Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 3, 2021Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming 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 del egation form or email clerks@pickering.ca by 12:00 noon on the business day prior to the meeting. Please ensure that you provide the telephone number you wish to be called at so that you can be connected via audio when it is your turn to make a delegation. Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 3.1 Information Report No. 09-21 1 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/21 596857 Ontario Inc. 1279 and 1281 Commerce Street 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 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 d elegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. Persons who wish to For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming 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 t o speak will be called upon one by one by the Chair and invited to join the meeting via audio connection. A maximum of 10 minutes shall be allotted for each delegation. Please ensure you provide the phone number that you wish to be contacted on. Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 5. Planning & Development Reports 5.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 06-21 17 E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2557 - Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision - Lots 1 to 12 and Blocks 13 t o 17, Plan 40 M-2557 - File: 40M-2557 Recommendation: 1. That Shadow Place within Plan 40M-2557 be assumed for public use; 2. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2557, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; 3. That E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-2557; 4. That Council enact a by-law to dedicate Block 17, Plan 40M-2557 as a public highway; and, For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 5.2 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 09-21 21 E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2558 - Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision - Block 1, Plan 40M-2558 - File: 40M-2558 Recommendation: 1. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2558, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; 2. That E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-2558; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 5.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 23-21 24 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/21 City Initiated Amendment to Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 Corner Rounding Zoning Provisions Recommendation: That City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/21 to amend Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to include a corner rounding definition and provisions, be endorsed, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment containing the standards set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 23-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming 5.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 24-21 31 Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P, submitted by Highmark (Pickering) Inc., to re-designate the lands municipally known as 1964 Guild Road from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors”, and to permit a maximum residential density of 350 units per net hectare and a maximum floorspace index of 2.53 for the portion of the subject lands within the “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridor” designation located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road to facilitate a high-density residential condominium development, be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 43 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 24-21 be forwarded to Council for enactment; and, 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18, submitted by Highmark (Pickering) Inc., to facilitate a high-density residential condominium development consisting o f 346 apar tment units, be approved subject to the provisions contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 24-21, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment. 5.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 26-21 70 Additions to Municipal Heritage Register 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue and 882-886 Kingston Road Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 26-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, regarding the listing of 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue and 882-886 Kingston Road on the Municipal Heritage Register be received; 2. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated November 25, 2020, to list For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue, and 882-886 Kingston Road on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register, under Section 27, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 3. That Council authorize staff to pursue designating 882-886 Kingston Road (St. Paul’s-on-the-Hill Anglican Church) under Section 29, Part IV, of th e Ontario Heritage Act; and, 4. That staff be directed to take necessary actions to include the properties on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 09-21 Date: May 3, 2021 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/21 596857 Ontario Inc. 1279 and 1281 Commerce Street 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding an application for Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by 596857 Ontario Inc., to facilitate an infill residential development. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision is to be made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2.Property Location and Description The subject lands comprise 2 separate properties located at the southeast corner of Commerce Street and Front Road within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The properties have a combined area of approximately 0.167 of a hectare, with a combined frontage of 52 metres along Commerce Street and 47 metres of frontage along Front Road. 1279 Commerce Street contains a single-storey detached dwelling and two sheds located in the rear and flankage yards. 1281 Commerce Street contains a two and half-storey detached dwelling that is currently vacant and a shed located in the rear yard. All existing structures on both properties are proposed to be demolished (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2). Surrounding land uses include: North and East: Existing one, two and three-storey detached dwellings fronting onto Commerce Street and Pleasant Street. South: Immediately to the south is a newly constructed three-storey detached dwelling, and further south fronting Front Road are one, two and three-storey detached dwellings. West: Across Front Road is Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park, the Waterfront Trail and Lake Ontario. - 1 - Information Report No. 09-21 Page 2 3. Applicant’s Proposal The applicant has applied for a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate the future severance of two existing lots to create a total of five lots for detached dwellings fronting onto Commerce Street and Front Street (see Submitted Site Plan, Attachment #3). The table below summarizes the proposed lot area and lot frontage for each lot. Lot Area Lot Frontage Lot 1 486.2 square metres 13.0 metres Lot 2 308.0 square metres 9.1 metres Lot 3 279.7 square metres 9.1 metres Lot 4 286.9 square metres 12.5 metres Lot 5 308.2 square metres 9.1 metres The proposed dwellings are 3-storeys in height and have flat roofs ranging in size between 320 square metres (3,446 square feet) and 375 square metres (4,039 square feet). The dwelling proposed on Lot 1, a corner lot, has a single-storey detached garage located in the rear yard with vehicle access from Commerce Street. The proposed dwellings have an outdoor amenity area on the rooftop, which is accessed through a walkout. The rooftop amenity areas range in size between 108 square metres (1,160 square feet) and 127 square metres (1,367 square feet). Figure 1 below is a conceptual rendering of the proposal. Figure 1: Conceptual Rendering - 2 - Information Report No. 09-21 Page 3 To facilitate the proposal, the applicant is requesting the following site-specific zoning standards: Lot Area Minimum 279 square metres Lot Frontage Minimum 9.0 metres Front Yard Setback Minimum 6.0 metres Rear Yard Setback Minimum 7.4 metres Interior Side Yard Setback Minimum 0.45 metres Flankage Side Yard Setback Minimum 4.5 metres Lot Coverage Maximum 45 percent Building Height Maximum 9.6 metres to top of parapet wall Maximum 12.0 metres to top of rooftop walkout Within Zoning By-law 2511, building height is measured as the vertical distance between the average grade and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall. A penthouse, tower, cupola, steeple or other roof structure which is used as an ornament or to house the mechanical equipment of a building is excluded from the calculation of total building height. The rooftop walkouts on the proposed dwellings are non-habitable spaces and are used to access the amenity area only. Therefore, the height of the proposed dwellings is calculated from established grade to the top of the parapet wall, and the height of the rooftop walkout is not included in the calculation (see Submitted West Elevation and North Elevation, Attachments #4 and #5). The applicant is proposing to create the lots through land severance. 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Pickering Official Plan The subject lands are located within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood and are designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area”. This designation primarily provides for residential or related uses at a maximum net residential density of up to and including 30 units per net hectare. The proposal will result in a residential density of approximately 30 units per net hectare. 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. - 3 - Information Report No. 09-21 Page 4 The Bay Ridges Neighbourhood policies recognize that the area exhibits a unique mix of built and natural attributes that establishes the area as the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node. Lands within the Waterfront Node are to be of high-quality design with a Great Lakes Nautical Village theme, as detailed in the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines. The Official Plan states that ownership of land capable of being divided into more than three additional lots is required to be developed by a plan of subdivision, except where it is demonstrated to Council's satisfaction that a plan of subdivision is neither appropriate nor necessary, in which case Council may authorize the development to proceed by land severance. As part of the proposal, the applicant is also seeking Council’s authorization for the proposed development to proceed by land severance, rather than by a plan of subdivision. The applicant’s proposal will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Official Plan and the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Policies during further processing of the applications. 4.2 Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines The guiding vision for the entire Liverpool Road Waterfront Node is that of a “Great Lakes Nautical Village”. The Guidelines set out detailed development standards and policies addressing the protection of views and vistas, continuance of street and block patterns, provision of pedestrian-friendly built form, compliance with relevant environmental management policies, and stormwater best management practices. In the review of development proposals, the following development standards are to be considered: • new buildings should be designed to be welcoming and friendly to pedestrians through features such as front porches, high-quality landscaping of front yards, and large windows on the ground floor; • all architectural design must be of a high quality; • methodologies that include various design elements for reducing the bulk of a building’s appearance should be developed as part of the architectural design; • enhanced flankage elevations are required for corner lots; and • the materials, rooflines, design elements and details of new buildings should harmonize with the Great Lakes Nautical Village theme. The Development Guidelines identify the subject lands as Established Built Area. This area consists largely of the historic Village of Fairport, wherein the character of the historic village should be protected. The proposed development will be reviewed in detail to ensure the requirements of the applicable Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines have been maintained. - 4 - Information Report No. 09-21 Page 5 4.3 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study On September 28, 2020, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Infill Study). The Infill Study recommendations provided direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts (Neighbourhood Precincts) so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes for infill and replacement housing. Also at that meeting, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts to support and enhance neighbourhood precinct characteristics and to assist staff, developers and the public to evaluate and prepare development or redevelopment applications. Since Council’s endorsement, staff has initiated an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to implement the recommendations of the Infill Study. A Statutory Public Meeting was held on January 4, 2021. The Information Report included a draft amendment to Pickering's Official Plan and draft Zoning By-law Amendments. One of the proposed policies states that when considering an application for development of Infill or Replacement Dwellings within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct, Council shall require the development to fit in, complement and be compatible with the character of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct. The subject lands are located within a proposed Established Neighbourhood Precinct within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. The Urban Design Guidelines are intended to assist in reinforcing the sense of character of the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precinct by addressing compatibility of new homes with adjacent, existing houses, as well as the streetscape. The Urban Design Guidelines specifically relate to the elements of built form, streetscape and neighbourhood composition. The proposal will be assessed against the Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines and in the context of Draft Official Plan Amendment 40 and the draft implementing Zoning By-law Amendments. 4.4 Zoning By-law 2511 The subject lands are currently zoned “R4” – Fourth Density Zone within Zoning By-law 2511, which permits a detached dwelling. The surrounding residential lots to the north, south and east are also zoned “R4” within Zoning By-law 2511 (see Zoning Map, Attachment #6). The applicant is requesting the following site-specific exceptions to facilitate the residential development (see Zoning Provisions Comparison Chart, Attachment #7): • reduce the minimum lot area requirement from 460 square metres to 279 square metres; • reduce the minimum lot frontage requirement from 15.0 metres to 9.0 metres; • reduce the minimum front yard setback requirement from 7.5 metres to 6.0 metres; • reduce the minimum interior side yard setback requirement from 1.5 metres on one side, 2.4 metres on the other side or 1.5 metres on both sides to 0.45 metres; • reduce the minimum rear yard setback requirement from 7.5 metres to 7.4 metres; - 5 - Information Report No. 09-21 Page 6 • increase the maximum lot coverage requirement from 33 percent to 45 percent; and • increase the maximum building height requirement from 9.0 metres to 9.6 metres. 5. Comments Received 5.1 Public Comments To date, the City has received written comments from 4 area residents in support of the application, with the following comments: • commented that the development is in keeping with the neighbourhood and would be an improvement to the lands and the street; • commented that the building height, massing and style of the proposed dwellings are consistent with new homes on both Commerce Street and Front Road; and • commented that the 3-storey building design works well with the area considering the lands are at the base of a hill down Commerce Street, therefore the proposed dwellings will not have a looming effect and will match the existing massing at the northeast and northwest corner of Commerce and Front Street. The City received comments from 1 area resident in objection to the application, with the following concerns: • commented that the proposal will negatively impact the aesthetics of the neighbourhood; • concerned that the development will increase traffic; • commented that construction of the new dwellings will create noise and dirt for an extended period of time; • concerned that the development will block views of the lake and sunshine; • concerned that the development will diminish privacy due to the proposed building height; and • concerned that the design of the new dwellings is not in keeping with the architectural style of the waterfront or the Nautical Village theme. 5.2 Agency Comments As of writing this report, no comments have been received from the Region of Durham. 5.3 City Department Comments As of writing this report, no comments have been received from Engineering Services. 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 neighbourhood policies and applicable development guidelines; - 6 - Information Report No. 09-21 Page 7 • ensure the proposal has regard for the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; • ensure the applicant’s requested zoning performance standards, particularly lot area and frontage, building height, yard setbacks and lot coverage, are generally consistent with the existing built form within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood; • evaluate the contextual fit and compatibility of the proposal with the established character of the neighbourhood; • establish appropriate restrictions for the use of the roof top amenity area, such has prohibiting it from being enclosed, or erecting structures such pergolas or gazebos; • review the proposed building materials and architectural treatment to ensure the design of the dwellings maintain a Nautical Village theme; and • ensure the preservation of views and vistas towards Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park, the Waterfront Trail and Lake Ontario are maintained. Further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. The City Development Department will conclude its position on the application after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. 7. Information Received Copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing on the City’s website at pickering.ca/devapp: • Arborist Report, prepared by Judith S. Wright Associates, dated July 22, 2020; • Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by Martindale Planning Services & Barry Bryan Associates, dated July 20, 2020; • Functional Servicing & Stormwater Management Report, prepared by D.M. W ills Associates Limited, dated August 2020; • Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by PRI Engineering, dated September 10, 2020; • Planning Justification Report, prepared by Martindale Planning Services, dated December 2020; • Site Plan, Building Elevations & Renderings, prepared by A& Associates Architects Inc., dated November 26, 2020; and • Site Screening Questionnaire & Designated Substances Survey, prepared by Toronto Inspection Ltd., dated September 15, 2020. 8. Procedural Information 8.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department; • oral comments may be made at the Electronic Statutory Public Meeting; - 7 - Information Report No. 09-21 Page 8 •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. 9.Owner/Applicant Information The owner of this property is 596857 Ontario Inc. and is represented by Martindale Planning Services. Attachments 1.Location Map 2.Air Photo Map 3.Submitted Site Plan 4.Submitted West Elevation 5.Submitted North Elevation 6.Zoning Map 7.Zoning Provisions Comparison Chart Prepared By: Isabel Lima Planner I Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design IL:ld Date of Report: April 16, 2021 Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner - 8 - Attachment #1 to Information Report 09-21 Liverpool RoadDouglas AvenueBrowning Avenue Ilona Park RoadFairview AvenueAnnland StreetFr o n t R o a d Luna CourtMonica Cook Place Commerce Street Broadview Street Wharf StreetPleasant StreetOld Orc hard A venue ProgressFrenchman'sBay East Park Frenchman'sBay Rate PayersMemorial Park © 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:A 01/21 Date: Apr. 06, 2021 ¯E596857 Ontario Inc. 1279 1281 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2021\A 01-21 - 5968567 Ontario Inc\A01_21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. 1279 and 1281 Commerce StreetMunicipal Address: - 9 - Attachment #2 to Information Report 09-21 Liverpool RoadDouglas AvenueGull Crossing Browning Avenue Ilona Park RoadFairview AvenueAnnland StreetSimpson AvenueW a t e r p oint Street Fr o n t R o a dStMartinsDrive Luna CourtMonica Cook Place Commerce Street Broadview Street Wharf StreetPleasant StreetBayview Street Old Orc hard A venue 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 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Apr. 06, 2021 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2021\A 01-21 - 5968567 Ontario Inc\A01_21_AirPhoto.mxd ¯ESubjectLands A 01/21596857 Ontario Inc.1279 and 1281 Commerce Street File:Applicant:Municipal Address: Air Photo Map 1279 1281 - 10 - Attachment #3 to Information Report 09-21 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 March 29, 2021DATE: Applicant: File No: Submitted Site Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 01/21 596857 Ontario Inc. N Municipal Address: 1279 and 1281 Commerce Street Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 - 11 - Attachment #4 to Information Report 09-21 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 March 29, 2021DATE: Applicant: File No: Submitted West Elevation FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 01/21 596857 Ontario Inc. Municipal Address: 1279 and 1281 Commerce Street View from Front Street - 12 - Attachment #5 to Information Report 09-21 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 March 29, 2021DATE: Applicant: File No: Submitted North Elevation FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 01/21 596857 Ontario Inc. Municipal Address: 1279 and 1281 Commerce Street View from Commerce Street - 13 - Attachment #6 to Information Report 09-21 F r o n t R o a d Annland Street W a t e rpoint St reet Commerce Street Bayview Street Ilona Park Road Pleasant StreetO3B (H)S-SD-1 R4-21 RM1 O2R4 R4 RM2 O3B S-SD-1 R4 RM1 R4 OS-HL S-SD-1 (H)O3B R4 R4 RM1 1:2,000 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 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Apr. 06, 2021 R4SubjectLandsE Zoning MapFile:Applicant:A 01/21596857 Ontario Inc. This zoning map is a graphical representation of the zoning schedules and is not a plan of survey. The zoning schedules in Zoning By-Law 2511, as amended, are the official schedules. In any situation where the zoning schedules are found to differ from this map, the text of thesigned By-Law, as amended, will take precedence in the interpretation of zoning. R4 ¯ 1279 1281 1279 and 1281 Commerce StreetMunicipal Address: - 14 - Zoning Provisions Comparison Chart The table below summarizes the requested zoning performance standards for the proposed lots, the existing zoning standards for the detached dwellings surrounding the subject lands, and the draft zoning amendments to Zoning By-law 2511 for the Infill & Replacement Housing Study. Provision Proposed Zoning Standard (A 01/21) Existing “R4” Zone Standards Infill & Replacement Housing Study: Draft Zoning By-law Amendments (A 11/20) Permitted Uses Dwelling unit Home-based business Detached Dwelling Detached Dwelling Lot Area (minimum) 279 square metres 460 square metres 460 square metres Lot Frontage (minimum) 9.0 metres 15.0 metres 15.0 metres Front Yard (minimum) 6.0 metres 7.5 metres Equal to the smallest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, equal to the smallest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. Interior Side Yard (minimum) 0.45 metres 1.5 metres on one side, 2.4 metres on the other side or 1.5 metres both sides Where the side lot line of a newly created lot for any Infill Dwelling abuts the rear lot line of an existing lot of record, the minimum side yard setback to the side lot line abutting the rear lot line of an existing lot of record shall be 4.5 metres. Flankage Side Yard (minimum) 4.5 metres 4.5 metres 4.5 metres Rear Yard (minimum) 7.4 metres 7.5 metres 7.5 metres Lot Coverage (maximum) 45 percent 33 percent 33 percent Attachment #7 to Information Report 09-21 - 15 - Provision Proposed Zoning Standard (A 01/21) Existing “R4” Zone Standards Infill & Replacement Housing Study: Draft Zoning By-law Amendments (A 11/20) Building Height (maximum) 9.6 metres 9.0 metres 9.0 metres Dwelling Depth (maximum) - - Lots with depths up to 40 metres: 17 metres or Lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres Front Entrance Elevation (maximum) - - 1.2 metres above grade Parking Spaces (minimum) 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1 space per dwelling unit 1 space per dwelling unit Driveway Width 6.5 metres (minimum) - 6.0 metres (maximum) Garage Width (maximum) - - No greater than 50% of the dwelling width Interior Garage Size (minimum) - - Width: 3.0 metres Depth: 6.0 metres - 16 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: LEG 06-21 Date: May 3, 2021 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2557 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision -Lots 1 to 12 and Blocks 13 to 17, Plan 40M-2557 -File: 40M-2557 Recommendation: 1.That Shadow Place within Plan 40M-2557 be assumed for public use; 2.That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2557, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; 3.That E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-2557; 4.That Council enact a by-law to dedicate Block 17, Plan 40M2557 as a public highway; and 5.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Executive Summary: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Plan 40M-2557. As all works and services within these plans have been completed to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to finalize the assumption of those lands. Financial Implications: Not applicable. Discussion: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Plan 40M-2557. As the developer has now completed all of the works and services to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to: (a) assume the roads and works and services within Plan 40M-2557; and (b) release E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement with the City and any amendments related thereto, as it relates to Lots 1 to 12 and Blocks 13 to 17, Plan 40M-2557. - 17 - LEG 06-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-2557 Page 2 Attachments: 1.Location Map – 40M-2557 2.Assumption By-law – Block 17 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Chantelle Adair Paul Bigioni Law Clerk Director Corporate Services & City Solicitor PB:ca Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Recommendation approved: Chief Administrative Officer per: Director, City Development & CBO per: (Acting) Director, Community Services per: Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor per: Director, Engineering Services per: Director, Finance & Treasurer per: City Clerk per: Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed By: Original Signed By:Original Signed By: - 18 - Finch Avenue Shadow PlaceAltona RoadLot 1Lot 2Lot 3Lot 4Lot 5Lot 6Lot 7Lot 8Lot 9Lot 10Lot 11Lot 12Block 13 Block 14 Block 15 Block 16 1:3,500 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: Subdivision Assumption 40M-2557E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc.Lots 1 to 12, Blocks 13 to 17, 40M2557 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Mar. 11, 2021 E L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Legal\SubdivisionCompletion\SubCompletion_40M2557.mxd Block 17 Attachment #1 to Report #LEG 06-21 - 19 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. /21 Being a by-law to establish Block 17, Plan 40M-2557 as public highway. Whereas The Corporation of the City of Pickering is the owner of certain lands lying within Pickering and wishes to establish it as public highway. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Block 17, Plan 40M-2557 is hereby established as public highway (Finch Avenue). By-law passed this day of May, 2021. ________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Attachment #2 to Report #LEG 06-21 - 20 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: LEG 09-21 Date: May 3, 2021 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2558 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision -Block 1, Plan 40M-2558 -File: 40M-2558 Recommendation: 1.That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2558, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; 2.That E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-2558; and 3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Executive Summary: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Plan 40M-2558. As all works and services within these plans have been completed to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to finalize the assumption of those lands. Financial Implications: Not applicable. Discussion: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Plan 40M-2558. As the developer has now completed all of the works and services to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to: (a) assume the roads and works and services within Plan 40M-2558; and (b) release E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement with the City and any amendments related thereto, as it relates to Block 1, Plan 40M-2558. - 21 - LEG 09-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-2558 Page 2 Attachments: 1.Location Map – 40M-2558 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Chantelle Adair Paul Bigioni Law Clerk Director Corporate Services & City Solicitor PB:ca Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Recommendation approved: Chief Administrative Officer per: Director, City Development & CBO per: (Acting) Director, Community Services per: Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor per: Director, Engineering Services per: Director, Finance & Treasurer per: City Clerk per: Original Signed Original Signed By:Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed - 22 - Shadow PlaceAltona RoadBlock 1,40M2558 1:1,266 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: Subdivision Assumption 40M-2558E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc.Block 1, 40M-2558 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Mar. 11, 2021 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Legal\SubdivisionCompletion\SubCompletion_40M2558.mxd Attachment #1 to Report #LEG 09-21 - 23 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 23-21 Date: May 3, 2021 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/21 City Initiated Amendment to Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 Corner Rounding Zoning Provisions Recommendation: 1. That City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/21 to amend Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to include a corner rounding definition and provisions, be endorsed, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment containing the standards set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 23-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council. Executive Summary: A corner rounding definition and provisions were omitted from Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 when it was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 2014. A corner rounding provision establishes a smaller building setback requirement for a corner lot than is required to the front or side lot lines. Corner rounding provisions that are now typically included in site-specific amending by-laws do not exist in the Seaton By-law. As the Seaton Area continues to be developed, staff have noticed an influx in the submission of minor variance applications to address the setback of proposed dwellings from a corner rounding on a corner lot. The purpose of this report is to seek final Council approval of the City Initiated amendment to Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to include a corner rounding zoning provision. The draft by-law adds a definition of ‘Corner Rounding’ and establishes the new setback to the corner for low and medium density housing forms. Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report do not present any financial implications for the City. Discussion: 1. Background A corner rounding is defined as a lot line of a corner lot at the intersection of two street lines in the form of an arc, that joins the front lot line to the flankage lot line. The purpose of a corner rounding is to ensure obstructions such as gardens, plants or fences on privately owned property do not impede the view of pedestrians, motorists and cyclists at the intersection of two street lines. The City may require a conveyance of lands for a corner rounding for road dedication purposes, to prevent sightline obstructions to ensure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement. - 24 - Report PLN 23-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Corner Rounding Zoning Provisions Page 2 A corner rounding provision establishes a smaller building setback requirement for a corner lot than is required to the front or flankage side lot lines (see Figure 1 below). For example, where a by-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 4.5 metres, on a corner lot, the minimum setback to a corner rounding at the front of the lot may be 3.9 metres. Figure 1: Example of Reduced Setback to Corner Rounding 1.1 Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Amendment Draft amendments to Zoning By-law 7364/14, containing the standards set out in Appendix I, adds a definition of ‘Corner Rounding’ to Section 10.0 – Definitions, and adds corner rounding zoning provisions to the Zone Categories identified in Section 4.0 – Residential Zone Regulations and Section 5.0 – Mixed Use Zone Regulation. A corner rounding provision is proposed to be added for the following residential building types within these Sections: detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, street townhouse dwelling, duplex dwelling, multiple attached building, back to back townhouse dwelling, block townhouse, and live work unit. A corner rounding provision is not proposed to be added for the following building types within these Sections: apartment building/nursing home/long-term care, retirement home, or building with sole retail/commercial uses. A provision is also not proposed to be added for building types with a minimum front yard and/or minimum flankage yard of 0 metres. 2. Public Consultation and Comments The draft zoning by-law amendment was circulated to the standard departments and agencies for review and comment in early April 2021. The draft zoning by-law amendment was also mailed and emailed to the Group Manager of the Seaton Landowners Group in early April 2021, for further circulation to the members of the group. 2.2 Written Submissions At the time of writing this report, no written comments have been received from the public or the Seaton Landowners Group. Any comments received from the public/landowners will be taken into consideration during staff’s drafting and finalization of the by-law. - 25 - Report PLN 23-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Corner Rounding Zoning Provisions Page 3 3. City Departments and Agency Comments As of writing this report, no comments have been received from City Departments or external agencies. Any comments received from the City Departments/agencies will be taken into consideration during staff’s drafting and finalization of the by-law. 4. Planning Analysis 4.1 The Proposal Conforms to the Pickering Official Plan The Seaton Urban Area is intended to be a walkable, pedestrian oriented community built at a relatively compact density. Proposing corner rounding provisions within the Seaton Area to facilitate the construction of a range of housing types and densities that meet the needs of the diverse population is in keeping with the policies of the Pickering Official Plan. 4.2 The Need to Implement a Zoning By-law Amendment A corner rounding definition and provisions were omitted from Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 when it was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 2014. Corner rounding provisions that are now typically included in site-specific amending by-laws do not exist in the Seaton By-law. The proposed zoning by-law amendment is expected to reduce the need for developers and builders in Seaton to seek minor variances to address the setback of proposed dwellings on corner lots. 4.3 Proposed Corner Rounding Provisions Minor variance applications submitted to date to address the setback of a proposed dwelling from a corner rounding have been for low-density and medium-density residential dwellings only. For this reason, a corner rounding provision is proposed to be added to Section 4.0 and Section 5.0 of By-law 7364/14 for building types including detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, street townhouse dwelling, duplex dwelling, multiple attached building, back to back townhouse dwelling, block townhouse, and live work unit. The requested variances between 2018 and 2021 to permit a reduced setback to a corner rounding in the front or flankage yard ranged between 2.0 metres and 0.2 metres, with the majority of requested variances ranging between 2.0 metres and 1.5 metres. For residential building types with a minimum front yard of 3.0 metres and a minimum flankage yard of 2.4 metres, staff are proposing a minimum setback of 1.75 metres to a corner rounding in the front and flankage yards. This is a 1.25 metre reduction to the required front yard and a 0.65 metre reduction to the required flankage yard. A corner rounding setback of 1.75 metres is inline with previous requested variances. Staff believe it is appropriate to further review a proposed setback to a corner rounding that is less than 1.75 metres through a minor variance application. Additionally, a minimum corner rounding setback of 1.75 metres has been used in site-specific amending by-laws outside of the Seaton Area, including in the Duffin Heights Area, which is comparable to the Seaton Area in terms of dense development. - 26 - For residential building types with a minimum flankage yard of 2.0 metres, staff are proposing a minimum setback of 1.5 metres to a corner rounding in the flankage yard. For building types with a minimum flankage yard of 3.0 metres, staff are proposing a minimum setback of 2.0 metres to a corner rounding in the flankage yard. These corner rounding setbacks represent an incremental change based on a larger or smaller flankage side yard. 4.4 Staff Recommend an Implementing Zoning By-law Amen dment be Forwarded to Council for Enactment Staff recommend the Zoning By-law Amendment, containing the standards set out in Appendix I, to amend By-law 7364/14, to include a corner rounding definition and provisions, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment. Appendix: Appendix I Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Isabel Lima Planner I Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Report PLN 23-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Corner Rounding Zoning Provisions Page 4 Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO IL:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 27 - Appendix I to Report PLN 23-21 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment A 04/21 - 28 - Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/21 That the implementing zoning by-law include a corner rounding definition and zoning provisions within Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, in accordance with the following provisions: A. Corner Rounding Definition “Corner Rounding” means a lot line of a corner lot at the intersection of two street lines in the form of an arc, that joins the front lot line to the flankage lot line. B. Corner Rounding Setback (minimum) Despite any front yard or flankage yard requirement, on a corner lot, the setback to a corner rounding shall be: Minimum Corner Rounding Setback (metres) Low Density Type 1 (LD1) Zone Any Detached dwelling or Semi-detached dwelling 1.75 Low Density Type 1 – Townhouse (LD1-T) Zone Any street townhouse dwelling or duplex dwelling 1.75 Low Density Type 2 (LD2) Zone Any detached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling 1.75 Low Density Type 2 – Multiple (LD2-M) Zone Any street townhouse dwelling, duplex dwelling, multiple attached building, back to back townhouse dwelling, or block townhouse building 1.75 Medium Density – Detached & Semi (MD-DS) Zone Any detached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling 1.75 Medium Density – Multiple (MD-M) Zone Any street townhouse dwelling, duplex dwelling, multiple attached building, back to back townhouse dwelling, or block townhouse building 1.75 High Density (H) Zone Any multiple attached building or block townhouse building 1.75 - 29 - Minimum Corner Rounding Setback (metres) Mixed Corridor Type 1 (MC1) Zone Any street townhouse dwelling, duplex dwelling, multiple attached building, back to back townhouse dwelling, or block townhouse building 1.75 Mixed Corridor Type 2 (MC2) Zone Any street townhouse dwelling, duplex dwelling, multiple attached building, or back to back townhouse dwelling 1.75 Any live work unit 1.5 Any block townhouse building 1.75 at front of lot 2.0 at flankage Minor Commercial Clusters – (MCC) Zone Any live work unit 1.5 Community Node – Pedestrian Predominant Area (CN-PP) – Zone Any live work unit 1.5 The above proposed provisions will amend the Additional Provisions Sections of Zoning By-law 7364/14. - 30 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 24-21 Date: May 3, 2021 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-005/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road, 1964 and 1970 Guild Road Recommendation: 1.That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P, submitted by Highmark (Pickering) Inc., to re-designate the lands municipally known as 1964 Guild Road from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors”, and to permit a maximum residential density of 350 units per net hectare and a maximum floorspace index of 2.53 for the portion of the subject lands within the “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridor” designation located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road to facilitate a high-density residential condominium development, be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 43 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 24-21 be forwarded to Council for enactment; and 2.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18, submitted by Highmark (Pickering) Inc., to facilitate a high-density residential condominium development consisting of 346 apartment units, be approved subject to the provisions contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 24-21, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment. Executive Summary: The subject lands are located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road within the Village East Neighbourhood (see Location Map and Air Photo Map, Attachments #1 and #2). Highmark (Pickering) Inc. submitted applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment initially proposing the development of 2 apartment buildings having heights of 12 and 8-storeys containing 236 units and 64 back-to-back stacked townhouse units (see Original Conceptual Site Plan (2018), Attachment #3). In May 2020, the applicant revised the submitted applications to remove the 64 back-to-back stacked townhouse units, increase the building heights of the 2 apartment buildings to 18 and 14-storeys for a total of 346 units and proposed a day care facility on the ground floor (see Second Conceptual Site Plan and Second Conceptual Elevation Plan, Attachments #4 and #5). - 31 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 2 Concerns were expressed by area residents about overall density, parking, traffic, construction activities, shadowing and privacy impacts and neighbourhood compatibility. In response to concerns identified by City staff and members of the public, the applicant has made several refinements to the proposal. The key changes include: •decreasing the building heights of the 2 apartment buildings from 18 and 14-storeys to 16 and 12-storeys, respectively; •eliminating the day care facility; •enlarging the at-grade amenity space located adjacent to the building; and •reducing the number of surface parking spaces from 96 spaces to 52 spaces. City Development staff are in support of the proposed development. The proposal is consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, A Place to Grow, and the Durham Regional Official Plan, by providing for intensification and redevelopment of vacant lands within the built-up area and promoting the use of existing and planned infrastructure. The proposed development establishes a high-density residential use along Kingston Road, an arterial road and Rapid Transit Spine. The development is considered compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood as the siting, setback and massing of the building will limit negative visual, privacy or shadow impacts on the immediate neighbourhood. A strong relationship with the intersection of Kingston Road and Guild Road will be established by the design of the proposed development, which is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Draft Kingston Road Corridor Urban Design Guidelines. The recommended Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments provide for appropriate density and performance standards for the development of this site resulting in transit-supportive intensification along a transit spine and within the Kingston Road Corridor and Brock Mixed Node Intensification Area. Site plan approval will address detailed design and technical matters. While the current Pickering Official Plan designation does not permit the requested number of units, the request can be supported based on policy intent and directions of A Place to Grow, the Council endorsed Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan, the emerging policy framework for intensification within the Kingston Road Corridor and the principles of the Council-endorsed urban design guidelines. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council approve Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P, and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. - 32 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 3 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject lands are located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road within the Village East Neighbourhood, and also include a vacant residential lot fronting Guild Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands comprise 3 properties, municipally known as 1640 Kingston Road, and 1964 and 1970 Guild Road. The lands have a total combined area of approximately 1.88 hectares of which only the easterly half (approximately 0.99 of a hectare) are developable. The westerly half of the subject lands (approximately 0.81 of a hectare) are subject to an easement in favour of Hydro One and form part of the Hydro Corridor (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2). The developable lands will have approximately 116 metres of frontage along Kingston Road and approximately 94 metres of frontage along Guild Road. The portion of the subject lands at the intersection of Kingston Road and Guild Road were previously used for commercial purposes, but are currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include: North: Immediately to the north is an established low-density residential neighbourhood consisting of detached dwellings fronting Guild Road. East: At the northeast corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road is a vehicle repair and maintenance shop (Midas). South: Across Kingston Road is a medium-density residential neighbourhood consisting of detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings. To the west of the residential neighbourhood is the Hydro Corridor and the Diana Princess of Wales Park. West: To the west is the Hydro Corridor, and further west is a medium-density residential development consisting of 3-storey townhouse dwellings. 1.2 Applicant’s Proposals Highmark (Pickering) Inc. has submitted applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a high-density residential condominium development on the subject lands. The applicant's initial submission in 2018 proposed 2 apartment buildings having heights of 12 and 8-storeys containing 236 units and 64 back-to-back stacked townhouse units (see Original Conceptual Site Plan (2018), Attachment #3). In May 2020, the applicant revised the submitted proposal to remove the 64 back-to-back stacked townhouse units, increased the building heights of the 2 apartment buildings to 18 and 14-storeys for a total of 346 units and proposed a day care facility on the ground floor (see Second Submission Conceptual Site Plan (2020) and Second Submission Conceptual Elevation Plan (2020), Attachments #4 and #5). - 33 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 4 Through collaboration between City staff and the applicant, the following changes have been made to the proposal: •decreased building heights of the 2 apartment buildings from 18 and 14-storeys to 16 and 12-storeys, respectively; •decreased the building podium height from 6-storeys to 5-storeys; •eliminated the day care facility on the ground floor; •enlarged the at-grade amenity space located adjacent to the building from 172 square metres to 1,113 square metres; •increased the landscape buffer width between the surface parking area and the north property line from 4.4 metres to 11.0 metres; and •reduced the total number of surface parking spaces from 96 spaces to 52 spaces. The applicant is proposing 2 separate blocks to facilitate the development (see Current Conceptual Site Plan (2021), Attachment #6). Block 1 will contain the apartment buildings, landscaping, at-grade amenity space, and associated at-grade and underground parking. Block 2, which includes the lands that are subject to an easement in favour of Hydro One and are partially occupied by the hydro towers and overhead wires, are proposed to be conveyed to the City to be used as parkland and satisfy the applicant’s parkland dedication requirements. Block 2 also includes the parcel of land at 1970 Guild Road. The proposed Official Plan Amendment seeks to re-designate the lands at 1964 Guild Road from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors” to reflect the same designation as 1640 Kingston Road, and increase the maximum permitted residential density and floorspace index on all lands within Block 1. The Zoning By-law Amendment is intended to rezone Block 1 to an appropriate residential zone category, and establish appropriate development standards. Block 2 is proposed to be rezoned to an appropriate open space zone category to permit passive and active recreational uses. The 12-storey building (Building A), will have a tower floor plate of approximately 850 square metres, and is proposed to be located at the corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road, with the longest section of the exterior façade running north along Guild Road. The 16-storey building (Building B) will front Kingston Road and will have a tower floor plate of approximately 800 square metres. The 2 towers will have a total separation of 22.0 metres and be connected by a 5-storey podium, which will accommodate indoor amenity areas and a rooftop outdoor amenity area on the 5th floor. A 1,113 square metre at-grade amenity is proposed immediately adjacent to Building B. - 34 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 5 Building A Building B Figure 1: Conceptual Rendering – View from corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road Vehicular access to the proposed development will be provided through a private looped road, accessed from the west side of Guild Road. The internal private road will provide access to a 2-level underground parking garage, a surface parking area and a loading space. Residential parking is proposed at a rate of 0.8 of a space per unit for a total of 278 spaces, while an additional 0.15 of a space per unit will be provided for visitor parking for a total of 52 spaces. The 278 residential parking spaces will be accommodated within the underground garage, whereas the 52 visitor parking spaces will be accommodated within the surface parking area. A total of 178 bicycle parking spaces will also be provided. A table has been prepared that summarizes the key statistical details between the original (2018), revised (2020) and the current proposal (see Development Key Details Summary, Attachment #7). A formal Site Plan application was received on March 29, 2021. 2. Comments Received 2.1 Comments received in writing and expressed through the January 10, 2019, Public Open House, February 4, 2019, Statutory Public Meeting, and August 10, 2020, Electronic Statutory Public Meeting A Public Open House and a Statutory Public Meeting were held on January 10, 2019, and February 4, 2019, respectively, to provide information to area residents regarding the 2018 proposal. A total of 8 individuals attended the open house and 2 individuals provided a delegation at the Statutory Public Meeting. - 35 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 6 As a result of the proposal being significantly revised, a second Electronic Statutory Public Meeting was held on August 10, 2020, providing updated information to area residents regarding the 2020 proposal, where 5 area residents provided a delegation. The following is a list of key comments and concerns expressed by areas residents at the 3 meetings, and written comments received regarding the applicant's proposals: • commented that the proposed density and population increase on the site will result in negative traffic impacts at the intersections of Kingston Road and Guild Road, and Guild Road and Finch Avenue; • questioned whether the Kingston Road and Guild Road intersection should be signalized; • recommended the proposed development should have a single access from Kingston Road, which would provide access to the proposed residential block and open space block; • concerned that there is an insufficient number of resident and visitor parking proposed to support the development and that there will be overflow parking on Guild Road; • concerned that the heights of the proposed apartment buildings are out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood; • commented that the proposed density substantially exceeds the City’s maximum density requirements and that the proposed high-density development will not be consistent with the established character and built form along Guild Road, which is characterized by detached dwellings on large lots; • commented that the proposed development should be held to a strict conformity to the same intensification, urban design, parking and Kingston Road access that guided the approval of the recent development on the south side of Kingston Road immediately to the west (Centre Point); • concerned with the potential dust, vehicle and noise nuisances during the construction process; • concerned about the loss of retail space on the subject lands; and • concerned that the proposed apartment buildings do not maintain the policies of the Official Plan, Neighbourhood Guidelines, Intensification Plan or Draft Urban Design Guidelines as they relate to respecting the character of the existing neighbourhood and providing an appropriate transition. The City has received 2 separate petitions. The first petition was received on February 24, 2019, signed by 42 individuals in opposition to the 2018 proposal. A second petition was received on August 6, 2020, signed by 56 individuals outlining their concerns regarding the revised 2020 proposal. The concerns identified in both petitions outlined that the proposed density and vehicular access location from Guild Road will have significant negative traffic impacts on Guild Road and that the proposal is not consistent with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. - 36 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 7 2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments 2.2.1 Region of Durham • no objection to the approval of the proposed applications, subject to an “H” Holding Symbol being imposed on the subject site through the zoning by-law; • the “H” Holding Symbol shall be in place until the owner has satisfied all the requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham with respect to the provision of sewer and water services, Regional roads, and entered into any necessary agreements in this regard; • sanitary sewerage capacity will be allocated and controlled through the execution of a servicing agreement with the Region; • the Official Plan Amendment application is exempt from Regional approval, in accordance with Regional By-law 11-2000; • the proposed development will assist in facilitating the intensification and redevelopment of the Kingston Road Corridor, by providing high-density residential development that is conducive to transit use and is consistent with Provincial Policy Statement policies that encourage the efficient use of land, existing infrastructure, and in proximity to existing transit services; • the applications are in conformity with the intent of A Place to Grow, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which supports building compact communities, helping to meet the City and Region’s intensification targets and provides an intensive yet compatible land use within the community; • the proposed development conforms to the Durham Region Official Plan as it will facilitate residential land uses at densities and heights along Kingston Road where higher density mixed uses and larger/taller buildings are encouraged and will contribute to increasing the overall long-term density of the Kingston Road corridor; • strategic growth areas such as the Kingston Road/Brock Road Regional Corridor are well served by transit and should be the focus of higher density mixed use development in Pickering, where smaller units in residential apartments typically have lower costs compared with other forms of housing and may contribute to the supply of affordable housing options; • the Region’s future Bus Rapid Transit road improvement works will include the signalization of the Kingston/Guild intersection; and • municipal water supply and sanitary sewer services are available to the subject site from existing services along Kingston Road and Guild Road. 2.2.2 Hydro One • no comments or concerns related to the proposed applications; and • more detailed comments and subsequent approvals regarding the use of Hydro One lands for a public park or recreation space will be provided through the site plan approval process when more detailed park design plans are provided. 2.2.3 City of Pickering Engineering Services Department • no objection to the proposal; and - 37 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 8 • detailed design matters such as the provision and installation of roads, services, grading, drainage, stormwater management, utilities, tree compensation, construction management, noise attenuation will be addressed through site plan approval. 2.2.4 City of Pickering Fire Services • no objection to the approval of the proposed applications. 2.2.5 Durham District School Board • no objections to the approval of the proposed development; and • students from this development will attend existing schools. 2.2.6 Durham Catholic District School Board • no objections to the proposed development; and • students from this development will attend St. Wilfred 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 A Place to Grow 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 patterns and accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential. The PPS outlines that new development should have a compact form, mix of uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, in areas that are supported by planned or existing transit services. The proposed development promotes residential intensification and provides appropriate density where existing infrastructure and public service facilities are available, and where rapid transit services are operated and are planned. 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. A Place to Grow 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 high density residential development will contribute to the achievement of more compact complete communities and assist the City and Region to meet their respective intensification targets, which is to accommodate 50 percent of all growth within the existing limits of the current built boundary of the Region and City. The proposed development provides for a compact form of development that is compatible with the surrounding residential land uses within the community and conforms to the Plan. - 38 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 9 3.2 The proposed density and floorspace index (FSI) is consistent with the City’s growth management strategy and Intensification Plan for the Kingston Road Corridor The subject lands are located within the Village East Neighbourhood. The majority of Block 1 is designated “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors” while the lands at 1964 and 1970 Guild Road are designated “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density”. Mixed Use Areas are recognized as lands that have or are intended to have the widest variety of uses and highest levels of activity in the City. The Mixed Corridors designation is intended primarily for residential, retail, community, cultural and recreational uses at a scale serving the community, and provides for a range of commercial uses and residential development at a density range of over 30 units up to and including 140 units per net hectare, and a maximum FSI up to and including 2.5 FSI. The “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density” designation permits residential uses at densities of over 30 and up to and including 80 units per net hectare. The majority of Block 2 is designated “Freeways & Major Utilities – Potential Multi-Use Areas", which permits community gardens, farmers' markets, and public or private uses that are compatible with adjacent land uses that do not affect the operation of the utility. The applicant’s proposal will result in a residential density of approximately 349 units per net hectare and an FSI of 2.53 within Block 1, which exceeds the permitted density and FSI range. To facilitate the high-density residential development within Block 1, the applicant is requesting a site-specific exception to permit a maximum residential density of 350 units per net hectare and a maximum FSI of 2.53. The policies of the Official Plan states that 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. The Plan also outlines that City Council shall maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure and minimize the consumption of vacant land by encouraging major intensification in Mixed Use Areas and the infill development of vacant or underutilized blocks of land. The City’s growth management strategy, guided by the South Pickering Intensification Study has been to direct major intensification and high-density residential uses to the City Centre and Mixed Use Nodes and Corridors. Through the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study, lands fronting and adjacent to Kingston Road, including Block 1, have been identified for redevelopment and intensification. In 2019, the Planning & Development Committee endorsed in principle the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan (Intensification Plan). The recommended land use for the subject lands within the Intensification Plan is solely for residential. The policy recommendations of the Plan outline that residential areas are encouraged to achieve a broad diversity of housing by form, location, size, tenure, and cost. Buildings on sites located adjacent to existing low-rise neighbourhoods shall provide an appropriate transition in height, massing and scale, and shall minimize shadow impacts and wind tunnel effects. - 39 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 10 The City has initiated an Official Plan Amendment (Proposed Amendment 38), to implement the recommendations of the Intensification Plan, including increasing the maximum permitted density and floorspace index (FSI) on lands designated “Mixed Corridor” within the Kingston Road Corridor and in the Specialty Retailing Node. Amendment 38 to the Official Plan currently proposes a minimum residential density of over 60 units per net hectare. The amendment is also proposing a maximum FSI of over 0.75 up to 2.5, and consideration to proposals between 2.5 and 5.0 FSI through a site-specific zoning by-law amendment. The subject lands are located immediately to the east of the Hydro Corridor, which is the most easterly boundary of Pickering's City Centre. The City Centre is the geographic area of the City where the majority of the forecasted population and employment growth directed by the Regional Official Plan for the municipality has been targeted and will be accommodated. The lands are located adjacent to Kingston Road, which is identified as Type “B” Arterial Road and Transit Spine under the City’s Official Plan. These roads are recognized as having a higher level of transit service and are intended to carry moderate volumes of traffic at moderate speeds and provide access from local roads, collector roads and arterial roads. To promote the development of a livable, transit-oriented community, the Official Plan directs mixed use and higher density development to be located along designated transit spines and arterial roads. The proposed residential development, consisting of 2 apartment buildings, reflects intensification within the built up area that makes efficient use of existing and planned resources and infrastructure in a location that is intended to accommodate higher densities. The proposed density and FSI is consistent with the proposed City Initiated Official Plan amendment, which contemplates allowing increases to the maximum density and FSI for the lands within the Kingston Road Corridor. The proposal is located adjacent to an arterial road and transit spine, which will allow for appropriate access to public services and contribute to the development of a livable, transit-oriented community. The proposal provides for a compact built form on underutilized lands that will assist the City in achieving its intensification targets within a mixed-use corridor that has been identified to accommodate such growth. 3.3 The proposal reflects the urban design objectives as set out in the Council endorsed Draft Urban Design Guidelines for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node The Village East Neighbourhood policies of the Pickering Official Plan identify that the Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines apply to the subject lands. The Guidelines are intended to guide the design of Kingston Road, as well as the developments that flank or front Kingston Road. These Guidelines, which were adopted by Pickering Council in 1997, do not reflect the new vision for the Kingston Road Corridor established by the Council endorsed Draft Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Urban Design Guidelines. The 1997 Development Guidelines are intended to be superseded by the new Draft Urban Design Guidelines. - 40 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 11 On December 2, 2019, the Planning & Development Committee endorsed the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Draft Urban Design Guidelines (Draft Urban Design Guidelines). The Draft Urban Design Guidelines support the goals, objectives, and vision for the area as set out in the Intensification Plan and establish design priorities and principles related to built form, placemaking, and connectivity. The proposed high-density residential condominium development maintains the key urban design objectives of the Guidelines by: •locating the proposed 16 and 12-storey buildings to maximize the setback from the north property boundary provides an appropriate transition to the neighbourhood immediately to the north; •the 16 and 12-story residential towers are appropriate for the subject lands given its location immediately adjacent to the City Centre, and along a major arterial road and transit spine and proximity to the highway and major transit station; •articulating the building at the corner of the Kingston Road and Guild Road intersection improves the prominence of the site from the east and provides a prominent gateway to the City Centre; •providing a 5-storey podium between the proposed apartment towers will assist in creating a consistent pedestrian-scaled streetwall along Kingston Road; •providing a 3.6 metre stepback at the 6th storey along the west façade of Building B establishes a compatible height and necessary transition to the adjacent open space within the Hydro Corridor; •locating a primary building entrance facing Kingston Road improves access to the building from the street and creates a pedestrian-friendly and animated entryway; •utilizing a covered canopy over the primary entrance along Kingston Road will assist in emphasizing it as a focal point in the building façade; •implementing a barrier-free walkway connection between the subject site and sidewalks along Kingston Road and Guild Road will ensure a seamless grade transition that is easily accessible by pedestrians; •providing sole vehicle access to the proposed development from Guild Road minimizes traffic delays along Kingston Road and prioritizes walkways and the pedestrian realm; •maximizing landscaped open space and providing approximately 33 percent of the site as a soft-landscape surfacing will assist in reducing stormwater run-off and exceeds the minimum requirement of 10 percent soft-landscaping; •minimizing the total amount of surface parking to 52 spaces and providing a minimum landscape buffer of 11.0 metres will minimize any negative visual impact on adjacent properties; •maximizing the use of an underground parking garage for required resident parking will contribute to reducing the urban heat island effect and promote more compact development; •strategically locating the site access, surface parking, loading areas and underground parking access internal to the site and behind the proposed buildings provides for an improved streetscape along Kingston Road and Guild Road; •providing a minimum separation of 22.0 metres between the 2 towers will allow greater infiltration of light into the private balconies; rooftop amenity areas and interior site spaces; and - 41 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 12 •locating the proposed at-grade private common outdoor amenity area adjacent to the Hydro Corridor will provide a desirable and appropriate connection between recreation spaces should the lands be utilized as a municipal park. Based on the foregoing, staff are satisfied that the proposal reflects the general intent of the Council endorsed Draft Urban Design Guidelines. Through the site plan review process, staff will continue to ensure the site design and architectural treatment of the proposed buildings is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines for the Kingston Road Corridor. 3.4 The proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding Neighbourhood and provides for an appropriate transition in built form Some area residents have expressed concern that the proposed apartment buildings will not maintain the character of the existing neighbourhood or provide an appropriate transition in built form. The intention of the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan is to provide for intensification within the corridor and node, while ensuring that an appropriate transition in built form is provided to minimize any negative impact on existing low-rise residential areas. Compatibility and appropriate transitioning of the proposed apartment buildings with the surrounding neighbourhood is achieved by dealing with the elements of scale, massing, siting, setbacks and shadowing. To limit shadow and overlook impacts from higher-density developments on low-rise residential areas and ensure an appropriate transition in building form is maintained, the Draft Urban Design Guidelines for Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node outline that built form should conform to a 45-degree angular plane measured from a height of 10.5 metres, set back 7.5 metres from the rear property line. An angular plane is one of many tools intended to help shape the scale, height, spacing and character of a development and assist in achieving transitions in an area by limiting the overall height. The applicant has applied the angular plane requirements, as prescribed by the Draft Urban Design Guidelines, at the northerly property limit to achieve compatible building height and massing with the adjacent stable residential neighbourhood. Figure 2 below indicates the 45-degree in red in relation to the proposed 16 and 12-storey apartment buildings viewed from the east. The nearest portion of the 12-story building (Building B) to the existing low-rise residential neighbourhood to the north falls well within the limits set by the 45-degree angular plane. The nearest portion of the 16-storey (Building A) is located well within the limits of the 45-degree angular plane. - 42 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 13 North Property Line Building B Building A Figure 2: 45 Degree Angular Plane from the north lot line In addition to maintaining the 45-degree angular plan requirements from the north lot line, the transition between the proposed development and the existing neighbourhood to the north is assisted by a significant setback between the apartment buildings and the north property boundary. A minimum setback of approximately 40.0 metres is maintained between the closest portion of the 12-storey building, Building A, and the north lot line. A setback of over 73.0 metres is maintained between the proposed 16-storey building, Building B, and the north lot line. Within this setback, the applicant intends to provide for surface parking and a landscape buffer with a minimum width of 11.0 metres along the north lot line, which will assist in minimizing any visual or privacy impacts as a result of the proposed buildings. The subject lands are located immediately east of the Hydro Corridor. In siting the proposed apartment buildings, the applicant has located the tallest building, Building B, adjacent to the Hydro Corridor and at the furthest possible distance from the existing detached dwellings along Guild Road. The proposed siting will ensure that the majority of the building's mass is directed along Kingston Road and the Hydro Corridor. Staff are satisfied that the proposed 16 and 12-storey apartment buildings will achieve an appropriate transition from the existing neighbourhood to the north, and that the proposed built form is compatible with the surrounding established low-rise residential area and future development along Kingston Road. - 43 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 14 3.5 Shadow impacts will be minimal Residents also expressed concerns that the proposed apartment buildings will result in shadow impacts on neighbouring properties. The Draft Urban Design Guidelines outline that the shadow impact of new buildings on adjacent residential buildings and public parks, shall be assessed through a shadow impact study and be minimized to the extent possible. A shadow study has been submitted by the applicant in support of the revised proposal. It identifies the shadow impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding properties during the spring (March 21st), summer (June 21st), fall (September 21st) and winter (December 21st) seasons for the period between 9:18 am and 6:18 pm. Best practice in assessing shadow impact is that shadows should not exceed 2 hours in duration on private outdoor amenity areas during the spring, summer and fall seasons. The study demonstrates that the majority of the shadows cast by the 2 apartment buildings during the spring, summer and fall will be directed onto the surface parking area at the north portion of the site and Kingston Road. Portions of the shadows cast to the east by Building B will also be blocked by Building A. During these seasons, shadows cast by the apartment buildings appear to move quickly and are not expected to exceed more than 2 hours in duration on private outdoor amenity areas for the properties immediately to the north, or to the south across Kingston Road along Jaywin Circle or Denmar Road. During the winter solstice, shadows are typically cast further and are present for a longer period given the sun is lower in the sky and moves slower during this period. During this period, the proposed apartments will cast shadows over the rear yard of some properties along Guild Road to the north and west for approximately 2 hours or slightly longer, throughout the hours of 9:18 am and 2:18 pm. However, the study also shows that some of the shadows cast by the proposal on the rear yards of these properties are not entirely new shadows and that the existing detached dwellings themselves cast shadows during the winter season. Staff are satisfied that the shadow impacts on the neighbouring properties will be minimal. 3.6 The proposal will have minimal traffic impacts on the surrounding road network Some area residents have expressed concern that the proposed development will cause a negative traffic impact on the existing road network and the intersections of Kingston Road and Guild Road and Finch Avenue and Guild Road. The applicant has submitted a Transportation Impact Study, prepared by TMIG, which investigated the traffic conditions and effects of the proposed development on the surrounding area and the intersections of Kingston Road/Guild Road; Guild Road/proposed site access, and Guild Road/Finch Avenue. The Study utilized data on existing traffic levels in February 2018 for Finch Avenue at Guild Road and September 2019 for Kingston Road at Denmar Road/Guild Road, and examined new vehicle trips generated from the development. The Study analyzed the total traffic conditions for both 2022 and 2027, which included existing traffic volumes, the traffic resulting from the proposed development and projected future traffic from other projects. - 44 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 15 During the morning peak hours (7:00 am to 9:00 am) the proposed residential development will generate a total of 92 trips (71 out and 22 in-bound trips), and during the evening peak hours (4:00 pm and 6:00 pm) a total of 106 trips (41 out and 65 in-bound trips) will be generated. Of the 92 trips during the peak am hour, only 7 trips outbound are estimated to exit the site and travel north along Guild Road and only 2 inbound trips are estimated to access the site from the north. Of the 106 trips in the pm peak hour, only 6 trips inbound are estimated to enter the site from the north and only 4 trips outbound are estimated to exit the site and travel north along Guild Road. Therefore, the majority of the trips generated from the proposed development will not travel through the existing neighbourhood along Guild Road and will almost entirely utilize the Kingston Road intersection, minimizing any negative traffic impact on the existing residents. The study found that during the morning (7:00 am to 9:00 am) and afternoon (4:00 pm to 6:00 pm) peak hours, all study intersections are expected to operate with excellent operational characteristics and substantial reserve capacity during both the weekday am peak hours and pm peak hours. However, during the pm peak hours, the shared northbound left/through/right movement at the Kingston Road and Guild Road intersection is expected to operate with high delays. The delays to the northbound movements are directly attributable to the traffic growth along the east-west corridor resulting from future developments, and through organic growth, but is not attributed to generated traffic volumes from the subject site. The study outlined that this condition is typical at unsignalized urban intersections during the peak traffic periods. The study concluded that there are no critical movements or queuing issues as a result of this delay, and there are no improvements required to accommodate the incremental site traffic in any of the peak study hours. The submitted Transportation Impact Study has been reviewed by the City’s Engineering Department and the Region of Durham. The City and the Region are satisfied with the findings of the traffic study. 3.7 Kingston Road and Guild Road intersection is to be signalized Committee members and several residents questioned if the intersection of Kingston Road and Guild Road could be signalized, and outlined that if signalization of the intersection was not completed, it would result in significant congestion of vehicles on Guild Road trying to cross Kingston Road to travel westbound. The Region of Durham, together with Metrolinx, has undertaken the detailed planning and design for the Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project that will run the entire length of Kingston Road within Pickering. The BRT project will build upon previous improvements and services associated with the Regional PULSE transit services and will introduce rapid bus transit services between the Scarborough Town Centre and Downtown Oshawa. As a part of the works to implement the BRT, the Kingston Road right-of-way will be reconstructed initially to provide dedicated curb side bus and cycling lanes before ultimately integrating dedicated centre bus lanes, cycling track, improved pedestrian walkways, devoted turning lanes and signalization of intersections. - 45 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 16 As identified in Figure 3 below, the portion of Kingston Road adjacent to the subject lands and the intersection of Kingston Road and Guild Road is intended to be reconstructed as a part of the BRT project. As a part of the reconstruction, the intersection will be fully signalized and will introduce dedicated turning lanes from Kingston Road and pedestrian cross-walks. Figure 3: Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit Design The planned reconstruction of the Kingston Road and Guild Road intersection is estimated to take place in 2023 and 2024, and will provide for full signalized vehicle movements in all directions. The signalization will ensure that vehicle movement from Guild Road onto Kingston Road will not be significantly delayed or result in major queuing along Guild Road. It will also provide for safe pedestrian movements through the intersection. 3.8 The proposed parking ratios will provide for sufficient resident and visitor parking on-site Many area residents expressed concern that the proposed parking ratios would result in insufficient parking on-site and would result in vehicles parking along Guild Road. The proposal provides for a total of 278 residential parking spaces and 52 visitor parking spaces, which represents a minimum parking ratio of 0.8 spaces per dwelling unit and an additional 0.15 of a space per dwelling unit for visitors. - 46 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 17 The subject lands are located immediately adjacent to the easterly limit of the City Centre and are within 2.2 kilometres of the GO Train Station (30-minute walk). The lands are located on Kingston Road, a Regional Transit Spine, which is currently serviced by Durham Region Transit bus services. To support the proposed parking ratios, the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study and Planning Rationale. The submitted information identified that the proposed reduction in residential parking is appropriate, for the following reasons: • the proposed parking ratios are consistent with the existing parking ratios for apartment units within the approved City Centre By-law 7553/17; • the proposed development is located close to a major transit station (Pickering GO Station) and is located along a Regional Rapid Transit Spine (Kingston Road); • the proposed development is located within proximity to high-frequency transit services, with Durham Region Transit (DRT) currently operating along Kingston Road and providing direct access to the GO Train Station; • a transit stop, located directly in front of the subject lands, provides direct access to high-frequency (DRT PULSE) bus services running from Scarborough to Oshawa at a frequency of 10 minutes or better during the weekday daytime peak, 15 minutes during the Saturday peak hours, and 30 minutes during the Sunday peak hours; • the proposed development will provide pedestrian and cycling connections to existing and proposed public sidewalks and dedicated cycling tracks on both sides of Kingston Road; and • the implementation of sustainable Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce overall reliance on single-occupancy vehicles while promoting more active modes of transportation, by: • providing 188 dedicated bike parking spaces (134 internal spaces and 44 surface spaces); • advertising the different modes of transportation available prospective residents (i.e., GO Transit, indoor bicycle lockers); and, • allowing Durham Region and/or the City to provide informative materials to the applicant to be distributed to future residents regarding available pedestrian trails, cycling, and transit facilities and carpool options. Staff are supportive of the proposed residential parking ratios based on the proximity of the development to the City Centre, current and planned public transit services available along Kingston Road and the proposed TDM strategies and initiatives. 3.9 Parkland Dedication will be conveyed through the site plan approval process The applicant is proposing to convey a total of 0.9 hectares of land (Block 2 and Lot 1) to the City for use as a public park to satisfy parkland dedication requirements. Block 2 is located within the Hydro Corridor and is subject to an easement in favour of Hydro One. Lot 1 is a vacant residential parcel having frontage along Guild Road that is not encumbered by any Hydro One easements. - 47 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 18 The applicant and City staff have had preliminary discussions with Hydro One regarding the opportunity to use the lands within the hydro corridor for public park purposes. Hydro One was generally supportive of leasing their lands within the hydro corridor to the City provided that the uses within the hydro corridor met their requirements. The applicant has provided a conceptual park design plan illustrating how the lands within the entire hydro corridor between Finch Avenue and Kingston Road could be used for recreation purposes (see Conceptual Park Design Plan, Attachment #8). Some potential recreational uses located within the hydro corridor could include soccer fields, a basketball court, a skateboard park, community gardens, trails and vehicular parking areas with access from Kingston Road and Finch Avenue. Staff have undertaken an analysis of the usability of the proposed lands intended to be conveyed for parkland purposes and have determined that the proposed parkland will only be of value to the City, if the adjacent lands within the Hydro Corridor, managed by Hydro One, could also be leased and utilized as parkland and recreation space. In the absence of the adjacent Hydro lands, the proposed parkland conveyance is not of sufficient size for recreational purposes and does not have adequate vehicle access, parking or frontage onto a public right-of-way, making it undesirable for the use of a public recreational area. Should Hydro One not permit the City to lease the lands within the corridor or the City is unable to achieve the necessary passive and active recreational uses within the corridor or the proposed park block (Block 2 and Lot 1), the applicant will be required to satisfy the City’s parkland dedication through cash-in-lieu contribution requirements as set out in the City’s Parkland Dedication By-law 7341/14. The proposed zoning by-law (see Appendix II) will be subject to a holding symbol, which will prevent the use of the lands for residential purposes until such time the applicant and the City have made satisfactory arrangements regarding the parkland dedication. The holding symbol will be removed by City Council at such time that the City secures a lease agreement with Hydro One for the use of lands within the Hydro Corridor for public recreation purposes and the applicant, by way of a Site Plan Agreement, agrees to convey to the City, Block 2 and Lot 1, or satisfy parkland dedication through cash-in-lieu contribution requirements as set out in the City’s Parkland Dedication By-law 7341/14. 3.10 Requested holding symbol to ensure adequate sanitary servicing capacity The Region of Durham has requested that a holding symbol be imposed on the subject site, through the zoning by-law amendment, to ensure there is sufficient sanitary servicing capacity to provide for the full development of all 346 residential units that are being proposed. The Region will require the applicant to demonstrate through a future site servicing agreement that there is sufficient sanitary servicing capacity to enable the full development of the site. - 48 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 19 As part of the Site Plan Approval process, the applicant will be required to submit detailed engineering drawings, including a site servicing plan, that demonstrate how the proposed development is intended to be serviced and that the existing services have sufficient capacity to support the proposal. As part of the review, the Region will review and approve the proposed servicing and will enter into the necessary agreements with the applicant. The proposed zoning by-law (see Appendix II) will be subject to a holding symbol, which will prevent the use of the lands for residential purposes until such time the applicant has satisfied all the requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham with respect to the provision of sewer and water services, Regional roads, and entered into any necessary agreements. 3.11 Response to Additional Key Concerns The table below summarizes the key concerns raised to date and staff’s response. Concerns Staff’s Response Site access should be solely from Kingston Road Vehicular access from the subject lands to Kingston Road is not supported by the Region of Durham Kingston Road is designated as a Type ‘B’ Arterial Road and a Rapid Transit Spine in the Durham Regional Official Plan and is designated a controlled access under Regional By-law #211-79. By-law #211-79 outlines that any entrance on a Regional Road requires a permit from the Commissioner of Works to obtain access. In considering granting such access, the Commissioner must have regard for the policies of the Regional Official Plan, entranceway policies and other technical criteria. Under the policies of the Regional Official Plan, protecting for safe and efficient transit operations is required along Arterial Roads and Transit Spines. Site access along an Arterial Road is also subject to the Regional Council-approved entranceway policies, which specify that access control is of principal importance in ensuring that arterial roads will continue to operate safely and efficiently and have a high traffic movement capability in future years. Therefore direct access onto all Regional Roads will be discouraged when an alternate means of access is available. Based on the foregoing, the Region of Durham has confirmed that access to the subject lands will not be permitted from Kingston Road, given the site can be accessed from Guild Road, a non-arterial road. - 49 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 20 Concerns Staff’s Response Negative construction impact, including noise, dust and vehicles A Construction Management Plan will outline mitigation measures to minimize negative construction impacts Before the construction of any buildings, the applicant will be required to apply for Site Plan Approval. As a part of the detailed site plan application submission, the applicant will need to 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, and sediment fencing. As part of the Site Plan Approval process, the applicant will be required to enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the City. A condition of the Site Plan 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. Loss of retail space on the subject lands Sufficient retail space is available within the immediate area to service the need of the neighbourhood The subject lands have been vacant since 2018 and have not been utilized as a retail or commercial site since that time. Before the demolition of the existing commercial structure, which was originally constructed in 1967, the subject lands were in a substantial state of disrepair and dilapidation, and did not provide quality retail space. The subject lands are located within proximity to several retail plazas that provide for sufficient retail and commercial space to accommodate current and future residents. Within a 3 minute walk (200 metres) to the east or the west are two commercial plazas that support a variety of restaurant, banking, retail and personal service uses. Additionally, the Smart Centre Specialty Retailing Node is located within an 8-minute walk (650 metres) and provides diverse retail opportunities. Also, an additional residential population will support local businesses in this area. Headlights from existing vehicles will have a negative impact on residential properties east of the proposed site access The location of the proposed driveway access from Guild Road will not result in a negative impact on adjacent residential properties The proposed access to the subject site from the west side of Guild Road will be located approximately 26.0 metres from the north property line. The proposed access will be located across from the auto repair shop, which is south of the nearest detached dwelling. Therefore, headlights from vehicles exiting the site will be directed towards the vehicle repair shop and will not impact the existing dwellings on the east side of Guild Road. - 50 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 21 Concerns Staff’s Response Negative impact on private property values Negative impact on residential private property values as a result of the proposal is unlikely Property value is influenced by several factors such as location, proximity to services and amenities, local economics, home improvements and condition, home and property size, and dwelling style. Impact on property value is not a consideration under the Planning Act in the review of development applications. However, appropriate development that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood can positively contribute to property values in the immediate area and the community as a whole. 3.12 Technical matters will be addressed 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; • parkland dedication or 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; and • location of water meter room, hydro transformers, gas meters and other utilities. 3.13 Conclusion Staff support the site-specific Official Plan Amendment to re-designate the lands municipally known as 1964 Guild Road from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors”, and to permit as an exception, a site-specific increase to the maximum permissible density and maximum permissible floor space index for the portion of the lands within the Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridor designation establishing a maximum residential density of 350 units per net hectare and maximum floor space index of 2.53 (see Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 43, Appendix I). Staff recommends that the By-law to adopt Amendment 43 be forwarded to Council for enactment. Staff supports the Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 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. - 51 - Report PLN 24-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Highmark (Pickering) Inc. (OPA 18-005/P & A 11/18) Page 22 3.14 Applicant’s Comments The applicant supports the recommendations of this report. Appendices Appendix I Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 43 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix II Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 Attachments 1.Location Map 2.Air Photo Map 3.Original Conceptual Site Plan (2018) 4.Second Submission Conceptual Site Plan (2020) 5.Second Submission Conceptual Elevation Plan (2020) 6.Current Conceptual Site Plan (2021) 7.Development Key Details Summary 8.Conceptual Park Design Plan Prepared By: Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO CM:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 52 - Appendix I to Report PLN 24-21 Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 43 to the Pickering Official Plan - 53 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/21 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 43 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 18-005/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 43 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 43 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, 2021. __________________________ David Ryan, Mayor __________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft Draft Draft - 54 - Exhibit “A” to By-law XXXX/21 Recommended Amendment 43 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 55 - Recommended Amendment 43 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to re-designate a portion of land located on the west side of Guild Road, municipally known as 1964 Guild Road from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors”, and to permit as an exception, a site specific increase to the maximum permissible density and maximum permissible floor space index for the portion of the lands within the “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridor” designation establishing a maximum residential density of 350 units per net hectare and maximum floorspace index of 2.53, for lands located on the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road. Location: The site specific amendment affects the lands located on the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road, described as Lots 1 and 2, Plan 316 and Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, City of Pickering. Basis: Through the review of Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-005/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18, City Council determined that the Amendment facilitates a development that is compatible with the surrounding community, minimizes adverse impacts on the existing low density neighbourhood to the north and is an appropriate intensification project in Pickering’s urban area. The subject lands are located on Kingston Road, which is designated as an arterial road and a Rapid Transit Spine under the Durham Regional Official Plan, which are intended to provide for higher density development. 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 – Medium Density Areas” designation with “Mixed Use Area – Mixed Corridors” designation for lands located on the west side of Guild Road, municipally known as 1964 Guild Road, as illustrated on Schedule ‘A’ attached to this amendment. 2. Revising Policy 12.11 – Village East Neighbourhood Policies, by adding a new subsection 12.11(h): (h) despite Table 6 of Chapter 3, establish a maximum residential density of 350 units per net hectare and maximum floor space index of 2.53 for lands located on the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Guild Road, described as Lots 1 and 2, Plan 316 and Part of Lot 20, Concession 1. 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. 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 18-005/P A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. - 56 - D e nmarRo a d Kingston Road Jaywin Circle Royal RoadGuildRoadªª1 ¹ Freeways and Major UtilitiesMixed Corridors City Centre Potential Multi Use Areas City of PickeringCity Development Department© March, 2021This 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 PlanCityofPickering AreaShownonThis Map TownofAjax City of TorontoCity of MarkhamTownship of Uxbridge Town of WhitbySchedule 'A' to Amendment 43Existing Official Plan Land Use Structure Urban Residential Areas Mixed Use Areas!Redesignate from "Urban Residential Areas - Medium Density Areas" to "Mixed Use Areas - Mixed Corridors" Medium Density Areas - 57 - Appendix II to Report PLN 24-21 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment A 11/18 - 58 - Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/18 That the implementing zoning by-law permit a residential condominium development in accordance with the following provisions: A. Zoning Provisions for Residential Development Permitted Uses 1. Permitted uses include: Apartment Building. Building Restrictions 2. All buildings and structures shall be located entirely within a building envelope with a minimum setback of 3.0 metres from the building to the Kingston Road and Guild Road property line; minimum setback of 40.0 metres from the building to the north property line; and minimum setback of 10.0 metres from the west property line. 3. Minimum build-to-zone of 5.0 metres along Kingston Road and Guild Road. 4. No building or portion of a building or structure shall be erected within the building envelope, unless a minimum of 60 percent of the entire length of the build-to-zone is occupied by a continuous portion of the exterior wall of a building. 5. Minimum separation between towers: 22.0 metres. 6. Maximum number of dwellings units: 346 7. Maximum building height of 12-storeys for Building A and a maximum building height of 16-storeys for Building B, as identified on the submitted conceptual plan. 8. Notwithstanding above, building height shall be limited by a 45-degree angular plane measured 7.5 metres from the property line of adjacent detached, semi-detached and street townhouse dwellings at a height of 10.5 metres above grade. Parking Requirements 9. Minimum 0.8 parking spaces per dwelling unit to be provided within an underground garage plus 0.15 of a parking space per dwelling unit for visitors to be provided in an underground garage or surface parking area or a combination of the two. 10. No parking lot or parking space shall be permitted within 11.0 metres of the north property line. 11. Minimum 0.5 bicycle parking spaces per dwelling unit; where a minimum of 25 percent of the total required must be located within: i. a building or structure; ii. a secure area such as a supervised parking lot or enclosure; or iii. bicycle lockers. 12. The minimum right-of-way width for a private street shall be 3.8 metres for one-way traffic and 6.5 metres for two-way traffic. - 59 - Landscape Area and Private Residential Amenity Area 13.Minimum landscape area requirement: 33 percent 14.Private outdoor amenity area: a.Minimum Area – 2.0 square metres per unit 15.Minimum balcony depth: 1.5 metres 16.Common amenity: a.Minimum 1,000 square metres at grade outdoor amenity area; b.Minimum 500 square metres indoor; and c.Minimum 250 square metre rooftop amenity area. 17.Minimum landscape buffer width along the north lot line: 11.0 metresHolding (H) Provisions 1.No buildings or structures shall be permitted to be erected, until at such time as: a.the City secures a lease agreement with Hydro One for the use of lands within the Hydro Corridor for public recreation purposes and the owner, by way of a Site Plan Agreement, agrees to convey to the City, Block 2 and Lot 1 to the City, or satisfies parkland dedication through cash-in-lieu contribution requirements as set out in the City’s Parkland Dedication By-law 7341/14; and b.the owner has satisfied all the requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham with respect to the provision of sewer and water services, Regional roads, and entered into any necessary agreements in this regard. - 60 - Valley Farm RoadFinch Avenue Kingston Road P ic k ering Park wayDenmarRoad Geta CircleAvonmoreSquare BrockRoadRoyalRoadGuild RoadJ a y w inC ircleAlwin Circle Diana PrincessOf Wales Park Denmar Park BrockridgeCommunityPark 1:5,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: OPA 18-005/P and A 11/18 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jul. 20, 2020 Highmark (Pickering) Inc.Lots 1, 2 & 43 & 46, Plan 316 & Part of Lot 20, Con. 1(1640 Kingston Rd, 1964 Guild Rd, and 1970 Guild Rd) L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018\OPA 18-005P & A11-18 Highmark Homes\OPA 18-005P_A11-18_LocationMap.mxd SubjectLands 1970 Guild Road 1964 Guild Road 1640 Kingston Road Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 24-21 - 61 - Valley Farm RoadFinch Avenue Kingston Road P ic k er ing Park wayDenmarRoad Geta Circle A v o n m o re S q u a re BrockRoadRoyal RoadGuild RoadJ a y w inC ircleAlwin Circle 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:Applicant:Property Description: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jul. 20, 2020 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018\OPA 18-005P & A11-18 Highmark Homes\OPA 18-005P_A11-18_AirPhoto.mxd OPA 18-005/P and A 11/18Highmark (Pickering) Inc.Lots 1, 2 & 43 & 46, Plan 316 & Part of Lot 20, Con. 1(1640 Kingston Rd, 1964 Guild Rd, and 1970 Guild Rd) Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 24-21 - 62 - Original Conceptual Site Plan (2018) City Development Department Jul 20, 2020FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. OPA 18-005/P and A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: Lots 1, 2 & 43 & 46, Plan 316 & Part of Lot 20, Con. 1 (1640 Kingston Rd, 1964 Guild Rd, and 1970 Guild Rd) L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018 Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 24-21 - 63 - Second Submission Conceptual Site Plan (2020) City Development Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. OPA 18-005/P and A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018 Lands proposed to be conveyed to the City for Parkland Dedication (1640 Kingston Rd, 1964 Guild Rd, and 1970 Guild Rd) Lots 1, 2 & 43 & 46, Plan 316 & Part of Lot 20, Con. 1 Jul 20, 2020 Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 24-21 - 64 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018 Jul 20, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Second Submission Conceptual Elevation Plan (2020) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 18-005/P and A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. Lots 1, 2 & 43 & 46, Plan 316 & Part of Lot 20, Con. 1 (1640 Kingston Rd, 1964 Guild Rd, and 1970 Guild Rd) Attachment #5 to Report #PLN 24-21 - 65 - Current Conceptual Site Plan (2021) City Development Department March 31, 2021FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. OPA 18-005/P and A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: Lots 1, 2 & 43 & 46, Plan 316 & Part of Lot 20, Con. 1 (1640 Kingston Rd, 1964 Guild Rd, and 1970 Guild Rd) L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018 Lands proposed to be conveyed to the City for Parkland Dedication Attachment #6 to Report #PLN 24-21 - 66 - Development Key Details Summary Attachment #7 to Report #PLN 24-21 Original Proposal Revised Proposal Revised Proposal Total Residential Gross Floor Area Buildings A and B – 18,370 square metres (Apartments) Buildings C, D and E – 4,970 square metres (back-to-back townhouses) Buildings A and B – 25,936 square metres (Apartments) Back-to-back townhouses were eliminated Buildings A and B – 25,936 square metres (Apartments) Total Commercial Gross Floor Area N/A Day Care Facility – 566 square metres Day Care Facility has been eliminated Total Number of Units 300 units (236 apartment units and 64 back-to-back stacked townhouse units) 346 apartment units 346 apartment units Density 304 units per net hectare 349 units per net hectare 349 units per net hectare Floor Space Index 2.34 2.68 2.53 Number of Storeys Building A – Maximum 12-storeys Building B – Maximum 8-storeys Buildings C, D, and E – Maximum 3.5-storeys Building A – Maximum 14-storeys Building B – Maximum 18-storeys Building A – Maximum 12-storeys Building B – Maximum 16-storeys Unit Types One-bedroom & One-bedroom with den: 159 Two-bedroom & Two-bedroom with den: 141 One-bedroom & One-bedroom with den: 233 Two-bedroom & Two-bedroom with den: 113 One-bedroom & One-bedroom with den: 233 Two-bedroom & Two-bedroom with den: 113 Three-bedroom: 14 - 67 - Development Key Details Summary Attachment #7 to Report #PLN 24-21 Original Proposal Revised Proposal Revised Proposal Vehicular Parking Ratio Apartment Unit: 0.8 space per unit Stacked Townhouse Unit: 1.25 space per unit Visitor: 0.15 space per unit Apartment Unit: 0.8 space per unit Visitor: 0.15 space per unit Daycare: 1 space per employee plus 3 spaces and 1 space per classroom Apartment Unit: 0.8 space per unit Visitor: 0.15 space per unit Vehicular Parking Resident – 283 spaces Visitor – 45 spaces Resident – 278 spaces Visitor – 52 spaces Day-Care – 27 spaces Resident – 278 spaces Visitor – 52 spaces Bicycle Parking Internal – 140 spaces Surface – 46 spaces Internal – 131 spaces Surface – 44 spaces Internal – 134 spaces Surface – 44 spaces Amenity Area Indoor – 495 square metres Outdoor – 260 square metres (rooftop outdoor amenity) and 197 square metres as a central outdoor landscaped amenity area Total – 952 square metres Residential Indoor – 707 square metres Residential Outdoor – 472 square metres (rooftop outdoor amenity) and 173 square metres as a central outdoor landscaped amenity area Total – 1,352 square metres Residential Indoor – 564 square metres Residential Outdoor – 257 square metres (rooftop outdoor amenity) and 1,113.3 square metres as a central outdoor landscaped amenity area Total – 1,370 square metres - 68 - Conceptual Park Design Plan City Development Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. OPA 18-005/P and A 11/18 Highmark (Pickering) Inc.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2018 (1640 Kingston Rd, 1964 Guild Rd, and 1970 Guild Rd) Lots 1, 2 & 43 & 46, Plan 316 & Part of Lot 20, Con. 1 April 9, 2021 N Attachment #8 to Report #PLN 24-21 - 69 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 26-21 Date: May 3, 2021 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Additions to Municipal Heritage Register 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue and 882-886 Kingston Road Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 26-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, regarding the listing of 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue and 882-886 Kingston Road on the Municipal Heritage Register be received; 2. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated November 25, 2020, to list 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue, and 882-886 Kingston Road on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register, under Section 27, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 3. That Council authorize staff to pursue designating 882-886 Kingston Road (St. Paul’s-on-the-Hill Anglican Church) under Section 29, Part IV, of the Ontario Heritage Act; and 4. That staff be directed to take necessary actions to include the properties on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. Executive Summary: This report recommends that Council list the properties municipally known as 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue and 882-886 Kingston Road, under Section 27, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and pursue designation of the latter property under Section 29, Part IV of the Act. In June 2019, City Development staff consulted the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee on the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan and advised that there were 5 properties within the study areas along Kingston Road that had been identified in the cultural heritage portion of the study. Four of the properties were not protected under the Ontario Heritage Act, but were not under immediate threat of demolition. The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee recommended that staff research the properties for potential cultural heritage value and possible inclusion on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. Branch Architecture was retained by the City to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report. The report found that the 4 properties met Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. - 70 - Report PLN 26-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Additions to Municipal Heritage Register Page 2 On November 25, 2020, Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee passed a motion that Council list the properties under the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff concur with the recommendations of Heritage Pickering and notified the Committee that staff would bring the recommendation for Council consideration in 2021. On March 1, 2021, Council listed 301 Kingston Road on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. The property was brought forward due to the threat of demolition earlier this year. Financial Implications: Not Applicable. Background: In October 2017, City Council directed staff to undertake an Intensification Study for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node. The study was undertaken over a period of approximately 2 years through a highly collaborative process involving City staff, public agencies, key stakeholders and members of the public, and concluded on December 16, 2019. City Council endorsed, in principle, the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan, and draft Urban Design Guidelines. In June 2019, City Development staff consulted with the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee on the Intensification Plan, advising that there were 5 properties within the study area along Kingston Road that had been identified in the cultural heritage portion of the study: •1970 Brock Road (Post Manor, Designated under the Ontario Heritage Act); •301 Kingston Road (Commercial building); •882-886 Kingston Road (St. Paul’s-on-the-Hill Anglican Church); •401 Kingston Road (Montessori School); and •1 Evelyn Avenue (Law Office). Other than 1970 Brock Road, none of the 4 remaining properties were protected under the Ontario Heritage Act, but are identified in the City of Pickering Inventory of Historic Resources. At the time, Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee recommended that staff study the 4 properties for potential inclusion on the Municipal Heritage Register. The City’s Heritage Consultant recommended listing properties on the Municipal Heritage Register The City of Pickering retained Branch Architecture to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation report, which was completed in November 2020 (see Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Attachment #4). This report was prepared in accordance with Ontario Regulation 9/06 – Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, the Ontario Heritage Act, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, as well as other charters and guidelines that demonstrate heritage best practice. - 71 - Report PLN 26-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Additions to Municipal Heritage Register Page 3 Branch Architecture recommended that 301 Kingston Road, 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue be listed under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that designation be pursued for 882-886 Kingston Road (St. Paul’s-on-the-Hill Anglican Church). The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee recommended listing of the 4 properties on the Municipal Heritage Register At the November 25, 2020, Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting, a motion was passed recommending Council's approval to list the properties, including 301 Kingston Road, 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue, and 882-886 Kingston Road under Section 27, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (see Minutes of the November 25, 2020 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting, Attachment #5,). 301 Kingston Road is now Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register This property is located at the intersection of Altona Road and Kingston Road, on the south side of Kingston Road, within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. In February 2021, the property owner of 301 Kingston Road made staff aware of their intentions to demolish the 2-storey building. To protect the existing heritage structure from being prematurely demolished, Council passed a resolution (Resolution #536/21) on March 1, 2021, to include 301 Kingston Road on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. 401 Kingston Road – Montessori Learning Centre This property is located on the south side of Kingston Road, east of Rougemount Drive (see Location Map, 401 Kingston Road, Attachment #1). It currently contains a one-and-a-half-storey dwelling converted to a day care and 2 other contemporary buildings used for the Montessori. Source: City of Pickering, 2020 - 72 - Report PLN 26-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Additions to Municipal Heritage Register Page 4 Staff visited the site with Branch Architecture on March 2, 2020. The building is a representative example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. It is a one-and-a-half-storey wood frame building with a brick veneer and gable roof. The fieldstone treatment on the exterior walls is a unique quality of the building, where the fieldstone extends up from the foundation to the top of the windowsill, and the remainder of the exterior walls are clad in an extruded red brick. The windows are wood with a mix of fixed and single-hung sash types. There is a single red brick chimney on the west wall. The interior layout is largely intact, displaying a traditional 3-bedroom house with original wood trim, baseboards, window and door casings, doors, windows, wood floors on the first floor, stairs and fireplace mantle. The building reflects the pattern of early 20th century residential development along Kingston Road in Pickering. The property meets the Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, under the categories of design and contextual value. For these reasons, the property is worthy of listing under Section 27, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act for its cultural heritage value. 882-886 Kingston Road – St. Paul’s On-the-Hill Anglican Church This property is located between Kingston Road and Sheppard Avenue, west of Fairport Road (see Location Map, 882-886 Kingston Road, Attachment #2). It currently contains the church, a daycare within the church and a separate two storey building used as the rectory. Source: Branch Architecture, 2020 Staff visited the site with Branch Architecture on March 2, 2020. The church is a representative example of a masonry Gothic-style church in Ontario and is associated with Toronto architect Leo Hunt Stanford. The use of masonry salvaged from the former Church of Ascension in Toronto is a unique aspect of its construction. The church is historically linked to Pickering’s Anglican community and the development of the Dunbarton Community. Its sitting atop the hill at Kingston and Fairport Roads makes it a visual landmark along Kingston Road. - 73 - Report PLN 26-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Additions to Municipal Heritage Register Page 5 The property meets the Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, under the categories of design value, historical or associative value, and contextual value. For these reasons, the property is worthy of listing under Section 27, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act for its cultural heritage value. The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee also recommended that staff pursue the designation of the building under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. In preliminary talks with officials from St. Paul’s-on-the-Hill in 2020, they advised staff that they had no interest in formal heritage protection. However, staff will continue to discuss the possibility of a future designation with the Church. 1 Evelyn Avenue – Law Office This property is located on the southeast corner of Kingston Road and Evelyn Avenue, west of Fairport Road (see Location Map, 1 Evelyn Avenue, Attachment #3). It currently contains a 2-storey building and outbuilding, connected by a 1-storey addition. Source: Branch Architecture, 2020 The building is an example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. The former dwelling (now a law office) has a mix of brick and multi-colour fieldstone cladding. The main body of the wall is fieldstone with brick quoins and a brick quoin treatment at the window and door jams (brick design surrounding these elements). The windows on the first storey appear to be wood and are a mix of single and double-hung sash types. The building reflects early 20th century residential development in Pickering. The property meets the Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, under the categories of design and contextual value. For these reasons, the property is worthy of listing under Section 27, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act for its cultural heritage value. - 74 - Report PLN 26-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Additions to Municipal Heritage Register Page 6 Consultation with property owners Property owners were made aware during the study, and staff was granted access to all sites except for 1 Evelyn Avenue. In April 2021, staff advised the property owners of this upcoming report to the Planning & Development Committee. Additionally, a letter was sent in the mail to the property owners and with instructions on how to delegate at the meeting. Conclusion If a property is listed under Section 27, this means that before removal or demolition, the owner must give Council 60 days notice in writing. This allows time for staff to request additional required information from the owner, such as additional studies or information, to consult with the Heritage Committee and to report back to Council. Council may then decide to either allow the demolition or designate the property under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Unlike a designated property, an owner of a listed property does not require a Heritage Permit for most alterations. Staff concur with the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee and recommend that Council list 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue, and 882-886 Kingston Road on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register under Section 27, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and pursue designation of the latter property under Section 29, Part IV of the Act. Attachments: 1. Location Map, 401 Kingston Road 2. Location Map, 882-886 Kingston Road 3. Location Map, 1 Evelyn Avenue 4. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report prepared by Branch Architecture, November 2020 5. Minutes of the November 25, 2020 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee meeting - 75 - Report PLN 26-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Additions to Municipal Heritage Register Page 7 Prepared By: Elizabeth Martelluzzi Planner II, Heritage Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO EM:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 76 - RougemountDriveToynevale Road Evelyn AvenueChantilly RoadDahlia CrescentOakwood DriveFrontier Court LyttonCourtD a l e w o o d D r i v e Old Forest Road Highway 401 Rouge Hill Court Kingston Road EastWoodlandsParkSouthPetticoatRavine 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:Property Description:A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯EPt Lt 19, Plan 230, Now Pt 1, 40R-16160 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\401KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (401 Kingston Road) Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 26-21 - 77 - West Shor eBoulevardKingston RoadShadybrookDriveEdgewood RoadGo l d e n ri dgeRoadFairport RoadDunbartonRoad Kates Lane SpruceHill Road Sheppard Avenue Rushton Road MerrittonRoadAda CourtBayly StreetHighway401 VistulaRavine 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:Property Description:A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯EPt Lot 27, B.F.C. Range 3 and Pt 1-4, 40R-2628 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\882-886KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd and Pt 1-3, 40R-15853 (882-886 Kingston Road) Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 26-21 - 78 - Rougemount Drive H ighw ay401Evelyn AvenueToynevale Road Dalewood Drive K in gstonR oadChantilly RoadRosebank RoadFrontier Court Granite Court Rouge Hill Court Old Forest Road EastWoodlandsPark SouthPetticoatRavine 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:Property Description:A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯EPt Lot 10, Plan 230, Now Pt, 1 40R-12418 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\1EvelynAve_LocationMap.mxd (1 Evelyn Avenue) Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 26-21 - 79 - Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 26-21 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT KINGSTON ROAD STUDY Pickering, Ontario November 1, 2020 - 80 - Cover Image: 301 Kingston Road, 2019. (Branch Architecture, BA) PREPARED FOR: Elizabeth Martelluzzi, Planner II, Heritage City Development Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 E: emartelluzzi@pickering.ca PREPARED BY: Branch Architecture 2335 County Road 10 Picton, ON K0K 2T0 T: (613) 827-5806 Issued: 2020.06.16 DRAFT 2020.11.01 R1 - 81 - i Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Project Framework & Background 1.2 Property Addresses and Lot Descriptions 2 Land Grants 2 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Historical Maps 3 1 Evelyn Avenue 7 3.1 Property Description 3.2 Background Research 3.3 Building Description & Site Photos 3.4 Evaluation 4 301 Kingston Road 16 4.1 Property Description 4.2 Background Research 4.3 Building Description & Site Photos 4.4 Evaluation 5 401 Kingston Road 26 5.1 Property Description 5.2 Background Research 5.3 Building Description 5.4 Evaluation 6 882 & 886 Kingston Road 37 6.1 Property Description 6.2 Background Research 6.3 Building Description & Site Photos 6.4 Evaluation 7 Discussion 59 Appendix 1: Sources Appendix 2: Summary of Land Records - 82 - ii KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 1. Approximate location of subject properties. (Bing maps annotated by BA) 1 Evelyn Avenue 882 Kingston Road 401 Kingston Road 301 Kingston Road PROJECTNORTH - 83 - 1 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Framework & Background Branch Architecture was retained by the City of Pickering as a heritage consultant to assess the potential cultural heritage value of four properties of heritage significance identified in the Kingston Road Corridor and Speciality Retailing Node Draft Intensification Plan. These properties are: 1 Evelyn Avenue; 301 Kingston Road; 401 Kingston Road; and, 882 Kingston Road. The scope of this cultural heritage evaluation includes the following: 1. Undertake a site visit to each property, including a walk around the subject building. 2. Conduct preliminary background research on the history of the properties and their immediate setting. 3. Undertake general photographic documentation of the property and surroundings. 4. Prepare a Preliminary Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report including the following for each property: • A written description of the property and building(s); • General photographs of each property and buildings; and, • Preliminary heritage evaluation based on Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Branch Architecture undertook on site visits to 401 and 882 Kingston Road on March 2, 2020, and to 301 Kingston Road on October 19, 2020. The visits consisted of walking around each property and the immediate context, and completing a visual review of the building exterior and interior (where access was permitted). All the properties were reviewed from the street in December of 2019. Branch Architecture prepared this Cultural Heritage Evaluation in accordance with Ontario Regulation 9/06 - Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, the Ontario Heritage Act, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada as well as other charters and guidelines that exemplify heritage best practice. 1.2 Property Addresses and Lot Descriptions • 1 Evelyn Avenue - PLAN 230 PT LOT 10 NOW RP 40R12418 PART 1 • 301 Kingston Road - CON BF RANGE 3 PT LOT 32 • 401 Kingston Road - PLAN 230 PT LOT 19 NOW RP 40R16160 PART 1 • 882 & 886 Kingston Road - CON BF RANGE 3 PT LOT 27 AND RP 40R2628 PART 1 TO 4 AND RP 40R15853 PART 1,2,3 - 84 - 2 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 2 Land Grants 2.1 Introduction The Constitutional Act of 1791, known as the Canada Act, divided the Province of Quebec into Upper Canada to the west and Lower Canada to the east. As part of this Act, land grants in the newly surveyed townships were issued under the newly estab- lished provincial governments. In 1792, the responsibility of granting lands was del- egated to Lt. Governor Col. John Graves Simcoe. Simcoe followed British land granting tradition and, in effect, made members of his legislative council landed gentry. By the end of his term of office in 1796, he had placed one seventh of the surveyed townships in the hands of the Church of England (known as the Clergy Reserves) and provided well for his council and his civil servants. In the Pickering Township alone, of the 74,660 acres which the township contains, 18,800 were in the hands of five people; one of them the newly appointed Surveyor-General, two others, members of his family.1 Much of the Pickering Township was either granted to members of the military or allo- cated as additional land grants to absentee landholders. As such, there was little land left for new settlers purchasing land to establish a homestead here.2 Large areas of land, in particular the most desirable lands along the shoreline, remained wild well into the 1800s when the original landowners and the Church began selling off parcels to new settlers. The subject properties are located within Broken Front Concession 3 as shown on the 1877 County Atlas (opposite): • Con. 3 B.F., Lot 27 - 862 Kingston Road; • Con. 3 B.F., Lot 31 - 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road; and, • Con. 3 B.F., Lot 32 - 301 Kingston Road. All these lots are bisected by Kingston Road. Kingston Road was a military road, dating from 1800, that served as the primary route for pioneers travelling between York (Toronto) and the Bay of Quinte (Kingston). In 1796, an American engineer named Asa Danforth was awarded with the contract for the road - a road two rods wide and far enough from the shore to avoid enemy forces from observing troop movements. 1 The Pickering Story, p. 21. 2 The Crown provided Loyalists with 200 acres and military grants of up to 5,000 acres for free. Settlers paid the Crown for 200 acre parcels. - 85 - 3 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 2. The Ontario County Atlas, 1877. (The County Atlas Project, McGill University)Lot 32Lot 31Broken Front Con. 3 Broken Front Con. 2 Con. 1 Lot 33Lot 29Lot 28Lot 30Lot 26Lot 25Lot 27Lot 23Lot 241 Evelyn Avenue 882 Kingston Road 401 Kingston Road 301 Kingston Road PROJECTNORTH Kingston Rd Kingston Rd 2.2 Historical Maps - 86 - 4 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 3. Township of Pickering, County of Ontario Crown Lands Map No. 28, by Thomas Ridout, 1823 with later revisions. The clergy reserve lands are identified in blue. (Ontario Archives, OA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F. 4. Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario, Upper Canada by John Shier Esq. P.L.A. & County Engineer and published by Geo. C. Tremaine, 1860. (University of Toronto Map & Data Library) Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 87 - 5 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 5. The Ontario County Atlas, 1877. (The County Atlas Project, McGill University) 6. Map of the Township of Pickering by Chas E. Goad, 1895. (Pickering Archives, PA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 88 - 6 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 7. Gidual Landowners’ Map of Pickering, c. 1917. (PA) 8. Map of Pickering Township, Centennial Souvenir, 1967. (PA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 89 - 7 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3 1 Evelyn Avenue 9. 1 Evelyn Avenue, west elevation. (Google streetview)Rougemount Drive H ighw ay401Evelyn AvenueToynevale Road Dalewood Drive K in g stonR oadChantilly RoadRosebank RoadFrontier Court Granite Court Rouge Hill Court Old Forest Road EastWoodlandsPark SouthPetticoatRavine 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 Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯EPt Lot 10, Plan 230, Now Pt, 1 40R-12418 Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\1EvelynAve_LocationMap.mxd (1 Evelyn Avenue) 10. 1 Evelyn Avenue, location map. (City of Pickering) - 90 - 8 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 3.1 Property Description One Evelyn Avenue falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31. The parcel was created as part of the Morgan & Dixon’s Plan (Plan No. 230) dated July 6, 1922. 3.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 Concession 3 Broken Front Lot 31 originally formed part of the Clergy Reserves land allocation in Pickering.1 Seneca Palmer (1787-1873) received the patent for Lot 31 of the third broken front concession in Pickering in 1846.2 The Palmer family immigrated to Upper Canada from the United States around 1976 and settled in Scarborough in and around 1800. Seneca and his younger brothers John and Sherwood moved to the Township of Pickering to purchase land and establish their own farms. Seneca’s land petition of March 1819 describes him as follows: That your Petitioner was born in the United States of America, has resided in this province 23 years, is 27 years of age, is a son of James Palmer Senior an old settler in Scarborough, is married, and has never received any land from the Crown.3 Local historian John Sabean’s research of the Palmer Family suggests that Seneca Palmer farmed the land prior to gaining a land patent for Lot 31 in 1846. In a petition to purchase the property from the Crown, dated 21 February 1837, Palmer is described as ‘of the Township of Pickering’ and states that he has already cleared about 30 acres of the lot.4 1 The Crown Lands map (figure 3) notes Zephaniah Jones on this lot. According to Sabean’s article on the Palmer family, Jones leased this land from the Clergy Reserve from as early as 1823. Jones appears on Pickering Town Records as early as 1820. 2 Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory, 1846-1847, also lists Seneca Palmer on Lot 31, p. 62. 3 Upper Canada Land Petitions quoted in Sabean article. 4 The Palmer Family, p. 2. The Palmer Family “The early history of the Palmer fam- ily is sketchy and so far has been pieced together from what little documentation is available. The earliest references to the family date to 1802. Asa Danforth, reporting in that year on the condition of the Danforth Road, states that a settler named Palmer was located on the 10th mile post beyond York, which was probably Lot 23, Concession D in Scarborough. There is also a reference to a ‘Palmer’ family on a list of residents in the Township of Scarborough in 1802. The head of the family was James Palmer, Sr., who appears in the records of Scarborough on several occasions to about 1815. In 1803, he was appointed pound keeper and in 1804 overseer of highways. In 1815, a James Palmer, Sr. was noted in a York Militia List as being exempt from military draft. His family, as well as can be determined, consisted of his wife (name unknown), two daughters (one perhaps named Clara), and five sons (Seneca, John, and Sherwood who later moved to Pickering Town- ship, and James and Charles who remained in Scarborough).” - The Palmer Family: Settling in South Pickering by John W. Sabean - 91 - 9 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 By 1851, Seneca had established a 198 acre farm. There were 50 acres under cultivation including, 23 acres under crop (wheat, peas, oats, corn, potatoes, turnips and hay) and 15 acres under pasture. There was also an orchard or garden and livestock including cattle, horses, sheep, pigs. The remainder of the lot was wooded or ‘wild’.5 The 1851 census records show the Palmer family included Seneca, his wife Jane Jacques (1796-1875) and two chil- dren - George (age 19) and William (age 7). At that time the family was living in a one-storey brick house.6 7 Sabean’s article on the Palmer family describes the family residence as follows: ... one-and-a-half storey brick structure, is a fine example of the vernacular Regency-style cottage... As befitting the Regency style, the house is set in a picturesque landscape on a height of land over- looking the Petticoat.”8 9 George Palmer (1833-1891) remained on the family farm with his parents, while the other children left to start their own homesteads. Of note, two siblings had houses on adja- cent properties.10 11 After Seneca died of pneumonia on October 15, 1873, the properties in Pickering and Scarborough were willed to his wife Jane.12 Following her death in 1875, Lot 31 was divided between two of the sons: George received the north part of 120 acres, and James the south part of 80 acres. John and William acquired the Scarborough lands. 5 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: B; Roll: C_11742; Page: 275; Line: 9. 6 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: A; Roll: C_11742; Page: 171; Line: 42. 7 The 1851 census also notes Seneca’s older sons and their families under his listing: John, his wife Sarah, and daughter Mary; and, James, his wife Ellen as well as their children Jane and Seneen. Both families were living in 1 1/2 storey frame houses. 8 The Palmer Family, p. 2. 9 According to local papers, in 1998 the house was slated to be removed to allow for the construction of a new library. 10 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057. 11 Year: 1871; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C-9973; Page: 69; Family No: 243. 12 Death certificate, Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Collection: MS935; Reel: 5. 11. Seneca Palmer house, sketch (above) and in 1998 (be- low). (Pathways, Vol 2., No. 4) - 92 - 10 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER In 1882, George Kinlock purchased a 27 acre parcel along Kingston Road from George and Mary Palmer. Kinlock, a farmer, lived here with his mother (also named Mary).13 He died on July 19, 1915.14 The Pickering News remembered him under the Rosebank neighbourhood news column: Geo. Kinlock, an old resident, died at his resi- dence just north of here on Monday morning. The deceased, who was 68 years of age, was a bachelor and lived alone since the death of his mother some years ago. His funeral took place on Tuesday to St. Margaret’s cemetery, Scarboro.15 The executors of Kinlock’s will put the land up for sale the following August. Griffith B. Clarke purchased the 27 acre lot on June 26, 1919. The farm changed hands several times before Plan 230 - Morgan & Dixon’s Plan - was registered on March 13, 1922. It was named for the land owners Edwin Morgan and Mildred Dixon. The properties at 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road fall within this subdivision. Lot 10 - 1 Evelyn Avenue The property at 1 Evelyn Avenue was granted to Silas R. Dixon, Mildred’s spouse, in 1930. The property remained in the Dixon family ownership until 1943. In 1921 Mildred and Silas Dixon lived in Pickering with their children Evelyn, Alexander, Leonard, Ruby and Russel, though it is not confirmed if they resided here.16 The next property owners were John Horace and Dorothea Daniell-Jenkins. Heinz and Ilse Wolf bought the lot in 1980. In 1998 it was sold to Mike Lindo, and the following year it was transferred to a company named 1000683 Ontario Ltd. The building currently houses a law office. 13 Year: 1891; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario West, Ontario, Canada; Roll: T-6358; Family No: 134. 14 Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Collection: MS935; Reel: 211. 15 The Pickering News, Friday, July 23, 1915, Vol. XXXIV, p. 1. (PA). 16 Reference Number: RG 31; Folder Number: 75; Census Place: Pickering (Township), Ontario South, Ontario; Page Number: 1. 12. Property sale advert. (The Pickering News, August 27, 1915) - 93 - 11 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3.3 Building Description & Site Photos Branch Architecture completed a visual review of this prop- erty from the street in December of 2019. It was a prelim- inary review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. The residential form buildings (house and outbuilding) at 1 Evelyn Avenue are examples of early 20th century bungalow style architecture in Pickering. The bungalow style house gained popularity in American in the early 20th century. It was popularized in California where American designers drew inspiration from the British version of India’s banglas style of home (Bengali style). In Ontario, the bungalow style is almost exclusively residential as it was commonly found in house pattern catalogues. The typical bungalow is a one or one-and-a-half storey dwelling with a front porch or verandah and displaying rustic materials such as textured brick, fieldstone and/or stucco. The roof is either a broad, low-pitched roof with a wide front dormer or a medium pitch front gable style. The following description of the property is limited as views from the street are obscured by mature trees: • The house is a two-storey building with a masonry - a mix of brick and stone - cladding. The building has a rectilinear plan with a projecting bay at the north-east corner of the building. The second floor of the main house and the connection to the one-storey outbuilding to the south appear to be additions. • The front (west-facing) elevation displays an asymmet- rical organization. The front entrance door is located between window openings and beneath flat roof canopy resting on square masonry piers. 13. American bungalow style home, 1921. (Sears Roebuck) 14. Canadian bungalow style home, 1922. (The Halliday Co.) - 94 - 12 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER • The exterior walls are clad in a mix of brick and multi-colour fieldstone. The main body of the wall is fieldstone with brick quoins and a brick quoin treatment at the window and door jambs. The extruded red brick is laid in a running bond (suggesting a wood frame construction). • The window openings are rectangular with a concrete sill and an arched brick lintel. The windows are wood with a mix of fixed and single hung sash types. On the ground floor there several types: paired single-hung windows with shorter upper sash (with most divided vertically into three panes); and, single-hung windows (with a shorter upper sash divided vertically into three panes). At the second floor addition, the windows are aluminium or vinyl fixed windows. • The roof has a hipped profile set at a low pitch. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle and the rain gear is painted metal. There is a tall brick chimney at the north wall and a second at the addition. • The one-story outbuilding south of the house displays a similar construction. It is one- storey structure set into the hillside so as to display a two-storey elevation to the east. It is mixed masonry (to match the house) with a hipped roof. The symmetrical front facade facing Evelyn Avenue displays two doors flanking a pair of small sash windows. 15. 1 Evelyn Avenue property, aerial view looking west, Aug. 2020. (Google streetview) - 95 - 13 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 16. 1 Evelyn Avenue property as seen from the corner of Kingston Road and Evelyn Avenue, Aug. 2019. (Google streetview) 17. 1 Evelyn Avenue house (left) and outbuilding (right), west (front) elevation, Aug. 2019. (Google streetview) - 96 - 14 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 18. 1 Evelyn Avenue house, west (front) elevation, 2020. (City staff) - 97 - 15 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 1 Evelyn Avenue in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a represent- ative example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. The unique fieldstone treatment on the exterior walls is also found at 401 Kingston Road which was also contained within the Morgan and Dixon Plan. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; None found. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None found. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; None found. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; None found. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None found. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; Reflects the pattern of early 20th century residential de- velopment along Kingston Road in Pickering. iii. is a landmark.No. - 98 - 16 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 4 301 Kingston Road 19. 301 Kingston Road, north elevation, Dec. 2019. (BA)RougemountDriveFawndaleRoadValley Gate Altona RoadLekani CourtToynevale Road Winette RoadPine Ridge R oa d Rouge Hill Court D a l e w o o d D r i v e K ingston R o ad Brookridge Gate Highway 401 Lytton CourtRiverview Crescent1:4,000 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 Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯EPt Lot 32, B.F.C. Range 3 Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\301KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (301 Kingston Road) City of Toronto 20. 301 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 99 - 17 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 4.1 Property Description The subject property falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32. The parcel was likely created when the concession lot was subdivided in 1944. 4.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32 The patent for Lot 32 of the third broken front concession was granted to William Holmes in 1798. Holmes owned multiple parcels in the Township of Pickering; the lots were located between French Man’s Bay and the Rouge River, and found within Concession 1 and along the lake, lots 26 through 33. William Holmes received a patent for Lot 32 on May 22, 1798. William Holmes (1766- 1834) was a doctor and military surgeon in Upper Canada. From 1790 to 1791 he was stationed in Newark near Niagara-on-the-Lake. In 1792, with plans to settle in Upper Canada, he accepted a grant for 1,200 acres in Pickering Township and purchased addi- tional land. However, in 1796 his regiment was relocated to Lower Canada, and Holmes’ family re-settled in Quebec where he worked as a senior medial officer. He also established himself as in private medical practice working at both Hotel-Dieu and Hospital General. By the early 1800s, he and his family were living in Upper Town Quebec City. After the death of his first wife Mary Ann in 1803, he remarried Margaret Macnaider in 1807. He main- tained an active medical career including the following positions: President of the Quebec examiners (1813); member of the Vaccine Board (1817); Justice of the Peace (1821); and, Commissioner for the relief of the insane and foundlings (1816). In the 1820s, Holmes retired from practice, delegating his responsibilities to younger doctors and staff. 1 John Wesley purchased the 195 acre parcel at Con. 3 BF, Lot 32 from William Holmes on June 26, 1843.2 The 1861 census indicates that John Charles Wesley (1838-1920) was a farmer that was born in Toronto. According to the 1861 census, John was married to Elmira Wesley (1841-1884) and they were living in a two storey frame house. The other extended family members living in the house included Jane (18) and Fanny (17) Wesley.3 Wesley owned the property for several decades and registered multiple mortgages on the south part of the lot in the 1860s. Between 1868 and 1871 there was several instruments listed on the south part of the lot, though these records are largely illegible. 1 Dictionary of Canadian Biography, William Holmes. 2 “Sarah Wesley” is listed as the resident of this lot in Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Direc- tory, 1846-1847, p. 65. Her relationship to John is not known. 3 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057. - 100 - 18 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER In 1874, the part of the lot south of Kingston Road was purchased by Richard Rodd (1837- 1900); Rodd is also recorded on the 1877 Atlas Map. Richard, his wife Susan (1834-1899) and their eight children lived in Pickering in 1881.4 Richard was a farmer and the family immigrated from England. They lived in Whitby before buying the farm in Pickering.5 Robert and Naomi Moody purchased the lot in either 1881 or 1891.6 They sold the prop- erty south of Kingston Road to George Edward Toyne (1886-1943) on March 18, 1902 for $8,000. After George’s death in 1943, George’s wife Helen sold the one acre lot on the south side of Kingston Road to John and Alcone Alderice. The lot was sold to Manfred Pfeiffer and Delmar Page in 1968, and then granted to Ruth Smith (trustee) on Jan. 4, 1971. Ernest A.J. Salmon purchased the lot on January 16, 1971. Rouge Hill This intersection is identified in historical maps as ‘Rouge Hill’. While little is written about this community along the Grand Trunk Railway line, the 1892-93 Ontario Directory includes the following snapshot in time: A P O on the rive Rouge (which furnishes power), in Pickering tp, Ontario Co, 11 miles s-w of Whitby, the co seat, and 3 n of Pt Union, on the GTR, its nearest bank at Pickering. It contains a flour mill, Bible Christian church and public school. Residents listed - Wm. Maxwell, flour mill; John Pearce mason and contractor; Roger Pearce, mason and contractor; William Pearce, Mason and contractor; and Luke Wallace, carpenter.7 According to the Pickering Tweedsmere scrapbook, this area was also known as East Rouge Hill. 4.3 Building Description & Site Photos Branch Architecture completed a visual review of this property from the street in December of 2019, followed by a visit with the owner on October 19, 2020. There were preliminary reviews focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value, and did not include access to the interior. The building at 301 Kingston Road is an example of a mid 19th century Georgian house in Pickering, likely dating to the mid-1800s. This style dates to 1750-1850. Based on the English Palladian and Georgian styles, this style arrived in Upper Canada first with the 4 Year: 1881; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C_13244; Page: 84; Family No: 412 5 Year: 1871; Census Place: Whitby, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C-9974; Page: 67; Family No: 256 6 This date is difficult to read. 7 Ontario Gazetteer and Directory for 1892-93, p. 1029. - 101 - 19 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 United Empire Loyalists and later with British immigrants. Georgian buildings were known for balanced façades, restrained ornamentation, and minimal detailing. It was employed by Upper Canadian settlers desiring, “a sturdy house that reflected his simple dignity”.8 Common features of this building style include: a box-like massing up to 3 storeys in height; symmetrical elevations and classical proportions often displaying a balanced arrangement of windows and doors with flat or splayed window arches; simple designs with limited clas- sical detailing; medium to high pitch gable roofs with half floors in attics and windows on gable ends; chimneys flanking gable end walls; either timber construction with clapboard siding or solid plain brick buildings; vertical sash windows with wood or stone sills; and, a central entrance door with a transom light and side lights. The following is a description of the building with observations: • The house is a two-storey building with a gable roof. It is located on the south side of Kingston Road and overlooks Kingston Road from a small rise. At the rear of the resi- dence are several one-storey additions. • The front (north-facing) facade displays a balanced (though not symmetrical) arrange- ment of openings. On the ground floor there is a centrally placed front door flanked by window openings. On the second floor are three evenly placed window openings; they do not align with the openings below. • The side (east and west) elevations display a symmetrical arrangement of window openings. On the east elevation there is a vertical strip between the windows; this is likely an alteration related to the chimney. • The building has a stone foundation laid in a random pattern. In 2020, a pre-painted aluminum skirt flashing was installed over the foundation visible above grade. • The exterior walls are clad in horozontal pre-painted aluminum siding with a edge board detail at the base of the wall, corners and eaves. Given the depth of wall extending out from the stone foundation, it appeared that the original siding may be concealed under the existing, however, the owner advised that under the existing siding are plain wood planks laid horizontally (not a finished painted clapboard or masonry). This suggests that the original cladding has been removed. • The front entrance opening is framed by a pedimented lintel and side panels. These elements have been covered in painted metal. In front of the entrance is a poured concrete step with a modern wood railing at the east side. 8 Ontario Architecture, www.ontarioarchitecture.com. - 102 - 20 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER • In 2019, the front entrance doorway was composed of a six-panel wood door flanked by wood columns, inset sidelights (2 lights over a base panel) and an inset four-light transom. The framing elements (door frame and stiles) and the base panels at the side- lights were overclad in painted metal. By October of 2020, the doors and windows had been replaced and the pediment concealed under new metal. • The window openings are rectangular with a thin sill and wide frames at the top, sides and mullions. In 2019, the windows appear to be constructed of wood and were made up of a sash windows with exterior storm windows. There was a mix of window arrangements and patterns. On the ground floor there is: a grouping of three windows consisting of a 6-over-12 sash flanked by 4-over-6 sash windows; pairs of 4-over-6 sash windows; and, pairs of 4-over-1 sash windows. At the second floor there are 4-over-1 sash windows in pairs and threes and, at the rear elevation, 6-over-1 sash windows. By October of 2020, the windows had been replaced with single pane windows. The wood sill have also been overclad in pre-painted metal. • The roof has a medium pitch gable roof profile. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle and the rain gear is painted metal. The eaves appear to have been altered with a perfo- rated metal soffit and painted metal overcladding at the fascia, bedmold, frieze and gable-end returns. There is a single red brick chimney at the east wall. 21. Aerial view looking north-east, 2020. (Google streetview) - 103 - 21 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 22. North (front) elevation, 2019. (BA) 23. North (front) elevation, 2020. (BA) - 104 - 22 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 24. Front entrance, 2019. (BA)25. Front entrance, 2020. (BA) 26. Stone foundation, 2019. (BA)27. Metal skirt at foundation, 2020. (BA) - 105 - 23 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 28. East (left) and north (right) elevations, 2019. (BA) 29. East (left) and north (right) elevations, 2020. (BA) - 106 - 24 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 30. West (left) and south (right) elevations, 2019. (BA) 31. West (left) and south (right) elevations, 2020. (BA) - 107 - 25 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 4.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 301 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a rare (and altered) example of an early to mid-19th century Georgian residence in Pickering. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; Further investigation required. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None known. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; The property has associations with early Pickering landowner and military doctor William Holmes. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; No. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None known. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; The property is associ- ated with the Rouge Hill community, and is perhaps one of a few remaining buildings from this time. iii. is a landmark.The building is promi- nently located at the intersection of Alton and Kingston roads, and marks the west edge of Kingston Road. - 108 - 26 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 5 401 Kingston Road 32. 401 Kingston Road, north elevation. (BA)RougemountDriveToynevale Road Evelyn AvenueChantilly RoadDahlia CrescentOakwood DriveFrontier Court LyttonCourtD a l e w o o d D r i v e Old Forest Road Highway 401 Rouge Hill Court Kingston Road EastWoodlandsParkSouthPetticoatRavine 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 Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯EPt Lt 19, Plan 230, Now Pt 1, 40R-16160 Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\401KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (401 Kingston Road)33. 401 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 109 - 27 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 5.1 Property Description The subject property falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31. The parcel was created as part of the Morgan & Dixon’s Plan (Plan No. 230) dated July 6, 1922. 5.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 See 1 Evelyn Avenue for early settlement history. Lot 19 - 401 Kingston Road The property at 1 Evelyn Avenue was granted to Annie and Horace Branson in 1923. Based on the land records, it appears this transaction was not fulfilled as in 1936 the estate of Peter S. Gates registered a quit claim on the property, likely in relation to a 1922 mort- gage. In 1939, the property was granted to Silas Dixon. In 1944, the property was granted to Silas’ son Alexander. Two years later, the property was sold to Louis E. Staley. Kathleen and John Quigg owned the property between 1951 and 1967. From 1967 the property changed hands several times - John and Margaret Belcourt (1967); Jack Knowles (1970); Victor and Felicia Mastrogicomos (1973); Brian and Christine Binns, (1975); Walter Francis (1987) - before being purchased by a pair of management / hold- ings companies. It was transferred to 1138224 Ontario Ltd. in 1995. A Montessori daycare is currently operating out of the building. 5.3 Building Description For the purposes of this CHER, Branch Architecture visited the property on March 2, 2020. The inspection included walking around the building and through each floor, and completing a visual review and photographic documentation. The review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. The building at 401 Kingston Road is an example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. The Bungalow style house was an American import to Canada in the early 20th century. It was popularized in California; the Americans were inspired by the British version of India’s banglas style of home (Bengali style). In Ontario, the Bungalow style is almost exclusively residential as it was commonly found in house pattern catalogues. The Bungalow is generally a one or one-and-a-half storey dwelling with a front porch or verandah and displaying rustic materials such as textured brick, fieldstone and/ or stucco. The roof is either a broad, low-pitched roof with a wide front dormer or a medium pitch front gable style. - 110 - 28 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER The following is a description of the building with observations: • The house is a one-and-a-half storey wood frame building with a brick veneer and topped with a gable roof. • The front (north-facing) facade displays a symmetrical organization. There is a centrally placed front porch (with an entrance door within) framed by windows on either side. Above is a roof dormer of a similar configuration to the porch. • The building has a poured concrete foundation with large field stones mixed in. On the exterior, the foundation wall displays fieldstone laid in a random pattern and artic- ulated with a pronounced beaded mortar joint. • The exterior walls display a mix of masonry. The fieldstone extends up from the foun- dation to the top of the window sill. The remainder of the exterior walls are clad in an extruded red brick laid in a running bond. The quoins and porch piers are also red brick. • The enclosed front porch has a front gable appearance. The porch is entered from the east side via a wood step. The porch is framed with brick piers at the corners; the piers have a concrete cap and support squared wood columns. The base of the wall is fieldstone with a concrete cap. The upper wall areas are infilled with fixed wood windows following a symmetrical layout. The triangular pediment of the roof gable is infilled with painted wood shingle. • The front door is wood. The upper panel is glazed and is composed of 6 divided lights (3 panes wide). The lower panels is made up of three vertical wood panels. The door opening is framed in brick with an arched brick linel. • The window openings are rectangular with a concrete sill and an arched brick lintel. The windows are wood with a mix of fixed and single hung sash types. On the ground floor there four types: three single-hung windows with shorter upper sash (most divided vertically into three panes); single-hung windows (with shorter upper sash divided verti- cally into three panes); small fixed windows; and, at the front proch, fixed windows with three panes across the top. At the second floor there are single-hung windows (with shorter upper sash divided vertically into three panes). • The roof has a gable roof profile set at a medium pitch and with a gable roof dormer on the front (north) elevation. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle, the eaves are painted wood and display simple detailing including hipped eaves returns on the side gables. The rain gear is painted metal. There is a single chimney at the west wall. It is red brick with a metal cap. • The interior layout is largely intact; its displays a traditional three bedroom house. Further, many of the original elements remain, including wood trim, baseboards, window and door casings, doors, windows, wood flooring on the ground floor, stairs, and a fireplace mantle. - 111 - 29 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 34. North (front) elevation. (BA) 35. North (front) elevation, as viewed from the east. (BA) - 112 - 30 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 36. Porch, west elevation with entry door. (BA)37. Porch, west wall. (BA) 38. North elevation, quoin treatment. (BA)39. Porch, upper post and eaves. (BA) - 113 - 31 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 40. Porch, interior. (BA)41. Front door with quoins at door. (BA) 42. West elevation. (BA) - 114 - 32 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 43. West elevation, eaves return. (BA)44. West elevation, chimney and eaves. (BA) 45. West elevation, base of chimney. (BA)46. West elevation, three part window. (BA) - 115 - 33 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 47. South and west elevations. (BA) 48. South elevation, rear door. (BA)49. South elevation, single window. (BA) - 116 - 34 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 50. South and east elevation. (BA) 51. Foundation, interior. (BA)52. Wall treatments, brick and fieldstone (BA) - 117 - 35 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 53. Interior, second floor window. (BA)54. Interior, kitchen. (BA) 55. Interior, three part window on ground floor. (BA) - 118 - 36 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 5.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 401 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a represent- ative example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. Of note, is the unique fieldstone treatment on the exterior walls. This is also found at 1 Evelyn Avenue which was also con- tained within the Morgan and Dixon Plan. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; None found. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None found. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; None found. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; None found. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None found. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; Reflects the pattern of early 20th century residential de- velopment along Kingston Road in Pickering. iii. is a landmark.No. - 119 - 37 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 6 882 & 886 Kingston Road 56. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill as viewed from east parking lot. (BA)West Shor eBoulevardKingston RoadShadybrookDriveEdgewood RoadGo l d e n ri dgeRoadFairport RoadDunbartonRoad Kates Lane SpruceHill Road Sheppard Avenue Rushton Road Merri ttonRoadAda CourtBayly StreetHighway401 VistulaRavine 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 Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯EPt Lot 27, B.F.C. Range 3 and Pt 1-4, 40R-2628 Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\882-886KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd and Pt 1-3, 40R-15853 (882-886 Kingston Road)57. 882 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 120 - 38 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 6.1 Property Description The legal description for 882 and 886 Kingston Road falls within the north half Concession 3 B.F., Lot 27 and is located directly west of the Village of Dunbarton. The existing lot was created on October 30, 1975. On June 1, 1976 the owners - Harry A. Newman and his wife - granted the subject property to “The Incumbent and Churchwardens of St. Paul’s on the Hill Dunbarton”. 6.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 27 The following describes the early ownership of Concession 3 B.F., Lot 27 and the crea- tion of the subject property at 882 and 886 Kingston Road. William Holmes received the patent for this lot on May 28, 1796. See section 4.2 for background on Mr. Holmes. In 1832, Holmes sold the 200 acre lot to John Galbraith. In 1838, Henry Cowan purchased 111 acres on the north part of the lot. The Cowan family had immigrated to Canada in 1832 and settled at the mouth of the Rouge River on Lot 32 B.F. In 1840, Cowan sold the northern 100 acres to Thomas Courtice (1801-1860). Courtice acquired the remaining 11 acres in 1849. Thomas Courtice and his first wife Mary immi- grated from outside Devonshire, England in 1831. They settled in Darlington, Ontario before Mary died a few years after their arrival in Upper Canada. Thomas then married Mary Annis (1811-1899) of Pickering and, in 1841, the family relocated to Lot 27.1 2 The family farmed the lands and by 1851 the land was largely cleared with 57 acres of wheat, peas, oats, potatoes, turnips and hay as well as 15 acres of pasture.3 According to Past Years in Pickering, “He was a member of the Bible Christian Church and filled the office of the class leader and local preacher very acceptably from early manhood til the close of his life.”4 On Aug. 29, 1856, Courtice severed off several parcels; two were sold to The Grand Trunk Railway Company, and one small parcel was sold to the Trustees of School Sec. No. 3. The Dunbarton public school was built here and it operated until 1924.5 The remainder of the land was willed to Andrew James Courtice and later, in turn, to Levi Anni. 1 The Annis family arrived from Massachusetts in 1793. They settled Lot 6 B.F. of Pickering, 2 Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory, 1846-1847, p. 62. 3 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: B; Roll: C_11742; Page: 275; Line: 3. 4 Past Years in Pickering, p. 230. 5 In the land abstract it appears that the lot was enlarged c. 1880 with the purchase of more acreage north of Kingston Road by school trustees. This area of the ledger is larger illegible. - 121 - 39 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 According to the property records, on January 1, 1924 Harry A. Newman and his wife exchanged a parcel of their land and $1,200 with the school trustees for the property with the old school house. The intent of this trade was to convert the school into a church for the local Anglican congregation. The Village of Dunbarton The Village of Dunbarton is named for William Dunbar (1786-1869). Dunbar arrived in Lower Canada (Quebec) from Scotland in 1831. He continued on to the Town of York and, in 1840, purchased lands in Pickering Township.6 It was here that he laid out a predom- inantly Scottish settlement on Kingston Road. Dunbar worked as a blacksmith and was actively involved in the community; he was an elder in the Presbyterian church, a Justice of the Peace, and a school commissioner. He also contributed to the founding of the Pickering Harbour Company where he was employed as a the superintendent. His son William Dunbar Jr. inherited the property and spent his life working as a blacksmith in Dunbarton.7 His son, William T. Dunbar, owned and operated a general store in Duffins Creek (now Pickering Village) from 1880 to 1905, and constructed the Dunbar House on the north side of Dunbarton Road. The Village of Dunbarton was located along Kingston Road and had access to Frenchman’s Bay via an adjoining harbour. The April 3, 1896 edition of The Pickering News presents the following summary of the history of the village: The Village of Dunbarton derived its name as well as its origin from its first proprietor and projector, the late William Dunbar, Esq. Half a century ago he, with his household, settled on the lot of land he had bought, and on which he lived till the day of his death, in 1869. Then, the now well cleared and cultured farms were but large woods and little clearings. . . Somewhere about thirty years ago, the villages and the adjoining harbour both had their inception, and in both Mr. Dunbar ever took an active interest, being in the latter not only a large shareholder but superintendent of the work. . . The village plots when laid out, was rapidly bought up and built upon. . . Three stores now, and for a long time past, have readily and reasonably supplied the wants of the community. In one of them is the Post Office, with its mails twice each day. On the establishment of the Post Office the inhabitants agreed to call it Dunbarton, in honour of its originator, the name first got and ever retained. 6 William Dunbar’s deed to the west 1/2 of Lot 25, Concession 1, Pickering, Upper Canada is dated October 19, 1840. The Pickering Story conjectures that the time spent securing the property purchase can be linked to the families membership in the Reform Party as they were apprehended and kept under guard during the Rebellion of 1837. 7 Past Years in Pickering, pg.235. - 122 - 40 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Prominent as it ever ought to be, stands the church, a commodious and substan- tial brick building, belonging to the Presbyterians, while the outskirts is the goodly brick school house. Thus the spiritual and the intellectual are wisely cared for. For a considerable time a tannery did good service in the village, but the removal of the railway station did much to injure the village and incommode the surrounding community. . . The situation is pleasant, having the beautiful bay with its harbour, in front, and the wide stretching lake beyond. The locality is while its inhabitants alike in enterprise and intelligence will favourably compare with those of any other community. The Dunbarton School, Section No. 3 The Dunbarton school house was built in 1857. According to Past Years in Pickering, “the brick for it and for the brick house on the farm opposite being made in the hollow south of the Kingston Road on the farm.”8 The Anglican Church in Pickering In the early 1800s, settlers were focused on clearing lands with an aim to establish a home- stead. Communities like Pickering were often served by a travelling missionary. According to Shumovich, by 1828 John Strachan (rector of St. James and Archdeacon of York): ... was most concerned about the ‘spiritual destitution’ of the families pioneering around York and the wilderness of Upper Canada, and the large numbers of Anglicans who has immigrated to the area from the British Isles. Rev. Adam Elliott was appointed as the visiting missionary, and in November of 1832 the Township of Pickering was added to his circuit. Initially, he held services in, “log school houses, taverns, barns and crowded houses all the way from Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay.”9 The first service in the Village of Pickering was held in the home of Mr. Francis Sey. The St. George’s Anglican Church was built circa 1856. It served residents of the Pickering Village as well as its membership in Dunbarton. St. Paul’s On-the-Hill The subject property has served Dunbarton’s Anglican community since 1925. In the early 1920s, the Dunbarton Anglican community began to distance itself from the Village of Pickering congregation. With an aim to establish a new church, church member and Toronto lawyer Harry A. Newman acquired this property in 1924. The property held the former Dunbarton School S.S. No. 3 (c. 1857). This exchange provided the school board with vacant land to construct a new two room school upon, and the former school was 8 Past Years in Pickering, p. 170. 9 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 2. - 123 - 41 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 renovated to serve as a place of worship for the ‘Mission of St. George’s’ or ‘The Dunbarton Mission’. The first service was held by Rev. Douglas Langford on November 8, 1925. Over the coming years, the parish continued to distinguish itself from the St. George’s Church. In 1933 it was renamed “St. Paul’s in-the-Hill, Dunbarton”. All the while, the two congregations continued to share the Rev. E.G. Robinson. He served as Rector from 1929-1953. In 1934, under the leadership of Harry Newman, the parish set about building a church. Newman built the church on this land (still owned my him) and leased it to the congre- gation for $1 /year until 1976. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill was designed by Architect Leo Hunt Stanford (1898-1970), son of Toronto architect Joseph Hunt Stanford. The family had immigrated from England to Canada in 1902. Leo was educated in Toronto and trained under his father. In 1922, Leo he became a partner in the firm. After his father died in 1935, Leo took over the practice that operated into the 1960s. Their portfolio was largely made up of residences, apartments and commer- cial buildings; of note is the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in Toronto. 10 The St. Paul’s On-The-Hill church is sited atop of a gently sloped hill with a south overlook across Kingston Road and on to Lake Ontario.11 The original church had a recta- linear plan (running east-west) with a tower at its south-east corner. The main entrance was located at the south-facing side of the tower and the chancel was found at its west end. The building was masonry construction displaying brick with stone accent details, and defined by tall stepped buttresses, arched wood windows, and saddleback roof of slate shingle. 10 Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950, www. dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.org. 11 It was located west of the existing church and former school house. Before its demolition in 1991, this building served as the parish hall. 59. Church of the Ascension, Toronto. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 60. Pews from Buttonville church. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 58. Mr. and Mrs. Harry A. Newman. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill ) 61. Front elevation drawing by Leo Hunt Stanford Architect. (on display at St. Paul’s On- The-Hill) - 124 - 42 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 62. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, Nov. 1934. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 63. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, Nov. 1984. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 64. Floor plans, St. Paul’s On- the-Hill. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) - 125 - 43 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 The St. Paul’s On-The-Hill publication described the entry procession of the new church as follows: The interior of St. Paul’s is in keeping with the traditional design of small churches in rural Ontario. The floor plan shows the structure is made up of three rectan- gular box shapes. A small porch with six straight stairs lead to a set of Gothic lancet arched double wooden doors. These doors, centred on the south facade of the square tower, lead into a small entrance and stairs. The entrance leads to a nave without side aisles and the stairs lead down to the basement and up to the balcony which was added in 1983. The nave moves forward to the chancel... 12 According to St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, a unique aspect of the church is that it was constructed with materials reclaimed from other Ontario churches demolished: • Brick and windows were salvaged from the former Anglican Church of Ascension in Toronto; and, • Curved pews came from the former Buttonville Methodist Church (c. 1774).13 The church was formally opened on November 16, 1934 by Rev. D.T. Owen, Archbishop of Toronto. Rev. E.G. Robinson continued to lead the St. Paul’s On-The-Hill congregation as well as that of St. George’s. In 1939 his responsibilities expanded to include the growing Town of Ajax. With the outbreak of World War II and the subsequent establishment of the muni- tions plant (Defense Industries Ltd. or D.I.L.) in the Township of Pickering, Ajax quickly expanded into a community of 4,000. By 1943, the community had erected a church shared by four co-operating communions - Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian and United Church. Rev. Robinson lead the Anglican congregation. On May 1, 1959, St. Paul’s began worship as an independent parish under Rev. C.E. Olive as rector. He lived at the new two-storey rectory located directly south-west of the church. The site now contained three structures - the church, the parish hall in the old Durbanton school house, and the rectory.14 12 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 8. 13 The pews have since been replaced. 14 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 7. Rectors 1924-1930: Rev. Douglas B. Langford 1930-1953: Rev. E.G. Robinson 1953-1956: Rev. Jack Crouch 1956-1959: Rev. Dr. H.S. Shepherd 1959-1962: Rev. C.E. Olive 1962-1967: Rev. Ben P. Symth 1967-1969: Rev. Charles Dymond65. Rectory. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill ) 1970-1972: Rev. Wm. J. Rhodes 1973-1978: Rev. S.G. West 1978-1981: Rev. Gregory W. Physick 1982-2002/3: Rev. Brian H. McVitty 2004-2019: Rev. Canon Kimberly Beard Incumbent - 126 - 44 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER The arrival of 1976 brought the end of the lease agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Newman. At this time the Newman’s transferred the property deed to the rector and churchwardens. On March 21, 1976, St. Paul’s On-The-Hill was consecrated by Archbishop Lewis Garnsworthy. In 1983, the church interior was renovated. The work included a new balcony that added 55 seats while preserving the aesthetic of the church. 66. View to chancel after the renovation, Octo- ber 1985. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 67. Balcony, October 1985. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill ) 68. Site Plan drawing of church addition and renovation, 1991. Footprint of the original church shown in blue. (DLIA) Rectory Church addition Original church Parish Hall - 127 - 45 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 In 1989, Davidson-Langley Incorporated Architect (DLIA) was engaged to complete the renovation of and an addition to the church. The architectural firm was founded in 1985 by Elizabeth Jane Davidson and operated until 2013. Davidson came from a family of estab- lished Ontario architects.15 DLIA designed worked on many ecclesiastical buildings as well as commercial, residential, recreational and institutional buildings. Religous projects by the firm included the Church of St. Clements (Toronto), Metropolitan United Church (Toronto) and St. George’s Anglican Church (Pickering). Their work at St. Paul’s On-The- Hill won the Town of Pickering’s Economic Development Award in 1991. This expansion project included for the renovation of the existing 3,000 square foot church as well as a 9,000 square foot addition to the west. Within the addition is a new entry with offices, an additional congregation space, an underground gymnasium, a day care centre, and meeting rooms. As with the original building, the new building incorporated salvaged materials including reclaimed brick.16 6.3 Building Description & Site Photos For the purposes of this CHER, Branch Architecture visited the property on March 2, 2020. The inspection included walking around the building and through the main floor, and completing a visual review and photographic documentation. The review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. This review did not include the rectory building. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill is a 20th century church likely influenced by the traditional rural Ontario church with elements of Gothic and Gothic Revival architecture. According to the Ontario Heritage Trust website: Gothic Revival is an architectural movement that sought to revive the Gothic style, which flourished in Europe in the medieval period. The Gothic Revival movement began in the 1740s in England; interest in reviving the style soon spread to North America. With regard to religious architecture, the Gothic Revival was intertwined with the “High Church” movement and the Anglo-Catholic concern with the growth of religious non-conformism.17 In the second half of the 19th century, Gothic Revival architecture emerged as a popular residential building style in Ontario (with the Gothic Revival Cottage popularized by the Canada Farmer) and a common style for religious buildings in the mid- to late 19th century. As such, a number of Gothic Revival subcategories developed with buildings 15 Davidson’s great grandfather was an esteemed Toronto architect Henry Langley. Langley was the founding partner of the architectural firm Langley & Langley which later became Langley, Langley & Burke. The other partners were Henry’s son Charles Langley and Charle’s cousin Edmund Burke. The firm was responsible for many ecclesiastical buildings across Ontario. Their portfolio included several notable structures in Toronto such as the Necropolis, the spire of St. James Cathedral, and the Horticultural Pavillion at Allan Gardens 16 At the site tour, staff recalled the brick had been salvaged from a building in Oakville. 17 Ontario Heritage Trust, Architectural styles. www.heritagetrust.on.ca - 128 - 46 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER often displaying a mix. The following features are found in Gothic Revival architecture: pointed arch windows; rib vaulted ceilings; buttresses; steeply pitched roofs; and, an overall emphasis on height. The following is a description of St. Paul’s on-the-Hill with observations: • The church is located on the top of a gently sloped hill and with a view south over Kingston Road and the 401 to Lake Ontario. The site also includes the rectory building west of the church, three parking areas, a large cross and a cell tower. See figure 63 for site plan and figure 64 for an aerial view. • The church is a one-storey building with a lower level set into the hillside, and a square tower at its south-east corner. • The original St. Paul’s on-the-Hill was a one-story building with a basement. • The building is constructed with buff coloured brick laid in a common bond pattern and with stone detailing at the windows, doors, buttresses and tower roof parapet. • The 1934 floor plan was composed of three rectangular elements - the tower / entry, the nave, and the alter. • The two-storey brick tower is located at the south-west corner of the building. The corners are defined by tall brick buttresses with stone caps where the buttress steps out. The tower has a flat roof and the parapet displays a crenellated treat- ment finished with capstones.18 The primary entry to the church was located at the doorway on the south-facing elevation; this remains as the ceremonial entrance. It is a double door opening with a pointed arch. Typical to all openings, the arch has a stone keystone and rectangular stones at its base. The original door has been replaced with a set of wood panelled doors and panelled infill above. • The nave was divided into four equal bays. Each is defined by the brick buttresses and has a tall pointed arch window at its centre and, at the north elevation, a small basement window with a brick arch below. The stone window sills have angled stooling. The east elevation displays a grouping of three windows with a larger circle window above. The existing windows are repalacements. • The alter was removed as part of the 1990 addition. • The 1990 addition extended the congregation space west and introduced a new wing running south from the west end of the building. • The original building was maintained as the congregation space with the addition of a three-sided or hexagonal apse at the west end. The 1990 wing houses the main entrance, offices, meeting spaces on the second floor, and a daycare with a dedicated entrance on the lower level. 18 Staff noted that the brick parapet had been rebuilt to match existing. - 129 - 47 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 • Similar to the original building, the masonry exterior is buff coloured brick with stone details and follows with rhythm of the bays. The wing generally follows the architectural detailing of the original building, with variation limited to the new entrances. • The new doorways have a half circle or Palladian style transom and flanking side- lights (with the exception of the west entrance does not have sidelights). The main entrance also has a peaked canopy with exposed cross-bracing similar to the congregation space. • The roof has a gable roof profile set at a medium pitch. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle, the eaves and rain gear are painted metal. - 130 - 48 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 69. Aerial view looking north, 2020. (Google streetview) 70. Cross. (BA)71. Cell tower. (BA) - 131 - 49 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 72. North elevation as viewed from Sheppard Avenue. (Google streetview) 73. North elevation, original bays at left and addition at right. (BA) - 132 - 50 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 74. Addition, west elevation. (BA) 75. Addition, exterior at apse. (BA)76. Addition, west entrance. (BA) - 133 - 51 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 77. Addition, south elevation. (BA)78. Addition, south entrance. (BA) 79. Addition, circular window and brick cross at top of south wall. (BA) 80. Addition, south windows. (BA) - 134 - 52 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 81. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill as viewed from the base of the stairs at the south parking lot. (BA) 82. Addition, east elevation with main entrance. (BA) - 135 - 53 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 83. Original building, south elevation. (BA) 84. Addition, main entrance with 1990 date stone at left. (BA) 85. Original building, west entrance with 1934 date stone at left. (BA) 86. Original building, south elevation. (BA) - 136 - 54 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 87. Addition, typical bay. (BA)88. Original building, typical bay. (BA) 89. Original building, typical window at tower. (BA) 90. Original building, base of buttress with salvaged capstone. (BA) - 137 - 55 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 91. Original tower, west and south elevations. (BA) 92. Original tower, east and north elevations. (BA) 93. Original tower, plaque at interior. (BA) - 138 - 56 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 94. Nave looking to balcony. (BA)95. Nave looking to altar. (BA) 96. View from balcony. (BA) - 139 - 57 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 97. Samples of stained glass works throughout the church. (BA) - 140 - 58 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 6.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 882 and 886 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The church is a representa- tive example of a masonry Gothic-style church in Ontario. The use of masonry salvaged from the former Church of Ascension in Toronto is a unique aspect of its construction. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; No. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. No. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; The property is historically linked to Pickering’s Anglican community. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; No. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. The original church is associ- ated with Toronto architect Leo Hunt Stanford. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; The church is historically linked to the development of Dunbarton. iii. is a landmark.St. Paul’s on-the-Hill’s setting atop the hill at Kingston and Fairport roads make is a visual landmark along Kingston Road. - 141 - 59 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 7 Discussion This assessment finds that all the properties included in this assessment have cultural heri- tage value to the City of Pickering. They were all found to satisfy one or more criteria set out in O. Reg 9/06. Based on the findings of this evaluation, I recommend that the City include these prop- erties on its Municipal Heritage Register s: • List 1 Evelyn Avenue, 301 Kingston Road and 401 Kingston Road; and, • Designate 882 & 886 Kingston Road, St. Paul’s On-the-Hill under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 142 - 60 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Appendix 1: Sources 1. Commonwealth Resource Management Ltd. Manual of Guidelines. Prepared for the Management Board Secretariat Government of Ontario, June 1994. 2. Fram, Mark. Well-Preserved. Toronto: The Boston Mills Press, 1998. 3. J.H. Beers & Co. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. Toronto: J.H.Beers & Co., 1877. 4. McKay, William A. The Pickering Story. Pickering: The Township of Pickering Historical Society, 1961. 5. Wood, William. Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Commmunity. Toronto: William Briggs, 1911. 6. MacRae, Marion and Anthony Adamson. Hallowed Walls: Church Architecture in Upper Canada. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin & Co., 1975. 7. McIlwraith, Thomas F. Looking For Old Ontario: Two Centuries of Landscape Change. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. 8. Mikel, Robert. Ontario House Styles. Toronto: James Lorimer & Co. Ltd., 2004. 9. Sabean, John W. The Palmer Family: Settling in South Pickering. Pickering Township Historical Society Pathmaster, Summer Edition Vol. 2 no. 4, 1999. 10. Sabean, John W. Time Present and Time Past: A Pictorial History of Pickering. Pickering: Altona Editions, 2000. 11. Sears, Roebuck and Co. Honor Bilt Modern Homes. Chicago - Philadelphia. 1921. 12. Shumovich, Elizabeth. St. Paul’s On-The-Hill: 1925-1985. Anglican Church of Canada. 13. ---. The Village of Pickering 1880-1970. Pickering: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering, 1970. Websites • Ancentry. www.ancestry.ca • Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950, www.dictionaryofarchitectsin- canada.org. • Davidson-Langley Incorporated Architects. www.dlia.ca. • Library and Archives of Canada. www.bac-lac.gc.ca • Ontario Architecture, www.ontarioarchitecture.com. • Ontario Archives. www.archives.gov.on.ca • Ontario Land Registry Access. www.onland.ca • Pickering Archives. www.coporate.pickering.ca • St. Paul’s on-the-Hill Anglican Church. www.stpaulonthehill.com - 143 - 61 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 Appendix 2: Summary of Land Records Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 27 / 882-886 Kingston Road Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Patent May 28, 1796 Holmes, William B&S Jan. 27, 1832 Holmes, William Galbraith, John All B&S Mar. 17, 1838 Galbraith, John Cowan, Henry 111a N pt. B&S “Cowan, Henry Galbraith, Nancy 11 acres B&S Sept. 19, 1840 Cowan, Henry Courtis, Thomas 100 acres B&S Jan. 2, 1849 Richards, Thos. M W Courtis, Thomas 11 acres B&S Oct. 22, 1874 Courtice, Thomas Courtice Andrew, James N111 acres B&S -----Annis, Levi Pt of N lot, N. 111 ac. ex. 3 3.4 ac. +7.00 B&S Aug. 29, 1856 Courtice, Thomas Trustee of School No. 3 1/4 acre B&S ---2 ---Trustee of School No. 3 N. of Kingston Rd Grant Jan. 1, 1924 Newman, Harry A & Wife Public School Board of School No. 3 2 acres, $1200 plus exchange Grant Jan 1, 1924 Trustees of Public School Board of School No. 3 Newman, Mary A part N. of Kingston Rd. Grant Dec. 10, 1975 Newman, Harry A + wife The Incumbent and Church wardens of St. Paul’s on the Hill, Dunbarton Part of sketch attached. 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. 2 Likely in the 1880s, definitely between 1877 and 1893. - 144 - 62 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes Patent Oct. 20, 1846 Crown Palmer, Seneca 200 acres Will May 16, 1866 Palmer, Seneca Mort Jan 27, 1877 Palmer, George S + wife The Freehold L&S Co. 120 acres, $1500 B&S Mar. 15, 1882 Palmer, Mary J and G.S. Kinlock, George 27 acres - land covered by Plan 230 Will --- ------27 acres Grant June 26, 1919 --- 1 Clarke, Griffith B 27 acres Grant Oct. 5, 1920 Clarke, Griffith B +wife Rowe, Elmore J part, $5600 Grant Dec. 1, 1921 Rowe, Elmore Morgan, Edwin 27 acres Grant Feb. 24, 1922 Morgan, Edwin+wife Dixon, Mildred $2,200,note about plan Plan 230 Mar. 13, 1922 Morgan & Dixon’s Plan part 1 Notes where writing on land abstract is illegible. This likely relates to the executors of the will. - 145 - 63 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 1 Evelyn Avenue - Plan 230, Lot 10 Instrument Date of Sale / Grant1 Grantor Grantee Notes Grant Mar. 7, 1930 Dixon, Mildred M.Dixon, Silas R.All, $1 Hwy. Plan 18 Sept. 1927 Province Hwy. Plan 45 Dec. 1938 Province Grant Nov. 19, 1943 Dixon, Silas Russell Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea All except hwy. $1 Grant Mar. 21, 1946 Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea The Director, The Veterans Land Act All except hwy. $5050 By-law May 9, 1955 By-law No. 2091 - City of Pickering Designating Areas of Subdivision Control ALL Grant May 7, 1959 The Director, The Veterans Land Act Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea All except hwy. $1 Plan 40-R-535 June 3, 1971 Grant July 29, 1980 Daniell-Jenkins, Dorothea Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M All except hwy. $2 Notice 31 05 89 Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M Lindo, Mike - in trust $790,000 Plan 40R-12418 Part 1 26 07 89 Transfer 15 08 89 Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M Lindo, Mike $790,000 Transfer 92 12 99 Federal Business Development Bank 1000683 Ontario Ltd. $360,000 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. - 146 - 64 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 401 Kingston Road - Plan 230, Lot 19 Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Mort.July 6, 1922 Dixon, Millicent M.Gates, Peter S.All, $2500 Grant May 1, 1923 Dixon, Mildred M.Branson, Annie & Horace All, $4,500 Mort.May 1, 1923 Branson, Annie & Horace Dixon, Mildred M.$1,000 not recorded in full QC Sept. 3, 1936 Dixon, Mildred M.Colletta, Hazel Mae (Estate of Peter S Gates, deceased) All, $1 Grant Sept. 14, 1939 Estate of Peter S. Gates Dixon, Silas All, $1,600 Grant Mar 14, 1944 Dixon, Silas (and others) Dixon, Alexander part, $1 Grant Aug 15, 1946 Dixon, Alexander + wife Staley, Louis E. Grant Nov. 1951 Staley, Louis E.Quigg, Kathleen C + John P $3,200 By-law May 19, 1955 By-law No. 2091 - City of Pickering Designating Areas of Subdivision Control All Grant June 15, 1967 Quigg, Kathleen C + John P Belcourt, John A + Margaret L All - except Hwy. Grant June 22, 1970 Belcourt, John A + Margaret L Knowles, Jack (trustee) All - except Hwy. Grant June 26, 1973 Knowles, Jack (trustee) Mastrogicomos, Victor + Felicia All - except Hwy. Grant Aug 22, 1975 Mastrogicomos, Victor + Felicia Binns, Brian D & Christine A. All - except Hwy. Grant 16 02 87 Binns, Brian D & Christine A. Francis, Walter All? 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. - 147 - 65 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Grant 20 05 87 Francis, Walter N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. Hollow Holdings Ltd. All - except Hwy. Transfer 22 08 89 N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. (25% int) Hollow Holdings Ltd. (50% int) Cesaroni Holdings Ltd. (75% int) $525,000 Plan 40R-16060 95 03 28 Parts 1,2&3 Transfer 95 10 05 Cesaroni Holdings Ltd. (75% int), N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. (25% int) 1138224 Ontario Ltd. $975,000 Part 1 on 40R-16060 - 148 - 66 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32 / 301 Kingston Road No.Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes Patent May 22, 1798 Crown Holmes, William BS June 26, 1843 Holmes, William Wesley, John 195 acres, 150 pounds Will May 11, 1868? --June --, 1874 Cochrane, Samuel?? Rodd, Richard 5572 B&S Dec. 1, 1881 or 1891 Rodd, Richard Moody, ------ 10046 B&S Mar. 18, 1902 Moody, Naomi + Robert Toyne, George S. of Kingston Rd. $8,000 as in No. 5572 21217 Grant Mar. 31,1934 Toyne, George + wife Toyne, George Edward 21050 Grant Nov. 21, 1936 Toyne, George Edward Toyne, Helen Davidson part, as in No. 20217 all restriction 24411 Grant Sept. 1, 1944 Toyne, Helen Davidson Alderice, John Alfred; Alderice, Alcona 1 ac. on S. side Kingston Rd. $1,000 + mort. No. 21050 31434 Mortgage May 25, 1951 Alderice, John Alfred; Alderice, Alcona Toyne, Helen Davidson S. side of Kingston Rd. $5,500 as No 24411 175120 Grant July 23, 1968 Alderdice, Alcona Pfeiffer, Manfred; Page, Delmar F (partner- ship property) part S. of Kingston Rd. As des. in No 31434 - 149 - 67 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 No.Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes 205389 Grant Jan. 4, 1971 Pfeiffer, Manfred; Page, Delmar F (partner- ship property) Smith, Ruth C (trustee) part S. of Kingston Rd.; part of land in No. 175120 ex. hwy - lying N of lot 7 in Plan 350 (see hwy plan 785) (0.80ac)+- 205500 Grant Jan. 16, 1971 Smith, Ruth C (trustee) Salmon, Ernest A.J. pt. S of Kingston Rd (0.80 ac+-) as des. in No. 205389 - 150 - Page 1 of 11 Minutes/Meeting Summary Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee November 25, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Attendees: J. Dempsey S. Croteau J. Irwin R. Smiles C. Sopher E. Martelluzzi, Planner II Heritage R. Perera, Committee Coordinator Guests: Isabel Lima, Planner l, City of Pickering Melanie Hare, Urban Strategies Inc. Grant Mason, Urban Strategies Inc. Stuart Chan, ERA Architects Janice Quieta, ERA Architects Muky Rajadurai, Altona Group Ed Saki, 301 Kingston Road Absent: E. John D. Felin A. Khan W. Jamadar Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 1. Welcome & Introductions E. Martelluzzi welcomed everyone to the electronic meeting. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Review and Approval of Agenda Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by R. Smiles E. Martelluzzi reviewed the agenda items. Agenda approved. 4. Approval of Minutes Attachment #5 to Report #PLN 26-21 - 151 - Page 2 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) -June 24, 2020 Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by J. Dempsey That the minutes of the October 28, 2020 meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be approved pending minor edits. Carried 5. Business Arising From Minutes There were no items of business arising from the minutes. 6. New Business 6.1 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/19 - Altona Group, 1294 Kingston Road - Resubmission of Heritage Impact Assessment E. Martelluzzi noted that the proposed development was in the process of resubmission following comments received by Council, Staff, and members of the public, and that the applicant had submitted studies, plans, and justification as part of the resubmission including the Heritage impact assessment. She noted that the City’s Heritage Consultant and the applicant was in agreement with moving forward with the findings of the report, and reminded the Committee that there still remains a number of undecided factors associated with the application and that the heritage aspect is only one part of the application. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, E. Martelluzzi outlined the location plan, and noted that Altona Group was proposing a mixed-use development consisting of two buildings having heights of 25-storeys and 13-storeys, and to facilitate this development, the applicant proposes to utilize the Bonus Zoning provisions of the City’s Official Plan to increase the maximum permit building height from 15-storeys to 25-storeys, in exchange for the provision of a community benefit under Section 37 of - 152 - Page 3 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) the Planning Act. She added that in return for the additional increase in building height, the applicant was proposing to retain and restore the Old Liverpool House along with a number of proposed zoning by- law amendments. E. Martelluzzi noted that on December 16, 2019, Council listed 1294 Liverpool Road on the Municipal Heritage Register, which meant that any owner shall give Council 60 days’ notice in writing prior to demolition or removal of the building. She noted the 5 key changes from the original submission which include relocating the Old Liverpool House approximately 16 metres to the south of its existing location, reducing the adjacent podium height from 8 to 6 storeys, lowering the tower overhang, updating the heritage forecourt design and the conservation strategy. She further outlined the summary comments provided in the peer review by Branch Architecture. E. Martelluzzi stated that Staff concur with Branch Architecture’s analysis, and that the Heritage Impact Assessment had been updated to respond to the Peer Review comments from the first submission with further changes to the design which respond to the Old Liverpool House in a sympathetic yet distinct way. She noted that the next steps include incorporating the comments received from the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee in a staff report to the Planning & Development Committee, and that through the Site Plan review process, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee would have an opportunity to review and comment on the conservation plan, details regarding the restoration of the Old Liverpool House, and the landscaping surround the building. Melanie Hare, Urban Strategies, and Stuart Chan, ERA Architects, joined the electronic Committee meeting via audio connection and provided the Committee with the reasoning behind the 5 key changes made from the original submission referring to a PDF presentation circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting. - 153 - Page 4 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) A question and answer period ensued between Committee Members and Ms. Martelluzzi, Ms. Hare, and Mr. Chan, regarding: • whether the applicant was in discussion with the City to replace the existing daycare located in the subject lands; • that the applicant is in the right path with the changes made through the resubmission; • how the proposed landscape features and the proposed cemented area in front of the Old Liverpool House would fit with the current environment of the roadway and sidewalks on Liverpool road and Kingston Road; • space between the sidewalk and the porch of the Old Liverpool House; • concern regarding the closeness of the Liverpool house to Kingston road in relation to traffic and road salt during the winter months; • rational for increasing the structure height to provide funding to restore the Old Liverpool house; • concern regarding the type of plants to be planted in the proposed planters in the landscape features between the Kingston road and the Old Liverpool house and whether the proposed streetscape is a part of the intensification plan for the area; • whether the applicant intend to sell the Old Liverpool House; • clarification on a heritage easement agreement; • ensuring that the applicant does not receive any financial relief pertaining to heritage maintenance as the applicant would receive the benefit from the ability to add additional storeys pending Council approval; and, • whether the heritage tax benefit does not apply to the applicant. Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by J. Dempsey 1. That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee supports the relocation, restoration and - 154 - Page 5 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) preservation of the Old Liverpool House as presented in the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc. dated July 30, 2020, and the site plan prepared by Kirkor Architects and Planners, Z1.3, dated July 22, 2020; 2. That, after the Old Liverpool House has been moved to its new location, that a reference plan be provided to the City of Pickering to identify the new location of the Old Liverpool House and the Heritage Forecourt and that Council designates the property under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 3. That the site plan application include a Conservation Plan and Costing Estimate and that the materials be forwarded to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee for comment; 4. That, after a designation by-law has been registered on title, that a heritage plaque be placed on the building or on the site at the owner’s expense; and, 5. That the City enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the owner to ensure the ongoing maintenance, protection and repair of the Old Liverpool House in keeping with the Heritage Designation By-law and the Ontario Heritage Act. Carried 6.2 Kingston Road Corridor Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report E. Martelluzzi referred to a Memorandum circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting and noted that in October 2017, City Council directed staff to undertake an Intensification Study for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node. She added that in June 2019, Staff consulted the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee on the Intensification Plan and advised that there were 5 properties within the study areas along Kingston Road that had been identified in the cultural heritage portion of the study. The properties include 1970 Brock Road, 301 - 155 - Page 6 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) Kingston Road, 882 & 886 Kingston Road (St.Paul’s- on-the-Hill Anglican Church), 401 Kingston Road, and1 Evelyn Avenue. She reminded the Committee that at the time, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee recommended that staff study the four properties for potential inclusion on the Municipal Heritage Register. M. Martelluzzi provided an overview of the two ways to list a property on the Municipal Heritage Register as outlined in a Memorandum circulated to the Committee Members prior to the meeting. She noted that the City hired Branch Architecture to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation report, which included a written description of each property and building(s), general photographs and a preliminary heritage evaluation based on Ontario Regulation 9/06- Criteria for Determining Heritage Value or Interest. She added that Staff worked with property owners to gain access and meet on each property. She noted that the owner of 1 Evelyn Avenue, did not provide access to their property, and that the church warden for St. Paul’s noted that the Church’s Executive Committee is in not support of listing the property, however, as staff have not heard back from the Archdiocese yet, the Staff recommendations outlined in the Memorandum circulated to the Committee still stand. Ed Saki, 301 Kingston Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to provide his comments regarding 301 Kingston road. Mr. Saki provided a brief history of the additions done to the property, noting that these additions were not done with heritage in mind. He noted that the practicality of maintaining the house is low, as it is in poor and deteriorating condition. He noted that as the house had been altered heavily, he does not agree with the recommendation from Branch Architects to list the property on the Municipal Heritage Registry. A discussion period ensued between Committee members regarding: - 156 - Page 7 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) • whether the church was not in support of listing the site on Municipal Heritage Registry; • that listing a property on the Municipal Heritage Register would not prevent day to day alterations; • the Committee’s responsibility to preserve the heritage attributions in the community; • whether any of the proposed properties to be listed are commercial; and, • the need to consider the proposed properties in relation to its ability to restore the properties to its original condition. Moved by J. Dempsey Seconded by S. Croteau 1. That Heritage Pickering recommends to Council that 301 Kingston Road, 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue and 882 & 886 Kingston Road be listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2. That staff, in consultation with Heritage Pickering, work with St. Paul’s On-the-Hill and the Archdiocese to actively pursue Designation of this important cultural heritage resource in Pickering; and, 3. That all four properties, along with 1970 Brock Road (the Post Manor) be identified on Land Use Schedule XIV of the proposed Official Plan Amendment 38 and that policy wording be included in the amendment, in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement, to state that development and site alteration on or adjacent to those lands not be permitted unless the proposed development and site alteration has be evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected or identified heritage property will be conserved. Carried 6.3 Circulation: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2020-02 & Zoning By-law Amendment A 10/20 - Medallion - 157 - Page 8 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) Developments (Pickering Finch) Ltd. - 450 Finch Avenue E. Martelluzzi referred to a memorandum circulated to the Committee and noted that the property was currently noted on the City’s Inventory of Historic Places, but is not listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register, and that it was not protected from demolition or alteration. She added that the applicant was proposing to rezone the subject lands to permit a residential subdivision consisting of 31 lots for detached dwellings fronting onto the extensions of Rougewalk Drive and Mahogany Court, and that the applicant proposes to demolish the current stone building in order to facilitate the development. E. Martelluzzi added that in support of the proposal, the applicant had submitted a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, prepared by Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc, and Staff retained Branch Architecture to peer review the submitted Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report. She added that Branch Architecture recommended a number of revisions to the report, including revising it to be a Heritage Impact Assessment which was more widely used in practice, and recommended that a heritage architect who was a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals prepare the revision. She noted that Branch Architecture also recommended a more fulsome analysis of the site’s historical and contextual background, such as its proximity to the neighbourhood of Cherrywood. She further added that Parslow Heritage Consultancy reviewed the property under Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, and discovered that the property met one or more Criteria, and therefore would be eligible for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. She noted that Branch Architecture recommended that, based on the findings of the report, as well as further research and analysis, that the City pursue designating this cultural heritage resource under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 158 - Page 9 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) E. Martelluzzi stated that the next steps include receiving comments or concerns from the Committee regarding the proposal, and that all comments would be included in staff’s Information Report to be presented to a Planning & Development Committee. She added that an Electronic Statutory Public Meeting was scheduled to be held on January 4, 2021 to obtain comments surrounding residents and property owners, and that Staff would be requesting the applicant to prepare a revised Heritage Impact Assessment and would bring this matter back to Heritage Pickering for consideration and recommendation. A discussion period ensued between Members of the Committee regarding: • the need for a revised report from the heritage consultant in order to move forward with the decision regarding designation; • the purpose for listing the property as the house is in a deteriorating state and require lot of work and money to rehabilitate the property; • whether there is concern regarding the owner demolishing the building; • whether the Committee could list the property under section 27 ahead of the Staff report as listing the property in the Municipal Heritage Registry would require the owner to notify the City prior to demolition; • whether the Committee would need to conduct further investigation to designate the property once the revised report as noted by Branch Architects is resubmitted; and, • whether the new report could provide the statement of character and rational for designating the property. Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by R. Smiles 1. That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee recommend that 450 finch road be listed on the Municipal Heritage Register; 2. that the report be revised as per Branch Architect’s recommendation; and, - 159 - Page 10 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 3. that the revised heritage impact assessment be presented to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee to consider future designation and conservation of the property. Carried 6.4 Approval of 2021 Heritage Pickering Meeting Schedule Moved by J. Dempsey Seconded by J. Irwin Committee meetings will be held every 4th Wednesday of the month and that the December month be a recess unless a meeting is required. Carried 7. Correspondence 7.1 Summary of 2020 Heritage Permit approvals by delegated authority E. Martelluzzi referred to a memorandum circulated to the committee regarding the 2020 heritage permit approvals, and noted that HP 01/20 was not included in the list and that a letter was sent to the owner to apply for a heritage permit. 8. Other Business C. Sopher noted that a correction may be needed to the date of 1976 in the third paragraph on page 8 of the Branch Architecture’s report pertaining to agenda item 6.2. E. Martelluzzi to look into this. 9. Next Meeting January 27, 2021 Adjournment - 160 - Meeting Adjourned: 8:20 pm Copy: City Clerk - 161 -