 3.8 c) related to parking structures, stairs associated with a parking structure are permitted to project to a maximum of 1.2 metres above establishes grade no closer than 0.3 of a metre to a street line. h) Notwithstanding Section 3.8 d) related to parking structures, air vents constructed in association with an underground parking structure, are permitted to project to a maximum of 1.2 metres above established grade no closer than 2.8 metres to a street line. i) Notwithstanding Section 4.2 k) ii) related to Balcony Requirements, balconies are permitted to project beyond the main wall at any height. j) Notwithstanding Section 2.13 related to Yards Abutting Daylight Triangles, the minimum setback of buildings from the daylight triangle shall be 0.25 of a metre. 6.14.3 Special Site Provisions The following additional provision applies: a) Notwithstanding Section 4.2 a) and Schedule 3, the total land area of the lot, including lands conveyed to public ownership for a road widening as shown in the figure below, shall be deemed to be a lot for the purposes of calculating Floor Space Index (FSI), as shown on Figure 6.14.4 (a). - 113 - By-law No. XXXX/20 Page 3 Draft 6.14.4 Special Site Figures Figure 6.14.2 (a) 2. Schedule 7, Exceptions, of Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, is further amended by adding an E14 notation as depicted on Schedule II to this By-law. 3. That By-law 7553/17, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 7553/17, as amended. 4. That this By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2020. ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft Draft 65.9m (fl Ill 6.. ~ E 0 .40 Ha E a:> ro C'! ~ !ll ;;; <O & ~ (I) 0- 56.0m ,v Bayly Street ~ - 114 - 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 No:Applicant:Property Description: A 01/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jun. 16, 2020 Universal City Six Developments Inc.Part of Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 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 Report #PLN 30-20 - 115 - 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 No: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 Developments Inc. Part of Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2, 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 30-20 ~of PlCKERlNG - 116 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Sep 29, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Conceptual Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 01/20 Universal City Six Developments Inc. Part of Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2, 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) N Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 30-20 6.00m 1 ST PICKERING U/G P ..... ENTRANCE ..... -"""""' , .. -.., HEAl/'l'OUTY PAVEMENT ---------... I I _ _J_ 26 STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUIL DING 302 UNITS ;:,E~R:o~~ Roof Arn•2!10 sq.m. 10.00 m ' I - 117 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Sep 29, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Rendering - Looking Northwest FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 01/20 Universal City Six Developments Inc. Part of Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2, 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 30-20 -~c/- P1CKER1NG - 118 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Sep 29, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Rendering - Looking North (South Elevation) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 01/20 Universal City Six Developments Inc. Part Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2, 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) Attachment #5 to Report #PLN 30-20 -~c/- PJ(KERJNG - 119 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Sep 29, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Rendering - Looking Northeast FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 01/20 Universal City Six Developments Inc. Part Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2, 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) Attachment #6 to Report #PLN 30-20 -0/,pc/- P](KER]NG - 120 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Sep 29, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Rendering - Looking Southeast, into the courtyard FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 01/20 Universal City Six Developments Inc. Part Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2, 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) Attachment #7 to Report #PLN 30-20 -~c/- P1CKER1NG - 121 - Master Plan for Universal City City Development Department Nov. 02, 2020FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 01/20 Applicant: Universal City Six Developments Inc. Property Description: DATE: File No: Part Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 N Attachment #8 to Report #PLN 30-20 ~ (/) z 0 £ m m " UC-4 I 50 SOM PUBLIC SQUARE I "T1 ~ ~ "ti '\ i I ~ I ::o ) ~ _ _, ____ _ ._ ________ .. ii-:------------ \ \ \ -c.t,c/- PJCKERJNG I I \ ADJACENT DEVELOPEMENT ill 0 a a = .--, UC-1 17 storeys 0 BAYLY STREET P- C-6 storeys I -------- t - 122 - Summary of Key Details of the Proposal Universal City Six Developments Inc. Proposal Total Areas 0.4 of a hectare Gross Floor Area (GFA) 25,097 square metres Net Floor Area (NFA) 22,765 square metres Number of Residential Units 302 residential units, including 1 guest suite Residential Density 892 units per net hectare Floor Space Index (FSI) 5.63 (based on proposed amendments to definitions for NFA and FSI) Tower Floor Plate Size 850 square metres Number of Storeys and Building Heights 26 storeys (78 metres) Unit Types 1 bedroom: 178 units 2 bedroom: 117 units 2 Storey: 6 units Guest suite: 1 unit Vehicular Parking Resident – 216 spaces at a ratio of 0.71 parking spaces per unit Visitor – 46 spaces at a ratio of 0.15 parking spaces per unit Bicycle Parking 151 spaces Amenity Area Indoor – 602 square metres Outdoor – 602 square metres Total – 1,204 square metres Attachment #9 to Report #PLN 30-20 - 123 -