The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJune 10, 2002PICKERING AGENDA PLANNING COMMITTEE Anne Greentree Supervisor, Legislative Services .IUNE Ilk 2002 Planning Committee Meeting Monday, June 10, 2002 7:30 P.M. Chair: Councillor McLean ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of Mav 13. 2002 (II) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION PAGE PI.ANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 23-02 (ADDENDUM/ NORTHEAS]' QI 'ADP~ANT REVIEW: FINAL REPORT PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVISED NORTHEAST O[ !ADRANT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 1-83 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 24-02 (ADDENDUM) AMENDMENT 8 TO THE PI CKERING OFFICIAL PLAN t APPLICATION ()PA 01-002/P) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 04/01 MARION HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PAR]' LOT 28. RANGE 3. B.F.C. (NOW PAR]' 1. PLAN 14431 & PART 1. PLAN 40R-2707) £SOUTH-EAST CORNER OF WHITES ROAD AN[) SHEPPARD AVENUEJ 84-156 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PI) 27-02 DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION S-P-2001-02 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPI.ICATION A 09/01 ROSEBANK GARDEN HOMES INC. ()N BEHALF OF I. E. HOLMES PART OF LOTS 31. CONCESSION 2 2030 ROSEBANK ROAD {X?,TST SIDE OF ROSEBANK ROAI). NORTH OF FINCH AVENUE 157-256 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPOR]' PD 26-02 CITY INITIATED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 02/02 O.P.B. REALTY (PICKERING TOWN CENTRE) PART OF LOT 21 AND 22. CONCESSION 1 1355 KINGSTON ROAD 257-286 (II1} CORRESPONDENCE Members of Council may tbrmallv table an item of correspondence that has been circulated by the Mayor. CAO. Clerk or other staff'person. ~itq o~ ~ {IV) AD.IOURNMENT Planning Committee Meeting Monday, June 10, 2002 7:30 P.M. Chair: Councillor McLean RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Council receive Addendum to Report Number PD 23-tt2 tbr intbrmation: and That Council adopt the recommendation contained in Report Number PD 23-02 with the inclusion of a site-specific official plan policy and Developnqent Guideline exception tkom the requirements tbr a public road connection and second storex functional floor space Ibr thc Wood/Carroll property: and That Council recommend that the Ministrx o1' l-ransportation approve an intersection design at the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on~ol'l' ramp intersection, which includes the addition of a north leg to provide access Ibr vehicles entering the proposed development on the old Dunbarton school property, and that this intersection maximizes all movement options. REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Nell Carroll DATE: Mav 31, 2002 Director, Planning & Development ADDENDUM TO REPORT NR_JMBER: PD 23-02 SUBJECT: Northeast Quadrant Review: Final Report Proposed Official Plan Amendment Revised Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines City or' Pickering RECOMMENDATIONS' 1. That Council received Addendum to Report Number PD 23-02 for infommtion; That Council adopt the recommendations contained in Report Number PD 23-02 with the inclusion of a site-specific official plan policy and Development Guideline exception from the requirements for a public road connection and second storey functional floor space for the Wood/Carroll property; and That Council recommend that the Ministw of Transportation approve an intersection design at the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersection, which includes the addition of a north leg to provide access for vehicles entering the proposed development on the old Dunbarton school property, and that this intersection maximizes all movement options. ORIGIN: City of Pickering Planning Committee, at its meeting held on May 13, 2002, referred Planning & Development Report PD 23-02 - NOrtheast Quadrant Review back to staff for further information. AUTHORITY: The Plat,ting Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 1 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct cost to the City is anticipated as a result of the proposed Official Plan policies. However, there will be costs associated with maintenance of the public road recommended within the Quadrant bv staff. These costs are similar to the public road maintenance costs already endorsed by Council in the currently approved Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. Addendum to Report PD 23-02 Subject: Northeast Quadrant Review Date: May 31, 2002 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SL'.M MARXf Planning Committee. at its meeting of'May 13.2 il 2 rcfcn'ed Report Number PD 23-02 back to staff for 2~nhcr infommtion. In response to the issues raised by Planning Committee members and residents, an Addendum Report has been prepared. Thc Report includes a cha~ detailing the options to address thc issues, and staff coIllI]lOn[s OI1 those options. Two changes are outlined to thc recommendations of Report to Council PD 234)2. Further. staff has clarified other matters that xxcre raised at thc meeting by thc landoxvners pertaining to thc internal public road, the Dunba~on School property, second storey lkmctional floor space, and the Kingston Road Highxx ay 401 westbound on off ramp intersection. BACKGROUND: 1 .() Planning Committee On May 13. 2002, Planning Comlnittec rcccixcd Planning & Development Report PD Report PD __ -0.~ recommended that tiao Pickcring ('itv Council: · receive tiao background reports entitled ~)z~,tra~ D'~37~or~zio~z 5zz~Jx'. ]>/~.sc / ~J />/~.~c' 2 reports, and thc ..tm~crlea endorse the recommendations of tiao "Northeast Quadrant Review"; direct staff to hold a Statutory Public Intbnnafion Meeting to discuss potential amendments to the Picketing Official Plan · adopt in principle the revised "Northeast Quadrant development Guidelines; and require the proponents of m~ior dovclopnacnt applications within the Northeast quadrant area to contribute their proportionate share of thc Northeast Quadrant Review costs. At tile meeting, a number of deputations xxcre hoard (see Attachment #1). Mr. Rea Richards. representing North American Acquisition. advised Committee that the criteria for mixed CO~Tidor is unattainable and requested that the Development Guidelines be flexible. He requested that the City adopt a resolution encouraging full access at the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersection and that reconsideration bo given to a gar bar and car wash facility on the property. Ms. Lorelei Jones, representing Hayes Line Properties Inc.. advised that the Ontario Municipal Board decided that no internal public road was required Ibr tiao \Vood Carroll property and that tile requirement for a second storox functional floor space bc deleted. Further. there were a nmnber of concerns expressed by tiao public pertaining to increased traffic and safety resulting from medium density developlnent on the Marion Hill property and the redesignation of other lands in the Quadrant from lox',' density residential to medium density residential. Committee referred Report PI_) 23-02 back to start Ibr further inibmmtion. The purpose of this addendum report therclbrc is txvofold' to provide options pertaining to the issues raised, and staff comments and recommendations on those options: and to clarify issues pertaining to the intcn~al public road, thc Dunbarton School property, second storey functional floor space and the Kingston Road Highway 401 westbound o~¥off ramp intersection. 0,04 Addendum to Report PD 23-02 Subject: Northeast Quadrant Review Date: Mav 317 2002 Pagc 3 2.0 2.1 3.0 3.1 3.2 Issues/Options/for the Northeast Quadrant "Issues/Options" Chart As directed by Planning Committee, staff has considered the issues raised at the May 13th Committee Meeting. To assist Committee members, a Chart has been prepared which lists the issues raised, provides options to address each issue, and outlines the 'pros' and 'cons' of each option (see Appendix 1). Thus, members can review each issue, consider the options presented, and provide direction to staff if Committee withes to take a position that differs from the recommendation in PD 23-02. For issues 1 through 7 on the attached Chart, the option identified as 'Option I' is thc approach supported by staff in Report PD 23-02. For issue 8, being the treatment of the Amberlea Creek watercourse, three options are included: piping the watercourse, relocating it to the edge of the affected properties, and protecting the stream m its current location as an open space corridor. Staff initially supported the piping of the watercourse provided a net environmental benefit to Amberlea Creek and Frenchman Bay was achieved downstream. While staff continues to support this option, we are also able to support both other options that relocate or retain all and part of the watercourse through the quadrant as an open space feature. Other Matters Dunbarton School property At the meeting, a concern was expressed over staff's support for the reuse of the Dunbarton school building. There is no current heritage designation on the property and Heritage Pickering has advised that the school building has little architectural or heritage merit. There is no requirement in the proposed policy or guidelines to preserve the school building as presently sited as it may significantly restrict the development options for the property. It is not staff's intent to require or encourage the re-use of the building; however, should a development proponent express an interest in preserving or re-using the building, such an interest would be accommodated by staff. Internal Public Road At the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing on the appeal by Hayes Line Properties inc. respecting the Wood/Carroll property, the appellant's traffic expert indicated that connectivity between the subject property and the abutting properties did not need to be provided by means of a public road for operational purposes. In its decision, the OMB did not require a public road, but expected the site plan agreement to include a system of reciprocal easements to provide connections to the two abutting sites. The OMB decision noted that one of its three tests applied in consideration of zoning approvals is conformity to the Official Plan. Since the City's Official Plan had no requirement for a public road to connect these properties, the OMB did not require it in its decision. The policy proposed by staff would change the Official Plan to require a public street connecting Delta Boulevard to Kingston Road at the Dunbarton School site. Any future zoning change proposals would be subject to that policy requirement. Although the OMB ruled against the requirement for a public road over the Wood / Carroll property, this ruling was made in the absence of a Council approved policy requiring the road. Staff continue to believe that there is planning merit to support the internal road and that this position can be argued at the OMB if necessary. Council should also be aware that the Ministry of Transportation has verbally indicated to staff that the City's request for a new access to the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersection may not be approved if the connecting access and road were not public. .4ddendum to Report PD 23-(i)2 Subject: Northeast Quadrant Re;'iev, ." ,00_ Date: rvlav ol, ' Page It is the Nlinistrv's x'iex~ tiaat a road under public oxvnership ensures long-tenll maintenance, cnlk~rccntent of speed and vehicular movcnlcnt controls such as stop signs in order to provide uninterrupted northbound movement i'ronn the Highv,'ay 401on/off ramp, and access cannot bc stopped or closed by thc private landowner. Accordingly. the proposed policy requiring a public road connection in tiao interior of thc Quadrant is appropriate and is now n~orc sLzpportablc Ibr operational reasons than at ttac time oI'thc Haves Linc OXIB hearin<. Nex crthcless, staff is recommending a sitc-spccit~c exception t¥ona the requircn~cnt Ibr a public road connection, to spccit]call? recognize thc Haves Lincsdcx'elopn~cntapprovcdbythcOXlB. StalTisproposingtt~clbllowingpolicy addition: "Despite tiao designation of a Collector' Road on Schedule I1 Transportation Sx'steH], connecting tine Highx',a>' 401 westbound ramp to Delta Boulevard, and Woodlands Neighbourhood Policy 11.8 (t)(iii), the implementation of thc Collector Road through the Haves Line Properties Inc. lands, being Part of Lot 28. Range 3, Broke Front Concession, City of Picketing. is not nqandatorx Ib~-tiao zoning approved by the Ontario Municipal Board decision issz~cd on Nlax'21. 2() 2 and instead n~av be achicxcd bx tine provision of case;ancnts in I'ax our of thc City and abuttino land c)xvncrs ~r'al~tin2 access to thc abuttin,' castcrlx and westerly properties." similar exemption would be naade to tile proposed IDevelopnacnt Guidelines. Second Store,,.' Functional Floor Space In recognition o£ tine ONIB decision pertaining: to the issue of "l'~nctional" second storev space tbr the Haves Line Properties. stalT is also rcconanacndi~qg tho inclusion of a site-specific official plan policy and Dcx'clopn~cnt Guideline exception tkona the proposed requirement for second storey Functional I]oor space Ik)r ali con~nncrcial development in the Quadrant. Staff is proposin~ tine Iblloxx lng policx addition: "Despite the \Voodland Neighbourtqood Policy 11.8 (e)(C), the requirement for secolld storey Functional floor space is not mandatory for the zoning approved by tine Ontario NIunicipal Board issued on May21,2002 on tile Haves Line Properties Inc. lands, being Part of Lot 28, Range 3. Broke Front Concession, (Titv of Picketing." As well, a similar exenlption x~ ould be n~adc to thc proposed Dex elopnncnl Guidelines Kingston Road/Higlnxva5' 4111 x~ estbotliTd on o I'I' ran~p intersccti on Mr. Rea Richards, on behalf of Nortt~ .Sn:et'ica~ .-%cquisitions, has requested that Council adopt a resolution encouraging I'uI1 access at tine Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound oWoff ramp intersection Ikon~ tt~e Dunbanon Sol,eel proper~y. Although the Minist~ of Transportation supports no~hbouiqd throug}~ n~ox en~ent 15-onq the on.off ramp, there is no signal capacity and no tkee signal tinning ax ailable to accolm~odatc southbound through movements f~om the proposed access road to thc S()lo~n Fa~21p (soo ~&ttachment ~8 to Report PD 23-02). Tine KDtgs[on Rorer!- II T~izcs Ro~z~i .\'o~'~/~c'¢~x; (?~/~'~ D'~/zx/~or[azio~ S[z~ix'- P/~r~sc 2 /eG~or[ identified that only southbound lei} and right tunn naovements Ikon] the access road could be acconm~odatcd. ~1'}20 lcIX tun~ movcment is a key part of the access naanagement plan for tine Quadrant as the south bound left turn cu~ently permitted For properties located on the north side of Kingston Road may be prohibited in the future by a raised center median on Kingston Road. Addendum to Report PD 23-02 Subject: Northeast Quadrant Review Date: May31, 2002 Page 5 tt is therefore important for the City to request that the Ministry of Transportation permit southbound left turn movements from the access road at the Kingston Road/Highway 401 intersection, it should be noted that discussions are ongoing with MTO, Durham Region and property owner/developers with respect to the proposed access plan and related changes to the intersection. The resolution proposed by Mr. Richards is only partially supported by staff. CONCLUSION: As directed by Planning Committee on May 13, 2002, Planning Report PD 23-02 was referred back to staff for further information. In response, staff has prepared a chart listing the issues raised, the options to address these issues, and the pros and cons of each option. Further, staff has clarified other matters that were raised at the meeting by the landowners, and two minor changes are recommended to the proposed policy and guidelines as contained in PD 23-02. APPENDICES: I "Issues/Options" Chart ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes of Planning Committee Meeting Prepared By: Grant I~6G~-egor, McIP,'R~- Principal Planner - Policy Approved / Endorsed by: Neil Cal~oX~cl~, RPP Director,¥infffiing & Development Catherine L. Rose Manager, Policy GM/CLR/jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Operations & Emergency Services )mmended for the consideration of Picketing City Council Th~ J. Quinn, ~hief A~inistra~ffice~ APPENDIX ITO (it'i ~ .XDDENDUSI TO REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 ISSUES, OPTIONS & COMMENTS RESPECTING THE NORTHEASTQUADIL4.NT .~ppen&x I to Addendum Report to Council PD23-02 NO 1. ISSUES OPTIONS COMMENTS RAISED Access to Sheppard Avenue New Collector Road Option 1' Permit full moves vehicular access from Marion Hill development to Sheppard Avenue as one of three vehicular access points. Option 2 No vehicular access to Sheppard Avenue (permit emergency vehicle access by knock-down/key operated facility). Option 1' Require a 10 metre wide public road across the north edge of McConachie and Hayes Line (Wood/Carroll) properly to connect Delta Boulevard to ne;v public road proposed for old Dunbarton school property. Pros · best access to Sheppard, Whites and Highway 401 for future townhouse residents, visitors and delivery personnel; · best emergency services access to townhouse development: · minimal traffic impact on the area disperses traffic impacts: · Sheppard Avenue has sufficient capacity to support nominal increase in traffic at peak hours: · less impact on traffic flow on Sheppard Avenue than individual driveways to detached houses: · connects the new residential development with the Sheppard Avenue community - fosters improved neighbourhood cohesion: Cons · nominal increased delay for left turns from Sheppard Avenue to Whites Road south at peak hours; · concern expressed by residents that access to their driveways on Sheppard Avenue will be made more difficult: · concern expressed by residents that traffic from Delta Boulevard will infiltrate to Sheppard Avenue despite thc proposed gated entrance to the Marion Hill property: Supported by Staff Pros · no change to real or perceived traffic operations, turning movements on Sheppard Avenue; · Marion Hill is willing to implement this option if required; Cons · circuitous travel patterns forced on future residents, visitors and delivery personnel to access Whites Road southbound, Kingston Road westbound or Hwy 401: will result in additional traffic on Delta Boulevard and at Delta/Kingston Road intersection; · provides a residential 'address' that is accessed only through a commercial area; · may result in more traffic using Sheppard Avenue to gain access to Kingston Road via Fairport Road, which may result in some unsafe and illegal turns to avoid such travel/turn restrictions; · confusing ibr visitors, delivery people and emergency services to access the proposed townhouse development; · proposed development will be less integrated into residential community to north and east: Not supported by staff Pros · approval of access to sigmalized intersection at 401 westbound on/off ramp may be denied by MTO because private easement access cannot guarantee same operational control as a 'public' road; · provides for internal east-west connections from the rear of the commercial properties between the school property and Delta Boulevard at such time as the Region of Durham restricts left turn access from Kingston Road; · provides alternate public road access most likely to encourage mixed use/higher density development in rear portions of commercial properties fronting Kingston Road and residential properties fronting Sheppard Avenue; thereby reducing access *as recommended by staff in Planning & Development Report PD23-02 Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD23-02 0 (} ~ ISSUES OPTIONS COMMENTS RAISED O_QEtion 2 Require public road across rear of McConachic and I)unbanon ,chool properties etnding at two cul-de-sacs outside of Wood Carroll property. Option 3 Reqmre private easement access across all properties. and traffic nnpact ct' such fedex clopmcnt on Shcppard Avenue should such }7~uhcr mtens~t5' redevelopment occur in the future: Cons · modesth reduced development areas and modestly increased costs to pnxatc developers for higher standards required cfa public road: · }laves line noted that it xvould appeal any policy which introduces a nexx public road rcqmrcment across rear of their property: · justil]cat;on i:or p, ccd for a connecuon across rear of commercial propcrues as a 'pubhc' road domed bt' OMB m recent appeal decision for }}axes Line appl~cauons this decision may influence the OMB's posluon respecung thc need for a 'public' road across the middle of thc quadrant: Supported by Staff Pros · builds on road block in ('it,,'> oxxnership at rear el'Delta Boulevard dex eiopmcn:: · allows City to guarantee cl'i~c~cncx, saI~ standards and maintenance across public portions of'the access; · snc specific poitc> would be added to rccogmize OMB decision on ttavc> i_mc propcNy: ( '0 I15i · docs not satisfy NFl'C) rcqmrcmcnts fi)r a oublic road access across rear o,t' all these properties necessary to justify' access to Kingston Road }tlghwa) 4~)i ramp mtersecuon tbr old Dunba~on schoo] property: · degrades cfficlCnC~ of acccN5 across rear of properties; · only alh)xxs punic road access Ibr future intensified development Ibr thc rear port~ons of only those commercial or residential properncs that abut thc public portions of the road access; Not Supported by Staff Pros · least regulated accc>s arrangement across rear of commercial propertic>: · sornexvhat icss costh to private owners; · ]east re?act on commercial properties fronting Kingston Road; ('OHS · alloxxs least chance cfm IO approxal o£an,.' access to old Dunbanon >chool sTtc propcrt> at s~gnalixed Kingston Road Highx~aF 401 ramp :ntcrsccuon: · may reqmrc return of road block behind Delta Boulevard to abuuing landowner and replaced, ii'possible, by an access easement awangcmcnt to provide rear access to McConachie and Wood Ca,ell properties: · requires high degree of landowner coordination and good will to achieve easements across all properties: one uncooperative ;andox~ner can prejudice achievement of internal coordinated access: · least amount of municipal control of efl]cient waffle movement. safety, maintenance and speed regulation: · does not guarantee a logical functional alignment of access across *as recommended by staff m Plmming & Development Report PD23-02 Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD23-02 NO ISSUES RAISED Buffering / Compatibility with Marion Hill property. Consideration of properties east of Dunbarton school property OPTIONS COMMENTS Option 1 * Along the eastern boundary, of the property, a 6.5 metre setback is required. Option 2 Require the retention of the existing stream corridor within the City owned lands and provide a minimum 10 metre setback on each side. Option 3 Develop a requirement to plant significant vegetation on the private property to the east, in a layout designed by a landscape architect. Option 1' No requirement for consolidation of lots within Precinct E. precinct; · limits long term redevelopment opportunities for residential properties fronting Sheppard Avenue by removing future access to internal public road. Not Supported by Staff Pros · this landscape strip xvould allow the Marion Hill development to be both visually and physically separated from the existing development in an attractive manner; · ability for City to control form of development on it's own lands should it decide to sell them; City can require transitional design strategies such as housing form. buffing, fencing ect.: Cons · the buffer area would be dimensionally smaller than the existing open space feature, which includes mature vegetation; Pros · a great majority of the existing mature vegetation could be preserYed: · this feature could continue to provide an aesthetic quality to the neighbourhood and allow tbr some limited passive recreational space; · it would increase the percentage of"open space" within the developed lands and therefore reduce the overall perceived density. Cons limits the financial return to the City for the sale of its lands; limits the financial return to the developer of these lands by decreasing the number of units the land can accommodate. Supported by Staff Pros · would provide a strong buffer for the home most effected by the new medium density development; Cons · does not effect the perceived density nor the proximity of the new development to the existing neighbourhood; Not supported by Staff Pros · Cons · integration of lots more difficult after redevelopment has occurred; permits the redevelopment of each lot in the Precinct on a site specific basis subject to criteria; consolidation not precluded; *as recommended by staff in Planning & Development Report PD23-02 Appendix Ilo Addendum Report to Council PD__-_ (} '~ I NO ISSUES OPTIONS COMMENTS RAISED COII]IIILiIII~L 2 >mallet parcclh hax c more hmitcd redevelopment opportunmc>: closer proxinm>' to commercially redcveloped propcmcs; Supported by Staff Option 2 Pros Rcqmre consolidation of properties \\'lthin precinct prior to redevelopment · provides the opportumty (or a comprehensive design of the entire Precinct includin~ h~ghoF dcnsmes or a range of uses: · provides thc opportumty to access impacts holistioally; ('OILS ·cssentially 'freezes' individual properties from redevelopment opponunmcs: · lot assemblx considered brag-term: Not Supported by Slaff P. ctain low density dcsignauon existing rcsidential lots in Precinct B. Designate the enurc Precinct to medium density residential (restricting maxmnum density to 55 umts per net hectacre and permit development below 30 umts per net hectacrc). Pro,, · consistent x~ i~h the ()i'Iicial [)lan encouraging higher densities in >elected locations, u>uallv close to Mixed Areas: · smplifics thc dcs~gnauon on the entire Precinct: provides opportumues ~k)r redevelopment in a manner that is compaublc xx~th the 5mTotmding neighbourhood: dens,tx increase xt ould not exacerbate the ex,sting traffic problem> xx tth respect thc tra/'fic flow on Shcppard Avenue: access to Shcppard :hx cnuc ['rom medium density development · provide5 an appropriate transmon between new commercial devclopmctq: along Kingston Road and the character of the existing nc~zhbour'hood along Sheppard Avenue: · proposed poi:cF x~ ould cap maximum density at 55 units per net hectacrc, also permit residential development below the minimum net densnv o:' 3(; un~is per net hectacre; · potential lntroductton of addiuona] medium density residential development rote an ex,sting area with low densities; · potcnual increase m traffic and no~sc associated with medium dcns~ty devch~pmcnt: Supported by Staff Option 2 Retain thc cx~sting designation of low dens~tv residential and medium density residential for the nine lots in the Precinct: PFO$ · resident concern that me&urn densitx dexelopmcnt would be introduced along thc frontage of Sheppard Ax-enuc: · resident concern about increased traffic and dens~tv rcsuhing t'rorn medium density dex'eh)pment \~ould no longer be an ~ssue: · no rccogniuon of the area evolving into a more dense and mixed commumtv: · reduce., redevelopment options lbr residents on south side of Sheppard Avenue: *as recommended by staff in Plamung & Dex'elopment Report PD23-02 o Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD23-02 NO ISSUES OPTIONS COMMENTS RAISED Gas bar/car wash within the Quadrant. 2nd story functional space and minimum building frontage requirements · existing medium density designation applicable to rear of properties is not practical from a development perspective. Not Supported bv Staff Option 1' Pros Prohibit the development of any new gas bars, automobile service stations or car washes within the Quadrant. Option 2 Permit gas bars/car washes within the Quadrant. Option 1 * Require commercial development to provide second storey functional floor space and buildings closer to the street edge. Option 2 No second floor and no requirement for buildings close to the street. · screening and buffering may not be sufficient on the school property to protect the residential development along Shcppard Avenue from adverse impacts; · public and staff concerned with noise and traffic and lighting from proposed gas bar/car wash facilities: Cons · restricts the range of uses currently pertained under Mixed Corridor; Supported by Staff Pros provides the opportunity for automobile related services: would take advantage of the auto-oriented area of Kingston Road and the Highway 401 on/offramp; Cons · proliferation of additional gas bar/car wash facilities along Kingston Road; · built fbrm contradicts the City's 'mainstreet' objective for the Quadrant; Not supported bv Staff Pros · consistent with the 'mainstrcet' objective tbr the Quadrant regarding higher intensity; · provides opportunities for a greater variety of uses within buildings; · buildings brought close to the street edge would improve pedestrian access to buildings; · improve the visual appeal of the Quadrant; Cons · owners claim that market demand for second storey functional floor space limited; · contrary to conventional market driven single storey developmenl along Kingston Road. Supported by Staff Pros · provides developers with the simplest form of development to lease; Cons · less opportunity to accommodate a mix of uses; *as recormnended by staff in Planning & Development Report PD23-02 Appendix I to Addendum Report to Core,oil NO ISSUES OPTIONS RAISED Piping Ambertea Creek tributarw Three options proposed: enclosing (piping) the watercourse, relocating it to the edge of the property or protecting the stream in its current location as an open stream corridor. O. Qption 1 * Pipe the tributary Ibr the watercourse located south of Sheppard Avenue to the I tighvcay ramp intersecuon: Relocate watercourse to eastern edge of Marion Hill/ McConnachie and Pickering Holdings properties with reduced buffer on each side. COMMENTS ensures that the view from Kingston Road is that of large parking areas with buildings located behind: · discourages a high quality pedestrian environment within the Quadrant: · contributes to an outdated lena of lev, intensity, single purpose development: · supports auto-ortented retailing and services. Pros · maximizes ]and area land ~alue Ibr development, including City owned lands ;brining ~tqc east part of thc Marion Hill application: · maxlm~zcs a>sessment base Ibr this area of the City of Picketing (~e: ~th net long-term benefit to all City taxpayers): · x~lI produce net environmental benefit to Amberlea Creek and Frenchman's Bay pro~ ideal the stormwater pond is constructed cast of Bavfair Church: · will reduce long-term erosion rehabilitation costs to City and lando~ncrs ~,outh of thvv 401: · already a somewhat degraded natural setting: Cons · reduces 'green natural' area m this part of the City; · removes a natural buffer vegetation between existing low density residential dx~ ellmgs and commercial uses on Delta Boulevard; Supported by Staff Pros · retains bu£fered 'green natural' area: · increase> developable area land values/assessment base for City and or private landowners: · retains green buffer beut een ex~sting low density dwellings and commercml uses on Dcha Boulevard; · smnpler more efficient approval process to satisfy TRCA rcqmremems: ('()ilS, · iq() lnqpro',,'enqcnt 'LO downstream erosion: · costh' endcavour w~th limited increase to developable area'land values assessment base: · retenuon of open stream s:gnificantly restricts development on uvo private properues: Supported by Staff *as recommended by staff' in Planning & Development Report PD23-02 Appehd ·~ to Addendum Repor~ ~o Council PD23-02 ISSUES OPTIONS COMMENTS RAISED Ovtion 3 Allow for protection of watercourse in City oxxmed property as an open stream channel with 10 metre buffer each side. Pros · provides opportunity for natural buffer between existing residents on Sheppard Avenue and the proposed Marion Hill development; · retains present meander belt and pathway of watercourse with least impact on existing open creek reaches and vegetation; · provides opportunities to use stream corridor as pedestrian pathway: · least short-term cost to City; · alloxvs City to retain watercourse over its lands in present natural condition, xvhile enabling other landowners to pursue piping: · introduces a significant open space/natural feature into this are of the city and provides for passive recreational uses; Cons * produces least amount of developable land/land value and assessment value for City and private landowners: · provides no opportunity to address stormwater/erosion issues for doxvnstream reaches of Amberlea Creek and Frenchman's Bay; · if a stormwater pond is not constructed to mitigate and improve impacts of piping, then erosion rehabilitation costs will continue for downstream properties: Supported by Staff *as recommended by staff in Planning & Development Report PD23-02 Attachment l Planning Committee' Meeting Minutes Monday, May 13, 2002 7:30 p.m. Chair: Councillor .lohnson 015 PLANNING & DEVELOPIXlENT REPORT PD 23-02 NORTHEAST QUADRANT REV1E\V: FINAL REPORT PROPOSED OFFICIAl_. PLAN AMENDMENT REVISED NORTHEAST _QUADILq. NT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES Received and Referred Back to Staff a) Sylvia Spencer. -71 Sheppard Ave. E., made the following recommendations with respect to the Proposed Official Plan Amendment: Precinct A remove proposed road oft' Sheppard Ave. with an entrance only for emergency vehicles; opposed to traffic calming measures if' speed bumps included; Precinct B - no justification for these lands to be medium density; bridging of creek is needed; Precinct C - parking is a concern; Precinct D - a study should be undertaken on the Dunbarton School Site; the portion of this land abutting Sheppard Ave. should be Iow density; Precinct E - access should be off Sheppard Ave.; Precinct G concerned about noise, should be a 10 metre buffer. b) Jetta Ibbitson, 787 Sheppard Ave.. requested that Precincts A, B. C & D remain low density. He advised that he taas always been opposed to changing the south side of Sheppard Ave. to mectium density and requests that a low density of 30 homes be approved, fie stated that the area wildlife will disappear if this is approved. c) Bill Sorenberger, 750 Sheppard Ave. stated his concern with increased traffic and access to this site for emergency vehicles. d) David Steele, 966 Timmins Gardens, stated his pleasure in hearing that no decision has been made on piping the creek and he requested a report on the size of the retention pond. e) Tim Coster, 827 Sheppard Ave., advised that be is a resident of Precinct E and requested that a condition requiring land assembly of the Four parcels in Precinct E befbre land development is permitted be included. Ron Richards, representing North American Acquisition, stated their strong objection to the guidelines and advised that the criteria for mixed corridor is unattainable. His client has developed the old Harwood Mall, this being done by giving flexible land use. There should be Interim Development Guidelines that represent the economy and be flexible. The .",Iinistrv of Transportation may not allow access at the off street ramp, a resolution should be added to encourage a Full access intersection. It is not feasible to retain the Dunbarton School. This site is ideal for a gas bar, he requested staff consider interim uses, abandon using school and reconsider gas bar and car v:ash. g) Lorreli Jones, representing Wood Carroll, stated that their largest concern is the public road advising that the Ontario Municipal Board decided that I'lO public road is necessary. Also stated fl~eir concern that the OFficial Plan provides For a functional second storey and requested that Council delete this. h) Jim Robb, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, stated his concern with piping Amberlea Creek adding that this would compromise the quality of water. He stated that the creek should be looked at as an amenity. (tl 6 Attachment 1 Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, May 13, 2002 7:30 p.m. Chair: Councillor Johnson i) Wilma Travail, 734 Sheppard Ave., advised that she is adjacent to the proposed road and is concerned with the increased traffic and safety. The road is like a roller coaster causing difficulty in the winter to stop and to see oncoming traffic. She further stated that if we continue to cover creeks how are we to know what goes into the lake. j) Vincent Santimora, representing Marion Hill, advised that in discussions with the Region the requirement for a median has been removed. He stated their concern with the requirement for an easement. He suggested that the sidewalk go through the City lands. He also advised that his client agrees to pay their share of the study costs. k) l) John Overzet, 650 Lakeridge Road, stated his concern with the condition respecting the sharing of costs with Marion Hill. He requested that discussion immediately occur regarding the future use of the blocks of land on the east and west side of the north end of Delta Boulevard. Judy Stapleton, 1834 Shadybrook Dr., questioned how the traffic consultants arrived at the estimate of an increase of 15 cars an hour from this development. REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Nell Carroll Director, Plamdng and Development DATE: May 1, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: PD 23-02 SUBJECT: Northeast Quadrant Review: Final Report Proposed Official Plan Amendment Revised Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: That Council receive as back~ound information the Kingston Road II?utes Road Northeast Quadrant Tra~s~orta~io~ S~ud~. Phrase i repo~, dated September, 2001, and the Kingston Road - IU~ites Road .Vo~'~heast Quadrant Transportation Stu4v, Phase 2 repom dated May, 2002. prepared by TSH Associates for the City (previously distributed under separate cover.t; That Council receive as backgq-ound information ~/ze Amberlea Creek Northeast Ouadrant - Assessment of Abet'turin'es. dated September. 2001. prepared by Schollen & Company Inc. for the City, (previously distributed under separate cover): That Council endorse the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review", as set out in Report to Council PD 23-02; That Council direct staff to hold a Statutory Public Information Meeting in June 2002, to discuss potential amendments to the Pickering Official Plan that are required to implement the reconm~endations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review", as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 23-02; That Council adopt, in pnnciple, the revised "Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines" as the City's strategy for detailed la~d use, urban design, transportation and stormwater, as set out in Appendix II to Report Number PD 23-02, and that staff be requested to finalize the Guidelines in light of tim final official plan amendment that is brought back to Council; That Council require the proponents of major development applications within the Northeast Quadrant Area to contribute their proportionate share of the Northeast Quadrant Review costs prior to zoning bv-la,,vs being adopted for their lands; and That Council direct the City Clerk to forward a cop3' of Report Number PD 23-02 to the Region of Durham, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and the funding landowners within the Northeast Quadrant. O~G~: Council Resolutions #24/01, passed on March 5, 2001, which directed staff to commence with the Northeast Quadrant Review, and established pre-budget approval to undertake the review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. REPORT NU3dBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review Ma>' 1, 2002 Page 2 AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct cost to the City is anticipated as a result of the proposed Official Plan policies. However, there will be costs associated with maintenance of the public road recommended within the Quadrant by staff. These costs are similar to the public road maintenance costs already endorsed by Council in the currently approved Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In 1990, Council approved the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. The Guidelines contemplated a high intensity of mixed-use development with substantial under~ound parking. An internal residential neighbourhood focused around a ring road, and an interior linear park was illustrated. Additional commercial and office, with office-support commercial was proposed for the Kingston Road and Whites Road frontages. Due to recent market interest throughout the Quadrant and landowners requesting changes to specific elements of the current Guidelines, Council subsequently authorized a review of the Development Guidelines. As part of the Quadrant Review, the City retained the consulting services of Schollen & Company, TSH Associates, and Markson Borooah Hodgson Architects to assess the environmental, transportation and land use/urban design components. Through the environmental analysis, it was determined that a net environmental benefit could be achieved by piping the tributary of Amberlea Creek through the Quadrant, if a downstream stormwater management facility was constructed. For the transportation analysis, it was concluded that a proposed new public road through the Quadrant between Delta Boulevard and the new signalized access opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp would co-ordinate internal movement between sites, allow orderly development of the Quadrant, reduce congestion on Kingston Road, and provide for future intensification through redevelopment over time. In addition, through public and landowner consultation, staff has prepared revised Development Guidelines that are more responsive to development interests while still maintaining the principles of higher intensity, mixed use and pedestrian connectivity that are articulated in the current Development Guidelines. Further, a number of potential amendments to the Official Plan are proposed, which implement the recommendations of the Northeast Quadrant Review. The next step in the planning process is to hold a statutory public information meeting in June with a final recommendation report being brought back for Council's consideration in the fall. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Location and Description The "Northeast Quadrant" lands are generally bounded by Kingston Road to the south, Whites Road to the west, Sheppard Avenue to the north and the Amberlea Creek tributary to the east. These lands are currently subject to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. The Boyer property, located at the southwest comer of Kingston Road and Highway 401 on/off ramp and the old Dunbarton School property have also been included in the review area (see Attachment 1 - Review Map). REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review Ma5' 1, 2002 Paoe '~ 1.1 1.3 1.4 A tributary of Amberlea Creek traverses tile Quadrant and flows in a southerly direction under Kingston Road, through the Borer lands, under the Highway 401 owoff ramp. connecting to the main branch of Amberlea Creek and into Frenchman's Bay. History The existing Development Guidelines ;',-ere formulated through a review of the land use policies in tile Highv,'ay No.2 - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Stud;' initiated by Picketing in the late 1980's. In 1990. Picketing Council adopted the Development Guidelines for the Northeast Quadrant. The Guidelines contemplated a high intensity of mixed-usc development with substantial under~ound parking. An internal residential neighbourhood focused around a ring road, and an interior linear park was illustrated. Additional commercial and office, with office-support commercial was proposed for the Kingston Road and Whites Road frontages. A cop5' of the concept plan trom tile current Development Guidelines is attached (see Attachment =2'). Recently, there has been significant market interest throughout the quadrant and landowners are requesting ttlat changes to specific elements of the current Guidelines be made. These changes relate to the arrangen~ent of uses. desi~l matters, provision of the park, provision of the internal ring road. and access to the external road network. As ,,',,ell. other on-going challenges include tile interest in primarily commercial development adjacent to Kingston Road. the high cost and resultant lack of interest in underground parking, the difficulty in implementing the internal public ring road, and the location of the An~berlea Creek tributary bisecting the Quadrant. In an effort to be more proactive in vvorking with development interests, the City commenced a review of tile Northeast Quadrant Developn~ent Guidelines. Development Applications Within the Northeast Quadrant Review area, several development applications have been submitted including: · Wood]Carroll (Hayes Line Properties) (A 2200) · Lydia Dobbin/City of Picketing (Marion Hill Development Corporation) (OPA 01 002/P & A 04/01) · Michael Boyer/Pickering Holdings Inc./Veridian Corporation (A 40/01) · North American Acquisitions ~old Dunbanon School Property) (OPA 01-003/P & A 10/01) A brief summary of each application is provided in Attachment #3 to this report. Quadrant Review On May 3, 2001, Council approved a budget allocation for the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines Review with a total developer contribution of not less than 50% of the total Review costs. To assist in the Review, the Planning 8,: Development Department retained the following consultants: · Schollen & Company, an environmental consultant to determine the feasibility for piping the Amberlea Creek tributau'; · TSH Associates, transportation consultants, to undertake a traffic and access review for the entire Northeast Quadrant; and · Markson Borooah Hodgson Architects, a urban designer/facilitator to assist staff in the review of land use and urban design matters. !,~SPORT NR~vlBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1, 2002 Page 4 2.0 The Amberlea Creek Northeast Quadrant- Assessment of Alternatives report prepared by Schollen & Company Inc. determined the implications and benefits of piping Amberlea Creek tributary traversing the Northeast Quadrant and concluded that a net environmental benefit could be achieved by piping the tributary of Amberlea Creek through the Quadrant, provided a downstream stormwater management pond was constructed. TSH Associates prepared two reports for the transportation component. The Phase 1 - Final Report examined existing traffic conditions, access opportunities and constraints within the Quadrant and concluded that the major signalized intersections in the Northeast Quadrant Review area are operating at or above capacity. In Phase 2, it was concluded that a proposed new public road opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp would provide additional signalized access to the Northeast Quadrant and facilitate the possible implementation of access control measures along Kingston Road. A summary of these Reports are provided in Attachment 04 to this Report. As well, copies of the reports are available for public review in the Planning & Development Department. Public Consultation 2.1 Public Meetings Over the course of the Review, meetings have been held with the landowners to introduce and discuss the study process, a revised set of urban design and land use principles for the Quadrant and the results of the transportation and environmental studies. This information was then presented at a public meeting held on October 30, 2001. Notes of that meeting are provided in Attachment #5 to this report. On November 24, 2001 a design workshop was subsequently held, with both area residents and landowners, to discuss urban design and transportation issues with the City staff and the City's consultants. Notes of the workshop are also provided in Attachment #6 to this report. On April 9, 2002 a further public meeting was held to present and discuss the results of the review, including land use concepts, transportation, and urban design matters for the Northeast Quadrant. A meeting of landowners was also held on April t 7, 2002 to discuss their views. 2.2 Agency Comments Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) The TRCA indicated support in principle for a proposed downstream stormwater management facility located east of the Bayfair Baptist Church property that could enable further changes (piping) to the upstream portion of the Amberlea creek that runs through the Quadrant location for this facility. It was noted that that the works constitute a harmful alteration disruption and destruction to a watercourse and as a result, noted that a suitable compensation arrangement would be required to support the project. Further verbal comments have been received from TRCA indicating that City would be required to undertake detailed flood line mapping, a detailed erosion assessment and preliminary engineering of the proposed facility to confirm the required and available storage volume of the proposed stormwater facility (see Attachment #7). Ministry of Transportation (MTO) The MTO provided comments on the Phase I Final Report of the TSH Transportation Study for the Northeast Quadrant. The comments emphasized a preference that no access onto Kingston Road directly across from the Highway 401 ramp terminal be provided. However, provided the need for such an access could be justified, MTO would require the road to be a public road with no access, conflict points or sharp REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1. 2002 Page 5 2.3 3.0 3.1 radius cum'es for the first 110 metres of the north limit of the curt'tnt Kingston Road~ighv,'ay rzunp intersection in order to provide adequate stopping distances for an,,, vehicles that run the amber light at thc intersection. MTO commented that they would prohibit tull moves access points along thc first 180 rnetres of this road (see Attachment #8). In a subsequent letter, MTO re-emphasized that no access onto Kingston Road across from the Highway 401 ramp terminal be provided; however, MTO is prepared to co-operate and work with City and Regional staffs toward a design, which would be acceptable to all parties concerned (see Attachment 09). Comments received from Area Residents and Property Owners Vivian Vandenhazel, 1757 Fairport Road. indicated objection to the piping the Amberlea Creek tributary as it would only increase the proposed density for the subject lands and that open space/park should be planned along the watercourse. She also suggested the tbllowing: the proposed density of development is too high; the existing n~ature trees must be preserved, the single family character on the south side of Sheppard Ave should be maintained: and there is not enough park/open space bike path development { sec Attachment :: 10). Robert 5lcConacbie. 771~! Kingston Road, indicated that the C'itx should be responsible for pa>dng the entire consulting costs or require all iandov,'ners in Quadrant to pa.',' equal amounts toxvard the cost of the studies (see Attachment #11 ). Kim Baker, Valarie La~vson, and Shane Legere, 765 Sheppard Ave. 757 Sheppard Ave. and 751 Sheppard Ave.. indicated thev should have the opportunity to sell off a portion of their backvards for development. They also commented that it v,'ould beneficial to thc City and its residents that development of this area be appealing to the eve. easily accessed and with amenities and services that are best suited for the area t see Attachment gl2). Stefan & Raffi Nalbandian, 1475 & 1485 Whites Road, indicated that "Access Concept B" proposed in the Transportation Stud,,' restricts access to our property by "right in-right out" access only thy means of raised center median). Proposed restricted access devaluates our property and as much changes the original grounds upon which we acquired our property. Therefore we support the alternative "Access Concept A" which enables safe pedestrian crossing of Whites Road and unrestricted access onto our property(See Attachment #13). DISCUSSION Vision for the Quadrant A revised vision for the Northeast Quadrant is being recommended by staff, which reinforces the importance of the area as a gateway to the Cit.,.', supports a mix of land uses at higher intensities, and reinforces and enhances the pedestrian netx,,ork. At the same time, the Guidelines are cognizant of current development realities while providing the foundation for redevelopment m~d intensification opportunities in the Quadrant. As well, instead of the current requirement in the Development Guidelines for a ring road. an internal road network is proposed that would provide access to existing and proposed signalized intersections Delta Boulevard Kingston Road and Kingston Road~ Highway 401 westbound om'off ramp. 0 .O ~ REPORT N~..A{BER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1, 2002 Page 6 3.2 Further, to ensure that main street characteristics of higher intensity and mixed use are achieved in the Quadrant over time, the revise Guidelines include provisions that address: building frontage, heights, and massing/appearance; building relationships to the main public streets; streetscape elements; access and circulation; parking and service areas; and pedestrian amenities. The Guidelines also, in recognition of the existing character of Sheppard Avenue, require development proposals to be in a form and scale that is compatible with the existing low density residential land uses. Recommended Land Use Through community and landowner consultation, staff concluded that the high intensity, mixed residential / commercial / office development concept originally contemplated for the Quadrant will not be achieved in the near to mid tenn. However, an appropriate and compatible land use concept has been identified that is more responsive to development interests while still respecting the community context. Staff recommends residential medium density development on the south side of Sheppard Avenue, as a buffer between the existing low density residential development on the north side of Sheppard Avenue, and new moderate intensity commercial uses on Kingston Road. Over time, it is anticipated that some of the commercial properties will redevelop and further intensify. A land use map that appears, on Page 7 of this Report specific land use delineates precincts areas within the Quadrant. The delineation is based on existing property boundaries, Delta Boulevard and the proposed east-west public road. Land use designations are discussed for each precinct. Precinct A The retention of residential uses within the North East Quadrant was an important conclusion of both the 1980's review and the current review. What has changed is its location from both the north and central part of the lands, and a collapsing of the three tiers of low, medium, and high residential density to a single medium density. It is proposed therefore that the lands within this Precinct currently designated Mixed Corridor along the Whites road frontage; Low Densitq, Residential along Sheppard Avenue frontage; and Medium Density Residential in the interior be designated to Medium Density Residential with a maximum density restriction of 55 units per net hectare. This would simplify the number of designations, reduce the allowable densities in some portions of the Precinct, and increase it modestly in other portions. These increases in residential density can result in a housing form that respects the existing character of Sheppard Avenue. Further, it would provide an appropriate transition between the single detached dwellings on the north side of Sheppard Avenue and proposed commercial uses along Kingston Road. A proposed policy would require the design of properties being redeveloped for residential and commercial purposes on the south side of Sheppard Avenue to be compatible with existing residential development. Further, a single vehicular access to Sheppard Avenue is proposed fi'om Precinct A, which will allow future residents to travel in all directions from this site, resulting in a nominal increase in traffic in the area. The Precinct is adjacent to an arterial roadway with sufficient capacity to support the traffic anticipated from a medium residential density development. A policy promoting the REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1, 2002 Page 7 reduction of traffic speeds and improvement of pedestrian safety along Sheppard Avenue by implementing pavement markings m-M other measures is proposed. The City will consider additional "tra£fic-calming" techniques following the adoption of' a safer street traffic management policy. NORTHEAST QUADRANT LAND USE PRECINCTS WOODLANDS NEJGHBOURHDOC E~ NORTHEAST QUADRANT BOUNDARY LAND USE PRECINCTS III BOUNDARY E 1:6000 OCT. 29, 200' Precinct B Nine residential lots fronting Sheppard Avenue, east of the City's property, characterize this Precinct. The lands are currently designated Lo~4' De~sit~, Reside¢ma/ along the Sheppard Ax'enue frontage and 3[edium Det~sitv Reside~m(~/in the interior. The existing residential character is lox',' density residential. It is envisioned that over time some of the residential lots will be assembled and'or developed at the higher end of the density provisions. This is consistent with the views of some of' the property owners in the Precinct who indicated an interest in subdividing their lots for development purposes, it 0?4 REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1, 2002 Page 8 is therefore appropriate to extend the Medium Density Residential over this area with the density restricted at 55 units per net hectare over the entire Precinct. As well, the new official plan policies and Guidelines recommended for Precinct A are applicable to this Precinct. In this way, any new development along Sheppard Avenue will be required to be compatible with the character of the existing neighbourhood. A further policy has been added to permit residential development below the minimum overall net density of 30 units per net hectare for lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue. This will enable some of the lots to be redeveloped on a site-specific basis without having to be consolidated. Precinct C The lands within Precinct C include existing retail uses on Delta Boulevard, on the north side Kingston Road are currently designated Mixed Corridor along the frontage and Medium DensiO, Residential in the interior. The current Guidelines envisioned medium density residential uses in the internal portion of the Quadrant centered on an internal ring road with an interior linear park, and commercial/retail uses on the Kingston Road frontage. The Guidelines also contemplated separate underground parking for residential buildings. Through the Review and working in part with proponents of development applications, it was determined that surface as opposed to underground parking was appropriate as there were insufficient parcel sizes to accommodate separate commercial and residential developments. The Mixed Corridor designation is proposed for Precinct C. As well, to achieve the City's 'mainstreet' objective, the revised Guidelines require second storey floorspace and a minimum building height of two-storeys. The inclusion of the second storey functional floorspace would be expected to attract uses such as offices, adding variety to the mix of uses and times of activity in the Quadrant. These are important objectives of the City for 'mainstreet' - Kingston Road, and for the Northeast Quadrant. Precincts D and E Precinct D is currently designated Urban Study Area. This designation pernfits conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education, passive recreation, similar uses and existing lawful uses. Council may replace the Urban Study Area designation for the "old" Dunbarton school property with appropriate land use designations and policies by amendment to the Official Plan, following completion of a land use, transportation and design study that responds appropriately to the dual frontage of the property along Kingston Road and Sheppard Avenue, identifies an appropriate means of conserving and re-using the Dunbarton school building, and adequately addresses the location opposite the Highway 401 on / off ramps. Precinct E consisting of four parcels to the east of the school property are currently designated Urban Residential Areas - Medium Density. Through the Review process, it has been determined that a redesignation of the Dunbarton School property and the four adjacent properties to Mixed Corridor would be appropriate and would provide opportunities for redevelopment on all four properties. The 'old Dunbarton school' building is not designated as a historical building by either local or provincial authorities; however, staff supports the re-use of the school building for other purposes. The revised Guidelines require any commercial buildings located in the northern portion of the school property to present a building face to Sheppard Avenue that reflects a residential character. As indicated earlier, an application has been received from North American Acquisitions Corporation to develop the school property for retail, personal service, office and restaurant uses in addition to gas bar and car wash facilities. Staff does not support additional gas bar and car wash facilities within this already REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1, 20O£ Page 9 3.3 3.4 3.5 congested area, and is proposing a nexv policy prohibiting tile development of any new gas bars, automobile sec'ice stations, or car washes for lands designated Mixed Used Area - Mixed Corridors or :~[edzum Det~sin' Residetttm/ within in the Northeast Quadrant. Tile revised Guidelines for commercial proposals along Kingston Road would also apply to Precincts D and E. Precincts F and G Both properties are currently designated Mixed Corndor. No changes to the Official Plan are required: however, any commercial or residential developments on either property would be subject to the revised Guidelines. Any developmer~t on lands within Precinct F would be required to maintain a 1 O-metre buff'ct strip from Amberlea Creek unless piped. Internal Public Road Tile current Guidelines contemplated ail internal ring road. v,'ith an interior linear park as a £ocus for a residential neighbourhood, auld to accommodate access movement within the Northeast Quadrant. Ttu-ough the Review process, it has been determined that an internal east-west public road (10 metre wide right-of-u.'ay), through tile Quadrant would provide an appropriate traffic circulation system between Delta Boulevard and the new signalized access opposite the Highway 401 v,'estbound onoff ramp {see Access Concept E in Appendix II). This internal public road would co-ordinate internal movement betxveen sites, allow orderly development of the Quadrant. reduce congestion on Kingston Road, and provide tbr future intensification through redevelopment over time. Staff is proposing that the new public road be designated as a collector road on Schedule II - Transportation itl the Official Plan. The public road would also provide access to signalized intersections at Delta Boulevard and the Highway 401 westbound on:off ramp intersections at Kingston Road. The Ministry of Transportation has indicated that a public road is required in order to permit access from the Dunbanon school site to the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersection and that access to the public road should be limited in proximity to the signalized intersection to ensure that free flow of vehicles can be maintained. It is recognized that the access plan, and the related major changes to the intersection will require approval by both tile Region of Durhaun and the Ministo' of Transportation. A requirement for a public road would be implemented through imposition of a Holding Provision in the Zoning By- laws for lands in the Quadrant except for the Wood, Carroll properties (the OMB decision for these lands accepted Wood Carroll's approach to provide a right-of-way only). The provision would require property owners to enter into development agreements requiring construction and conveyance of a public road to the City's satisfaction before removal of the holding provision. Amberlea Creek Tributary The previous Development Guidelines did not contemplate ail open channel for this strean~. The Schollen report on tile feasibility of piping the creek has concluded that a net environmental benefit will result from construction of a downstream storn`twater pond on lands north of Highway 401. and could allow consideration of piping the tributary,. Until a decision is reached on the matter of tile storn~xvater management facility, the creek channel will remain open. This will require applications to respond to TRCA's normal requirement for a 10-metre buffer between development and the stream corridor. Stormwater Treatment Tile Schollen Report on the .,Mnberlea Creek tributau', the potential for a downstream Amberlea stormwater quantity., quality control facility is being investigated, hi the event development within the Quadrant precedes construction of the Arnberlea pond, REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1, 2002 Page 10 landowners within the Northeast Quadrant will be required to contribute to the proposed downstream stormwater control works and provide on-site treatment. On-site stormwater treatment is to be implemented through future site plan approval. A policy is proposed requiring any developer to construct on-site controls if development precedes a downstream solution. On-site controls will address both quantity and quality stormwater concerns. 3.6 3.7 Potential Amendments to the Pickering Official Plan As mentioned previously, amendments to the Official Plan will require further public consultation process separate from this Review. Accordingly, staff recommend that Council direct staff to hold a Statutory Public Information Meeting in June 2002, to discuss the details of the potential amendments to the Picketing Official Plan required to implement the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review", as set out in Appendix I to this Report Proposed Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines The proposed new Northeast Quadrant Guidelines were prepared to assist the public and developers with interest in these lands, and to assist the Planning & Development Department in reviewing proposals in this area. The preparation of the guidelines required a review of current policy, a rethinking of the existing Northeast Quadrant guidelines, and a number of meetings with the various stakeholder groups in this area. A distillation of issues relating to the City's urban design objectives and the concerns of the development community and the neighbouring residents was also required. The Guidelines are laid out to first provide the City's overall urban design objectives and then to elaborate a set of guidelines, which implement these objectives. The objectives of the City can be summarized as allowing these lands to evolve in an appropriate manner, while striving to provide a safe, pleasant environment that displays a high quality urban image and to integrate this new development sensitively into the existing neighbourhood. The Guidelines themselves are separated into guidelines for Commercial Development Proposals and guidelines for Residential Development Proposals, and cover matters ranging from building location, height and appearance to landscaping, site layout requirements, storm water management and traffic. The Guidelines are the result of a collaborative effort between all of the stakeholders and the Planning & Development Department and shall provide a framework to review the various development proposals in this area. They are provided as Appendix H to this Report. Staff requests that Council adopt the Guidelines in principle that they be brought back to Council for final adoption with the formal Official Plan amendment. 3.8 Study Costs Staff recommends Council re-affirm the requirement that applicants pay a proportionate share of the study costs before zoning is approved for each site. It is recommended that this be a requirement prior to removal of the Holding symbol from the proposed zoning for the subject lands. Council previously required cost sharing of the Review, with benefiting landowners/developers contributing at least 50% of the anticipated $50,000 study cost. Some additional work has been necessary to complete the study, due to the requirements of approval agencies. This work was undertaken with the concurrence of funding landowners. It is recommended that Council re-affirm the requirement for benefiting landowners to pay all costs in excess of the City's initial $25,000 commitment. If these costs are not recovered in 2002, they will be increased in accordance with the Southam Construction Index. REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1, 2002 Page 11 CONCLUSION The Review provides a renewed vision for the future growth and evolution of the Northeast Quadrant. The draft Woodlands Neighbourhood policies and Development Guidelines establish a comprehensive framework for guiding private development and private investment within the Quadrant. while ensunng a sensitive 'fit' to the existing neisAnbourhood context. .As well. the frmnework provides direction and guidance for tine reorganization of the built and natural environments that could result in the transformation of this section of Kingston Road into a more vibrant "mamstreet". It is therefore recommended that Council endorse the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review", as set out in Report to Council PD 23-02 mid adopt, in principle, the revised "Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines". Further, it is recommended that staff be authorized to hold a Statutor3.' Public information Meeting in June 2002, to discuss potential amendments to the Pickering Official Plan that are required to implement the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrm~t Review". 0 ? 8 REPORT NL~IBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review Ma>, 1, 2002 Page 12 APPENDICES I. Potential Amendments to the Pickering Official Plan II. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines ATTACHMENTS' 1. Northeast Map 2. Current Northeast Quadrant Development Guideline Concept 3. Summary of Development Applications 4. Summary of Reports prepared for the Northeast Quadrant 5. Notes of Public Meeting held on October 30, 2001. 6. Notes from Design Workshop held on November 24, 2001 7. Comment Letter from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority dated October 24, 2001 8. Comment Letter from Ministry of Transportation dated November 9, 2001 9. Comment letter from Ministry of Transportation dated February 26, 2002 II).Letter from Vivian Vandenhazel dated October 30, 2001 I 1.Letter from Robert McConachie dated November 6, 2001 12. Letter from Klm Baker, Vatarie Lawson, and Shane Legere received February 12, 2002 13. Letter from Stefan & Raffi Nalbandian dated October 30, 2001 Prepared By: Grant McGregor, MCIP, RI~/'P Principal Planner - Policy Catherine L. Rose Manager, Policy GM/CLR/pr Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Operations and Emergency Services Approved / Endorsed by: Neil C~rr~IP~ RPP'~ Director, Pla~aag/and Development Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Thffm~s J. Quire-dj, Chic-/f Admin~iy'( Of,~er APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT AREA POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT AREA Certain formal amendments to the Pickering Official Plan are required to provide a strong policy foundation for the City's objectives for the Northeast Quadrant Area. The following potential amendments have been drafted based on the conclusions reached through the Review of the 1990 Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. All potential amendments to the Official Plan will require a further public consultation process, including a StatutoDr Public Information Meeting. Staff will initiate this process once directed to do so by City Council. Potential amendments to the Pickering Official Plan include: Amending Schedule I - Land Use Structure by redesignating lands as follows: · the south-east quadrant of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue from Mixed Use Areas - Mixed Corridors and Urban Residential Area - Low Density. to Urban Residential Area - Medium Densio'; · the 'old' Dunbarton School property from Other Designations - Urban Study Areas to Mixed Use Areas - Mixed Corridors; · the properties lying east of the 'old' Dunbarton School property, ;vest of the main Amberlea Creek tribntary, and south of Sheppard Avenue, from Urban Residential Area - Medium Density to Mixed Use Areas - Mixed Corridors; and · the interior lands located north and east of Whites Road and Kingston Road from Urban Residential Area - Medium Density to Mixed Use Areas -Mixed Corridors, as illustrated on Schedule 'A' attached to this draft Amendment; o Amending Schedule H - Transportation System, to add a Future Collector Road, opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp to connect with Delta Boulevard, as illustrated on Schedule 'B' attached to this draft Amendment; Revise policy 11.8- Woodlands Neighbourhood Policies, by retaining the existing sections (a), (b) and (c), renumbering existing section (e) as (d), and adding new subsections (e) through (g) as follows: WOODLANDS NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICIES "11.8 City Council shall, (a) (b) (c) in the established residential areas along Highbush Trail, Old Forest Road, Rosebank Road and Sheppard Avenue, encourage and where possible require new development to be compatible with the character of existing development; encourage the introduction of uses and facilities into the neighbourhood that complement and support secondary school students and activities; despite Table 6* of Chapter Three, establish a maximum residential density of 55 units per net hectare for lands located on the north side of Kingston Road that are designated Mixed Use Areas and abut lands developed as low density development; * Table 6 is attached to this Amendment for information purposes only; it does not constitute part of the Amendment. Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02 Page 2 Potential Amendment to the Pickenng Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area (d) (e) accommodate future improvements to Sheppard Avenue and Rosebank Road within the existing 20 metre road allowance, except at intersections where additional road allowance width may be need to provide vehicular turning lanes; to provide clearer direction for land use within the lands covered by the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, (i) further its objective of transforming Kingston Road into a "mainstreet" for Picketing by requiring the placement of buildings to provide a strong and identifiable urban edge, the construction of some multi-storey buildings, and the provision of safe and convenient pedestrian access; accordingly, for the lands designated Mixed Use Areas - Mixed Corridor, City Council shall require, (A) buildings to be located close to the street edge, with the minimum specified percentage of their front walls required to be located within build-to- zones to be established in the implementin~ zoning by-laws for each site; (B) all buildings to be a n~mimun~ of two storeys in height; (C) commercial development to provide second storey functional floor space, with the minimun: percentage of their gross floor area to be provided in second (or higher) storeys to be established in the implementing zoning by-laws for each project; (ii) despite Table 10' of Chapter Three, establish a maximum residential densitx of 55 units per net hectare for lands located within the area governed bx' the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines that are designated Urban Residential - Medium Density, in light of their location abutting lands developed as low density development; (iii) despite ll.8(d)(ii) above, and Table 10' of Chapter Three, permit residential development below the minimum residential density of 30 units per net hectare for lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue; (iv) require new development to establish buildings on \Xhites Road and Sheppard Avenue close to the street edge, with the front doors facing the street, ,~4th a specified percentage of their front walls required to be located v~sthin build-to-zones to be established in the implementing zoning by-law for this site; (v) restrict the height of the Sheppard Avenue elevation of new dwellings fronting Sheppard Avenue to a maximum of two storeys; (vi) require a minimum of four functional storeys for the Whites Road elevations of new dwellings fronting Whites Road; * Table 10 is attached to this .Mnen&nent (or m{ormauon purposes only; it docs not consutute part of tl~e amendment, Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02 Page 3 Potential Amendment to the Picketing Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant .Area (f) (vii) recognize the existing low densiw development on Sheppard Avenue, and to this end, require the design of new residential or commercial development to be compatible with existing development with respect to such matters as building heights, yard setbacks, building orientation and massing, access to sunlight, and privacy; (vi) despite sections 3.6(b)*, 3.9(b)* and 15.38', and Tables 5* and 9* of Chapter 3, prohibit the development of any new gas bars, automobile service stations, or car washes for lands designated Mixed Used Area - Mixed Corridors or Urban Residential - Medium Density; to provide clearer direction for transportation matters within and around the lands covered by the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, (i) support shared access points between properties along Kingston Road, in consultation with the Region of Durham; (ii) endeavour to secure with the approval of the Ministry. of Transportation and the Region of Durham, in consultation with the affected landowners(s), a signalized intersection for a future collector road opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp; (iii) despite Section 4.10(c)(i)* and in accordance with Section 4.II(a)*, reduce the width of the future collector road to 10 metres, to the satisfaction of the City; (iv) restrict vehicular access from Whites Road to the property located at the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, in the future~ to right-in/right-out turns only through the installment of a centre median down Whites Road between Sheppard Avenue and Dunfair Street; (v) promote the reduction of traffic speeds and improvement of pedestrian safety along Sheppard Avenue by implementing pavement markings and other measures, and considering "traffic-calming" techniques following the adoption of a City policy; (vi) require pedestrian access, by means of easements, from Delta Boulevard and from the future collector road through the old Dunbarton School site to Sheppard Avenue; (vii) require vehicular and pedestrian access, by means of easements, from Delta Boulevard to Whites Road;; (viii) require easements to connect the old Dunbarton School site to the Mixed Corridor lands to the east; (ix) require easements across the lands located south of Kingston Road and west of Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp in order to provide access to Delta Boulevard; Sections 3.6(b), 3,900), 14.10(c)(i), 14.II(a), and 15.38, and Tables 5 and 9 are attached to this Amendment for information purposes only; they does not constitute part of the Amendment. Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02 Page 4 Potential Amendment to tile Pickenng Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area (g) to provide clearer direction for environmental and stormwater management matters respecting the Amberlea Creek tributary that flows through lands covered by the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, (i) support the principle of piping the Amberlea Creek tributary that flows through the Northeast Quadrant lands and, at the same time, recogmizing the interests of landowners within the Northeast Quadrant on whose lands Amberlea Creek tributary flows to pipe that tributaD-, and the interests of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority' maintain the Amberlea Creek tributary through the Northeast Quadrant lands as an open and buffered creek channel; (ii) require any developer of lands within the Northeast Quadrant proposing to pipe or relocated the :Ma~berlea Creek tributan' to: (A) submit an environmental/ stormwater management report, to the satisfaction of the Ciw and the Toronto and Region Conser~'ation Authority, which report must demonstrate a strate~' resulting in a significant net environmental benefit to the watershed if justifying piping of the creek; (B) obtain appropriate approvals and permits from public review agencies; and (C) satisP,' any required compensation under the tSisheries Act; and (iii) ensure that development proposals are undertaken in a manner that does not adversely impact downstream water quailD' and quantit)' through the use of on-site controls and/or financial contributions to a downstream stormwater faciliD' if necessan.'; and (h) to provide additional direction on implementation matters for lands covered by the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, (i) through the use of the holding provisions of the Planning Act, require where necessau', proponents to enter into agreements with the Ci~', Region and other agencies as appropriate, respecting various development related matters including but not limited to: the construction of a collector road across their lands to the City's satisfaction and conveying the road to the City upon completion; entering into cost sharing agreements between each other where mutual shared access is necessao'; prox4ding or exchanging easements over lands where necessary; payment of study costs; and providing contributions to the cost of a downstream stormwater management facility, if necessary'." 4. Delete in its entirety, section 3.16, Urban Study Area: Old Dunbarton School policies, which policies identify that City Council shall, follo~ving the results of an appropriate land use, transportation and design study, establish appropriate land use designations and policies for the subject lands, by amendment. Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02 Page 5 Potential Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area Selected Policy Extracts from the Picketing Official Plan Referred to in the Potential Amendment Provided for Information Purposes Only - Not Part of Potential Amendment TABLE 5 Mixed Use Areas Permissible Uses Subcategory (Restrictions and limitations on the uses permissible, arising from other ............................................................................................................ ~..°....h....c.~?..~..~!?.1~:..~!....b..~..s[~.~!~..d..!.~..~..~..?~...b.~:~!.~.~ .................................. Local Nodes Residential; Retailing of goods and services generally serving the needs of the surrounding neighbourhoods; Offices and restaurants; Community, cultural and recreational uses. Community Nodes All uses permissible in Local Nodes, at a larger scale and intensity, and serving a broader area. Mixed Corridors All uses permissible in Local Nodes and Community Nodes, at a scale and intensity equivalent to Community Nodes; Special purpose commercial uses. Downtown Core All uses permissible in Local Nodes and Community Nodes, at the greatest scale and intensity in the City, serving City-wide and regional levels; Special purpose commercial uses. 3.6 City Council, (b) may zone lands designated Mixed Use Areas for one or more purposes as set out in Table 5, and in so doing will apply appropriate performance standards~ restrictions and provisions, including those set out in Table 6; Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02 Page Potential Amendment to the Picketing Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area Selected Policy Extracts from the Pickering Official Plan Referred to in the Potential Amendment Provided for hffonnation Purposes Only - Not Part of Potential .qznendmcnt Mixed Use Maximum and Minimum Maximum Gross Maximum Areas Net Residential Density Leasable Floorspace for Floorspace Index Subcategon.' (in dwellings per hectare) the Retailing of Goods (total building and Services floorspace divided (in square metres) by total lot area) Local Nodes over 30 and up to and up to and including 10,000 up to and including including 80 2.0 FSI CommuniW over 80 and up to and up to and including 20,000 up to and including Nodes including 140 2.5 FSI Mixed over 30 and up to and determined by site-specific up to and including - Corridors including 140 zomng 2.5 FSI Downtown i over 80 and up to and up to and including 300,000 up to and including Core including 180 3.0 FSI Permissible Uses (Restrictions and Designation limitations on the uses permissible, arising from other pohcics of this Plan, will be detailed in zoning by-laws.) Urban Residential Residential uses, home occupations, hmited Areas offices serving the area, and bruited retailing of goods and ser~dces serving the area; Community, cultural and recreational uses; Compatible emph)yment uses, and compatible special purpose commercial uses serving the area. 3.9 City Council, (a) ...; (b) may zone lands designated Urban Residential Areas for one or more purposes as set out in Table 9, and in so doing will apply appropriate performance standards, restrictions and provisions, including those set out in Table 10; TABLE 10 .............. Maximum and Minimum Residential Area Net Residential Density Subcategon.' (in dwellings per net hectare) Low Densiw Area up to and including 30 Medium Densiw Area over 30 and up to and including 80 High DensiW Area over 80 and up to and including 140 Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02 Page 7 Potential Arnendment to the Pickering Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area Selected Policy Extracts from the Pickering Official Plan Referred to in the Potential Amendment Provided for Information Purposes Only- Not Part of Potential Amendment 4.10 City Council shall, (b) ...;, (c) recognize the following municipal road categories, wherein, (i) Collector Roads: generally provide access to individual properties, to local roads, to other collector roads and to Type C arterial roads; carry, greater volumes of traffic than local roads, including automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles and transit; and generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 20 to 22 metres; and 4.11 Despite section 4.10, City. Council may, (a) va%' road right-of-way widths, and related road category intersection criteria, for roads under its jurisdiction and which are not designated on Map 'B' of the Durham Regional Official Plan, either upward or downward, without amendment to this Plan, where circumstances warrant such action, including, (i) at intersections to improve sight-lines, accommodate turning movements, and provide for transit stops; (ii) for traffic calming purposes, and to provide for the installation, where warranted, of traffic circles and other similar features; (iii)where rear yard lanes are provided; (iv) to avoid providing excessively wide roads or boulevards; and (v) to improve streetscapes and/or reduce the crossing distance between buildings and activities on opposite sides of a street; and 15.38 Within the urban area or within a rural hamlet, City Council may approve a site specific zoning by-law with appropriate provisions and restrictions, to permit a retail gasoline outlet in any land use designation except Open Space - Natural Areas, provided, (a) the retail gasoline outlet maintains the goals, objectives and policies of this Plan; (b) the retail gasoline outlet obtains access from an arterial road as identified on Schedule II; (c) the retail gasoline outlet is not located adjacent to or opposite a school; (d) the number of retail gasoline outlets is limited to a maximum of two outlets within 100 metres of any intersection; and (e) the retail gasoline outlet will not adversely affect the safe and convenient movement of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. SCHEDULE 'A' IL., ~REDESIGNATE FROM "MIXED USE AREAS-MIXED~ CORRIDORS" AND "URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS-LOW DENSITY AREAS" TO "URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS-MEDIUM DENSITY" . qEDESI'GNATE kROM "OTHER I ~ DESIGNATIONS URBAN STUDY AREAS" TOI ~ MIXED USE AREAS-MIXED CORRIDORS" I / \ REDESIGNATE FROM "URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS MEDIUM DENSITY AREAS~' TO "MIXED USE AREAS-MIXED CORRIDORS REDESIGNATE FRO ~4 "URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS-MEDIUM DENSITY AREAS" TO MIXED USE AREAS-MIXED CORRIDORS" EXTRACT FROM SCHEDULE I TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAl, PLAN EDITION 2 I.ANI) USE STRUCTURE SHEET I OF 3 SCHEDULE'B' ADD NEVV COLLECTOR ROAD L EXTRACT FROM SCIIEDULE ITTO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN EDITION 2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM gl. fi'BilE FRE~AYS IYPE A ARTERIAL ROADS ~YPE [] ARTERIAL ROADS ~PE C ARTERIAL ROADS COLLECTOR ROADS LOCAL ROADS FR E ~VYAY INTERCHANGES RAILWAYS CO RAIL TRANSIT SPINES APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE NORTHEAST QUADIL4NT Woodlands Neighbourhood Section FI Northeast Quadrant DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Table of Contents Sections F1.1 General Description F1.2 Development Framework F1.3 Urban Design Objectives F1.4 Urban Design Guidelines F1.5 Transportation F1.6 Stormwater F1.7 Implementation F1.8 Summao' Figure 1 Page 1 2 13 14 t5 16 17 ]-his Draft Guideline was prepared for discussion purposes, May 3, 2002 Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines F1.1 General Description The revised Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines apply to lands generally located between Kingston Road and Sheppard Avenue, east of Whites Road, and for lands located at the southwest corner of Dunfair Street and Whites Road. In addition, through the review tt~at led to these Guidelines, a parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Kingston Road and Highway 401 on/off ramp was added (see attached Figure A - tertiary plan). The previous Development Guidelines were formulated through a larger review of the land use policies in the Highway No.2 - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Study initiated by Picketing in the [ate 1980's. In 1990, Pickering Council approved Development Guidelines for the Northeast Quadrant. The Guidelines contemplated a high, intensity of mixed-use development, with substantial underground parking. An internal residential neighbourhood, focused around a ring road with an interior linear park was illustrated. Additional commercial and office, with office-support commercial was proposed for the Kingston Road and Whites Road frontages. Recently, there has been significant market interest throughout the quadrant but landowners are requesting that changes to specific elements of the current Guidelines be made. Accordingly, City staff in collaboration with the consulting firms of TSH Associates, Schollen & Company Inc., and Markson Borooah Hodgson Architects, major landowners within the Northeast Quadrant Area, commenced a review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. As background to these development guidelines the following reports were prepared for the City of Pickering: the Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study, Phase 1 Final Report, dated September, 2001, prepared by TSH Associates; the Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study, Phase 2 Final Report, dated May, 2002, prepared by TSH Associates; and the Amberlea Creek Northeast Quadrant -Assessment of Alternatives, dated September, 2001, prepared by Schollen & Company Inc. F1.2 Development Framework The Northeast Quadrant is an important focal point in the City of Pickering and acts as a 'gateway' for the planned Seaton Community. This intersection brings together access to and from the 401, downtown Pickering to the east and the planned Seaton Community to the north. The visual character of this intersection should serve to substantiate the role of a 'gateway' and shift the focus from the present highway commercial developments presently positioned at the street corners. It is recognized that the spatial and land use characteristics of the three main roads bounding the study lands are quite different, and correspondingly urban design concepts are proposed and elaborated for each in section F1.5. Draft Northeast Ouadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Pa~e ~ F1.3 Northeast Quadrant Objectives The development of lands affected by the Development Guidelines will strive to aci~ieve tile urban design objectives of chapter 9 - "Community Design", Ct~apter 13 - "Detailed Design Considerations", and tile Kingston Road Corridor L/rban Design Development Guidelines of the Official Plan. It is the intent of tt~ese guidelines to both fu~her those objectives and embellish the ones listed below: 1. ~o provide a quality urban image by encouraging tt~e placement of high quality buildings located to define the street edge. 2. To provide a quality urban image by . encou~ging a ham~onizc~ and compJen~enta~, landscape treatment throughout the No~heast Quadrant. R~ F~ON~AG~ ~. To provide a quality uFban image by encoura~in~ a coordinated effo~ to impFovin~ the straatscape that includes p~destrian oriented furnishings and other appfopdate improvements. C~Tq A '~OCAL ~OiNT ~ To provide a safe, pleasant, comfo~able ar~J convenient environment supporting all modes of travel including bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular traffic. To minimize views to large parking areas by utilizing appropriate principles of site planning and street edge treatment. To ensure that new development is compatible with existing development while allowing appropriate evolution of this area. 7. To recognize the need for efficient vehicular movement through and within this area including access to individual properties. To recognize and support all efforts to address tile stormwater management issues facing this area and to work cooperatively with all agencies towards a suitable resolution of issues. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 3 F1.4 Urban Design Guidelines The following guidelines have been developed objectives. to help meet the above stated F1.4.1 Commercial Development Proposals In reviewing any commercial development proposals fronting Whites Road or Kingston Road: 1.0 Building Placement: R.o.'vv'. Buildings should be located close to the street with no parking between the buildings and the street. This will be implemented by the establishment of provisions within the zoning by-law creating a build to zone; along Kingston Road 40% of its length will contain the front walls of buildings and 30% of the build to zone's length will contain the front walls of buildings along Whites Road. Where the configuration of a property makes this requirement onerous, special considerations can be made. 2.0 Building Appearance: Buildings shall be constructed with heights greater than one storey with building height not less than 6.5 metres. A minimum amount of functional second storey floor space will be required for each development in the quadrant, with a ratio established in each implementing zoning bylaw. Development will employ innovative architectural designs C;O~4~I~Rct/~L utilizing high quality materials ROAD FI~OHT^6E' to humanize the street, mitigate the effects of traffic, and present an attractive frontage along public roads. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (Ma_,v_~ 2002) P a_g.e 4 No blank walls shall be exposed to public right of ways. Buildings tt~at front tt~e street should be constructed with street level windows and entrances to buildings directly off of the public rigi~t. Covered entries in order to provide points of refuge to pedestrians and define entry points shall be provided at all public entrances. A minimum of 50% glazing will be required on the facades facing Kingston Road where possible. , v~ ../'~--.~~~ Pedestrian entq doors facing Kingston Road will be required regardless of whether these are the main entry points. 3.0 Rooftop Equipment Ali mechanical equipment must be adequately screened and all commercial buildings st~outd contain their rooftop mechanical equipment either in small rooftop elen~ents or under roof profiles. 4.0 Parking: Parking areas will be required to be attradively buffered from public rights-of-way through the appropriate layout of plant and landscape materials. Parking areas shall be set back a minimum of 3.0 metres from adjacent residential development. The majority of parking shall be provided at the rear of the site behind the main buildings, and at the side. .... 'Y'A~KIHG STREET Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 5 Landscape islands a minimum of 3.0 metres in width shall be required at the ends of each parking row. Parking between building facade and streetline is discouraged. Where appropriate, bicycle lock ups shall be provided for employees and patrons. 5.0 Road Boulevards: · The Kingston Road and Whites Road frontage's will be urbanized and landscaped appropriately as part of any development proposal. The City may assist in implementation costs for certain improvement elements. 6.0 Loading & Services: · All loading and service areas should be located away from street frontages and effectively screened. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (Ma~ 3, 2002) PaRe 7.0 Odour Control: · For all restaurant uses, restaurant cooking ventilation systems shall incorporate ecologizer, water ,,,,,ash, ultraviolet or other equivalent odour extraction mechanisms sufficient to ensure that the resulting ext~aust is substantially odour free and will not effect surrounding residents. 8.0 Drive-Thru Facilities: · Drive-thru facilities shall be located such that the pick up window or stacking spaces are not situated between the front wall of a building and Kingston Road or Whites Road. · Drive-thru facilities should provide a minimum of 8 automobile stacking spaces before the order board and a minimum of 4 automobile staking spaces between the order board and tt~e pick-up window. 9.0 Vehicular Access: Driveways and parking areas located between streetline and the front of the building are discouraged. Pedestrian and vehicular conflict points should be minimized and pedestrians should be given priority at crossings by treating the ground plane with textured asphalt or pavers. 10.0 · Internal Public Lane Internal access for vehicular traffic and pedestrians to other properties in the Northeast Quadrant shall be provided by a publicly owned arid maintained lane, aligned as indicated in Access Concep~ E, attached as Figure 1, of approximately 10 metres Draft Northeast Ouadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 11.0 in width, generally consisting of a 1.0 metre north boulevard, 8.5 metre pavement, including curbs gutter and storm sewer and a 0.5 metre south boulevard. A publicly accessible sidewalk shall be located on private property on the south side of the lane. Conditions Abutting Creek No buildings or structures shall be permitted within 10 metres of the stream corridor of the Amberlea Creek tributary. If possible, this area adjacent to the creek should be landscaped in a manner that is sensitive to the natural processes of the stream, unless the stream is piped or currently channelized. 12.0 · 13.0 · Pedestrian Environment: Clearly articulated pedestrian access from the public right of way to the entry of all buildings will be provided. Where possible a minimum landscape strip of 3.0 metres will be required along building frontages to allow .for comfortable pedestrian circulation and adequate landscaping and site furnishings to be integrated into these areas. In large parking areas landscaped pedestrian walkways shall be provided from the parking area to the main entry. Storage: Garbage and recycling enclosures for commercial development will be fully enclosed in roofed structures and located towards the rear of the properties. Garbage and recycling enclosures will be required to be constructed of materials matching or complementary to that of the buildings. Draft Northeast (~uadrant Development Guidelines (Ma,,, 3, 2002) Pa~e 8 14.0 · Garbage and recycling storage can also be i~andled interior to the building itself. · Any outdoor storage st~all be compietet,v screened within a structure. Landscaping: · All areas not required for building, storage, servicing, or parking shall be landscaped. · Front yard landscape areas should be maximized by minimizing access points and reducing the amount of paved area at the front of buildings. · A continuous landscape connection between the building front and tile street boulevard is preferred. · Berms are not considered appropriate along tt~e frontage of a comrnercial property. As ti~e percentage of front yard landscaping decreases tile intensit3,, and quality of landscaping throughout tile site shall increase. 15.0 16.0 · Buffers: Adequate and attractive buffering between commercial and residential development shall be required; landscape elements including fencing may be utilized Site Furniture: Bicycle lock-up areas and trash receptacles will be integrated into development sites in convenient locations and shown on site plans. Attractive exterior seating areas or courtyards that include benches, bicycle lock ups and garbage receptacles and are safely removed from vehicular routes will be encouraged. Draft Northeast Ouadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 9 17.0 Signage: · Site plan applications should identify sign details including location and size. · Fascia signs should be designed to be integral with the buildings fa(;ade. · Signage for second storey businesses should be located on a sign directory near the main entry. · Ground signs are preferred over pole or pylon signs. 18.0 · · · · Lighting: Lighting design should complement the design of the development. Exterior lighting shall not spill over onto adjacent properties or streets. Lighting shall be downcast to avoid excessive light pollution. Lighting and light standards in public areas including parking lots should relate to the pedestrian and be limited to a height of 6.0 metres. 19.0 · 20.0 · Tree Preservation Established trees that provide significant buffering or aesthetic contributions to the neighbourhood should be considered for preservation and protected during construction. Tree preservation details will be required to be submitted for the City's review. 'Former' Dunbarton School Site and Lands to East Any buildings located in the northern portion of the sites shall include a treatment of the north facing fa(;ade that presents a building face to Sheppard Avenue that reflects a residential chai'acter. Draft Northeast~ment Guidelines (May3, 2002) Pa.g_E ! 0 F1.4.2 Residential Development Proposals In reviewing residential development proposals: For the proposed residential development, at the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, buildings st~all be located close to the street, with parking provided at the rear. New residential development shall be integrated into the area in a manner that is both respectful of the character of tt~e existing neighborhood and serves as an interface between this area and the surrounding lands. AH ATFi~ACTtVE COI~HER C R~-ATE~ A -.FOCAL t~O,N-F _ The south-east corner of St~eppard Avenue and Whites Road shall act as a transition area between the higher buildings on Whites Road and the lower buildings on Sheppard Avenue. Tills corner should be treated as an important focal point, and include landscape and hardscape treatment to create an identifiable amenity area, preferably including pedestrian connections into tile site. New residential development along Sheppard Avenue shall include no more than four units that are attached before providing a break between building masses. The height of residential units along Sheppard Avenue shall be restricted to two storeys on the front elevation facing Sheppard Avenue, and shall include facades that are mostly brick on all sides facing the public right of ~va,v. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 12 11. 12. A public pedestrian link which runs north south from the end of Delta Blvd connecting to the sidewalk on the ' south side of Sheppard Avenue, and includes up-graded landscape treatment and a minimum 2,0 metre wide sidewalk, shal be included as an uJ. easement for pedestrian access granted to the City. Allowance for comfortable and convenient pedestrian movement from areas north and west of this location to destinations to the south shall be integrated into the site layout. 13. 14. 15. No buildings or structures shall be permitted within 10 metres of the stream corridor of the Amberlea Creek tributary. If possible, this area adjacent to the creek should be landscaped in a manner that is sensitive to the natural processes of the stream, unless the stream is -..'~'- piped. Any building mounted utility boxes including telephone and hydro shall be enclosed within or behind a screening device, which generally matches the materials used in the building facade construction. Any free standing utility boxes including hydro, telephone, etc. shall be enclosed within screening devices designed to match or complement the buildings. 16. 17. All stairs, which are required on building facades, shall be cast in place and not pre- cast units. The grade of the site along the Whites Road frontage shall be raised so that any proposed dwelling's front entry is at or above the grade of the sidewalk on whites Road. Draft Northeast ~ment Guidelines (May 3, 2002) ~e 1! Nev~ residential development along V,,'hites Road st~all be a minimum four functional storeys on tile side of tt~e building facing Whites Road, and of mostl,v brick facades on all sides facing the public right of way. 10. Architectural detailing and stepping the footprint of the front and rear facades shall be utilized to avoid the appearance of long flat walls. A new sidewalk shall be constructed along the south side of Sheppard Avenue. A vegetative buffer and a generous ~ sideyard width will be required aiong the eastern properh,, line separating an,,,, proposed residential development at the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppardneighbourhood.Avenue from ti~e existing Attractive and appropriate landscaping i~~~~~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~~~ will be required both on the perimeters of the development facing the streets and interior to tt~e site. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 18. 19. Garbage and recyclable material shall be handled internally within each dwelling unit (including its garage), and not within separate buildings or centralized areas. Lighting design should complement the design of ti~e development, shall not spill over into adjacent properties or streets, and shall be downcast to avoid excessive light pollution. 20. For residential development along Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, the front entrance will face the public streets. F1.5 Transportation The three primary roads surrounding the Quadrant are Kingston Road, Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue. All are arterial roads that perform an important traffic function in the City. As lands are developed along these roads, this function must be maintained. Accordingly, the number and spacing of new access points to Kingston Road, Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue will be carefully reviewed by City and/or Regional staff. However, no through road is permitted to connect Delta Boulevard to Sheppard Avenue or the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp to Sheppard Avenue. It is anticipated that Kingston Road and Whites Road will be widened to six lanes plus auxiliary turn lanes in the future, and upgraded to standard urban cross-sections with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Access Concept E, attached as Figure 1, identifies the approximate alignment of a proposed east-west road that is proposed to connect Delta Boulevard with the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp. Access to Kingston Road will occur at points indicated by Access Concept £, with signalized intersections along Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Pa~e 14 Kingston Road occurring at tile 401 westbound on/off ramp, Delta Boulevard and Whites Road. The City of Pickering acknowledges and advises lando`,¥ners and developers that the intersection of Kingston Road and the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp is under the sole jurisdiction of the Ministr¥ of Transportation. Furttler, tile City acknowledges and advises landowners and developers that remaining access locations along Kingston Road and \,Vtlites Road are under the sole jurisdiction of the Region of Durham, and access permissions may change over time from full access to restricted access as traffic and safety conditions warrant. A single access onto Sheppard Avenue from the new residential development, located at the south-east corner of Wi~ites Road and Sheppard Avenue, is supported. Despite the access restrictions to Si~eppard Avenue shown on Figure 1, ,~,ccess Concept. L, for any new residential development proposals located along Sheppard Avenue east of the residential development proposed at tile south-east corner of Whites Road and Sileppard ~venue, tt~e City ,,,,,ill consider permitting selected additional accesses. As a condition of development, landowners ,,;,'ill be required to enter into development agreements to construct, at ti~eir cost, tile new collector road, to the City's satisfaction. Additionallx,', tt~e City will support all opportunities for shared access from abutting private propertx to public streets as well as coordinated internal access, between private properties, and will rectuire tt~e granting of easements in favour of neigt~bouring lando~ners and/or ti~e City if deemed necessary. Where the new collector road intersects with Kingston Road opposite the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp, tile proponent of development on those lands shall require approval of the entrance configuration from the Ministry of Transportation in consultation with tile Region of Durham, and tile City, prior to consideration by Council of any zoning by-law amendment application for those lands. In ti~e event tile intersection is not approved, alternative access to Kingston Road would be required. 1.6 Stormwater -[he Amberlea Creek Northeast Quadrant - Assessment of AlLernatives study, prepared by Schollen & Company Inc., identifies an option for a storm sewer extension of the existing system south of Sileppard Avenue to the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp. The City supports tile piping of the existing tributary of Amberlea Creek, which traverses tile Northeast Quadrant, as an integral component of a stormwater management system that includes a storm sewer system and a stormwater management pond. Tile stormwater facility is required to control both quality and quantity stormwater. A substantial net benefit to tile downstream environment must be demonstrated in order to warrant consideration of piping the tributary. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (Ma~002) Page 15 Lands located east of the Bayfair Baptist Church are the preferred location for a stormwater management facility. Detailed siting, engineering and grading plans are required to assess the feasibility of, and design options for, a storwmwater management pond (reference may be made to the Assessment of Alternatives study for additional stormwater management details available to date). If the stormwater management facility is approved, the City will be requiring proponents of development applications within the Northeast Quadrant and lands currently draining into the reach of the Amberlea Creek tributary to pay a proportionate share for the detailed design work and costs of piping the creek, in addition to a share of the total cost of implementation of the proposed Amberlea Creek stormwater management pond. In the event that approvals are not granted for the stormwater pond, or development proceeds ahead of construction of the pond, developers will be required to install quality and quantity control devices and to enter into agreements with the City to cost share future stormwater works. Further, in the event approvals from the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Department of Fisheries are not granted to pipe the creek, the landowners shall be required to maintain the Creek with appropriate setbacks. F 1.7 Implementation Council and City staff shall implement the appropriate components of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines in the review of all land use applications in the Quadrant and through zoning by-law performance standards. Accordingly, to ensure that proponents have considered this Guideline in the preparation of any major land use application and to assist the City's review, a statement of how the proposal will achieve the intent of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines will be required to be submitted to the City, prior to the City's consideration of an application for site plan approval. All building permit applications will also be reviewed development guidelines including any corresponding Design Statements. in the context of these Siting and Architectural Developers or property owners will be required to contribute to the costs of completing the Review of the Northeast Quadrant Guidelines including the transportation, environmental/stormwater and urban design components. Costs will be adjusted annually based on the Southam Construction Index. Draft Northeast Ouadrant Development Guidelines (Ma}' 3, 2002) Pa~e 16 F1.8 Summary The Northeast Quadrant Guidelines were prepared balancing the at times competing interests in the lands of the various concerned parties. Tile Guidelines were prepared to aid developers in designing ttleir development proiects, and to assist the Planning & Development Department ill reviewing proposals in this area. A distillation of issues relating to the City's objectives and the concerns of tile development community and the neigi~bouring residents was required. ~he Guidelines are laid out to first provide tile City's overall objectives and then to elaborate a set of guidelines, which implement these objectives. Tile obiectives of tile City can be summarized as allowing ti~ese lands to evolve in an appropriate manner, while striving to provide a safe, pleasant environment that displays a high quality urban image and to integrate this new development sensitively into the existing neighbourhood. Tile Guidelines themselves are separated into guidelines for Commercial Development Proposals, Residential Development Proposals and further to cover Transportation, Stormu,'ater Managen~ent, and Implementation matters. Tile Guidelines are tile result of a collaborative effort between all of the stakeholders and tt~e Planning & Development Department, and shall provide a framework to review all development proposals in tills area. Figure 1 Pace 17 SHEPPARD RAINY DAY STEEPLE H~LL JACQUELINE STROUDS LANE WfNGARDEN WEL~US STREET COURT ~ROOK ,i; ROAD S,4E~=ARC AVENUE ~---'-~~,¢,~/ ~ City of Pickering ,/ BREDA AVENUE , MORETTA AVENUE SANOK ~- DRIVE Planning & Development Department · · NORTHEAST REVIEW AREA r DATE MAY 2, 2002 055 ATTACHME]'fl'# ~-- '~ TO CURRENT NORTHEAST QUAD~T DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINE CONCEPT A'FfACHMENT REPORT ~ PD~ SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS \Vithin the No~heast Quadrant Revie;~ area. several development applications have been submitted to thc City as ibliows: Wood/Carroll {Haves Line Properties) (.4, 223 )1 The original application proposed zoning amendments to implement a preliminary conceptual site plan that included 18 townhouses on the north pan of the site and 1625 square metres of conmlerciaFretail and restaurant uses on the lands fi-onting Kingston Road. l. Despite Council's authorization to undertake the Quadrant review, Hayes Line Properties hie. appealed Council's neglect to make a decision on the application to the Ontario Municipal Board/OMB). The application ,,','as revised tizrough the submission to the OMB oF a new proposed amendin~= zonings= bv-laxv. The City received circulation of the revised by-law in December 2001 to implement a revised prelinnnao' site concept. The revised preliminao' site concept eliminated the residential uses and reconfigured one-storey retail/colnmercial, restaurant buildin~ envelopes. On Febnm~ 14 and 15. 2002, the OMB heard the appeal and delivered its ciecision on April 11, 2002. The OMB approved commercial zoinng lyf thc entire property providing for: one-storey buildings with a two-storey 1'aqade'. tSe location of /kent xxalls of buildinas_ required to occupy, at least _~<°,, of a 'build-to' zone alert,,= the Kingston Road frontage; connectixitx' of' this site to abutting sites by means other than dedication of a 'public lane" a cap of' 1200 square metres of gross floor area for restaurants on the site and no requirement to impose a "Holding" zone to guarantee certain public matters arc addressed. The ONiB will issue its fbmaal order once the final implementing Zoning By-law is provided to the Board. Lydia DobbiwCity of Picketing (.Xlarion Hill Development Corporation) (ePA 01-002/P & A 0401) The proposal consists of constructing 9'~ stacked townhouses units with a massing concept of 4 storeys fronting onto Whites Road. 2 to 3 storeys fronting onto Sheppard Avenue, and 2 to 3 storeys fronting onto a private loop lane in the interior of the site. The application also applies to a City owned parcel of land, previously owned by Vendian Corporation. which abuts the Dobbin property. A statutory public meeting on the application ',vas heard on May 17, 2001. · Michael Boyer~Pickering Holdings Inc. 'Veridian Coq)oration (A 40/01) The proposal consists of expanding the list of permitted uses bv consolidating the prevailing "sc-8" and "ca3-3" categories into a single and inclusive zone. The application applies to lands located at the south\vest comer of Kingston Road and the Highway 401 Old. off ramp east of \Vhites Road. North American Acquisitions ("old" Dunbarton School Property) (ePA 01-003/P & A 10011 The proposal consists o£ constructing of 2.1!900 square metres of retail store, personal service shops, office and restaurant uses within two buildings located on the east and north sides of the site. Gas bar and car wash l-acilities are located within two other buildings on the west part of the site separated by a proposed right-of-way to the abutting properly to the west. ATT^CHMSNT # ~ TO RE~ORT # PO 22~(~2· SUMMARY OF REPORTS A) Environmental/Stormwater Amberlea Creek-Northeast Quadrant Assessment of Alternatives prepared by Schollen & Company Inc. in association with Aquafor Beech Limited and LGL Limited dated October 2001, Revision #1 A summary of the assessment contained within the report concluded the following: · reduced rates of erosion and enhance stability of Ambertea Creek downstream of West Shore Boulevard will be realized through the construction of the proposed stormwater management facility. The proposed stormwater management will address flood and erosion control objectives for the Amberlea Creek watershed, mitigating erosion and its associated impacts in the downstream reach. The implementation of the stormwater management facility will also reduce the extent of erosion protection work required to be implemented over the long-term; · water quality improvements will be achieved through the implementation of the stormwater management facility and will enhance the viability of aquatic habitat downstream. These water quality benefits will also have a positive effect on aquatic habitat in Frenchman's Bay; and · the implementation of the stormwater management pond will moderate water flows, reduce erosion and consequent sediment accumulation in Frenchman's Bay enhancing the long-term sustainability of the wetland. A copy of the Amberlea Creek - Northeast Quadrant Assessment of Alternatives report is available for public review in the Planning & Development Department at the City of Pickering. B) Transportation Phase 1 - Final Report prepared by TSH Associates dated September 2001 Conclusions reached as a result of the work undertaken for Phase 1 include: · the major signalized intersections in the study area are operating at or above capacity in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the exception of the Kingston Road/Delta Boulevard at it operates at a good level of service; · the concept site plans for the propitious east of Delta Boulevard, including the Wood Carroll lands and the Dunbarton school site reflect a highway commercial orientation with a reliance on direct access to Kingston Road and little opportunity for good internal vehicular or pedestrian connections with adjacent properties; · significant constraints exist to providing all moves access points along the subject sections of the White Road corridor; · it would be desirable to develop an access management plan that would include the consolidation of access ;points al for the properties along Kingston Road east of Delta Boulevard, the possible restriction of certain turning movements along Kingston Road, and the provision of alternative access via internal connections to adjacent properties and linkages with the east-west road to access Delta Boulevard; · it is desirable to mitigate the potential traffic impact on Sheppard Avenue by providing access for new developments via adjacent Type A (Whites Road) and B (Kingston Road) arterial roads and by providing an internal traffic ~ACHMENT #~TO REPORT # PD~ circulation system to serve the various properties within the Northeast Quadrant; two access concepts :\ and B have been developed (see Attachments ~3 and 4); these access points will be refined through discussions v,'ith thc Citx. Durham Region. MTO, and property owner developers, and in tiao Phase 2 study xvill be subject to a traffic operations anah'sis Phase 2 - Draft Final Report prepared by TSH Associates dated May 2002 Conclusions reached as a result of the work undertaken tbr Phase 2 include: · due to signalized intersection spacing constraints, there are no opportunities other than tile Highv,'ay 40t westbound on of ramp location to develop a new signalized access on Kingston Road in the subject corridor; · in the future, it is likeh' that access to Stud,,' .Krea properties on the north and south sides of Kingston road will be restricted to right tums only. The proposed access road. opposite tile Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp, would provide for traffic signal controlled left turn movements to and from this development area: · the long-temt development potential of the subject area is not likely to be achieved without the provision of an internal road comlecting tile developable properties betv,'ecn Delta boulevard and the Dunbanon school site. and tile related additional signalized access to Kingston Road opposite the Highway 401 westbound mt'off ramp. it is the City's preference that the internal road connection be provided as a public road xxav. rather than thorough property easemelltS; · without the access road opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp, the road connecting the properties alon~ the north side of Kingston Road may not be developed as envisioned and tile implementation of access management in the Kingston road corridor will be difficuh in the future as no alternative access plans will be possible; · the analysis indicated that the proposed new road opposite the Highway 401 westbound on, off ramp would be beneficial for the operation of the Kingston Road/Delta Boulevard intersection; · the Whites Road corridor will be subject to access controls in the future as development occurs, including section with raised center medians to control left turn movements; · it has been determined that is not feasible from a traffic operation and safety perspective to signalize the intersection of Whites RoacbT)unfair Street due to its close probity to the existing traffic signal at Whites Road/Kingston road and Whites/Sheppard Avenue; · ~vith the existing residential land use along the Sheppard Avenue corridor, and its functional classification as a Type 'C' arterial, it is seen as appropriate to permit access for new residential developments proposed along the south side of Sheppard Avenue. In considering the proposal for the Marion Hill development, the combination of access to Sheppard Avenue, Whites Road, and an internal driveway connection (possibly gated) at the north end of Delta Boulevard would result in a nominal traffic impact on Sheppard Avenue operation. Copies of the Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Stud.',', Phase 1 and Phase 2 Reports are available for public review in the Planning & Development Department at the City of Pickenng. R~PORT # PD '~ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEETING NOTES Subject: Public Meeting: Northeast Quadrant Review (Information Package provided for pick-up at the meeting) Meeting Date and Time: October 30, 2001 Picketing Civic Complex Cotmcil Chambers 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. Attendees Staff: Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy Grant McGregor, Principal Planner - Policy Steve Gaunt, Plmmer ii Consultants / Developers: Alex Artuchov (representing Picketing Holdings (Boyer)) Lorelei Jones (representing Wood Carroll) lan Matthews (representing Marion Hill) Robert McConachie Stefan & Raffi Nalbandian (submitted letter, see attached) Ron Richards ¢epresenting North American Acquisitions) Public/Other Area Residents & Landowners: +15 Councillors: none present Purpose: · to exchange information concerning the Northeast Quadrant Review Catherine Rose: · introductions Grant McGregor: · brief overview Meeting, Notes Northeast Quadrant Review: Public Information Meeting October 30. Page ,lohn Ibettson: · mentioned that Ids neighbour's property has an angled property line at sourly-east COI'ller · confused that Mixed Corridor is ah option for his property · asks, "Where's the proposal"? · is concerned about noise from car wash close to [tis home · wants homes on south side of Si~eppard · does not wa~t gas stations or other conunercial uses that stay open between 8 pm and 8 am · says Wood Carroll homes don't fit - concerned with style/price/property value/class of occupant/heigh~ overlook over swinmfing pool/privacy · says residential area north of road should fi'om road and be tow density l)avid Steele: · · · · is concerned with enviromncntal hnpact is opposed m general to piping creek wants Schollen repo~ reviewed by Dr. Ex'les at University of Toronto h~ no confidence in TRCA Ron Richards: · stated staff is not giving m~v real consideration to or consulting with development interests, including trau~sportatio~ study · rejects stafCs ~ndings in the information Package as they apply to his client's property · use of word "development guidelines" wrong - should be "design guidelines" · cormnent in [t~ormation Package ~:t~at there is little opportunity for vehicular access is wTong · traffic conclusions in the I~dbrmation Package are not the only conclusions available and other options are possible including access to site at full intersection Grant iMcGregor: ,, transportation issues will be reviewed and other conclusions are possible Ron Richards: · wants full commercial · Mixed Corridor use option does not clearly permit tttis · suggests more meetings Meeting Notes Northeast Quadrant Review: ~TTACHMENT # ~ TO REPORT # PD '29~- (-': ~ Public Information Meeting October 30, 2001 Page 3 Irene McNamara · too nmch density is being proposed · no one asked home owners · wants R3 zoning on Sheppard · there is currently too much traffic on Sheppard · currently dangerous on Whites for pedestrians · proposal would create conflict with traffic / don't add to it · too manyhomes proposed · doesn't like 'Canoe Landing' development · likes townhomes at Whitby Village · traffic survey should not be done at mid-day · don't want to be like downtown Toronto or Scarborough · concerned with school services as they are too crowded already · likes seniors' home or adult housing · only comment was about Marion Hill Sylvia Spencer: · wants median on Whites Road for safety of kids · no new traffic onto Sheppard · can she buy back expropriated land? (Catherine advised she'd call Legal Services) · wants low density residential in Precincts D and A · wants access onto Sheppard from City lands for only eight houses - Iow density i.e. rear land · and same on school site - would be seven houses · access concept b preferred · wants development on Nallandian to be street-oriented · why full median across front of Boyer property- should be more breaks for tums · concerned with noise- lots of roads proposed · fumes from Wendy's and Tim Hortons are bad Tim Costar: · · lives in E none of plans recognize existing character of development on Sheppard Avenue Irene Wolf: · · lives on north side of Sheppard Avenue wants low-density residential along Sheppard Avenue too much development proposed - density is too much Meeting Notes Northeast Quadrant Review: 10 Public Ln£ormation Meeting October 3(I, 2t}~; i Page ,John Ibettson: · maintain low densiw on Sheppard Avenue · there are too nlanv tOWl~qomes proposed · there are too mahv cars and that the traffic is dangerous Mrs. Costar: · concerned with satety of rely proposed ba~lk because robbers can easily escape onto Highv,'ay 401 Several People: * no restaurants, c~ wash, gas stations or b<~ lan Matthews: , there are always concerns * willing to meet wifl~ residents Lorelie Jones: , developers concerned that i~ormation from City not good enou~ * not enough land ibr public road on their property * will want all commercial on Wood Carroll site Wihnn Flnvelle: Sheppard and Whites ~e plugged with uaftic too much traffic, parked cars - ali day and night Shepp~d not safe li~ts from Tim Hortons shine onto our properties Several People: Boyer's h~ loud spewers that disturb ~ea residents · Mrs. Costar: · lights from 401 off-ramp stfine onto our properties Mrs. lbettson: Mr. Costar: · · · how h/gh ora fence can she build [call Clerk's for sign by-law infommtion] lives in Precinct E can it be a nfix of use? could access be provided from former school site? ATTACHMEI'iT # ~ TO ,~?om ~ p~2~- O~. Meeting Notes Northeast Quadrant Review: Public Information Meeting October 30, 2001 Page 5 bls Parkes: · · · · · lives in Precinct E should be mixed use access from school site should be provided for lands could be developed for a dental office don't let design of North American Acquisitions proposal land-lock their property Sylvia Spencer: · why does creek have to be piped? · wants a park, creek and walkway from medical centre to Delta Boulevard David Steele: · if keeping stream - needs a buffer Ti~n Costar: · concerned that stormwater pond could be dangerous for kids mosquitoes and will breed Catherine Rose: · wrap-up · welcomes sharing S chollen study with David of University of Toronto Next Steps: · originally anticipated proposed Official Plan Amendment being forwarded to a Statutory Public Meeing and Council before end of year · in light of comments, probably not making recommendations before end of year · willing to have additional meetings between developers and residents Mr. McNamara: · will residents get to see another revision prior to it going to Planning Committee'? · wants more time than a month · wants everyone on street to be contacted Attachment PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEETING NOTES Subjecl: Meeting Place and Time: Attendees: Staff: Northeast Quadrant Review Design \Vorkshop November 24, 2001-9:30a.m. 1:30p.m, Picketing Civic Complex - Library Auditoritm~ Catherine Rose. Nlana~er Policy Grm~t McGregor. Principal Planner - Policy Jotm McMullen. Semor Plam~er - Site Plamzing Steve Gamn. Planner i1 City's Consultants: Ronji Borooah, Planner 8,: Architect, of Markson, Borooah, Hodgson Architects Ltd. ©mTy Pappin, Transportation Consultant, of TSId Associates Landowners Agents: Residents: Lorelei Jones {representing Wood. Carl-Oil. et al) Ron Richards (representing North &nencan Acquisitions) Robert NlcConachie Robert Gordon Mr. Case Vincent Santamaura lrepresentmg M~ion Hill) Alex :~uchov (representing Picketing Holdings (Boyer)) Vivian VandenHazel Raouf Besharat Joba~ Ibettson Ami Picton Mr. & Mrs. Costar Jolm Hache Bonnie Bares & Mr. Bares Irene McNamara Robert Laurie Diana Robinson kene Moult Jotm Mahar Bill Somberger SvMa Spencer Wilma & Ken Flavell David Steele Councillors: none present ATTACH,~ENT #_ ~ TO % :Meeting Notes ;-,?OAT # PD ~-(')2 · Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop November 24, 2001 Page 2 WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS (Catherine Rose): outlined purpose and intent of today's workshop; O O review new transportation information; provide opportunity for residents, staff and developers to discuss opportunities, constraints of the Quadrant, the sites within the Quadrant and the individual development proposals. TtLKNSPORTATiON INFORMATION UPDATE (Gary Pappin, TSH Consultants): · presented an update of findings and alternative access opportunities and constraints within the Northeast Quadrant. Resident's questions/comments (includes comments recorded on flip charts): · what is the purpose of traffic signal at Dunfair? · when were traffic counts done? - they appear to under represent reality; · cars infiltrate to Sheppard to avoid right turn from Whites Road northbound to Kingston Road eastbound; · concerns with parking at medical centre, and drop-offs at school; · current traffic situation is broke - adding development makes it worse, not better; · no enforcement of parking on Sheppard Avenue; · parking in front of Dunbarton High School is a problem; · build public parking; · speed and volume on Sheppard Avenue; · delays (4+ cycles) to turn left at Whites Road to Kingston Road; · suggest physical traffic, calming speed bumps on Sheppard Avenue; · speed of traffic on Whites Road down to Kingston Road problematic; · widen Sheppard Avenue and allow on-street parking; · delays turning fight from Whites Road north to Kingston Road east; · consider an all-way pedestrian lights at Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue; · students jay-walking causes delays and safety concerns; · widen Kingston Road and Whites Road; · consider parking metres. BREAK-OUT GROUPS GROUP 1 - K/NGSTON ROAD DEVELOPMENTS (Facilitator: Steve Gaunt) (Wood/Carroll [Hayes Line Properties], North American Acquisitions [Dunbarton school site], Boyer/Pickering Holdings) Meeting Notes t. TTAOH~,!E~,~'i' #~TO '% Review oF Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop November 24. 2001 Page 3 Ron Richards (for North American Acquisitions t: · oFFered to meet ;vith residents to discuss his proposal: l,orelei Jones (for Wood, Carroll (Hayes Line Properties)): · not supportive of public road; · prepared to work with City and residents to achieve an acceptable easement across their property. access Svh'ia Spencer: · if no public road. rear oi'lots will be lm~dlocked: · wants the Sheppard frontage lands ~o remain as loss' density resident/a/. Mrs. McNamara: · vetficle repair shops, restaurants, gas stations, car washes, car sales and banks should not be permitted in the Quadrant; · concerned with buffering for light; screetfing and fencing should be done properly; trees, including tile svhole tree line and particularly the existing big maple tree, should be retained: 5lt. Ibettson: objects to townhomes: wants good bufl'enng and screening between existing homes and yards and proposed new development. A Resident: · Mirfistry o£ Transportation and Communications has control over road access from Kingston Road and tile length of suct~ road Ron Richards: · the cost of constructing and providing tile land for a public road xvill be too expensive for his client; consequently, other developers ancb'or the City should contribute to its cost. A Resident: · regarding buffering: asked for ail example of adequate buffering/sound barriers to protect residential uses from car washes mad gas stations; need trees back to buffer noise from Highway 401; opposed to building height above one storey near the rear of existing homes; should not have two storeys close to any existing houses. Notes ATTACHMENI' #~TO Meeting REPORT # PD~'5-(._)~.. _ Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop November 24, 2001 Page 4 Ron Richards: · his client is a commercial developer- not residential; · wants his commercial development to have minimal effect on residential uses; · it is inherently difficult to achieve a suitable interface between residential and commercial use Residents: · · · office uses are Okay; does not want car wash or gas bar uses; need adequate buffering between residential and commercial uses. Ron Richards: · needs to first see how access road onto his site will work, then will develop detailed designs to determine whether economics of development can work; · this location is good for retail / restaurant / gas station uses; · it is difficult to rent second-storey space; · as plans evolve, Ron will keep residents informed of his evolving proposal. Resident(s): · don't object to.commercial uses in. general; do object to noise smell expected from gas station or car wash use; wants to keep the ability to have easements from the school site property to properties to the east; need buffering along the north edge of Wood Carroll, McConachie and school site properties; should keep trees; need fencing; detailed design should look attractive; pedestrian access is needed. Alex Artuchov (for Boyer/Pickering Holdings Agent): · no specific development is proposed and permitted uses on his site at this stage. Mr. Boyer wants to broaden the Meeting Notes ATTA3H,',',E~JT ~--~-.~T0 Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshoo November 24, 2001 Page 5 GROUP 2 - iMARION HILL DEVELOPMENT (Facilitator: Grant McGregor) Grant McGregor: * Introductions; Vincent Santanmura: · Provided the Group with an ove~'iew of the Marion Hill Development; Grant 31cGregor: · Reviewed the design challenge statement and urban design objectives All: There was considerable discussion on the volume and speed of traffic on :Sheppard Avenue especially at peak times and on weekends. Also, mentioned was the parking of cars on the south side of Sheppard Avense by parents dropping off and/or picking-up their children from the Dunbanon High School. It was suggested that the Git5' should be entbrcing the no parking bylaw. The participants in the Group generally agreed that the Marion Hill tow~fl~ouse proposal was too dense for the neighbourhood. As x~ell, there ~ere concerns expressed regarding the proposed building heights along Sheppard Avenue and that such heights should be similar to the heights of existing residences. In addition, the need for more open space areas especially for children and the need for more parking areas within tile development were expressed. The Group indicated their preference for eight single detached lots along Sheppard Avenue as opposed to tt~e Nlarion Hill townhouse proposal. Tow~fl~ouse units, if constructed should be located in behind the single detached lots and similar in desigql to the townhouse units constructed by John Booty Homes in Ajax. Vincent Santamaura provided the Group with alternate designs for the proposed townhouse units along Sheppard Avenue that emulated the existing building size m~d height of residences on the north side and suggested that parking be provided in sculpted areas along the side of Sheppard Avenue. There was a suggestion from one of tile Group participants that a greenspace corridor along the fi-ontage of Sheppard Avenue should be incorporated into the Marion Hill proposal. This would allow future residents the ability to have flower and shrub beds in the front of the umts. There was considerable discussion and concern about the impact of traffic from the Marion Hill proposal onto Sheppard Avenue. As a result, the Group indicated that access onto Sheppard Avenue for the Marion Hill proposal was inappropriate. Altematively, access should be directed to Delta Blvd aa&or Whites Road. Meeting Notes ATTACHMENT #~TO Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop November 24, 2001 Page 6 One of the participants who lives directly across the road from the proposed driveway location into the Marion Hill site indicated a concem with both lights shining into their house from cars and increased traffic making their driveway difficult to utilize. It was noted that the medical art building at the comer of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue has created a traffic and parking problem for the neighbourhood. There was a suggestion that the City owned lands be swapped for lands opposite the medical arts building in order to accommodate additional parking. There was also the suggestion that the City owned lands, in conjunction with a natural trail along Amberlea Creek, be used as a public open space feature for the quadrant. It was noted that public bus service is no longer provided on Sheppard Avenue so residents are forced to use their vehicles. This is particularly bothersome to the elderly who are dependant on public transportation to get around. The Group raised the issue of odours emulating from the fast food restaurants located along Kingston Road affecting their quality of life. As well, noise issues were identified with respect to the servicing of these restaurants in the early morning especially with respect to waste haulage. There was a suggestion that garbage enclosures at Marion Hill be provided. In addition, there was a concern about the high number of cars idling their engines while in the restaurant drive thru's and the related impact of exhaust fumes on the surrounding environment. Three was comment from one of participants of a review by Dr. N. Eyles on the City's report Amberlea Creek-Northeast Quadrant Assessment of Alternatives that piping the creek is not appropriate. The Group indicated that they would be like to see an alternate design for the Marion Hill proposal illustrating what the proposal would look like with single detached residential lots fronting onto Sheppard Avenue. SUMMARY/WRAP-UP & NEXT STEPS (Catherine Rose): · indicated that staff will arrange a meeting on Transportation issues to address the current traffic conditions with Regional and Picketing Works staff within a couple of weeks [now slated for January, 2002]; · indicated that a' copy of the notes from this Worksl~op and the previous October 30th Information Meeting to the participants at those two meetings; · indicated that, as a result of this workshop, that the statutory public information meeting for the Northeast Quadrant Review will be rescheduted from the previously announced December 20, 2001 date to a later date and that any report on the findings of the study will be in the new year [subsequent notice to be mailed]. SG/sm staff/sgaunt/misc/NortheastQuadrantWorkshop.doc October 24, 2001 Ms. Catherine Rose City of Pickering Picketing Civic Centre One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Ms. Rose: Re: Amberlea Creek - Northeast Quadrant Report Assessment of Alternatives City of Pickering Further to our discussions and after reviews of the above report prepared by Scholten & Company Inc., The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff offer the following comments. The proposal is to develop a comprehensive plan for Stormwater Management for the Amberlea Community, by placing a Stormwater Management Pond on two intermitted tributaries (described as AC3 and AC5). The works would appear to benefit downstream portion of Amberlea Creek and Frenchman's Bay which currently received large amounts of sediment from the upstream developed community. From the inventory provided it is evident that the tributaries upstream of the prepared pond are degraded and a large percentage of flows result from stormwater run-off. Given the potential benefits to Frenchman's Bay. TRCA staff would support in principle the proposed Stormwater Management Scheme and the resulting changes to the upstream portions of the creeks AC3 and AC5. However we would note that the works constitute a Harmful Alteration Disruption and Destruction and as a result note that a suitable compensation arrangement would be required to support the project and we are prepared to work with the Municipality, DFC and MNR to help further this project. We are prepared to work with the municipality Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of National Resources to help further this project. We trust that this is of assistance. Yours truly, -~, Russel White Senior Planner Development Services Section Extension 5306 RW/gc CC: Laud Matos, DFO Rob Fancy, MNR F:\PRSXCORRESP\PICKERINbAMBERLEA.Wp D 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsviev,, Ontario .',13% lq4 ~41¢;, 66i-b600 FAX 661-6898 ww~%.trca.on.ca ~'~ NOV. _!!c; ,n! IFRI) (t74 Ministry of Tmn~port~don 16:07 ~lnl~t~re Tranapor~s ~tANAGEMENT ~TTACHMENT REPORT # PD TEL'41623542f17 Ontari Phone; Fax: E-mail: (416) 235-3509 (416) 235-4267 charles.petro~mto.gov-on.ca Corridor Management Office 7th Floor, Atrium Tower 1201 Wilson Avenue Downswiew, Ontario M3M 1J8 November 9, 2001 File No' 42-80197 City of Picketing Plann/ng & Development Department Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario LtV 6K7 AUe.nti on: OT. ant. McGregor_ Dear Sir: Kingston Road- Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study Phase 1 Final Report City of Pickerin~ Highway 401 We have reviewed the submitted information and offer the following comments: It is this ministry's preference that there be no access on Kingston Road directly across the Highway 401 ramp terminal. We would therefor encourage development as shown in Alternative 5, Alternative 6 and Access Concept A. Our concerns regarding the altematives involving access across from the Highway 401 E-E/W ramp are as follows: · As mentioned in the report, the need for this access must be justified. The Delta Boulevard access may be sufficient to serve the development. Benefits of the new access would have to be weighed against impacts of locating directly across a ramp terminal. · Any access across from the ramp terminal shall have no southbound through movement to access Highway 401WB_ This through movement would probably necessitate an additional signal phase, which is not possible as the signals are at capacity and the signal timing has no free time. Signal timing must be maintmned to ensure preference is given to ramp traffic. · If northbound through movements are considered from the ramp to the access,~ it must be ensured that minimum stopping distances are maintained. The current advisory speed on the ramp is 50}ma/hr. There is the possibility of northbound ramp through vehicles crossing the intersection at 60km/hr- 70kin/hr if they are trying to "beat"an amber signal. Therefore if the 70kin/hr is assumed, a minimum AT'rACHMbNT ,,¢~TO L,' ~Z..-- :,i (FRI i6'0' CORRIDOR. I,I.AN.Af E!!E!4T TEL:41623542fi7 ['. stopping distance of ll0m is required, which means there should be no accesses, no conflict points, r~ sharp radius curves, etc. within 110m north of the north limit of the intersection. · Some allematives cons/der a southbound left turn movement to go east on Kingston Road_ This presents a conflict point if northbound ramp veh/cles are pernutted through the intersection to the development (Alternatives 1, 2, and possibly Access Concept B). If northbound ramp vehicles are no' permitted through the intersection, as shown in Ahemative 3, "no though access" si~maage would have to erected for the r~xmp. This may not be effective, and depending where this signing is erected, it max possibly confuse Kingston Road left mm and nght turn vehicles attelnpting to access the developrnen~ · The road would have to be a public road, (not an entrance as indicated in OPA 01-003/P and ZBA Al0/01, for North American Acquisition Corp). We would also reqtfire that there be no full moves access points along the first 180m of this road. This requirement may preclude the viability of the gas bar as indicated in the OPA/ZBA. \Ve are also prepared to discuss access opportunities as they relate to Highway 401 and ramp terminals Whites Road and Kingston Road, during Phase 2 of the Transportation Network review. We will require: l. Estimates of site generated tra£fic from all existing and proposed land uses within the study area. 2. Detailed traffic operational analysis of the impact of future traffic on the level of ~-affic service c Highway 401 and associated ramps and ramp terminals on Whites Road and Kingston Road. ,4nalysis of existing traffic conditiot~s ri'able 1 - Characteristics of Stud',' area roads - does not include the Hwy 40I WB on ramp fro~ southbound on Whites road. From Figure I - Stud,-,' Area - the Whites road north arid south approaches c ramps to WB 401 fall within the boundaries of the Stud5' area. At least thc on ramp fi.om the nor~ approach of Whites road should be inc]uded for analysis in Phase 2. This one lane on-ramp had peak a.r volume of about 1900 vph, according to our 1995 database. Please provide justification for the assumpUon that p.m. peak horn- volume is 12% of daily traffic (Table --column 6). A cl~eck v, dth Kings'ton on/off ramp 1995 data indicates an average of about 6.7% of daJ traffic as p.m. peak volume, and ranges from 6% to 10%. Using 12% for all roads in the study art underestimates the daily traffic where the actual percentage is less. The consultant should determine t} actual percentage for each road_ Also, it should be confirmed that the daily traffic is an estimation of t2 annual average daily traffic. As well, TabIe 1 does not indicate the dates for the p.m. peak hour volum~ from which the daily traffic was esUmated. We believe the source is the p.m. peak flows given in Figure of the report. Table 1, which appears before Figure 3, doesn't indicate that. Additional comments will be provided once a detailed analysis is received. I trust that this is sufficient to your needs. Please do not hesitate to call should you require fitrther information or clarification. Yours truly, Charlie Petro Project Manager CC. Tom Hewitt, MTO Michael DeMichele, MTO Ken Sherbanowski, MTO Steve Gaunt, City of Pickenng Steve Mayhew, Durham Region FEB.~26'02(TUE} 18'00 ATTACHMENT # (~- ,,TO REPORT # PD '2~-(:~2. GORRIDOR ~ANAGE~ENT TEL:4162354267 P. 002 Ministry of Transportation Minist&re Transports Ontari Phone: Fax: E-mail: (416) 235-3509 (416) 2354267 ch arles.p etro~mto.gov.on, ca Corridor Management Office 7th Floor, Atrium Tower 1201 Wilson Avenue Downsview, Ontario M3M 1J8 February 26, 2002 File No: 42-80197 City of Picketing Planning & Development Department Pmkering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Grant McGregor Dear Sir: R.EI Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study Proposed Access Opposite Kingston Road/gIighway 401 Westbound On/Off Ramp City of Picketing Further to the meeting of January 30, 2002, we offer the following comments: It is this ministry's preference that there be no access on Kingston Road directly across the Highway 401 ramp terminal and would therefore'encourage development of one of the other options outlined in your Transportation study, Phase 1 Final Report dated September 2001. We appreciate the municipal need for a ramp terminal access road, but we are reluctant to approve it at this time, as many details still need to be resolved to our satisfaction. This ministry is prepared to co-operate with your staff, and regional staff, and to work toward a design, which would be acceptable to all parties concerned. To this end, since it is your desire to pursue the ramp terminal access road option, we offer the following points for consideration: The need for this access must be justified. Other options must also be examined and the benefits of any new access options would have to be weighed against impacts of locating access directly across from the ramp terminal. Some preliminary design work would also need to be undertaken. This ministry is not prepared to sacrifice Level of Service of the Highway 401 Ramp Terminal. Also, any roadway/interseetionJramp improvements, should an acceptable design be developed and approved, shall be at no cost to MTO. · Any access across from the ramp term~ai shall have no southbound through movement to access Highway 401WB. This through movement would necessitate an additional signal phase, which is not R E C E I FEB 2 7 2002 CI'FY OF PICK~FttNG PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A TTA~CHMENT#~TO . FEE -~,'(!2!Tt.iE) 18'0I GORRIDOR~4ANA~E~IENT TEL:4162~S4267 077 possible as the signals are at capacity and the signal timing has no free time. Signal timing must be maintained to ensure preference is g/yen to ramp traffic. Proposed road must be designed to meet the design parameters of the offramp i.e. 70 k:m/hr design speed. · Northbound through movements fi.om the ramp to the access road, must be provided. Ivfinimum stopping distances must be maintained. A southbound left turn movement to go east on Kingston Road presents a conflict point if northbound ramp vekictes are permitted through the intersection to the development. At this time the Ministry is not prepared to accept these movements. Similarly, a lel~ turn movement into the development from eastbound Kingston Road also presents a conflict. Signal timing priorities must be as follows: 1) HiE-Jaway 401 Ramp, 2) Kingston Road (Arterial Road), and finally, 3) Development access road at ramp terminal' · The road would have to be a pubhc road, (under Mumcipal jurisdiction and maintained lo municipal standards). We would also require that there be no flail moves access points along the first l§0m of this road. This requirement may preclude the viabil~ .W of an), development near the intersection. tn order to further our evaluation of access opportunities as they relate to Highway 401 and ramp terminals at Wlfites Road and Kingston Road, we will require: 1. A detailed traffic impact stud),, wh_ich reflects and identifies all of the proposed geometries of the roadway. Plea. sc note that all comments submit'ted to you in our ]erter of November 9, 2001, still apply. 1 trust that this is sufficient to your needs. Please do not hesitate to call should you require further information or clarification. Yours truly, Charlie Petro Project Manager CC, Tom Hewit% MTO Michael DeMichele, MTO Ken Sherbanowski, MTO Steve Gaunt, City of Picketing Steve Mayhew, Durham Region 1~78 .ANNING .' ~O · ~MENT DEPARTMEI~I' A"FTACHI,IENT #~TO -. tl 79 ATTACHMENT # II _~o REPORT ~ PD ~'~ Dear Catherine Rose Nov. 6 2001 Re: Stormwater Management Study Transportation Study Development in the N.E. Quadrant As I stated to Ron Taylor and yourself at the landowners meeting of March 2001, that I would not agree to give anymore financial retribution for any more studies in The NorthEast Quadrant. At the landowners meeting of March 2001, it was understood the landowners and The City Of Pickering would be both involved with the consultants in these studies. Since The City was the only one involved with the consultants the City should be the only one to pay for these studies. In 1999 I hired a consultant and biologist to perform an independent study on this water course from Frenchman's Bay to Sheppard Ave. where this watercourse tums into a massive system of storm water piping for the development north of Sheppard Ave. to my astonishment the two studies from different consultants have the the same outcome. I feel The City Of Pickering has wasted two years of my life and held up development in the North East Quadrant for a long period of time. The storm water problem we have now from Sheppard Ave. to Frenchman's Bay was created by the residential and commercial development north of Sheppard Ave. which the City let be built with insufficient storm water management facility. There has been other studies done on this water course in the West shore area because of a serious erosion problems. The city paid for these studies to be done. In my opinion, the City is being predigest against the land owners of the North East Quadrant. If the Landowners of the North East Quadrant .have to financially contribute to these studies, all Landowners of the North East Quadrant should pay equal amounts not the payment schule set up by the Planning Dept. because these studies might contribute some information for the development to all properties in the North East Quadrant not certain property owners. The transportation study shows two dift~erent schemes on two maps i feet if the best feature were used from both these maps, to make it a must that the entrance on the north side of Kingston Rd. would be between Wood Carroll west prope~, line and are east propem.' line aligning the entrance to these properties with Michael Boyer east entrance on the south side Kingston Rd. allox~qng a break in the future center medium if there was ever one put on Kingston Rd. Maybe there could be some consideration on the north of the properties fo~ an internal t/oad of minimal width from Delta Blvd. to the Hv~w, 401 interchange stoplights. Every public meeting I have attended, there are a small handful of residents from Sheppard ave. that bnng up the same complaints about development in the North East Quadrant. it is about time personal from the City's Planning Dept. and the Ward One Councilors stop looking at maps and pieces of paper and personallv come and look at these properties of the North East Quadrant to make their own de~isions about the accusations of a small minori .ty of Sheppard Ave. residents and decide for themselves if these accusations are real or a figment of their imagination. i was very discussed with the public meeting of Oct 30 2001 where the meeting got out of control and no one from the Planning Dept. could accomplish getting this meeting back into some kind of orderly fashion, again nothing was accomplished. There was a mention of another public meeting on Nov. 17 2001 I would hope that this meeting will have a chairperson to keep this meeting in an orderly mariner and be able to explain to the public if any issues arise. cc; N Carol G McGregor Councilor Brenner Councilor Ryan Thankyou R McConachie ,~TTA,.,, ,I~ Eh, =-, TO The City of Picketing Planning And Development Department, RECEIVED FEB 1 7_ CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Northeast Quadrant Development As land owners of 765, 757 and 751 Sheppard Avenue, and being 3 of 4 lots which will be directly affected by the development of the Northeast Quadrant of Whites Road, Kingston Road, and Sheppard Avenue, feel that based on neigh- boring concerns we would discriminated against in any endeavors to be included (as per the approved NorthEast Quadrant Land Use and Guidlines) of the oppor- tunity to sell off a portion of our backyards,for development. We realize that the Northeast Quadrant needs to be carefidly planned, as Whites Road and Kingston Road is the main entrance off Hwy. #401 into the City of Pickering. it would be beneficial to the City of Pickering mid it's residents that development of this area be appealing to the eye, easily accessed and with amenities and serx'ices that are best suited for the area. We have no objections to re-zoning to accept these changes and would like to kept infonned of all Applications, Amendments etc, but we xvould also like to be given the opportunity, should it arise to be separated fi'om the [burth lot 771 Sheppard Avenue which has shown no interest to have these lands developed. Yours Truly, Kiln Baker Valarie Lawson Shane Legere 765 Sheppard Ave. 757 Sheppard Ave. 751 Sheppard Ave. Picketing, Ontario Pickering, Ontario. Pickering, Ontario L1V 1G4 ~ _ LIV 1G4 ........ L1V IG4 c.c//~tario ]vt.nicipal Board File #Z010070 Stefan and Raffi :X:albandian 3-30 Rivermede Road. Concord, Ontario, L4K 3N3 October 30, 2001 Mr. Grant McGregor Planning and Development Department CiO' of Picketing One The Esplanade. Pickering, Ontario, LIN 6It-7 Re ! 1475 & 1485 I~"Itites Road Public Meeting North East Quadrant Review OCT 3 0 CiTy OF PtCKERING PLANNING .AND Mr. McGregor ~g~'e bought our property, municipally known as 1475 & 1485 I47tites Road based on the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, which provides for full access road for ourproper(y onto 14hites Road. For tonight Public Meeting we received for comments the Kingston Road- IVhites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Stud),, prepared by TSH. ht this stud), itt the alternative "Access Concept B" you are proposing to restrict the access to our property by "right itt- right out" access road only ( b)' means of raised center median ). Proposed restricted access devaluates our propertv and as such changes the original grounds upon which we acquired our property. Therefore we support the alternative "Access Concept A "which enables safe pedestrian crossing of VrTtites Road and unrestricted access onlo Oltr propert).. Yours tl~lov Stefan and Raffi Nalbandian RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Addendum to Report Number PD 24-02 be received; and That the Recommendations contained in Report Number PD 24-02 be adopted, with the further provision that "transitional" design strategies between the proposed townhome dwellings and the existing low' density homes be implemented prior to rezoning of the Phase 2 lands. PICKERING 1REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Nell Carroll Director, PlaHning DAT[!' .",lax Xl. 2/i~2 ADDENDL'NI TO REPORT NUMBER. PD24-02 S[_'B,IECT: Amendment S to thc Pickeri~.~ OI'I~ciaI Pla~ ~ Applicz~tion ePA Zoning Bv-laxx Amclldmclqt ApplicatioH A Marion }-till DcxelopmeHt C'orporatiola Part Lot 2S. RaHgc 3. B.F.('. (now Part 1, PILtli 14431 ~M Pat-t 1, Plan (South-cast corner of ~5'hitcs Road and Shcppard Avcmie) City oF Pickerin~ RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Adde~adum to Report Nt~q~bcr PI') 24-(~2 tm~, i'cccix cd: Phase.v lands. ORIGIN: City oC Pickerm~ PlaHnin~: Committee. a~t its ~ect~zqz }qcld o~ NIav I~. ,())_ approved O1'12cial Pla~ Amendment Applicatiotu ODA ~)l-~t~2 P to rccicsiz~ua~tc la~ds on thc sot~th side of St2eppard Avenue to an C'~'t~ R~'.~/~i~,~;z~," .~'c,~l.s.' Alc,~tzz~; /)~'~.~/t~' ..t~'c~s designation, and add policies to the lfbodl~t.s-.X'~,Lz,/~t,()zv/-/z(,(,,l /;o//~'zc,.$. CoL~nciI relbtTed the recommendations respecting amendments to the .X'o~'z/ic,c~.s~ (?~,i~/~'~z~z Z)c'~'t'/(;/~/;~c,/~z (/t~z'~te/i~?s and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04 ()1 back to 5tgil'i' Ibr Ctxrttaor il1Ibmlatio~q. City Council adopted Amendment $ to tlqc Picketing OI'~Sci'~xl Plain at its meetin*g held May 21, ,()t)_. AL'THOR1T¥' Thc P/r~H'~t,g FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct cost to the City arc zmticipated z~s ti result of t}~e t>z'oposcd dex eiop~]ei~t. The City will be responsible for the cost of tho co~struct/o~7 of a~ sidox~alk alo~ng tiao soutt~ side off Sheppard Avenue, adjacent to the dcvelot)mc~nt. This sidcx~alk is /dcntii~cd as a development c}~arge proj oct. :\ddendum to Report Ntm~ber: PD 24-02 Date: Ma,,' 31,2002 Subject: Amendment g to the Picketing Official Plan (Application ePA 01 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUM MARY: In response to the issues raised at Planning Committee, an Addendum to Report Number PD 24-02 has been prepared. In addition, the Addendum to Report Number PD 23-02, respecting the Northeast Quadrant Review is also presented to Planning Committee for consideration at this same meeting. Council's resolution adopting Amendment 8 to the Pickering Official Plan is attached to this report (see Attachment #1). In this Report, staff have clarified those matters raised by residents at the Planning Committee and Council meetings respecting piping of the creek, buffering/compatibility with existing low density development, and the proposed access to Sheppard Avenue for the Marion Hill applic~tion. An "Issues/Options" Chart was prepared (originally as part of Addendum to Report PD 23-02 on the Northeast Quadrant Study), and is provided as Appendix I to this Marion Hill Addendum Report. This Report only highlights the options addressed in the Chart that apply to the Marion Hill proposal (see Appendix I). While this report presents options for treatment of the Amberlea creek, buffering/compatibility and access to Sheppard Avenue, staff continue to support the recommendations of Report No. PD 24-02 which provide for vehicular access to Sheppard Avenue and piping of the creek. Further, staff now consider that determination of the best means of buffering the proposed townhouses from existing detached homes on Sheppard Avenue should await the decision respecting retention or sale of the City owned lands. Any option selected by Council for each of the three issues can be incorporated by staff through technical changes to the conditions of zoning approval when the by-law is brought forward for Council adoption, and through appropriate changes to the site-specific amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines when it is simultaneously brought before Council. BACKGROUND: l.O Plannin,4 Committee On May 13, 2002, Planning Committee considered the recommendations of Report to Council PD 24-02 on the Marion Hill applications. The recommendations on the applications were made in light of recommendations made on the results of the Review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. The results of that review were also considered earlier the same evening. The Report to Council on the Marion Hill proposal recommended that: an Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan be approved to change the designation for the portion of the subject lands that fronts Sheppard Avenue from Residential Low DensiO' to Residential Medium Density, and add various site-specific neighbourhood policies to control development of the subject lands; a site-specific amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines be adopted; and, the zoning by-Daw amendment application be approved subject to numerous conditions. :\ddendum to Report Number: PD 24-02 Date: May 31,2002 S'~bjcct: Amendment 8 to the Picketing Of ilo(al Plan/Application ePA 01-002/P) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A I~-l. ~)1 Page 3 2.0 2.1 On May lo , Planning Committee approved recommendation gl, but roll.cci recommendations ~2 & =3 back to staff in light of ('ommittec's earlier decision to onlx receive and refer back to stalT the Report on thc Northeast Quadrant. On May 21,~, Council adopted thc reconnnendations of Planning Comnnittee and passed a by-law adopting Amendment S to thc Picketing Official Plan. In response to Planning C_'onnnnittee's t'equest, stat]- has prepared this Addendum Report to Council providing ,..2ditional ~nlb~7~qat~on on thc issues raised at thc Planning Committee meeting. Thc ..tddendLznn Report pro\ides options to address tt~c issues raised, and pro\ ides staff colnnlcnts on those options. Thc purpose of ttds addendum report is therelbre txvolbld' to provide options pertaining to tiao issues raised, and staff comments and recommendations on those options; and. to discuss issues pertaining to access to Sineppaxi Avenue, piping of the Amberlca Creek tribk~tarx and buffering conapatihilitx of the proposed Marion Hill development ti'om e×isting detactaed dx~ oilings ora Sheppard .Avenue. Issues Options for the Marion Hill Pron~osal "Issues 'Options" Chart As directed by Planning C'onnmittce. start }nas considered tile issttes raised at the May. 17 Committee Meet(n,,= and at tine Xlax'_l" Council Nlceting. To assist Committee, a Chart has been prepared listing tine issues raised, thc options to address these issues, and the pros and cons of each option /bi tine Northeast Quadrant Review and tile hlarion Hill proposal. Thc Ctna~ is provided as Appo~qdix I to this Report. Please note that ibr all issues raised (numbers 1 through S) on the Chat\. Option Number 1 is supported by staflL with thc exception of issue 8, treatment the of Ambcrlca Creek tributary. There arc three options proposed for the tributa~x' of the Ambcrlca Creek: piping thc xx atcrcourse: relocating it to the edge of the affected properties: and protecting tiao xvatcrcoursc in its cutout location as an open space comdor. Staff in(tally supported tile piping of thc watercourse provided a net environmental benefit to Amberlca Creek and Frcnchn:an's Bay was achieved downstream. While staff continues to support this option, staff is also able to support both other options that would relocate or retain all or part of thc watercourse throu?a thc Quadrant as an open space feature. Tlnosc issues that only pertain to the Nlarion Hilt proposal are shoxvn ira BOLD on tile Chart. 2.2 The Three Issues ,Access to St]eppard Axenue (Issue ] on the Chat'ti The Chart sets out a full set of pros and cons tbr txxo optional v,'avs of' addressing this issue. Staffsuppons Option I Pcnuit full mo\es vehicular access from the Marion Hill development to Sheppard Avenue and does inet $ClppOrt Optior~ 2 NO vehicular access to Sheppard Avenue. Bufferlno . ' ' ~ Compatibility xvitt~ thc Liar'(on Hill property (Issue 3 in the Chart) Tine clnart presents a full set of pros and cons ibr Option 1 landscaped buffer of 6.5m, Option 2 retention of open creek corridor x~it}~ l/)m buffer, Option 3 provide planting buffer on abutting detached dxvelling lot to east. Thc approach to buffering tine Nlarion Hill toxvntnouses from tine detached dwellings on the south side of Slneppard Avenue is directly linked to the treatment of the watercourse .:~ddendum to Repor~ Ntmnber: PD 24-02 Date: Mav 31, 2002 Subject: Amendment 8 to the Picketing Official Plan (Application OPA I)l-002/P) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Page 4 through City owned lands. However, any solution should provide specific means of ensurino, a suitable transitional design strateo.,v between the proposed townhouses and existing detached dwellin,4 development. Specific details respecting buffering will be brought forward with the development details for Phase 2 lands of thc Marion Hill proposal (which include City owned lands). Therefore, a minor change to the staff recommendation of Report to Council PD 24-02 is proposed to add the requirement for "transitional" design strategies to be detailed later in the process. Treatment of the Amberlea Creek tributary (Issue 8 on Chart) The Chart again presents a full set of pros and cons for Option 1 Pipe thc tributary, Option 2 - Relocate it to the edge of each property, and Option 3 Protect the tributary as an open stream. While staff continue to support piping of the creek as the preferred option, there are various factors that have brought staff support for other options. The watercourse, if left in its natural state or relocated to a new channel bed, could buffer the Marion Hilll townhouses from existing detached dwellings on the south side of Sheppard Avenue. Further, the costs associated with piping the creek, and the uncertainty and timing of construction of a stonnwater pond north of Highway 401, lend support to Options 2 and 3. Consequently staff can support all three options. Phase 1 of the Marion Hill development is not dependent on a decision respecting creek treatment. Phase 2 (including City owned lands), will be delayed pending a decision by Council on creek treatment through its lands. Addendum to Report Number: PD 24-~)2 Date: Ma)' 31. 2002 Subject: Amendment 8 to the Pickerin: Official Plan (.Application OPA 01-002/P) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A (14 01 Page 5 .APPENDICES' I: "Issues/Options`` Chart ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Resolution =79 02 Prepared By: 7 . Steve Gaunt, MCiP RPP Planner II /,/ / Catherine Rose Manager, Policy SG:':td Attachments Approved Endorsed /- '/5 .-- Neil Ca:~'l(Ip, t~ P D~rector. Planning & Development Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickcring City Council Thomas ''c Offllcer j APPENDIX I TO ADDENDUM TO REPORT NUMBER PD 24-02 ISSUES, OPTIONS & COMMENTS RESPECTING THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD 24-/)2 NO ISSUES OPTIONS COMMENTS RAISED 1. .A. ecess to Sheppard Avenue O_Qption 1 * Pros Permit full mox'es vehicular access from Marion Hill development to Sheppard Avenue as one of three vehicular access poinls. The other two proposed access poiuts are the right- in/right-out at Whites Road and the gated access at the end of Delta Blvd. ODtion 2 No vehicular access to Shcpl)ard Avenoc (permit emergent? vehicle access b~ knock-down/kev operated facility). · best access to Shcpl)ard. Whites and Highway 401 for future t(mnhouse residents, visitors and deliver)' personnel: best emergent) services access to townhouse development: · minimal lraffic impact on the area disperses traffic impacts: Sheppard A~enue has sufficient capacity to Sul)port nominal increase in traffic at peak hours: · less impact on traffic flo~ on Shel)pard A;cnuc than individual dri;ex~axs to detached houses: · connects thc ne~ residential development ~sith the Sheppard Avenue community - fosters improved neighbourhood cohesiun: '(HIS · nominal ~ncrcased delay for left turns from Sheppard Avenue to Whites Road south at peak hours: · concern expressed I)~ residents that access to their driveways on Shcpt)ard Avenue ~ill t)c made more difficult; · concern ext)res~ed by residents that traffic from Delta Boulevard ~*ill intiltrate to Sheppard Avenue despite the proposed gated eutrance to the Marion Hill property: Supported by Staff Pros · no chan~e to real or l)erceixed traffic operations, turning movements ou Shcpl)ard A~enue: · Marion Hill is x~illing to implement this option if required: · circuitous traxel patterns forced on future residents, visitors and delivery personnel to access Whites Road southbound, Kingston Road ;~estbound or Hwy 401; will result in additional traftic on Delta Boulevard and at Delta/Kingston Road intersection: · provides a residential 'address* that is accessed only through a commercial area: · may result in more traffic using Sheppard Avenue to gain access to Kingston Road ;ia Fairport Road. which may result in some unsafe and illegal turns to avoid such travel/turn restrictions: · confusing for ~isitors. delivery people and emergency services to access the proposed to~ nhouse development; · proposed dexehq)ment ~ill be less integrated into residential COllilllUllitv to north and east: Not supported t)x staff Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD 24-02 -' ISSUES RAISED New Collector Road OPTIONS Option 1' Require a 10 metre wide public road across the north edge of McConachie and Hayes Line (Wood/Carroll) property to connect Delta Boulevard to new public road proposed for old Dunharton school property. Option 2 Require public road across rear of McConachie and Dunbarton school properties ending at two cul-de-sacs outside of Wood/Carroll property. Option 3 Require private easement access across all properties. COMMENTS Pros · approval of access to si~wnalized intersection at 401 westboum on/off ramp may be denied by MTO because private easemen access cannot guarantee same operational control as a 'public road; · provides for internal east-west connections from the rear of the commercial properties between the school property and Delt~ Boulevard at such time as the Region of Durham restricts turn access from Kingston Road; · provides alternate public road access most likely to encourag~ mixed use/higher density development in rear portions o commercial properties fronting Kingston Road and properties fronting Sheppard Avenue: thereby reducing access and traffic impact of such redevelopment on Sheppard Avenue should such higher intensity redevelopment occur in the future; Cons · modestly reduced development areas and modestly increase costs to private developers tbr higher standards required of public road; · Hayes Line noted that it would appeal any policy whic introduces a new public road requirement across rear of thei property:. · justification for need for a connection across rear of properties as a ~public' road denied bv OMB in recent decision Ibr Hayes Line applications this decision influence the OMB's position respecting the need for a road across the middle of the quadrant: Supported by Staff Pros · builds on road block in City's Boulevard development; · allows City to guarantee eflSciency, sate maintenance across public portions of the access; · site specific policy would be added to recognize on Hayes Line property; ownership at rear of Delt standards an OMB Cons · does not satis~' MTO requirements for a public road acces across rear of all these properties necessary to justify access Kingston Road/Highway 401 ramp intersection for o Dunbarton school property; · degrades efficiency of access across rear of properties; · only allows public road access for future intensified for the rear portions of only those commercial or properties that abut the public portions of the road access; Not Supported by Staff Pros · least regulated access arrangement across rear of commerci~ properties; · somewhat less costly to private owners; · least impact on commercial properties fronting Kingston Road; . pp , dixP. opon to CoL. cil pr) 24-0: NO ISSUES OPTIONS COMMENTS RAISED ( · aiioxxs ]cas: chance of NlI'() approval of any access to old 1)unbarton school s~tc pa)perry at s~gnalized Kings;on casciqqClq[ a;Tangcnlcnl lo pn)x ldo rear access to Mc('onachic and lVood ('a~ol[ p~'o?crllcs: rcdkllrC5 hig}l dc~rcc of lalldoxkllcr coordination and good will to achieve cascillcrl[> across al! properties; one uncooperative iandoxx~lcr can pI-Qludicc achievement oF internal coordinated , least alqlOUIqt Of }]]ktlqlClpa] control oi' efficient traffic movement. <albtv, maintenance and speed regulation: docs not guarantee a !o~ica2 functionaI aligmment of access across precinct: i~m~t~ long lcrm :'cdcxclopmcnt opportunities for residential properties I'rontltqz 5hcppar-d ..txcnuc by removing fhture access .................................................................................. Not Supported bx Staff ................................................................................... Buffering / ('ompatibility -ith Marion Hill property. ~)n 1' Ah)ag the eastern boundary of the property, a 0.5 metre setback is required. this landscape strip .ould alhm the Marion ttill develol)ment to be both ~isualh and ph)sicall) set)arated from the existing de~chq)mcnt in au attracti;c manner: ability for ('itx to control forn) of dexelot)ment on it's own lands ~houhl it decide to sell them: City can require transitional design strategies such as housing form, buffing, fencin~ ect.: ( 'OILS Require thc retention of the existing stream corridor ~vithiu the (;it3' owned lands and provide a minimum 10 metre setback on each side. · thc t)uffer area ;~ould I)c dimensionalh' smaller than the existing open space feature, which includes mature vegetation: Pros · a great majorit3 of thc existiug mature vegetation could be t)reser~ e(l: · this feature could continue to provide an aesthetic quality to the neighbourhood and alhm for some limited passive recreational space: · it x~ould increase the percentage of "()pen space" within the develof)ed lands and therefore reduce the overall perceived densitx. ('()ils · limits the financial return to the ('ltv for the sale of its lands; · limits the financial return to the developer of these lands by decreasing the number of units the land can accommodate. Supl)orted t)v Staff App?p,dizx i to Addendum Rcpor~ to Council PD 24-02 NO ISSUES OPTIONS COMMENTS RAISED O_~tion 3 Consideration of properties east of Dunbarton school prc)pcrt.v Retain low density designation for existing residential lots in Precinct B. Develop a requirement to plant significant vegetation on the private property to the east, in a layout designed by a landscape architect. O_~tion 1 * No requirement for consolidation of lots within Precinct E. Option 2 Require consolidation of properties within precinct prior to redevelopment Option 1' Designate the entire Precinct to medium density residential (restricting maximum density to 55 units per net hectacre and permit development below 30 units per net hectacre). Pros · would provide a strong buffer for the home most effected h the new medium density development; Cons · does not effect the pcrccivcd density nor the proximity of th new dcvelopment to the existing neighbourhood: Not supported by Staff Pros · permits the redevelopment of each lot in the Precinct on a s~t specific basis subject to criteria; · consolidation not precluded; Cons · integration of lots more difficult alter redevelopment ha occurred; · minimal recogmition of the area evolving into a more dens community; · smaller parcels have more limited redevelopment opportunities: · may result in some residential uses remaining for longer tern closer proximity to commercially redeveloped properties; Supported by Staff Pros · provides the opportunity for a comprehensive design of the enti~ Precinct including higher densities or a range of uses; · provides the opportunity to access impacts holistically Cons · essentially 'freezes' individual properties from redevelopmet opportunities; · lot assembly considered long-term; Not Supported by Stall' Pros · consistent with the Official Plan encouraging higher densities selected locations, usually close to Mixed Areas; · simplifies the designation on the entire Precinct; · provides opportunities for redevelopment in a manner that compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood; · density increase would not exacerbate the existing traffi problems with respect the traffic flow on Sheppard Avenue access to Sheppard Avenue from medium density developmen would be minimized; · provides an appropriate transition between new commerc~a development along Kingston Road and the character of th existing neighbourhood along Sheppard Avenue; · proposed policy would cap maximum density at 55 units per ne hectacre, also permit residential development below th, minimum net density of 30 units per net hectacre: Appendix I to Addendum Kepon to Council PD 24-02 NO ISSUES OPTIONS COMMENTS R41SED ('Illin · potcntml lnt:-oductlon o(addmonal medium dcnsm,' rcsidcntla[ dcnsib dcxclt pmcm Supporled b; Staff O.tion 2 Retain thc cxhtm designation of density residcntlai and medium density residential for thc nine lots in thc Precinct: · resident con,:cr;; that mod:urn density dcxch)pmcnt xxould bc introduced alonu thc frontage of Sheppard Avenue; · r'cs~dent cogccFn 2~oLiI increased trafI]c and density resulting lR)m medium dcn>~tx dcvclopmcnt would no longer be an issue: (011% (;as bar/car wash within thc Quadrant. Prohibit thc development of anx new gas bars. automobile scrxucc stations or cat' x~ashc~ within thc Quadrant. permit gas bars car washes xxithin thc Quadrant. · cx~>tmu incd~um dcn>~r,, dc>~unatmn applicab]c to rear of Not Supported bx Staff Pro~ · >c:-ccnm; anJ !,ur';crm~ ma,. not bc sufficient on thc school propcrt5 u, Fr'otcct tine :c>~dcnual development along Shcppard · public aTd <al:' conccrucd xttth noise and traffic and lighting ('Oil~, · restrict> thc r[kNgc o~ uzsc> C2.iFrc:~TIL pcrnnncd under Mixed Supported b;' Staff Pros prox ides thc t~!)i~onun:i,, liar aUtOlrlobilc rclakd services; would take ~dx- 'a"",,,' ....... of thc auto-oriented area of Kingston Road ('() Il ~, · pr-olll'crauon of addltmna] jas bar car wasi~ f'acilitics along · burr form c~ m-ad,ct> thc ('itx'5 'ma]nstrect' objcctn'e ibr the Q u a d r a n t Not supporled by Staff Appendix I to Addendum Repor~ ~o Council PD 24-02 hqG ISSUES RAISED story functional space and minimum building frontage requirements Piping Amberlea tributary Creek OPTIONS O_~tion 1' Require commercial development to provide second storey functional floor space and buildings closer to the street edge. O__ption 2 No second floor and no requirement for buildings close to the street. Three options proposed: enclosing (piping) the watercourse, relocating it to the edge of the property or protecting the stream in its current location as an open stream corridor. Option 1' Pipe the tributary - for the watercourse located south of Sheppard Avenue to the Highway 401 ramp intersection; Pros COMMENTS · consistent with the ~mainstreet' objective for the regarding higher intensity; · provides opportunities for a greater variety of uses withi~ buildings; · buildings brought close to the street edge would pedestrian access to buildings; · improve the visual appeal of the Quadrant: Cons · owners claim that market demand tbr second storey floor space limited: · contrary to conventional market driven single storey along Kingston Road. Supported by Staff Pros · provides developers with the simplest form of development to lease; Cons · less opportunity to accommodate a mix of uses; · ensures that the view from Kingston Road is that of lar parking areas with buildings located behind: · discourages a high quality pedestrian environment within Quadrant: · contributes to an outdated form of low intensity, single purpos~ development; · supports auto-oriented retailing and services. Pros · maximizes land area/land value for development, City owned lands forming the east part of the Marion Hi application; · maximizes assessment base for this area of the City o Picketing (ie: with net long-term benefit to all taxpayers); · will produce net environmental benefit to Amberlea Cree and Frenchman's Bay provided the stormwater pond constructed east of Bayfair Church; Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD._-~-t ~1~_ NO ISSUES RAISED OPTIONS COMMENTS will reduce long-term erosion/rehabilitatinn costs to City and laudo~ners south of Hwv 401: already a some~ hat degraded naturnl setting; · reduces 'green natural' area in this part of the ('it)': · removes a natural buffer/~egetation l)ct~een existing Io~ density residential d;~ellings and comn)ercial uses on Delta Boulevard: Supported by Staff O_Qptinn 2 Pros Relocate watercourse to eastern edge of Marion Hill/ McConnachie and Picketing ltoldings prnperties ~ ith reduced butt'er on each side. Cons Allo~' for protection of watercourse in City o~ ned property as an open stream channel ss ith 10 metre buffer each side. · retains buffered 'green natural' area: · increases developable area/land values/assessment base for (Titv and/or private laudn~ nors: · retaius green buffer t)et~veeu existing Iow density dwellings and commercial uses on Delta Boulevard; · simpler more efficieut apl)royal process to satisfy TRCA requirements: · I10 illlpro'~elllent [o dol~llstreaill erosion: · costlx cndea~our ~ith limited iucrease to dcveh)l)able aFea land va]ues asseSSlllelll [)ase: * retention of open stream signiticantly restricts development on t~o priva~te properties: .................................................................................. Supported by Staff .................................................................................. Pros · proxidcs opportunit3 for natural bullet between existing residents on 5heppard Avenue and the proposed Marion Hill development: · retains preseut meander belt and pathway of watercourse ~ith least impact on existiug open creek reaches and vegetation; · i)ro~ides opportuuities to use stream corridor as pedestrian l)ath~ a>': · least short-term cost to ('il;: · allo~s ('itl to retain ;~atercourse over its lands in present natural condition. ~ hilt enabling other landowners to pursue piping: · introduces a significant open space/natural feature into this are of thc city and provides for passive recreational uses; ('{)Ils · produces least amount of deveh)pable land/land value and assessment value far Cit; and private landowners; · provides no ol)portunity to address stormwater/erosion issues for do~ nstream reaches of Amberlea (;reek and Frenchman's Bay: · if a storm~ater pond is not constructed to mitigate and in)prove in)pacts of piping, theu erosion rehabilitation costs will continue tot do~nstream properties: Supported by Staff Attachment ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT CLERK'S DIVISION MEMORANDUM May 27, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Neil Carroll. Director, Plannh~g & Development Bruce Taylor. Clerk Retkrrals fi'om the Council Meeting of May 21, 2002 Please be advised that the Council of the City of Pickering passed Resolution #79/02, Item #2 at Council Meeting of May 21, 2002. as ibllows: 1. (a) That Official Plan Amendmem Application OPA 01-002/P, submitted by Marion Hill Development Corporation on lands being Part of Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C. in the City of Pickering, to replace the Urban Residential Areas: Low Density Areas designation on lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue with a Urban Residential Areas: Medium Density Areas designation on Schedule 1 - Land Use Structure be APPROVED AS REVISED, to also add various site-specific policies to section 11.8, FFoodlan& Neighbourhood Policies, for the subject lands, including a cap in the maximtm~ residential density of 55 milts per net hectare, as set om in Appendix I to Report Number PD 24-02; and (b) That the draft by-law to adopt Aniendment 8 to the Picketing Official Plan be FORWARDED TO COUNCIL for enactment, as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 24-02. BT:dk Copy: T.J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer , B. Taylor REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM' reit Carroll Director. Plmming & Development DATE: ~lav 2.2~/tj£ REPORT NUMBER: PD24-0£ SUBJECT' Picketing Official Plan ¢Mnendment OPA 01-002P Zoning By-law Amendment Applization A blarion Hill Development Corporation Part Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C. (nov,' Part 1, Plan 14431 & Part 1, Plan 40R-£767) (South-east comer of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue) City of Pickenng RECOMMENDATION: That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-002/P. submitted by Marion Hill Development Corporation on lands bein~ Pan of Lot 28. Range ~. B.F.C. in the City of Pickenng. ~o replace the C.5'b~n Re.side¢¢[ia/ .treas: Low Densi[v Areas desi~ation on land:; on ti2e south side of Sheppard Avenue with a Urban Residenzia/ Area&' .t/edzum L)c~zs:';~' .-tre~5 designation on Schedule ]- Land C~e &ruc~ure be APPROVED AS REVISED, to also add various site-specific policies to section t i.:9.':IIbod/ands ,Veighhouri~ood Policies, for the su(iect lands, including a cap in the maxin2um residential density of 55 units per net hectare, as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 24-02~ (b) That the draft by-lay,' to adopt Amendment 8 to the Picketing Official Plan be FORWARDED TO COUNCIL for enactment, as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 24-02: That site-specific Amendment 2 to the .'Vo;'theas[ O~uadran[ Development Guidelines, be ADOPTED as the City's detailed strateg7 for transportation, stonnwater ,,' creek, land use, urban design and pedestrian access within the subject lands, as set out in Appendix ii to Report Number PD 24-02; That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01, on lands being Part of Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C., at the south-east comer of Sheppard Avenue and Whites Road in the City of Picketing, to permit 97 stacked ~md street tov,'nhomes, be APPROVED, AS REVISED by the Applicant to permit a maximum of 89 stacked'and street townhomes, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix ILl to Report Number PD 24-02; ORIGIN: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-002P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 submitted to the City of Picketing. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 13. Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Pickenng Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04,/01 Date: May 2, 2002 Page 2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. The City will be responsible for the cost of the construction of a sidewalk along the south side of Sheppard Avenue, adjacent to the development. This sidewalk is identified as a development charge project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Marion Hill proposal is one of four applications that triggered a need for a review of the Development Guidelines that affect lands generally known as the Northeast Quadrant. A map showing the Northeast Quadrant Area is provided as Attachment #1. The Marion Hill lands are generally located south and east of Sheppard Avenue and Whites Road (see Attachment #2). Marion Hill's proposal to develop all townhouses at a medium density (see Attachment #3) instead of offices, townhouses and single detached dwellings, a portion of a ring road and a linear park as originally contemplated by the current Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (see Attachment #4), is recommended for approval, subject to conditions, in light of the findings of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines Review. Readers of this Report to Council should refer to Report to Council PD 23-02 for recommendations respecting the Review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. The applicant's revisions to reduce the number of dwelling units, decrease the proposed building height, and break up the form and massing of the proposed development along Sheppard Avenue were made in response to resident and staff concerns for improved compatibility and are supported by Staff (see Attachment #5). Having carefully considered objections expressed by some residents living on Sheppard Avenue, staff recommends that the proposed Sheppard Avenue access be retained as the primary vehicular access to this development. This access provides for unrestricted vehicle movements, superior vehicular egress and access opportunities for the development's new residents, visitors, delivery services, and Fire and other emergency services. Since a decision cannot yet be made on the issue of piping Amberlea creek through the Quadrant, the zoning of the Phase 2 lands, located at the east end of the subject lands, will have to be considered at a later date. Accordingly, the value of the City's lands cannot yet be determined and these lands should not yet be declared surplus and sold. In order to provide timely guidance to the site plan review of the Marion Hill development proposal, it is recommended that a separate site-specific amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines be approved at this time. The final Council adoption of the comprehensive replacement Guidelines for the Northeast Quadrant will occur later, co-incident with Council's adoption of the comprehensive official plan amendment for the Northeast Quadrant Area (see Report to Council PD 23-02). Staff recommends that Council adopt site-specific amendments to the Pickering Official Plan and the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines along with specific conditions for rezoning of the subject lands, as set out in the Appendices to this Report. Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Pickenng Official Plan .%mendment ePA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment .Application A 0401 Date: May '~ ~'00'~ Paoe '~ BACKGROUND: 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Relationshit2 'With Northeast_Quadrant Develol:)ment Guideline Reviev, The Marion Hilt application is one of ibur applications received within the Northeast Quadrant that triggered the study of thc area. As the results of the Northeast Quadrant Review are now available ;vith respest to land use. urban design, environmental and transportation issues are nov,' avaiiabie. ~t is appropriate to consider this site-specific application within the study area. The conclusions reached fbr the Xlanon Hii1 applications rely on thc results and discussion in the Northeast Quadrant Reviexv. xvhic}2 is contained in tile Planning & Development Report to Council PD 23-~;2. ~_~j. e c t Lands The subject lands, at tho south-cast con, er of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, are located in the Northeast Quadrant of the \Voodlands Neighbourhood I see .Attachment #2) for tile location map). Tile subject lands comFrise tx~o parts' Part One (1.52 hectares) is owned by Lydia Dobbin tNlario~7 Hill Development C'oqooration has an option to purchase this property)' and Part Tx~o 1~.3- hectares), at tine eastern end o£ the subject lands, is owned by the Citx o~' Pickeri:n,j IXlarion Hill has expressed an interest in acquiring the City-owned lands ). One house is located on the subject lands, adjacent to \Vhites Road. Ori~oinal Proposal The original proposal requested cilan<es to the Pickcnn.S Official Plan and Zoning By-!aw 3036 to permit 97 stacked and street toxxnhouse dv, ellin~s (on a private road) on the subject lands (see original concept plan. Attachment =O). Vehicular access was proposed by a driveway onto Whites Road perTnittin~ right tums-in and right tums-out, and a driveway pemntting a full range of turn:s onto Sheppard Avenue. The creek was proposed to be enclosed, The proposed amendment to the Oft~cial Plan v,'as to redesigmate lands along the Sheppard Avenue frontage of the property from Urbc~ Reside~u'a/Areas - Low Density Areas to an Urban Residentia/ Areas - .~[edno~ De~sin~ .4re~ desigT~ation tone-quarter of the site) to permit the proposed residential dens;ltv. The applicant provided a supporting planning analysis. The amendment required to Zoning Bv-lax~ 3t~36 was from R3 - One Fa,tiA' Detached-Third Deusz:~' Zotw to a suitable zone to permit towni~ouse dwellings on the subject lands. The applicant was advised that their proposal x~ Quid require amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. (The revised proposal submitted by the applicant is outlined in Section 6 of this Report.) In£ormation Meetino, A Statutory Public Information Meeting ,,vas held Max 1- 2001 to obtain tile views o£the public. Information Report No. 10-01 outlined the proposal and comments received through circulation of'the application {see .Attachment = ? Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Pickenng Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Date: Max" '~00~ Page 4 5.0 5.1 5.2 Concerns expressed by residents included the impact of increased traffic on Sheppard Avenue, property values, school capacity, desi~on of the proposed homes, proposed densities, compatibility with the community and the need for an environmental assessment. The discussion that occurred is recorded in the Meeting Minutes (see Attachment # 8). Additional Information Further Information from the Applicant The Planning Analysis, submitted after the Statutory Public Information Meeting, indicated that the proposal to redesignate the lands fronting Sheppard Avenue meets the general intent, goals, objectives and policies of the City of Picketing Official Plan. The Planning Analysis indicates that the proposed townhouse units will maintain a character that is compatible with the housing to the north of Sheppard Avenue through its ~ound related nature, articulated building masses, street-facing facades, human scale buildin2 heights, possible provision of a pedestrian link between Sheppard Avenue and Delta B~oulevard and the function of the buildings as an acoustical and visual buffer between the houses on the north side of Sheppard Avenue and the commercial development on Delta Boulevard. Comments Received from Area Residents and Property Owners Subsequent to the Statutory Public Information Meeting, the following comments were received: John Overzet, who represents 734 Kingston Road Limited, owner of lands along Delta Boulevard, south of the subject lands, has requested that Marion Hill Development Corporation, and developers of other abutting lands, be required to pay a share of the stormwater control works over-sizing costs, the road construction costs, and other costs (see Attachment #9). Verbal comments from area residents were received about the Marion Hill proposal at Northeast Quadrant Development Guideline Review meetings and design charette. The comments are attached to Planning & Development Report PD 23-02 on the Northeast Quadrant Review. In general, comments included concerns about: · traffic volume and speed, vehicular access and parking on Sheppard Avenue; · proposed townhouse density, design and building height to achieve compatibility with nearby detached homes; · need for greenspace along Sheppard Avenue and along Amberlea Creek; · light shining into houses on the north side of Sheppard Avenue from developments located south of the subject lands; · enclosure of the creek. 5.3 Agency comments The following agencies provided written comments in addition to those agency comments noted in the earlier Information Report: CN Rail indicated that offers to purchase the townhouses must include warning clauses that CN Rail is not responsible for noise from its operations. In addition, a noise study must identify noise abatement measures to be achieved (see Attachment # 10). \ Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject' Pickering Official Plan Amendment ePA Zoning By-law Amendment Application A Date: Max'-' ~00'" Page 5 .3.4 The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) advises tiaat development on the subject lands must satisfy the reqmreme~nts of the Fill. Construction and Alteration to \Vaterwavs Regulation and the VaItev and Stream Con'idor .Management Program (VSCMP) for the Amberlea Creek tnbutan'. Development oi3 the subject lands will have to be set back a minimum of 10 metres from thc top of the stream corridor bank, which has not ,,'et been defined. The buffer should be zoned "Open Space Hazard Land" to prohibit structures, fill, or removal of x'egetzmon and should be conveyed into public ov,'nership. TRCA also notes that a pemnt v~'ill be required to change the stream chamte!. if desired, and proper stormv,'ater management practices during and after construcnon will be required to control water quantit5 and quality. TRCA cannot support tine application until tile limits of tile natural features are defined and appropriately zoned and protected (see Attachment =11). Canada Post and Bell Canada each haxe no objections but have certain technical requirements tsee Attachments: 12 and ~ t 3 ). The Region of Durham Planning Department adxises tiaat the proposed use meets the policies oi'the Durham Ofi]cial Plan. Tine ~,~.'-ol)osed :mqendlllelat to the Pickenn%Official Plan is exempt from Regional ~ pro\ideal speclIlc policies to protect tile stream corndor are included itl tile amendp, aent. The Regional Works Dcpar-tmcnt interest ::2 ]inaitinaz access from these lands to right-in/right-out vehicular turn movements to Winites Road can be satisfied at the site plan approval phase. Since the site is thc location ora watercourse, an archaeological assessment will be required and since it is ~xn proximit> to tine CNR tracks, a noise impact repo~ will be required ~ see Attachment = 1 ~ ) Comments Received From City Departments The Municipal ProperP:' & Engineering Division t~as ad\ ised that: · the proposed right-in right-out access onto Whites Road is at the discretion of the Region of Durham: · additional on-site parking for residents s, iaould be provided; · metered parking on the south side of Sh;_~ppard Avenue is not supported; · sidewalks will be required on Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, where none currently exist, with funding available from development char~es for the Sheppard Avenue sidewalk; · the need for access for vehicles or pedestrians to Delta Boulexard is questioned; · a caution was raised that public access through this private developn3ent, with anticipated high volume of pedestrian trafi~c betx~een tile high school and restaurants, invites complaints from tile future residents about loitering, trash and property damage caused by pedestrians: · maintenance responsibility for pedestrian patt~ ays should be clearly identified; · the City-owned parcel of land within the subiect lands is not needed for parkland or other municipal purposes and should be sold to tl~e developer: · a private tot lot should be provided bx tt~e developer w/thin tiao proposed townhouse development to serve tile needs o~' residents: · Sheppard Avenue is the preferred primaU access for fire set\ice purposes, because it provides full tums access, with the preferTed secondap: access point at Whites Road: The Development Control Section has advised that a number of matters must be addressed for this proposal: · storn~water management, including tile existing doxvnstream storage requirements; Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Picketing Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/1' Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Date: May '~ '~00'~ Page 6 6.0 '7.0 '7.1 · the proposed elimination of the watercourse; · a permanent turning circle should be constructed at the applicant's cost at the north end of Delta Boulevard (if Delta Boulevard is not extended to the east); · future use of the City-owned blocks of land on the east and west sides at the north end of Delta Boulevard; · sidewalk and boulevard upgTading will be required along Sheppard Avenue; · fencing and/or screening between residential units backing onto adjacent commercial properties will be required. · a development agreement will be required between the City and the developer; Revised Development Proposal The applicant submitted a revised conceptual site plan and phasing plan for the proposed development that includes the following changes (see Attachment #3): · reduction in the total number of dwellings from 97 to 89; · develop the subject lands in two phases; · provide additional access for traffic to Delta Boulevard; · greater separation between townhouse blocks; and, · add a focal point at the Whites Roacl/Sheppard Avenue comer. Phase I proposes the development of 67 tovenhouse units on the westerly 1.3 hectares to include: · four storey stacked townhouses along Whites Road, two storey units on the Sheppard Avenue frontage and three storey units located on the internal lands; · townhouses to front Sheppard Avenue limited to: o two-storeys facing Sheppard Avenue with three-storeys facing southward; (see Attachment #5) and, o no more than four units in each townhouse block; · vehicular access by a driveway to Whites Road permitting tight-in / tight-out turn movements, a full-turns access to Sheppard Avenue and an additional driveway providing controlled access to Delta Boulevard. Phase 1 development is designed to proceed immediately, irrespective of future decisions to sell the City-owned parcel relocate, or enclose the Amberlea Creek tributary. Phase 2 proposes the development of 22 units on the easterly 0.6 hectares of land. This Phase is proposed to proceed once the City of Pickering makes a decision on the possible sale of the City-owned lands to Marion Hill Developments, and a decision is reached about relocation or enclosure of the Amberlea Creek ttibutary. Although a formal application for site plan approval has not been submitted to date, analysis of the conceptual site plan provided by the applicant permits the City to envision how the site can be developed in order to propose suitable zoning, official plan and development guideline policies. Discussion Medium Density Land Use The change from a low to a medium density residential designation for the lands fronting Sheppard Avenue (only one-quarter of the site) plus a cap on the maximum allowable residential density across the entire site is supported by staff. Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject' Picketing Official Plan .Kmendrnent GPA 01-002P Zonin~ By-taw Amendment Appi~cation A 04 01 Date: May" 2002 --" 1!'5 Page 7 7.2 7.3 Thc Official Plan nov, permits medium dens:tv residential uses up to 80 dwelling units per hectare plus a range of commercial uses on the interior lands south of Sheppard Avenue lone-half of the site), and a much broader range of commercial uses and residential uses up to a density of 140 units per tnectare on tile Whites Road lands {one-quarter of the site). Tile proposal to develop tile whole site with medium densitx residential uses at a density capped at 55 dxvellin~ units per hectare will result in uses and an intensity of development on tile whole s~:e considerably less than tiao Official Plan now permits. In addition, although the current Northeast Qundrant Development Guidelines provide for lox',' density residential buildings on the soutti side of Sheppard Avenue, the Guidelines identified a Git,,' objective to locate residential buildings of four storeys in height on the intoner portion of tile subject site immediatelx south of the units fronting Stneppard Avenue. The development of four store'~ buildings at finis location would be more intrusive upon the Iow density community to tile north than the two and three storey townhouses proposed. Medium density residential use of the Slneppard Avenue iands provides a transitional use, and a visual, accousticaI and land use buffer bctv,'een commercial uses on Delta Boulevard to tile south and low densitx residential uses on the north side of Sheppard Avenue. Development of tine entire area subject to this application for medium density' residential usc pennits integrated, efficient and ordcrtv development of these lands. Capping the residential densitx at 55 LimtS per hectare reduces the density on the overall site by almost one-third, adding to tine abilitx tc~ desi? a development that will be compatible with tile surrounding nei?nbourlnood Accordingly, staff recomnacnds ii, at Council approve tile ct~ange in designation from lox',' to medium density in the Official Plan Ibr lands frontin~ Sheppard Avenue and that a policy be introduced to the Woodlands NeiThbourtnood policies to cap the density throughout the property at 55 dx'veiling units per hectare (see Appendix I). Form of Develo_pment on She_p_pard Avenue The proposed form of development will create a new community that is compatible with (but not exactly like) the current use, density, t;orm and character of existing development north of Sheppard Avenue and to the east. Height limitations, limits on the number of dwellings in each block, enhanced separation distances between blocks, front doors facing Sheppard Avenue, location of driveways and parkin~ to the rear of the units together assist in achieving this compatibility. The applicant's massing concept of townhomes for the south side of Sheppard Ax enue shox~ s thc revised view of the proposal from Sheppard Avenue (see Attachment =5 ). Staff recommends that Council adopt the n.'connn~cnded site-specific policies in the Official Plan, conditions to the approval of an implcmentin~ zoning anaendment and an amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines to ensure that the form of the development is compatible with surroundin~ dexelopment. Once adopted, the foregoing policies, guidelines and conditions ,.viii 5ovenn consideration of the site plan when it is subsequently submitted for approval Access to Shep__.pard Avenue Provision of vehicular access to Sheppard Avenue will allow tile future residents the most convenient means of traveling in all directions from this site, resulting in a lesser increase in traffic impact in the area and will provide tile best access to the site for emergency services. Further, the lands are adjacent to an arterial roadxvav with sufficient capacity to support the traffic anticipated from a medium residential density development. Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Pickenng Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law .Amendment Application A 04/01 Date: May '~ '00'~ Page 8 8.0 8.1 8.2 Additional peak hour traffic from this development will result in a nominal impact on Sheppard Avenue traffic operations. Provision of an access to Sheppard Avenue is essential to permit this residential area to relate to the Sheppard Avenue community and to provide a focus and orientation away from the commercial uses on Delta Boulevard. Removal of an access to Sheppard Avenue from this development would force residents of this development to take much longer and more circuitous routes, or make unsafe and disruptive turn movements in order to get to either Kingston Road or Highway 401, which are the most likely destinations of most residents. It may result in drivers making unsafe and illegal tums or force them to circle the whole Whites Road / Sheppard Avenue / Fairport Road / Kingston Road block. Pickering Fire Services a~ees that Sheppard Avenue access provides the best access to this site. In addition, provision of one through-access driveway to Sheppard Avenue for this development would be less disruptive than a large number of individual private driveways that would otherwise be provided if low density detached dwellings were constructed fronting Sheppard Avenue. Staff recommends that Council approve an access to Sheppard Avenue for the proposed development in addition to the proposed right-inMght-out access to Whites Road and the gated seconda~ access to Delta Boulevard proposed by the applicant. Outstanding Matters For Phase 2 Development The following two matters require resolution before it would be appropriate to approve zoning for Phase 2 of the proposed development. Tributary to Amberlea Creek Policies should be adopted to recognize that the stream may be enclosed (piped), relocated to the edge of the property or protected in its current location as an open stream corridor. As discussed in the Report to Council on the Review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, resolution of the piping, relocation or protection options cannot occur until a number of related issues are resolved. Because they remain unresolved at this time, suitable policy must be adopted that allows for any of the options to be implemented at a later time. Until an option is selected, it ~vill remain premature to finalize the detailed arrangement of land uses and precise conditions for zoning of the Phase 2 lands. Accordingly, policies are proposed to be introduced in the Woodlands Neighbourhood Policies in section 11.8 of the Official Plan and in a site-specific amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines that recognize the interests of the different parties and agencies in the stream lands and provide for zoning to be dealt with only once an option for use of the stream corridor is finalized. CiW Property Staff suggests the sale of the City's surplus land should continue to be deferred until the land use option for the stream corridor (which occupies a major portion of this land) is adopted. It would be premature for the City to make a decision to sell the surplus 0.37 hectare vacant parcel of land until a land use option for the stream corridor (that runs through the middle of the property) is selected, even though this land is not required for parkland or other municipal purposes. Until a land use option is adopted, and an estimate of the costs of any necessary piping, relocation or protection of the stream corridor can be obtained, a realistic value for the City lands cannot easily be determined. Report to Council PD 24-02 SubJect' Picketing Official Plan Amendment ePA 01-002,'P Zoning By-lave Amendmenl Appi~cation A (~4 01 Date: May2. _00_ Accordingly, staff recommends that thc sale of the City's land be considered following the adoption of the new zoning b,,-laxx for Phase" of the proposed development. 9.0 Controls 9.1 Official Plan Amendment S Official Plan Amendment 8. contained in ApF, endix I to this Report. is recommended tbr adoption in order to: · change the land use from tow to medium dcnsiw residential use for the lands fronting Sheppard Avenue: · ensure compatibility with surrounding low density development by capping the maximum residential density at 55 uni';s per hectare and providing policy support for specific design standards: · require buildings to be located close to and facing Sheppard Avenue and Whites Road; · recognize options of piping, relocation or' protection oi'thc current stream corridor tbr the Amberlca Creek tributa~': and · adopt appropriate vehicular and pedestrian access to and through the 'Marion Hill' lands. 9.2 9.3 Since the Region of Durham has exempted ~his amendment f'rom tine requirement for Regional approvah it will come into ~'orce 2ollowin~ Council adoption and the mandatory notice and appeal period o£2{)daxs, prox ided t:~ere are no appeals. Amendment 2 to the Northeast~3uadrant Development Guidelines Site-specific Amendment 2, contained in Appendix II to this Report. is recommended for adoption by Council in order to: adopt transportation objectives tbr vehicular and pedestrian access to the 'Marion Hill' lands: adopt stormwater creek objectives to penqqit enclosure of' the creek once a net environmental benefit is demonstrated, or relocate the creek, or protect the stream in its current location and control stormwater in a suitable manner: adopt general urban desigx2 ob3ecnves and guidelines for development of the Marion Hill lands to ensure compatibility w/th and connection to tine surrounding community and achieve a qualit> development on thc subject lands. Zonin,o Conditions of A_p_.proval Conditions recommended for zoning approva], contained in Appendix III of this Report, include the following: payment ora share of the Northeast Quadrant Rcv~ev~ study costs and execution and registration on ntle to tine lands of a development agreement between the proponent and the City to secure a public ri?at-of-x~ ay betv,'een Delta Boulevard and Sheppard Avenue. require the p~'oponent to urbanize Sheppard Avenue, require the proponent to submit a noise impact report and an archaeological assessment, require the proponent to sa::isFv tiao City with respect to payment cfa cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution; provision of a private tot lot in Phase 1 of the development; provide for a turning circle for Delta Boulevard if required, and cost-sharing of the overs/zed stornawater works previously constructed on lands to the south, ~ passage cfa zonin!~ amendment: Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Picketing Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law .amendment Application A 04/01 Date: May 2. 2002 Page 10 · performance standards for Phase 1 development to permit four-storey stacked towmhouse development of the lands fronting Whites Road and two storey street townhouse development of the lands fronting Sheppard Avenue and three storey townhomes to the south in Phase 1 of the proposed development at this time; and, · performance standards for Phase 2 development to permit two storey street townhouse development of lands fronting Sheppard Avenue and three storey townhouses to the south in Phase 2 of the proposed development, to be adopted by Council following resolution of the creek and sale of surplus City lands issues. 10.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant is in substantial agreement with the recommendations of this Report but has raised two particular concerns. The applicant commented that pa)qnent of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guideline Review study costs should be required at the time of issuance of building permits, not prior to Council adoption of the zoning amendment, as recommended. The applicant further commented that the easement for public access across the site should be located in Phase 2 of the development on the lands that are now City property, as indicated in the applicant's revised conceptual site plan. Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject' Picketing Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-lay,' Amendment .Appiicanon A 0401 Date: ,",la.,,' 2, 2002 It':) Page 11 APPENDICES: I II III By-law to adopt Amendment No. S to thc Picketing Official Plan (Amendment included as Exhibit "A" to By-lay,' Site Specific A_mendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines for thc Marion Hill Lands Conditions of Approval for Zonin7 Amendment .Application A 04 01 ATTACHMENTS' $. 9. 12. 13. Northeast Quadrant .Area Location Map Applicant's Revised Conceptual Site Plan Current Northeast Quadrant Development Ouicieiines Applicant's Massing Concept oS Townhon2es Iior the South side of Sheppard Avenue .Applicant's Original Concept Plan Infon'nation Report 16-01 StatutoiT' Public Meeting NlinL~tes Letters from 734 Kingston Road Comment from CN Rail Comment from Toronto and Region Conse~'at~on Authority Comn'~ent from Canada Post Comment from Bell Canada Comment from Durham Region Plannin~j Department Prepared By: Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Planner II Approved EndorsedBv: Ncit Can-oll.~Pp Director. Plannin~ & Development Catherine Rose Mana~,er Policy S G/tcbj f Attachments Cop.,,': Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickenna City Council b-----_ APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 24-02 BY-LAW TO ADOPT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN 11i D£ Fr THE CORPORATION OF THkl CIT'¥ OF PICKERING BT-LAW NO. Being a By-lay,' to adopt .&mendment $ to thc O~'ficia] Plan/bt the City of Pickenng \VHEREAS pursuant to the Planmng .Act. R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1). the Council of the Corporation of the City oi' Pickerin.~ may by bx-lax~ adopt amendments to the Official Plan for ti2c City of Picketing: AND \VHEREAS pursuant to Section I-(I0) of tine Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council zo pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal ol:'ficial plan amendments ~'rom its approval: .&ND \VHEREAS. on Februarx 23. 2~(~) Regional ('ouncil passed Bx-laxv 11'2000 which alloxvs the Region to exempt proposed area municipal oflScial plan amendments from its approval' AND WHEREAS the Region has adx iscd that ..\mc'ndmcnt S to thc City of Picketing Official Plan is exempt from Regional approx ai' NO\V THEREFORE TItE (-_'GL'NC'IL OF THE CORPOR:\TION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS That Awnendment S to the Ofl~clai Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted: Plan ~'or tine Citx oI' Pickcrinu, attached hereto as That the City Clerk is hereby authorized a~d directed to f'o~vard to the Regional Municipality of Durham tile documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and ~'~m'~endments: 3. This By-law shall come into three and take cfi'oct on the da,,.' of the final passing hereof. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of ,2002. MAYOR \VAYNE ARTHURS CLERK' BRUCE ~l. TAYLOR Exhibit "A" to By-law AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN 113 AMENDMENT 8 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: LOCATION: BASIS: The purpose of this amendment is to change the ctesignat]on of thc lands fronting Sheppard .Avenue i~oi21 a Low lo a Nledium Densitx Residential des:zmation o~: Schcdtllc I Land Usc Structure and add to section !1.8 Woodlands Nei?:bourtnood Policies provisions to address compatibility wittn the nei~hbourhood. reco~ize optional strategies 1bt the stream co~idor and provide suitable vehicular and pedestrian access ~br thc affected lands. The subject lands are approximately 1.S9 hectares in size. arid located on the south side o:' Sheppard Avenue. east of Whites Road. Alt oI'the lands 2d1 w/thin Pan Lot 2S. Range 3, B.F.C. This amendment to lt~e Pickcrinz Ofiicial Plan has been determined to be appropriate ~blloxvizn~ tho completion of a review of a preliminao' conceptual site p!czr2 ::7 ii,tat of thc findings of the No~hcast Quadrant Dcvclot~ment Ok~dolino Review tbr lands generallx located betxxecn Kiiqgstolt Road. Shcppard Avenue and Whites Road and abL~tti~n~ la~qds in -t)~), Thc central issue is land use compatibiIit> betx~een nTediur2q density residential uses with commercial uses to thc SOLlt}2 and low density residential uses to the north and east. The strategy For tt~c' No:Ti, ea<t Quadrant is txvo-ibld. Firstly. the vision is, over time. to e~qcourz~gc }2iuh qualit5 design and intensity oF commercial or rcsidciltiz~ strklctt~res that assist in convening Kingston Road to a pedestrian I'r~cndlx 'naainstreet' from an auto dominated highx~ax. Secondlx, thc vision is to encourage medium density rcs/dent/al use in the nonhero pan of the Quadrant to se~'e as a transition betxveen the m/xed commercial/residential use close to Kinzston Road and tl2c cx~stin~, low density residential use to the no~h. Other major elements o:'thc strate5':' are to intensify development by piping the tributary to :\mberlea (_'reek. ii' a net benefit to the environment can be demonstrated and to adopt a transportation strategy to provide vehicular access to the Quadrant and beyond. The land use objective flor the subject lands is to ensure building siting, height, massing and orientation that is compatible with the community to the north and intczratc by means of suitable vehicular and pedestrian access arrangements arid design controls with the comnaunitv and the ©:~adrant. In addition, since a final decision cannot vet be rcxciled oi2 p~pmg the creek or protecting it in an open state, tine interests oi' tine part/es are recognized and the objectives of each option are set out. Since this amendment is to precede tile amendment for the whole of the Northeast Quadrant. relevant provisions are incorporated into the comprehensive ~mendment tbr thc Northeast Quadrant, which will be adopted by Council at a later date. 114 Appendix I to Repor~ to Council PD 24-02 Page 2 Amendment 8 to the Picketing Official Plan - Site-Specific Amendment for "Marion Hill" Lands AMENDMENT: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: Revising Schedule I - Land Use Structure by replacing the "Urban Residential Areas Low DensiO, Areas" designation for the lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue with an "Urban Residential Areas - MediuTM DensiO, Areas" designation, as shown on Schedule 'A' to this amendment. Adding new policies to section 11.8 - ttbodlands Neighbourhood Policies, as follows: "11.8 CiW Council shall, (b) ...; (c) ...; (d) ...; (e) ...; (0 for the located lands subject to the "Marion Hill" proposal, at the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, (i) despite Tables 6* and 10' of Chapter Three and section 11.8(c)*, establish a maximum residential density' of 55 units per net hectare; (ii) require new development to be compatible with respect to building heights, yard setbacks and building massing with low density residential development on the north side of Sheppard Avenue and on the south side of Sheppard Avenue to the east; (iii) require new development to establish buildings on Whites Road or Sheppard Avenue close to the street edge, with the front doors facing the street, and with a specified percentage of their front walls required to be located within build-to-zones to be established in the implementing zoning by-law for this site; (iv) restrict the height of the Sheppard Avenue elevation of new dwellings fronting Sheppard Avenue to a maximum of two storeys; (v) require a minimum of four functional storeys for the Whites Road elevations of new dwellings fronting Whites Road; (g) for the lands subject to the "Marion Hill" proposal, located on the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, (i) support the principle of piping or relocating the Amberlea Creek tributary that flows through the lands, while at the same time recognizing the interests of the landowners, on whose lands the Amberlea Creek tributary flows, to pipe or relocate that tributary, and the interests of the Toronto and Region Conservation AuthoriD' to maintain the Amberlea Creek tributary as an open and buffered creek channel; * Tables 6 and 10, and sections 11.8(c) are attached to this Amendm, ent for information purposes only; they does not constitute part of the Amendment. Appendix I to Report to Council PD 24-02 Page 3 .-\mendment $ to the Pickenng Official Plan Site-Specific Amendment for "Marion Hill" Lands (h) (ii) (iii) require the developer of the subject lands proposing to pipe or relocate the Amberlea Creek tributary to: (A) submit an environmental/ stormwater management report, to the satisfaction of the Cio.' and the Toronto and Region Conservation AuthoritF.', which report must demonstrate a strateg9.- resulting in a significant net environmental benefit to the watershed if justifying piping of the creek; (B) obtain appropriate approvals and permits from public review agencies; and, (c) satisfy any required compensation under the Fisheries Act; ensure that development proposals are undertaken in a manner that does not actverselv impact downstream water quality. and quantit}.- through the use of on-site controls and/or financial contributions to a downstream stormwater facility if necessary; and throudh the use of the holding provisions of the Planning Act, require where necessary, the proponents of development having lands w~th the stream corridor for the tributary to Amberlea Creek to enter into agreements with the City and other agencies, as appropriate, rcspecnng public ownership of the stream cc. rridor lands of the tributary, or its piping or relocation, once approved; for the lands subject to the "Marion Hill" proposal, located on the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, (i) support vehicular access restrictions preventing left turns from Whites Road into the site, and left turns from the site onto \X'hites Road; (ii) promote the reduction of traffic speeds and improvement of pedestrian safety along Sheppard Avenue by implementing pavement markings and other measures, and considering "traffic-calming" techniques following the adoption of a Cio.' policy; and, (iii) require pedestrian access, by means of easements, from Delta Boulevard to Sheppard A~enue. IMPLEMENTATION: INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in ti~e City of Pickenng Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implen~entation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. The provisions set fort}~ in the City of Picketing Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this .~nendment. 1! Appendix I to Report to Council PD 24-02 Page 4 Amendment 8 to the Picketing Official Plan- Site-Specific Amendment for "Marion Hill" Lands Selected Policy Extracts from the Pickering Official Plan Referred to in the Potential Amendment Provided for Information Purposes Only- Not Part of Potential Amendment TABLE 6 Mixed Use Maximum and Minimum Maximum Gross ~ Maximum Areas Net Residential Density Leasable Floorspace for ! Floorspace Index Subcategorv (in dwellings per hectare) the Retailing of Goods (total building ' and Sen'ices floorspace di~4ded (in square metres) by total lot area) Local Nodes over 30 and up to and up to and includingl0,000 up to and including including 80 2.0 FSI Community over 80 and up to and up to and including 20,000 up to and including Nodes including 140 2.S FSI Mixed over 30 and up to and determined by site-specific up to and including Corridors including 140 zoning 2.5 FSI Downtown over 80 and up to and up to and including 300,000 up to and including Core including 180 3.0 FSI Maximum and Minimum Residential Area Net Residential Density Subcategory (in dwellings per net hectare) Low Density Area up to and including 30 Medium Density Area over 30 and up to and including 80 High Density Area over 80 and up to and including 140 11.8 City Council shall, (b) ...; (c) despite Table 6 of Chapter Three, establish a maximum residential density of $$ units per net hectare for lands located on the north side of Kingston Road that are designated Mixed Use Areas and abut lands developed as low density development; APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 24-02 AMENDMENT 2 TO THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE "MARION HILL" LANDS AMENDMENT 2 TO NORTHEAST ~)U.-~DRANT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES To implement the conclusions o/-the Rcvlex~ of fl:e Northeast Quadrant Developmen~ Guidelines. as they afl, ct the Marion Hill City oi- Picketing propc~ies, it is recommended that Council adopt the lbllowing site specific .Amendment to the 1990 Nomhcast Quadrant Development Guidelines: P/an 40R-2~6- A) Transportation Objectives The three roads pro~'iding access [o dus site az',:' Shcp?cn'd Avenue, }l/7zites Road Delia Boulevard. [~ebiczdar uccexx shall be £ro~'zded [o du's szre h~' a fid/ moves c:ccc.s's [o S/zepRard Avenue, a rz',g/u-in, rzg/z[-ou~ [urns onh' access [o I~Tuzcs Roan/. and ~zcc c'x~' :o ~)c'i[~: Bou/c~'ord controlled by additl'Oll, allXl'/l'atq' Itt/vi [ollc3 Hlcil [?c' c/t/~/cc/' 112 t/lc' Ht[z,f?'c ~ziJ'[f:c'?' d[ [itc' sole dl'scrc[/oll o~[]le Road into [be siw. and./)'om :/zc szzc on:o I~Tu':cs Road. B) Storm waterA4 mberlea Creek Objectives The .4mberlea Creek Northeast O~u~nirun; - .4ssessmcn; of .4/[crnc~;n'cs stur6', prepared Soho/leu & Company bw., identifies un opnon./br c: szornz scxxo' c'.vzcnszon ~/~tl~e existing 5vstem soud~ 2[ Sbeppard Avenue re ~/~e Yig/~<:y 401 westbound on Q?' romp. The Ci0' suppor~s the pg2nzg of dw existing IribliIalW Q/'.qHlhCF/CO Creek. ~h~c'h n'ux'erscs [/~c Northeast Quadrant, as and a slormwater managemem pond. Tizc slormwalerj}zcih0 zs required [o conlro[ bolb quali(F and Guon[iO, stormwater. A subslonlio[ net benefit [o thc doxwzsn'eom cm'ironment musl be demonstrated in order to warrant conszdera[ion of piping dzc Lands located east of tbe Bayfair Baptisr Church are thc £rqtdrrcd loc'anon lbr o stormwater monagemenI.~zcilit),. Detailed si/z'n,g, en~gznecring cnzd ?'c:dzng p/c:n,s' cn'e required [o assess the feosibih'rv q[ and design opnons.ibr, c: srorm~c:rer man,z?mcnr pond rrci~'rence max' be made [o dotty. ]f Ihe stornm'aIer managemenr facdi[x zs ,:£?ro~'ed [i:~ ('irs ',~[// J*c requiring Ibe proponent of Ibis development application wit/un [he .VorrheosI Ouczc,5'~inz ~:5 z~s [ands currenrh' drain into the reach of the Amber/ea Creek n'ibunnT, ro p:O'.fbr ,: prW~ornom:Ic share oF I/to detailed design work and costs of piping zi~e creek, in addinon ~o c: she.ere of r/:e ~onz[ cos~ 2I implementation of the proposed Amberlea Creek srornz~rer In the event thal approvals are not granted jbr the stortnwater £ond. or deve/olpmenI proceeds ahead G'consn'uction of t/~e pond. the developer o/' [/~e hznds ~'i[[ FO rcqun'ed [o instal/quailO' o~Id GilollI[ty Co~IIro[ devices and to emer [lzto ogreemems wil]i IbP O'[tx Ia Coxl S]lare fiOure szormwaler wor~'. Further, In Ibe ex'eh[ opprovclis )'}'om [he Toronto Region Consem,ation AuthoriO', .~inistm' of .¥atura[ Resources. ,:mt r/~c ])G~r[men[ q/-Fisberies are nor granted Ia pipe the creek, t/re landowners she:i/ he requn'ed re nz~inzain [he Creek wj[h appropriate setback. .Appendix Il to Report to Council PD 24-02 Page 2 Amendment 2 to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - "Marion Hill" Lands C) General Urban Design Objectives The development of lands affected bY these Development Guidelines will strive to achieve the urban design objectives of chapter 9 - "CommuniO' Design", and Chapter ]3 - "Detailed Design Considerations ", e£ the Official Plan. It is the intent of these guidelines to both further those objectives and embellish the ones listed below: l. To provide a qualiO' urban image by encouraging the placement of high quality buildings located to define the street edge. 2. To provide a quality urban image by encouraging a harmonized and complementao' landscape treatment throughout tl~e Northeast Ouadrant. 3. To provide a quality urban image by encouraging a coordinated effort to improving the streetscape that includes pedestrian oriented ~o-nishings and other appropriate improvements. 4. To provide a safe, pleasant, contfortable and convenient environment supporting modes qf travel including bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular To ensure that new development relates to existing development while allowing appropriate evolution of this area Recognize the need for efficient vehicular movement including access to individual properties. through and within this area D) Detailed Design Guidelines ]. For the proposed residential development, at the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, buildings shall be located close to the street, with parking provided at the rear. New residential development shall be integrated into the area in a manner that is both respectful of the character of the ex'isting neighborhood and se~n,es as an interface between this area and the surrounding lands. 3. The south-east corner of Sheppard Avenue and Whites Road shall act as a transition area between the higher buildings on Whites Road and the lower buildings on Sheppard Avenue. This corner should be treated as an important focal point, and include landscape and hardscape treatment to create an identifiable amenity area, preferably inc[uding pedestrian connections into the site. 4. New residential development along Sheppard Avenue shall include no more than four units that are attached before providing a break between building masses. 5. The height of residential units along Sheppard Avenue shall be restricted to two storeys on the front elevation facing Sheppard Avenue, and shall include facades that are mostly brick on all sides facing the public right of way. 6. New residential development along Whites Road shall be a minimum of four functional storeys on the side of the building facing Whites Road, and of mostly brick facades on all sides facing the public right of way. 7. Architectural detailing and stepping the footprint of the front and rear facades shall be utilized to avoid the appearance of long flat walls. 8. A new sidewalk shall be constructed along the south side of Sheppard Avenue. Appendix ti to Report to Council PD 24-02 .Kmendment 2 to the Northeast Quadran~ Developn~ent Guidelines -"Marion Hill" Lands Page 3 121 / O. l/. /?. ]4. /6. 17. 20. ~Vh~[cs Rood and Sheppord .-t~'cnu~' 3'om :i~c c.¥:sr~u.~ urz~hbourhood, do'Vo/oDDzellI_f'oCl'llg I/IC $I?'CCIS dtid' l~IICt'lO~' lo [}2C 51IC. connecting re d~c' s~dc~[~' o~: ~]~ .~oudl s~dc c~I'Sh~'ppord .4~'em~e, and includes ~C£[ 0{'[]I13 lOCal[OIl [0 dCSIz~ldIzO~zs [0 IbC 3o~I[~i slid[[ [~C l~llC,~I'oIod [lIte l}IC si[£' [oVo~I. d~c' .~mbo'leo Creek tribu~om, b'possib[e. ,];~s ~rc'u ~d/c~ceul Ia the o'eek should be [cDlt[SCO?C~[ ill 0 HlOntlOf []10[ [S SCJISZ[iVC IO I]IC Htllitt'cl[ pl'OCPSSOS (~ff I]lC Stl'COI2I, ltll[PSS the szrcom is p~ped. units. The grade of the site ~dong ;/~c' II¥zz;cs youd. Ti'o~z:,::c' :h,~[[ 3c raised so that an~'proposed dwelling 's fron; entr~' is o: or ubo~c :he S~r,~,&' ::~; :he snic~dk on ~l. 7~ites Rood. Garbage and recvchzb& m~e'rz,z:, .~hu[[ 3, huuci[~,u' ~z~]~z~I c'uch ~lwelling unit (including Lighting destgn should comp[emenl the dcsz?,, al Hzt' dc~cjopmcu~, shall ~ot spill over into adjacent properties or streets, cud she,d: hc do~',~sr ~o o~'oid excessive light pollution. For residential developmett: o[o~F U T~z~cs Rood ut',,/.5'iIcTV2urd .-l~'enuc, thc front entrance will face the public s~ree~s. 172 APPENDIX III TO REPORT NUMBER PD 24-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LA'~V AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 04/01 1.0 That prior to fom, arding an amending zoning by-law to Council for either Phase of development, the developer shall meet the following requirements: (a) payment of a proportionate share of the Northeast Quadrant Review study costs: execution and registration on title of a Development Agreement between the developer and the City, addressing such matters as, but not limited to, the following: (i) convey an easement to the City for public access purposes, and construct a pedestrian pathway across the Phase 1 lands to provide public access between Delta Boulevard and Sheppard Avenue; (ii) construct, at the owner's cost, a turning circle at the north end of Delta Boulevard, if required: (iii) construct, at the owner's cost, improvements to urbanize the road cross-section of Sheppard Avenue, if required; (iv) pay an appropriate share of the costs incurred bv the owner of the lands to the south towards the over-sizing to accommodate stonnwater flows from the "Marion Hill" lands, of stormwater facilities previously constructed on the southerly lands, prior to issuance of any building permits for the subject lands; (v) satisfy the City with respect to a cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution for each phase of development and provision of a private tot lot in Phase 1 of the development; and, (vi) submit a noise impact study and an archaeological assessment to the satisfaction of the City. 2.0 That the implementing zoning by-law shall comply with the provisions of Amendment 2 to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines and shall include, for the lands shown as Phase 1 on the applicant's revised conceptual site plan, but not necessarily be limited to the following: (a) buildings to be located within a build-to-zone that generally reflects setbacks as shown on the revised conceptual site plan; (b) buildings required to occupy a build-to-zone generally reflecting the locations shown on the revised conceptual site plan; (c) permit multiple dwellings (stacked townhouses) on the lands fronting Whites Road, and diagonally fronting the Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue intersection in accordance with the following provisions: (i) (ii) (iii) a maximum number of dwelling units - 22 dwelling units; a minimum of four functional storeys facing Whites Road; parking requirements for each dwelling unit of: (a) one private garage attached to each dwelling unit; (b) one parking space between garage and traffic aisle; and, (c) a minimum of 0.25 visitors parking spaces; (d) and generally, in accordance with maximum building height, lot coverage, minimum landscaped open space and minimum distances between blocks of dwellings shown on the applicant's conceptual site plan; permit single attached dwellings on lands fronting Sheppard Avenue and the interior lands in accordance with the following provisions: ~4-0_ Pate 2 Appendix III to Report to Council PD ~ ~ Recommended Conditions of Approval ~br Zonin:z: By[ay,-,,Mnendment Application A 401 3.0 (i) maximum number of dv, ellm~ units ~' (ii) maximum number of storeys Sacin~ Sheppard Axenue 2 storeys (and storeys on internal lands ~: (iii) maximum building height 11 metres measured from grade on the Sheppard Avenue elevation: (iv) parking requirements i~r each dwelling unit oS: i. one private garage attached :o each dx~el]in~ unit: ii. one parkin~ space between:,~,ara~,e~ and traffic aislm and. iii. a nunimum oF0.25 visitors parkin~ space: (v) minimum distance between blocks ofdx~ellings 2.5 metres: and. ix'i) provisions tbr maxtmum lot coverage, minimum landscaped open area. and minimum gross floor area that generally reflect the applicant's revised conceptual site plan. That prior to fom'arding an implementing zon~nc bx-lav,' to Council for passage, which shall comply with the provisions contained m Amendment 2 to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines for Phase 2 lands as shown on the applicant's revised conceptual site plan. decisions to bo reached respectinl enclosure, relocation or protection of thc stream comdor in an open state a~d respccUn~ thc sale of thc suu~lus Ciw owned parcel of land. Follov,'ing ttnose decisions, an implementing ~on:n< b;-l'a~ i0e Ibnvarded to Council tine Phase 2 lands including, but not necessarily be limited to the ibllowing: (a) buildings required to be located within a buildin~ enxclopc that generally reflects the setbacks shown on the applican~'s rex iscd co~ceptual site plan: (b) buildings required to occupF' a mininmm ?roporuon of a build-to-zone generally reflecting the setbacks shown on thc applicant's rcx~sed conceptual site plan; (c) permit attached dv, ellings on the Phase 2 lands in accordance with the following provisions: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (x'i) maximum number o£dxvelling units 22 units: maximum number of storeys l'acin~ Sheppard Avenue - 2 storeys (and 3 storey on internal lands): maximum building height 11 metres: parking requirements for each dwelimg unit of: i. one private garage attached o each dxvelling unit: ii. one parking space between garage and traffic aisle: and. iii. a minimum o£ (!.25 visitors parking spaces: and. minimum distance betv, een blocks ofdxvellinzs 2.5 metres' provisions for minimum ~oss floor area for dx~e]ling units, maximum lot coverage and minimum landscaped open area that generally reflect the applicant's revised conceptual site plan. ] ? 4 ATTACHMENT # ! TO REPORT *' PI}., ~ ~" O '2._ STROUD$ LANE LANE STROUDS HEDGEROW WlNGARDEN AVENUE EDGEWOOD JACQUELINE WELt~US STREET COURT ROAD SHADYE]ROOK C.N.R. SHEPPARD RAINY DAY STEEPLE HIlL AVENUE SHEPPARD AVENUE RoAD City of Pickering DRIVE 8REDA AVENUE MORETTA AVENUE SANOK ~llll · · NORTHEAST ~III~ VICKI O :)RIVE Planning & Development Departmem QUADRANT REVIEW AREA I DATE MAY 2002 2, ATTACHMENT t ~ T0 REPORT # PD t ?S x_.,~ .-~,~'-~ I ' ' ~ ~ 30~- ~ - '- ' '_ :,, / ///..--- / ~~ -~, 2--: ' /-- :/... '~ . : ~::h~~ ~ : /~/ ~- City o{ Picketing Planning & Development Depa~ment P~OPE~W DESCRIPTION PA~T OF LOT ~8, ~AN~E OWNER MARION HILLS DEVELOPMENT INC. DA'-: MAY 3, ~02 DRAWN BY RC APPLICATION No A 04/01; CPA 01-002 P I FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-6 PA- 176 Z o o o ~ o ATTACHMENT# ,~ TO ~ ? 7 FLEPORT ~ PD ~'~ '~ - c' NORTHEAST QUADRANT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES (1990) · 'FINAL URBAN DESIGN CONFIGUR&TION" LLI ~Z >, ? / RF..PO.~T ,~ PD ~,. ,',,'-~Z INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN MARION HILLS DEVELC)PMENT iNC. A 4/01' OPA 01-002P SU~ARY S?AT?$F/CS PROVIDED ON ~HE NEX? PAG£ LARGE SCALE COPY OF FHI£ PLAN /S AVAJL~LE FO~ 14EI~IN~ AT 77-'E PLANNING & Oc'-VELOPI*tENT DEPAR?~ENT ?H/$ ~ WAS P~ODUC[D BY rile C/77 OF PICKER/NC ~L~NN/N~ & D[V~LOP~EN? DEP~T~EN~ ~AY. 2001 ATTACHMENT ~ -7 TO REPORT ~ PD ,.-,~ ¥ - (-, 2_ PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 16-01 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF MAY 17, 2001 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Picketing Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Marion Hill Development Corporation Part Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C. (now Part 1, Plan 40R-14431 & Pan 1, Plan 40R-2767') (South-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue) City of Pickering 1.0 2.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject lands are 1.89 hectares in area, and are located on tile south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue; the subject lands comprise two parcels of land (see location map, Attachment #1): · parcel 1 is a 1.52-hectare parcel owned by Lydia Dobbin: Marion Hill Development Corporation has entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for this parcel; it is occupied by a detached dwelling; existing access is from Whites Road; · parcel 2 is a 0.37-hectare parcel owned by the City of Picketing; Marion Hill has approached the City about acquiring this parcel; this vacant parcel appears to be surplus to the City's needs (it was acquired from Veridian Corporation); a tributaw of Amberlea Creek crosses from north to south through the parcel; existing access is from Sheppard Avenue; uses surrounding the subject lands are: a medical office and detached dwellings to the north; detached dwellings fronting Sheppard Avenue to the east; the newly constructed commercial development including retail uses, day care, Wendy's / Tim Horton's and Swiss Chalet restaurants on Delta Boulevard to the south; vacant lands and residential also to the south fronting Whites Road; and residential and schools to the west. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL Marion Hill Development Corporation proposes to amend the Pickering Official Plan and the zoning by-law in order to permit development of the subject lands for 97dwellings; the proposal consists of 22 stacked townhouses adjacent to Whites Road and its corner with Sheppard Avenue, plus 75 street townhouses; 18 of the 75 street townhouses are proposed on the City-owned parcel; a copy of the conceptual site plan and various site statistics are provided for reference (see Attachments #2 and #3); a copy of the proposed official plan amendment is also provided (see Appendix I); the stacked townhomes fronting Whites Road are 4 storeys to create a focal point and frame the intersection; the remaining units are proposed at 2 to 3 storeys; the internal units front onto a linear public amenity space; total landscape space is proposed at about 36% and total building coverage is approximately 35%; in£ommtion Report No. 16-0t Page 2 AT"TAOHMh~T ~ '77 TO 3.0 a network of walkxvaxs throu? thc s:te is proposed to link it to the surroundm2 COlnmunity; a 0.5 metre wide public easement has been proposed as a pedestrian link from Sheppard Avenue into thc north end oI'Deha Boulevard; all vehicular access to thc dx~ellin~s is proposed from a private intemaI road: vehicular access to the private road is proposed to be provided bra driveway onto Whites Road pennittin~ rigiu tums ir7 and right tums out. and by a driveway onto Sheppard Avenue: no vehicular access is proposed between Delta Boulevard and the Marion Hill lands: the applicant is also proposing to enclose tile watercourse that flows through thc eastern portion of the subsect lands. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING 3.1 3.2 Durham Regional Official Plan the subject lands are designated as £ivm~,~ .~r~_,~: in tile Durham Regional Official Plan: lands designated Living _\rea may be used 1bt housing pu~oscs in addition to other compatible uses: thc proposal appears to contbm~, Whites Road is designated as a ~7~' .-:' .-~r~cr~ Ro~d and as a D'a~tsit Spine; Shcppard Avenue is designated as a ~?c C'.4rrcrz~n" ~;~z~z'.' Picketing Official Plan the subject lands arc des~?,atcd as Iblloxx s in tine Picketing ()fficial Plan: and. section 14.2 (g) of tiac ()I'fic:ai Pla~: :'c~:u~rcs that where a single parcel of land is governed by txxo or more separate land usc dcs~gnauons, thc policies of each of the respective desigmations shall the Mixed Comdor desi~nauon pcrn~lt., rcsidentiaI uses at a net residential density of over 30 and up to and including I40 dxxel]ings per hectare: in addition, retail, office, restaurants, communitx, cultural and rccrcauonal uses at a scale and intensity serving the broader area, and special purpose commcrcm uses. may be pemntled; about 0.3 of a hectare l~es x~ithin this designauon with 22 units proposed: thus, the residential density is calculated at 73 units per net hectare; the residential density lies within the allowable range tbr this design}non: the Low Density Residential designation pemms residential uses at a net residential density of up to and including 3() dwelling UlntS 7[>er hectare: m addition, home occupations, limited offices serxmg the area, and limited retailing of goods and services serving the area, commumtv, cultural and recreational uses. compatible employment uses, and compatible special purpose commercial uses serx mc thc arc}. may be permitted; about 0.4 ora hectare lies xtithm this dcs:gr:auon with 2~, umts proposed; thus, the residential density is calculated at 7) umts per net hectare: tile residential density exceeds the alloxvable range Ibr this designauon: an amendment to the Official Plan to change the designation from Low to Medium Density Residential ]s required: a copF et'the proposed amendment is provided as :\ppcndix I to this [nlbntlat~on Report: the Medium Density Residential designauon peru:its the same uses as the Low Density Residential. except residential uses arc ?ennit~ed at a net residential density of' over 30 and up to and including $0 dwelling umts I:)er hectare: about 1.1 of a hectare lies xvithin this des~nauon xvith 47 umts proposed: thus. the residential density is calculated at 42 units per net hectare: the residential density lies within the allowable range for this desi~4nauon: Information Report No. 16-01 ATTAOHMEI~IT # -'~ TO Pa~c ~ REPORT~PD ,~o,7,- £'~ ~ - if' the Lox,,' Density lands are redesignated to Medium Density, about 1.5 of a hectare would lie within the designation, with 75 units proposed: the residential density would be calculated at 38 units per net hectare; this residential density would lie within the allowable range for medium density; if all lands are included, this application proposes residential uses at an overall residential densiU' of 53 dwelling units per net hectare; Map 16 of the Pickering Official Plan identifies the subject lands as lying within the Woodlands Neighbourhood; further, Map 16 identifies the subject lands as lying within a Detailed Review Area; section 11.2 of the Official Plan indicates that Council may adopt development guidelines for any part of a Detailed Review Area: Council shall endeavour to complete a detailed review prior to approving major development within the area; Council has adopted the .~V'or~hcast Quadran~ Development Guidelines, which affect the subject lands; once Council has adopted development guidelines, development shall comply with them; section 11.8 (a) of the Official Plan indicates that Council shall, in established residential areas along Sheppard Avenue. encourage and where possible, require new development to be compatible with the character of existing development; further, the policies restrict the maximum overall net site density for residential development in the lands governed by the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines to 35 units per net hectare: the current residential density within the area covered by the Northeast Quadrant Guidelines is approximately 8.5 units per hectare; with the l~roposed development, the net density over the entire Northeast Quadrant would be approximately 21.5 units per hectare', the Woodlands Neighbourhood Map also shows a Pro£osed Ror~d Connection between Kingston Road and Whites Road; Delta Boulevard is the start of this road; its continuation west would run along the south portion of the subject lands: a proposed Neighbourhood Park is identified generally in the interior of the Northeast Quadrant; section 10.5 of the Pickering Official Plan identifies that Council shall promote the retention of watercourses and stream corridors in an open and natural state and require, where appropriate, the recommendations of an Environmental Report to be implemented; however, section 10.6 of the Picketing Plan states that Council shall consider alterations or enclosures of limited portions of watercourses within existing urbanized areas if supported by an approved subwatershed plan or environmental master servicing plan; in addition, section 10.19 of the Official Plan states that Council may permit alterations to watercourses or stream corridors, including the placement of fill, only following the appropriate approvals of the relevant conservation authority and the Ministry of Natural Resources, if necessary; further, Schedule III - Resource Management of the Official Plan designates the valley of the creek tributary as Shoreline and Stream Corridors; among other matters, this designation may permit new development in accordance with the land use designation on Schedule I, (which as noted above is Medium and Low Residential), subject to the recommendations of an Environmental Report; sections 15.9, 15.11 and Appendix II indicate that Council shall for major development, and may for minor development, require the submission of an Environmental Report, as part of the consideration of an application on lands designated Shoreline and Stream Corridor; Schedule II - Transportation Network designates Whites Road as a Type A Arterial, and a Transit Spine; Type A Arterials are designed to carry large volumes of traffic at moderate and high speeds, within the municipality; they have access restrictions, and generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 36 to 50 metres; inibnnation Report No. 16-01 Page 3.3 4.0 4.1 3.4 Sctnedule Ii also designates Si~eppard Avenue as a 737c C Arterial: T>T~e C Arterials are designed to can-,,' lov,'er volumes of traffic, provide access to properties, and ~enerallv have a nght-of-xvay width r~.n_in_ iYom 20 ' ~ , ~' ~ ~ to ~0 metres: however. section 11.8 (e) of the Picketing Plan indicates that Council shall accommodate i~turc improvements to Sheppard Avenue within tho existin2 2~)metre road allox~ance. except at intersections where additional Fo:id alioxvance widttn may be needed: Compendium Document to the Picketing Official Plan as noted above, tile subiect lands fall within tile detailed rex'~ex: area that is subject to the Nordtecas~ Oz.~dt-c~z~ Dcu_'to?me~t~ Ozm,"c/z~c.s': the Northeast Quadrant ~s the block of land bounded <encralh' on the south by Kingston Road. on the west by Whites Road. on thc north by Sheppard Avenue, and on the east bv thc main branch of the Amberica Creek least of thc Dunbarton School site); the small thbutarv of Amberlea Creek that passes through the eastern part of the subject lands, continues southxvards to Kingston Road. and then under Kingston Road and through the Picketing Holdings propen>' (iocated cast o/Borer Pontiac); Council has adopted tile .Vc, rr/zc~zxr C)mair~z~: ;>cxc/~>;,,;~Jz: (/~ldc/i~tes, for these lands: in addition, txvo parcels on thc west side o:' Whites Road. south of Dunthir Street, are also fox'ended by thc same G'~:~dei~qcs: the Northeast Quadrant Guidelines contemplate a high intensity mixed-use development, with substantial underground park~25: thc xision is centred around an internal residential area ffontin~ on a ?ubIic 'ri:ag' road with an interior linear park; in addition, commercial and ot'I]ce uses. x,~t}: office and office-support uses, are permitted along ti~c Kingston Road and \Vhites Road /ronta~,_,es respectively: for the subject lands, tiao Northeast Quadratu Guideline~ idcntiI-v: · the intent to ensure tinat new residential dexcloi~mcnt close to the e×isting residences has little visual m~pact from Shcppard _-\x cnue: · the new residential zone provide a buffer and transition between the existing residential community on Sheppard Avenue and the commercial component of new development: and · residential uses in buildings with buildin< heights not to exceed 14 metres were anticipated on the southern part of the sublect lands: more specifically for the subject lands, tile concept pizm from the Guidelines shows: · a 2,660 square metre. £-storev office oE5cc-support building on Whites Road; · 33 residential dwellings in the form 07 4-storex structures, adjacent to the new internal public road: and · detached dwellings on Sheppard Avenue: - an amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Deveiopment Guidelines is required; Zonin,g Bv-la;v 3036 the subject lands are currently zoned RF 0~,:/L~.zzi'~ Dc:~chcd-77~ird De~zsitv Zone; the R3 zone pe~its detached dxxellings on lot_, w~th na:n~munq sir'cot ikontagcs of 18 metres and minimum lot areas of 550 square metres. an amendment to Zoning Bx-lax~ 3030 is required. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION (see Resident Comments Vivian VandenHazel is opposed to the proposed density increase along the Stneppard Avenue frontage as ali other ilomes fl'outing on Shcppard are detached homes; she also does not support enclosure of the watercourse as it would be environmentally unf15endlv to plants and animals: she would prefer tine xxatercoursc to bc cleaned up and used as a park (see Attachment =4): 174 Information Report No. 16-01 ATTACHMENT# ~7 TO Pa~e 5 REPORT # PD ~ 1/- o .2 ~ 4.2 Sylvia Spencer (verbal comments) - is concerned with the gades at the south-east c~)rner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue; would prefer to see no more than 8 houses alont the Sheppard Avenue frontage; questions whether home businesses are permitted. and ~'f so, states that adequate parking should be provided; is concerned with the steep ~ades along Sheppard Avenue and suggests the access be moved further to the east; Agency Comments Durham District School Board - has no objections to the proposal (see Attachment #5); Veridian Connections - advises that the applicant must meet numerous requirements and specifications respecting electrical servicing of this property and pay certain deposits and fees (see Attachment #6); 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 Staff Comments Residential Uses the proposal to change the use of these lands from a mix of office and residential as originally envisioned by the Northeast Quadrant Guidelines, to only residential, must be reviewed; to-date, there has been little success in achieving the internal residential area as originally envisaged; thus, refocusing of the residential to Sheppard Avenue may be an appropriate alternative to explore; thfproposed housing form, layout, design, and intensity of development must be reviewed in light of urban design objectives, traffic and access considerations, environmental considerations, and the community context; specifically, the appropriateness of changing the designation of the lands fronting on Sheppard Xvenue from Low to Medium Density residential must be evaluated; the appropriate performance standards, restrictions, and provisions for the residential uses must be established; Amberlea Creek and Stormwater Management the appropriateness of piping the tributary of Amberlea Creek must be reviewed; it is noted that the tributary is piped all upstream of Sheppard Avenue, and portions of the tributary are piped downstream under Highway 401, and the CN Rail; some downstream reaches of the Creek are experiencing stream and valley erosion; the location of the remnant reaches of the open channel on the subject lands, and on the lands to the south, frustrates the land use and urban design objectives contemplated for these lands; accordingly, there appears to be some merit in considering piping of these remnant pieces of the watercourse; however, an appropriate Environmental Report is required to support the request; the report must examine the impacts to the tributary both upstream and downstream, and justify the benefit of piping the creek; from an environmental perspective, it is anticipated that any justification would be required to demonstrate how the implementation plan would result in a net benefit to the watershed; to-date, no report has been submitted by the applicant; ultimately, any application to pipe the creek would be required to receive appropriate approvals and permits, for fill and alteration to a watercourse, from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and the Federal Department of Fisheries, and possibly the Ministry of Natural Resources where required; however, there is also an interest by the owners of lands located to the south of the subject lands, between the subject lands and Kingston Road, and those south of Kingston Road, to pipe the tributary of Amberlea Creek through their lands; accordingly, there is an opportunity for all landowners to undertake a single study; the City is one of these landowners; Infom~ation Report No. 1 6-(!1 rrT CHV, r 'r '-7 TO 4.3.3 in addition, the Citx is cun'entlx undertaking a review of the dovcnstream reach of Amberlea Creek xxhictn ~s experiencing the erosion problems; work associated with dais mitigation restoranon prelect appears to duplicate muct~ of the effort required lbr lhe piping justification: a collaboranve effort be~xveen thc City and ~he olher affected landoxvners would appear to be tho mos~ swate<ic approach to completing thc required repom lMnher discussion is reqaircd on ho~ an appropriate Environmental Report is bes~ completed: opponunkics for collaboration arc cu~entlv be;m,= explored through= a proposed revie~x oS:he No=beast Quadrata lands in conjunction with lands somh of Kingston Road ~see section 4.3.~ betow~: regardless of v,'hetiler the tribntarv is ultJmateh' piped, stormv,'ater management must be addressed for these lands: stoml sev,'ers installed under Delta Boulevard have been sized to accommodate floxvs from tile _N1arion Hill lands: hoxvever, it ~s not clear whether piping of tile creek would change any of thc earlier assumptions storrnv,'ater manauement: Review of the "Northeast Quadrant" kand.~ in addition to this application, tine Cit~ has received ortner development applications for lands within the Northeast Q~adrant. requestms revisions to the Guidelines: these changes relate to the asangemcm of uses. design manors, provision of the park, provision of thc internal rin~ road. and access lo the external road network; in addition, the City is ax~ are of other de~ eiopment interest Ibr lands in the Quadrant; furthermore, the owners of land. throk~uh ~hich thc tribukirx of Amberlea Creek flows, are interested in piping ti~c creek: although tile City has had some R:ccesse,,, ~n implementing tile vision set out in the Northeast Quadrant Guidelines. there are some on-going challenges; these challenges include the interest in pr;mar;i} commercizl dexelopment adjacent to Kingston Road, the cost of and lack of interest in underzround parking, the difficulty in implementing the internal public road. and tile location of tile tributarx through the block; in an effort to be more proactive in v,'orktng with development interests, the City is considering a review of tile Northeast Quadrant Dexelopment Guidelines: although the process, tasks and funding are still under discussion, preliminary work done to date suggests that the review would look · revisions to the arrangement of land uses. v, hile maintaining key urban design objectives and having regard to the community context: · the internal access network through the. block, and external access to and from the surrounding streets: arid · the potential for piping the Amberlea Creek tributarx. based on a preliminary study design, it is anticipated that staff would work closely with landowners on finding common ground bctv, ecn tine~r interests and the City's; but, it is suggested at this time that a new a?proach, kising a consultant who is a facilitator with urban design expertise, or an urban designer with expertise in facilitation, max best accomplish this task ti a timely manner: additional consulting help would also be required ira tx~ o technical areas not currently available on staff: consultants would be required to complete a traffic, access analysis, and the environmental engineering report 1br the piping of the tributary; the consultants' xvork would provide input into, and su~pport, an,, revisions to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines: based on a preliminary study design, it is also anticipated that staff would work closely with the community to understand issues and concerns so that ncighbourhood development continues to achieve an appropriate fit: 136 information Report No. t 6-01 ATTACHMENT ,'¢ "~ TO REPORT # PD ,~.~ ?, _~ ,~ Page 4.a.4 the representative for the Marion Hill lands has indicated at a preliminary level that his client is interested in participating in the review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, including the related environmental and traffic'access studies; should a review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines proceed, recommendations on the official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications an~endment applications would await the outcome of that process; Urban Design discussions have been held between the applicant and Planning & Development staff about the nature of development that may be appropriate on the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue; while staff recognize that there may be merit in the removal of the office commercial uses from the land fronting onto Whites Road, enclosure of the watercourse, surface parking, and provision of traffic access to the subject lands without connection to Delta Boulevard, no commitments were given; a number of design elements of development of the subject lands will require careful consideration; issues for review will include; · the proposed stacked and street townhouse forms; · the proposed height for the proposed townhouses fronting onto Sheppard Avenue and Whites Road; · the ~ade differences between Whites Road and the north-west corner of the site; · the proposed intensity of development; · the adequacy, arrangement and number of parking areas for the proposed development; · pedestrian access to, and through, the subject lands; · the location and design of the proposed linear amenity space opposite Delta Boulevard; and · the locations of traffic access points and turning movements between the subject lands and Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue; 4.3.5 5.0 5.1 5.2 Other Matters following approval of any official plan and zoning amendment, site plan approval and a draft plan of condominium application will be required. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority - the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional approval if such applications are determined to be locally significant, and do not exhibit matters of Regional and / or Provincial interest; - at this time, the Region has not yet determined whether this official plan amendment application is exempt from Regional Approval; General written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; if you wish to be notified of Council's adoption of any official plan amendment, or passing of any zoning by-law amendment, you must. request such in writing to the City Clerk; Information Report No. 10-01 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 if you wish to be notified oi-tile dcclsiOlq Of the Region of Durham with respect to the proposed amendment to ti~e officia] plan. you must make a written request to the Commissioner of Planning, Region of Durnan~ Plannin~ Department. OTHER INFOR~I.XTION' ~endix 1 copy of the proposed Picketing Ofiicial Pt,zn An~cndment: ~endix II those whose co~Tmc~qts on thc proposal were rccctx cd at time of' writing are listed: ~rinei~ Mr. Ian Nlatthcx~s ~s thc President of N1arion ~till Development Co~oration: Nlr. Vincent Santamaura of Cassidx and Co. is representin~ XIarion Hill. s©,j r Cop)': ORIGINAL SIGNt~ BY, Steve Gaunt, MCIP, Pd)P Planner 2 Director, Planning ORIGINAL SIGNED BY (',xti~crinc L. Rose Nlanager, Policy ,~'rTAOHMENT ~' ~ TO REPORT ~ PD ,~ 5/- ~ ,,~ - APPENDIX l TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 16-01 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN t.,'q'AOH'.Tr;'f # '"7 TO PROPOSED AMEND%IENT TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAl_ PLAN PURPOSE: LOCATION: PROPOSED AMENDMENT: IMPLEMENTATION: INTERPRETATION: Tile puU>ose of this ::nnendment is to permit an increase in tine net residential dc:nsttv permitted on a portion of the sub_}ect lands to a maximum off S0 units per hectare. The Plan cun'entiv establishes a residential density maximum of 30 units per hectare lbr lands desi~mated "Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area". The subject lands are a:0pro×lmatelv ~;.3 ora hectare in size, and located on the south side of Sheppard Avenue, east of Whites Road. All of the lands fall within Part Lot 28, Range 3. B.F.C. The City of Picketing Official Plan is hereby amended by: Replace the "Urban Residential Area - Low Density .&rea" with an "Urban Residential Area - Medium Density Area" desigmation on Schedule I - the Land Use Structure map of the Pickenng Official Plan, as shovqn on Schedule 'A' attached hereto. The provisions set forth in the City of Pickenn~o Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation o~'the Plan shall apply in regard to ~:t~is Amendment. The provisions set ibrth in the City of Picketing Official Plan, as amended, rega:ding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. sxg/dobbiWOpa A'FTACHN~ENT # -~ TO REPORT ~ PD ~2 5" - c' ~- APPENDIX II TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 10-01 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS 1) Vivian VandenHazel. 1757 Fairport Road, Picketing, ON L1V lTl 2) SyMa Spencer. 771 Sheppard Avenue, Pickenng. ON L1V 1G4 COMMENTING AGENCIES I1 ) The Durham District School Board (2) Veridian Co~mections COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS Planning & Development Excerpts of Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes of Ti~ursdax. May 17, 2001 STATUTORY PUBI,1C INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES A Statutoo, Public Information Nlecting was held on Thursday, May 17, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The Manager, Policy Division, pro', ided an overvie,z' of d~e requirements of the Planning Act and tiao Onta~o Municipal Board respecting ti~is meeting and matters under consideration thereat. (III~ PICIx~RING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDSIENT ePA 01-002P ZONING BY-LAV~' AMENDMENT APPI.ICATION A 04/01 MARION HILL DEVELOPXlENT CORPORATION PART OF LOT 28. RANGE 3. B.F.C. (NOW PART 1. PLAN 40R-14431 & P:\RT 1. PI.AN 40R-2767) ~SOUTH-EAST CORNER OF VVHITES ROAD AND SIIEPPARD AVENUE) Steve Gaunt, Planner II. provided an explanation of thc application, as outlined in infommtion Report ~16-01. lan Santamaura, representing the applicant, advised that they have been working with staff for approximatel> t'~vo years on development for this area. An appropriate type of building form for this site could make the transition between Kingston Road and residential to the north Four storey stacked '~ov,'nhouses are proposed along Whites Road and three storey units in three separate blocks with walkways are proposed along Sheppard Ave. The site includes an internal park, 219 parking spaces and a walkway from Sheppard Ave. to Del~a Blvd. Irene McNamara, 752 Sheppard Ave., stated hcr concerns ~'ith respect to increased traffic along Sheppard Ave., style of homes, impact on busing and impact on existing residents. She questioned whether or not Sheppard Ave. is to be widened, how this development will irn]0act the prices of tile area homes and what school ,,','ill these children be bused to ,a'hcn all schools in the area are overcrowded. A resident at 738 Sheppard Ave.. advised of his opposition to this development and stated his concern xv~th respect to schools, parking ~nd trafI~c. GregoO' Flavell. 7.34 Sheppard Ave., stated his concern with overcroxvding of schools, small children's attraction to tile rteighbounng tram tracks and looking into another community. He questioned v, hv dae density is being doubled in the area. Bill Somberger, 750 Sheppard Ave., commented on his concern that traffic from this development ,,','ill exit onto Sheppard Ave. which will create incredible traffic increase. He further stated his concern w:th overcrowding of schools and the negative impact on the present community. ATTACHMENT # ? '1'0 REPOR'f # PD ~" ¥ -~:' ~-- Sylvia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Ave., advised that she will be forwarding her comments to the City in writing. She questioned what percentage of this development is government required. o John McNamara, 752 Sheppard Ave., questioned Councillor Ryan on the actions he will be taking to stop this application. Paul White, 507 Cliff¥iew Road, advised of the difficulty in understanding all the corrections previously advised by staff. He requested that conceptual drawings be provided and that a complete Environmental Assessment be undertaken. He stated his concerns with respect to traffic increase, overcrowding of schools and the increase in density. 10. John Flavell, 734 Sheppard Ave., stated his surpr/se that the proposed road will be going to Sheppard Ave. rather than Kingston Road. He advised of his interest in speaking with the applicant. 11. Ian Santamaura, representing the applicant, advised that the OP .Amendment deals with only .4 hectare of property, everything else falls under OP requirements. The proposal is for four storey buildings on Whites Road and three storeys on Sheppard Ave. Traffic will have to be reviewed and access onto Whites Road will be looked at in detail. No government housing is required and the quality and architecture of this development will be mirrored to the area. 734 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED RECEIVED MAY 2 1001 CITY OF PICKERING ~LOPMENT DEPARTMENT May 19,2001 Catherine L. Rose, Policy Manager Planning and Development Department City of Pickering One the Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 CEIVED MAY 2 4 2001 CITY OF PICKERING t:: LAN NING AND DEVFLO;ME/qT DEPARTMENT Dear Catherine Rose: Re: Pickering Official Plan Amendment OPA tll-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application .& 04/01 Marion Hill Development Corp. Part Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C. (Now Part 1, Plan 40R-14431 & Part 1, Plan 40R-2767) (South-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue) City of Picketing To confirm our verbal comments at the public meeting on May 17th, 2001, involving the subject applications, we wish to express that various development and design issues must be resolved, prior to the consideration of the approval of the proposed applications. The subject proposal must address two key issues, involving 734 Kingston Road Limited, as follows: Cost Sharing Obligations The cost sharing obligations of the applicant in respect to Iret-~,'~';r,;~,,,. ~,.. ...... of se.,-vices and the construction of Delta Blvd, must the resolved. As per previous corres~)ndence involving this matter, the City of Picketing acknowledged that these cc)sis will be addressed during future planning applications. Cost calculations had been undertaken by Durmuid Hor~a:n, Candevcon Enuineering Limited. We are currently reviewing these costs and v~'ill be providin~ t.nis information in'the near future, in order to conclude this matter. 650 Lakeridge Road, Ajax, Onrario, L]S 4S7 Tel: (416)-410.0778 Fax: (416)-410-0778 ATTACHMENT # '~ TO Design Impacts - Street 'B' In accordance to the development agreement executed between the City of Picketing and 734 Kingston Road Limited, the lands transferred to the City for street 'B' are to be returned to 734 Kingston Road Limited, if street 'B' is not constructed. Based on this proposal, Street 'B' is eliminated. As a result, discussions need to occur regarding the design of the subject proposal to ensure the long term planning of the "street B lands". It is suggested that the design be altered to accommodate further residential units, thereby creating the most efficient and practical use of these lands. To address these comments, it is encouraged that meetings be held, in the immediate future, with the applicant, City of Pickering staff and 734 Kingston Road Limited. Yours truly, /R0ad Limited .Overzet cc. Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP, Planner 2j 1 4[5 734 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED HAND DELIVERED March 21. 2002 City of Picketing Planning and Development Departmem One the Esplanade Picketing, ON L1V 6K7 Atm_: Catherine L. Rose, Policy .Manager Dear Sirs: Re: Northeast Quadrant Study Area 734 Kingston Road - Recovery of Costs As per our previous discussions we believe that other smroundina land owners in the Northeast Quadrant Study Area should be contributina towards the costs or'he road and services that we had installed, as a result of the City's insistence~ through our property. Provision of this road was a significant cost to us in both dollars and in forgone revenue as a result of reduced land. Attached is a detailed schedule indicating total cost incurred and a reasonable apportionment of these costs in order to determine the amount to be recovered. Yours truly, 734~~t°n~~imited Per erzet cc. Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP, Planner 2 650 Lakeridge Road, Ajax, Ontario, L1S 4S7 Tel: (416)-410-0778 Fax: (416)-410-0778 734 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED HAND DELIVERED March 21, 2002 City of Pickering Planning and Development Department One the Esplanade Picketing, ON L1V 6K7 Attn: Catherine L. Rose, Policy Manager CiTY OF PiCKERI!",IG PLANNING $ I)bWEl OPL~,[TN~ Dear Sirs: Re: Parts 25 and 30, Plan 40R-18371, Development Agreement Dated February 15, 1999 between 734 Kingston Road Limited and the City of Pickering It is our understanding that the adjoining lands to the north of our property have submitted a plan for development and that said plan does not use Pans 25 and 30 for a road. Pans 25 and 30 were conveyed to the City by us pursuant to the above referenced Development Agreement in order to comply with the Northeast Quadrant Study. As it is apparent that road contemplated by the Study is no longer required we are requesting that the City reconvey these lands to us at your earliest convenience. If you require any additional information please contact the undersigned. ~ ~d Limited /overzet cc. Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP, Planner 2 650 Lakeridge Road, Ajax, Ontario, LIS 4S7 Tel: (416)-410-0778 Fax: (416)-410-0778 734 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED August n_~, 200I Neil Carrol City of Picker/n_o Planning & Development Deb:. One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario LI V 6K7 Dear Sir: Re: 734 Kingston Road - Itemized Cos:s to Construzt Delta Blvd./inciuding oversizing). As requested by Cathering Rose the Fol!.o~in_o are the itemized costs for the construction of Delta Boulevard whi~-h include oversizino and serx'~cin~o extensions to accommodate the Iands to the north. = Hydro $148,000 Road 326,000 Traffic Lights 56,000 Consultants 40,000 Overruns 45,000 Land 3 ,_5 000 $940,000 We are available to attend a meetina ~vid:, ~' _ a;~ parties invc/,, ej to discuss cos[ shat/rig in more deta/l. Yours truly, 734 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED Per: Larry Macdonell Project Manager 650 Lakeridge----ff~oad, AjAx, Tel: (416).410-0775 O~rario, LJS 4S7 Fax: (416~-410.0775 ATTACHMENT ~L _TO R?ORI ~ PD ~2 ? -o 7_.. __ Land Planning Surveying Servicing Engineer Engineering Admin Municipal Engineering Soil engineering Hydro Cleadng Tree removal Road Contract Storm Sewers Sanitary & Water Roads & Curbs Sidewalks Other Traffic Lights Kingston Road Median 734 Kingston Road Limited Road Costs to be Recovered Applicable Total to Road 650,000 650,000 4,462 1,116 9,787 2,447 33,225 33,225 19,157 19,157 6,951 6,951 5,514 5,514 125,732 125,732 80,875 20,219 6,170 1,543 Our Share 325,000 558 1,223 16,613 9,579 3,476 2,757 80,OOO 10,109 771 To Be Recovered 325,000 558 1,223 16,613 9,579 3,476 2,757 45,732 10,109 771 39,615 139,615 22,400 117,215 67,014 67,014 35,000 32,014 24,657 124,657 62,000 62,657 40,684 40,684 5,900 34,784 4,293 4,293 2,200 2,093 56,818 56,818 28,409 28,409 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 1,384,954 1,308,984 610,994 697,989 VIA FAX: 905-420-9685 lVlr. Steve Gaunb Planner 2 Planning and Development Departmen~. City of Picketing One the Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L~V6K7 8th Floor ~"-~ Front Street West Toronto, Ontario Ix15\/ 2X7 A Oq.'Oi ',bur File: IZ-qS00-P-02 Dear Fir. Gaunt: Re: Proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Pa, rt Lot 28, Range 3, Broken Foot Concession, City of Picketing Southeast corner of Whites Road and She, ppard_Aven_ue We have reviewed your lexer dated 2~, April 3C:O~, re¢~.rd~ng b%,e "~' -, application and have the following comments: noted The Owner is required to insert the following warninq clause in all development agreements, offers to purchase, agreernents of Purchase and Sale or Lease and include in a Noise impact Statement: "Warning: Canadian National Ftailway Company or i~s assigns or successors in interest has or have a righ( of-way within 3iX) metres from the land the subject hereof. There may' be alterations to or expansions of the rail facilities on such right-of-way in the future including the. possibiti~ that the railway or its ~ssigns or successors as aforesaic may ~xpand ils operations, which expansion may affect the living enwronment of the residenLs in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of an,v no,se and viDratio'n a%enuating measures in the desien of the deveioprn¢nt an¢: ~ndvlduai dwelling(s). CNR will not be responsible for ar~v cornplaints or ca,ms arising ;:rom use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or unaer tin--_- aforesairJ right-of-way." The Owner is required to engage a consultant to,."d_rta~,~ '~' an anaiys~sofno~seand provide abatement measures necessarx ~o achit2,,,,;~ the maximum .... ~ limits set, by the Ministry of Environment and Canadian i~'at!on~. We would appreciate the opportunity to comment on ant proposed rnod!fication prior to ils adoption, and ultimately, we reeuest notice of t~e Amendment r)eing approved. Should you have am/ further quesbons, please co not hesitate ~c) conkact the undersigned at (4]6) 217-6961. Yours truly, ge0~-f Woods Development P, eview Coordinator RECEIVED MAY 1 8 2001 CiTY OF PICKERING PLA ~i'JING AND OEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT onserva tlon TORONTO AND REGION May 29, 2001 Ms. Celeste Terry Planning Department The Regional Municipality of Durham 1615 Dundas Street East 4th Floor Lang Tower, West Building P.O. Box 628 Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 Dear Ms. Terry: Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A04/01 and Application to Amend the City of Pickering Official Plan CPA 01-002/P Part of Lot 28, B F C Range 3 South-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue City of Pickering (Marion Hill Development Corporation) We acknowledge receipt of the above-noted applications and offer the following comments. It is our understanding that the purpose of this application is to permit an increase in the maximum net residential density permitted on the subject lands, with the future intent of constructing 97 stacked and street townhouse dwellings. A review of the subject property reveals that a portion of the subject property falls within TRCA draft fill extension lines, and that a tributary of Amberose Creek that flows into Frenchman's Bay traverses the property. Therefore the property is subject to Ontario Regulation 158, the Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP). The VSCMP sets out development guidelines for properties affected by valley and stream corridors. Its goal is to prevent development that could cause an increase in risk to life and property through flooding, erosion and slope instability. The limits of development are determined to be a minimum of 10 metres inland from the stable top of bank and/or a minimum of 10 metres inland from the Regional Storm Floodplain, whichever is greater. Note that the limits of the floodplain and valley corridor have not been defined in the field for this property, and may be required. Once the valley corridor/floodplain boundary is defined, we will require that these lands be formally recognized and protected. The valley corridor lands (including the 10 metre buffer) should be zoned to prohibit development and/or any alterations. They should be placed/remain in an "Open Space -Hazard Land" zoning, or equivalent which has the affect of prohibiting structural encroachments, the placement of fill, or the removal of vegetation, except for the purposes of flood or erosion control, or resource management. The VSCMP policies also identify valley corridors (including the 10 metre buffer) as lands suitable to be placed in public ownership in order to minimize the associated hazards and ensure the long term protection of the natural feature. As an element of this application, we would like to highlight the opportunity to transfer the valley portion of the subject lands to public ownership to the landowner. Healthy ~i:,ers . Biodiversity and Greenspace° Education for Sustainabie~L~it~.__/2 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www. trca.on.ca .... W ..:~,. ~.---.-Z TO :::cS'F: F P£~ -': 2_ 15t Ms. Celeste Terry_ - 2 - Ma~ In addition note that as the property is regulated under Ontario Reaulation 158, a permit is required from the Authority prior to any of the following works takin~g place: a) construct any building or structure or permit any mui!ding or structure to be constructed in a pond or swamp or in any area susceptible to f oo.dJmg dJring a regional storm; b) place or dump fill or permit fill to be placed or dumped in the areas described in the schedules whether such fill is alreaay ~ocated ~,~, or upon such area, or brought to or on such area from some other place or places: c) straighten, change, divert or interfere in an,:, way w!th the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse. In addition, if development were to take place,s~a~,+~= are concerned that, unless proper stormwater management techniques and erosion and sedimentation control measures are employed on site both during and after construction, negative impacts to downstream areas could result. Stormwater leaving the site will require 'treatment', both before and after development. 'Treatment' refers to providing some form (or forms) of water quantity attenuation and quality abatement usually accomplished by allowing stormwater run-off to infiltrate into the ground or through temporary stormwater detention or retention that would allow some settling of suspended solids and associated contaminants, pricr to release. In light of the above, we do not support this application at this time. We require that the limits of the natural feature be defined and appropriately zoned and protected before we could support this application. If you have any questions, please contact Patti Young at extension 5324 or the undersigned. Yours truly, 'Russel White Plans Analyst Development Services Section Ext. 53O6 PY/fa cc: Steve Gaunt, City of Pickering DELIVERY PLANNING ~ 0 ,86 MIDLAND AVE 2ND FL. SCARBOROUGH ON M1P 5Al (416)285-5385 (T) (416)285-7624 (F) June 1, 2001 Steve Gaunt Planning & Development City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Picketing On L1V 6K7 R E C El V E D JUN CITY OF PtCKERING PLAI'JNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,- JUN CITY PICKERIN(_'h RE: P1CKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA 01-002P ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 04/01 MARION HILL DEVELOPMENT CORP. PART LOT 28, RANGE 3, B.F.C. (now PART 1, PLAN 40R-14431 & PART 1, PLAN 40R-2767) (SOUTIt-EAST CORNER OF WHITES RD AND SHEPPARD AVE) CITY OF PICKERING Dear Mr. Gaunt, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above noted application. Please note our new conditions below. As a condition of draft approval, Canada Post requires that the owner/developer comply with the following conditions: - The owner/developer agrees to include on all offers of purchase and sale, a statement which advises the prospective purchaser that mail delivery will be from a designated Community Mailbox. - The owner/developer will be responsible for notifying the purchaser of the exact Community Mailbox locations prior to the closing of any home sale. - The owner/developer will consult with Canada Post Corporation to determine suitable locations for the placement of Community Mailbox and to indicate these locations on the appropriate servicing plans. The owner,developer will provide the followin~ for each Community Mailbox site and include these requirements on the appropriate se~'icing plans: - An appropriately sized sidexvalk section { concrete pad) as per municipal standards, to place the Community Mailboxes on. - Any required walkway across the boulex ard, as per municipal standards. - Any required curb depressions for wheelchair access. The owner'developer further agrees to deten~]ine and pr~x idea suitable temporars.' Community Mailbox location(s), which may be utilized by Canada [Mst until the curbs, sidex~ alks and final grading have been completed at the pcm'mnent (._'ommun tx' Nlailbox locations. This will enable Canada Post to provide mail delivery to new residence a:; ~oon as the homes are occupied. I trust that this information is sufficient, however, should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me the above number or mailin- address. Sincerely, Debbie Greenwood Delivery Planner a:utildraw.sam ATTACH E " / r ,TO REPORT # PD ~,~ ~- © 7_ Be// Right of Way Fi 5 - 100 Borough Drive Scarborough, Ontario M1P 4W2 Tel: 416 296-6291 Fax: 416 296-0520 JUN 1 5 2001 June 12, 2001 City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 ATTENTION: Steve Gaunt RE: Official Plan Amendment File No: OPA 01-002/P South-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue Part Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C. Marion Hill Development Town of Pickering Thank you for your letter of April 26, 2001 concerning the above official plan. Please be advised: 1 - Bell Canada shall confirm that satisfactory arrangements, financial and otherwise, have been made with Bell Canada for any Bell Canada facilities which are required by the Municipality to be installed underground; a copy of such confirmation shall be forwarded to the Municipality. 2 - The Owner shall be requested to enter into an agreement (Letter of understanding) with Bell Canada complying with any undezgzound sezvicing conditions imposed by the municipality and if no such conditions are imposed, the owner shall advise the municipality of the arrangement made for such servicing. If there are any conflicts with existing Bell Canada facilities or easements, the Owner/Developer shall be responsible for re- arrangements or relocation. If you have any questions, please contact: 905-433-3066. Heather Rivet at Yours truly, Manager - Right of Way The Regional Municipality of Durham Planmng Department 1615 DUNDAS ST E 4TH FLOOR LANGTOWER WEST BUILDING PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON LIN 6A3 (905) 728-773! FAX: (905) 436-6612 www_re~q[on durha_rr~.on Ca A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP April 29, 2002 Mr. Steve Gaunt Planner City of Picketing Planning and Development Department Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade PickeringON L1V6K7 RECEfVE[ CITY OF PICKERING ['LAi*~ tql~qG AND DEVELOPME/4T DEPARTMEN ~' Dear Mr. Gaunt: Re: Region's Review of an Application to Amend the City of Pickering Official Plan File No. OPA 01-002/P: and Rezoning Application A-04/01 Applicant: Marion Hill Develo3ment Corporation Location: Part Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C. South-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue Municipality: City of Pickerlng Commissioner of Planmng This application has been reviewed by the Region and the following comments are offered with respect to compliance with the Regional Official Plan, delegated provincial plan review responsibilities and the proposed method of servicing. The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment application is to amend the City of Pickering Official Plan by re-designating it portion of the sublect lands from "Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area" to "Urban Residential Area - Medium Density Area". The applicant also seeks to amerd the City of Pickering Zoning By-law by rezoning the subject lands from "R3 -One Family Detached Third Density Zone" to a specific designation. These amendments would facilitate the development of 97 stacked townhouse and street townhous6, dwellings, The subject site is designated "Living Area" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. One of the goals of the Living Area Cs to establish suitable areas for the provision of a full range of housing which will be developed in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Living Areas shall be used predominantly for housing purposes. The policies of the Durham Plan would support the proposed development. The application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial plan review responsibilities. The subject lands have been assessed as having a high archaeological potential due the proximity of a watercourse (Amberlea Creek). An archaeological assessment will be reqJired. The subject lands are also adjacent to both Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue. Whites Road is designated as a Type "A' Arterial Road and Sheppard Avenue is designated as a Type "C" Arterial Road in the Durham Official Plan. There is potential for noise impacts from vehicular traffic. In addition, the subject lands are also in close proximity to the Canadian National Railway (within 300 metres). A noise report will need to be submitted by an acoustical consultant which will sUmmarise any noise attenuation requirements in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment Noise Guidelines. ",~ER ! 7('/' E.\'C£-I.L Jbr our /~TTACHMENT # //¢ TO The Region understands that it is the applicant's intention'to enclose the portion of Amberlea Creek that flows through the eastern portion of the subject lands. The limit of the floodplain and valley corridor have not been defined for this property, however, once defined the subject lands should be formally recognised and protected. Some downstream reaches of the creek are currently experiencing stream and valley erosion. The Provincial Policy Statement requires that the Region have regard for Natural Hazards. Proper stormwater management techniques and erosion and sedimentation control measures must be employed in order to avoid any negative impacts that could result to downstream areas. In addition, any proposed development should demonstrate that the ecological functions of the creek will not be adversely affected. The Regional Works Department has indicated that full water supply and sanitary sewer servicing is available to the subject lands. Comments regarding transportation issues have also been provided by the Regional Works Department. The Works Department ~s supportive of the application, however, the Region will only permit a single controlled direct access to Whites Road for the proposed development. Ulaon submission of a future site plan, the design of the access and method of physical control will be determined through a detailed geometric design exercise. The final design' must satisfy the Region's requirements, and the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the design and construction of the improvements required. This application is considered to haVe no significant Regional or Provincial concerns. Regional transportation requirements will be addressed through the site plan process. The concerns of the Region as they relate to the stream corridor will be addressed through specific policies in the proposed amendment. Therefore, in accordance with By-law 11-2000, this application is exempt from Regional approval. Once again, it is anticipated that the previously mentioned Provincial and Regional issues will be addressed as part of the amendment application process. Please advise the Commissioner of Planning of your Council's decision. If Council adopts an Amendment, please forward a record to this Department within 15 days of the date of adoption. The record should include the following: · Two (2) copies of the adopted amendment; · A copy of the adopting by-law; and · A copy of the staff report and any relevant materials If you have any questions, please call Lino T¢ombino at this office. Yours tru y, Kal Yew, er Plan Implementation Current Operations Branch CC. Steve Mayhew, Development Approvals Division - Regional Works Department Russel White, Development Services Section - TRCA 15,¸ RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Draft Plan of Subdivision :\pplication S-P-20~)1-()2 submitted bx' Rosebank Garden Homes Inc. on behalfofl. E. Holmes. on lands being Part ofl.ot 31. Concession 2. City of Picketing. to permit the development ora plan ol subdixision, be APPROVED. subject to the conditions outlined i~ Appendix I to Planning Fkcport Number PI) 27-02. That Zoning By-la'~v Amendment Application A {)9 ()1 submitted by Rosebank Garden Homes Inc. on behalf of I. E. Holmes. on lands being Part of I,ot 31. Concession 2, City of Pickering, to establish perlk~rmance standards to ~.lloxv the implementation of draft plan of subdivision, be APPROVED. subject to the cond tions outlined in Appendix II to Planning Report Number PD 27-02. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Nell Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE' May 27, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: PD 27-02 SUBJECT: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Rosebank Garden Homes Inc. on behalfofI. E. Holmes Part of Lots 31, Concession 2 2030 Rosebank Road (West side of RosebmLk Road, north of Finch Avenue City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-02 submitted by Rosebank Garden Homes Inc. on behalf of I. E. Holmes, on lands being Part of Lots 31 Concession 2, City of Picketing, to permit the development of a plan of subdivision, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Planning Report Number PD 27-02. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 submitted by Rosebank Garden Homes Inc. on behalf of I. E. Holmes, on lands being Part of Lots 31 Concession 2, City of Pickermg, to establish performance standards to allow the implementation of draft plan of subdivision, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix II to Planning Report Number PD 27-02. ORIGIN' Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2001-02 submitted to the Region of Durham and circulated to the City of Pickering for comment, and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 submitted to the City of Pickering. AUTHORITY: The PlannmgAct, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The urbanization of Rosebank Road, from Finch Avenue to the northern extension of the subject land, will be constructed with the subdivision. These works were identified in the external subdivision works of the Approved 2002 Development Charges Budget for commitment in 2003. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to develop a draft plan of subdivision consisting of 45 lots for detached dwellings, 11 semi-detached lots for 22 semi-detached d~vellings and 4 future lots, for a total of 71 dwelling units. All lots will front one of two new public streets, and one of the new streets intersects with Rosebank Road. The proposed plan of subdivision consists of lots for the detached dwellings having a lot frontage of 10.0 metres and 11 metres. The applicant proposes to amend the current zoning to allow the proposed dwelling units with modified performance standards, to permit the implementation of the draft plan. Report to Council PD 27-( 2 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001 Zoning By-law Anlendment Application A 09/01 Date: May 27, 2002 Page 2 Tho proposed plan of subdivision represents appropriatcr'esidontial dexelopmcnt. ThcproposaI conJbrn:s to the policies o£ tho Pickori::g Ot'Iicial Plan lb:' lands dcsiznatod (?'t, czJz /~c'xzdcvzzzr~/- I~'~ Dc'Jzxi~t' .area. All interests of the Citx xxill bo appiopr~atol5 addressed throu,~h an associated subdivision agreement. B:\CKGROUND: 1.<~ Introduction The sub oct lands arc located on thc x~cst side of Roscba~ak Road, norlh of Finch ,.\xenuc. .& property location map is provided Ibr reI~rcncc ~scc :httachmelat ¢1 ). Thc subject property was recently used as a ih:un: and horse :arch containing one detached dwelling unit and a ban~: the northeast conacr of the property is x~oodcd. Thc original draft plan of subdivision contained 09 dx~cllin,g units, cons/sting of 47 detached dwellings, 18 semi-detached dwellings, and 4 future lots. This is thc proposal that was presented at the public meeting and described in the public mcctin,~ i:::'ornaat:o:: report (see :Attachment ~2). Since the public meeting tiao applicant has :ox ised tho draft plan oF subdivision. The revision to the drati plan relates to thc lottin<. Thc road conlS~uration remains thc samc as originally proposed. Thc revised lo:tin: is :ox~ ~b: 45 detached dwellings lots and 11 semi-detached lots that will accommodate 22 s~'nn~ dc:ached dx~oIlings, and 4 future lots, for a total off 71 dwcllin~ units. Thc drall plan also proxidcs Ibr 4 blocks proposed for detached dwelling lots in tiao future x~hon tiao tem:oorarx cul-de-sacs are extended westerly (see Attachment ~3 ). The subject property is located xxithin thc Real? Par'i< Nci?:bourhood and a Detailed Review Area, tbr xvhicla Council }:as adopted thc P~ougc P'ar-k Ncighbourt~ood Development Guidelines. These guidelines indicate aroad biscctin< thc subiec: property. ~A portion of :he Rouge Park Ncigtnbourhood Tertiary Plan has been attached that highligtnts the subject property. The Rougc-DuflSns Wildlifc Corridor has boon shown on this plan (.Attachment ¢3A). The following is background inlbnnation on thc subject applications: Proposed Development Detail Gross area of draft plan Nc: residential area of draft plan Open space blocks Landscape strip block Number of detached dx~elling lots Number of semi-detached building lots Number of semi-detached dx~elling units Future lots Total d',velling units Net residential density Detached d~'elling lot frontages - minimum 11.0 metres - minimum 10.0 metres Semi-detached building lot frontage minimum 15.0 metres Original Plan (,,'l[[llC,!l l'/l ¢'tl [ - 3.95 t12 - 2.32 - 0.04 nil 47 18 4 69 2!).0 units 31) 21 Revised Plan (.4 ttachme~ 3~ 3.95 ha 2.41 }la 45 11 22 z, 71 29.4 units - 11 19 26 Report to Council PD 27-02 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application $-P-2~!!~1 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Date: May 27. 2002 Page 3 2.0 Information Meeting A Public Inforn]ation Meeting for the subject applications was held on August 9, 2001. Inforn~ation Report No. 21-01, which summarizes the applicant's original proposal and outlines the issues and comments identified to that date through circulation of the application, was prepared for that meeting. The text of the Inforn~ation Report is provided for reference (see Attachment #4). At the Public Inforn~ation Meeting, four area residents commented on the applicant's proposal. Comments included: · Question on construction impacts including, private sen, ices of adjacent properties, tree preservation, property line fencing; · Lotting and sen'icing matters as proposed by the draft plan; · The density is too high and should be reduced; · Devaluation of abutting property; · Structural impacts of the subdivision construction on adjacent buildings; · Impacts on the adjacent wildlife corridor; · Impacts on stonnwater flow through the subject property; and · Increased traffic from the subdivision and questions on upgrades to Rosebank Road Minutes of the August 9, 2001 Statutory Public Inforn~ation Meeting are provided for reference (see Attachment #5). 2.1 Public Comment Prior to the public meeting two written comments xvere received from area residents. Laurie Humphries, 2026 Altona Road advised that she is concerned that the proposed development does not lend itself to the vision of a village concept and that the proposed subdivision should have no negative environmental impact on the open space/Rouge- Duffins Wildlife Corridor (see Attachment #6). Jocelyn Barber, 450 Finch Avenue advised that she is concerned with: · impact on the value of the property; · proposed lotting pattern based on land assembly including Provincially owned land; · timing of the subject application based on past assumptions on the ability to develop; · possible road pattern on the abutting properties impacts the house at 450 Finch Avenue; · access to the subject property should be only from Rosebank Road and should not be designed to have future access to Finch Avenue through abutting property; · land assembly for the area should occur based on a set land price prior to land use being determined; · the subject property has had fill placed on it and how will this impact on the development of the t~roperty; if the fill has to be removed where will it be placed; is the placement of controlled by the City, and will the additional fill impact the servicing of the site; · north of the subject site is the York-Durham Sewer which has a venting system and the operation of the venting system is questioned; · the intermittent ~vatercourse that runs through the north-east corner of the subject property has been impacted by the placement of fill and may back up the water to other properties; · impact of the development on abutting wells; · existing property line fences should remain as is; · preservation of existing trees along property lines; · the direction of stormwater flow off of the subject and abutting property; · impact of construction on dust in the area (see Attachment #7). Report to Council PD.7-0_ Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application $-P-2001 4)2 Zonin~ Bx'-laxx Amendment ApplicaUox A ¢)c; 01 Date: %Iav'''~ 2002 Page 4 Since tiao public meeting thc c'mi~, additional public comments tnavc come from Jocelvn Barber, v, ho tins submitted numerous CO~TeSpolldenccs o~n tho sub cot applications (Attachment\Sro i5). The issucs can be summa:ized as ibltox~ s: timing o17 tile proposed development as it relates to proxiousi} Ontario Municipal Board hearings and Ontario Reahx Coq>oration soiling programs: coporate history oI'thc dc\ elopers oFthe subject applications: accuracy of some of the submitted inlbmmuon pro\ ided in suN)on of the applications: conceptual road connection conto a4iacent properties: thc history of' thc intcmqittcnt xxatcrcoursc that trax els tlwou?n thc subject property and the impact of thc placed fill and the proposed dcxclopmcnt on tiao x~atcrcoursc: thc submission ol'a Petition Ibr Drainage Works undex thc Drainage Act: thc rcvicxv of thc Rouge Park Ncighbourhood E:qx ironmcntal Xlastci' Servicing Plan; and, steam\ atcr mailagenlciqt issues and cxistinu sto:nnx~ ator sc~ ~ccs lbr the area. Comments ~I'OIll Other Aaencies Hydro One has advised they haxc no obiccttcn to thc applications subject to certain conditions / see Attachment = 10). Veridian Connectious ires adx ised ttu~t tilex haxe no objection to this proposal, and request a copy of thc proposed ti\ii desi?n plans to prq arc x preliminar> design and estimate to se~wicc the proposed subdivision ~scc Attachment = -). Canada Post l'ms requested conditions of approx a~ be imposed oil their bclmlf' respecting the notification and construction of thc required Communitx hIaitbo× t soe Attachment #18). Bell Canada tnas requested conditions of dr\It approxxl be imposed on their behalf addressing the location and installation of klnder?nulad ,crx icing <see Attachment #19). Enbridge Consumers Gas has requested that conditions related to tile installation of underground servicing be imposed on thcix bcilal ~'I sec .-\ttachmcnt xa0). Durham District School Board tins ach iscd timt :~pproximately 35 elementary pupils could be generated by tile development, that these students x\ ill be accommodated within existing school Facilities and thercI'orc, haxc no objection to tine application (sec Attachment #21 ). Durham Catholic District School Board tins aJvised that tile proposed development is within tiao catchment area of St. \lonica Catholic School and the projected student yield will be 14 students and thcrcI'orc, have no objection to tile applicatioIa I sec Attaclmlcnt =22). Ministry of Tourism. Culture and Recreation has advised that an archaeological report has been prepared and reviex~ed und no archacologicallx significant resources were identified. There/bro. they have no objection to thc application/see Attachment #23). Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (~I'R('A) }las xcrbalh' advised that they are reviewing tile detailed design m&~rmat~on thut thc\ have requested on stomawatcr management. The TRCA conditions ofapproxal ~brtine subdixision will be lb~vardedto tiao City upon the conclusion of thc detailed rex ~cx~. It is not anticipated that any of tho comments will have an impact on thc subdix isior dcsi?q, h i5 further noted that staff are recommending as a condition of approx al that tiac 5ubdix idex satisI'x ali requirements of the TRCA. Region of Durham Planning Department has ad\ 1sod that Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as Zz~'zt~54 .-trcuz, where development is intended to be predominantly For housing pu~oses. The dra2 ]>lan appears to be in proximity to lands designated as Open 3)2~:1cd' Lml-c~<dc~q which rccobmizes tile Rouge-Duffins Comdor. The proposed applications conibnn to thc Durham Regional Official Plan. Report to Council PD Subject: Draft Plan o~' Subdivision Application $-P-2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Date: May '~'7 2002 Page 5 The applications have been screened in accordance with the ternas of the Provincial plan review responsibilities, and a noise study, an archaeological study and a Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Site Assessment were required and have been reviewed by the Region. An Environmental Assessment is required that considers the potential impacts on thc Open Space wildlife corridor that will address edge conditions and stormwater management. The Region has advised that there are no other Provincial interests or delegated review responsibilities applicable to the subject applications. Matters related to Regional servicing and financing will be addressed in a required agreement between the developer and the Region. The subject development is non-sequential from a water servicing and sanitary servicing perspective, and the developer will be required to provide the appropriate services to the subject property. In summary, the Region has no objection to the application and has requested certain conditions be incorporated into the conditions of approval (see Attachment # 24). 2.4 Comments from City Departments 3.0 3.1 The Municipal Property & Engineering Section has advised of the following: · that the subdivision agreement should contain a warning clause related to the level rail crossing on Rosebank Road; · that Street "A" is required to be 20 metres wide; the existing well that services the existing house will have to be removed; · stormwater matters must be addressed; and, · there is a requirement of cash-in-lieu of parkland or the dedication of proposed lot 52 as a tot lot (see Attachment # 25). Discussion Subdivision Design Considerations The overall subdivision design is considered appropriate given some of the constraints of the subject site. Lands in the northern portion of the subdivision are not developable, due to their environmental significance. A servicing corridor for York Durham Sanitary Sewer and the C.P. Railways north of the subject draft plan also restricts any development north of the subject site. Hydro transmission towers encumber lands to thc south. Lands to the west are developable and the proposed road pattern could be extended westward to accommodate future development. The resulting subdivision design, as submitted by the developer, proposes an appropriate lot yield on the developable land. The applicant's revision to the subdivision dealt with minor enhancements that resulted in an overall improved subdivision design and a few additional lots. The alterations to the street configuration have been minor and the draft plan still proposes reverse lot frontages along Rosebank Road. The reverse lot frontages have been buffered by the incorporation of a landscape strip, and incorporates noise attenuation fences adjacent to Rosebank Road. In the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines of the Pickering Official Plan, the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Tertiary Plan identifies an east west road bisecting the subject draft plan that has been interpreted as being Street "A" of the draft plan. Both Streets "A" and "B" terminate in temporary cul-de-sac designs. This design is considered most appropriate as it allows for future road connections to the lands to the west when these lands are developed. The draft plan incorporates temporary road allowance blocks that will initially be conveyed to the City for the construction of the cul-de-sac. When Streets 'A' and 'B' are extended, these temporary road allowance blocks will be conveyed back to the subdivider in order to complete the proposed 4 future lots. Report to Council PD 27-02 Subject: Draft Plan ofSubdix ision :Xpplicatiou S-P-2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment .~Xpplication .~X 09 01 Date: Mav'~7 2002 Page (, [3uilding poiqnits will not bo axaiiabic for-these lots until thc tcnnporary road allox\ancc blocks have been convex'cd back to thc stibdlx ide~' Conveyance of a 3.0 metre block of land adjacent to Rosebank Road will proxidc an opportunity to reduce thc impact oS tiao required noise attenuation lb,ncc along Finch :Xvenue through the introduction oi' landscaping:, it is recommended that fMnds made available from boulevard trees that cannot be acconqmodatcd on Street 'i' or 'B'. be applied to conit~rous plantings on this block, as part of the _&pplicant's street tree planting plan. Thc required noise Fence is a direct rcsuh of ltao applicants proposed rear lot design. TIle block tbr landscaping is essential to address tt~c ('itx's policy to discourage noise attenuation t~ncing. The conveyance of the landscape block docs not constitute conve)'ance of parkland as per Section 42{1 ) of thc Planning Act. }:urthcr, thc subdivider shall provide a fixed pa?~ent satisi;actorv to thc City to proxidc ibr long-term maintenance and replacement of the plant material. The implementation of the landscape strip will reduce thc negative impact of thc noise attenuation ibncc that is a vcquiremcnt of thc noise study. Thc noise l~nce is a requirement that results i]'onq t}~c applicant's subdivision design of reverse lot I~ontaoe thcrelbrc, it is reasonable for tiao subdivider to bear thc cost For the landscape strip as this is tiao calx xx ax to "soften" thc itnpacts i5 thc noise attenuation fence and provide a streetscapc alon2 Rosebank Road that ~s not lust a noise thrice. Thc subdivision design incorporates a{ 55S tacctar'c block i)n the northern portion of thc draft plan as open space {Block -0). This portiora o~'thc draft plan is currently vegetated and will remain in a natural state, altlqou?n sonac rehabilitation of this area may bc required. This block con-esponds to thc lands that arc designated as ()/~cJz ~$~¢ace ~S'~'xzom &k~zura/ :t/'c'~As' in the Official Plan. Those la~gds afc inet dcxclopable and tiao conveyance of these lands to a public authoritx does not constitLnc convex'anco of parkland under Section 42(1) ofttnc Planning Act. 3.2 L'rban Design Considerations Thc development o£ thc proposed detached dx~ o]lin,_' and semi-detached dwellings on small lots must bo carefully planned and controlled to a, oid a monotonous streetscape, minimize the negative affects ot' garage pro_iections at tine I~'ont of thc houses and reduce lot access conflicts. These potential problems can bo m~tiaatcd through tho application of good urban desion= techniques. The modulation el' l?ont ~ard ciopths and clinninatin~,~ ~ara~c~ projections beyond the main walls of dxvellings can xisualtx impr'oxc a swcctscapo. Where lot depths and widths pe~it, house designs can bo chosen that olinainatc full garage projections. inco¢orating habitable i]oor space aboxc garage extensions or thc usc of tnip roofs on the garage extensions also improxc tine strcctscapc. I-he txximmlm~ of dvixcxvavs provides for increased curb space Ibr visitor parking, reduces lot access conflicts and thc amount of driveway asphalt in l~ont yards and inax Ihcilitatc t 2c plant~ng of trees. In considering a streetscape, tho design clenaent tinat coratributcs tlae most to thc appearance ofthe dwelling is how the garage is trcatect. This includcs both tiao projection ofthe garage and the width of the =ara=c~, ' ~,' =ara=¢~,' ' ~" door. Thc x~ idth of tiao garage garage door also relates to the amount of asphalt drixcx~ax in thc I]'ollt xard. OI2 plans of' subdivisions that inco~orate small lots (having a lot IS'enrage ti' I<~ nactrcs or less), l~ont yards arc compromised when thc drivex~ ay takes on a hi?n pmorit> due to its si/c. In this subdivision, tbemajorityoftlnc dxvellin~,s xxill haxc a lot Ikonta~e of I~;~)nqctres or less. If atxvo-car garage was permitted the result would be that almost 2 3 of thc front yard would be drivexvav. Fu~hermorc, xxith a txvo-car garage on a 10.{) metre x~ ictc lot, thoro is not enou?2 room left to on thc main wall of the house to acconqnqodatc both a IS-oat door and a t~ont window ttnat both l~ce the street. Therefore, it is recommended t}qat the width of tho <araac and ~,araoe door be controlled in the architectural dcsi,,n statement. Report to Council PD 2--~!2 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Date: May 27, 2002 Page" Based on the forgoing, this Department recommends that prior to the registration of the plan and/or the issuance of any model home permits, the applicant prepare a report to the satisfaction of the Director, Plam~ing 8: Development, outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the draft plan of subdivision that includes streetscape/architectural guidelines. These guidelines will include restriction of garage projections, garage width and model types at certain locations as outlined in Section 2.3.12 of Appendix I of this report. 3.3 Appropriateness of the Proposed Development The proposed development is considered appropriate and in conformity with the Official Plan. The draft plan provides a mix of both lot sizes and housing product type. Given the relative size and shape of the draft plan and the road configuration the proposed plan is appropriate provided subdivision/architectural design considerations are incorporated such as the landscape strip along Rosebank Road and quality architectural design objectives are adhered to. The revisions to the draft plan were mostly minor and addressed some technical matters. The unit count is in conformity with the density requirements for Urban Residential - Low Dens/O' Area. The subdivision design features will enhance the streetscape and result in an appropriate design for the subdivision. Quality urban design that creates a more livable, and therefore more vibrant community is an important aspect of the Smart Growth concept. All fom~s of development should be encouraged to achieve a high level of urban design that will provide a benefit to thc greater community. In considering this draft plan, this Department considered the impact of thc development on the ability of the lands to the west to be developed as outlined in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Guidelines of the Pickering Official Plan. Lands to the west can be developed in a variety of ways that can result in an overall comprehensive neighbourhood that is integrated and compatible. Therefore, the approval of these applications will not have a negative impact on the ability for the lands to the west to achieve their development potential. Conditions of Approval recommended in Appendix I to this Report include provisions to ensure that the above-mentioned design features are implemented, and respect City standards. 3.4 Zoning Requirements The applicant has requested zoning that will implement the draft plan and requirements similar to the zoning that has been applied to similar developments in the City. This would include appropriate set backs and building performance standards that are typical of development on lots similar to the proposed development. It is anticipated that the amending zoning by-law will be brought forward to Council after the submission of an acceptable draft 40M plan. 3.5 Technical Matters Fencing The subject draft plan will require some of the perimeter of the site to be fenced. A noise attenuation fence is required along the entire northern boundary of the lots, including wrap-a-rounds on the comer lots. Rcport to Council PD27-02 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application $-P-2001-02 Zonin,,= By-law Amendment Application A 09"01 Date: May"? 2002 Thc eastern perimeter xxiI1 also reqtlirc a laoisc i'ctnc e along thc rear yards that abut Roscbank Rea& including wrap-a-rounds of thc corner lots. Thc southern perimeter, excluding the lots that have noise aucnua~ion Ibnccs. will require an appropriate I'encc separating the residential lots from thc Hydro corridor. Prior to tile installation oi' the penuancnl ~'cnce. a tcmporar'y construction l~ncc will be erected and maintained. Conditions ofApproxal recommended in Appendix l to this Repon include provisions to ensure that both temporary and pcnuancnt I~ncing will be installed around the subject lands. A future subdivision agreement bctx~ eon the City and tine ox~ nor of tile lands will be required to ensure that all matters of interest to the City arc protected. This required agreement, and several other development implementation matter:;, are incou0orated into tiao recommended conditions of approval Ibr tints proposal found in Appendix I to this Report. As no park blocks form part of the dr'afl plan. tl~e C'itx will accept cash-in lieu from the subdivider in order to satisI'x Section 4211 ) oI'dqe Piannin~ Act. An edge management plan and an open space restoration plan ~ill be required tbr Block 76. As part of thc detailed design Ibr thc draft plan tine impact of thc placement of fill in this Block will have to be assessed x~ith regard to impact on x egctation, surlhce hydrology, and ground water. This mas rcsuh in removal et' fill in some ar-cas, thc placement of topsoil, planting offappropriatc natix e species alld the removaI oI'dcad or declining trees. Tile restoration plan along with tile detail stomnxtater manaucmcnt plan x,,ill also have to address fine Former intermittent stream that flowed linroLlgi2 this area. Pelt[ion for Drainage II'oHos A Petition for Drainage Works under tile Drainage Act has been submitted against thc subject property. This Petition relates to intenafittent stream and thc pending up of water in tile northern portion of thc property and on abuttiIB; land. Thc engineerin~ consultant that is reviev<ing this matter for tho City }nas x erballv advised that the Petit/on should not impact on tho City's ability to consider the subject applications. Ii' the draft plan is approved, it is anticipated that tile detailed engineering will address ali surlhce water mo'~ements for the subject property. The interface between tile proposed draft plan and tiao ex1stin5 residential lots to the west will have to be appropriately designed so that t}'c existing residential properties are not physically impacted bx thc construction acuxitlc5,. This will include addressing matters such as grading, Fencing. drainage and xcgetaticn prescrxation. 'I'tncse matters will be addressed in thc detailed dost? of the dFaI} plan. 3.0 Conditions of Draft Approxal YVhile tile specifics of the -IRCA's conditions of approval Ibr this draft plan are not known at this time, no formal conditions of approval will be issued by the City until the TRCA's conditions of approval arc received and incou>oratcd into the Ibrnnal conditions of' draft plan approval. Outstanding matters arc technical and should not impact subdivision design. Report to Council PD Subject: Draft Plan o1' Subdivision Application S-P-2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Date: Max' 27.2002 Page 9 4.0 ~2plicant's Comments The applicant has advised that they concur with the recommendations of this report. APPENDICES: APPENDIX I: APPENDIX II: Recommended Conditions of Approval for SP-2001-02 Recommended Conditions of Approval for A 09/01 Sub oct'. DraFt Plan of Subdivision Application [)ate: May _/, 2002 Page 10 ATTA(THXIENTS: 8. 9. I0. 1I. 1© 1" D. 14. 15. 10. 17. 18. 19. 20. '~1 ")'3 '3'" 24. 25. Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Comment Resident Comment Resident Comment Residenl Comment Resident Comment Resident Agency Comment Agency Comment Property Location Nlap Applicant's Original Submitted Plan Applicant's Revised Submitted Plan In tbnnation Report No. 2 1 -~;i Minutes of the August 9. 2~)~)1 5tattltOI'V Public Collllll Ollt ,locclvil Comment Jocelvn Comment Jocelvn Barber Barber Barber Barber Barber BarbcF Barber Barbcn Jocelvn Jocelvn ,locelvn JoceIvn Jocelvn (7onllne~lt .locelvn BaFber. Hydro One 450 Finch Ave~quc 450 Fincln 450 Finch Ax 450 Finch 45(t Finch Avenue 450 Finch Vcridian ('Ol!i-iCCtlOllS AgencyComnqent Canada Post Agency Comment Bell Canada~ Agency Comment Enbrid~ze ('ons~lmcrs Gas Agency Comment Durham District School Bot~Fd Agency Comment Durham Catholic School Board Prepared By: Approved [!ndoFscdbv: ~oss Px.'m, Nl(.'IP. RPP Principal Planner Development Director. PI n~/.E.~z & Dcxelopment i. ynda D. Tayl~. MCIP. RPP Manager, Current Operations Attachlnents Copy: Chief Administrative Officer APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 27-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DI~4FT PLANS OF SUBDIVISION SP-2001-02 RECOMSIENI)EI) CONI)ITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DRAFT PI~.XN OF SUBI)IVISION SP-2001-02 GENERAl. CONDITIONS 1.1 That ttnis recommendation apply to thc draft plan prepared by l.and-Pro Engineering Consultants Inc.. rcxiscd date of April l r~. 2~))2 (DI'MxxiI2L~ Numbc: OP-lBh lbr Draft Phm of Subdivision Application $P-2{~{~1-~2 submitted bx Land-Pro Engineering Consultants Inc. on behalf of Roscbank (}arden Homes inc.. on lands being Part of Lots31, Concession 2. ('iix of Pickerin5. to ponuit thc dcxclopmcnt of 45 lots detached dwellings. 11 semi-detached lots :b: 22 semi-detached ctxvctlings, 4 Ii, tuft detached dxvellin~ blocks, opc;a space block and landscape block. 2.~) PRIOR TO THEREGIS'FRAT1ONOFTIIE PI.AN: 2.I.1 That tile or, nors submit a Dra2 4!lhI-Plan to be approved by thc City Plamling & Development Depa:tmcnt that includes the modifications to the plan as outlined tile Planning Report Number PD {)0-1;£ That tile implementin5 bv-la~ become final and binding. Zoning Bv-lax~ Amci~dmclu Application A 09/01 That thc oxvner enter into 'a subdixision a~reeuont xxith trod to the satistk~ction of the City of Picketing to ensure tine h~liqllmcnt of t}~c C'itx's requirements, financial and othemqse, which shall include, but not ncccssarilx be limited to the Ibllox~ing: 2.3.1 Storm Draimmc satisfaction of tho Director'. [)izmi~in~ ok: [)cx'elopmcut Department respecting a (b) satisfaction of the Dircct©r. Plannirn~ & Dcxclopment Department for Colltributio~ls I'oF doxx~ Sl. Feam stor~xx at~.r manaScmcnt works. -.:.- Gradin~z Control anti Soil.< (a) satisfaction of thc Director. Plannin,.__, &. Development Department respecting submission and approx a] of ti ~:rading and control plan: {b) satisfaction of thc Director. Planning and ])cxclopmcnt Depar-tmcnt respecting the submission and approval ofa gcotcchnical soils analx sis. ._._~.3 Road Allowances (a) satis£action o£ thc Director. Plat:::i:n: :~ Dcxclop:uent Department respecting construction of internal roads with cu:bs, stoma sex~crs, sidewalks and boulevard designs to maximize front yard space :: itho::: impcdin~ serx ices or the sal: operation el'the streets: and. (b) that all streets be named to the satisfaction oft}nc City oi'lhckerin~. 2.3.4 Sidewalks (a) that the owner construct a sidcx~ elk alon: tin,,' no:th side Street 'A' and thc south side of Street 'B' to thc satisfaction o!:ti:e Director. Pla:ming & Development Department. 2.3.5 Construction ,' Installation of City Works & Services (a) satis£action of the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the Git3'; (b) satisfaction of the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar services; (c) that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the responsibility of the subdivider. Dedications Transfers / Conveyances (a) the dedication of all road allowances with the proper comer roundings and sight triangles to the City; (b) that the owner convey to the City, at no costs: (i) (ii) (iii) Block 77, being a three (3) metre wide landscape block at the rear of lots 52 to 56, both inclusive; any easements as required; and, any reserves as required by the City. (c) that the subdivider convey any easement to any utility to facilitate thc installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City and the utility. 2.3.7 Construction Management Plan (a) that the owners make satisfactory arrangements with thc City respecting a construction management plan, such Plan to contain, among other things: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these controls; addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building materials during servicing and house construction, and ensuring that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on either existing streets or the proposed public street; ensurance that the City's Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law; the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to the site; type and timing of construction fencing; location of construction trailers. 2.3.8 2.3.9 Development Ch argo_ (a) satisfaction of the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act. Co-ordinated Development (a) satisfaction of the City with respect to arrangements necessary to co-ordination of services and roads with adjacent lands and any development that may be required. provide for phasing of (a) satisfaction of tile City with respect to thc provision of temperer> [Dncing around thc entire perimeter of thc subject lands during construction, prior to thc conamcnccmcnt of zH1v works: ~b ) satisfaction of' tiao C'itv xxith respect to tiao prox~sion of a chain link fence or wood need for a noise attciauation fence: satisfaction of tiao C'itx' x~ith respect lo tine proxision of noise attenuation per a noise report upproxcci bx tine City of PickerinS. ,.~.11 Street Tree Plantin~ (a) the submission of a street tree planting plan to tiao sutisIa~ct~on of thc City, such plan to include plantings in Block -' of tile draft >ltil7. tiao subdixision provide tt~c C'itv xvitia a I~×eci t3a)'I~acrat, szitlsi'zictorv to tile Director. Planning & Development tbr long tenna mairtenancc of Block --. 2.3.12 Desi,.z,n Plannin~ the satislaaction of the IDirector. Planning Oz Doxciopnncnt Department respecting a repo~ outlining siting and architectural design objcctixcs tkw tho development, and the submission of site plans 'and architectural drax~in<, identifying, how each unit meets the objectix es of ttnc report, prior to tl~e issuance of anx buildin~g permit lbr thc construction ora rcsictcntiai unit on thc lands.: garage designs, locations, iqqaSSli7~, width, ai:d projection ~r-on~ thc main d~vclling; (c) thc report outlinin~ siting and architecture design objectives for tile development must piece special emplnasis on thc model to be touilt on lots that have a front lot line at street 1/ne. oi'1 {~ metres or loss. and mociels or] those lots will have restrictions on ~,arn~p width. ~d) the report outlining siting and architectural dcsi,xn objectives for thc development must address drivcxvav placcn~cnt and curb cut Ioct~tion on the proposed public road to ensure adequate i'OOlq2 iS nlaintained to acconqn~odt~tc street furniture and boulevard landscaping; that tile owner satisfy the Citx respect/n,.__, thc prox ision of tq>propriate aesthetic details and desion= of all boundary fontina_ and noise uttenuation t'elacin.g adjacent to Rosebank Road. _.~.13 Noise Attenuation ttnat tile owners satisI'x tiao req[~renacnts of tt'o \Iinistrv of tiao Enx ironnaent regarding tiao approval oI'a laoise studx rcconnl~endinu noise control features satis/'actorv to the Region of Durham. and the C'itv of Picketing. ~.~. 14 En~qneerino Draxvin~s ttnat the owner satist'v tiao ('itx res.pectin5 tiao subnalssion of appropriate engineering drav,'inos that detail, ala]On~, otJacF tiainus. C'itx scrx~ccs, roads, storm sewers. sidexvalks, lot grading, streetlights. I~nc~ng ;md tree planting, and lananciallv-secure such works. (b) that the engineering plans be co-ordinated with the architectural design objectives and further the engineering plans shall co-ordinate thc driveway width, street hardware and street trees in order to ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimized and street trees are accommodated. 2.3.15 Other Approval A~encies (a) that the subdivider satisf,v all the requirements of the Region of Durham: (b) that the subdivider satisfy all the requirements Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and, of thc (c) that any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham or the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the development of this plan be obtained bv the subdivider, and upon request written confim~ation be provided to the City of Pickering as verification of these approvals. 2.3.16 Parkland Dedication (a) that the subdivider provide to the City cash-in-lieu of parkland dedications, to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development, in order to satisfy Section 42(1 ) of the Planning Act. -4- that the engineering plans bc co-ordinated v, ittn the architectural design objectives and further thc engineering plans shall co-ordinate thc drivcway width, street hardware and street trees in order to ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimi×cd and street trees arc accommodated. _.o.15 Ortner Ap~provaI A .... ' (a) that the subdivider sausfx ali thc requirements el'the Rc~4ion of Durtmm' (b) that tile subdix idor satisfy all tine requirements Toronto and Re-ion Conscrxation .Authority' and, of thc (c) that any approxals which arc required from ;tqc Region of Durham or thc Toronto and Region Conservation Authoritx Ibr thc development of this plan be obtained by thc subdividcn and upon request ~ rittcn cot~I2mnation be provided to the City of Picketing as x crification of these apFrox als. _._~. 1 © Parkland Dedication (a) that tile subdivicier pi'oxide to thc City cash-itn-liou of parkland dedications, to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning A: Dexelopmcnt. in order to satisfy Section 42(1) oI'thc Planning Act. i74 APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 27-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPRO Al, FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 09/01 1. That the implementing zoning by-law: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) {xi) (xii) (a) permit the establishment of detached dwellings in accordance with tine following provisions: (xiii) minimum minimum minimum minimum minimum lot area of 250 square metres; lot frontage of 9.0 metres; front yard depth of 4.5 metres; rear yard depth of 7.5 metres; side yard width of 1.2 metres on one side and 0.6 metres on the other side; minimum flankage side yard width of 2.7 metres; maximum building height of 12.0 metres; minimum moss floor area of 100 square metres; maximum of one dwelling unit per lot; maximum lot coverage of 48 percent; minimum one private garage per lot, any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from the front lot line and not less than 6.0 metres from any side lot line immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street; wall containing thc main entrance to the dwelling unit, except where a covered and unenclosed porch or verandah extends a minimum of 1.8 metres from the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit, no part of no part of any private garage shall extend more that 3.0 metres beyond the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit; or where a covered and unenclosed porch or verandah extends a minimum of 2.0 metres from thc wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit and where second story habitable floor space located above the garage is set back no more than 2.5 metres beyond thc vehicular cntrancc of an attached private garage, no part of any attached private garage shall extend more than 6.0 metres beyond the ;vall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit. uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 2.0 metres in height shall be permitted to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into a required rear yard. (b) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) permit the establishment of semi-detached dwellings in accordance with the folloxving provisions: minimum lot area of 205 square metres; minimum lot frontage of 7.5 metres; minimum front yard depth of 4.5 metres; minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres; minimum side yard width of 1.2 metres on one side and 0.0 metres where dwelling on adjacent lot is attached; minimum flankage side yard width of 2.7 metres; maximum building height of 12.0 metres; minimum gross floor area of 1 O0 square metres; maximum of one dwelling unit per lot; maximum lot coverage of 50 percent; minimum one private garage per lot, any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from the front lot line and not less than 6.0 metres from any side lot line immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street; maximum projection of the garage front entrance from the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit shall not exceed 2.5 metres in length, whether or not such garage has a second storey, except where a covered and unenclosed porch or verandah extends a minimum of 1.8 metres from the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit, in which case no part of any attached private garage shall extend more than 3.0 metres beyond the wall containing the main entrance to the dxvelling unit; uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 2.0 metres in height shall be permitted to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into a required rear yard. AVENUE City of Pickering PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOT 31, CONCESSION 2 OWNER IRIS ELEANOR HOLMES Planning & Development Department DATE JUN 25, 2001 DRAWN BY RC '~ APPLICATION No. SP-2001-02; A 09/01 SCALE 1:7500 CHECKED BY TB /V FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-14 PA- ~TTACHMEN'I' # .,~ ~ t.~z Z ~j m ~ m os ~ ~E~ ~ Z CDc/) Z <© O©CF, 0 __1 I..kl LL h-co © © © 0 %~ z 178 '~ AT'rACHMENT d '~ A TO ;IHM 3AIMG 31 NNV~3~O~ \ \ \ ~'N 013~ '0S NIQO; · · · II ii ~1 II I I z ,:;TI'ACHk,'~ENT #,,__2' -: TO ::-.?ORT # PE .. - PICKERING INFORMATION I~,EI'ORT NO. 21-01 FOR PUBLIC INFOI~MATION MEETING OF AUGUST 9. 2001 IN ACCORDANCE W1TI! Tile PUBLIC MEETING ILEQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANTNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2001-02 Zoning By-taw ~Mnenchnent Application A 09/01 Rosebank Garden Homes h~c. on behal£ of lids Elem~or Hohnes Part of'Lot 3 l, Concession 2 2030 Rosebank Road (West side of Roset~ank Road, no;th of Finch Avenue) City of Pickering 1.0 2.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCI:UPTION the subject lands arc located on the west side oi,-Rosebank Road, north o£ Finch Avenue; a property location map is provided ibr reference I see Attachment # I); the subject property is used as a farlll alld t~orse rm~ch containing one detached &velling unit and a bm'n; the northeast comer of the property is wooded; Surrounding land uses are: north York-Durham sewer corridor and CPR rail line south tlydro corridor; and a detached dwelling east - on opposite side o~' Roseb~nk Road are vacant lands and wooded are as; ,,vest - existina~ residential dwetlin,,~= on a large lot; APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL - Rosebmtk Garden Homes Inc. on behalf of the owner, have submitted an application for approval of a draft plan of subdivision aa~d an application to amend the zoning by-law in order to implement the proposed draft, plan; - the applicm~t's proposed subdivision plan is provided for reference (see Attaclnnent #2); the draft plan proposes the creation of t;vo new municipal streets, one extending west from Rosebmtk Road and tile other intersecting with the new road and extending southwest; - the intent is that the two proposed roads will be extended westerh' when development is proposed on the abutting lands; however, the two roads are proposed to be ternporafily terminated in cul-de-sacs; - the following chart outlines the proposed development detail: Details of the Draft Plan Total area of draft plan Area proposed for residential development Open space blocks Nmnber of single detached dwelling lots Number of semi-detached building lots Nmnber of semi-detached dwellh~g units Total dwelling milts Single detached dxvellSng lot fl'enrage Send-detached building lot frontage 3.957 hectares 2.326 hectares 0.641 hectares 51 18 69 11 metre frontage = 30 lots 10 metre frontage = 21 lots 15 metre fi'ontage = 9 lots Information Report No. 21-01 ATrACHMENT # ~ TO REPORT # D~ . Page 2 3.0 3.1 3.2 - the draft plan also proposes several blocks intended to be developed with adjacent lands to the west; included in the draft plan is an open space block along the northern portion of the draft plan labelled as "wildlife corridor"; - the applicant proposes a landscaped open space block between the residential lots and the hydro corridor on the south side of the draft plan; - the draft plan design proposes reverse lot frontage for lots abutting Rosebank Road. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as Living Area, where development is intended to be predominantly for housing purposes; - in the vicinity of the subject property lands are designated as Open Space Linkages which recognizes an east-west ecological linkage known as the Rouge-Duffin Corridor; - the proposal appears to conform to these designations; Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area and Open 'Space - Natural Area; permissible uses .within the Urban Residential Area -~ Low Density Area designation include residential uses, including both single detached dwellings units and semi- detached dwelling units; the Plan establishes a density range for resideutial development within this designation of up to and including 30 units per net hectare; the proposed development would provide a net site density of approximately 29.6units per hectare (based on the potential 69 lots being developed on approximately 2.326 hectares of land); the lands that are designated Open Space - Natural Area represent land in the northern portion of the draft plan that are within and abut the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor; through the settlement of an appeal to the Pickering Official Plan, it has been determined that the boundary of the Open ,Space - Natural Area designation coincides with the north property limit with the exception of the north-east comer Milch is designated Open Space - Natural Area; any additional lands required for buffer or edge management will be determined through the review of the required Environmental Report; permissible uses within land designated Open Space - Natural Area include conservation, environmental protection, restoration and passive recreation; Schedule II of the Pickering Official Plan - D'ansportation Systems designates Rosebank Road where it abuts the draft plan as a Local Road', the proposed new public streets serving the proposed development would function as Local Roads; Schedule HI of the Pickering Official Plan - Resource Management designates the north-east comer of the subject property, and lands north, east and south of the subject property as Rouge-Duffins lfildlife Corridor; Section 10.17 of the Official Plan clarifies that the boundary of the Rouge-Duffins tVildlife Corridor coincides with the boundary of the Open Space - Natural Areas designation; this section of the plan also requires an Enviromnental Report to address setbacks, buffers, edge management and stormwater; the draft plan is within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood and a Detailed Review Area, for which Council has adopted the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines; the proposed street that intersects with Rosebank Road is general shown on the Rouge Park Neighbourhood plan. in accordance with Official Plan policies, an environmental report has been submitted; the subject applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan dm-lng the. further processing of the applications. Information Report No. 21-01 Page 3 3.3 4.0 4.1 Zonin.!!.g. Bv-lavv 3036, as amended the subject lands are cm'rentlv zoned "A" Rural Agriculture Zone, by Zoning By-law 3030, as amended: the existing zoning permits a range of agricultural uses. one detached dwelling, some recreational and community institutional uses, and selected agricultural conunercial uses; an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to allow tho development of the proposed ch'aft plan of subdivision. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION (See Attactnnents #3 to ~10) Resident Conlnlents - no resident comments have been received to-date. 4.2 4.3 ~ents_ Veridian Connections - has no objection to tl:e proposed development and requests a copy of first submission civil design plans so they can complete a preliminary design and estimate (see Attaclunent #3); Canada Post - requests conditions of draft approval regm-ding the location and installation of a temporary and permanent Community Mailbox, and required sidewalk, boulevard and curb works serving the mailbox I scc Attachment #4); Bell Canada - requests conditions of drall approval be imposed on their behalf addressing the location mid installation of uuderg-ouud sc~x'icing (sec Attachment//5); Enbridge Consumers Gas - requests conditions of draft approval be imposed on their behalf addressing utility distribution plans and the installation of gas lines (see Attaclm~ent #6); No Objections or Concerns: - Durtmm District School Bom'd; Ministry of Tourism, Culture m:td Recreation: Hydro One Networks hie.; and Durham Catholic District School Board (see Attaclnnents #7 to #10 respectively). Staff Comments - in reviewing the application to-date, tile £ollowing matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: · cnsufing that the proposed devclopinent is compatible with, and sensitive to, sm'rounding lands; · ensuring that the proposed street, lotting pattern and dwelling designs maintain a high quail .ty residential streetscape: · reviewing supporting technical submissions and reports to ensure that adequate infonnation is provided, that tectmical requirements are met and that the proposed subdivision design does not impact on the ability o£ abutting properties to develop in m~ appropriate fashion; · reviewing the appropriateness of the ::everse lot fi'enrage proposed along Rosebank Road; and, · some of the woodlot m the north-east con~cr of the subject lands was lost due to filling, prior to Rosebm~ ©arden Homes being involved with tile property; prclhninary discussion with the applicant and their environmental consultant concluded mi emphasis on eithmlcing east-west ecological comdor functions along the north property limits was preferable to restoration of the comer wood lot; further reviewing the submitted Environmental Study, details of the planting plan, and consultation with TRCA is requir:d on this matter; Information Report No. 21-01 Page 4 - further issues may be identified following receipt and review of conunents fi'om the circulated departments, agencies and public. 5.0 6.0 6.1 6.2 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding either the proposed plan of subdivision or zoning by-law amendment application, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk; if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision of the proposed zoning by-law amendment application, or the Region of Durham's decision on the draft plan of subdivision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law or before the Region of Durham issues it's notice of decision for this proposal. OTHER INFORMATION A_~.pendix I list of neighbourhood residenis, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have connnented on the applications at the time of writing this rep°rt. Information Received full scale copies of the Applicant's submitted plan are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department; the City of Pickering is in receipt of the listed reports, which contains technical information and recommendations on the proposed subdivision: · Environmental Site Assessment, Phase 1 and 2, prepared by Soil-Eng Limited, dated November 2000; · A Soil Investigation for proposed Residential Subdivision, prepared by Soil-Eng Limited, dated January 2001; · Municipal Servicing Feasibility Report, prepared by Land-Pro Consultants Inc. dated April 4, 2001; · Rosebank Archaeological Assessment, prepared by A. M. Archaeological Associates, and dated Dece~nber 2000; · Railway Vibration Measurements - Proposed Residential Subdivision, Rosebank Garden, prepared by SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers, dated April 16, 2001; · Detail Noise Control Study - Proposed Residential Subdivision, Rosebank Garden, prepared by SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers, dated April 16, 2001; and, · Environmental Study Rosebank/Finch Development-City of Pickering, prepared by Gartner Lee Limited, dated May 2001. the need for updated information and/or addendums to these reports will be determined through the review of the applicant's current proposal. ]nJbrmation Report No. 21-0i 6.3 Company l~rincipal the cun'ent property owner, h'is Elemlor ttomes, has enter into an agreement of purchase mid sale with Rosebank Garden Homes hlc. whose principle is Harkiran Boparai. Ross PyI1L iXlCIP, ILPP Principal Plammr - Development Review /~.~ Lvnda Taylor, MCIP, Ri'}' X.~ ~ ianager. Current Operations Copy: 1)irector. Planmng &Developmcnt Department Excerpts from Statutory Public Inforn~ation Meeting Minutes of Thursday, August 9,2001 Cite STATUTORY PUBLIC INFOR~IATION MEETING MINUTES The Manager, Policy Division, provided an overview of the requirements of tile Planning. Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. (II) DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SP-2001-02 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 09/01 ROSEBANK GARDEN HOMES INC. ON BEHALF OF IRIS ELEANOR HOLMES PART OF LOT 31, CONCESSION 2 2030 ROSEBANK ROAD (WEST SIDE OF ROSEBANK ROAD, NORTH OF FINCH AVENUE) R. Pym, Principal Plmmer, provided an explanation of thc application, as outlined in Information Report #21-01. Amit Gupta, representing the applicant, stated that several studies have been conducted respecting this application and that he believes the plan conforms to the City's current and future plans. Mr. Gupta also advised that D. Fraser, Gartner Lee Limited, was also present to provide information if required. Jocelyn Barber, 450 Finch Avenue, advised that she had submitted a letter, dated July 29, 2001, detailing her concerns. As the letter had not been included in the Agenda, Ms. Barber read her letter aloud and provided additional conunents. Ms. Barber requested staff to include, in our notice to residents, the date on which the reports / agenda will be printed. Ms. Barber stated that this development would severely limit her ability to sell her property and that this property has had a tragic planning history. Ms. Barber commented on the following issues: · Lotting pattern and servicing pattern as proposed - were based on an arbitrary lm~d assembly Timing - advised that she may have submitted an application also, but that Staffhad assured her that no development would be done for 10 years. · Road running through her house - advised she had a road rumfing through her house from 1980 to 1998, had the road removed, and now this development would put another road through her house. · Servicing - Should be done only from Rosebank. · Fill - fill has been dumped on this property since 1993 with the last load being dumped in 1999. Does anyone know where it came from? If fill has to be removed for this development where will it go? She does not want to be associated with a "filled property". · York/Durham sewer vent - believes that the vent is temporarily closed and questioned if there was a policy at the Region to allow this. Also questioned when it will be re-opened. · Open space - is actualIx a xxatcr stream in the spring, which Flows down Rosebank Road ami is hcavv and I~ist i~r about a week. Dumping the ~11 has not changed tho ISoxv as tiler had planned. This application shows 13 lots on the stream's course and the plans do not show any watercourse. Well and cistern -- thc developlnent will interlkre with her well mid she requested that thc Developers pay Ibr hookup to Municipal waler and i~r disconneclin~ her x~eI1. She advised that she would provide two cost estimates. Fence ~ wi11 be damaged with development and requested that they prese~'e i~. Trees - requested that fl~ev be preserved and if any are damaged should be removed. Elevation - questioned the elevation of the prope~y now and what it will end up being. Requested a new elevation map be prepared. Dust-requested daily watering Suggested Staff include semScing i~t~rmation in the repoa, as it is impo~ant to residents. Requested the Developer to respond t:, the i. Thc arca of thc d~-aii plan doc:m'[ add up to what is proposed in the report. ii. When did you approach Pickcrin~ Ptamain~ Depamnent regm'din9 this developmcm7 iii. Is Roscbank Ga~'dcn Homes h:~c. an established company? iv. The contour lines on tile pla:~ ar'c old. Are they relevant to the development') What is the present elevation? v. Will se~'ici~ red, rcs come from Finch? vi. Details re~ardin5 roads A and B vii. North Finch properties r~eed belier road alignment IBr thc smaller properties viii. Did Ontario Hv&-o gc~ a copy of thc map'? Why was there no mention o f an intcm~ittent xvaterco urse'? Ms. Barber commented that these meetings s:lo~ld not be held during the summer when people are on vacation. Jackie Sharp, 323 Finch Ave., stated that she concurs with Ms. Barber's comments and concerns and thanked Ms. Barber lbr her presentation. Colin O'Handley, 2040 Altona Road, advised that he is involved in the agricultural preserve of this area and questioned if thc development ,,',,ill impinge on the wildlife corridor. He also sought clarilScatioia on how strict the Official Plan is regarding the corridor policy. Michael Bartley, 425 ?! Concession Road. enquired ii' there were any plans to upgrade Rosebank Road given the anticipated i~crease in traffic (eg. Road, stop signs, lights, etc.) Councillor Bre~mer requested that further discussions regarding this item take place between Staff, the applicant, and area ~'csidcnts immediately following this meeting. Mr. Neil Carroll Director of Planning and Development Picketing City Hall Picketing, ON RECEIVED CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Laurie Humphries 2026 Mtona Road Picketing, ON LI\ 2P9 August 8, 2001 Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-20014)2 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Rosebank Garden Homes Inc. on behalf of Iris Eleanor Holmes Part of Lot 31, Concession 2 2030 Rosebank Road (West side of Rosebank Road, North of Finch Avenue) Dear sir, Unfornmately, due to a prior commitment arranged for tomorrow night I will not be able to attend 'll~ursday's meeting. I had intended to appear at this meeting (August 9, 2{){)1) but I had written it down as the 8~h. ,% it is, I have already had to renege on my previous commitment to help my sister move, that is how important this issue is to me, and I arranged instead to help her set up and unpack on the ninth. Imagine my dismay when upon requesting fl~e docnments for application SP2001-05, I discovered that the meeting is on Thursday night! At this point 1 realized that I would need to take today to review the literature and write a letter outlining my objections, Lo and behold, I then discovered on the agenda the above stated application. Unfortunately, this has not left me with any additional time to obtain the necessary proposal. However, let me state that my objections stated in my previous letter for application SP 2001-05 are ditto for this application as well. Upon reviewing the proposal I will be able to make specific and relevant comments, but failing that, l wish to assert my concern for the maintenance of the Rouge- Duffms Wildlife Corridor and I can only hope that any plans submitted have respected the concept of a village. If there appears to be any concern regarding either of these considerations, you can expect my support. I would 'also like to add that since I have not seen any signage with respect to this application I was completely unaware of the proposal. Therefor, please advise me of any furore meetings or decisions regarding this matter. I reserve the right to appeal Council's decision regarding the above stated zoning by-law application. Sincerely, c.c Ross Pyro JUL 3 1 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PL~,NNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT F:TTAC,HMENT # t /.g.suE.; .,TTAOH~E~T" ' · EPORT/> ~'~Z.~.,,,,_.. __ ] u '3 Planning Department , City Mayor, Regional Councillors, City Couneillors~ Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Pickering L1V 6K7 ~ _nch Avenue, Picketing L] V August 16, 200]_ Dear Sirs, Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP200]-02 Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application A 09/01 Rosebank Garden Homes Inc. August 9 Meeting: J. Barber's Questions to the Applicant and further comments. We adjourned to a committee room. Question ] concerned the acreage of the development and it was explained to me that roads were not included in the development area; curious. Question 2 concerned the applicant's date of contact with the PIanning Department and the ten-year waiting period and the relevance of the status of the Provincial properties. Mr. Gupta first contacted the City in August/September of 2000, dealt with Jeff McKnkight~ ~as not informed of ANY WAITING PERIOD and was not given information on the issue of the Provincial properties. Miss Rose denied she had stipulate~ a waiting period but I have no~ contacted other residen who remember her verbal warnings. It is relevant to note that no properties were put on the market at the conclusion of the OMB mediati, It is also relevant to note that the owner of the Rosebank Road property would not have sold at that low price if she had been aware development was imminent. The City of P~ckering represents its residents both in its councillor structure and its staff structure. Why do we have the residents being given a negative message by staff members and total strangers from Brampton and Mississauga being given positive encouragement? This is wrong. This is very wrong. Some remediation has to be attempted. Miss Rose then informed the residen present that the City had received a letter from Ontario Realty Corpor IN JULY/AUGUST 2000 saying there was no programme to sell lands in thi neighbourhood. Although the north Finch properties are joined to the Provincial properties in an arbitrary Land Assembly~ lotting and servicing concept THERE HAD BEEN NO ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THE RESIDENTS WITH THIS INFORMATION IN EITHER 2000 or 2001. This is wrong. I introduced the topic of the surveying of the Provincial properties, their preparation for sale and their appraisal - the land value based on the notorious Sxan property, sale. Question 2A concerned the lack of financial history and development record of "Rosebank Garden Homes" Residents expressed an interest in seeing previous developments. Built evidence of previous activity seemed to be non-existent. Mr. Gupta explained that it was a private limited company whose principals develop "under different names" On the insistence of residents he will send "something" to the Plannin Dept. lqi' page s Question } concerned the contour ! nea on the Subdivision Application - Attachment 2 to the Infromation Repot: , I know that the contour lines are required to be of EXISTING CONDITTONS. A quick survey of the supporting documentation ~ow ~hoto~a:~hs of banks of fill not even bulldozed to contour. V?v wou!J the ~annir~ De~>t. accept false information[' Mr. Gupta sai fi, a hew cnntou~ rnaI wi! ! be available. Hay ! see ~t? Question ~ concerned servicing reutes aY.,~ Finc!~ Avenue. net discussed. was Question 5 concerned the extonsioh~ c:- Road`s A & B onto the properties ef Barher~ Linton and Smith . [~inton and Smith were net even informed of the app!icaYion r~or ~.~' i~e neeYin[[ thounh the Council-approve coneeDt shows these roads oR ~hoir ~ror, erti~e . , ! a=~ ~ure that ~his Land Assemblv. ..... ~ ~ t~,e ! ' a~nih~ !~r.t has .c~anse.,! should not the resi?ents '~,e ingormedl T am ~.arY! c~!ari }' /Secause N{r. Gupta' s application skews a Road` c [loin8 three, th my !~ouse: that particular document was not incluie~ { rt the Information Renort. T feel we need a pice of Dar) er shcwih~ the extension of these roads . Can we have one2 Questi. on 6 concerned, t}~e extension over ~he O[! property of an alternate s-ormwater management route . Hr. Gui t2 said we were in a preliminary round only - this was for ]ater . Question 7 concerned the intermittent watercourse in the northeast sectio of the property.. No mention o~ ~r~ a~ in Pi] ion Environmental ReDort~ . No stream on ma;} , ] 3 IcEs c.n streamb~~:~,~ . Berms to prevent stream fl owin~ onto nropertv. '.{r. Gup%a said ikat the berms were for the railway. T had no{ at this time rea,f The GarYner Lee report . ISSUES NOT DEALT NIT',I FILL...FILL...FILL VENT OF SENER WELL AT ~50 FINCH FENCE BETWEEN BARBER AND HOL}!ES TREE PRESERVATION POLICY FOR PROPERTY BnI!:~DAP, Y DUST DURING CONSTRUCTION EXCESSIVE FILL PRODUCES NEED FOR EXCESS-VF CO}~PACTTON hILL VIBRATIONS AFFEC· SLAB FOrNDATTO}~ (BARN) OP, STONE ~OUNDATiON (HOUSE)? SI'ORb:WATER }!ANAGEHENw. AND r'~FOSNEDq,..~_~ .... page 3 Comments on "£nvironmental Study gosebank/Finch Development" by Brian Henshaw, Gartner-Lee, May 2001 I enclose a copy of Figure 1 from Mr. Henshaw's report. I have lived at 450 Finch Avenue since August ]959. known the Rosebank Road property since that time. I am not a hyDrogeologist. Neither is Mr. Henshaw; self-educated. ! have he is The utility area north of my property has been much engineered and altered. It never ever could be called a natural area. Sand and gravel were mined there for the construction of the two original railways; much of the depressions this created became ponds but have now grown in. The CP railline used to run in a cut through a northern section of the Lake Iroquois Bluff and a southern section; the southern section was used for roadworks on Altona Road in the late 60's. CP have brought in mining "spoil" from northern Ontario to rebuild and change the foundation of their track. The York-Durham Sewer was a deep excavation in the ~O's; no topsoil was re- served. The Cherrywood reservoir involved much dewa~ering and removal of part of the east bluff. Throughout all this activity each spring water has flowed south from the Bluff~ under the CP, across the Sewer lands and onto the Holmes property about midway on the north property line; the water ran through a wooded area of 2.2 acres that finished just north of the present driveway. As it crosses the Sewer lands the stream has a well-defined stre~ bed- rocks, pebbles, gravel, no vegetation. Mr. Henshaw must seen the stream bed - it is in a defile on the walking path; one has to ~I1 over the stream ~ed to Brogress east or west. Mr. Henshaw mentions the walkine trail on page 11~ last two lines I have not previously seen "ponded water" outlinin~ the site on the north and east boundaries Presumably the path of the watercourse is now blocked by the fill on 2030 Rosebank Road. The western edge of the north shape of "ponded water" is close to my property. There is nothing to confine the pondin~ to the boundaries of 2030 Rosebank Road. Mr. Henshaw suggests leavin~ the ponded water on north as habitat for amphibians. I disagree, Previous conditions must be restored. I don't think Mr. Henshaw realises the ~uantity of water Eenerated. Yours truly, ~ Jocelyn Barber ® HA5 Hand Auger Hole Location GadnerLee Ltd {,Apr. 2{,01~ ll,\~Xl) A/~(-;I{I*I ll()l.l'; Pro eot 2 -422 (2000/422',Hvdro-Sife-P cdr) In accordance with REGULATION 27~ FORM 3 Drainage Act PETITION FOR DRAINAGE WORKS I. being an owner- as shown by the last revised assessment roll. of lands in the Second Concession of the City of Picketing- requiring the restoration maintenance repair of a drainage works on adjoining orooertv hereby oetition that the area more oartieularlv described as Follows: 2030 Rosebank Road Con II S Pt T,ot 3] Plus I metre of fill 1.0,28 acres Road allowance north of east-west culvert Rosebank Road- Easement for York-Durham Sewer/C may be drained by means of restoration maintenance reoair of a drainage works - a natural intermittent watercourse now partially blocked. Signature of Petitioner Part Lot Con Petition filed this 10th day of September, 2001 Municipality Clerk Please see Explanatory Notes and Exhibits attached accordance with Drainase REO!'!SiTION FOR DRAINAGE To Hr . Bruce Taylor Clerk of the City cs Pickerin?_ : am the owner of the ow[n? =_nl: 430 - d50 Finch Avenue Con II S Pt Lot 21 with POW Roll No. 030 020 11200 0000 and I reauire the restoraiion maintenance repair of a drainale works, and 7he followinz ].axis an! roads wi!] be affected: 2030 Rosebank Road Con II S Pt Lot 3! Iris Holmes Road allowance north of eas~ west culvert Rosebank Road City o~ Picketing Easement for York=Durham Sewer Region of Durham and I reauest that an engineer be a?sointel by the Council of the municipality an~ that ~he enRineer aDDo~n~ a time an! place at which he or she will attend ani examine the area in order ~o make a reDort Dated this lOth day of September. 2001 Signature of Petitioner ~'arl Lot Con - . M~lnicipalit¥ Please see Explanator7 Notes and Exlnibi. ts attached EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR: REQUISITION FOR DRAINAGE WORKS PETITION FOR DRAINAGE WORKS DRAINAGE ACT: DEFINITIONS "drainage worlds" includes a Drain constructed by any means, including the improvinK of a natural ~atercourse, and includes works necessary to regulate the water table or water level within or on any lands or to regulate the level of the waters of a drain, reservoir, lake or pond. and includes a dam, embankment, wall, protective works or any combination thereof. .... maintenance" means the preservation of a drainage ~.~orks "repair" means the restoration of a drainage works ~njurine liability means the Dart of the cost of the construct~on~ improvement/ maintenance or repair of a drainaae works required to relieve the o~ners of any ]and or road from liability For iniurv caused by water after'cia]Iv made to flow from such land or road upon any other ] and or road LAKES AND RIVERS IMPROVEMENT ACT: DEFINITIONS "dam" means a dam or other work forwarding, holdin~ back or divertin~ water "lake~ includes a pond "Minister" means the Minister of Natural Resources "river"includes a creek and a stream SECTION 24 OF LAKES AND RIVERS IMPROVEMENT ACT REMOVAL OF OBSTRUCTIONS Subject to compensation bein~ made as provided by the Ministry of Government Services Act for any damage sustained by reason thereof, the Minister may authorize any person employed by or under the Minister to enter into and upon any land and remove any rocks, stones, aravel, slab or timber ~am. dam or Dart of anv ~am. rubbish of any kind or other obstruction in any lake and she considers necessa~'v or r~ver- the removal pi which he or expedient for the achievement of any of the purposes of this Act. · HA5 Hand Auger HoPe Localion Garl~erLee Lid (Apr, 2001) Scale 1:2,380 Area (April, 200'1) Omaof Ponded Waler (April, 2001) l'roposcd l~.csebank / Finch Development IIANI) AUGEI/ilOLE LOCATIONS · HA5 Garlnem Lee Scale Hand Auger Hole Locatior,, t~:'''~ ~"~- Apr~rn,rrnaie Lira'! Gartner Lee Ltd (Apr, 2001 ~ ~k~.~, ,&~ea ~:?rr 2'LU I rea of Ponded Waler ~April, 2001) (2000,4~2 H ~'dro-Site-P cdr) ROSEBANK GARDEN · . 20,30 ROSEBANK ROAD "EXTERNAL SER~CING PLAN DEIGN BY~ V.G, [LEC~ONIC FILE: 2~5-F~--4' DA~: MARCH. I', I~ F' ~ J - J - J - ~11 I ~ L I ./ \ \ X Z <:1: DJ Or), 0 ATTACHMENT ~ ~ 0 £891 ,* ,91 2~ 77 ,' /lB 7' 1230' A,o,~d order'/V; ~e~.. , 26 2118' i REPORT ~ PD ~ Ol INTER-OFFICE MEiViOFi'ANDUM TO: FROM: DA TE: RE: Vic Goad - Development Approvals Paul Gillespie - Environmental Services L~eslgn August 22, 2001 Draft Plan of Subdivision for Rosebank Garden In the City of Pickering At the request of Ken Thompson. J met ',.'..zi~h b'~s. J B~rber cif .4~..~--.' Finch Avenue ~n Pickering. She owns lands adjacent t0 the RosebankGarden Dra~ Pianot Sub::ivlslon Ms Barber's concern is that filli~as been placed onthe suI~ject lands and in the process, has blocked an existing drainage ditch. Tt~isditchappearstocom"eyrun°fffr°mlands°nthen°rth side of the CP Rail lines, through a culvert and continues south through the subject lands. I have marked up the former ditch location on the attached plan profile drawing. Ivls Barber believes that this fill has created the potential for ponding on both the York,'Durham sewer easement and on her property Further, she is concerned that the external drainage has not been adequately addressed, to date, in the servicing plans for the subdivision. I walked the easement with Ms Barber this mornint:i ard she appears to be correct, in that there does appear to an existing drainage ditch on the n~_~rth side of the proposed development and it does appear to have been impacted by the placen~ent of fill As we discussed, you are currently in the process ~fprepanngcomments°nthispr°p°saland I suggest that you include a requirement for the tJrcponent to address the issue of external drainage from the north, and to demonstrate thati ~nd~ng on the Regional easement will not be a concern. Please contact me if you have any questions regar,.:~ncj th;s matter ~ R/~g~ rds,_, Paul Gillespie, P.Eng. Project Engineer Environmental Services Design Ken Thompson Ms J. Barber Director Env~ronmer~',al S I-~ projects\Picker ng'misc,rosebankgardendra~na~ae ~J,:sc The Regional Municipality of Durham ~ )~~, WorksDepartment g~ PAUL GILLESPIE, P.En Pro/eot Engineer Environmental Services Design Division d~reotl'>,' Vo~cemail ~905} 668-7725, Ext. 5258 3cnsumers Dr, Box 623 WHITBY, ONTARIO L1N 6A3 ', .8 :~?-372-1103 Fax: (905) 668-2051 .. ,~,4~ address: e paul-gillespie(c-reg":)n dumam'°n'ca 2!8 ATTACHMENT ~__. J~_ ~,; t, J ~ , I 2!3 I::IECE~VE D / CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JUt.. £1 <~ mX: -U'-U Z A. 2 "ented occupae2 :. - ,,ame (deer, elk , , i. '..'i~ ~ __ arci1xek, i ~ :_s ~s as the Laurentian Arc~aic peoples '' r.-_. ~ - ~ · · - - F.. , . TI.~ eight Wd {-~r souNc~s Nfl particularly duvk:~ : sl :'..,x~_:. - r'::_s. :'. ~ii l~'''il~ood,~;-~ - the t~t{ s~te would ~:-.-~ 1 thougt~ the sir_ ---. - ,~ntherinr~ ~eorl,~s ,i'~-::: ...... . l-.-.-l')( A.D., the cvi~Ience is qUlZc S~t~:h.'.._'; :-~Wz-L'vr :l~':'i:':17'aiei~' circa t000 A. D. , a major Ne-ocftl: afl ~ --. i- ~ '1.: 21 ~t :. i -- : :-o:_: s~{~ric peoples known as Term~nai Ncod]anl - ~:. i v ' x'~:xu-i. ..f .~mportance is the fact thaL t]~esc ~ v_~ ._s i ra_~s+ :. ; rui~ncn~ary agri- - . _~_ a.,~ ..... et- --t ill: :~:s, usually palli- saded, were located l)i! .:al. :'.' _-, ~ ' c ~' ...... ~- ~ ~c springs' and s:ia!' streams !il ~cO~sli" .... ''' '"~ ...... -- - . k_ ~ .:Il l' ;.$ t-tim<ired from na~i- ~a~.~e water rou~es. ::-:. ' -- .... ~r~u~-i s~: :e:- / the Noodland i~dian occupa~lo:: ,_: A Fl -1 : ' - - ................... s~ peoples '.,'t'r~ still S~n~ndt~:tL z_~ ~: :-~' '~qnee ...... !:_::_~:: : and [ishinq (] 3Il/} /,, I, - 1400 A.i) ' " Jl~ SOtlt]tOt'II ()l~har{o ,,:.:i'.i! : ' . [n [he soutlR.;este~ :~ ;, .:-. . I · N # A C~__~. COLE, SHERMAN A ikt ', ~ , t ,~ .IP,l~l IL i IIM~; [--r-Jt31r'4L-L-.Fh~ A A A Legend.. A I1 ]I IvlUNICIPAL BOUNDAfRY STUDY AREA HISt ORIC SETTLEMEN~ /xf~ICHAEOLOGICAI_ (A[:)ORIGINAL) tt'~;TONICA/ (Fl IF?', ")9 ~ DCOLE, SHERMAN . . Cherrywood , F ard eD Legend.. rton :'.. :_'"E',,-z,, _ SiOUJ.:l-~,t',:- t'qEA fESA' FEOOh,IA_ LiFE SCIENCE ,AND SCIENTIF' NTEREST (ANSI L-OCZ, L :E ::fENCE ANSI 2? 4 11 ' . I Pickeri~g Nuclear Generating Slation IvlUNICtPAL BOUN JTU[ AREA COLE, SHERMAN March 1 S, 1998 OurIteF.' 18790 Mr. Jason Barber 450 Finch ~\venuc Picketing. Ontario LI\? 11t8 Dear Mr. Bm'bet: IA)llg Term Wale]' Supply via l)ul'hnii~ %'N'esl Terms of l~.eference Sit, dx' Furtl~er to ,,'our request, at the recent sci of Pt~bJic lnI,>Fn~ation Centres, enclosed please find a copy of' thc maps requested. We apologize £or the delay. If`x'ou require additional inlb~q~:ttioI:, i'~cl f`Foo to contact us. h/ours truly, / Michael Bricks Senior Environmental Planner N,IB,"II't CSA2'Wp'96PROJ, Ig796, I.EI IERS timber ,:'.lar ~8 COLE, SHERN, IAP0 ~ ASSOCIATES LTD. Fax f905} 8824399 Michael Bricks, Senior Environmental Planner, Cole Sherman 75 Commerce ~!alley'Drive East, Thornhill~ Ontario L3T 7N9 March 25~ 1998 Your ref; 18796 ~50 Finch Avenue, ?ic!lering LtV IH8 Dear Mr. Bricks~ Long Term Water Supply via Durham West Terms of Reference Study Many thanks for the maps you have sent. They will be very useful. I do,however, note that they are not dated. What would be the date that, for example, the Existing Land Use map would have been put together ? What would have been the source of the information on that map? Did York Region provide material and Durham Region provide other material? Or did each Town - e.g. Markham and PicI~ering - provide material. And which department in the Towns or Regions would your firm have been dealinu with? would appreciate your help on this issue. Many thanks. Yours truly? on Bar~]er (;I~L OT-37S Gartner Lee Limited S~ ule 10 Office Locahons .\h-. Jason 450 Finch ,\venue l'ickcring, 1.I\: 11t8 De:ir Mr. Barber: ~', <t ~ l{u, tc~encc Studx2 was compiled i'l'olll Uo', clli:llCttt dill[t}]~tSC~ dki]'))i~ tttC NN [iiCI' Supply blaster Planing process a COul>lc o1' years u~o. ll~t~>lnqittlon hu' ])ur} ani J(c~hm xk ;ts c~Unl~ilcd lbr York Region by Table 1: Mat)pin~ lnlorlnalimI (olllaincd in the ~,'ork Region i)atabase lle,,criptlon CollSel'Val{Oll Al'e;ls Rivers Lakes .. llvdro lTanslnission lines Bridges X% md lots qlaN Rid~.~ NI tame Boundal'} L ~oil5 l.a,,d i se [ It fltl'lllit [1011 ,'~ lq% I t' le ,?,tq)roxiniale Date $1;,;R- ff~%l 1978-83 We In, st the aloox c infor:nat ,n nlccts ,,tmr needs. [l'xou haxe any questions, please call. 1998 }; [:~OItQTIi)Ct, . ( t'r',<L C: i [:[ii;C' , projeCt RESOURCESi'.i RECEIVED NO? - 5 2CiOl CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & QEVELOPMENT C}EPARTMENT 272 /-TTAOHMENT # ; ~ TO AFFIDAVIT I Brian John Thompson of the City of North Bay, Province of Ontario, make oath and say as follows: I am a retired Mining Engineer, a past Member of the Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of Manitoba until 1987 and a past Technical Explosives Specialist with Dupont Canada Inc until 1991. o I am currently the owner of a small Computer Services company well as a Commercial Property Owner and Manger in the city of North Bay. as o I lived with my parents, Evelyn and Joseph Thompson until the summer of 1966 on Part. Lot 3 t, Concession 2 in Picketing Ontario in a stone house now known locally as 2030 Rosebank Road. Evelyn and Joseph Thompson were the owners Of approximately 30 acres in lot 31 and had constructed a Stoned frame house on the property. The home was accessed by a long winding driveway from Rosebank Road. My father Joseph Thompson died in January of 1998 and my mother Evelyn Thompson, who is 86 years of age has recently suffered numerous health problems. ( heart attack / colon surgery) I specifically remember an intermittent watercourse that flowed parallel to the railway tracks at that time and spilled southward into low lying areas of our property. My father Joseph Thompson had constructed a small wooden boat for me in 1963 and I and my neighbour, Andrew Gibson, who lived across from the Barber homestead, frequently played with me in this boat for several years until I moved away. 8. Below is a digital scan oI'a picture shou'in: tile boat mentioned above, and myself and :'xnd:ew (iibson in the flooded area discussed. 9. Joselyn Barber who resides at 450 Finch Average in Picketing Ontario has sent me part of an enlargement of an o:di~ancc survey topographical map of Markam 30M .,'14E . edition 1964. I have examined this map and note the folloxvin: ' At the Junction of Rosebank Road North of I:inch 'and the C'P Rail line, this map shows a stream flowing west aud south fi'om the utility con-idor, entering 2030 Rosebank Road and thou floxviug south east around the north -east section of the prope:t5' mentionect above. This is tine same sWeam and watercourse boat. Wimes}ed: ~ I played in as a youngster iu tiao above pictured t o pso Date: ,xa/oo:,~6~__,e_. //200/' o? : CiTY OF ~ CK. ERING r~L~.~i,O,!iNC:' b E)EVELOPMENT L3 E p AF(Tf~,,iENT 2~6 Iii Og~ +1 'ViS THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM WORKS DEPARTMENT WHITBY ONTARIO ROSEBANK ROAD FROM 86 m SOUTH OF C. [?. R. TO 129 m NORTHERLY AREA ,,O ....... LOT ~O. 30..":...3.1 bO~ .... Il .............. TWP, P. ICKER~.NG... MUN...P. ICK£EIN.G ........ ENUE FINCH City Northeast Quadrant (Study Area) Watershed Boundary Figure 1.1 ATYAOHMmT #. I~.,TT0 Study Area Amberlea Stormwater Scale 1' 1 ~ Hydro One Networks Inc. Rea! Estate Services 483 Bay Street 12th floor, North Tower Toronto, ON M5G 2P5 wv~v HydroOne.com Toll Free: 1-888-2316657 May 3, 2001 CITY OF PIGKERING PICKERING, ONTARIO hydro( one Mr. Richard Szarek Current Operations Branch Planning Department The Regional Municipality of Durham 1615 Dundas St. E., 4th Floor, Lang Tower West Building, P.O. Box 623 Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3 Dear Mr. Szarek: Proposed Plan of Subdivision Iris Eleanor Holmes - "Rosebank Garden" 2030 Rosebank Road Part of Lot 31, Cone 2 City of Pickering Related File Nos. 65923 l)urham Region File: S-P-2001-02 Please be advised that Hydro One Networks Inc. has no objections to the proposed plan of subdivision, provided the following conditions are included in the conditions of draft approval: Prior to final approval, a copy of the lot grading and drainage plan, showing existing and final grades, must be submitted to Hydro One for review and approval. Drainage must be controlled and directed away from Hydro One properly. Temporary fencing must be installed along the edge of the right of way prior to the start of construction at the developer's expense. Permanent fencing must be installed after construction is completed along Hydro One owned land at the developer's expense. Hydro One property is not to be used without the express written permission of Hydro One Networks Inc. During construction there will be no storage of materials or mounding of earth or other debris on the right-of-way. The proponent will be responsible for restoration of any damage to the fight of way resulting from construction of the subdivision. In addition, it is requested that the following be added as a Note to the Conditions of Draft Approval. The transmission lines abutting this subdivision operate at either 500,000 or 230,000 volts. Section 186 - Proximity - of the Regulations for Construction Projects in the Occ,tpational Health and Safety Act, require that no object be brought closer than 6 metres (20 feet) to the energised 500 kV conductor. The distance for a 230 kV conductor is 3 metres (10 feet). It is the proponent's responsibility to be aware, and to make all personnel on site aware, that all equipment and personnel must come no closer than the distance specified in the Act. They should also be aware that the conductors can raise and lower without warning, depending on the electrical demand placed on the line. (cant'd) Conditions that have not been satisI'ied prior to the execution or' thc subd~x ision agreement s}~ould be included in the subdivision agreement. \Ve trust this is satisfactory. Ifvou have any qncsnons please call mc at thc number below at your convenience. Yours Truly t l'q F O Fil'-,~/', i' i O N COP'," OR!GiNAL S',GNED BY PAUL DOCKRILL Paul Dockritl Real Estate Assistant Real Estate Services tlydro One Networks Inc. 416-345-6658 CC Mr. N. Carroll Director of Planning Planning Department City of' Pickering 1 Tile Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 VERIDIAN CONNECTIONS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW ROJECT NAME: gosebank Garden Homes !nc, on behalf of Iris Eleanor Holmes ...... I ADDRESS/PLM~I: 2030 Rosebank Road (Part of Lot 31, Concession 2) S-P-2001-02 & A 09/01 SUBMISSION DATE: July 19, 2001 V¢iidi'xn Comlecfions has no objection to the proposed development. Please forward a copy of first submission civil design so that a preliminary design and estimate can be prepared, Techrdcal Representative - Fred RaJninget Telephone 427-9870 Ext. 3255 PP/df I~:\w,~ed Dccumen~\Voq,lt~.n\~ineefing ~ ¢;v,~,vracl/on\lDevelu~ment Appl~ca6cn ~t~\?ir~e~ng\2t~$\~e~cbank Gm~:le~ u,)mc~ lnc~ - ki5 E[m,n~,v M~lme~ - 205131to~,4 r~k Ro~i. flor DEI, IVER'~' PLANNING 1860 MIDLAND AVE 2ND FL. SCARBOROUGtlON NI1P SA1 (416)285-5385 (T) (416)285-7624 (F) 2001 5,,Ir. N'. Carroll Dir¢'ctor of Planning Cit5 of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Picketing On LI V 6K7 El VE D JUN - 5 200] CITY OF PIOKERING PLANNING AND __ DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I/E: APPLICATION FOR APPR()'¥AIA)F A PLAN ()F SUBi)I\'ISI()N DURItAM REGION FII.E: S-P-2001-(~2 APPLICANT: IRIS ELEANOR LOT: 31 CONCESSION: 2 CITY OF PICKIERING REF.NO.: 65927 Dear Mr. Carroll, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on thc above -~otcd application. Please note our new conditions below. .As a condition of draft approval. Canada Post requires that the oxvncr developer comply with the following conditions: - The owner,, developer agrees to include on all ofl'~r~< of purchase and sale. a statement which advises the prospective purchaser that mail delive~ will be t¥ona a designated Community Mailbox. - The owner/developer will be responsible (or notifying ]tac purchaser of thc exact Community Mailbox locations prior to the closing of any hotnc stile. - The owner developer will consult with Canada Post C',)q>oration to determine suitable locations tbr the placement of Community Nlailbox and to indicate these locations on the appropriate se~'icing plans. -2- The owner/developer will provide the following for each Community Mailbox site and include these requirements on the appropriate servicing plans: - An appropriately sized sidewalk section (concrete pad) as per municipal standards, to place the Community Mailboxes on. - Any required walkway across the boulevard, as per municipal standards. - Any required curb depressions for wheelchair access. The owner/developer further agrees to determine and provide a suitable temporary Community Mailbox location(s), which may be utilized by Canada Post until the curbs, sidewalks and final grading have been completed at the permanent Community Mailbox locations. This will enable Canada Post to provide mail delivery to new residence as soon as the homes are occupied. I trust that this information is sufficient, however, should you require further infbrmation, please do not hesitate to contact me the above number or mailing address. Sincerely, Debbie Greenwood Delivery Planner ¢¢: R. Szarek, Durham Region a:utildraw, sam Bell Right of Way F1 5 100 Borough Drive Scarborough, Ontario MiP 4W2 Tel: 416 296-6291 Fax: 416 296-0520 RECEIVED JUN 5 200 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OEPARTMENT June 12, 2001 City of Picketing Planning Department Municipal Building 1 The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 ATTENTION: Mr. N. Carroll RE: DP~AFT PLAN OF Subdivision File No: S-P-2001-02 Lot 31, Concession 2 Iris Eleanor Homes Town of Pickering _ con ..... zng the Thank you for your letter of ADrit 12, 2001 above proposed Subdivision. Would you please ensure thau the following paragraphs are/ have been included as conditions of Drafn Plan Approval: 1 - Bell Canada shall confirm that sa~;isfactory arrangements, financial and otherwise, have been made with Bell Canada for any Bell Canada facilities se~m.~ng this draft plan of subdivision which are required by nhe Municipality to be installed underground; a copy of suck confirmation shall be forwarded to the Municipality. 2 - The Owner shall be requested ~o enuer inno an agreement (Letter of undersuanding) with Bell Canada complying with any underground servicing condiUions imposed by the municipality and if no such conditions are imposed, the owner shall advise the municipality of ~he arrangemenn made for such servicing. If there are any conflicts wiuh exisning Bell Canada facilities or easements, the Owner/Developer shall be resDonsible for re- arrangements or relocation. If you have any questions, please concacl: Sue Spacaro 416 296-6599 Y~rs true, .~nice Young -"~ '" .Manager - Right of Way 500 Elgin Mills Road East Richmond Hill Ontario L4C 5Gl 2001-04-24 MR N CARROLL-DIRECTOR OF PLANNING CITY OF PICKERING MUNICIPAl, BUILDING 1 THE ESPLANADE PICKERING ON L1V 6K7 Dear Sirs , ENBRIDGE Consumers Gas Re; APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION DURHAM REGION FILE NO. S-P-2001-02 APPLICANT: IRIS ELEANOR HOLMES REF NO. 65914 It is requested that the following conditions be included in the subdivision agreement. The owner is to co-ordinate the preparation of an overall utility distribution plan to the satisfaction of all effected authorities. Streets are to be constructed in accordance with the municipal standards. The owner shall grade all streets to final elevation prior to the installation of the gas lines, and provide the necessary field survey information required for the installation of the gas lines, all to the satisfaction of Enbridge Consumers Gas. All of the natural gas distribution system will be installed within the proposed road allowances therefore easements will not be required. Y¢~s Truly, H.~Vil(o~ Planniflg Supervisor (905) 883-2613 HW/swc ?4/ THE DURHAM DISTRICT ~ _ H O O L BOARD Allcntion: ~lr. Ross Dear ~lr. lhm. RE: i}rnfl I)lan of Subtile. ision :lpplicali,,n ~,1) 211li1-112 Zonin~ iI%-hm .~lllClldlllt'lll al~plicati~n X tlg/(ll Ro~clmnk (;ardcn It~[nc, inc. ,~n I~ehalf of Iri~ I'llcanor tl~lmcs 111311 R~chank lid. I~ c,l ,idc ~f l{~,chanl,, nltrlh i~t' I'inch Avc.) (lil~ ~t' l'icM'rinx lhc lbllox~,in,~ COIIlIIlCllIX... 3. l :rider thc munduk' ,,1' Ilk' l)ln'hum l)istricl School fh~ard, slal'l'has "I'OUI'S I~JLIIII1CI' ('Tx :tin '~/ k '1' ! \o THE DURHAM CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Catholic' Education: Learning c~ Living in Faith May 16, 2001 Richard Szarek Current Operations Branch Planning Department The Regional Municipality of Durham 1615 Dundas St. E., Box 623 4th Floor Lang Tower, West Building Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 Dear Mr. Szarek: RE: APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN OF SUBDIVISION S-P-2001-02 IRIS ELEANOR HOLMES LOT 31, CONCESSION 2 CITY OF PICKERING REF. NO.: 65920 At the Regular Board Meeting of May 14, 2001 the following motion was approved: "THAT the Durham Catholic District School Board indicate in its comments to the Regional Municipality of Durham and the City of Pickering that the Board has no objection to Plan of Subdivision S-P-2001-02." The subject lands affected by this Plan of Subdivision fall within the catchment area of St. Monica Catholic Elementary School, located at 275 Twyn Rivers Drive in Pickering. The projected student yield from this development is 14 students. Sincerely yours, Gerry O'Neill Controller of Planning and Admissions cc: N. Carroll, Director of Planning, City of Pickering GON:SMR:smr 650 Rossland Road West. Oshawa, Ontario LIJ 7C4 Telephone (905) 576-6150 Support Services, Fax (905) 576-I 9El Grant A. Andrews, B.A, M Ed. - Director of Education~Secretary~Treasurer Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation 400 University Avenue Toronto ON M7A 2R9 Ministbre du Tourisme, de la Culture et des Loisirs 400, avenue University Toronto ON M7A2R9 Ontario }terita~e and Libraries Branch }teritage Operations Unit Te1:i416)314-7132 Fax:(416)314-7175 leMay 200f Richard Szarek Planning Department Regional h lunicipality of Durham Box 6,o, 1615 Dundas Su'ect East ~,~g To',ver. West Bu;.dip Whitbv ON L1N6A3 RECEIVED i fi 200! CI'i-Y OF PtCKERING ,,,..DEYELGz ENT EEP~,~TMENT PlAY i 6 2801 CITY OF PIGKERiNG PICKERING, ONTARIO RE: Recommendation for Clearance of Archaeoh;gical Resource Concerns, l)raft Plan of SubdMsion S-P-2001-02, P, oset)anl~ Garden. Part of l,ot 31, Concession 2, CiW of Pickering, Regional 51unicipality of 1)urham Ref. No. 65967, .'~ITCR File 18PM001 The Heritage Operations Unit of the Nlinistrv of I ~,ufis u. Cuhurc and Recreation (MTCR) has reviewed thc report prepared by A.N1. Archacoh0giczd :',.55,,ciates ff~r the Stages I and 2 archaeological assessment of the suo. l~ct propcrtx noted above. The report documents through background study (Stage 1) and archaco!ogicai sm'vex (Stage ')that no archaeologically significant resources For this property were identified. Thc report recommends that the subject property be considered flee oF flu'thor archac<>lo~ical concerns, tids N l inistrv concurs with that recommendation. Given the above, the Ontario N1TCR is satts.~,_~ that all requirements have been Inet £or the assessment of' the cuhural heritage resources relating t<) this development application and we have no objections to development proceeding. If deeply buffed cuhural remains t including human rc'.unins) arc discover'cd during construction activities, this ot'fice should be notified immediateh. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to) contact me. Sincerely, John MacDonald Heritage Planner 42-054C The Regional Municipality of Durham March 8, 2002 Mr. N. Carroll Director of Planning Planning Department City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering, Ont. L1V 6K7 RF=CF_I ¥Ei) CiTY OF PICKERING PLANNING/-**ND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Department 1615 DUNDAS ST E. Re: 4TH FLOOR LANG TOWER WEST BUILDING RO. BOX 623 WHITB¥ ON L1N 6A3 (905,728-7731 FAX f905~ 436-6612 www. region.alu rham.on.ca Dear Mr. Carroll: Regional Review of an Application for Plan of Subdivision File No.: S-P-2001-02 Cross Ref.: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A09/01 Applicant: Iris Eleanor Holmes Location: Part Lot 31, Concession 2 Municipality: City of Picketing A.L. Georgieff. MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning '?;ER l ~ICE EXCELLENCE for our CO.4IMI~%¥1TY" This application has been reviewed by the Region and the following comments are offered with respect to the Durham Regional Official Plan, Provincial policies, and the proposed method of servicing. Official Plan Conformity The subject property is located within the "Living Area" designation in the Durham Regional Official Plan. The pre-dominant use of land within the Living Area designation is for residential purposes. The property is also in proximity to the Open Space Linkage, known as the Rouge Duffin Wildlife Corridor, which consists of natural areas and features in order to provide for the migration of flora and fauna. The proposed plan of subdivision would appear to conform to the Plan. Provincial Interests and Deleqated Review Responsibilities A Stage I-II Archaeological Assessment has been prepared by A.M. Archaeological Associates in consideration of this proposal. The archaeological assessment revealed that no archaeological remains were encountered on the property. Potential impacts may result on the various environmental features and functions of the Open Space Wildlife Corridor immediately adjacent to the proposed subdivision development: In this regard, an Environmental Assessment should be prepared to address the corridor edge conditions and stormwater management. In order for this application to be considered for draft approval, the concerns of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority with respect to stormwater and corridor edge management must be addressed. 100% Post Consumer The submitted Noise Control Study, prepared by S.S. Wilson Associates, addresses noise impac': on tine proposed residential development from the C.P.R., Rosebank Road and Finch Avenue. Appropriate noise barriers and warring clauses are recommended for this development. The study was p'epared in accordance with Provincial Criteria and Regional policy. A Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Soil- Eng Ltd. for the subject property. The assessment indicated that environmental conditions at the site are considered to be generally satisfactory. No significant contamination from on-site or off-site sources is likely to be encountered during the development of the site for residential purposes. There are no other provincial interests or delegated review responsibilities applicable to this application. Municipal Water Supply This development is non-sequential from a water servicing perspective. Municipal water supply is available from the existing 250 mm Zone 2 watermain on Finch Avenue. A 200 mm primary watermain feed will be required on Street 'C' as well as a secondary watermain loop up Rosebank Road North to proposed Street 'A' to provide security of service. The existing watermain along Rosebank Road North is a Zone 1 Feedermain, and will not provide adequate pressure to the subject development. Sanitary_ Sewer Service This development is also non-sequential from a sanitary servicing perspective. Sequential development would allow for the sanitary service to be provided on Finch Avenue from the west. An alternative proposal has been reviewed since the developer wishes to proceed non- sequentially. The Region will require that the consultant provide confirmation that this alternative proposal can proceed. Engineering drawings will be required illustrating the placement of the proposed sanitary sewer on Rosebank Road North in relation to the 750 mm CPP feedermain. Field exposure of the 750 mm feedermain will be required to verify actual elevation. Based on the foregoing, the Region ha~ no objection to draft approval of this plan. The attached conditions of approval are to be satisfied prior to clearance by the Region for registratior of this plan. In addition to sending the Region copies of the draft approved plan and conditions of approval, at such time as the draft approval is in effect, please e-mail a digital copy of the conditions of draft approval to the planner responsible for the file. Please call Richard Szarek, Planner, if you should have any questions. Yours truly, Jim Blair, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director, Current Operations Branch Attach: Conditions of Draft Approval CC: Iris Eleanor Holmes Land-Pro Eng~neenng Consultants Inc. Regional Works Department N:\pim\rs\s-p-2001-02.doc Attachment to letter dated March To: iris Eleanor Homes From: · Jim Blair, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director, Current Operations t3ranctn Plan of Subdivision S-P-2()(~1-02 City of Picketing REGION OF DURHAM CONDITIONS OF DR:\tW The Owner shall prepare thc final plan on thc basis of thc 'approved draft plan of subdivision, prepared by Land-Pro Engineering C't~nsult',tnts Inc., identified as project number 200()3, dated and revised Februa~ 4, 2()(C x~hici~ illustrates 45 lots For single- detached residential, 11 tots for 22 semi-detached rcsictcnti~l, future development blocks, an. open space block, a lanctscapc block, n>aclx~avs, road widenings and 0.3 m rese~es. The Owner shall name road allowanccs inciudcd in this ciraf't [)lan to the satisfaction of the Regional fVlunicipality of Durham and thc Citx ()!' Picketing. The Owner shall grant to the Region, any easements rcctuircd to provide Regional services for this de;,elopmcnt and these casements sinai1 bt: in locations and'of such widths as determined by the Region. The Owner shall submit plans s½owing thc propose,ti [)i7asing to the Region tbr review and approwd if this subdivision is to toc developed by n'()rc than one registration. The Owner shall agree in the City of Picketing Subdivision :Xgreement to implement the recommendation of the report, entitled 'Dctailccl Noise Control Study", prepared by S.S. Wilson Associates, tinted April 10, 21)ill, xxhich spc:ifics noise attenuation measures for the development. Thc measures shall bc inciudec! in thc subdivision agreement and must also contain a full and complete reference to thc noise report (i.e. author, title, date and any revisions/addenda) and shall include any rcquirect warning clauses identified in the study. The Owner shall provide the P, cgion with a copy o! the subdivision agreement containing such provisions prior to final approval ~>t' thc pi:re. The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall pro,,ide t!or the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits (of thc [,tan which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be designed and constructed according to th:~ standards and requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham. All arrangerner ts, financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to bc made to thc satisfaction of thc: Regional Municipality ot' Durham, and are to be completecl prior to final approval of tfuis :;lan. Page 2 Prior to entering imo a subdivision agreement, the Regional Municipality of Durham shall be satisfied that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply plant capacities are available to the proposed subdivision. The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Regional Municipality of Durham. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other regional services. The subdivision agreement between the Owner and the City of Pickering shall contain. among other matters, the following provisions: a) The Owner agrees to include provisions whe~'eby all offers of purchase and sale shall include information that satisfies Subsection 59(4) of the Development Charges Act. 1997. The Owner agrees to implement those noise control measures recommended in the Noise Report required in Condition 5. In order to facilitate the clearance of this condition, the Owner is required to forward a copy of the executed City of Pickering subdivision agreement to the Commissioner of Planning, Regional Municipality of Durham. sbb02 s,t~ OPERATIONS & E_MERGENCT SER\'ICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPEP-.T'~' & ENGINEERING DIVISION April 2, 2002 To: From: Subject: .\IE.XlORANDUlX I Ross Pyro Principal Planner--Development Rc~i ex~ Richard Holbein, P. Division I-lead, Municipal ProperU ,X: Revised Plan Ibr Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-21i~l]-Ii2 Zoning by-law Amendment application Rosebank Road being Part of Lot 31, Concession City of Pickering The Municipal Property & Engineering INi`` is~on is i~ reccip~ of ~hc revised Draft Plan of Subdivision noted above and provides the ibllowing comments. The subdivision a~eement will require a condition to advise residents that they will experience noise clue to the proximity oI' thc level crossing on Rosebank Road. Crossing gates to eliminate the sounding of v,'histles has recently been investigated and are not considered xVa~Tanted or recommended by C.P. Rail at this time. Block 75 has been identified as a "Landscaped Area towards Park", and is basically a 2.5m - 4.5m wide strip betv,'een backyards and the hydro corridor or road allowance. The City does not rcqutre or desire this property, as it provides no valuable function. It leads to Block 74, which is open space, not a park. The road allowance tut Street A is required to be 2(~ metres wide. It is premature to deten-nine tile road pattern lo tile west. ho``~ long the street ,.','ill be and how many roads will connect. As a through street and potential collector road, 20 metres is required. The subdivision agreement must impose a condition tbr the proper removal and abandonment of existin*~ wells and septic systems that ser','ed the fenner use o£the lands. Works must be certified by an engineer. 5. The 0.3 metre reserves have not been incladed along Rosebank Road. Ross Pym Subject: Revised Plan for Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2001-02 Zoning by-law Amendment application A09-01 Rosebank Road being Part of Lot 31, Concession 2 April 2, 2002 Page 2 This Division will be recommending a by-laxv to place a stop condition for northbound on Street B at Street A, and eastbound on Street A at Rosebank Road. A storm water management report, including drainage and storm sewer requirements must be submitted. Road works on Rosebank Road, have been identified in the Development Charges By-law for 2009. The applicant will be required to undertake the necessary works as part of this development. There is a requirement for cash in lieu of parkland or the dedication of proposed lot 52 as a tot lot. Please indicate how these comments will be incorporated into the approval of the draft plan. coRH~dy7 Director, Operations& Emergency~rvi~Cc~rd H~/J,l~o"-~, P. Eng. ISSITEPLAN~SP2001-02.docApr-02 (~itq o~ ~~ RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY 'I-hat Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02 I)2. initiated by the City of Pickering, on lands being Part of Lot 21 and 22. Concession 1. City of Picketing, to amend the existing zoning to permit the establishment of fre~ standing ollice buildings in the south sector of the subject lands, be APPROVED. subiect to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report No. 26-02: and That the amending zoning b'~'-lax~ to implement Zoning Bx-lax~ Amendment ,Application A 02/02, asset out in draft, in ,Appendix tt to Report Number PD 2~-02, be forwarded to City Council fbr enactment. REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director. Planning & Development DATE: May 29, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: PD 26-02 SUBJECT: City Intiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02 O.P.B. Realty (Picketing Town Centre) Part of Lot 21 and 22, Concession 1 (1355 Kingston Road) City of Pickering RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02, initiated by the City of Picketing, on lands being Part of Lot 21 and 22, Concession 1, City of Picketing, to amend the existing zoning to permit the establishment of free standing office buildings in the south sector of the subject lands, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report No. 26-02, and; ¸2. That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02, as set out in draft in Appendix II to Report Number PD 26-02, be forwarded to City Council for enactment. ORIGIN: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02 initiated by the City of Picketing. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS' No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed zoning. Rezoning of the Picketing Town Centre lands to accommodate office uses will assist in encouraging development and potentially generate future revenues to the City. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City Council adopted the Pickering Downtown Core Development Guidelines on June 16, 1997, identifying a vision for Picketing's Downtown and establishing appropriate urban design guidelines to support the vision. The City of Picketing initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02 to implement the Downtown Core Development Guidelines as they apply to the Picketing Town Centre lands. A location map is included as Attachment #1 to this Report. The Picketing Town Centre is the largest landowner in Downto~vn Pickering and consequently has the largest land area available for proposed development in the Downtown Core. REPORT TO COUNCIL PD .(-)_ Subject: ZoningBv-lmvAmendmcntApplicat~on_-\~>£<lZ Date: Page Duo to its strate,,ic= location x~ithin tho Doxxntoxxn Core~ it 15 ill~portalnt 1o cI1coura,,c~ the dcx clopment of the lands, panicc~Iari)alon5 thc Picketing Parkxx ay sweet fl'on[ago, in order to sot tine standard lbr future dcvclopmcms and ~o lead initiatixcs in fl~c downtoxvn. Although, tiao Citx has not received a specific application ibr' incx~ dcxclopmcm on thc property, approval o1' this application will provide zonin~ to accommodate and enc0uraSc future dcx clopmcnt. A draft by-law is included as Appendix II to this Report which implements the recommendations of thc Downtown Core Dcxclopmcnt Guidelines respecting building locations, hot?us, and office floor space targets. Tile drat~ bx-laxx includes a parking space requirement lbnnula Ibr zlqc entire Picketing Town Centre ox~ncrship xxhiciq takes into account fluctuations and stlarillz Of parkin< areas bctxxeen commercial and oI'I~cc user's at various llH1Cs Of tho xvcck. -I-this parking developments. It is recommended that Council approxc Zo~qin5 Bv-laxx Amendment Application A 02.02, and that tho draft amending bx'-lax~ set Oki[ itq Appendix II to Report PD 26-02, be forwarded to City Council Ibr enactment. BACKGROL. D 1.() Information Meeting A Public In£ommtion Nleetin5 was held on March 21. 2~)(>2. to discuss the proposed zoning amendment. Inibmmtion Report No. l{~-, C. xx hich summarizes tine proposal and outlines the issues identified through circulation of thc applicatiom was prepared for the meeting. The text of thc inlbmmtion Report is proxidcd lbr rclbrcnce (see Attachment At tine Public lntbmaation Nleeting. Plmming staff gax c an cxpianation oF the application. NIF. Ccchetto. 103. 14()~; Thc Esplatmde Nonk. cxpt'csscd concerns i'cspccting parking. traffic, the nun]bev of floors, tbotpnnt st/c..~round floor space and tiao kllqkI1OXVI1 height of thc most easterly building. Ivx Lo. o',xncr of thc commercial plaza at 1340 Kingston Road, questioned matters ofpai'kilng and land usc, Nlr. MarkResnick, of Walker Nott Dragccivic. rcprcscntin5 tiao Pickcrin~ Town Centre was present to ansxvcr questions regarding the application. Nlinutos of thc meeting are mcludcd as Attachment =, mD. 2.0 Additional In£ormation Since tine preparation of Inlbm~ation Report Nc,. l I)-1)2. the follox~ in~ comments have been received: Enbridge Consumers Gas. Durham District School Board, Bell Canada, VeridianConnections and the Re~oion of l)urham Planning Department, have advised that they have no objections xx ith the proposed amendment. Ministry of Transportation imxe advised thai they haxe no objections with tine proposed amendment, tnoxxex'er thex indicated tin:it Nlinistrx pomnits arc required prior to construction. Supervisor, Development Control tx'ovidcd no object,on to tile proposed amendment. however it was expressed that duriin< thc s~tc plan rcxicx~ process, issues respecting sto~water management and serv~cmg will need to bo addressed (sec Attachment =4). Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering proxided Ilo objection to thc proposed amendment, however it was requested that a traffic study and parking analysis be completed to address traffic impacts and site functioning. The comments also indicated that the City's Development Charge Bv-laxv includes funds for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Picketing Parkx~ ax anJ ©lcnanna Road (see Attachment #5). 26O REPORT TO COUNCIL PD 26-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02 Date: Ma>' 29. 2002 Page 3 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 Mr. A. V. Chechetto, 1400 The Esplanade, expressed objection to the proposed zoning by-law amendment citing concern with: the existence of too much office space not being utilized in the Downtown Core, limited parking supply and snow storage (see Attachment #6). Discussion Downtown Development Guidelines City Council adopted Pickering Downtown Core Development Guidelines identifying a vision for Pickering's Downtown and established appropriate urban design guidelines to support the vision. The guidelines resulted in a conceptual plan for Downtown Picketing based on the following goals: To create a downtown for Pickering that will be a major regional landmark and destination point for workers, shoppers, and visitors; To establish a strong civic and cultural focus for Pickering; To support an increased intensity and mix of uses in the downtown and provide a range of housing, employment, retail and entertainment opportunities: and To support a coherent and identifiable public realm, and to provide a safe, accessible, inviting and comfortable pedestrian environment. Thc concept plan for the Downtown Core Development Guidelines is included with this report as Attachment #7. The Guidelines contain polices respecting design objectives for areas such as, but not limited to, streets and boulevards, built fornls, parks and open space, gateway intersections and vehicular access, parking and servicing with the intent to enhance the design and appeal of the downtown core. Zoning Amendment Application A 02/02 is intended to implement the objectives of the Doxvntown Core Development Guidelines as they apply to the lands located in the south sector of the Pickering Town Centre. Building Heights and Locations The Conceptual Design Plan of the Pickering Downtown Core Development Guidelines identifies the southwest and southeast corners of the subject lands as office/employment areas. The text of the Downtown Core Development Guidelines provides further information regarding the City's objectives respecting building massing, architectural design, pedestrian movement, and road patterns within the Downtown Core. Southwest corner of the Pickering Town Centre lands The location and design of buildings in the southwest corner of the subject property is of particular significance, as this area is identified in the Downtown Core Development Guidelines as the preferred location for potential office tower development. Tower building development in this location allows for higher densities to meet the office floor space targets of the Pickering Downtown Core Development Guidelines and provides a visible landmark for the downtown core. The draft by-law included as Appendix II to this report requires a minimum building height of 8 storeys and a maximum building height of 20 storeys in this area to provide for substantial building mass. In addition, the draft by-law includes performance standards that require 70 percent of a building be located in the proposed build to zone, to ensure that the street faCade is well defined. Southeast corner of the Pickering Town Centre lands An identical approach has been applied to the establishment of the building locations in the southeast corner of the subject property. The difference in the office\employment area designation for this sector is that there is no specific policy requiring the establishment of a tower element at this particular location. REPORT TO COUNCIL PD _6-0_ Suto_ject: Zoning By-law Amendment Appiicauon A 1)£ )2 Date: May 29.2002 Pag Thc general provisions of tile guidelines recommend that office development itl this area be developed as a base buihiin2 with minimum buildin- heights of ' to x storeys and a maximum of 6 to 7 storeys. Tile draft bv-laxv included as Appendix II includes t~er23rmance standards which require a minimum building height of 3 storeys ttnat will address development in this comer that is compatible with recent office developments located to the east and a maximum building height of 7 storeys to address compatibility with thc existing residential development located on thc east side of Glcnanna Road. Tile Downtown Core Development Guidelines contain additional recommendations respecting architectural design and qualit} of buildings, streets and boulevards, parks and open st)acc, gatcxvay intersections, x chicular access, parking, and sc~'icing which will bc addressed in detail through the site plan approval process. LIpOI2 receipt oF a development proposal. Parkin-= Requirements Tile current parking requirements ibr mixed usc sites within tile City of Picketing have been prcdominately based on a specific number of required parking spaces per t00 square metres or.ess leasable floor area. Thc current requirement ibr the subject lands is 5 spaces per 100 square metres of gross lcasablc floor area. Through this application, stalT considered the introduction or'a reduced parking requirement oi'4 spaces per 100 square metres of gross lcascablc floor area. To assist in tiao rcvicxx of thc application, the owner of thc subject lands ~O.P.B. Rcaltx) commissioned a parking supply study, conducted by BA Group, Transportation Consultants. Ttnc parking study acknov, tcdzcs that a "fiat" silo specific parking requirement does not accommodate fluctuations in use o~' the parkin~ areas, resulting in a large under utilized parking area. In order to reduce this unutilized parking area. the study recommends a method of"sharing" of parking areas bctxx con us;cs durinz different times of the day and xveck. This approach = ' recognizes thc differcm characteristics of uses and thc fluctuation of parking demand by use. The main user ~I' parking areas durin~= thc weekday (from 9 am to 5 pm) would be thc office users, xxhilc tiao commercial users tend to be the main user during wccknights and weekends. Through cxaminin~ these fluctuations a more reasonable and functional parking requirement was proposed. The proposed "sharing" of parking is calculated by grouping the permitted uses into specific land use categories being "retail" and ">i'I~ce" uses. Tile parking requirements for each of the two broader land use categories is calculated v, ith the traditional fiat parking requirement of a specific number of parking spaces [>er 100 square metres of gross floor area. The "shared" parking /brmula takes these txvo total parking requirements and examines the pcrcenta<=,o of usc of each parking requirement at specific times of tile day and week. Calculations are cov. ducted and the total number of' required spaces lbr all land uses is generated based on tit: "~orst case" scenario. A sample chart illustrating tile proposed percentages of t~se and tile parking space requirements is attached as Attachment =S. Alttnoug¼ tile ~bcu~,; of this amendment is on Future office development, this parking calculation uvill take i~lto account any future expansion of the retail uses and any additional retail space would adjust tile minimum required spaces accordingly. Tile proposed "shared" parking calculation method has been used successf'ullv elsewhere in tile Greater Toronto Area (Mississauga and Oshawa). This method allows for the efficient use of the land, and is a reasonable approach for development vdthin a Toxvn Centre. Tile parkiing provision recommended for use at the Picketing Town Centre is slightly higher than tiao requirement applied i~ tile City of Oshax~a. The proposed "shared" parking calculation chart I-omnat is supported bx staff and is included in fine draft by-law. REPORT TO COUNCIL PD 26-02 Subject: Zoning By-taw Amendment Application A 02/02 Date: May 29, 2002 Page 5 3.4 3.6 4.0 Traffic Assessment Through the review of this zoning by-law amendment the City identified the need to assess future traffic conditions. The owner of the lands (O.P.B. Realty) commissioned a traffic assessment study that was recently submitted to the City. The Planning & Development Department has completed a preliminary review of the report which indicated, based on future traffic conditions, the external boundary roads would operate below capacity, having good levels of service. The report provided additional recommendations(observations addressing matters such as access points, possible turn lane additions, the need for traffic signals, traffic calnfing, and the possible restriction of traffic movements. The report and findings will be reviewed further by the City's Operation & Emergency Services and Planning & Development Departments over the next few xveeks. The completion of the review of the traffic assessment is not necessary prior to the forwarding of this Zoning By-law Amendment to City Council, as many of the details and recommendations are related to site design which will be dealt with through the site plan approval process upon receipt of a development proposal. 3.5 Future Pedestrian Bridge The Downtown Core Development Guidelines Conceptual Design Plan, identifies a future pedestrian bridge traversing Highway 401 linking the Pickering Go Station with the south sector of the Pickering Town Centre lands, to serve the existing mall and the future office developments. The proposed zoning amendment to add office space potential to the Picketing Town Centre lands, does not prejudice the construction of the pedestrian bridge in the future. Office development on the subject lands will serve to encourage construction of the pedestrian bridge. Recommended Zoning Provisions The draft amending by-law provides for the establishment of free standing office buildings in conjunction with the existing commercial uses for the subject property, and incorporates appropriate provisions, which implement the Downtoxvn Core Development Guidelines. Accordingly, staff recommend that Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I and as set out in draft in Appendix II to Report PD 26-02. Further, staff recommend that the draft by-law be forwarded to City Council for enactment. Owner's Comments Representatives of O.P.B. Realty are aware of the general contents this Report and the draft by-law, and concur with the recommendations. REPORT TO COUNCIL PD_O-I)_ ~ ~ ~ Sut~ject: Zoning By-law Amendment :\pplicatton A ~ :~ Date: May 29. 2002 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Property Location Map £. Infomnation Report 3. Minutes oFthe Public InfoFmation %looting 4. Supe~isor. Development Control 5. Division Head, Municipal Propcrt> & E~2gi~qccri~g o. Resident Conqment, %Ir. A. X'. Chechctto, 14{)<~ lbo Esplanacte 7. Downtox~n Core Development Guidelines Concept Plan 8. Table Ibc Calculating Parking Requirements Ibc a. NIixed Use Site Approved Endorsed bx': Neil Ca~Ic'It),,'RpP Director. Plak,ming & Development Lvnda D. TayIorL %iCIP. RPP Mana,,cr= . Development Rex'leNt TB Attachn~ents Copy: Chief Administrative Of I%e~- Recommended for the consideration of Pickerin~,] City Council ~ ,,~--, Tho~a~ J. Ouinn, Ct~efAd~dnistrati~N~ APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 26-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 02/02 1. That the implementing zoning by-law shall: (a) permit business office and professional office uses within free buildings on the southwest and southeast portions of the subject lands. (b) (c) (d) (e) standing office provide minimum and maximum building heights for free standing office buildings in compliance xvith the Pickering Downtown Core Development Guidelines. provide zoning requirements respecting building locations through the use of build to zones. limit the aggregate floor space for office uses to a maximum of 34,000 square metres. provide for a parking requirement formula to address the "shared parking" concept. APPENDIX 11 TO~ REPORT TO COUNCIL PD 26-02 DRAFT ZONING B'~'-LA\~, FOR ZONING BS'-LAV~' AMENDMENT APPI~ICATION A 02/02 THE CORPOtLATION OF THE CITY OF PiCKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering District Planning Area, Region of Durham, in Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering. (A 02/02) WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to add free standing office uses to the existing commercial uses for the subject lands being Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering. AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: SCHEDULES I AND II Schedules 1 and II attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering, designated "MCA-l", "MCA-1/GS3", "MCA-l/CO-l", "MCA-I/CO-2 .... MCA-?, "MCA-2/GS3", on Schedule I attached hereto. GENERAL PROVISIONS No building, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4. DEFINITIONS In this By-law, (1) "Adult Entertainment Parlour" shall mean a building or part of a building in which is provided, in pursuance of a trade, calling, business or occupation, services appealing to or designed to appeal to or designated to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations; (2) "Assembly Hall" shall mean a building or part of a building in which facilities are provided for purposes such as civic, educational, political, religious or social meetings and which may include an auditorium or a banquet hall; (3) "Automotive Service Station - Type B" shall mean an establishment where vehicle fuels, lubricants and accessories are offered for retail sale, and where facilities for the repair and maintenance of vehicles may be provided on the premise but shall not include an establishment engaged in repairing or painting vehicle bodies; (4) "Bakery" shall mean a building or part of a building in which food products are baked, prepared and offered for retail sale, or in which food products baked and prepared elsewhere are offered for retail sale; (5) (6) (7) (9) 10) 11) (12) (1.3) (14) (15.) (17) 'Bus'ness Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in which the management or direction ora business, a public or private a~crcv, a brokcra~,e or a labour or lkatcmal organization is carried on anti x~laicla naav include a telegraph office, a data processing establishment, a newspaper publishing office, duc premises of a real estate or insurance agent, or a radio or television broadcasting station and related studios or theatres, but shall not include a retail store: "Club" shall mean a building or part of building in v,'hictn a not-I'or profit or non- commercial organization carries out social, cc]ltural, xvelI~re, athletic or recreational programs for the benefit of thc cotnn2unity, but shall not include ai2 adult entertainment parlour as defined herein: "Commercial Club" shall mean an atinletic or recreational club operated For gain or prolit and having public or private membership, but s;lnal] not ~ncludc an adult entertainment parlour as dcllncd herein: "Commercial-Recreational Estatlshmcnt shall mean a commercial establishment in which indoor recreational facilities suctn as boxxling alleys, miniature golf courses, roller skating rinks, squash courts, sxvimming pools anti ortner similar indoor recreation facilities arc provided and operated lbr gain or profit, and '.x'inic}n may inctude an arena or a stadium but shall not include a place of amusement or entertainment as deiincd therein: "Commercial School" shall mean a sctaool which is operated ibr gain or profit and may include the studio ora dancing teacher or music tcacl~cr, or an an sGlaool, a golf school or any other such school operated ~br ~ain or profit buit shall not include any other school defined herein: "Da,,' .',,urser ' shall mean lands and premises duly licensed pursuant to the provisions of The Day Nurseries Act. or anx successor therelo, and for tl~e use as a facility for the daytime care ofchildren: "Dr,,' Cleanin~o Depot" shall mean a building or par~ of a building used lbr the purpose of receiving articles, goods, or fabrics to be sLzbjected to drx cleaning and related processes elsexvhere, and of distributing articles, goods or f2brics v. tnicla have been subjected to any such processes; "Dry Cleaning Establishment - Non-xentin~" shall mcan a building where a dry cleaning plant, with a dry weight capacity of 60 pounds which does not vent gases or odours and is operated separately or in association xxith dry-dyeing, cleaning, laundering, pressing or incidental tailoring or repair of articles or goods of fabric is carried on, in which only non- flammable fabrics are or can bc used xx'hictn do not omit noxious odours or fumes and in which no noise or vibration causes a n~zisance to neiglnbouring premises: "Financial Institution" shall mean a building or part o~'a building in which money is deposited, kept. lent or exchan~,ed and x~}nicl2 includes a ctnartcrcd bank or a branch thereof: "Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate oi' the i'lcor sLlri'ace contamed within the outside walls ora storey: "Floor ~pace Index" shall mean tile ratio of the a~.=~c~.atc of the floor areas of all buildin~,s and structures withm a defined land area to t}~c area of tine defined land area. "Food Store" shall mean a building or part ot'a b[~ilding in xtl~ich food. produce and other items or merchandise of day-to-day houscinold necessitx are stored, offered and kept for retail sale to the public' "Games Arcade" shall mean anx buildin.g, room or area in which are offered facilities for the play' et': (a) three or more games of chance: (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (b) three or more games of mixed chance and skill, or (c) a combination of three or more games of chance and games of mixed chance and skill; for the amusement of the public, which games are not contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, but does not include premises in which the only amusement facilities offered are pool tables, billiard tables or bowling alleys; "Gross Leasable Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storevs above or below established grade, designed for owner or tenant occupancy or exclusive use only, but excluding storage areas below established grade; "Laundromat" shall mean a self-serve clothes washing establishment containing washing, drying, ironing, finishing or other incidental equipment; "Lot" shall mean an area of land fronting on a street which is used or intended to be used as the site of a building, or a group of buildings, as the case may be, together with any accessory buildings or structures, or a public park or open space area, regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the xvhole of a lot or block on a registered plan of subdivision; "Mechanical Car Wash" shall mean an establishment where facilities are provided for the washing and cleaning of vehicles using production line methods employing mechanical devices ~vholly enclosed within a building; "Personal Service Shop__~ shall mean an establishment in which a personal service is performed and which may include a barber shop, a beauty salon, a shoe repair shop, a tailor or dressmaking shop or a photographic studio, but shall not include a body-rub parlour as defined in the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto; "Place of Amusement or Entertainment" shall mean a building or part of a building in which facilities are provided for amusement or entertainment purposes, and which may include a billiard or pool room, a dance hall, a music hall, or a theatre, but shall not include a room or an area used for any video lottery terminal use governed by the Gaming Services Act, an adult entertainment parlour as defined herein, or a body-rub parlour as defined in the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto; "Professional Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in which medical, legal or other professional service is performed or consultation given, and which may include a clinic, the offices of an architect, a chartered accountant, an engineer, a lawyer or a physician, but shall not include a body-rub parlour as defined in the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto; "Restaurant-Ts/t~_ A" shall mean a building or part of a building where food is prepared and offered or kept for retail sale to the public for immediate consumption on the premises or offthe premises, or both on and off the premises; "Retail Store" shall mean a building or part of a building in which goods, wares, merchandise, substances, articles or things are stored, kept and offered for retail sale to the public; "Structure Heig_hg shall mean the vertical distance between the established grade and the highest point of the structure; "Vehicle Re~ shall mean an establishment containing facilities for the repair and maintenance of vehicles on the premises, in which vehicle accessories are sold and vehicle maintenance and repair operations are performed in return for remuneration, but shall not include a body shop or any establishment engaged in the retail sale of vehicle fuels; 4 "Yard" shall mean an area of land which is appur:cnant to and located on the same lot as a buildin~ or structure and is open. uncox crcd and tmoccupicd above ground except for such accessory buildings, structures, or other uses as ate specifically permitted thereon; 5. PROVISIONS _ICA-_. M(2:,-1 C©-I and".x, lCA-].CO-2 Zones) (1) (a) Lises Pennitted('NICA-l". "\ ' " .......... No person shall within tile lands desi2natcd NIC'A-I". .ICA-_ . NICA-I,CO- and "MCA-1 CO-2" on Schedule I attachec hereto usc any lot or erect, alter or usc any buildin2~ or structure ibr anx puu, ose except the Iblloxvin~'~. Ii) assembly lnall ii) bakerx iii) business ix') club v) commercial club vi) commercial-recreational establishment vii) commercial school viii) day nursery ix) dr',' cleaning,.__ depot x) dry cleanin~ establistnnent - non-verntin~ xi) financial institution xii) tbod store xiii) games arcade ×iv) laundromat (xv) personal serx ice (xvi) placeofamusennent or entertainment (xvii) professional office (xviii) restaurant - type .& (xix) retail store (xx) vehicle repair shop (b) Pemmted Uses ("MC:X,-1 GS3" and . lC._..x.-, GS3" Zones} No person shall within tile lands designated "NIC:X~-I GS3" and "MCA-2/GS3" on Schedule I attached hereto ~sc any lot or erect, alter- or use any building or structure except in accordance with thc/'ollowing provisions: (i) (ii) (iii) all uses permitted ira Section 5(1)(a) automobile service station - type 13 mechanical car xvastn (2) (a) Zone Requirements ("MCA-I .... NiC:X-1 GS3". "NIC:X-I CO-1 .... .NIC:X-1 CO-2", "MCA-2 and" MC:X-_ GS3 Zones) No person shall within tile lands desi?ated "MCA-l", "MCA-1/GS3", "MCA-I/CO-1 .... NICA-1 CO-2". "NiCA-2" and "NICA-2/GS3" ora Schedule I attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure except in accordance with the I'ollox~ lng provisions: (i) BUILDING LOCATIONS: No building or part of a building shall be erected outside of the building envelope illustrated on Schedule 11 attached hereto: B No buildin~ or pa~t of buildin~ o:-buildings stnall be erected, on the lands "\I - " designated . CA-I CO-1 on Schedtzle I attached hereto, unless a minimum 70 '!,, oftt:e lcn~ti: oftTne b~iidin~, is located within the build to zone: (i) C No building or part of building or buildings shall be erected, on the lands designated "MCA-I/CO-2" on Schedule I attached hereto, unless a minimum 70 % of the length of the building is located within the build to zone; BUILDING HEIGHT: A B C maximum: 23.0 metres; Despite A above, the minimum building height shall be 24 metres and 8 storeys and the maximum building height shall be 60 metres and 20 storeys on the lands designated "MCA-l/CO-l" on Schedule I attached hereto; Despite A above, the minimum building height shall be 9 metres and three storeys and the maximum building height shall be 21 metres and 7 storeys on the lands designated "MCA-i/CO-2" on Schedule I attached hereto. (iii) (iv) (v) FLOOR SPACE INDEX: A For the purpose of calculating floor space index each area designated on Schedule I attached hereto shall constitute a separate "defined land area". B Maximum floor space index for each defined land area designated on Schedule I attached hereto shall be 2.5. C Despite the definition of Floor Space Index in Section 4(15) of this By- law, the floor area of any floor of a parking structure, which is below grade on all sides, shall not be included in the calculation of floor space index. OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY: despite the definition of Retail Store in Section 4(26) of this By-law, an outdoor sales and display area of not more than 650.0 square metres may be established and maintained in conjunction with and as accessory to any retail store having a gross leasable floor area in excess of 7,400.0 square metres. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: In order to determine the minimum number of parking spaces required to be provided, the steps outlined in the following paragraphs apply: A The minimum required number of parking spaces shall be determined by grouping all uses into two use categories, as outlined in paragraph F, and applying the following standards: (I) Retail: 5.0 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area (II) Office: 3.5 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area This will yield two numbers, being the basic minimum number of parking spaces for each of the two use categories. B For each of the two categories, and for each of the time periods indicated on each of the Tables 1 and 2, multiply the basic minimum number of parking spaces (obtained in accordance with paragraph A above) by the factor indicated in the cell of the table. This will yield the adjusted minimum number of parking spaces by time period per use category. C For each time period in Table 1 and 2, add the adjusted minimum number of parking spaces for the two use categories. This yields six numbers being the adjusted total number of parking spaces per time period. D The highest of the six numbers obtained in accordance with paragraph C above is thc iotal adjusted minimum number of parking spaces tbr alt USOS. Table 1 Peak Period Factors IAs'erage X~'eekdav Land Lse .Nlortdnu Afternoon Evening I-am l£pm} 112pm 0pm) (6pm 12am) Office l.~ .95 .!5 Retail .5~ .Wf} .75 Total Table 2 Peak Period Factors (Average V~'eekend) Land U se Moming A I-ternoon Evening i-ann 12pml iI2pm 0pm) (6pm-12am) Office .15 .15 .10 Retail .-5 1 ~> .50 Total F G H K For thc purposes of sectio~q 5.{2~1x>, and for applying tiao figures in Tables 1 and 2. usc cate2orics _irc dctcmmaed in accordance with this paragraph. The ;blloxxin5 uses a~c considered: (I) "Retail" uses: assemblx hall. bakery, club, commercial club, comn~crcial-recreational :stablislmacnt. commercial school, day nursery, dry cleaning depot, dr,,' cleaning establishn'mr~t - non- venting, financial institution, food store, game arcade, laundromat, personal scrx'ice shop, place of amusement or entertainment, restaurant - tsI~e A, retail store, and vehicle repair shop. (ii) The followin~ uses are considered "Office" uses: business office and professional office. Despite paragraphs A to F above. Ibr automobile service station - type B and mechanical car v,'as}~ uses, tlnere shall be provided and maintained on the lot a minimuna of 4.{i parkin:~ spaces pct- 100.0 square metres or part thereof of gross leasable ~'loor area: For any mect~anical car wash cn the lot. there shall be provided and maintained at eactn xc}2icular entrance thereto a vehicular stacking area consistin~ of an aisle with a minimum pe~cndicular xvidt}a off3.0 metres, a nainimum overall lengttn off 0{).() metres~ and a nainimum centre-line tumin~ radius of-.5 metres :~r tho pu~3ose of accommodating a vehicular queue. All parking areas sl~all bc surfaced with brick, asphalt or concrete, or any combination thereof: All parking areas s}~all bc set bz.ck a minimum of 3.0 metres from any road allowance and the lands xvtdch constitute this setback shall be used for landscape puu>oscs: .An,.' parking structure or part ttaeroof xvtdch is below grade ora all sides shall comply with the provisions .>f Section 5(; )(a}(x )J of this By-law; L Thc maximum structure height for all parking structures shall bo 10.0 metres; M A shelter, not more than 3.5 metres in height and having a floor area less than 6.5 square metres, may be erected in a parking area for the use of parking lot attendants and must comply with the minimum yard setbacks of Section 5(2)(a)(i) of this By-law. (vi) SPECIAL REGULATIONS: A All business office and professional office uses in a building located within the "MCA-l" zone shall not exceed 10 percent of the gross leasable floor area of that building; B No building, except when used as a mechanical car xvash, parking attendant's shelter, or a kiosk associated with an automobile service station - type B, shall have a floor area of less than 400.0 square metres. C A vehicle repair shop may only be permitted in conjunction with and as accessory to any retail store having a gross leasable floor area in excess of '7,400.0 square metres. D (I) Despite section 5(2)(a)(iv) a portion of the parking area generally identified by the crosshatched area on Schedule I attached hereto, may be used for a maximum 1000 square metre outdoor garden centre from April 1 to June 30 of every calendar year for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 only. (II) Section 5.(2)(a)(v) shall not apply to an outdoor garden centre located in the cross hatched area as identified on Schedule I attached hereto. (III) Despite the parking requirements of Section 5.(2)(v) the total number of required parking spaces to be provided on-site may be reduced by 45 spaces, while the outdoor storage associated with a garden centre use exists within the parking area as generally identified by the crosshatched area on Schedule I attached hereto. E The aggregate of the gross leasable floor area of business office and professional office uses shall not exceed 34,000 square metres within the lands designated "MCA-1/CO-I" and "MCA-l/CO-? as illustrated on Schedule I attached hereto. 7. BY-LAW 3036 (1) By-law 3036, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by the relevant provisions of By-law 3036, as amended. (2) Sections 5.21.2(a), 5.21.2(b), 5.21.2(d), 5.21.2(e), 5.21.2(f), 5.21.2(i), and 5121.2(k) of By-law 3036, as amended, shall not apply to the lands designated "MCA-I", "MCA-1/GS3", "MCA-l/CO-l", "MCA-i/CO-2", "MCA-2" and "MCA-2/GS3" on Schedule I attached hereto. (3) By-law 2920/88 which amended By-law 3036 is hereby revoked. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take effect from the dax oI~ passi~g hereof subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. if required, BY-LAW read a first, second, and thit'd time and I]nallx passed this __day Bruce Taylor. Clerk 274 MCA-1/GS3 32.8m MCA-2 GS3 w MCA-1 166.6m MCA-I/CO-1 DELINEATES ZONE BOUNDARY AND "DEFINED LAND AREA" BOUNDARY GARDEN CENTRE AREA SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS DAY OF 2002 MAYO R CLERK GS3 /GS3- CA-I/CO-1 MCA-1 BUILDING BUILD-TO- ~',-,' 'E SCHEDULE TF PASSED THIS DAY OF TO BY-LAW 2002 MAYOR CLERK 276 ATTACHMENT REPORT t PD ?~-~-r~ ~-~-~,~ ~-----~¥ - t.~ ~/2\¢ // City of Pickorin~ Planning & Dovolopmont Dopartmont ? I DATE FEB 8, 2002 III PICKERING ATTACHk~NT ~' ~TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 10-02 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION 51EETING OF 5larch 21. 2002 IN ACCORDANCE V~'ITH I'HE PUBI.IC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF TIlE PLANNING ACT. R.S.O. 1990. chapter P.13 SUBJECT: City luitiatcd Zonin~ By-lay, .Mncndn~cnt Application A On lands oxvncd by O.P.B. Realty (Pickerin~ ('entre) Inc. Pan of Lot 21 & 22. Concession I ( Picketing Tox~n Centre) City of Pickerin*z 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 3.2 PROPERTY I.OCATION AND DESCRIPTI()N the subject propert} is located on tile west side oI' Glenanna Road between Kingston Road and Pickerin5 Parkv, av: (sec Location tile subject propert} CmTCntlx supports a mixed usc shopping mall; the su~ounding land uses include residential uses to tile east. office/commercial uses to the nomh and east. and Hi~hxk ay 401 to the APPLICANT S PROPOSAl. tile City of Picketing. in consultation with representauves of the Picketing Tov,'n Centre, are proposing to amend thc cxisung zonin2 to implement dcveloplnent contained in the Pickcrin*~ Downtoxxu Core Dcxdopmcnt Guidelines. with tho intent to pennit the establishment of Ikcc standing oI'I]ce buildings on the south side of the Picketing Town Centre lands. ~sce Proposed OI'I~Gc Empioxnncnt Areas - Attachment =2). staff have conducted a preliminary rex'iex~ of thc cxistin~ zoning by-law and have prepared the attached chart to idcntiiN the proposed amendments to the existing zoning by-law provisions ttnat arc intended to implement thc recommendations of the Picketing Downtoxvn Core Development Guidelines: ~sce Proposed Zoning Amendments For Thc South Side Of The Pickerin~ Tox~n Centre Lands - Attac~mnt ~3). OFFICIAL PLAN .AND ZONING Durham Reo~i0nal Official Plan the Durham Regional Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being within a "Main Central .Area" within which tine main concentration of activities, including an array of community, office, service and shcppilng, recreational and residential uses should be located: thc application appears to conform. Pickering. Official Plan the Pickering Official Plain identifies the subject lands as being located in a "Mixed Use Area Doxvntoxvn (['ore" xvittmn tiao Tov,-n Centre Neighbourhood. This designation pcmnits, among other uses. thc rctailin,5 of goods and services at the greatest scale and intensity in tile City scrvinu Citv-v, ide and Regional levels; the application appears to confom:. Information Report No. 10-02 Page 2 27 $ ATTACHMENT # ,~ TO 3.3 3.4 4.0 Compendium Document to the Official Plan the subject property falls xvithin the area of the Council Adopted "Pickering Downtown Core-Development Guidelines". The guidelines are intended to guide the development or redevelopment of sites within the desiam~ated areas; the Pickering Downtown Core development guidelines resulted in the preparation of a conceptual plan for Downtown Picketing, which was developed, based on the following goals: To create a downtown for Picketing that ~vill be a major regional landmark and destination point for workers, shoppers, and visitors; To establish a strong civic and cultural focus for Picketing; To support an increased intensity and mix of uses in the downto~vn and provide a range of housing, employment, retail and entertainment opportunities; and To support a coherent and identifiable public realm, and to provide a safe, accessible, inviting and comfortable pedestrian environment. the conceptual design plan, as it pertains to the subject property, identifies the south-west and south-east comers of the subject lands as office/emplo3qnent areas intended to accommodate 46,450 square metres of office space primarily along Picketing Parkway between Liverpool and Glenanna Roads. the conceptual design plan also identifies a future pedestrian bridge that would traverse Highway 401 from the Picketing Go Station to the south side of the Picketing Town Centre lands to serve the existing mall and the future office developments; the Picketing Downtown Core Development Guidelines contain polices respecting design objectives for areas such as, but not limited to, streets and boulevards, built forms, parks and open space, gateway intersections and vehicular access, parking and servicing with the intent to enhance the design and appeal of the downtown core. Zoning. By-law 3036 - the subject property is zoned "MCA-l" Main Central Area by By-law 3036 as amended by By-la~v 2920/88. This zoning permits a xvide variety of commercial uses with limited office uses; - the establishment of free standing office buildings requires an amendment to the zoning by-law; RESULTS OF CIRCULATION 4.1 4.2 Resident Comments Kim Dovovan, President of Picore Holdings Limited, owner of the adjacent office development located at Liverpool Road and Picketing Parkway, has expressed his support for the proposed zoning amendments and requested that the anticipated traffic volumes and access on Picketing Parkway be reviewed (see Attachment #4). A~encv Comments Ministry of Transportation has expressed no objection, in principle, to the establishment of office uses; Veridian Connections has expressed no objections to the proposed zoning amendment. Inibnnation Report No. 10-02 t,'n'AOH;,:~T I' ~-'~ TO Pa,.ze 3 4.3 Staff Comments 5.0 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 through rex'iexx of tile application, sta(:' }lax c idcnti(ied tile ibllowing items as issues that must be considered prior to t}7c rbrx~arding o~' a recommendation report to City' Council. Tine issues arc as ibllox~ s: · trafiic impacts · parkin,,= requirements supply. · building setbacks and height · floor space limitations l~r office uses exploring thc implications oi' tho proposed zoning change on l~tt~rc dex olopnuont on-site and to glide thc development of additional future buildin<s_ on-site, and to ensure that thc thture zonin-= provisions will not pr%iudicc tiao implcmcn:ation of tho pedestrian and vchicular connections outlined in the Doxx ntoxx n Core Development Ouiddines. representatives f`rom the Picketing Toxvn Centre }nave committed to the preparation and submission of a trag% report in suppc.rt of thc proposed zoning amendments prior to the preparatio~n oi' a Recommendation7 Report being forwarded to City Council. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION written comments regarding this pro'.>osa] stnould bc directed to thc Planning & Development Department: oral comments max be made at tlqe Public I~qIozxqqatio;2 Nicotine: all comments received will bo noted and used t~s illptlt ilq a Recommendation Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department ibr a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council: if you wish to rese~'e thc option to appeal Cou~qcil's decision, you must provide comments to the City belbrc Cou:ncil adopts any bv-laxx Ibr this proposal: if you wish to be notilied of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to tine Citx C'lcrk. OTHER INFORMATION A.3.p_.pendix No. I - list of' neighbourhood residents, connmu:aitv associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on tiao applications at the time of'writing report; Information Received f`ull scale copies of the Applicant's subminc.ct plan are available Ibr viexving at the offices of the Cit.',' oi' Picketing Planninu & Dox elopmont Department: Company Prin~ the representative (or tine owner ~s .NIL Allan Arsonault..Mana,,er= of the Pickering Town Centre. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Tyler Barnett Planner II YBjf Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Dcxelopmcnt [)cpartnncnt i,vnda Taylor. MCIP. RPP Manager. Development Revicx~ '25 ,) APPENDIX I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 10-02 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS (1) Kim Donovan, Picore Holdings Limited, 1305 1315 Pickering Parkway COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) (2) Veridian Connections Ministry. of Transportation COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS ( 1 ) Planning & Development Excerpts from Statutory Public Information Meeting Mini le Pursuant to tile Planniug Acl Thursday, March 21, 2t}tl2 7:00 P.M. Chair: Councillor Johnson The N, lanager, Policy, provided an overview of the requirements o1' the Plannint2 .Act and the Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. (i) CITY INITIATED ZONING BY-LAX3,' ASIENDMENT APPI,ICATION A 02/02 ON LANDS OWNED BT O.P.B. REALTY (PICKERING CENTRE) INC. PART OF LOT 21 & 22, CONCESSION 1 iPICI,~ERING TOWN CENTREl Tyler Barnett, Planner II, provided an explanation of ibc application, as outlined in lnlk~n'nation Report #10-02. Mr. Ccchetto, 103, 1400 The Esplanade North, questioned thc number of floors, footprint size and ground floor space. He expressed concern with unknown height or' the most easterly building and parking and traffic, tie advised that he submitted a letter to the Clerk on March 20, Councillor Johnson explained that the larger tower will bc situated to the west of the site and the shorter tower lo the east. Tyler Barnett, Planner II, advised Mr. Cechetto lhat his loucr was received and will be reviewed during processing of the application. He t'urthzr advised that a traffic study has been requested from O.P.B. Realty, owner of Pickering Town Centre. Ivy Lo, owner o£ the Kingston Road Plaza, questioned how parking will be addressed, what will the uses be, and is a bank considered an office. Tyler Barnett, Planner II, advised that Planning stalT are recommending the site be pre-zoned to encourage site development, parking may be above ground, garage or combination of both. Hc fi_~rther advised that office use will be added to current permitted commercial uses and that the site currently permits financial use, tJ"rACH~Z, EI'~T # ~ TO REPOR'I',f PD ~-- c ,r PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M EMORANDU M March 5, 2002 T o: F FOtTI: Subject: Tyler Barnett Planner II Robert Starr Supervisor, Development Control City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application on lands owned by OPB Realty (Picketing Centre) Inc. Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 1 (Picketing Town Centre) City of Pickering We have reviewed the above-noted applications and provide the following comments. 1) A Stormwater Management Report will be required to address both quantity and quality issues for this site, mainly due to downstream concerns with the Krosno watercourse. 2) Buildings proposed in the south east comer of the site may require relocation of the trunk storm sewer which is presently located within the parking area and extends from Picketing Parkway north to Glenanna / north Esplanade. There is also a sanitary sewer in this same location. 3) RS/jf The proposed 0 metre building set back from Pickering Parkway should be conditional on the entire building including footing, foundation, excavation and perimeter drainage etc. maintaining that required 0 metre distance. Robert Starr Attachment Copy: Coordinator, Development Approvals OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SER\'ICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING Dl\;ISlON From: S ubj ME.XlORANDUi',I Tyler Barnett Plmmer II Richard tdolborn, P. Division Head..Municipal Property ac RECEIVED 2OO2 CITy OF PICKERING -- PLANNING AND City Initiated Zoning Bx-lax~ Amendment Applicatlota A On lands owned by O.P.B. Realty (PicKeting ('ontt'c) inc. Pan of Lots 21 and 22. Concession l (Picketing Town Centre City of Picketing The Municipal Property & Enginecnng Division is in receipt of thc above noted application to amend tile zoning on fl~e subject lands 1) This Division is requestin~ a traffic stt~dv he pcrfomned to determine impacts on Pickenng Parkway at Glenanna P, oad and hey, ti~e\ can t~c mitigated. 2¸) Consideration should be given to closin,~ the xvestem most entrance of the properly, to concentrate ingress and egress to the south end of the site. 3) Tile Development Charges By-law includes :'unds ~br a full traffic signal at the intersection of Picketing Parktvav Glenanna Road in 2I'll S 4) Parking considerations must include' location Ibr snow storage, overflow parking during peak seasons, as well as on-site storm x, ater managment. 5) Consideration for location of potemial term nus of pedestrian bridge over 401 must be given. Please P,H:ds advise how these comments will be incorporated into tiao application. Copy: Director, Operations &Emergenc> SetT'ices I \SITEPI~AN~A02-02.doc Apt-02 RECEIVED CITY OF PICKERING ~ ~-': J OITYOF PICKERJNG ' / / ~ P~NNINGAND / 4- : ,0 :_ ,i ,:: ? -- 7 Z Z 'r ," , ',' ~ TO REPORT ,~ PD Table for Calculating Parking Requirements for a Mixed Use Site Total Parking Time Period Required by Land Use Weekday (Monday to Friday) Weekend (Saturday/Sunday) Mornin Afternoon Evenin ~ Mornim Afternoon Evcning Retail 4124 2060 2890 3095 3095 4124 2060 Uses (%) (50%) (70%) (75%) (75%) (100%) (50%) I Office 1190 1190 1130 1130 180 180 120 Uses (%) (100%) (95%) (95%) (15%) (15°/,,) (10%) Total I 5134 3250 4020 3275 3275 4304 2180 The total parking required by land use is determined by applying the following parking requirements: Retail Use: Office Use: 5.0 spaces~100 m2 of Gross Leasable Floor Area (existing G.L.F.A. of 82,465 m~) 3.5 spaces\100 m~ of Gross Leasable Floor Area (proposed G.L.F.A. of 34,000 (%) = Percentage of the required spaces anticipated to be used at specified time period The numbers in the chart assume that the entire office development of 34,000 square metres has been constructed in conjunction with the existing floor space of the Pickering Town Centre. Based on this chart the minimum number of parking spaces required for the Pickering Town Centre would be 4304 spaces ~vhich represents the "worst case" scenario under the shared parking formula.