Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
June 10, 2002
Planning Committee Meeting Monday, June 10, 2002 7:30 P.M. Chair: Councillor McLean (I) ADOPTION oF MINUTES Meeting of May 13, 2002 (II) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION PAGE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 23-02 (ADDENDUM) NORTHEAST QUADRANT REVIEW: FINAL REPORT PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVISED NORTHEAST QUADRANT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 1-83 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 24-02 (ADDENDUM) AMENDMENT 8 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN (APPLICATION OPA 01-002/P) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 04/01 MARION HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PART LOT 28, RANGE 3, B.F.C. (NOW PART 1, PLAN 14431 & PART 1, PLAN 40R-2767) (SOUTH-EAST CORNER OF WHITES ROAD AND SHEPPARD AVENUE) 84-156 o PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 27-02 DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION S-P-2001-02 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 09/01 ROSEBANK GARDEN HOMES INC. ON BEHALF OF I. E. HOLMES PART OF LOTS 31, CONCESSION 2 2030 ROSEBANK ROAD (WEST SIDE OF ROSEBANK ROAD, NORTH OF FINCH AVENUE 157-256 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT 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 (lid CORRESPONDENCE Members of Council may formally table an item of correspondence that has been circulated by thc Mayor, CAO, Clerk or other staff person. Planning Committee Meeting Monday, June 10, 2002 7:30 P.M. Chair: Councillor McLean (IV) ADJOURNMENT 001 RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Council receive Addendum to Report Number PD 23-02 for information; and That Council adopt the recommendation contained in Report Number PD 23-02 with the inclusion of a site-specific official plan policy and Development Guideline exception fi~om the requirements for a public road connection and second storey functional floor space for the Wood/Carroll property; and That Council recommend that the Ministry 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. 0O2 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll DATE: May 31, 2002 Director, Planning & Development ADDENDUM TO REPORT NUMBER: PD 23-02 SUBJECT: Northeast Quadrant Review: Final Report Proposed Official Plan Amendment Revised Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines City of Picketing RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Council received Addendum to Report Number PD 23-02 for information; 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 Ministry 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 Dtmbarton 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 Planning 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 by 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 Date: May 31, 2002 Subject: Northeast Quadrant Review Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning Committee, at its meeting of May 13, 2002, referred Report Number PD 23-02 back to staff for further information. In response to the issues raised by Planning Committee members and residents, an Addendum Report has been prepared. The Report includes a chart detailing the options to address the issues, and staff comments on those options. Two changes are outlined to the recommendations of Report to Council PD 23-02. Further, staff has clarified other matters that were raised at the meeting by the landowners pertaining to the internal public road, the Dunbarton School property, second storey functional floor space, and the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersection. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Planning Committee On May 13, 2002, Planning Committee received Planning & Development Report PD Report PD 23-02 recommended that the Picketing City Council: receive the background reports entitled Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study, Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports, and the Amberlea Creek Northeast Quadrant - Assessment of Alternatives; · endorse the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review"; · direct staff to hold a Statutory Public Information Meeting to discuss potential amendments to the Picketing Official Plan · adopt in principle the revised "Northeast Quadrant development Guidelines; and · require the proponents of major development applications within the Northeast quadrant area to contribute their proportionate share of the Northeast Quadrant Review costs. At the meeting, a number of deputations were heard (see Attachment #1). Mr. Ron Richards, representing North American Acquisition, advised Committee that the criteria for mixed corridor 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 be 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 for the Wood/Carroll property and that the requirement for a second storey functional floor space be deleted. Further, there were a number of concerns expressed by the public pertaining to increased traffic and safety resulting from medium density development on the Marion Hill property and the redesignation of other lands in the Quadrant from low density residential to medium density residential. Committee referred Report PD 23-02 back to staff for further information. The purpose of this addendum report therefore is twofold: to provide options pertaining to the issues raised, and staff comments and recommendations on those options; and to clarify issues pertaining to the internal public road, the Dunbarton School property, second storey functional floor space and the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersection. 0O4 Addendum to Report PD 23-02 Subject: Northeast Quadrant Review Date: May 31, 2002 Page 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 1' is the 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 in 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 Picketing 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. Intemal Public Road At the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) heating 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. Addendum to Report PD 23-02 Subject: Northeast Quadrant Review Date: May 31, 2002 Page 4 on5 3.3 3.4 It is the Ministry's view that a road under public ownership ensures long-term maintenance, enforcement of speed and vehicular movement controls such as stop signs in order to provide uninterrupted northbound movement from the Highway 401on/off ramp, and access cannot be stopped or closed by the private landowner. Accordingly, the proposed policy requiring a public road connection in the interior of the Quadrant is appropriate and is now more supportable for operational reasons than at the time of the Hayes Line OMB hearing. Nevertheless, staff is recommending a site-specific exception from the requirement for a public road connection, to specifically recognize the Hayes Lines development approved by the OMB. Staff is proposing the following policy addition: "Despite the designation of a Collector Road on Schedule II - Transportation System, connecting the Highway 401 westbound ramp to Delta Boulevard, and Woodlands Neighbourhood Policy 11.8 (f)(iii), the implementation of the Collector Road through the Hayes Line Properties Inc. lands, being Part of Lot 28, Range 3, Broke Front Concession, City of Picketing, is not mandatory for the zoning approved by the Ontario Municipal Board decision issued on May 21, 2002, and instead may be achieved by the provision of easements in favour of the City and abutting land owners granting access to the abutting easterly and westerly properties." A similar exemption would be made to the proposed Development Guidelines. Second Storey Functional Floor Space In recognition of the OMB decision pertaining to the issue of "functional" second storey space for the Hayes Line Properties, staff is also recommending the inclusion of a site-specific official plan policy and Development Guideline exception from the proposed requirement for second storey functional floor space for all commercial development in the Quadrant. Staff is proposing the following policy addition: "Despite the Woodland Neighbourhood Policy 11.8 (e)(C), the requirement for second storey functional floor space is not mandatory for the zoning approved by the Ontario Municipal Board issued on May21, 2002 on the Hayes Line Properties Inc. lands, being Part of Lot 28, Range 3, Broke Front Concession, City of Pickering." As well, a similar exemption would be made to the proposed Development Guidelines Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersection Mr. Ron Richards, on behalf of North American Acquisitions, has requested that Council adopt a resolution encouraging full access at the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersection from the Dunbarton School property. Although the Ministry of Transportation supports northbound through movement from the on/off ramp, there is no signal capacity and no free signal timing available to accommodate southbound through movements from the proposed access road to the 401on ramp (see Attachment #8 to Report PD 23-02). The Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study - Phase 2 Report identified that only southbound left and right turn movements from the access road could be accommodated. The left turn movement is a key part of the access management plan for the Quadrant as the south bound left turn currently 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: May 31, 2002 Page 5 It 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 1VifiG/-egoi, MClP,'R~- Principal Planner - Policy Approved / Endorsed by: Nell C ar(o~L(MC~,'RPP Director,'Ptarifiing & Development Catherine L. Rose Manager, Policy GM/CLR/jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Operations & Emergency Services Recommended for the consideration of Picketing City Council /o Th~m'~ J. Quinn,~hief A~ninistrat~fficer/ APPENDIX I TO ADDENDUM TO REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 ISSUES, OPTIONS & COMMENTS RESPECTING THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT 1. Access to Shcppard Option 1' Pros Avenue Permit full moves * best access to Sheppard, Whites and Highway 401 for future vehicular access from townhouse residents, visitors and delivery personnel; Marion Hill · best emergency services access to townhouse development; development to · minimal traffic impact on the area disperses traffic impacts; Sheppard Avenue as · Sheppard Avenue has sufficient capacity to support nominal one of three vehicular increase in traffic at peak hours; access points. · 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 tums 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 the proposed gated entrance to the Marion Hill property; Supported by Staff Option 2 Pros No vehicular access · no change to real or perceived traffic operations, turning to Sheppard Avenue movements on Sheppard Avenue; (permit emergency · Marion Hill is willing to implement this option if required; vehicle access by knock-down/key Cons operated facility). · 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 tums to avoid such travel/turn restrictions; · confusing for 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 2. New Collector Option 1' Pros Road Require a 10 metre · approval of access to signalized intersection at 401 westbound wide public road ordofframp may be denied by MTO because private easement across the north edge access cannot guarantee same operational control as a 'public' of McConachie and road; Hayes Line · provides for internal east-west connections from the rear of the (Wood/Carroll) commercial properties between the school property and Delta property to connect Boulevard at such time as the Region of Durham restricts left turf Delta Boulevard to access from Kingston Road; new public road · provides alternate public road access most likely to encourage proposed for old mixed use/higher density development in rear portions of Dunbarton school commercial properties fronting Kingston Road and residential property, 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 0 ~ and traffic impact of such redevelopment on Shcppard Avenue should such higher intensity redevelopment occur in the future; Cons · modestly reduced development areas and modestly increased costs to private developers for higher standards required of a public road; · Hayes Line noted that it would appeal any policy which introduces a new public road requirement across rear of their property; · justification for need for a connection across mar of commercial properties as a 'public' road denied by OMB in recent appeal decision for Hayes Line applications - this decision may influence the OMB's position respecting thc need for a 'public' road across thc middle of thc quadrant; Supported by Staff Option 2 Pros Require public road across rear of · builds on road block in City's ownership at rear of Delta McConachie and Boulevard development; Dunbarton school · allows City to guarantee efficiency, safe standards and properties ending at maintenance across public portions of the access; two cul-de-sacs · site specific policy would be added to recognize OMB decision outside of on Hayes Line property; Wood/Carroll property. Cons · does not satisfy MTO requirements for a public road access across rear of all these properties necessary to justify access to Kingston Road/Highway 401 ramp intersection for old Dunbarton school property; · degrades efficiency of access across rear of properties; · only allows public road access for future intensified development for the rear portions of only those commercial or residential properties that abut the public portions of the road access; Not Supported by Staff Option 3 Pros Require private easement access · least regulated access arrangement across rear of commercial across all properties, properties; · somewhat less costly to private owners; · least impact on commercial properties fronting Kingston Road; Cons · allows least chance of MTO approval of any access to old Dunbarton school site property at signalized Kingston Road/Highway 401 ramp intersection; · may require return of road block behind Delta Boulevard to abutting landowner and replaced, if possible, by an access easement arrangement to provide rear access to MeConachie and Wood/Carroll properties; · requires high degree of landowner coordination and good will to achieve easements across all properties; one uncooperative landowner can prejudice achievement of internal coordinated access; · least amount of municipal control of efficient traffic movement, safety, maintenance and speed regulation; · does not guarantee a logical/functional alignment of access across *as recommended by staff in Planning & Development Re >ort PD23-02 010 Appendix ! to Addendum Report ~o Counci! PD23-02 precinct; · limits long term redevelopment opportunities for residential properties fronting Sheppard Avenue by removing future access to internal public road. Not Supported bY Staff 3. Buffering / Option 1' Pros Compatibility with Marion Hill Along the eastern · this landscape strip would allow the Marion Hill development to property, boundary of the be both visually and physically separated from the existing property, a 6.5 metre development in an attractive manner; setback is required. · 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; Option 2 Pros Require the retention of the existing stream · a great majority of the existing mature vegetation could be corridor within the preserved; City owned lands and · this feature could continue to provide an aesthetic quality to the provide a minimum neighbourhood and allow for some limited passive recreational 10 metre setback on space; each side. · 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 Option 3 Pros Develop a · would provide a s~rong buffer for the home most effected by the requirement to plant new medium density development; significant vegetation Cons on the private property to the east, · does not effect the perceived density nor the proximity of the new in a layout designed development to the existing neighbourhood; by a landscape ................................................................................... architect. Not supported by Staff Pros 4. Consideration of Option 1' properties east of ·~ permits the redevelopment of each lot in the Precinct on a site Dunbarton school No requirement for specific basis subject to criteria; property consolidation of lots · consolidation not precluded; within Precinct E. Cons · integration of lots more difficult after redevelopment has occurred; *as recommended by staff in Planning & Development Report PD23-02 Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD23-02 ISSUES OPTIONS RAISED Require consolidation of properties within precinct prior to redevelopment minimal recognition of the area evolving into a more dense 0ll community; · smaller parcels have more limited redevelopment opportunities · may result in some residential uses remaining for longer tern m closer proximity to commercially redeveloped properties; Supported by Staff .Pros · provides the opportunity for a comprehensive design of the entire Precinct including higher densities or a range of uses; · provides the opportunity to access impacts holistically; Con.._..~s Retain low density designation for existing residential lots in Precinct B. _Ootion 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). · essentially 'freezes' individual properties from redevelopment opportunities; · lot assembly considered long-term; Not Supported by Staff _Pro_s · consistent with the Official Plan encouraging higher densities in selected locations, usually close to Mixed Areas; · simplifies the designation on the entire Precinct; · provides opportunities for redevelopment in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood; · density increase would not exacerbate the existing traffic problems with respect the traffic flow on Sheppard Avenue; access to Sheppard Avenue from medium density development would be minimized; · provides an approphate transition between new commercial development along Kingston Road and the character of the existing neighbourhood along Sheppard Avenue; · proposed policy would cap maximum density at 55 units per net hectacre, also permit residential development below the minimum net density of 30 units per net hectacre; Con.___.~s Option 2 Retain the existing designation of low density residential and medium density residential for the nine lots in the Precinct; · potential introduction of additional medium density residential development into an existing area with low densities; · potential increase in traffic and noise associated with medium density development; Supported by Staff Pros · resident concern that medium density development would be introduced along the frontage of Sheppard Avenue; · resident concern about increased traffic and density resulting from medium density development would no longer be an issue; ,Cons · no recognition of the area evolving into a more dense and mixed community; · reduces redevelopment options for residents on south side of Sheppard Avenue; *as recommended by staff in Planning & Development Report PD23-02 0!.2 Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD23-02 NO ISSUES OPTIONS ' COMMENTS RAISED · existing medium density designation applicable to rear of properties is not practical from a development perspective. Not Supported by Staff 6. Gas bar/car wash Option 1' Pros within the Quadrant. Prohibit the · screening and buffering may not be sufficient on the school development of any property to protect the residential development along Sheppard new gas bars, Avenue from adverse impacts; automobile service · public and staff concerned with noise and traffic and lighting stations or car washes from proposed gas bar/car wash facilities; within the Quadrant. Cons · restricts the range of uses currently permitted under Mixed Corridor; Supported by Staff Option 2 Pros Permit gas bars/car · provides the opportunity for automobile related services; washes within the · would take advantage of the auto-oriented area of Kingston Road Quadrant. and the Highway 401 on/off ramp; Cons · proliferation of additional gas bar/car wash facilities along Kingston Road; · built form contradicts the City's 'mainstreet' objective for the Quadrant; Not supported by Staff 7. 2na story functional ..Option 1' Pros space and minimum building Require commercial · consistent with the 'mainstreet' objective for the Quadrant frontage development to regarding higher intensity; requirements provide second storey · provides opportunities for a greater variety of uses within functional floor space buildings; and buildings closer · buildings brought close to the street edge would improve to the street edge. 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 development along Kingston Road. Supported by Staff Option 2 Pros No second floor and · provides developers with the simplest form of development to no requirement for lease; buildings close to the street. .Cons · less opportunity to accommodate a mix of uses; *as recommended by staff in Planning & Development Report PD23-02 Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD23-02 RAISED 0. 3 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 form of low intensity, single purpose development; · supports auto-oriented retailing and services. Piping Amberlea Creek tributary 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; Option 2 Relocate watercourse to eastern edge of Marion Hill/ McConnachie and Pickering Holdings properties with reduced buffer on each side. Pros_ · maximizes land area/land value for development, including City owned lands forming the east part of the Marion Hill application; · maximizes assessment base for this area of the City of Pickering (ie: with net long-term benefit to all City taxpayers); · will produce net environmental benefit to Ambeflea Creek and Frenchman's Bay provided the stormwater pond is constructed east of Bayfair Church; · will reduce long-term erosion/rehabilitation costs to City and landowners south of Hwy 401; · already a somewhat degraded natural setting; Cons · reduces 'green/natural' area in this part of the City; · removes a natural buffer/vegetation between existing low density residential dwellings and commercial uses on Delta Boulevard; Supported by Staff Pros · retains buffered 'green/natural' area; · increases developable area/land values/assessment base for City and/or private landowners; · retains green buffer between existing low density dwellings and commercial uses on Delta Boulevard; · simpler mom efficient approval process to satisfy TRCA requirements; Cons · no improvement to downstream erosion; · costly endeavour with limited increase to developable area/land values/assessment base; · retention of open stream significantly restricts development on two private properties; Supported by Staff *as recommended by staffin Planning & Development Report PD23-02 0 ] Council PD23-02 Appendi3 to Addendum Report to OPtion Allow for protection of watercourse in City owned property as an open stream channel with 10 metre buffer each side. Pro..__~s · provides opportunity for natural buffer bc~vccn existing residents on Sheppard Avenue and thc 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 usc stream corridor as pedcsWian pathway; · least short-term cost to City; · allows City to retain watercourse over its lands in present natural condition, while 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 downstream 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 PICKERING Attachment 1 Planning Committee' Meeting Minutes Monday, May 13, 2002 7:30 p.m. Chair: Councillor Johnson 01 5 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 23-02 NORTHEAST QUADRANT REVIEW: FINAL REPORT PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVISED NORTHEAST QUADRANT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES b) c) d) e) f) g) h) Received and Referred Back to Staff a) Sylvia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Ave. E., made the following recommendations with respect to the. Proposed Official Plan Amendment: Precinct A - remove proposed road off 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 low density; Precinct E - access should be off Sheppard Ave.; Precinct G - concerned about noise, should be a 10 metre buffer. John Ibbitson, 787 Sheppard Ave., requested that Precincts A, B, C & D remain low density. He advised that he has always been Opposed to changing the south side of Sheppard Ave. to medium density and requests that a Iow density of 30 homes be approved. He stated that the area wildlife will disappear if this is approved. Bill Sorenberger, 750 Sheppard Ave. stated his concern with increased traffic and access to this site for emergency vehicles. 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. Tim Costor, 827 Sheppard Ave., advised that he is a resident of Precinct E and requested that a condition requiring land assembly of the four parcels in Precinct E before 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 Ministry 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 wash. Lorreli Jones, representing Wood Carroll, stated that their largest concern is the public road advising that the Ontario Municipal Board decided that no public road is necessary. Also stated their concern that the Official Plan provides for a functional second storey and requested that Council delete this. 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. 0.16 ER]NG 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) 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. 1) 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 0.17 FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning 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 background information the Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study, Phase 1 report, dated September, 2001, and the Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study, Phase 2 report, dated May, 2002, prepared by TSH Associates for the City (previously distributed under separate cover); That Council receive as background information the Amberlea Creek Northeast Quadrant - Assessment of Alternatives, dated September, 2001, prepared by Schollen & Company Inc. for the City, (previously distributed under separate cover); o 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 recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review", as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 23-02; That Council adopt, in principle, the revised "Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines" as the City's strategy for detailed land 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 the final official plan amendment that is brought back to Council; o 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 bY-laws being adopted for their lands; and o That Council direct the City Clerk to forward a copy of Report Number PD 23-02 to the Region of Durham, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and the funding landowners within the Northeast Quadrant. ORIGIN: 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 NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 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. EXECUTWE SUMMARY: In 1990, Council approved the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. The Guidelines contemplated a high intensity of mixed-use development with substantial underground 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 May 1, 2002 Page 3 1.1 1.3 1.4 A tributary of Amberlea Creek traverses the Quadrant and flows in a southerly direction under Kingston Road, through the Boyer lands, under the Highway 401 on/off ramp, connecting to the main branch of Amberlea Creek and into Frenchman's Bay. History The existing Development Guidelines were formulated through a review of the land use policies in the Highway No.2 - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Study initiated by Pickering 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-use development with substantial underground parking. An internal residential neighbourhood focused around a ting 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 copy of the concept plan from the current Development Guidelines is attached (see Attachment #2). Recently, there has been significant market interest throughout the quadrant and landowners are requesting that changes to specific elements of the current Guidelines be made. These changes relate to the arrangement of uses, design matters, provision of the park, provision of the internal ring road, and access to the external road network. As well, other on-going challenges include the 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 ting road, and the location of the Amberlea Creek tributary bisecting the Quadrant. In an effort to be more proactive in working with development interests, the City commenced a review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. Development Applications Within the Northeast Quadrant Review area, several development applications have been submitted including: Wood/Carroll (Hayes Line Properties) (A 22/00) · Lydia Dobbin/City of Pickering (Marion Hill Development Corporation) (OPA 01 002/P & A 04/01) · Michael Boyer/Pickedng Holdings Inc./Veridian Corporation (A 40/01) · North American Acquisitions (old Dunbarton 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 & Development Department retained the following consultants: · Schollen & Company, an environmental consultant to determine the feasibility for piping the Amberlea Creek tributary; · 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. 0 2 0REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1, 2002 Page 4 2.0 2.1 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 g4 to this Report. As well, copies of the reports are available for public review in the Planning & Development Department. Public Consultation 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 17, 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 021 May 1, 2002 Page 5 2.3 3.0 radius curves for the first 110 metres of the north limit of the current Kingston Road/Highway ramp intersection in order to provide adequate stopping distances for any vehicles that mn the amber light at the intersection. MTO commented that they would prohibit full moves access points along the first 180 metres 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 #9). 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 following: the proposed density of development is too high; the existing mature 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 (see Attachment #10). Robert McConachie, 770 Kingston Road, indicated that the City should be responsible for paying the entire consulting costs or require all landowners in Quadrant to pay equal amounts toward the cost of the studies (see Attachment #11). Klm Baker, Valarie Lawson, and Shane Legere, 765 Sheppard Ave, 757 Sheppard Ave, and 751 Sheppard Ave., indicated they should have the opportunity to sell off a portion of their backyards for development. They also commented that it would beneficial to the City and its residents that development of this area be appealing to the eye, easily accessed and with amenities and services that are best suited for the area (see Attachment #12). Stefan & Raffi Nalbandian, 1475 & 1485 Whites Road, indicated that "Access Concept B" proposed in the Transportation Study restricts access to our property by "right in-right out" access only (by 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 3.1 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 City, supports a mix ofland uses at higher intensities, and reinforces and enhances the pedestrian network. At the same time, the Guidelines are cognizant of current development realities while providing the foundation for redevelopment and 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 on/off ramp. 0.9. 2 REPORT NUMBER 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 fi'ontage, 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 term. 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 Density 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 from 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 023 May 1, 2002 Page 7 reduction of traffic speeds and improvement of pedestrian safety along Sheppard Avenue by implementing pavement markings and other measures is proposed. The City will consider additional "traffic-calming" techniques following the adoption of a safer street traffic management policy. Oi~ of Pickerin0 Plannin9 & Development Depadment NOBTH~ST QUAD~NT ~ND USE P~EGINGT8 ~ WOOD~DSBoUND~y NEIGHBOURHOOD ~ ~D USE PRECINCTS ~.~ NOR~EASTBouND~y QUAD~ I ooA~ 1:6000 DAT~ OOl. 2~, 2001 II- Precinct B Nine residential lots fronting Sheppard Avenue, east of the City's property, characterize this Precinct. The lands are currently designated Low Density Residential along the Sheppard Avenue frontage and Medium Density Residential in the interior. The existing residential character is low 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 024 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 Density 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 permits 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 0?5 May 1, 2002 Page 9 congested area, and is proposing a new policy prohibiting the development of any new gas bars, automobile service stations, or car washes for lands designated Mixed Used Area - Mixed Corridors or Medium Density Residential within in the Northeast Quadrant. The revised Guidelines for commercial proposals along Kingston Road would also apply to Precincts D and E. 3.3 3.4 3.5 Precincts F and G Both properties are currently designated Mixed Corridor. 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 development on lands within Precinct F would be required to maintain a 1 O-metre buffer strip from Amberlea Creek unless piped. Internal Public Road The current Guidelines contemplated an internal ring road, with an interior linear park as a focus for a residential neighbourhood, and to accommodate access movement within the Northeast Quadrant. Through the Review process, it has been determined that an internal east-west public road (10 metre wide right-of-way), through the Quadrant would provide an appropriate traffic circulation system between Delta Boulevard and the new signalized access opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp (see Access Concept E in Appendix 1I). This internal public road 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. Staff is proposing that the new public road be designated as a collector road on Schedule II - Transportation in 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 Dunbarton 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 the Region of Durham and the Ministry 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 requiting 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 an open channel for this stream. The Schollen report on the feasibility of piping the creek has concluded that a net environmental benefit will result from construction of a downstream stormwater pond on lands north of Highway 401, and could allow consideration of piping the tributary. Until a decision is reached on the matter of the stormwater management facility, the creek channel will remain open. This will require applications to respond to TRCA's normal requirement for a 1 O-metre buffer between development and the stream corridor. Stormwater Treatment The Schollen Report on the Amberlea Creek tributary, the potential for a downstream Amberlea stormwater quantity/quality control facility is being investigated. In the event development within the Quadrant precedes construction of the Amberlea pond, 0 ? ~ REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1, 2002 Page 10 3.6 3.7 3.8 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. 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 Il 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. 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 ensuring a sensitive 'fit' to the existing neighbourhood context. As well, the framework provides direction and guidance 'for the reorganization of the built and natural environments that could result in the transformation of this section of Kingston Road into a more vibrant "mainstreet". It is therefore recommended that Council endorse the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review", as set out in Report to Council PD 23-02 and adopt, in principle, the revised "Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines". Further, it is recommended that staff be authorized 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 recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review". 0.9 8 REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 Northeast Quadrant Final Review May 1, 2002 Page 12 APPENDICES I. Potential Amendments to the Picketing Official Plan 11. 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 10. Letter from Vivian Vandenhazel dated October 30, 2001 11. Letter from Robert McConachie dated November 6, 2001 12. Letter from Kim Baker, Valatie Lawson, and Shane Legere received February 12, 2002 13. Letter from Stefan & Raffi Nalbandian dated October 30, 2001 Prepared By: Grant' McGregor, MCIP, R~;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 Carr~_~.IP~ RPP ' Director, Pla~ng/and Development Recommended for the consideration of Picketing City Council / Tho/m~s J. Quir~, Chietf Admin"t~i;v~'Of;t~er 0?9 APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT AREA 030 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 Statutory 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 Density; · 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, west of the main Amberlea Creek tributary, 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; 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, (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 Pickering 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 ma3' 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 implementing zoning by-laws for each site; (B) all buildings to be a minimum of two storeys in height; (C) commercial development to provide second storey functional floor space, with the minimum 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 density of 55 units per net hectare for lands located within the area governed by the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines that are designated Urban Residential - Medium Density, in light of their location abutting lands developed as low density development; (ih') 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 Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue close to the street edge, with the front doors facing the street, 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; (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 Amendment for information purposes only; it does not constitute part of the amendment. 032 Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02 Page 3 Potential Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area (0 (vii) recognize the existing low density 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 4.11(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 comer of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, in the future, to right-in/right-out tums 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), 3,9(b), 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 the Picketing 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, recognizing the interests of landowners within the Northeast Quadrant on whose lands Amberlea Creek tributary flows to pipe that tributary, and the interests of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to 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 Amberlea Creek tributary to: (A) submit an environmental/ stormwater management report, to the satisfaction of the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, which report must demonstrate a strategy 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; and (iii) ensure that development proposals are undertaken in a manner that does not adversely impact downstream water quality and quantity through the use of on-site controls and/or financial contributions to a downstream stormwater facility if necessary; and (h) to provide additional direction on implementation matters for lands covered by the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, (i) through the use of/he holding provisions of the Planning Act, require where necessary, proponents to enter into agreements with the City, 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 necessary; providing 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." Delete in its entirety, section 3.16, Urban Study Area: Old Dunbarton School policies, which policies identify that City Council shall, following the results of an appropriate land use, transportation and design study, establish appropriate land use designations and policies for the subject lands, by amendment. City.initiamt R-view of the Northea~ Q~lraat Dev~tol~nmt Gaidelines May 2, 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 Pickering Official Plan Referred to in the Potential Amendment Provided for Information Purposes Only- Not Part of Potential Amendment Mixed Use Areas ~ Permissible Uses Subcategory i (Restrictions and limitations on the uses permissible, arising from other ................................. i p..oHcics of this Plan, will be detailed in zoning by-laws.) Local Nodes Residential; i Retailing of goods and services generally serving the needs of the i surrounding neighbourhoods; i Offices and restaurants; i Community, cultural and recreational uses. Community Nodes i All uses permissible in Local Nodes, at a larger scale and intensity, i 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; .t i Special purpose commercial uses. 3.6 City Council, (a) ...; (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 6 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 Information Purposes Only - Not Part of Potential Amendment ....... Maximum Gross - Maximu Mixed Use Maximum and Minimum Areas Net Residential Density Leasable Floorspace for Floorspace Index Subcategory (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 2.O FSI including 80 Community over 80 and up to and up to and including 20,000 up to and including 2.5 FSI Nodes including 140 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 3.0 FSI Core including 180 i Permissible Uses (Restrictions and Designation i limitations on the uses permissible, arising from other pOlicies of this Plan, will be detailed in [ zoning by,laws.) Urban Residential i Residential uses, home occupations, limited Areas ' offices serving the area, and limited retailing of goods and setwices serving the area; Community, cultural and recreational uses; ' ComPatible employment 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; i MaXimum and Minimum Residential Area i Net Residential Density Subcateg°taY i (in dwellings per net hectare) iLOw DenSity Area i up to and including 30 Medium Density Area ' i over 30 and up to and including 80 High Density Area i over 80 and up to and including 140 036 Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02 Page 7 Potential Amendment 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 shaH, (b) .. 4, (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) vary 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 adiacent 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' W ¢.X.N~.~'~ ,' , /~' : I CORRIDORS" AND "URBAN RESlDE~ _ REDESIGNAm FROM "OTHER ~' ~ AR~S LOW DENSI~ AR~' TO 'URB~ DESIGNATIONS-URB~ S~DY AR~S TO ~," ' I jRESIdeNTIAL ~S-MEDIUM DENS~ ~ "MIXED USE AR~S-M~ED ~RRIDORS" ~,~ E~ ~OM SC~D~E I TO ~ ~ USE PIC mNG AREAS ~//~ PRESTIGE EMPLOYMENT ~--1 CONTROLLED ACCESS AR~S ED~ON 2 ~ ACTIVE RECR~TIONAL AR~S URBAN RESIDENTIAL AR~S OTHER DESIGNATIONS ~ MARINA AR~S LOW DENSI~ AR~S I URBAN ~UDY ar~s MIXED USE AR~S ~ MEDIUM DENSI~ AR~S --~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ LOCAL NODES S~ET 10~ 3 SCHEDULE 'B' ADD NEW COLLECTOR ROAD EXTRACT FROM SCFIF~DULE TrTO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN EDITION TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM mmmm FI~EEWAYS m mm mm m mmmmm I'YPE A ARTERIAL- ROADS mm mm m mm m I'YP£ B ART[RIAL ROADS mm m m mm m lYPE C ARTERIAL ROADS mm m mm Im mm COLLEC'FOR ROADS m m mm mm LOCAL ROADS O FREEWAY INTERCHANGES O RAILWAY~ GO RAIL ~ ~ · ~ TRANSIT SPINES O,q. 7 APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT 038 WoOdlands Neighbourhood Section F1 Northeast Quadrant DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES NA'IqONAL ~IEVIEW AUTUMN CR. RAILWAYS AVENUE - PLACE BRAEBURN DAY OD O OUNF'AIR OOURT SHAOYBROOK SHEPPARD LANE HILL COURT ROAD / / / DRIVE EDGE LANE: OKLAHOMA S'I'ONEBRIDGE 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 Summary Figure I Page 1 2 2 3 13 14 15 16 17 This Draft Guideline was prepared for discussion purposes, May 3, 2002 040 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 that 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 Pickering in the late 1980's. In 1990, Picketing 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 Qug~drant 'l-ransport~tion 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 Picketing 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 comers. 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 Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 2 F1.3 Northeast Quadrant Objectives The development of lands affected by the Development Guidelines will strive to achieve the urban design objectives of chapter 9 - "Community Design", Chapter 13 - "Detailed Design Considerations", and the Kingston Road Corridor Urban Design Development Guidelines of the Official Plan. It is the intent of these guidelines to both further those objectives and embellish the ones listed below: 1. To provide a quality 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 complementary landscape treatment throughout the Northeast Quadrant. 3. To provide a quality urban image by encouraging a coordinated effort to improving the streetscape that includes pedestrian oriented furnishings and other appropriate improvements. To provide a safe, pleasant, o0mfortable and 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 the stormwater management issues facing this area and to work cooperatively with all agencies towards a suitable resolution of issues. 042 Draft Northeast C~uadrant Development Guidelines(May 3, 2002) Page 3 F1.4 Urban Design Guidelines The following guidelines have been developed to help objectives. 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: 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: Building~ 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 rati° established in each implementing zoning bylaw. Development will employ innovative architectural designs utilizing high quality materials to humanize the street, mitigate the effects of traffic, and present an attractive frontage along public roads. ~ 043 Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 4 No blank walls shall be exposed to public right of ways. Buildings that front the street should be constructed with street level windows and entrances to buildings directly off of the public right. 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. Pedestrian entry doors facing Kingston Road will be required regardless of whether these are the mai-n entry points. ~ I I \ .-..'t:~'r'~ ~ 3.0 Rooftop Equipment ...--'" -""-~' II I · All mechanical equipment must be ~~ [~ adequately screened and all commercial "l buildings should contain their rooftop ~1 I~ mechanical equipment either in small rooftop elements or under roof profiles. 4.0 Parking: Parking areas will be required to be attractively 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. 'STEEET oa4 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 fa~:ade 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 Ouadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 6 7.0 Odour Control: · For all restaurant uses, restaurant cooking ventilation systems shall incorporate ecologizer, water wash, ultraviolet or other equivalent odour extraction mechanisms sufficient to ensure that the resulting exhaust 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 the 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 and maintained lane, aligned as indicated in Access Concept E, attached as Figure 1, of approximately 10 metres 04 6 Draft Northeast Quadrant 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 fr. ontages to allow .for comfortable pedestrian circulation and' adequate landscaping and site fumishings 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. 047 Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 8 · Garbage and recycling storage can also be handled interior to the building itself. · Any outdoor storage shall be completely screened within a structure. 14.0 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 the street boulevard is preferred. · Berms are not considered appropriate along the frontage of a commercial property. As the percentage of front yard landscaping decreases the intensity and quality of landscaping throughout the site shall increase. 15.0 COM~Eq~.C.~,L j ~sWEs4'~,L Buffers: · Adequate and attractive buffering between commercial and residential development shall be required; landscape elements including fencing may be utilized 16.0 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. 048 Draft Northeast Quadrant 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 reliefs a residential character. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines.(Ma¥ 3t 2002) Page 10 F1.4.2 Residential Development Proposals In reviewing residential development proposals: 1. 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. 2. New residential development shall be integrated into the area in a manner that is both respectful of the character of the exi_~ting neighborhood and serves as an interface between this area and the surrounding lands. o 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 including pedestrian connections into the site. o 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 ~I '~'~' ~4,~. facing the public right of way. 050 Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. north south from the end of Delta Blvd connecting to the sidewalk on the I l~;I~p~]~ (~ south side of Sheppard Avenue, and / ~'.-~ig_~--~-~ [ includes up-graded landscape ti'eatment / ~ '.':111 and a minimum 2.0 metre wide ~[ ' ......... sidewalk, shall be included as an/ ~!~- '"~'~' .___:T. ". ~ easement for pedestrian access granted ~ '" ' ~-~'~ "~ to the City. / ] i.~~... ~~[~~"' ~ - 1~ Allowance for comfortable and convenient . ..~~ pedestrian movement from areas north ] [i and west of this location to destinations to the south shall be integrated into the site layout. 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 fa~:ade 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 C~uadrant Development Guidelines.(Ma_.Y_~ 2002) Pa o New residential development along Whites Road shall be a minimum 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. Architectural detailing and stepping the footprint of the front and rear facades shall be utilized to avoid the appearance of long flat walls. 10. A new sidewalk shall be constructed Avenue. A vegetative buffer and a generous sideyard width will be required along the eastern property line separating any proposed residential development at the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue from the existing neighbourhood. Attractive and appropriate landscaping will be required both on the perimeters along the south side of Sheppard of the development facing the streets and interior to the site. 052 Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 13 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 the development, shall not spill over into adjacent properties or streets, and shall be downcast to avoid excessive light pollution. '~0HT 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 £, 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 E, with signalized intersections along 053 Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3r 2002) Page 14 Kingston Road occurring at the 401 westbound o.n/off ramp, Delta Boulevard and Whites Road. The City of Picketing acknowledges and advises landowners and developers that the intersection' of Kingston Road and the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp is under the sole jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation. Further, the City acknowledges and advises landowners and developers that remaining access locations along Kingston Road and Whites 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 Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, is supported. Despite the access restrictions to Sheppard Avenue shown on Figure 1, Access Concept E, for a'ny new residential' development ~roposals located along Sheppard Avenue east of the residential development proposed at the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, the City will consider permitting selected additional accesses. As a condition of development, landowners will be required to enter into development agreements to construct, at their cost, the new collector road, to the City's satisfaction, Additionally, the City will support all opportunities for shared access from abutting private property to public streets as well as coordinated internal access, between private properties, and will require the granting of easements in favour of neighbouring landowners and/or the City if deemed necessary. Where the new collector road intersects with Kingston Road opposite the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp, the proponent of development on those lands shall require approval of the entrance configuration from the Ministry of Transportation in consultation with the Region of Durham, and the City, prior to consideration by Council of any zoning by-law amendment application for those lands. In the event the intersection is not approved, alternative access to Kingston Road would be required. F 1.6 Stormwater The Amberlea Creek Northeast Quadrant - Assessment of Alternatives study, prepared by Schollen & Company Inc., identifies an option for a storm sewer extension of the existing system south of Sheppard Avenue to the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp. The City supports the piping of the existing tributary o'f Amberlea Creek, which traverses the Northeast Quadrant, as an integral component of a stormwater management system that includes a storm sewer system and a stormwater management pond. The stormwater facility is required to control both quality and quantity stormwater. A substantial net benefit to the downstream environment must be demonstrated in order to warrant consideration of piping the tributary. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Pa§e 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. 055 Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002) Page 16 F1.8 Summary The Northeast Quadrant Guidelines were prepared balancing the at times competing interests in the lands of the various concerned parties. The Guidelines were prepared to aid developers in designing their development projects, and to assist the Planning & Development Department in reviewing proposals in this area. A distillation of issues relating to the City's objectives and the concerns of the development community and the neighbouring residents was required. The Guidelines are laid out to first provide the City's overall 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, Residential Development Proposals and further to cover Transportation, Stormwater Management, and Implementation matters. 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 all development proposals in this area. . 056 Figure 1 Page 17 ATTADIUEETJ, 1--- TO ,, 057 CRESCENT LANE STROUDS HEDGEROW STROUDS IGARDEN LANE FLAVELLE COURT TRAIL C.N.R. WEYBURN Ill AVENUE EDGE'WOOD COURT SHADYBROOK JACQUEUNE C.N.R. WELRUS STREET SHEPPARD AVENUE SHEPPARD AVENUE ROAD STEEPLE HILL City of Pickering DRIVE BREDA AVENUE SANOK III - Planning & Development Department [IIIlI- · · NORTHEAST ~IIIllP QUADRANT REVIEW AREA IDATE MAY 2, 2002 058 CONCEPT ATTACHMENT # '~ TO REPORT ~' PD 2.~- ('-')2 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Within the Northeast Quadrant Review area, several development applications have been submitted to the City as follows: · Wood/Carroll (Hayes Line Properties) (A 22/00) The original application proposed zoning amendments to implement a preliminary conceptual site plan that included 18 townhouses on the north part of the site and 1625 square metres of commercial/retail and restaurant uses on the lands fronting Kingston Road.). Despite Council's authorization to undertake the Quadrant review, Hayes Line Properties Inc. appealed Council's neglect to make a decision on the application to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The application was revised through the submission to the OMB of a new proposed amending zoning by-law. The City received circulation of the revised by-law in December 2001 to implement a revised preliminary site concept. The revised preliminary site concept eliminated the residential uses and reconfigured one-storey retail/commercial/restaurant building envelopes. On February 14 and 15, 2002, the OMB heard the appeal and delivered its decision on April 11, 2002. The OMB approved commercial zoning for the entire property providing for: one-storey buildings with a two-storey fagade; the location of front walls of buildings required to occupy at least 25% of a 'build-to' zone along the Kingston Road frontage; connectivity 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 are addressed. The OMB will issue its formal order once the final implementing Zoning By-law is provided to the Board. Lydia Dobbin/City of Picketing (Marion Hill Development Corporation) (OPA 01-002/P & A 04/01) The proposal consists of constructing 97 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 Veridian Corporation, which abuts the Dobbin property. A statutory public meeting on the application was heard on May 17, 2001. Michael Boyer/Pickering Holdings Inc./Vetidian Corporation (A 40/01) The proposal consists of expanding the list of permitted uses by consolidating the prevailing "sc-8" and "ca3-3" categories into a single and inclusive zone. The application applies to lands located at the southwest comer of Kingston Road and the Highway 401 on/offramp east of Whites Road. North American Acquisitions ("old" Dunbarton School Property) (OPA 01-003/P & A 10/01) The proposal consists of constructing of 2,1000 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 facilities are located within two other buildings on the west part of the site separated by a proposed right-of-way to the abutting property to the west. 060 ATTACHMENT #,,, ~ TO REPORT # PD 2~-(~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 Amberlea 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 ~berlea 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 oppommity 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 ATTACHMENT# ~ TO REPORT # PD 2.'~- 02, circulation system to serve the various properties within the Northeast Quadrant; two access concepts A and B have been developed (see Attachments #3 and 4); these access points will be refined through discussions with the City, Durham Region, MTO, and property owner/developers, and in the Phase 2 study will be subject to a traffic operations analysis Phase 2 - Draft Final Report prepared by TSH Associates dated May 2002 Conclusions reached as a result of the work undertaken for Phase 2 include: · due to signalized intersection spacing constraints, there are no opportunities other than the Highway 401 westbound on/of ramp location to develop a new signalized access on Kingston Road in the subject corridor; · in the future, it is likely that access to Study Area properties on the north and south sides of Kingston road will be restricted to right roms only. The proposed access road, opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp, would provide for traffic signal controlled left mm movements to and from this development area; the long-term development potential of the subject area is not likely to be achieved without the provision of an intemal road connecting the developable properties between Delta boulevard and the Dunbarton school site, and the related additional signalized access to Kingston Road opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp. It is the City's preference that the internal road connection be provided as a public road way, rather than thorough property easements; · without the access road opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/offramp, the road connecting the properties along the north side of Kingston Road may not be developed as envisioned and the implementation of access management in the Kingston road corridor will be difficult in the furore 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 Road/Dunfair Street due to its close probity to the existing traffic signal at Whites Road/Kingston road and Whites/Sheppard Avenue; · with the existing residential land use along the Sheppard Avenue corridor, and its functional classification as a Type 'C' medal, 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 Study, Phase 1 and Phase 2 Reports are available for public review in the Planning & Development Department at the City of Pickering. 062 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 Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. Attendees Staff:. Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy Grant McGregor, Principal Planner - Policy Steve Gaunt, Planner. 1I ~. Consultants / Developers: Alex Artuchov (representing Pickering Holdings (Boyer)) Lorelei Jones (rePresenting Wood Carroll) lan Matthews (representing Marion Hill) Robert McConachie Stefan & Raffi Nalbandian (submitted letter, see attached) Ron Richards (representing 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: ATTACHMENT i~ '"-~'- TO RF. PORT # PD Public Information Meeting 063 October 30, 2001 Page 2 John Ibettson: mentioned that his neighbour's property has an angled property line at south-east comer · confused that Mixed Corridor is an option for his property · asks, "Where's the proposal"? is concerned about noise from car wash close to his home · wants homes on south side of Sheppard · does not want gas stations or other commercial uses that stay open between 8 pm and8 am · says Wood Carroll homes don't fit - concerned with style/price/property value/class of 0ccupant/height/oveJ:look over swimming pool/privacy · says residential area nOrth of road should front road and be low density David Steele: · · · · is concerned with environmental impact is opposed in general to piping creek wants Schollen report reviewed by Dr. Eyles at University of Toronto has no confidence in TRCA Ron Richards: · stated staff is not giving any real consideration to or consulting with develOPment interests, including transportation study · rejects staff's findings in the Information Package as they apply to his client's property · use of word "development guidelines" wrong - should be "design guidelines" · comment in Information Package that there is little opportunity for vehicular access is wrong · traffic conclusions in the Information Package are not the only conclusions available and other options are possible including access to site at full intersection. Grant McGregor: · transportation issues will be reviewed and other conclusions are possible Ron Richards: · wants full commercial · Mixed Corridor use option does not clearly permit this · suggests more meetings ATTACHMENT# _F'3 TO REPORT # PD Meeting Notes Northeast Quadrant Review: Public Information Meeting October 30, 2001 Page 3 Irene McNamara too much 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 many homes 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 akeady · 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 Eom City lands for only eight houses - low density i.e. rear land · and same on school site - would be seven hous.es · 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 AT]'AOblI'~EN'I' # ~ TO ,, Meeting Notes Northeast Quadrant Review: Public Information Meeting 065 October 30, 2001 Page 4 John Ibettson: · maintain low density on Sheppard Avenue · there are too many townhomes proposed · there are too many cars and that the traffic is dangerous Mrs. Costar: concerned with safety of any proposed bank because robbers can easily escape onto Highway 401 Several People: · no restaurants, car wash, gas stations or bank Ian Matthews: · there are always concerns · willing to meet with residents Lorelie Jones: · developers concerned that information from City not good enough · not enough land for public road on their property · will want all commercial on Wood Carroll site Wiiraa Flavelle: · Sheppard and.Whites are plugged .with traffic · too much traffic, parked cars - all day and night · Sheppard not safe · lights from Tim Hortons shine onto our properties Several People: · Boyer's has loud speakers that disturb area residents Mrs. Costar: · fights from 401 off-ramp shine onto our properties Mrs. Ibettson: · how high ora fence can she build [call Clerk's for sign by-law information] Mr. Costar: lives in Precinct E can it be a mix of use? could access be provided from former school site? 066 Meeting Notes Northeast Quadrant Review: ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT # PD_ 2~- 02. Public Information Meeting October 30, 2001 Page 5 Ms 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 Tim Costar: concerned that mosquitoes stormwater pond could be dangerous for kids and will breed Catherine Rose: · wrap-up · welcomes sharing Schollen 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 ATTACHMENT# ~0 TO REPOR7 # PD '2~- 02. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEETING NOTES Subject: Northeast Quadrant Review Design Workshop Meeting Place and Time: November 24, 2001 - 9:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. Picketing Civic Complex - Library Auditorium 'Attendees: Staff: Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy Grant McGregor, Principal Planner - Policy John McMullen, Senior Planner - Site Planning Steve Gaunt, Planner II City's Consultants: Ronji Borooah, Planner & Architect, of Markson, Borooah, Hodgson Architects Ltd. Garry Pappin, Transportation Consultant, of TSH Associates Landowners / Agents: Lorelei Jones (representing Wood, Carroll, et al) Ron Richards (representing North American Acquisitions) Robert McConachie Robert Gordon Mr. Case Vincent Santamaura (representing Marion Hill) Alex Artuchov (representing Picketing Holdings (Boyer)) Residents: Vivian VandenHazel Raouf Besharat John Ibettson Ann Picton Mr. & Mrs. Costar John Hache Bonnie Bayes & Mr. Bayes kene McNamara Robert Laurie Diana Robinson Irene Moult John Mahar Bill Somberger Sylvia Spencer Wilma & Ken Flavell David Steele Councillors: none present O68 Meeting Notes ATTACHMENT R,':PORT # 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 oppommities, constraints of the Quadrant, the sites within the Quadrant and the individual development proposals. TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION UPDATE (Gary Pappin, TSIt 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 right 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 - KINGSTON ROAD DEVELOPMENTS (Facilitator: Steve Gaunt) (Wood/Carroll [Hayes Line Properties], North American Acquisitions [Dunbarton school site], Boyer/Pickering Holdings) Meeting Notes ATTACHMENT REPORT ~' PD Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop November 24, 2001 Page 3 Ron Richards (for North American Acquisitions): · offered to meet with residents to discuss his propos.al; Lorelei Jones (for Wood, Carroll (Hayes Line Properties)): · not supportive of public road; · prepared to work with City and residents easement across their property. to achieve an acceptable access Sylvia Spencer: · if no public road, rear of lots will be landlocked; · wants the Sheppard frontage lands to remain as low density residential. Mrs. McNamara: · vehicle repair shops, restaurants, gas stations, car washes, car sales and banks should not be permitted in the Quadrant; · concerned with buffering for light; screening and fencing should be done properly; trees, including the whole tree line and particularly the existing big maple tree, should be retained; Mr. Ibettson: · · objects to townhomes; wants good buffering and screening between existing homes and yards and proposed new development. A Resident: · Ministry of Transportation and Communications has control over road access from Kingston Road and the length of such road Ron Richards: · the cost of constructing and providing the land for a public road will be too expensive for his client; consequently, other developers and/or the City should contribute to its cost. A Resident: · regarding buffeting: asked for an example of adequate buffering/sound barriers to protect residential uses from car washes and 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. 0 7 0 Meeting Notes ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT # PD ~,,4- 02. 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 ATTACHMENT #~TO RF. PORT # PD 2_~ Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop 071 November 24, 2001 Page 5 GROUP 2 - MARION HILL DEVELOPMENT (Facilitator: Grant McGregor) Grant McGregor: · Introductions; Vincent Santamaura: · Provided the Group with an overview of the Marion Hill Development; Grant McGregor: · 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 Avenue by parents dropping off and/or picking-up their children from the Dunbarton High School. It was suggested that the City should be enforcing the no parking bylaw. The participants in the Group generally agreed that the Marion Hill townhouse proposal was too dense for the neighbourhood. As well, there were 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 witlfin the development. were expressed. The Group indicated their preference for eight single detached lots along Sheppard Avenue as opposed to the Marion Hill townhouse proposal. Townhouse units, if constructed should be located in behind the single detached lots and similar in design to the townhouse units constructed by John Body 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 and 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 the Group participants that a greenspace corridor along the frontage 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 units. Them 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. Alternatively, access should be directed t° Delta Blvd and/or Whites Road. 072 Meeting Notes ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT # PD 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 concern 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. Them was also the suggestion that the City owned lands, in conjunction with a natural trail along Ambeflea 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 Ambeflea 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 Pickering Works staff within a couple of weeks [now slated for January, 2002]; · indicated that a'copy of the notes from this Workshop 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 rescheduled fi'om 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 Pickering Civic Centre One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Ms. Rose: ATTACHMENT #. REPORT # PDt, 073 ........0C1' 3 0 CiTY OF pIcKERING pICF, ERING, ONTARIO OCT 1 2001 r L/: ":':'D DEVELOPMEN 1 DEPARTMENT 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 Schollen & 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, ~iRussel White Senior Planner Development Services Section Extension 5306 RW/gc CC: Laud Matos, DFO Rob Fancy, MNR F:\PRS\CORRESP\PICKERIN~AMBERLEA, WPD 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 154 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www. trca.on.ca NOV.-09' ~1 (FRI) O74 Ministry of Transportation 16:07 CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT Mlnlstt're d~ ATTACHMENT #~ TO REPORT # TEL:4162354267 Ontario 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 Downsview, Ontario M3M 1J$ November 9, 2001 File No: 42-80197 City of Picketing Planning & Development Department. Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: G-r. ll]nL McGregor Dear Sir: Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study Phase I Final Report City of Pickering 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, Om concerns regarding the alternatives involving access across from the Highway 401 E;E/W ramp are: as follows: · A~ 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 maintained to ensure preference is given to ramp traffic. · If northbound through movements are considered bom the ramp to the accessi it must be ensured that minimum stopping distances are maintained. The current advisory speed on the ramp is 50kin/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 minimmn ATTACHMENT # ~'~ TO REPORT ~' PD 2"~-(~_ · NO¥,-Og'OI(FRI) 16:07 CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT 0 7 5 TEL:4162354267 P, O03 stopping distance of 110rn is required, which means there should be no accesses, no conflict points, no sharp radius cttrves, etc. within 110m north of the north limit of the intersection. · Some alternatives consider a southbound le~ mm movement to Ilo east on Kingston Road. This presents a conflict point if northbound ramp vehicles are permitted through the intersection to the development (Alternatives 1, 2, and possibly Access Concept B). If northbound ramp vehicles are permitted through the inters~tion, as shown in Alternative 3, "no though access" signage would have to erected for the ramp. This may not be effective, and depending.where this signing is erected, it may possibly confuse Kingston Road left turn and right mm vehicles attempting to access the development. · The road would have to be a public road, (not an entrance as indicated in CPA 01-003/P and ZBA Al0/01, for North American Acquisition Corp). We would also require that there be no full moves access points along the first lg0m of this road..This requirement may preclude the viability of the gas bar as indicated in the OPA/ZBA. We 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: 1. Estimates of site generated traffic 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 traffic service' o Highway 401 and associated ramps and ramp terminals on Whites Road and Kingston Road. Analysis of existing traffic conditions Table I - Characteristics of Study area roads - does not include the Hwy 401 WB on ramp rrm southbound on Whites road. From Figure I - Study Area - the Whites road north and south approaches ramps to WB 401 fall within the boundaries of the Study area. At least the on ramp fi'om the nor~ approach of Whites road should be included for analysis in Phase 2. This one lane on-ramp had peak a.n volume of about 1900 vph, ac6ording to our 1995 database. Please provide justification for thc assumption that p.m. peak hour vohane is 12% -of daily traffic (Table -cohmm 6). A check with Kingston on/off ramp 1995 data indicates an averag~ of about 6.7% of dui! traffic as p.m. peak volume, and ranges from 6°/° to 10%. Using .12% for all roads in the study an underestimates the daily lxaffic where the actual percentage is less. The consultant should determine tt actual percentage for each road. Also, it should be conftrmed that the daily traffic is an estimation of ti annual average daily traffic. As well, Table 1 does not indicate the dates for the pan: peak hour volume from which the daily traffic was estimated. 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 comment~ 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 further information or clarification. Yours truly, Charlie Petro Project Manager CC. Tom Hewitt, MTO Michael DeMichelc, MTO Ken Sherbanowski, MTO Steve Gaunt, City of Pickering Steve Mayhew, Durham Region ATTACHMENT f (~. TO REPORT # PD 2'"z~-(32. ~EB,~26'O2('TUE) 18:00 GORRIDOR MANAGEMENT TEL:4162354267 P, 002 (t76 Mifll{iry of Minbf~re dra Tran~portntinfl TrmnJporta Ontario Phone: Fax: E-maih (416) 235-3509 (416) 235-4267 charl es.petro~.mto.gov.on.ca City of Picketing Planning & Development Department Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Orant McCrregor Dear Sir: Corridor Management Office 7th Floor, Atrium Tower 1201 Wilson Avenue Downsview, Ontario M3M 1J8 February 26, 2002 File No: 42-80197 Kingston Road- Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study Proposed Access Opposite Kingston Road/Highway 401 Westbotlnd On/Off Ramp City of Pickering Further to the meeting of January 30, 2002, we offer thc 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'~¢ourage 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 wi 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 deske to pursue the ramp terminal access mad option, we offer the following points for consideration: The need for this access must bej~tified. Other options'must also be examined and the b~nefits 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 minist~, is not prepared to Sacrifice Level of Service of the Highway 401 Ramp Terminal. Also, any roadway/intersection/ramp improvements, 'should an acceptable design be developed and approved, shall be at no cost to MTO. · Any access across from the ramp terminal shall have no southbound through movement to access Highway 401WB. This through movement would necessitate an additional signal phase, which is not RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2002 CiTY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , ~TTACHMENT~~TO .. BEPOBT f PD~ .......... ?EB.,-26'O2(TUE) 18:01 CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT TEL:4162354267 P, O03 077 possible as ~e sisals are at capacity and the sisal timing has no fre~ time. Signal timing must be maintained to ensure preference is givem to ramp lxaffic. * Proposed road must be designed to meet the design, parameters of the offramp i.e. 70 kin/hr design speed. ' ' · Northbound through movements ~om the ramp to the access road, must be provided. Minimum stopping distances must be maintained. A southbound left turn movement to go east on Kingston Road presents a conflict point if northbound ramp vehicles are p~flllltted through the intersection to the development. At this time the Ministry is not prepared to accept these mov~nents. Similarly, a left turn movement into the development from eastbound Kingston Road also presents a conflict. Signal timing priorities must be as follows: 1) Highway 401 Ramp, 2) Kingston Road(Artexial Road), and finally, 3) Development access road at ramp terminal, The road would have to be a public road, (under Municipal jurisdiction and maintained to municipal standards). We would also require that there be no full moves access points along the first 180m of this road. This requirement may preclude the viability of any development near the intersection. In order to further our evalUation of access opportunities as they relate to Highway 401 and ramp terminals at Whites Road and Kingston Road, we will require: 1, A detailed traffic impact study, which reflects and identifies all of the proposed geometries of the roadway. Please note that ali comments submitted to you in our letter of November 9, 2001, still apply. I trust that this is sufficient to yo~ needs. information or clarification. CC, Tom Hewitt, MTO Michael DeMichcle, MTO Ken Sherbanowski, MTO Steve Gaunt, City of Picketing Steve Mayhew, DUrham Region Please do not hesitate to call should you require fur&er · _Yours truly, Charlie Petro Project Manager 0 7 8 -ANNING .'rio · ~.~ PMENT DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT# I0 TO ..,,. ~t ~7 9 REPORT # PD '~2~ -("J?_ ....... t SO ATTACHMENT #_. I.! . TO REPORT ~' PD 25-r52 ,,, 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 1 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 different schemes on two maps I feel 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 property line and are, east property line ali~Lming the entrance to these properties with Michael Boyer east entrance on the south side Kingston Rd. allowing 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 for an internal road of minimal width from Delta Blvd. to the Hwy. 401 interchange stoplights. Every public meeting I have attended, there arc a small handful of residents from Sheppard ave. that bring 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 personally come and look at these properties of the North East Quadrant to make their own decisions about the accusations of a small minority 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 1 would hope that this meeting will have a chairperson to keep this meeting in an orderly manner and be able to explain to the public if any issues arise. cc; N Carol G McGregor Councilor Brenner Councilor Ryan Thankyou R McConachie ~.~:~'~ ~"~.,... .... ..?~ ...... ATTACHMENT #_.~'~. TO · The City of Pickering Planning And Development Depart~nent, RECEIVED FEB 1 2 2002 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 backy, ards,for development. We realize that the Northeast Quadrant needs to be carefully planned, as Whites Road and Kingston Road is the main entrance off Hwy. #401 into the City of Picketing. It would be beneficial to the City of Picketing and it's residents that development of this area be appealing to the eye, easily accessed and with amenities and services 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 would also like to be given the opportunity, should it arise to be separated from the fourth lot 771 Sheppard Avenue which has shown no interest to have these lands developed. Yours Truly, Kim Baker 765 Sheppard Ave. Picketing, Ontario Valarie Lawson 757 Sheppard Ave. Pickering, Ontario. Shane Legere 751 Sheppard Ave. Picketing, Ontario L1V. 1G4 ................ L1V 1G4 L1V,!,G4 .. __ ..... ~.__ ,.:, ...."~' -~'~'"'~--__--______-,,~ c.c ~" 'Ontario Municipal Board File #Z010070 ATTACHMENT# I'~ _TO REPOR7 ~' PD 2..~- (~- Stef an and Raffi Nalbandian 3-30 Rivermede Road, Concord, Ov_t__a_rio, L4K 3N3 October 30, 2001 Mr. Grant McGregor Planning and Development Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario, LI V 6K7 Re: 1475& 1485 IFidtes Road Public Meeting North East Quadrant Review RECEIVED- OCT 3 0 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mr. McGregor ~Ye bought our property, municipally known as 1475 & 1485 tt~hites Road based on the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, which provides for full access road for our property onto ~Fhites Road. For tonight Public Meeting we received for comments the Kingston Road- t~Xhites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study, prepared by TSH. In this study in the alternative "Access Concept B "you are proposing to restrict the access to our property by '~ight in- right out" access road only (by means of raised center median). Proposed restricted access devaluates our property 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 Yt~hites Road and unrestricted access onto our property. Yours truly 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. REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE: May 31, 2002 ADDENDUM TO REPORT NUMBER: PD 24-02 SUBJECT: Amendment 8 to the Picketing Official Plan (Application OPA 01-002/P) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Marion Hill Development Corporation Part Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C. (now Part 1, Plan 14431 & Part 1, Plan 40R-2767) (South-east comer of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue) City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: That Addendum to Report Number PD 24-02 be received; 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. O~G~: City of Picketing Planning Committee, at its meeting held on May 13, 2002 approved Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-002/P to redesignate lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue to an Urban Residential Areas: Medium Density Areas designation, and add policies to the Woodlands Neighbourhood Policies. Council referred the recommendations respecting amendments to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 back to staff for further information. City Council adopted Amendment 8 to the Picketing Official Plan at its meeting held May 21, 2002. AUTHORITY: The PlanningAct, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 13. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct cost 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. Addendum to Report Number: PD 24-02 Date:. May 31, 2002 Subject: Amendment 8 to the Pickering Official Plan (Application OPA 01-002/P) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 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 Picketing 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 Iow density development, and the proposed access to Sheppard Avenue for the Marion Hill application. 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: 1.0 Planning 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 Picketing Official Plan be approved to change the designation for the portion of the subject lands that fronts Sheppard Avenue from Residential Low Density 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, o the zoning by-law amendment application be approved subject to numerous conditions. Addendum to Report Number: PD 24-02 Date: May 31, 2002 Subject: Amendment 8 to the Pickering Official Plan (Application OPA 01-002/P) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Page 3 On May 13th, Planning Committee approved recommendation #1, but referred recommendations #2 & #3 back to staff in light of Committee's earlier decision to only receive and refer back to staff the Report on the Northeast Quadrant. On May 21st, Council adopted the recommendations of Planning Committee and passed a by-law adopting Amendment 8 to the Pickering Official Plan. · 'S In response to Planning Committee request, staff has prepared this Addendum Report to Council providing additional information on the issues raised at the Planning Committee meeting. The Addendum Report provides options to address the issues raised, and provides staff comments on those options. The purpose of this addendum report is therefore twofold: · to provide options pertaining to the issues raised, and staff comments and recommendations on those options; and, to discuss issues pertaining to access to Sheppard Avenue, piping of the Amberlea Creek tributary and buffeting/compatibility of the proposed Marion Hill development from existing detached dwellings on Sheppard Avenue. 2.0 Issues/Options for the Marion Hill Proposal 2.1 "Issues/Options" Chart As directed by Planning Committee, staff has considered the issues raised at the May 13th Committee Meeting and at the May 21st Council Meeting. To assist Committee, a Chart has been prepared listing the issues raised, the options to address these issues, and the pros and cons of each option for the Northeast Quadrant Review and the Marion Hill proposal. The Chart is provided as Appendix I to this Report. Please note that for all issues raised (numbers 1 through 8) on the Chart, Option Number 1 is supported by staff, with the exception of issue 8, treatment the of Amberlea Creek tributary. There are three options proposed for the tributary of the Amberlea Creek: piping the watercourse; relocating it to the edge of the affected properties; and protecting the watercourse in its current location as an open space corridor. Staff initally supported the piping of the watercourse provided a net environmental benefit to Amberlea Creek and Frenchman'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 the watercourse through the Quadrant as an open space feature. Those issues that only pertain to the Marion Hill proposal are shown in BOLD on the Chart. 2.2 The Three Issues Access to Sheppard Avenue (Issue 1 on the Chart) The Chart sets out a full set of pros and cons for two optional ways of addressing this issue. Staff supports Option 1 - Permit full moves vehicular access from the Marion Hill development to Sheppard Avenue and does not support Option 2 - No vehicular access to Sheppard Avenue. Buffering/Compatibility with the Marion Hill property (Issue 3 in the Chart) The chart presents a full set of pros and cons for Option 1 - landscaped buffer of 6.5m, Option 2 - retention of open creek corridor with 1 Om buffer, Option 3 - provide planting buffer on abutting detached dwelling lot to east. The approach to buffering the Marion Hill townhouses from the detached dwellings on the south side of Sheppard Avenue is directly linked to the treatment of the watercourse Addendum to Report Number: PD 24-02 Date: May 31, 2002 Subject: Amendment 8 to the Pickering Official Plan (Application OPA 01-002/P) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Page 4 through City owned lands. However, any solution should provide specific means o1' ensuring a suitable transitional design strategy between the proposed townhouses and existing detached dwelling development. Specific details respecting buffering will be brought forward with the development details for Phase 2 lands of the 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 the 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 stormwater 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 24-02 Date: May 31, 2002 Subject: Amendment 8 to the Pickering Official Plan (Application OPA 01-002/P) Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Page 5 APPENDICES: I: "Issues/Options" Chart ATTACHMENT S: 1. Council Resolution #79/02 Prepared By: Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Planner 1I Catherine Rose Manager, Policy SG/:td Attachments Approved / End~.~ Neil Carrk~CI~, RPP Director, Pla~ing & Development Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tti'~ma'~ J. hui~Chief ~dmini~~~ 0?90 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 24-02 091 NO ISSUES OPTIONS COMMENTS RAISED . 1. Access to Option 1' Pros Sheppard Avenue Permit full moves * best access to Sheppard, Whites and Highway 401 for future vehicular access townhouse residents, visitors and delivery personnel; from Marion Hill * best emergency services access to townhouse development; development to · minimal traffic impact on the area disperses traffic impacts; Sheppard Avenue as · Sheppard Avenue has sufficient capacity to support nominal one of three increase in traffic at peak hours; vehicular access · less impact on traffic flow on Sheppard Avenue than points. The other individual driveways to detached houses; two proposed access · connects the new residential development with the Sheppard points aretheright- Avenue community - fosters improved neighbourhood in/right-out at cohesion; Whites Road and the gated access at Cons the end of Delta Blvd. · 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 the proposed gated entrance to the Marion Hill property; Supported by Staff Option 2 Pros No vehicular access · no change to real or perceived traffic operations, turning to Sheppard Avenue movements on Sheppard Avenue; (permit emergency · Marion Hill is willing to implement this option if required; vehicle access by knock-down/key Cons operated facility). · 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 for 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 Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD 24-02 0 2. New Collector Option 1' Pros Road Require a 10 metre · approval of access to signalized intersection at 401 westboum wide public road on/off ramp may be denied by MTO because private easemen across the north edge access cannot guarantee same operational control as a 'public of McConachie and road; Hayes Line · provides for internal east-west connections from the rear of th{ (Wood/Carroll) commercial properties between the school property and Delt.' property to connect Boulevard at such time as the Region of Durham restricts lef Delta Boulevard to turn access from Kingston Road; new public road · provides alternate public road access most likely to encouragt proposed for old mixed use/higher density development in rear portions o Dunbarton school commercial properties fronting Kingston Road and residentia property, 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 for higher standards required off public road; · Hayes Line noted that it would appeal any policy whict introduces a new public road requirement across rear of thei: property; · justification for need for a connection across rear of commercia properties as a 'public' road denied by OMB in recent appea decision for Hayes Line applications - this decision ma: influence the OMB's position respecting the need for a 'public road across the middle of the quadrant; Supported by Staff Option 2 Pros Require public road · builds on road block in City's ownership at rear of Delt~ across rear of Boulevard development; McConachie and · allows City to guarantee efficiency, safe standards am Dunbarton school maintenance across public portions of the access; properties ending at · site specific policy would be added to recognize OMB decisim two cul-de-sacs on Hayes Line property; outside of Wood/Carroll Cons property. · does not satisfy MTO requirements for a public road acces across rear of all these properties necessary to justify access t, Kingston Road/Highway 401 ramp intersection for ol, Dunbarton school property; · degrades efficiency of access across rear of properties; · only allows public road access for future intensified developmen for the rear portions of only those commercial or residentiz properties that abut the public portions of the road access; Not Supported by Staff Option 3 Pros Require private · least regulated access arrangement across rear of commerci~ easement access properties; across all properties. · somewhat less costly to private owners; · least impact on commercial properties fronting Kingston Road; Appendix I to Addendum RePort to Council PD 24-02 NO ISSUES OPTIONS COMMENTS RAISED Cons · allows least chance of MTO approval of any access to old Dunbarton school site property at signalized Kingston Road/Highway 401 ramp intersection; · may require return of road block behind Delta Boulevard to abutting landowner and replaced, if possible, by an access easement arrangement to provide rear access to McConachie and Wood/Carroll properties; · requires high degree of landowner coordination and good will to achieve easements across all properties; one uncooperative landowner can prejudice achievement of internal coordinated ~ access; ! · least amount of municipal control of efficient traffic movement, safety, maintenance and speed regulation; · does not guarantee a logical/functional alignment of access across precinct; · limits long term redevelopment opportunities for residential properties fronting Sheppard Avenue by removing future access to internal public road. Not Supported by Staff 3. Buffering / Option 1' Pros Compatibility with Marion Hill Along the eastern · this landscape strip would allow the Marion Hill development property, boundary of the to be both visually and physically separated from the existing property, a 6.5 development in an attractive manner; metre setback is · ability for City to control form of development on it's own required, 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; Option 2 Pros Require the retention of the · a great majority of the existing mature vegetation could be existing stream preserved; corridor within the · this feature could continue to provide an aesthetic quality to City owned lands the neighbourhood and allow for some limited passive and provide a recreational space; minimum 10 metre · it would increase the percentage of "open space" within the setback on each developed lands and therefore reduce the overall perceived side. 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 Ap~ffe.~di I to Addendum Report to Council PD 24-02 NO ISSUES OPTIONS COMMENTS RAISED Option 3 Pros Develop a · would provide a strong buffer for the home most effected bl requirement to the new medium density development; plant significant Cons vegetation on the [}rivate property to · does not effect the perceived density nor the proximity of th the east, in a layout new development to the existing neighbourhood; designed by a ................................................................................... landscape architect. Not supported by Staff 4. Consideration of Option 1' Pros properties east of Dunbarton school No requirement for · permits the redevelopment of each lot in the Precinct on a sit property consolidation of lots specific basis subject to criteria; within Precinct E. · consolidation not precluded; Cons · integration of lots more difficult after redevelopment ha occurred; · minimal recognition 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 i~ closer proximity to commercially redeveloped properties; Supported by Staff Pros Option 2 Require · provides the opportunity for a comprehensive design of the entir~ consolidation of Precinct including higher densities or a range of uses; properties within · provides the opportunity to access impacts holistically; precinct prior to redevelopment Cons · essentially 'freezes' individual properties from redevelopmen opportunities; · lot assembly considered long-term; Not Supported by Staff 5. Retain low density Option 1' Pro._.~s designation for existing residential Designate the entire · consistent with the Official Plan encouraging higher densities i~ lots in Precinct B. Precinct to medium selected locations, usually close to Mixed Areas; density residential · simplifies the designation on the entire Precinct; (restricting maximum · provides opportunities for redevelopment in a manner that i density to 55 units compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood; per nethectacrc and · density increase would not exacerbate the existing traffi permit development problems with respect the traffic flow on Sheppard Avenue below 30 units per access to Sheppard Avenue from medium density developme~ net hectacre), would be minimized; · provides an appropriate transition between new commerci, development along Kingston Road and the character of th existing neighbourhood along Sheppard Avenue; · proposed policy would cap maximum density at 55 units per n{ hectacre, also permit residential development below th minimum net density of 30 units per net hectacre; Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD 24-02 (} ,q 5 NO ISSUES OPTIONS COMMENTS RAISED Cons · potential introduction of additional medium density residential development into an existing area with low densities; · potential increase in traffic and noise associated with medium density development; Supported by Staff Pros Option 2 · resident concern that medium denSity development would be Retain the existing introduced along the frontage of Sheppard Avenue; designation of low · resident concern about increased traffic and density resulting density residential from medium density development would no longer be an issue; and medium density residential for the nine lots in the Precinct; Cons · no recognition of the area evolving into a more dense and mixed community; · reduces redevelopment options for residents on south side of Sheppard Avenue; · existing medium density designation applicable to rear of properties is not practical from a development perspective. Not Supported by Staff Pros 6. Gas bar/car wash Option 1' within the Quadrant. Prohibit the · screening and buffering may not be sufficient on the school development of any property to protect the residential development along Sheppard Avenue from adverse impacts; new gas bars, automobile service · public and staff concerned with noise and traffic and lighting stations or car washes from proposed gas bar/car wash facilities; within the Quadrant. Cons · restricts the range of uses currently permitted under Mixed Corridor; Supported by Staff Pros Option 2 permit gas bars/car · provides the opportunity for automobile related services; washes within the · would take advantage of the auto-oriented area of Kingston Road and the Highway 401 on/offramp; Quadrant. Cons · proliferation of additional gas bar/car wa.sh facilities along Kingston Road; · built form contradicts the City's 'mainstreet' objective for the Quadrant; Not supported by Staff Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD 24-02 7. 2nd story functional Option 1' Pros space and minimum building Require commercial · consistent with the 'mainstreet' objective for the Quadran frontage development to regarding higher intensity; requirements provide second storey · provides opportunities for a greater variety of uses withi~ functional floor space buildings; and buildings closer · buildings brought close to the street edge would improw to the street edge. pedestrian access to buildings; · improve the visual appeal of the Quadrant; Cons · owners claim that market demand for second storey functiona floor space limited; · contrary to conventional market driven single storey developmen along Kingston Road. Supported by Staff Option 2 Pros No second floor and no requirement for · provides developers with the simplest form of development to buildings close to the lease; street. Cons · less opportunity to accommodate a mix of uses; · ensures that thc view from Kingston Road is that of larg~ parking areas with buildings located behind; · discourages a high quality pedestrian environment within th~ Quadrant; · contributes to an outdated form of low intensity, single purpos~ development; · supports auto-oriented retailing and services. 8. Piping Three options Amberlea Creek proposed: tributary 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' Pros Pipe the tributary - · maximizes land area/land value for development, includin: for the watercourse located south of City owned lands forming the east part of the Marion Hil Sheppard Avenue to application; the Highway 401 · maximizes assessment base for this area of the City ramp intersection; Pickering (ie: with net long-term benefit to all Cit taxpayers); · will produce net environmental benefit to Amberlea Cree and Frenchman's Bay provided the stormwater pond i constructed east of Bayfair Church; Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD 24-02 0 ,Cl. 7 · will reduce long-term erosion/rehabilitation costs to City and landowners south of Hwy 401; · already a somewhat degraded natural setting; Cons · reduces 'green/natural' area in this part of the City; · removes a natural buffer/vegetation between existing low density residential dwellings and commercial uses on Delta Boulevard; Supported by Staff Option 2 Pros Relocate · retains buffered 'green/natural' area; watercourse to · increases developable area/land values/assessment base for eastern edge of City and/or private landowners; Marion Hill/ · retains green buffer between existing low density dwellings McConnachie and and commercial uses on Delta Boulevard; Picketing Holdings · simpler more efficient approval process to satisfy TRCA properties with requirements; reduced buffer on each side. Cons · no improvement to downstream erosion; · costly endeavour with limited increase to developable area/land values/assessment base; · retention of open stream significantly restricts development on two private properties; Supported by Staff Option 3 Pros Allow for protection · provides opportunity for natural buffer between existing of watercourse in residents on Sheppard Avenue and the proposed Marion Hill City owned development; property as an open · retains present meander belt and pathway of watercourse stream channel with with least impact on existing open creek reaches and 10 metre buffer vegetation; each side. · provides opportunities to use stream corridor as pedestrian pathway; · least short-term cost to City; · allows City to retain watercourse over its lands in present natural condition, while 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 downstream 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 O98 Attachment #1 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT! CLERK, S DIVISION il C~'iY ~;::' i~:' :~, i,: i'i~· MEMORANDUM May 27, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Neil Carroll, Director, Planning & Development Bruce Taylor, Clerk Referrals 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 t~. Council Meeting of May 21, 2002, as follows: 1. (a) That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-002/P, submitted by Marion Hill Developmem 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 I- Land Use Structure be APPROVED AS REVISED, to also add various site-specific policies to section 11.8, Woodlands Neighbourhood Policies, for the subject lands, including a cap in the maximum residential density of 55 units per net hectare, as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 24-02; and (b) That the dratt by-law to adopt Amendmem 8 to the Pickering 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, ChiefAdmini~rative Officer Taylor REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director,-Planning & Development DATE: May 2, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: PD 24-02 SUBJECT: Picketing Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Marion Hill Development Corporation Part Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C. (now Part 1, Plan 14431 & Part 1, Plan 40R-2767) (South-east comer of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue) City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: 1. (a) That Official Plan Amendment 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 Picketing, 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 I - Land Use Structure be APPROyED AS REVISED, to also add various site-specific policies to section 11.§,~'Wo0dlands.. Neighbourhood Policies, for the subject lands, including a cap in the maximum 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-law 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 Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelinesl be ADOPTED as the City's detailed strategy for transportation, stormwater / 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 and street townhomes, be APPROVED, AS REVISED by the Applicant to permit a maximum of 89 stacked and street townhomes, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I11 to Report Number PD 24-02; · ORIGIN: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-002/P and Application A.04/01 submitted to the City of Pickering. Zoning By-law Amendment AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 13. iO0 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 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 ting 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 Picketing 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: Picketing Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Date: May 2, 2002 Page 3 101 BACKGROUND: 1.0 Relationship With Northeast Quadrant Development Guideline Review The Marion Hill application is one of four applications received within the Northeast Quadrant that triggered the study of the area. As the results of the Northeast Quadrant Review are now available with respect to land use, urban design, environmental and transportation issues are now available, it is appropriate to consider this site-specific application within the study area. The conclusions reached for the Marion Hill applications rely on the results and discussion in the Northeast Quadrant Review, which is contained in the Planning & Development Report to Council PD 23-02. 2.0 Subject Lands The subject lands, at the south-east comer of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, are located in the Northeast Quadrant of the Woodlands Neighbourhood (see Attachment #2) for the location map). The subject lands comprise two parts: Part One (1.52 hectares) is owned by Lydia Dobbin (Marion Hill Development Corporation has an option to purchase this property); and Part Two (0.37 hectares), at the eastern end of the subject lands, is owned by the City of Picketing (Marion Hill has expressed an interest in acquiring the City-owned lands). One house is located on the subject lands, adjacent to Whites Road. 3.0 Original Proposal The original proposal requested changes to the Picketing Official Plan and Zoning By-law 3036 to permit 97 stacked and street townhouse dwellings (on a private road) on the subject lands (see original concept plan, Attachment #6). Vehicular access was proposed by a driveway onto Whites Road permitting tight tums-in and right tums-out, and a driveway permitting a full range of tums onto Sheppard Avenue. The creek was proposed to be enclosed. The proposed amendment to the Official Plan was to redesignate lands along the Sheppard Avenue frontage of the property from Urban Residential Areas - Low Density Areas to an Urban Residential Areas - Medium Density Areas designation (one-quarter of the site) to permit the proposed residential density. The applicant provided a supporting planning analysis. The amendment required to Zoning By-law 3036 was from R3 - One Family Detached-Third Density Zone to a suitable zone to permit townhouse dwellings on the subject lands. The applicant was advised that their proposal would require amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. (The revised proposal submitted by the applicant is outlined in Section 6 of this Report.) 4.0 Information Meeting A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held May 17, 2001 to obtain the views of the public. Information Report No. 16-01 outlined the proposal and comments received through circulation of the application (see Attachment # 7). Date: May 2, 2002 Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Picketing Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Page 4 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Concems expressed by residents included the impact of increased traffic on Sheppard Avenue, property values, school capacity, design 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 ground related nature, articulated building masses, street-facing facades, human scale building heights, possible provision of a pedestrian link between Sheppard Avenue and Delta Boulevard 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. 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: Picketing Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Date: May 2, 2002 Page 5 The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) advises that development on the subject lands must satisfy the requirements of the Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation and the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP) for the Amberlea Creek tributary. Development on the subject lands will have to be set back a minimum of 10 metres from the top of the stream corridor bank, which has not yet been defined. The buffer should be zoned "Open Space - Hazard Land" to prohibit structures, fill, or removal of vegetation and should be conveyed into public ownership. TRCA also notes that a permit will be required to change the stream channel, if desired, and proper stormwater management practices during and after construction will be required to control water quantity and quality. TRCA cannot support the application until the limits of the natural, features are defined and appropriately zoned and protected (see Attachment #11). Canada Post and Bell Canada each have no objections but have certain technical requirements (see Attachments #12 and #13). The Region of Durham Planning Department advises that the proposed use meets the policies of the Durham Official Plan. The proposed amendment to the Pickering Official Plan is exempt from Regional avvrova! provided specific policies to protect the stream corridor are included in the amendment. The Regional Works Department interest in limiting access from these lands to right-in/right-out vehicular tum movements to Whites Road can be satisfied at the site plan approval phase. Since the site is the location of a watercourse, an archaeological assessment will be required and since it is in proximity to the CNR tracks, a noise impact report will be required (see Attachment #14). 5.4 Comments Received From City Departments The Municipal Property & Engineering Division has advised 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 should be provided; · metered parking on the south side of Sheppard Avenue is not supported; · sidewalks will be required on Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, where none currently exist, with funding available from development charges for the Sheppard Avenue sidewalk; · the need for access for vehicles or pedestrians to Delta Boulevard is questioned; · a caution was raised that public access through this private development, with anticipated high volume of pedestrian traffic between the high school and restaurants, invites complaints from the future residents about loitering, trash and property damage caused by pedestrians; · maintenance responsibility for pedestrian pathways should be clearly identified; · the City-owned parcel of land within the subject lands is not needed for parkland or other municipal purposes and should be sold to the developer; · a private tot lot should be provided by the developer within the proposed townhouse development to serve the needs of residents; · Sheppard Avenue is the preferred primary access for fire service purposes, because it provides full tums access, with the preferred secondary access point at Whites Road; The Development Control Section has advised that a number of matters must be addressed for this proposal: · stormwater management, including the existing ddwnstream storage requirements; 104 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 6 6.0 7.0 7.1 · the proposed elimination of the watemourse; · 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 upgrading 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 Road/Sheppard Avenue comer. Phase 1 proposes the development of 67 townhouse 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, c) no more than four units in each townhouse block; · vehicular access by a driveway to Whites Road permitting right-in / fight-out turn movements, a full-tums 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 Picketing 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 tributary. 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 Amendment OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Date: May 2, 2002 Page 7 7.2 7.3 The Official Plan now permits medium density residential uses up to 80 dwelling units per hectare plus a range of commercial uses on the interior lands south of Sheppard Avenue (one-half of the site), and a much broader range of commercial uses and residential uses up to a density of 140 units per hectare on the Whites Road lands (one-quarter of the site). The proposal to develop the whole site with medium density residential uses at a density capped at 55 dwelling units per hectare will result in uses and an intensity of development on the whole site considerably less than the Official Plan now permits. In addition, although the current Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines provide for low density residential buildings on the south side of Sheppard Avenue, the Guidelines identified a City objective to locate residential buildings of four storeys in height on the interior portion of the subject site immediately south of the units fronting Sheppard Avenue. The development of four storey buildings at this location would be more intrusive upon the low density community to the north than the two and three storey townhouses proposed. Medium density residential use of the Sheppard Avenue lands provides a transitional use, and a visual, accoustical and land use buffer between commercial uses on Delta Boulevard to the south and low density residential uses on the north side of Sheppard Avenue. Development of the entire area subject to this application for medium density residential use permits integrated, efficient and orderly development of these lands. Capping the residential density at 55 units per hectare reduces the density on the overall site by almost one-third, adding to the ability to design a development that will be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council approve the change in designation from low to medium density in the Official Plan for lands fronting Sheppard Avenue and that a policy be introduced to the Woodlands Neighbourhood policies to cap the density throughout the property at 55 dwelling units per hectare (see Appendix I). Form of Development on Sheppard Avenue The proposed form of development will create a new community that is compatible with (but not exactly like) the current use, density, form 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 parking 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 Avenue shows the revised view of the proposal from Sheppard Avenue (see Attachment #5). Staff recommends that Council adopt the recommended site-specific policies in the Official Plan, conditions to the approval of an implementing zoning amendment and an amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines to ensure that the form of the development is compatible with surrounding development. Once adopted, the foregoing policies, guidelines and conditions will govern consideration of the site plan when it is subsequently submitted for approval. Access to Sheppard Avenue Provision of vehicular access to Sheppard Avenue will allow the 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 the best access to the site for emergency services. Further, the lands are adjacent to an arterial roadway with sufficient capacity to support the traffic anticipated from a medium residential density development. 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 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 mm 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. Picketing Fire Services agrees 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-in/right-out access to Whites Road and the gated secondary 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 will 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 OPA 01-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Date: May 2, 2002 Page 9 Accordingly, staff recommends that the sale of the City's land be considered following the adoption of the new zoning by-law for Phase 2 of the proposed development. 9.0 Controls 9.1 Official Plan Amendment 8 Official Plan Amendment 8, contained in Appendix I to this Report, is recommended for adoption in order to: · change the land use from low to medium density residential use for the lands fronting Sheppard Avenue; · ensure compatibility with surrounding low density development by capping the maximum residential density at 55 units 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 of the current stream corridor for the Amberlea Creek tributary; 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 this amendment from the requirement for Regional approval, it will come into force following Council adoption and the mandatory notice and appeal period of 20 days, provided there are no appeals. Amendment 2 to the Northeast Quadrant 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 for vehicular and pedestrian access to the 'Marion Hill' lands; · adopt stormwater / creek objectives to permit 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 design objectives and guidelines for development of the Marion Hill lands to ensure compatibility with and connection to the surrounding community and achieve a quality development on the subject lands. Zoning Conditions of Approval Conditions recommended for zoning approval, contained in Appendix 1II of this Report, include the following: payment of a share of the Northeast Quadrant Review study costs and execution and registration on title to the lands of a development agreement between the proponent and the City to secure a public tight-of-way between Delta Boulevard and Sheppard Avenue, require the proponent to urbanize Sheppard Avenue, require the proponent to submit a noise impact report and an archaeological assessment, require the proponent to satisfy the City with respect to payment of a 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 oversized stormwater works previously constructed on lands to the south, prior to passage of a zoning amendment; 108 Report to Council PD 24-02 Subject: Pickering 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 townhouse 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 payment 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-law Amendment Application A 04/01 Date: May 2, 2002 1 Page 11 APPENDICES: I II llI By-law to adopt Amendment No. 8 to the Picketing Official Plan (Amendment included as Exhibit "A" to By-law Site Specific Amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines for the Marion Hill Lands ' Conditions of Approval for Zoning Amendment Application A 04/01 ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Northeast Quadrant Area Location Map Applicant's Revised Conceptual Site Plan Current Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines Applicant's Massing Concept of Townhomes for the South side of Sheppard Avenue Applicant's Original Concept Plan Information Report 16-01 Statutory Public Meeting Minutes Letters fi.om 734 Kingston Road Comment fi.om CN Rail Comment from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Comment fi.om Canada Post Comment fi.om Bell Canada Comment from Durham Region Planning Department Prepared By: Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Planner II Approved / Endorsed ~ Nei 1 C/'r//~~ Director, Planning & Development /i'/~- Catherine Rose Manager, Policy SG/td/jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council T~s J. QmS, Ch~f Adm~~ 110 APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 24-02 BY-LAW TO ADOPT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 8 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA Ol-O02/P) WHEREAS pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing may by by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Picketing; AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; AND WHEREAS, on February 23, 2000 Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000 which allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; AND WHEREAS the Region has advised that Amendment 8 to the City of Picketing Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Amendment 8 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted; That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments; 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of ., 2002. MAYOR WAYNE ARTHURS BRUCE J. TAYLOR Exhibit "A" to By-law AMENDMENT 8 TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: LOCATION: BASIS: The purpose of this amendment is to change the designation of the lands fronting Sheppard Avenue from a Low to a Medium Density Residential designation on Schedule I - Land Use Structure and add to section 11.8 - Woodlands Neighbourhood Policies provisions to address compatibility with the neighbourhood, recognize optional strategies for the stream corridor and provide suitable vehicular and pedestrian access for the affected lands. The subject lands are approximately 1.89 hectares 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. This amendment to the Picketing Official Plan has been determined to be appropriate following the completion of a review of a preliminary conceptual site plan in light of the findings of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guideline Review for lands generally located between Kingston Road, Sheppard Avenue and Whites Road and abutting lands in 2002. The central issue is land use compatibility between medium density residential uses with commercial uses to the south and low density residential uses to the north and east. The strategy for the Northeast Quadrant is two-fold. Firstly, the vision is, over time, to encourage high quality design and intensity of commercial or residential structures that assist in converting Kingston Road to a pedestrian friendly 'mainstreet' from an auto dominated highway. Secondly, the vision is to encourage medium density residential use in the northern part of the Quadrant to serve as a transition between the mixed commercial/residential use close to Kingston Road and the existing low density residential use to the north. Other major elements of the strategy are to intensify development by piping the tributary to Amberlea Creek, if 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 for the subject lands is to ensure building siting, height, massing and orientation that is compatible with the community to the north and integrate by means of suitable · vehicular and pedestrian access arrangements and design controls with the community and the Quadrant. In addition, since a final decision cannot yet be reached on piping the creek or protecting it in an open state, the interests of the parties are recognized and the objectives of each option are set out. Since this amendment is to precede the amendment for the whole of the Northeast Quadrant, relevant provisions are incorporated into the comprehensive amendment for the Northeast Quadrant, which will be adopted by Council at a later date. 1!4 Appendix I to Report 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: "1. Revising Schedule I - Land Use Structure by replacing the "Urban Residential Areas - Low Density Areas" designation for the lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue with an "Urban Residential Areas - Medium Density Areas" designation, as shown on Schedule 'A' to this amendment. Adding new policies to section 11.8 - Woodlands Neighbourhood Policies, as follows: "11.8 City Council shall, (b) ...; (c) ...; (d) ...; (e) ...; (0 for the lands subject to the "Marion Hill" proposal, located 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 comer 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 Authority 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 1.!5 Amendment 8 to the Picketing Official Plan - Site-Specific Amendment for "Marion Hill" Lands (h) (ii) (iii) (iv) 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 City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, which report must demonstrate a strategy 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 adversely impact downstream water quality and quantity through the use of on-site controls and/or financial contributions to a downstream stormwater facility if necessary; and through the use of the holding provisions of the Planning Act, require where necessary, the proponents of development having lands with the stream corridor for the tributary to Amberlea Creek to enter into agreements with the City and other agencies, as appropriate, respecting public ownership of the stream corridor 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 comer of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, (i) support vehicular access restrictions preventing left tums from Whites Road into the site, and left turns from the site onto Whites 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 City policy; and, (iii) require pedestrian access, by means of easements, from Delta Boulevard to Sheppard Avenue. IMPLEMENTATION: INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the City of Picketing Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. The provisions set forth in the City of Picketing Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. 116 Appendix I to Report to Council PD 24-02 Page 4 Amendment 8 to the Pickering 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 Mixed Use Maximum and Minimum Maximum Gross Maximum Areas Net Residential Density Leasable Floorspace for Floorspace Index Subcategory (in dwellings per hectare) the Retailing of Goods (total building and Setarices floorspace divided (in square metres) by total lot area) Local Nodes over 30 and up to and up toandincludingl0,000 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 2.5 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 toandincluding300,000 up to and including Core including 180 3.0 FSI TABLE 10 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 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; 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 QUADRANT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 119 To implement the conclusions of the Review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, as they affect the Marion Hill/City of Pickering properties, it is recommended that Council adopt the following site specific Amendment to the 1990 Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines: Despite any other provisions in these Guidelines, lands known as Part 1, Plan 14431 and Part 1, Plan 40R-2767, subject to Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-002/P (now Amendment 8 to the Picketing Official Plan) and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 shall be developed in conformity with the following guidelines: A) Transportation Objectives The three roads providing access to this site are Sheppard Avenue, Whites Road and Delta Boulevard. Vehicular access shall be provided to this site by a full moves access to Sheppard Avenue, a right-in, right-out turns only' access to Whites Road, and access to Delta Boulevard controlled by resident-activated gates to prevent free flowing traffic movements between Delta Boulevard and Sheppard Avenue. The City will require these vehicular access arrangements to be implemented for this site through the required Site Plan agreements to the satisfaction of the City and the Region of Durham. It is anticipated that Whites Road, a Regional Road, may be widened to 6 lanes in the future. In addition, auxiliary turn lanes may be added in the future. Further, at the sole discretion of the Region of Durham, a center median may be installed to prevent lefi turn movements from Whites Road into the site, and from the site onto Whites Road. B) Stormwater/Amberlea Creek Objectives The Amberlea Creek Northeast Quadrant - Assessment of Alternatives study, prepared by Schollen & Company Inc., identifies an option for a storm sewer extension of the existing system south of Sheppard Avenue to the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp. The City supports the piping of the existing tributary of Amberlea Creek, which traverses the Northeast Quadrant, as an integral component of a stormwater management system that includes a storm sewer system and a stormwater management pond. The stormwater facility is required to control both quality and quantity stormwater. A substantial net benefit to the downstream environment must be demonstrated in order to warrant consideration of piping the tributary. 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 stormwater 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 the proponent of this development application within the Northeast Quadrant as its lands currently drain into the reach of the Amberlea Creek tributary, to pay for a proportionate share of 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, the developer of the lands 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. Appendix II 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 - "Community Design ", and Chapter 13 - "Detailed Design Considerations", of the Official Plan. It is the intent of these guidelines to both further those objectives and embellish the ones listed below: 1. To provide a quality urban image by encouraging the placement of high quali~. , buildings located to define the street edge. , 2. To provide a quality urban image by encouraging a harmonized and complementaw landscape treatment throughout the Northeast Quadrant. To provide a quality urban image by encouraging a coordinated effort to improving the streetscape that includes pedestrian oriented furnishings and other appropriate improvements. 4. To provide a safe, pleasant, comfortable and convenient environment supporting all modes of travel including bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 5. To ensure that new development relates to existing development while allowing appropriate evolution of this area 6. Recognize the need for efficient vehicular movement through and within this area including access to individual properties. 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 existing neighborhood and serves as an interface between this area and the surrounding' lands. The south-east corner of Sheppard Avenue and Whites Road shall act as a transition araa 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 including 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. 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. 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 II to Report to Council PD 24-02 Amendment 2 to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - "Marion Hill" Lands Page 3 121 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. A vegetative buffer and generous sideyard width will be required along the eastern property line separating any proposed residential development at the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue from the existing neighbourhood. Attractive and appropriate landscaping will be required both on the perimeters of the development facing the streets and interior to the site. A public pedestrian link which runs north-south from the end of Delta Boulevard 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, shall be included as an easement for pedestrian access granted to the CIO'. 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. No buildings or structures shall be permitted within 10 metres of the stream corridor of the Amberlea Creek tributar3.,. 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 fagade construction. Any, free-standing utility boxes including hydro, telephone, etc. shall be enclosed within screening devices designed to match or complement the buildings. 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. Garbage and recyclable material shall be handled within each dwelling unit (including its garage), and not within separate buildings or centralized areas. Lighting design should complement the design of the development, shall not spill over into adjacent properties or streets, and shall be downcast to avoid excessive light pollution. For residential development along Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, the front entrance will face the public streets. 122 APPENDIX III TO REPORT NUMBER PD 24-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 04/01 1.0 That prior to forwarding 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; (b) 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 by the owner of the lands to the south towards the over-sizing to accommodate stormwater 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 accordarice 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: Appendix III to Report to Council PD 24-02 Page 2 173 Recommended Conditions of Approval for Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application A 4//01 3.0 (i) maximum number of dwelling units - 45; (ii) maximum number of storeys facing Sheppard Avenue - 2 storeys (and 3 storeys on internal lands); (iii) maximum building height - 11 metres measured from grade on the Sheppard Avenue elevation; (iv) parking requirements for each dwelling unit of: i. one private garage attached to each dwelling unit; ii. one parking space between garage and traffic aisle; and, iii. a minimum of 0.25 visitors parking space; (v) minimum distance between blocks of dwellings - 2.5 metres; and, (vi) provisions for maximum lot coverage, minimum landscaped open area, and minimum gross floor area that generally reflect the applicant's revised conceptual site plan. That prior to forwarding an implementing zoning by-law to Council for passage, which shall comply with the provisions contained in Amendment 2 to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines for Phase 2 lands as shown on the applicant's revised conceptual site plan, decisions to be reached respecting enclosure, relocation or protection of the stream corridor in an open state and respecting the sale of the surplus City owned parcel of land. Following those decisions, an implementing zoning by-law be forwarded to Council for the Phase 2 lands including, but not necessarily be limited to the following: (a) buildings required to be located within a building envelope that generally reflects the setbacks shown on the applicant's revised conceptual site plan; (b) buildings required to occupy a minimum proportion of a build-to-zone generally reflecting the setbacks shown on the applicant's revised conceptual site plan; (c) permit attached dwellings on the Phase 2 lands in accordance with the following provisions: (i) maximum number of dwelling units - 22 units; (ii) maximum number of storeys facing Sheppard Avenue - 2 storeys (and 3 storey on internal lands); (iii) maximum building height - 11 metres; (iv) parking requirements for each dwelling unit of: i. one private garage attached to each dwelling unit; ii. one parking space between garage and traffic aisle; and, iii. a minimum of 0.25 visitors parking spaces; and, (v) minimum distance between blocks of dwellings - 2.5 metres; (vi) provisions for minimum gross floor area for dwelling units, maximum lot coverage and minimum landscaped open area that generally reflect the applicant's revised conceptual site plan. 17,I ATTACHMENT ~__ / TO REPORT i' PD_ ~2 ~-O ~_ CRESCENT LANE F'LAVELLE COURT TEAIL WEYBURN C,N.R. / SHEPPARD AVENUE STROUDS AVENUE EDGEWOOD SHADYBROOK SHEPPARD JACQUEMNE C.N.R. STROUD$ LANE WELRUS STREET ROAD AVENUE ROAD STEEPLE HILL DRIVE BREDA AVENUE SAMFORD SANOK City of Pickering Planning & Development Department · · NORTHEAST llllf QUADRANT REVIEW AREA IDATE MAY 2, 2002 A'r"rACHUENT,P...2 TO REPORT ~ PD .9 ~'- .-') "')-r CRESCENT LANE COURt STROUDS AVENUE EDGEWOOD JACOUEUNE STROUDS LANE WELRUS STREET TRAIL WEYBURN C.N.R. AVENUE RAINy DAY STEEPLE HILL COURT SHADYBROOK ROAD C.N.R. SHEPPARD ~ AVENUE DRIVE ~O~ ~ AVENUE SANOK City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOT 28, RANGE 3, B.F.C.; PART 1, 40R-14431; PART 1, 40R-2767 / ~ OWNER MARION HILLS DEVELOPMENT INC. DATE MAY 3, 2002 DRAWN BY RC APPLICATION No. A 04/01; OPA 01-002/P SCALE 1:7500 CHECKED BY SG FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-6 PA- 126 REPORT ~ PD ~ ~' 0 2_. Z F .... t-~-' ~, , ~A98 o 0 o o ~ ATTACHMENT# ~ TO REPORT d PO ~ ,t.f, _ o 2... .I77 NORTHEAST QUADRANT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES (1990) "FINAL URBAN DESIGN CONFIGURATION" 178 (]¥0~ S,311H~ ti W Z W <~ ATTACHMENT#, '~' TO REPORT # PD ,--,) ~'"-6) Z 1,99 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS SUBMI'I-I'ED PLAN MARION HILLS DEVELOPMENT INC. A 4/01; OPA 01-002/P SHEPPARD AVE PART 2 ~ ~J",~'~""~"~ PART 1 SUMMARY $1'A175~7C$ PRO~1D~-D ON I'HE NEXT PAGE.. A L~RGE SCARE COPY OF l'H/g PLAN /S AVAILdSL~ FOR ~IE~IN~ Al' THE PLANNING d~ DEVE'LOPME'NT DE~ARI'M~"N~. 130 ATTACHMENT d '7 ~ REPO~'r t PD ~-2 ~ ° ~ 2... 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 & Part 1, Plan 40R-2767) (South-east comer of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue) City of Picketing 1.0 2.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject lands are 1.89 hectares in area, and are located on the south-east comer 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 tributary 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 Picketing 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 comer 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%; Information Report No. 16-01 Page 2 ATTACHMENT #_ *'7 TO REPORT # PD ,~ ~ - o ,2 - 3.0 3.1 3.2 1 31 a network of walkways through the site is proposed to link it to the surrounding community; a 6.5 metre wide public easement has been proposed as a pedestrian link from Sheppard Avenue into the north end of Delta Boulevard; all vehicular access to the dwellings is proposed from a private internal road; vehicular access to the private road is proposed to be provided by a driveway onto Whites Road permitting right turns in and fight turns 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 the watercourse that flows through the eastern portion of the subject lands. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan - the subject lands are designated as Living Area in the Durham Regional Official Plan; lands designated Living Area may be used for housing purposes in addition to other compatible uses; the proposal appears to conform; - Whites Road is designated as a Type A Arterial Road and as a Transit Spine; Sheppard Avenue is designated as a Type C Arterial Roa& Pickering Official Plan the subject lands are designated as follows in the Picketing Official Plan: · Mixed Use Areas: Mixed Corridor along the Whites Road frontage; · Urban Residential Areas: Low Density' Areas along the Sheppard Avenue frontage; and, · Urban Residential Areas: Medium Density, Areas in the interior; section 14.2 (g) of the Official Plan requires that where a single parcel of land is governed by two or more separate land use designations, the policies of each of the respective designations shall apply; - the Mixed Corridor designation permits residential uses at a net residential density of over 30 and up to and including 140 dwellings per hectare; in addition, retail, office, restaurants, community, cultural and recreational uses at a scale and intensity serving the broader area, and special purpose commercial uses, may be permitted; - about 0.3 of a hectare lies within this designation with 22 units proposed; thus, the residential density is calculated at 73 units per net hectare; the residential density lies within the allowable range for this designation; the Low Density Residential designation permits residential uses at a net residential density of up to and including 30 dwelling units per hectare; in addition, home occupations, limited offices serving the area, and limited retailing of goods and services serving the area, community, cultural and recreational uses, compatible employment uses, and compatible special purpose commercial uses serving the area, may be permitted; about 0.4 of a hectare lies within this designation with 28 units proposed; thus, the residential density is calculated at 70 units per net hectare; the residential density exceeds the allowable range for this designation; an amendment to the Official Plan to change the designation from Low to Medium Density Residential is required; a copy of the proposed amendment is provided as Appendix I to this Information Report; - the Medium Density Residential designation permits the same uses as the Low Density Residential, except residential uses are permitted at a net residential density of over 30 and up to and including 80 dwelling units per hectare; - about 1.1 of a hectare lies within this designation with 47 .units proposed; thus, the residential density is calculated at 42 units per net hectare; the residential density lies within the allowable range for this designation; 132 Information Report No. 16-01 ATTACHMENT# '7 TO Page3 REPORT/' PD 0,~ ~-43 ~ if the Low Density lands are red.esignated 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 density 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 Northeast Quadrant 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 proposed development, the net density over the entire Northeast Quadrant would be approximately 21.5 units per hectare; the Woodlands Neighbourhood Map also shows a Proposed Road 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 Pickering 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; Information Report No. 16-01 ATTACHI'3E~'~T #. 7 .TO REPORT~PD ,~q-~ Page 4 3.3 4.0 4.1 3.4 Schedule II also designates Sheppard Avenue as a Type C Arterial; Type C Arterials are designed to carry lower volumes of traffic, provide access to properties, and generally have a tight-of-way width ranging from 26 to 30 metres; however, section 11.8 (e) of the Picketing Plan indicates that Council shall accommodate future improvements to Sheppard Avenue within the existing 20 metre road allowance, except at intersections where additional road allowance width may be needed; Compendium Document to the Pickering Official Plan - as noted above, the subject lands fall within the detailed review area that is subject to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines; - the Northeast Quadrant is the block of land bounded generally on the south by Kingston Road, on the west by Whites Road, on the north by Sheppard Avenue, and on the east by the main branch of the Amberlea Creek (east of the Dunbarton School site); the small tributary of Amberlea Creek that passes through the eastern part of the subject lands, continues southwards to Kingston Road, and then under Kingston Road and through the Picketing Holdings property (located east of Boyer Pontiac); - Council has adopted the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, for these lands; in addition, two parcels on the west side of Whites Road, south of Dunfair Street, are also governed by the same Guidelines; the Northeast Quadrant Guidelines contemplate a high intensity mixed-use development, with substantial underground parking; the vision is centred around an internal residential area fronting on a public 'ting' road with an interior linear park; in addition, commercial and office uses, with office and office-support uses, are permitted along the Kingston Road and Whites Road frontages respectively; - for the subject lands, the Northeast Quadrant Guidelines identify: · the intent to ensure that new residential development close to the existing residences has little visual impact from Sheppard Avenue; · 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 building heights not to exceed 14 metres were anticipated on the southern part of the subject lands; - more specifically for the subject lands, the concept plan from the Guidelines shows: · a 2,660 square metre, 2-storey office / office-support building on Whites Road; · 33 residential dwellings in the form of 4-storey structures, adjacent to the new internal public road; and · detached dwellings on Sheppard Avenue; - an amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines is required; Zonine By-law 3036 the subject lands are currently zoned R3 - One Family Detached-Third Density Zone; the R3 zone permits detached dwellings on lots with minimum street frontages of 18 metres and minimum lot areas of 550 square metres. an amendment to Zoning By-law 3036 is required. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION (see Attachments #4 - #6) Resident Comments Vivian VandenHazel - is opposed to the proposed density increase along the Sheppard Avenue frontage as all other homes fronting on Sheppard are detached homes; she also does not support enclosure of the watercourse as it would be environmentally unfriendly to plants and animals; she would prefer the watercourse to be cleaned up and used as a park (see Attachment #4); ~- Information Report No. 16-01 ATTACHMENT ~ ~ TO Pa~ze 5 REPORT ~ PD ,~ ~ - o ;2. ~ 4.2 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 Sylvia Spencer (verbal comments) - is concerned with the grades at the south-east comer of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue; would prefer to see no more than 8 houses along the Sheppard Avenue frontage; questions whether home businesses are permitted, and if so, states that adequate parking should be provided; is concerned with the steep grades 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); 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; the proposed 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 Avenue 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; Information Report No. 16-01 'ATTACHMENT# '7 TO REPORT # PD ,~ y-0 ~, Page 4.3.3 in addition, the City is currently undertaking a review of the downstream reach of Amberlea Creek which is experiencing the erosion problems; work associated with this mitigation/restoration project appears to duplicate much of the effort required for the piping justification; a collaborative effort between the City and the other affected landowners would appear to be the most strategic approach to completing the required report; further discussion is required on how an appropriate Environmental Report is best completed; opportunities for collaboration are currently being explored through a proposed review of the Northeast Quadrant lands in conjunction with lands south of' Kingston Road (see section 4.3.4 below); regardless of whether the tributary is ultimately piped, stormwater management must be addressed for these lands; storm sewers installed under Delta Boulevard have been sized to accommodate flows from the Marion Hill lands; however, it is not clear whether piping of the creek would change any of the earlier assumptions for stormwater management; Review of the "Northeast Quadrant" Lands in addition to this application, the City has received other development applications for lands within the Northeast Quadrant, requesting revisions to the Guidelines; these changes relate to the arrangement of.uses, design matters, provision of the park, provision of the internal ring road, and access to the external road network; in addition, the City is aware of other development interest for lands in the Quadrant; furthermore, the owners of land, through which the tributary of Amberlea Creek flows, are interested in piping the creek; although the City has had some successes in implementing the vision set out in the Northeast Quadrant Guidelines, there are some on-going challenges; these challenges include the interest in primarily commercial development adjacent to Kingston Road, the cost of and lack of interest in underground parking, the difficulty in implementing the internal public road, and the location of the tributary through the block; in an effort to be more proactive in working with development interests, the City is considering a review of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines; although the process, tasks and funding are still under discussion, preliminary work done to date suggests that the review would look at: · revisions to the arrangement of land uses, while maintaining key urban design objectives and having regard to the community context; · the intemal access network through the block, and external access to and from the surrounding streets; and · the potential.for piping the Amberlea Creek tributary. based on a preliminary study design, it is anticipated that staff would work closely with landowners on finding common ground between their interests and the City's; but, it is suggested at this time that a new approach, using a consultant who is a facilitator with urban design expertise, or an urban designer with expertise in facilitation, may best accomplish this task in a timely manner; additional consulting help would also be required in two technical areas not currently available on staff; consultants would be required to complete a traffic/access analysis, and the environmental /engineering report for the piping of the tributary; the consultants' work would provide input into, and support, any 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 neighbourhood development continues to achieve an appropriate fit; Information Report No. 16-01 'ATTACHMENT # ,, '"2 TO Page 7 REPORT # PD 4.3.4 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 amendment 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 comer 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 grade differences between Whites Road and the north-west comer 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. 16-01 ~wrAcm.:Et,rr g_ '7 _I0 Pa~e8 177 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 if you wish to be notified of the decision of the Region of Durham with respect to the proposed amendment to the official plan, you must make a written request to the Commissioner of Planning, Region of Durham Planning Department. OTHER INFORMATION Appendix I - copy of the proposed Picketing Official Plan Amendment; Appendix II those whose comments on the proposal were received at time of writing are listed; Company Principal Mr. Ian Matthews is the President of Marion Hill Development Corporation; Mr. Vincent Santamaura of Cassidy and Co. is representing Marion Hill. ORIGINAL SIGNI~ BY.~ Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Planner 2 ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Catherine L. Rose Manager, Policy SG/jf Copy: Director, Planning & Development 178 ATTAC;HUENT ~ ~ TO REPORT ~'PD .~2 ¢- o 2 _ APPENDIX I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 16-01 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN ATTACHMENT # ~ TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: LOCATION: PROPOSED AMENDMENT: IMPLEMENTATION: INTERPRETATION: The purpose of this amendment is to permit an increase in the net residential density permitted on a portion of the subject lands to a maximum of 80 units per hectare. The Plan currently establishes a residential density maximum of 30 units per hectare for lands designated "Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area". The subject lands are approximately 0.3 of a 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 Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: Replace the "Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area" with an "Urban Residential Area - Medium Density Area" designation on Schedule I - the Land Use Structure map of the Picketing Official Plan, as shown on Schedule 'A' attached hereto. The provisions set forth in the City of Picketing Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. The provisions set forth in the City of Picketing Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. sxg/dobbin/Opa 140 ATTACHEIENT # '7' TO REPORT ~' PD ~ ~'- c') 2.. APPENDIX II TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 16-01 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS 1) 2) Vivian VandenHazel, 1757 Fairport Road, Picketing, ON L1V lTl Sylvia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Avenue, Pickering, ON L1V 1G4 COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) (2) The Durham District School Board Veridian Connections COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS (1) Planning & Development Excerpts of Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes ] 4 ][ of Thursday, May 17, 2001 ~ STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, May 17, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The Manager, Policy Division, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration thereat. (III) ° o o PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA 01-002P ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 04/01 MARION HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PART OF LOT 28, RANGE 37 B.F.C. (NOW PART 1, PLAN 40R-14431 & PART 1, PLAN 40R-2767) (SOUTH-EAST CORNER OF WHITES ROAD AND SHEPPARD AVENUE) Steve Gaunt, Planner II, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report # 16-01. lan Santamaura, representing the applicant, advised that they have been working with staff for approximately two 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 townhouses 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 Delta Blvd. Irene McNamara, 752 Sheppard Ave., stated her concerns with 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 impact the prices of the area homes and what school will these children be bused to when all schools in the area are overcrowded. A resident at 738 Sheppard Ave., advised of his opposition to this development and stated his concern with respect to schools, parking and traffic. Gregory Flavell, 734 Sheppard Ave., stated his concern with overcrowding of schools, small children's attraction to the neighbouring train tracks and looking into another community. He questioned why the density is being doubled in the area. Bill Sornberger, 750 Sheppard Ave., commented on his concern that traffic from this development will exit onto Sheppard Ave. which will create incredible traffic increase. He further stated his concern with overcrowding of schools and the negative impact on the present community. 142 ATTACHMEt~T #_ ~' _TO --2-- REPORT~PD_ ~¥-o~__ 10. 11. 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. John McNamara, 752 Sheppard Ave., questioned Councillor Ryan on the actions he will be taking to stop this application. Paul White, 507 Cliffview 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. John Flavell, 734 Sheppard Ave., stated his surprise that the proposed road will be going to Sheppard Ave. rather than Kingston Road. He advised of his interest in speaking with the applicant. 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. /.,T'rACHIV, EN'r #__-~_TO ]43 734 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNIN~i ,'~ u~-vr"LOPMENT DEPARTMENT May 19, 2001 Catherine L. Rose, Policy Manager Planning and Development Department City of Picketing One the Esplanade Picketing, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Catherine Rose: Re: Pickering Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-002/P 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) (South-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue) City of Pickering RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING, AND D..~ELOPMENT DEPARTMENT To conf'hnn 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 the oversizk,,.g of set:ices and the construction of Delta Blvd, must the resolved. As per previous correspondence involving this matter, the City of Pickering acknowledged that these costs will be addressed during future planning applications. Cost calculations had been undertaken by Durmuid Horgan, Candevcon Engineering Limited. We are currently reviewing these costs and will be providing this information in the near future, in order to conclude this matter. 650 Lakeridge Road, Ajax, Ontario, LIS 4S7 Tel: (416)-410.0778 Fax: '(416)-410-0778 REPORT ~ PD ~ ~ -o 2. Design Impacts - Street 'B' In accordance to the development agreement executed between the City of Picketing and 734 'a' Kingston Road Limited, the lands transferred to the City for street are to be returned to 734 ~B' Kingston Road Limited, if street 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, Perx, nl ~/Road Limited cc. Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP, Planner ATTACHMENT #_~__ .,,_TO REPORT#PD ~Y-c~ 734 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED HAND D~I ~IVERED March 21, 2002 City of Pickering Planning and Development Department One the Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Arm: 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 surrounding land owners in the Northeast Quadrant Study Area should be contributing towards the costs of the 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, / 73 . ,~united Per Jom~verzet cc. Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP, Planner 2 650 Lakeridge Road, Ajax, Onta. rio, LIS 4S7 Tel: (416).410.0778 Fax: (416)-410.0778 734 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED March 21, 2002 City of Picketing Planning and Development Department One the Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Atto: Catherine L. Rose, Policy Manager RECEIVED MAR '; ' . CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 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 Parts 25 and 30 for a road. Parts 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. gs ~Limited A)Verzet cc. Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP, Planner 2 650 Lakeridge Road, Ajax, Ontario, LIS 4S7 Tel: (416)-410-0778 Fax: (416)-410-0778 A,'rTACHI'~ENT # "7 . , TO REPORT # PD -,~ ~-o 2.. 147 734 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED August 2, 2001 Nell Carrol City of Pickering Planning & Development Dept. One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario LI V 61(7 i'"'FiE6E~VED~ AUG 2 200t CITY OF PICKEi~ItNG Dear Sir: Re: 734 Kingston Road - Itemized Costs to Construct Delta Blvd.(including oversizing). As requested by Cathering Rose the following are the itemized costs for the construction of Delta Boulevard which include overs/zing and servicing extensions.to accommodate the lands to the north. Hydro $148,000 Road 326,000 Traffic Lights 56,000 Consultants 40,000 OvelTurl5 45,000 Land .325,000 $940,000 We are available to attend a meeting with all parties involved to discuss cost sharing in more detail. Yours truly, 734 KINGSTON ROAD LIMITED Per: Larry Macdonell Project Manager 650 Lakeridge t~oad, Tel: (416)-410.0778 Ontario, LJ$ 457 Fax: (416)-410.0778 AT'tACH,B49' ~ ~'~ _TO R£POR~'P0 ~?-o2.- 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 T~affic Lights Kingston Road Median 734 Kingston Road Limited Road Costs to be Recovered Applicable Total to Road 650,000 4,462 9,787 33,225 19,157 6,951 5,514 125,732 80,875 6,170 650,000 1,116 2,447 33,225 19,157 6,951 5,514 125,732 20,219 1,543 Our Share To Be Recovered 325,000 325,000 558 558 1,223 1,223 16,613 16,613 9,579 9,579 3,476 3,476 2,757 2,757 80,000 45,732 10;109 10,109 771 771 139,615 139,615 22,400 117,215 67,014 67,014 35,000 32,014 124,657 124,657 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 ATTACHMENT d / ~ TO R:PORT # PD ,=,,? ~ o 0 2_. r,lfqY 18 .' El:t C1L=:: :3:3flirt C:HRF' TL-)F;:OHT'.-' F'. I "1 VIA FAX: 905-420-9685 Mr. Steve Gaunt, Planner 2 Planning and Development Department City of Picketing One the Esplanade Picketing, Ontario LtV 6K7 Dear Mr. Gaunt: 8t~ Floor 277 Front Street West Toronto, Ontario MSV 2X7 17 Hay 2001 Your File: OPA 01-002/P A 04/01 Our File: TZ-4500-P-02 Re: Proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Part Lot 28, Range 3r. Broken Foot Concession, City of Pickering Southeast corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue We have reviewed your letter dated 26 April 2001, regarding the above noted application and have the following comments: The Owner is required to insert the 'following warning clause in all development agreements, offers to purchase, agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease and include in a Noise Impact Statement: "Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest has or have a right-of-way within 300 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 possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNR will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid right-of-way." The Owner is required to engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and provide abatement measures necessary to achieve the maximum level limits set by the Ministry of Environment and Canadian National. We would appreciate the opportunity to comment on any proposed modification prior to its adoption, and ultimately, we request notice of the Amendment being approved. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersignecl at (416) 217-6961. Yours truly, Development Review Coordinator RECEIVED NAY 1 8 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f~TTkOHMEI~T #___ f~/ TO REPORT~ PD ~? ~°O'~ onservabon 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 623 Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 Dear Ms. Terry: Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A04/01 and Application to Amend the City of Picketing Official Plan CPA 01-002/P Part of Lot 28, B F ¢ Range 3 South-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue City of Picketing (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 developrnent 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 ensur¢ 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 Rivers · Biodiversity and Greenspace "Education for Sustainable ~~ 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 154 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www. trca.on.ca ATTACHMENT REPORT ~ PD 15I Ms. Celeste Terry - 2 - May'29, 2001 In addition note that as the property is regulated under Ontario Regulation 158, a permit is required from the Authority prior to any of the following works taking place: construct any building or structure or permit any building or structure to be constructed in a pond or swamp or in any area susceptible to flooding during 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 already located in or upon such area, or brought to or on such area from some other place or places; straighten, change, divert or interfere in any way with the existing channel of a'river, creek, stream or watercourse. In addition, if development were to take place, staff 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, prior 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, Plans Analyst Development Services Section Ext. 5306 PY/fa cc: Steve Gaunt, City of Pickering 152 R£?ORI' # PD a? Y- 0 '~,l. _ DELIVERY PLANNING 1860 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 Picketing 1 The Esplanade Picketing On L1V 6K7 JUN CITY OF PICKERING PlanNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT~~, CITY OF PICKERING, ONTARIO RE: PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 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) (SOUTH-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. REPORI' ~ PD ,~ ~ o o ~ :I53 -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 information, please do not hesitate to contact me the above number or mailing address. Sincerely, Debbie Greenwood Delivery Planner a:utildraw.sam 154 ATTACHMENT ~ / '~ -," TO REPORT # PD ~,~ z;/- 0 'Z.. Bell Right of Way F1 5 - 100 Borough Drive Scarborough, Ontario M1P 4W2 Tel: 416 296-6291 Fax: 416 296-0520 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 -~%derg~ound sec'vicing conditions imposed by the municipality and if no such Conditions are imposed, the owner shall advise the municipality of the ar~rangement 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 'AI'rAoI. IMEN'r~ 7-U- TO REPORT # PD ~ ~' - o~2- 155 The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department 1615 DUNDAS ST. E. 4TH FLOOR, LANG TOWER WEST BUILDING P.O. BOX 623 WHITBY, ON L1N 6A3 (905) 728-7731 FAX: (905) 436-6612 www.region .durham.on .ca A.L, Georgieff, MClP, RPP April 29, 2002 Mr. Steve Gaunt Planner City of Pickering Planning and Development Department Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering ON L1V 6K7 RECEIVED' 0 2 2002 CITY OF PICKERING pLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Mr. Gaunt: Re: Region's Review of an Application to Amend the City of Picketing Official Plan File No. CPA 01-002/P; and, ReZoning Application A-04/01 Applicant: Marion Hill Development Corporation Location: Part Lot 28, Range 3; B.F.C. South-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue Municipality: City of Pickering Commissioner of Planning 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 a portion of the subject lands from"Urban Residential Area - Low Density'Area" to "Urban Reside ntial Area - Medium Density Area": The applicant also seeks to amend 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 townhouse dwellings. The subject site is designated "Living Area" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. One of the goals of the Living Area is 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 la'nds have been assessed as having a high'archaeological potential due the proximity of a watercourse (Amberlea Creek). An archaeological assessment will be required. The subjec[ lands are also adjacent to both Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue. Whites Road is designated as a Type "A" A .rterial 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. "'SERVICE EXCELLENCE for our COMMUNITY" ~ 100% Post Consumer ATTACHbIENT ~_ / ~ 'r0 The Region understands that it is the applicant's intention 'to enclose the portion of Amberlea Creek th'at flows through the eastern portion of the subject lands. The limit of the floodplain and valley corridor have not been defined for. th~s 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 sanita'ry sewer servicing is available to the subject lands. CommentS'regardit~g transportation issues have also been provided by the Regional Works Department. The Works Department is supportive of the application, however, the Region will onlypermit a single controlled direct access to Whites Road for the proposed development. I. Jl~on 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 co~:ridor 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 dhys of the date of adoption. The record sho. uld 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'q uestions, please call Lino T~ombino al this office. Yo.urs truly, Kai.yeW,tManager Plan Implementation Current Operations Branch CC. Steve Mayhew, Development Approvals Di~,ision - Regional Works Department Russel White, Development Services Section - TRCA RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY 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 Lot 31, Concession 2, City of Pickering, 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 Lot 31, Concession 2, City of Picketing, 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. 158 REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil 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 Rosebank 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 Pickering, 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 Pickering, 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 Picketing for comment, and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 submitted to the City of Pickering. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, 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 dwellings 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 27-02 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Date: May 27, 2002 Page 2 The proposed plan of subdivision represents appropriate residential development. The proposal conforms to the policies of the Picketing Official Plan for lands designated Urban Residential- Low Density Area. All interests of the City will be appropriately addressed through an associated subdivision agreement. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Introduction The subject lands are located on the west side of Rosebank Road, north of Finch Avenue. A property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1). The subject property was recently used as a farm and horse ranch containing one detached dwelling unit and a barn; the northeast comer of the property is wooded. The original draft plan of subdivision contained 69 dwelling units, consisting of 47 detached dwellings, 18 semi-detached dwellings, and 4 future lots. This is the proposal that was presented at the public meeting and described in the public meeting information report (see Attachment #2). Since the public meeting the applicant has revised the draft plan of subdivision. The revision to the draft plan relates to the lotting. The road configuration remains the same as originally proposed. The revised lotting is now for 45 detached dwellings lots and 11 semi-detached lots that will accommodate 22 semi detached dwellings, and 4 future lots, for a total of 71 dwelling units. The draft plan also provides for 4 blocks proposed for detached dwelling lots in the future when the temporary cul-de-sacs are extended westerly (see Attachment #3). . The subject property is located within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood and a Detailed Review Area, for which Council has adopted the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. These guidelines indicate a road bisecting the subject property. A portion of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Tertiary Plan has been attached that highlights the subject property. The Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor has been shown on this plan (Attachment #3A). The following is background information on the subject applications: Proposed Development Detail Gross area of draft plan Net residential area of draft plan Open space blocks Landscape strip block Number of detached dwelling lots Number of semi-detached building lots Number of semi-detached dwelling units Future lots Total dwelling units Net residential density Detached dwelling lot frontages - minimum 11.0 metres - minimum 10.0 metres Semi-detached building lot frontage - minimum 15.0 metres Original Plan (Attachment 2) 3.95 ha 2.32 ha - 0.64 ha - nil - 47 9 - 18 - 4 - 69 29.6 units/ha 30 21 9 Revised Plan (Attachment 3) 3.95 ha 2.41 ha 0.55 ha 0.024 ha 45 11 - 22 - 4 - 71 - 29.4 units/ha 19 26 11 Report to Council PD 27-02 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Date: May 27, 2002 Page 3 2.0 Information Meeting A Public Information Meeting for the subject applications was held on August 9, 2001. Information 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 Information Report is provided for reference (see Attachment #4). At the Public Information Meeting, proposal. Comments included: :four area residents commented on the applicant's · Question on construction impacts including, private services of adjacent properties, tree preservation, property line fencing; · Lotting and servicing 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 stormwater 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 Information Meeting are provided for reference (see Attachment #5). 2.1 Public Comment Prior to the public meeting two written comments were 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 property; 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 watercourse that runs through the north-east comer 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 27-02 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Date: May 27, 2002 Page 4 Since the public meeting the only additional public comments have come from Jocelyn Barber, who has submitted numerous correspondences on the subject applications (Attachment # 8 to 15). The issues can be summarized as follows: · timing of the proposed development as it relates to previously Ontario Municipal Board hearings and Ontario Realty Corporation selling programs; · corporate history of the developers of the subject applications; · accuracy of some of the submitted information provided in support of the applications; · conceptual road connection onto adjacent properties; · the history of the intermittent watercourse that travels through the subject property and the impact of the placed fill and the proposed development on the watercourse; · the submission of a Petition for Drainage Works under the Drainage Act; · the review of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Environmental Master Servicing Plan; and, · stormwater management issues and existing stormwater services for the area. 2.2 Comments from Other Agencies Hydro One has advised they have no objection to the applications subject to certain conditions (see Attachment # 16). Veridian Connections has advised that they have no objection to this proposal, and request a copy of the proposed civil design plans to prepare a preliminary design and estimate to service the proposed subdivision (see Attachment #17). Canada Post has requested conditions of approval be imposed on their behalf respecting the notification and construction of the required Community Mailbox (see Attachment #18). Bell Canada has requested conditions of draft approval be imposed on their behalf addressing the location and installation of underground servicing (see Attachment gl9). Enbridge Consumers Gas has requested that conditions related to the installation of underground servicing be imposed on their behalf (see Attachment #20). Durham District School Board has advised that approximately 35 elementary pupils could be generated by the development, that these students will be accommodated within existing school facilities and therefore, have no objection to the application (see Attachment #21). Durham Catholic District School Board has advised that the proposed development is within the catchment area of St. Monica Catholic School and the projected student yield will be 14 students and therefore, have no objection to the application (see Attachment #22). Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation has advised that an archaeological report has been prepared and reviewed and no archaeologically significant resources were identified. Therefore, they have no objection to the application (see Attachment #23). Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has verbally advised that they are reviewing the detailed design information that they have requested on stormwater management. The TRCA conditions of approval for the subdivision will be forwarded to the City upon the conclusion of the detailed review. It is not anticipated that any of the comments will have an impact on the subdivision design. It is further noted that staff are recommending as a condition of approval that the subdivider satisfy all requirements of the TRCA. Region of Durham Planning Department has advised that Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as Living Area, where development is intended to be predominantly for housing purposes. The draft plan appears to be in proximity to lands designated as Open Space Linkages, which recognizes the Rouge-Duffins Corridor. The proposed applications conform to the Durham Regional Official Plan. 162 Report to Council PD 27-02 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Date: May 27, 2002 Page 5 The applications have been screened in accordance with the terms 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 the 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 the 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 Picketing 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 of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Date: May 27, 2002 Page 6 Building permits will not be available for these lots until the temporary road allowance blocks have been conveyed back to the subdivider. Conveyance of a 3.0 metre block of land adjacent to Rosebank Road will provide an opportunity to reduce the impact of the required noise attenuation fence along Finch Avenue through the introduction of landscaping. It is recommended that funds made available from boulevard trees that cannot be accommodated on Street 'A' or 'B', be applied to coniferous plantings on this block, as part of the Applicant's street tree planting plan. The required noise fence is a direct result of the applicants proposed rear lot design. The block for landscaping is essential to address the City's policy to discourage noise attenuation fencing. The conveyance of the landscape block does not constitute conveyance of parkland as per Section 42(1) of the Planning Act. Further, the subdivider shall provide a fixed payment satisfactory to the City to provide for long-term maintenance and replacement of the plant material. The implementation of the landscape strip will reduce the negative impact of the noise attenuation fence that is a requirement of the noise study. The noise fence is a requirement that results from the applicant's subdivision design of reverse lot frontage therefore, it is reasonable for the subdivider to bear the cost for the landscape strip as this is the only way to "soften" the impacts is the noise attenuation fence and provide a streetscape along Rosebank Road that is not just a noise fence. The subdivision design incorporates a 0.558 hectare block in the northem portion of the draft plan as open space (Block 76). This portion of the draft plan is currently vegetated and will remain in a natural state, although some rehabilitation of this area may be required. This block corresponds to the lands that are designated as Open Space System - Natural Areas in the Official Plan. These lands are not developable and the conveyance of these lands to a public authority does not constitute conveyance of parkland under Section 42(1) of the Planning Act. 3.2 Urban Design Considerations The development of the proposed detached dwelling and semi-detached dwellings on small lots must be carefully planned and controlled to avoid a monotonous streetscape, minimize the negative affects of garage projections at the front of the houses and reduce lot access conflicts. These potential problems can be mitigated through the application of good urban design techniques. The modulation of front yard depths and eliminating garage projections beyond the main walls of dwellings can visually improve a streetscape. Where lot depths and widths permit, house designs can be chosen that eliminate full garage projections. Incorporating habitable floor space above garage extensions or the use of hip roofs on the garage extensions also improve the streetscape. The twinning of driveways provides for increased curb space for visitor parking, reduces lot access conflicts and the amount of driveway asphalt in front yards and may facilitate the planting of trees. In considering a streetscape, the design element that contributes the most to the appearance of the dwelling is how the garage is treated. This includes both the projection of the garage and the width of the garage/garage door. The width of the garage/garage door also relates to the amount of asphalt/driveway in the front yard. On plans of subdivisions that incorporate small lots (having a lot frontage of 10 metres or less), front yards are compromised when the driveway takes on a high priority due to its size. In this subdivision, the majority of the dwellings will have a lot frontage of 10.0 metres or less. If a two-car garage was permitted the result would be that almost 2/3 of the front yard would be drivewaY. Furthermore, with a two-car garage on a 10.0 metre wide lot, there is not enough room left to on the main wall of the house to accommodate both a front door and a front window that both face the street. Therefore, it is recommended that the width of the garage and garage door be controlled in the architectural design statement. Report to Council PD 27-02 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Date: May 27, 2002 Page 7 Based on the forgoing, this Department recommends that prior to the registration of the plan an~or the issuance of any model home permits, the applicant prepare a report to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & 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 Density 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 forms of development should be encouraged to achieve a high level of urban design that will provide a benefit to the greater community. In considering this draft plan, this Department considered the impact of the development on the ability of the lands to the west to be developed as outlined in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Guidelines of the Picketing 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. Report to Council PD 27-02 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Date: May 27, 2002 1 5 Page 8 The eastern perimeter will also require a noise fence along the rear yards that abut Rosebank Road, including wrap-a-rounds of the comer lots. The southern perimeter, excluding the lots that have noise attenuation fences, will require an appropriate fence separating the residential lots from the Hydro corridor. Prior to the installation of the permanent fence, a temporary construction fence will be erected and maintained. Conditions of Approval recommended in Appendix I to this Report include provisions to ensure that both temporary and permanent fencing will be installed around the subject lands. Subdivision Agreement A future subdivision agreement between the City and the owner of the lands will be required to ensure that all matters of interest to the City are protected. This required agreement, and several other development implementation matters, are incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for this proposal found in Appendix I to this Report. Parkland As no park blocks form part of the draft plan, the City will accept cash-in lieu from the subdivider in order to satisfy Section 42(1) of the Planning Act. Edge Management/Open Space Restoration An edge management plan and an open space restoration plan will be required for Block 76. As part of the detailed design for the draft plan the impact of the placement of fill in this Block will have to be assessed with regard to impact on vegetation, surface hydrology, and ground water. This may result in removal of fill in some areas, the placement of topsoil, planting of appropriate native species and the removal of dead or declining trees. The restoration plan along with the detail stormwater management plan will also have to address the former intermittent stream that flowed through this area. Petition for Drainage Works under the Drainage Act A Petition for Drainage Works under the Drainage Act has been submitted against the subject property. This Petition relates to intermittent stream and the ponding up of water in the northern portion of the property and on abutting land. The engineering consultant that is reviewing this matter for the City has verbally advised that the Petition should not impact on the City's ability to consider the subject applications. If the draft plan is approved, it is anticipated that the detailed engineering will address all surface water movements for the subject property. Interface Between Proposed Development and Existing Property The interface between the proposed draft plan and the existing residential lots to the west will have to be appropriately designed so that the existing residential properties are not physically impacted by the construction activities. This will include addressing matters such as grading, fencing, drainage and vegetation preservation. These matters will be addressed in the detailed design of the draft plan. 3.6 Conditions of Draft Approval While the specifics of the TRCA's conditions of approval for 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 are received and incorporated into the formal conditions of draft plan approval. Outstanding matters are technical and should not impact subdivision design. 16.6 Report to Council PD 27-02 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Date: May 27, 2002 Page 9 4.0 Applicant'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 Report to Council PD 27-02 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 Date: May 27, 2002 Page 10 ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Resident Resident Comment Resident Comment Resident Comment Resident Comment Resident Comment Resident Comment Resident Comment Property Location Map Applicant's Original Submitted Plan Applicant's Revised Submitted Plan Information Report No. 21-01 Minutes of the August 9, 2001 Statutory Public Meeting Resident Comment - Laurie Humphries, 2026 Altona Road Comment - Jocelyn Barber, 450 Finch Avenue - Jocelyn Barber. - Jocelyn Barber. - Jocelyn Barber. - Jocelyn Barber. - Jocelyn Barber. - Jocelyn Barber. - Jocelyn Barber. Resident Comment - Jocelyn Barber Agency Comment - Hydro One 450 Finch Avenue 450 Finch Avenue 450 Finch Avenue 450 Finch Avenue 450 Finch Avenue 450 Finch Avenue 450 Finch Avenue 450 Finch Avenue Agency Comment - Veridian Connections Agency Comment - Canada Post Agency Comment - Bell Canada Agency Comment - Enbridge Consumers Gas Agency Comment - Durham District School Board Agency Comment - Durham Catholic School Board Agency Comment - Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation Agency Comment - Region of Durham Planning Department Staff Comment - Municipal Property & Engineering Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed by: Ross Pyrn, MCIP, RPI~/ Principal Planner - Development Review N~fiCarr~l~iej,~" ' Director, P1 ~h,.~l~ & Development Lynda D. Taylpt~, MCIP, RPP Manager, Current Operations RP/td/jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Counci_!. ~ T~off[a~ j.Q~f Ad~inistra~ffi~r 168 APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 27-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DRAFT PLANS OF SUBDIVISION SP-2001-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION SP-2001-02 1.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1.1 That this recommendation apply to the draft plan prepared by Land-Pro Engineering Consultants Inc., revised date of April 10, 2002 (Drawing Number DP-lB), for Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2001-02 submitted by Land-Pro Engineering Consultants Inc. on behalf of Rosebank Garden Homes Inc., on lands being Part of Lots 31, Concession 2, City of Pickering, to permit the development of 45 lots for detached dwellings, 11 semi-detached lots for 22 semi-detached dwellings, 4 future detached dwelling blocks, open space block and landscape block. 2.0 PRIOR TO THE REGISTRATION OF THE PLAN: 2.1.1 That the owners submit a Draft 40M-Plan to be approved by the City Planning & Development Department that includes the modifications to the plan as outlined the Planning Report Number PD 06-02. 2.1.2 That the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/01 become final and binding. 2.3 That the owner enter into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: 2.3.1 Storm Drainage (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting a stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision, and any provisions regarding easements; (b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department for contributions for down stream stormwater management works. 2.3.2 Grading Control and Soils (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting submission and approval of a grading and control plan; (b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development Department respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis. 2.3.3 Road Allowances (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting construction of internal roads with curbs, storm sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs to maximize front yard space without impeding services or the safe operation of the streets: and, (b) that all streets be named to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. 2.3.4 Sidewalks (a) that the owner construct a sidewalk along the north side Street 'A' and the south side of Street 'B' to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department. 170 2.3.5 2.3.6 Construction / Installation of City Works & Services (a) satisfaction of the City respecting arrangements' for the provision of all services required by the City; (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 the 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 the 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 Charges (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 provide for co-ordination of services and roads with adjacent lands and any phasing of development that may be required. -3- 17i 2.3.10 Fencing (a) satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of temporary fencing around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior to the commencement of any works; (b) satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of a chain link fence or wood privacy fence along the southern perimeter of the subject property were there is not a need for a noise attenuation fence; (c) satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of noise attenuation fencing as per a noise report approved by the City of Picketing. 2.3.11 Street Tree Planting (a) the submission of a street tree planting plan to the satisfaction of the City, such plan to include plantings in Block 77 of the draft plan. (b) the subdivision provide the City with a fixed payment, satisfactory to the Director, Planning & Development for long term maintenance of Block 77. 2.3.12 Design Planning (a) the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting a report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development, and the submission of site plans and architectural drawings identifying how each unit meets the objectives of the report, prior to the issuance of any building permit for the construction of a residential unit on the lands; (b) the report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development must address building envelopes, house designs, siting, and streetscapes as well as garage designs, locations, massing, width, and projection from the main dwelling; (c) the report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development must place special emphasis on the model to be built on lots that have a front lot line at street line, of 10.0 metres or less, and models on these lots will have restrictions on garage width. (d) the report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development must address driveway placement and curb cut location on the proposed public road to ensure adequate room is maintained to accommodate street furniture and boulevard landscaping; (e) that the owner satisfy the City respecting the provision of appropriate aesthetic details and design of all boundary fencing and noise attenuation fencing adjacent to Rosebank Road. 2.3.13 Noise Attenuation (a) that the owners satisfy the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment regarding the approval of a noise study recommending noise control features satisfactory to the Region of Durham, and the City of Pickering. 2.3.14 Engineering Drawings (a) that the owner satisfy the City respecting the submission of appropriate engineering drawings that detail, among other things, City services, roads, storm sewers, sidewalks, lot grading, streetlights, fencing and tree planting, and financially-secure such works. 172 -4- (b) that the engineering plans be co-ordinated with the architectural design objectives and further the engineering plans shall co-ordinate the 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 Agencies (a) that the subdivider satisfy all the requirements of the Region of Durham; (b) that the subdivider satisfy all the requirements Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and, of the (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 by the subdivider, and upon request written confirmation 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- 173 (b) that the engineering plans be co-ordinated with the architectural design objectives and further the engineering plans shall co-ordinate the 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 Agencies (a) that the subdivider satisfy all the requirements of the Region of Durham; (b) that the subdivider satisfy all the requirements Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and, of the (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 by the subdivider, and upon request written confirmation 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. 174 APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 27-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 09/01 1. That the implementing zoning by-law: (a) permit the establishment of detached provisions: dwellings in accordance with the following (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) minimum mimmum mimmum 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; mimmum 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 gross floor area of 100 square metres; maximum of one dwelling unit per lot; mammum 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 the 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 the 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 the vehicular entrance of an attached private garage, no part of any attached private garage shall extend more than 6.0 metres beyond the wall 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 ~'ard. (b) permit the establishment of semi-detached dwellings in accordance with the following provisions: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) 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; mimmum gross floor area of 100 square metres; maximum of one dwelling unit per lot; mammum lot coverage of 50 percent; mimmum 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 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. 175 ~ ! ~ i m FINCH AVENUE "' I .. o, ,,, ~ ~ ~ ~ D~m~oo ~ - - ~ ~-- ~:-,_ Ci'~ of Pickerin' g, v. ~ 1 ~~ Planning & Development Depa~ment PROPERT? DESCRI~ON PART OF LOT 31, CONCESSION 2 OWNER IRIS ELEANOR HOLMES DATE JUN 25, 2001 D~WN BY RC APPLICA~ON No. SP-2001-02; A 0~/01 SCALE 1:7500 CHECKED BY TB FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-14 PA- IIII *A'I"rACHME]~I~ * ~'*~' TO REPORT t PD,, 172 Z~ la. <to o:r --nZ o Z 0 0 Z 0 b.I I'-- >- = ' 0 >- I ti ~ m ~ m ~ m ZbJ XL~ L~r~ 178 ~X~ATTACHMENT ~ ~./~ 1'0 SIH~ ~'NO.LqV 3AI~IC] '05 NInO: o- Ii ~l ! ! 8 ATTACHMENT# ~' TO REPORT#PD 27-02 PICKER!NG INFORMATION REPORT NO. 21-01 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2001 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Draft Plan of Subdivision 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) City of Pickering 1.0 2.0 .PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject lands are located on the west side of Rosebank Road, north of Finch Avenue; a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1); the subject property is used as a from and horse ranch containing one detached dwelling 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 Hydro corridor; and a detached dwelling east on opposite side of Rosebank. Road are vacant lands and wooded areas; west - existing residential dwelling on a large lot; .APPLICANT'S PROPOSAl, Rosebank Garden Homes Inc. on behalf of the owner, have submitted an application for approval of a draft plan of subdivision and an application to amend the zoning by-law in order to implement the proposed draft plan; the applicant's proposed subdivision plan is provided for reference (see Attachment #2); the draft plan proposes the creation of two new municipal streets, one extending west from Rosebank Road and the other intersecting with the new road and extending southwest; ' the intent is that the two proposed roads will be extended westerly when development is proposed on the abutting lands; however, the two roads are proposed to be temporarily 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 Number of Single detached dwelling lots Number of semi-detached building lots Number of semi-detached dwelling units Total dwelling units Single detached dwelling lot frontage Semi-detached building lot frontage -- 3.957 hectares -- 2.326 hectares : -- 0.641 hectares -- 51 -- 9 -- 18 -- 69 -- 11 metre frontage.= 30 lots -- 10 metre frontage = 21 lots -- 15 metre frontage = 9 lots 1. SO Information Report No. 21-01 '~WACHUEm'~,, H ' TO REPORT # PD 2'7- ©2 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 fl~e 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 residential 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 Picketing 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 which 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 Picketing Official Plan - Transportation 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 I!I of the Picketing 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 Wildlife Corridor; - Section 10.17 of the Official Plan clarifies-that the boundary of the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor coincides with the boundary of the Open Space -. Natural Areas designation; this section of the plan also requires an Environmental 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 Piekering Official Plan during the further procesSing of the applications. Information Report No. 21-01 ATTACHMENT REPOFIT # pD_ ~. '7- 0~_ 18i Page 3 3.3 4.0 4.1 .Zoning By-law 3036, as amended - the subject lands are currently zoned "A" - Rural Agriculture Zone, by Zoning By-law 3036, as amended; - the existing zoning permits a range of agricultural uses, one detached dwelling, some recreational and community institutional uses, and selected agricultural commercial uses; ' ·. an amemhnent to the zoning by-law is required to allow the development of the proposed draft plan of subdivision. ~ RESULTS OF CIRCULATION (See Attachments//3 to #10) Resident Comments - no resident comments have been received to-date. 4.3 _Affency Comments Verldlan Connections - has no objection.to the proposed, development and requests a copy of first submission civil desit0~ plans so they can complete a preliminary design and estimate (see Attachment #3); · Canada Post - requests conditions of draft approval regarding the location and installation of a temporary and permanent Community Mailbox, and required sidewalk, boulevard and curb works serving the mailbox (see Attachment//4); Bell Canada - requests conditions of draft approval be imposed on their behalf addressing the location and installation of underground servicing (see Attachment #5); Enbrldge Consumers Gas - requests conditions of draft approval be imposed on their behalf addressing utility distribution plans and the installation of gas lines (see Attachment #6); No Objections or. Concerns: - Durham District School Board; Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Hydro One Networks Inc. i and Durham Catholic District School Board (see Attachments #7 to #10 respectively). ' .Staff Comments in reviewing the application to-date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with, and sensitive to, surrounding lands; ensuring that the proposed street, lotting pattern and dwelling designs maintain a high quality residential streetscape; reviewing supporting technical submissions and reports to ensure that adequate information is provided, that technical requirements are met and that the proposed subdivision design does not impact on the ability of abutting properties to develop in an appropriate fashion; ' reviewing the appropriateness of the reverse lot frontage proposed along Rosebank Road; and, ' ' some of the woodlot in the north-east comer of the subject lands was lost .due to filling, prior to Rosebank Garden Homes being involved with the property; preliminary discussion with the applicant and their environmental consultant concluded an emphasis on enhancing east-west ecological cOrridor 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 required on this matter; Information Report No. 21-01 gT£AOHMENT # z-/ TO. · ~EPORT # PD. 2-/- 0.2 Page 4 5.0 6.0 6.1 6.2 further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. PROt~EDURAL INFORMATION written comments regarding this proposal Planning & Development Department; should be directed to the - 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 Appendix I list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing this report. 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 December 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. Information Report No. 21-01 6.3 .Coml~anv Principal the current property owner, Iris Eleanor Homes, has enter into an agreement of purchase and sale with Rosebank Garden Homes Inc. whose principle is Harkiran Boparai. Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Principal Plmmer - Development Review wLyndaTaylor, MCIP, RPP ' Manager, Current OPerations Copy: Director, Planning & Development Department Excerpts fi;om Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes of Thursday, August 9, 2001 Cite STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES The Manager, Policy Division, provided an overview of the requirements of the 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 Planner, provided an explanation of the 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 comments. 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 land assembly · Timing - advised that she may have submitted an application also, but that Staff had assured her that no development would be done for 10 years. · Road running through her house - advised she had a road running through her house from 1980 to 1998, had the road removed, and now this development would put another road through her house. · Servicing- §hould 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. o o -2- · Open space' is actually a watei stream in the spring, which flows down Rosebank Road and is heavy and fast for about a week. Dumping the fill has not changed the flow as they had planned. This application shows 13 lots on the stream's course and the plans do not show any watercourse. Well and cistern - the development will interfere with her well and she requested that the Developers pay for hookup to Municipal water and for disconnecting her well. She advised that she would provide two cost estimates. Fence - will be damaged with development and requested that they preserve it. Trees - requested that they be preserved and if any are damaged they should be removed. · Elevation - questioned the elevation of the property now and what it will end up being. Requested a new elevation map be prepared. · Dust- requested daily watering · Suggested Staff include servicing information in the report, as it is important to residents. · Requested the Developer to respond to the following: i. The area of the draft plan doesn't add up to what is proposed in the report. ii. When did you approach Picketing Planning Department regarding this development? iii. Is Rosebank Garden Homes Inc. an established company? iv. The contour lines on the plan are old. Are they relevant to the development? What is the present elevation? v. Will servicing routes come l~om Finch? vi. Details regarding roads A and B vii. North Finch properties need better road alignment for the smaller properties viii. Did Ontario Hydro get a copy of the map? Why was there no mention of an intermittent watercourse? Ms. Barber commented that these meetings should 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 for her presentation. Colin O'Handley, 2640 Altona Road, advised that .he is involved in the agricultural preserve of ti/is area and questioned if the development will impinge on the wildlife corridor. He also sought clarification on how strict the Official Plan is regarding the corridor policy. Michael Bartley, 425 3ra Concession Road, enquired if there were any plans to upgrade Rosebank Road given the anticipated increase in traffic (eg. Road, stop signs, lights, etc.) Councillor Brenner requested that further discussions regarding this item take place between Staff, the applicant, and area residents immediately following this meeting. 1R.G ATTACHMENT #~T0 REPORT# PD_ "2-~ - (~,~_ Mx. Nell Carroll Director of Planning and Development Picketing City Hall Picketing, ON RECEIVED AUL 0 § 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Laurie Humphries 2026 Altona Road Picketing, ON L1V 2P9 August 8, 2001 Re~ Draft Plan of Subdivision 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) Unfommately, due to a prior commitment arranged for tomorrow night I will not be able to attend Thursday's meeting. I had intended to appear at this meeting (August 9, 2001) but I had written it down as the 8*. As 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 the documents for application SP2001-05, I discovered that the meeting is on Thursday nightl At this point I 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, I 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 siguage with respect to this application I was completely unaware of the proposal. Therefor, please advise me of any future 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 ~EPORT # PD~ 1 'RECEIVED JUL 3 1 2001 CITY OF PICKERING~ PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT #_ -/ .TO "t~PORT # M'rTACHM£NT R~PORT/~ 1 $0 ATTACHMENT #...~ .REPORT # 191 192 A,'TTACHMEhii' :7. .~ . '. ':'..~ 2'-/- O2.. ~EPORT # , ATT^CHM£N7 #_..~ ...... TO 193 ATTAOHME~T #~ ~ :~TTACHMENT 195 196 ATTACHMENT .,-:'-_~ Planning Department City Mayor, Regional Councillors, City Councillors, Picketing Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Picketing L1V 6K7 450 Finch Avenue, Pickering L1V 1H8 August 16, 2001 Dear Sirs, Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP2001-02 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 l 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 Planning Department and the ten-year wai'ting 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, was not informed of ANY WAITING PERIOD and was not given information on the issue of the Provincial properties. Miss Rose denied she had stipulated 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 ti development was imminent. The City of Picketing 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 S~an 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 Planninl Dept. 1 q7 page 2 Question 3 concerned the contour lines on the Subdivision Application - Attachment 2 to the Infromation Report. I know that the contour lines are required to be of EXISTING CONDITIONS. A quick survey of the supporting documentation show photographs of banks of fill not even bulldozed to contour. Why would the Planning Dept. accept false information? Mr. Gupta said a new contour map will be available. May I see it? Question 4 concerned servicing routes and Finch Avenue. not discussed. It was Question 5 concerned the extensions of Roads A & B onto the properties of Barber, Linton and Smith. Linton and Smith were not even informed of the application nor of the meeting though the Council-approve concept shows these roads on their propertie~s~/_~ I am sure that they would be required to be notified; they~umped together in this Land. Assembly. If the Plannin~ Dept has changed th~n~at should not the residents be informed? I am particularly/because Mr. Gupta s application shows a Road C going through my house: that particular document was not included in the Information Report. I feel we need a pice of paper showing the extension of these roads. Can we have one? Question 6 concerned the extension over the OH property of an alternate stormwater management route. Mr. Gupta said we were in a preliminary round only - this was for later. Question 7 concerned the intermittent watercourse in the northeast sectio of the property.. No mention of stream in Dillon Environmental Report. No stream on map. 13 lots on streambed. Berms to prevent stream flowin~ onto property. Mr. Gupta said that the berms were for the railway. I had not at this time read the Gartner Lee report. ISSUES NOT DEALT WITII FILL...FILL...FILL VENT OF SEWER WELL AT 450 FINCH FENCE BETWEEN BARBER AND HOLMES TREE PRESERVATION POLICY FOR PROPERTY BOUNDARY DUST DURING CONSTRUCTION EXCESSIVE FILL PRODUCES NEED FOR EXCESSIVE COMPACTION WILL VIBRATIONS AFFECT SLAB FOUNDATION (BARN) OR STONE ~OUNDATION (HOUSE)? STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND WATERSHEDS 198 ~EPORT # PD_ ?_'7- 0,2- page 3 Comments on "Environmental Study Rosebank/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 1959. known the Rosebank Road property since that time. I am not a hydrogeologist. Neither is Mr. Henshaw; self-educated. I 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 ~k over t%e stream %ed to Brogress east or west. Mr. Henshaw mentions the walking trail on page 11~ last two lines I have not previously seen "ponded water" outlining 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 "~onded water" is close to my property. There is nothing to confine the ponding Fo the boundaries of 2030 Rosebank Road. Mr. Henshaw suggests leaving the ponded water on north as habitat for amphibians. I disagree, Previous conditions must be restored. I don't think Mr. Henshaw realises the quantity of water generated. Jocelyn Barber 193 · HA5 Hand Auger Hole Localio. i~"i'i'i'i'i'i'~--'~l~Approximale Limit of Fill of Ponded Water (April, 2001) Gartner Lee Ltd. (Apr., 2001) ~Area (April, 2001 ) Gartner Proposed Rosebank / Finch Development Lee Project 20-422 Scale 1:2,380 (2000\422~ydro-Site-P. cdr) A.TTACHME~T f--9 'TO In accordance with REGULATION 27& FORM 3 Drainaze Act P~TITION FOR DRAINAGE WORKS I- beinm an owner, as shown by the last revised assessment roll. of lands in the Second Concession of the City of Picketing- reauirinm the restoration maintenance re~air of a drainame works on adjoininm orooertv hereby petition that the area more .oarticularlv described as follows: 2030 Rosebank Road Con II S Pt Lot 31 Dlus I metre of fill 10,28 acres Roa~ allowance north of east-west culvert ROsebank Road- Easement for York-Durham Sewer/~ F ~ mav be drained bv means of restoration maintenance repair of a drainaze works - a natural intermittent watercourge now partiallv blocked. Signature of Petitioner Part Lot Con MuniciDaiity Petition filed this 10th day of SePtember. 2001 Clerk Please see Explanatory Notes and Exhibits attached ....... ·" .ZT-Ox- ...... 201 ~fn accordance with REGULATION 274 FORM 1 Drainame Act REOUISITION FOR DRAINAGE WORKS To Mt. Bruce Taylor Clerk of the City o~ Pickerin~ I am the owner of the following land: 430 - 450 Finch Avenue Con II S Pt Lot 31 with ROW Roll No. 030 020 1].200 0000 5.18 acres and I require the restoration maintenance repair of a drainage works, and the following lands and roads will be affected: 2030 Rosebank Road Con II S Pt Lot 31 Iris Holmes Road allowance north of east/west culvert Rosebank Road City o~ Picketing Easement for York=Durham Sewer / Region of Durham and I request that an engineer be appointed'by t~e Council 6f the municipality an~ that the engineer appoint a time and place at which he or she will attend and examine the area in order to make a report Dated this 10th day of September. 2001 Signature of Petitioner Part Lot Con. Mqnicipality ! Please see Explanatory Notes and Exhibits attached. 202 EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR: REQUISITION FOR DRAINAGE WORKS PETITION FOR DRAINAGE WORKS DRAINAGE ACT: DEFINITIONS "drainage works" includes a drain constructed by any means, including the improvinK of a natural watercourse, 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 works "repair" means the restoration of a drainage works 'lin~urinm liability" means the Dart of the cost of the construct~on~ imorovementz maintenance or reDalr of a drainame works reauired to relieve the owners of any ]and or road from liability for iniurv caused by water artificially 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, holding back or diverting 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 being 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. ~ra~el. slab or timber iam. dam or 'Dart of anw Tam. rubbish o~ any kind or other obstruction in any ].ake and ~rlver. t~e removal o~ w~lch he or she considers necessary or expedient for the achievement of any of the purposes of this Act. 2O3 ' t 2 ('~5 2n6 ~TTACHMENT ~'_. ~ R~PORT # PD '~"7- ~ TO 208 Hand Auger Hole Localion Gartner Lee Ltd. (Apr., 2001). Scale 1:2,380 Approximale Limi! of Fill rea . ~,~.~- Area (Apdl, 2001 ) IIAND AUGER IIOLE LOCATIONS l'roposed Rosebank / Finch Development of Ponded Waler (Apdl, 2001) I-- ~roject 20-422- -! ® HA§ Hand Auger Hole Localion Gartner Lee Ltd. (Apr., 2001) Gartner Lee Scale !:2,380 .~(";~'~. Approximale Limil of Fill O ~...~.~.---,~ Area (April, 2001) rea of Ponded Waler (April, 2001) I'- .... P'rOl~o~;~ R---~s;b-a,-d~ / Fin----~h Deveiopm--------'-~,~7-- ] ROSEBANK GARDEN .... . . 20..~0 ROSEBANK ROAD'---: ......... . "' ~. ~D-PRO~ ' ' "~2~ ~~~x~ ' .' ' 2601 MA~ESON BLVD, EAST' ~ ~ ' .-'"' DEAN' B~".; V.G~ · - ELEC~ONIC FILE: 2~F~-4' BA~: MARCH.' 2~1 S1M LOC. A/tON UPOfl ADJ. 'PRC~RI'¥ IDVlI~ER I 'ATTACHMENT #, I~) .TO REPORT ~ PD '2.-'/- C)~ ~ uVl'r'r~ q.o~". ~' .~q, I¢o~ 2!.2 ATTACHML~T,~ '--i~ TO REPORT # PD__~-'7- 0)_ 2!.3 ,/ ~ ? 2.!4 2!5 F~ E Z 0 'ATTACHMENT #~'fO REPORT ~' PO_ '2.-/- (2)9_ 28 77 ~ Ii~ 7' pUBLIC 1250 ' &~O ATTACHMENT #~1'0 REPORT~ PD 2!7 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM Vic Goad - Development Approvals Paul Gillespie - E~vironmental Services Design August 22, 2001 Draft Plan of Subdivision for Rosebank Garden In the City of Picketing At the request of Ken Thompson, I met with Ms. J Barber of 450 Finch Avenue in Pickering. She owns lands adjacent ~b the Rosebank Garden Draft Plan of Subdivision. Ms Barber's concern is that fill has been placed on the subject lands and, in the process, has blocked an existing drainage ditch. This ditch appears to convey runoff from lands on the north 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. Ms 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 morning and she appears to be correct, in that there does appear to an existing drainage ditch on the north side of the proposed development and it does appear to have been impacted by the placernent of fill. As we discussed, you are currently in the process of preparing comments on this proposal and I suggest that you include a requirement for the proponent to address the issue of external drainage from the north, and to demonstrate that ponding on the Regional easement will not be a concern. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. ~ Re~rds_ Paul Gillespie, P.Eng. Project Engineer Environmental Services Design Ken Thompson Ms J. Barber Director Environmental S! H:~projects'~'ickering~nisc\rosebankgardendrainage'd°c ~1 The Regional Municipality of Durham ~--------~"~1 Works Depadment ' ~ ~))1/ PAUI~ GILLESPIE, p. Eng~ ~,/~/' Project Engineer · T, ~------~----~/ Environmental Services ~l'DesignDivision' ' '. . : To contact me directly: Voicemail' (905) 661~-7725, Ext. 5258 ' 105 Consumers Dr., Box 623 WHITBY, ONTARIO L1N 6A3 1.-800-372-1103 .Fax: (905) 668-2051 e-mail address: e'paul.g!llespie@regi°n,durl~am'°n'ca 2.18 REPORT # PD 5'-/- C)'~ ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT ~ RECEIVED OCT 2 5 200t CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 220 ATTACHMENT # ~__J.L~. 'fo REPORT # PD '~.'-/" 02 [] [] :0 n ATTACHMENT q~?ORT ~ PD~-~ 221 A.2 ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS: Background Data 2.1 Origins of the Archaeological Sites There is substantial evidence that man has lived in the North Pickering site area for thousands of yea'rs. The earliest docu- mented occupation of the site was by primitive hunters of big game (deer, elk, bear), known to archaeologists as the Laurentian Archaic peoples (circa 5000 B.C. - 1000 B.C.). The eight campsites on the North Pickering site, according to Konrad, suggests that these hunters and gatherers located near reliable water sources and the major streams where fish could be taken, particularly during spawning runs. In all likelihood, the physical impact of occupation by Laurentian Archaic peoples on the site would have been negligible. Although the site may have.been occupied, by prehistoric huntinq- gathering peoples during the period 1000 B.C.-1000 A.D., the evidence is quite sketchy; however, approximately circa 1000 A.D., a major re-occupation of the site by prehistoric peoples known as Terminal Woodland can be documented. Of importance is the fact that these peoples practised a rudimentary agri- culture based on corn culture. Consequently, they exhibit a semi-sedentary village life. Their villages, 'usually palli- saded, were located on sandy soils ~9~en.t~.~sp:ring~and small streams in easily defensible positions removed from navi- gable water routes. During the initial stages of the Woodland Indian occupation (i.e. 1000 A.D.-!300 A.D.), these peoples were still denendent to some de~ree upon hunting and fishing (salmon in Duffin Creek particularly). Their successors, known as thc Middle Ontario Iroquois people (1300 A.D. - 1400 A.D.), established a relatively stable culture in southern Ontario exhibited by up to fifteen village sites in the southwestern portion of the site. Later, as agricultural development became more sophisticated with the addition of beans, squash and sunflowers, the final prehistoric occupation of the North Pickering site occurred with the Lake Ontario Iroquois or Huron-Petun people (1400 - 1650) . Thus the most evident effect on the site over 600 years of rela- tively continuous occupation by Woodland Indians was the land clearin~ a.~sociated with a,_~riculture. 222 COLE, SI-IEFIMAIRI E;I;JlXIS tJ LTl N G ENGINEEF1S A A 'i / ; MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY STUDY ARENA HISTORIC SETTLEMENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL (ABORIGINAL) HISTORICAL (EURO-CANADIAN) 2?3 COLE, SHERMAN _ gen d.. MUNICIPAL .BOUNDARY ' I I I I I I OAK RIDGES MORAINE STUDY AREA ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREA (ESA) PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT (CLASS 1-5) WETLAND LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT (CLASS 4-7) WETLAND PROVINCIAL AND REGIONAL LIFE SCIENCE AREA OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (ANSI WOODED AREA LOCAL LIFE SCIENCE ANSI 2P4 GONSULTING ENGINEERS rd AVb~Q, '1 ( ' ' Duhbart Legend= MUNICIPAL BOUNI STUDY AREA 2,95 COLE, SHERMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS March 18, 1998 Our Ref.: 18796 Mr. Jason Barber 450 Finch Avenue Pickering, Ontario L1V 1H8 Dear Mr. Barber: Re: Long Term Water Supply via.Durham West Terms of Reference Study Further to your request, at the recent set of Public Infixmation Centres, enclosed please find a copy of the maps requested. We apologize for the delay. If you require additional information, feel free to contact us. Yours truly, Michael Bricks Senior Enviromnental Pia~mer MB/Ih CSA2/WPIO6PROJ/18796tLET!rERS/Barb~r/Mar'98 COLE, SHERMAN ~-, ASSOCIATES L'm. 75 Commerce Valley Drive East, Thornhill, Ontario L3T 7N9 " Tel: (905} 882-4401 e-mail: csa@wcc.com Fax: (905) 882-4399 2?6 Michael Bricks, Senior Environmental Planner, Cole Sherman 75 Commerce Valley'Drive East, Thornhill, Ontario L3T 7N9 March 25, !998 Your ref; 18796 450 Finch Avenue, Pickering L1V !H8 Dear Mr. Bricks, Re.' 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 Pickering - provide material. And which department in the Towns or Regions would your firm have been dealing with? I would appreciate your help on this issue. Many thanks. Yours truly, A';'TACHMEI',iT # ..... ..... fO 2?7 Gartner Lee Limited 140 Renfrew Drive Suite 102 Markham, Ontodo L3R 6B3 : (905) 477-8400 'fax: (905) 477-1456 WWW: www.gari'nedee.com ~m,ire.mental Services .for ]ndustt?' & ~overnment Office Locations · Toronto Vancouver - St. Catharines · Whitehorse · Ye#owknlfe · Kuala Lumpur April 21, 1998 GLL 97-378 Mr. Jason Barber 450 Finch Avenue Picketing, Ontario L1V IH8 Dear Mr. Barber: Re: Long Term Water Supply via Durham West - Terms of Reference Study. Thank you for your inquiry to Mr. Bricks about the data sources used on the maps presented at the Public Information Centre events. This letter addresses your request for follow-up information. The database for the maps is kept by York Region. Most of the environmental information was compiled from government databases during the Water Supply Master Planing process a couple of years ago. Inforrnation for Durham Region was compiled for York Region by Geomatics during the Master Planning process. The following specific information may also be of assistance to you. Table 1: Mapping Information Contained in the York Region Database Description Information Service Approximate Date Conservation Areas MNR- York Region Compiled: 1997 Rivers MNR - OBM* 1978-83 Lakes .. MNR- OBM 1978-83 Hy. dro Transmission Lines MNR - OBM 1978-83 ........................................................................... ................................. ?. ..8. :. .s. . .3. ................ Woodlots MNR- U.p..d...a.[.e..d...O....B....M. ................ .1...9..9...2..-..9...4. ................ Warm and Cold Water Streams Geomatms 1980s Oak Ridl~es Moraine Bonndar), Geomatics 1980s Soils OMAF** 1993 Land Use OMAF 1983 Note: * MNR - OBM = Ministr), of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping · * Ontario MinistEr of Agriculture and Food We trust the above information meets your needs. If you have any questions, please call. Yours vet3' tm, ly, Hydrogeologist, Vice-President RE,IL:mm cc: M. Bricks, Cole Sherman P. Bottomley, Consumers Utilities 2?8 2?9 RECEIVED NOV - 5 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 230 27i 232 ATTACHMENT #, ["2- TO R~PORT # PD '2'7- ~J~ AFFIDAVIT RECEIVED NOV - 9 2001 CITY OF DEVELO~ 1. 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 as well as a Commercial Property Owner and Manger in the city of North Bay. I lived with my parents, Evelyn and Joseph Thompson until the 'summer of 1966 on Part. Lot31, Concession 2 in Pickering Ontario in a stone house now known locally as 2030 Rosebank Road. Evelyn and Joseph Thompson were the owners bf 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) o 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. Below is a digital scan of a picture showing the boat mentioned above, and myself and Andrew Gibson in the flooded area discussed. 9. Joselyn Barber who resides at 450 Finch Avenue in Pickering Ontario has sent me part of an enlargement of an ordinance survey topographical map of Markam 30M/14E , edition 1964. I have examined this map and note the following · At the Junction of Rosebank Road North of Finch and the CP Rail line, this map shows a stream flowing west and south from the utility corridor, entering 2030 Rosebank Road and then flowing south east around the north -east section of the property mentioned above. This is the same stream and watercourse I played in as a youngster in the above pictured boat. -. Witnessed: ) Briaff J. ThompsOn Date: AZ'oo~_-~tS~e.. /~ 2,~4 ~ D N,/I IX-T.= '\, i i I I I I I 2?5 RECEIVED NOV - 5 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 236 ATTACHMENT ~~TO REPORT # PD ~ ~ o?' ~_~. ~ I_.i,~ , ) - ~ IH[ R[GIONA[ MU~ICIPA[IIY O~ D~RHAM WORKS DEPARTMENT WHITBY ONTARIO ......... ROSE'BANK' ROAD FROM 86 m SOUTH OF C.~ ~TO 129 m NORTHERLY ~o ............... LOT NO..3.O..:..~J b~ .... [I ................. ~. ~C. KEBIM~... AREA MUN...P. IG~BI~.G ........ R£PORT ~' PD ~-'~- 2,q7 JAN ~ 5 2002 CITy OF PI PLANNING & o'/~,C,~EF:flNG D ~v~LoPM EPARTMENT ENT 2R8 "AC5 FINCH o JNortheast Quadrant (Study Area) Watershed Boundary 'ATTACHMENT~,, "~r-~/'-'- TO REPORT ~ PD ,)'7- 02_. Figure 1.1 Study Area city Northea ~,~, ~Axnberlea C Stormwater Scale 1:15, ,A~ACHMENT # i~ .TO R£PORT # PD '~7- ~ ECE vED CITY' OF P" '- - iUKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 240 ATTACHMENT #~: JLt~ '- TO ?,,ZPOR"J' ~ PD 2."7- Hydro One Networks Inc. Real Estate Services 483 Bay Street 12th floor, North Tower Toronto, ON M5G 2P5 www. HydroOne.corn Toll-Free: 1-888-231-6657 May 3, 2001 HAY - 9 ZOO1 CITY OF PICKERING 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, Conc 2 City of Pickering Related File Nos. 65923 Durham Reeion 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 On6 for review and approval.. Drainage must be controlled and directed away from Hydro One property. 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 right 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 Occupational 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. (cont'd) A~ACHMENT REPORT ,f' PD_ '2-/- ~ - 241 (2) Conditions that have not been satisfied prior to the execution of the subdivision agreement should be included in the subdivision agreement. We trust this is satisfactory. If you have any questions please call me at the number below at your convenience. Yours Truly iNFORMATiON COPY ORIGINAL SIGNED BY PAUL DOCKRILL Paul Dockrill Real Estate Assistant Real Estate Services Hydro One Networks Inc. 416-345-6658 cc Mr. N. Carroll Director of Planning Planning Department City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 242 ,z; FTACHMENT #~=~TO VERIDIAN cONNECTIONS DEvELOPMENT APPLICATION p,.EViEW MUlqlCIPALITY: l~i'cke'~ag V¢iiclian Connections has no objection to thc proposed development. Please Em'ward a copy of submission dvil dcslg~ so that a p~climinlaly dcdga and estimate c~m be Tcch~cal Representative - Fzed Tdcphone 427-9870 Ext, 3255 nT~n ~0 Cn~ 'n~! ~U4 NUIOlaSA Hd 9E:IO NOg IOOa-~t-gflU DELIVERY PLANNING 1860 MIDLAND AVE 2ND FL. SCARBOROUGH ON M1P 5Al (416)285-5385 (T) (416)285-7624 (F) June 1, 2001 Mr. N. Carroll Director of Planning City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering On L1V 6K7 JUN'- 5 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND O,,?_.~_~EVELoPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR APPROVALOF A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION DURHAM REGION FILE: S-P-2001-02 APPLICANT: IRIS ELEANOR HOLMES LOT: 31 CONCESSION: 2 CITY OF PICKER/NG REF.NO.: 65927 Dear Mr. Carroll, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above noted application. conditions below. Please note our new 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. -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 information, please do not hesitate to contact me the above number or mailing address. Sincerely, Debbie Greenwood Delivery Planner cc: R. Szaxek, Durham Region a:utildraw.sam Right of Way Fi 5 - 100 Borough DriVe Scarborough, Ontario M1P 4W2 Tel: 416 296-6291 Fax: 416 296-0520 REC JUN 1 5 2001 CiTY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND June 12, 2001 City of Picketing Planning Department Municipal Building 1 The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 ATTENTION: Mr. N. Carroll RE: DRAFT PLAN OF Subdivision File No: S-P-2001-02 Lot 31, Concession 2 Iris Eleanor Homes Town of Pickering Thank you for your letter of April 12, 2001 above proposed Subdivision. concerning the Would you please ensure that the following paragraphs are/ have been included as conditions of Draft Plan Approval: 1 - Bell Canada shall confirm that satisfactory arrangements, financial and otherwise, have been made with Bell Canada for any Bell Canada facilities serving this draft plan of subdivision 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 underground servicing 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: Sue Spataro 416 296-6599 uunlce Young Manager - Right of Way 500 Elgin Mills Road East Richmond Hill Ontario L4C 5Gl BRIDGE Consumers (;as 2001-04-24 MR N CARROLL-DIRECTOR OF PLANNING CITY OF PICKERING MUNICIPAL BUILDING 1 THE ESPLANADE PICKERING ON L1V 6K7 3 0 ZIJLIt DEVEL(.. . _f4'T PICKE. RING. ()~TARiC Dear Sirs Re: APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION DURItAM 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. yg~s Truly, Planning Supervisor (905) 883-2613 HW/swc '2 THE DURHAM DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Facilities Services :00 Taunton Road East Whitby, Ontario L1R 2K6 le: (905) 666-5500 1 ~800-265-3968 Fax: (905) 666-6439 August 13, 2001 ]'he Corporation of the City of Pickering Planning Department Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Mr. Ross Pyro Dear Mr. Pyro, RE: Draft Plan of Subdivision application SP 2001-02 Zoning By-law Amendment application A 09/01 Rosebank Garden ltomes Inc. on behalf of Iris Eleanor Holmes Part of Lot 31, Concession II 2030 Rosebank Rd. (west side of Rosebank, north of Finch Ave.) Cid' of Picketing Staff' has reviewed the information on the above noted application and has the following comments... Approximately 35 elementary pupils could be generated by the above noted application. It is intended that any pupils generated by the above noted plan of subdivision, be accommodated within an existing school facility. Under the mandate of the Durham District School Board, staffhas no objections. Yours truly, Christine Nancekivell, Planner CN:em 15PR()PLAN\I)ATAXPl.N(i\Sij B\SP2001 -(12a :'2PORT # PD~ THE DURHAM CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD DEVELOT, M~'~,~ . ~r~ May 16, 2001 Catholic Education: Learning & Living in Faith 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 Picketing GON:SMR:smr 650 Rossland Road West, Oshawa, Ontario LIJ 7C4 Telephone (905) 576-6150 Support Services, Fax (905) 576-198 I 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 Minist~re du Tourisme, de la Culture et des Loisirs 400, avenue University Toronto ON M7A 2R9 Ontario Heritage and Libraries Branch Heritage Operations Unit Tei:(416)314-7132 Fax:(416)314-7175 l~May 200} Richard Szarek Planning Department Regional Municipality of Durham Box 623, 1615 Dundas Street East 4th Floor, Lang Tower, West Building Whitby ON L1N 6A3 RECEI i A¥ 1 6 2001 CiTy OF PIOK~'RING ~_ PLANN:tNG AND ~ EN~r' '~t~.~:Fi-M E NT HAY 1 6 2001 CITY OF PICKFRING PICKERING, ONTARIO Recommendation for Clearance of Archaeological Resource Concerns, Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2001-02, Rosebank Garden, Part of Lot 31, Concession 2, City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham Ref. No. 65967, MTCR File 18PM001 The Heritage Operations Unit of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation (MTCR) has reviewed the report prepared by A.M. Archaeological Associates for the Stages 1 and 2 archaeological assessment of the subject property noted above. The report documents through background study (Stage 1) and archaeological survey (Stage 2) that no archaeologically significant resources for this property were identified. The report recommends that the subject property be considered free of further archaeological concerns. This Ministry concurs with that recommendation. Given the above, the Ontario MTCR is satisfied that all requirements have been met for the assessment of the cultural heritage resources relating to this development application and we have no objections to development proceeding. If deeply buried cultural remains (including human remains) are discovered during construction activities, this office should be notified irmnediately. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Heritage Planner 1 42-054C 25O 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 Planning Department 1615 DUNDAS ST. E. Re: · 4TH FLOOR, LANG TOWER WEST BUILDING -' P.O. BOX 623 ' WHITBY, ON L1N 6A3 (905) 728-7731 FAX: (905) 436-6612 www. region.durham.on.ca Dear M r.-Cafro.ll: --RECEIVED'-' 1 2 2002 CITY OF PIcKERING pLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT~ Regional Review of an. Application for Plan of Subdivision File No.: S.P.2001-02 Cross Ref.: Zoning By-lawAmendment ApplicationA09/01 Applicant: Iris Eleanor Holmes Location: Part Lot 31, Concession 2 Municipality:' City of Pickering A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning 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 Dele.qated Review Responsibilities A Stage I-II Archaeological Assessment has been prepared by A.M. · Archaeological Associates in consideration of this proposal. The archaeological' assessment r(Cvealed that no archaeological remains were encountered on the property. "SERIfICE EXCELLENCE for our COMMUNITY" 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 manage..ment. 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 25i The' submitted Noise Control Study, prepared by S.S. Wilson Associates, addresses noise impact on the proposed residential development from the C.P.R., Rosebank Road and Finch Avenue. Appropriate noise barriers and warning clauses are recommended for this development. The study was prepared 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 Supl~lv 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 placementof the Proposed sanitary sewer on Rosebank Road North in relation to the 750 mm CPP feedermain. Field exposure of the 750 mm feedermainwill be required to verify actual elevation. ' Based on the foregoing, the Region has no objection to draft approval of this plan. The attached conditions of approval are to be satisfied prior to clearance by the Region for registration 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. ' ?52 ATTACHMENT REPORT # RD '~-"/- Please call Richard SZarek, Planner, if you should have Yours truly, M'C'I P',' R'P ' Director, Current Operations Branch Attach: Conditions of.Draft Approval CC: 'Iris .Eleanor Holmes Land-Pro Engineering ConSulta'nts Inc. Regional Works Department N:\pim\rs\s-p-2001-02.doc any questions. Attachment to letter dated March To: Iris Eleanor Homes' 8,2002 From: Jim Blair, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Dire6tor, Current Operations .Branch Re:. Plan of Subdivision S-P-2001-02 City. of Pickering REGION OF DURHAM CONDITIONS OF. DRAFT APPROVAL .¸ o The Owner shall prepare the final plan on the basis of the approved draft plan of sUbdivision, prepared by Land-Pro Engineering Consultants Inc., identified as project number 20003, dated and revised February 4, 2002, which illustrates '45 lots for single, detached residential, 11 lots for 22 semi-detached residential, future development blocks, 'an. open space block, a landscape block, roadways, road widenings and 0.3 m reserves. The Owner shall name road allowance~ included in this' draft plan to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Durham and the C!ty of Pickering. The Owner shall grant to the Region, any.easements reqUired to provide Regional services for this development and these easements shall .be in locations and'of such widths as determined by .the Region. The Owner shall submit plans' showing the proposed phasing to the Region .for review and approval if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration. The Owner shall agree in the City of Pickering Subdivision Agreement to implement the recommendation of the report, entitled "Detailed Noise Control Study", prepared by S.S. Wilson Associates, dated April 16, 2001, which specifies noise attenuation measures for the development. The measures shall be included in the subdivision agreement and must also contain a full and complete reference to 'the noise report" (i.e. author, title, date and 'any revisions/addenda) and shall' include any required warning clauses identified in the study. The Owner shall proVide the Region witha copy of the subdivision agreement containing such provisions prior to final approval of the plan. -'The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to .service this plan. In addition, the .Owner shall provide for the i~xtension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be designed and constructed according tO the stand~irds and requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham~ All arrangements, ' financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to be made to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Durham, and are to be completed prior to final approval of this plan. o Page 2 Prior to entering into a.~ubdivision 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 Diirham.. This shall-, include, 'among Other matters, the execution of ti subdivision agreement between the Owner and. the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, r6ads and other region'al 'services. ~tae 'sub~li~ision agreement' between the Owner and the City of Pickering shall contain, among other matters,, the. following provisions: a) The Owner agrees to include' provisions whei'eb3 all offers of purchase and'sale shall include information that satisfies Subsection 59(4) of the Development Charges Act; 1997.' b). 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 Pl.anning, Regional Municipality of Durham. sbb02 ~.tx~ :?53 OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION April 2, 2002 To: MEMORANDUM Ross Pym Principal Planner - Development Review From: Richard Holborn, P. Eng. Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering 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 City of Picketing The Municipal Property & Engineering Division is in receipt of the revised Draft Plan of Subdivision noted above and provides the following comments. The subdivision agreement will require a condition to advise residents that they will experience noise due to the proximity of the level crossing on Rosebank Road. Crossing gates to eliminate the sounding of whistles has recently been investigated and are not considered warranted 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 between backyards and the hydro corridor or road allowance. The City does not require 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 for Street A is required to be 20 metres wide. It is premature to determine the road pattern to the west, how long the street will 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 for the proper removal and abandonment of existing wells and septic systems that served the former use of the lands. Works must be certified by an engineer. 5. The 0.3 metre reserves have not been included along Rosebank Road. ,~TTACHIv'I, EI',IT ~ . _"~_~ 'tO 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 Apd12,2002 Page 2 o o This Division will be recommending a by-law 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. ~(chard H~/ll~o~, P. Eng. RH:ds ~rv Copy: Director, Operations & Emergency ices 15SITEPLAN'~P2001-02.docApr-02 RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY 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 Pickering, 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 That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02, asset out in draft in Appendix II to Report Number PD 26-02, be forwarded to City Council for enactment. 255 PICKERING 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 Picketing 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; 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 Picketing 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 Downtown Picketing and consequently has the largest land area available for proposed development in the Downtown Core. REPORT TO COUNCIL PD 26-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02 Date: May 29, 2002 Page 2 259 Due to its strategic location within the Downtown Core it is important to encourage the development of the lands, particularly along the Picketing Parkway street frontage, in order to set the standard for future developments and to lead initiatives in the downtown. Although, the City has not received a specific application for new development on the property, approval of this application will provide zoning to accommodate and encourage future development. A draft by-law is included as Appendix II to this Report which implements the recommendations of the Downtown Core Development Guidelines respecting building locations, heights, and office floor space targets. The draft by-law includes a parking space requirement formula for the entire Picketing Town Centre ownership which takes into account fluctuations and sharing of parking areas between commercial and office users at various times of the week. This parking formula has been implemented successfully in other municipalities that have similar mixed-use developments. It is recommended that Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02, and that the draft amending by-law set out in Appendix II to Report PD 26-02, be forwarded to City Council for enactment. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Information Meeting A Public Information Meeting was held on March 21, 2002, to discuss the proposed zoning amendment. Information Report No. 10-02, which summarizes the proposal and outlines the issues identified through circulation of the application, was prepared for the meeting. The text of the Information Report is provided for reference (see Attachment ~2). At the Public Information Meeting, Planning staff gave an explanation of the application. Mr. Cechetto, 103, 1400 The Esplanade North, expressed concerns respecting parking, traffic, the number of floors, footprint size, ground floor space and the unknown height of the most easterly building. Ivy Lo, owner of the commercial plaza at 1340 Kingston Road, questioned matters of parking and land use. Mr. Mark Resnick, of Walker Nott Dragecivic, representing the Picketing Town Centre was present to answer questions regarding the application. Minutes of the meeting are included as Attachment #3. 2.0 Additional Information Since the preparation of Information Report No. 10-02, the following comments have been received: Enbridge Consumers Gas, Durham District School Board, Bell Canada, Veridian Connections and the Region of Durham Planning Department, have advised that they have no objections with the proposed amendment. Ministry of Transportation have advised that they have no objections with the proposed amendment, however they indicated that Ministry permits are required prior to construction. Supervisor, Development Control provided no objection to the proposed amendment, however it was expressed that during the site plan review process, issues respecting stormwater management and servicing will need to be addressed (see Attachment #4). Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering provided no objection to the 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 By-law includes funds for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road (see Attachment #5). 260 REPORT TO COUNCIL PD 26-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02 Date: May 29, 2002 Page 3 Mr. A. V. Cheehetto, 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). 3.0 Discussion 3.1 Downtown Development Guidelines City Council adopted Picketing 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. The 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 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 Amendment Application A 02/02 is intended to implement the objectives of the Downtown Core Development Guidelines as they apply to the lands located in the south sector of the Picketing Town Centre. 3.2 Building Heights and Locations The Conceptual Design Plan of the Picketing Downtown Core Development Guidelines identifies the southwest and southeast comers 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. 3.2.1 Southwest comer of the Picketing Town Centre lands The location and design of buildings in the southwest comer 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 Picketing 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 fagade is well defined. 3.2.2 Southeast comer of the Picketing Town Centre lands An identical approach has been applied to the establishment of the building locations in the southeast comer of the subject property. The difference in the office\employment area designation for this sector is that there is no specific policy requiting the establishment of a tower element at this particular location. REPORT TO COUNCIL PD 26-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02 Date: May 29, 2002 Page 4 3.3 The general provisions of the guidelines recommend that office development in this area be developed as a base building with minimum building heights of 2 to 3 storeys and a maximum of 6 to 7 storeys. The draft by-law included as Appendix II includes performance standards which require a minimum building height of 3 storeys that 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 the existing residential development located on the east side of Glenanna Road. The Downtown Core Development Guidelines contain additional recommendations respecting architectural design and quality of buildings, streets and boulevards, parks and open space, gateway intersections, vehicular access, parking, and servicing which will be addressed in detail through the site plan approval process, upon receipt of a development proposal. Parking Requirements The current parking requirements for mixed use sites within the City of Picketing have been predominately based on a specific number of required parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area. The current requirement for the subject lands is 5 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area. Through this application, staff considered the introduction of a reduced parking requirement of 4 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leaseable floor area. To assist in the review of the application, the owner of the subject lands (O.P.B. Realty) commissioned a parking supply study, conducted by BA Group, Transportation Consultants. The parking study acknowledges that a "flat" site specific parking requirement does not accommodate fluctuations in use of the parking 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 between uses during different times of the day and week. This approach recognizes the different characteristics of uses and the fluctuation of parking demand by use. The main user of parking areas during the weekday (from 9 am to 5 pm) would be the office users, while the commercial users tend to be the main user during weeknights and weekends. Through examining 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 "office" uses. The parking requirements for each of the two broader land use categories is calculated with the traditional flat parking requirement of a specific number of parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross floor area. The "shared" parking formula takes these two total parking requirements and examines the percentage of use of each parking requirement at specific times of the day and week. Calculations are conducted and the total number of required spaces for all land uses is generated based on the "worst case" scenario. A sample chart illustrating the proposed percentages of use and the parking space requirements is attached as Attachment #8. Although the focus of this amendment is on future office development, this parking calculation will take into account any future expansion of the retail uses and any additional retail space would adjust the minimum required spaces accordingly. The proposed "shared" parking calculation method has been used successfully elsewhere in the Greater Toronto Area (Mississauga and Oshawa). This method allows for the efficient use of the land, and is a reasonable approach for development within a Town Centre. The parking provision recommended for use at the Picketing Town Centre is slightly higher than the requirement applied in the City of Oshawa. The proposed "shared" parking calculation chart format is supported by staff and is included in the draft by-law. REPORT TO COUNCIL PD 26-02 Subject: Zoning By-law 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 calming, 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 weeks. 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 Picketing Go Station with the south sector of the Picketing 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 Downtown 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 26-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02 Date: May29,2002 Page6 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Property Location Map 2. Information Report 3. Minutes of the Public Information Meeting 4. Supervisor, Development Control 5. Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering 6. Resident Comment, Mr. A. V. Chechetto, 1400 The Esplanade 7. Downtown Core Development Guidelines Concept Plan - 8. Table for Calculating Parking Requirements for a Mixed Use Site Prep.a. red By: Approved/Endorsed by: ell C~CIP~p Director, Rlgrm~g & Development Lynda D. Ta3/For; 1V/CIP, RPP Manager, Development Review TB/jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council T ,.v - . / ,.. ,o'.. ",. ,~ ~ ':~ ho(nas J. Qmnn, C~efAdm~mstrativ-~ ~er 2a4 APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 26-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 02/02 That the implementing zoning by-law shall: (a) permit business office and professional office uses within free standing office buildings on the southwest and southeast portions of the subject lands. (b) provide minimum and maximum building heights for free standing office buildings in compliance with the Picketing Downtown Core Development Guidelines. (c) provide zoning requirements respecting building locations through the use of build to zones. (d) limit the aggregate floor space for office uses to a maximum of 34,000 square metres. (e) provide for a parking requirement formula to address the "shared parking" concept. APPENDIX II TO~ REPORT TO COUNCIL PD 26-02 DRAFT ZONING BY-LAW FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 02/02 266 THE CORPORATION 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 Picketing 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 WH£REAS 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 I 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 Picketing, designated "MCA-l", "MCA-1/GS3", "MCA-I/CO-l", "MCA-I/CO-2" "MCA-2", "MCA-2/GSY', 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 BI.'. 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) "Business Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in which the management or direction of a business, a public or private agency, a brokerage or a labour or fraternal organization is carried on and which may include a telegraph office, a data processing establishment, a newspaper publishing office, the 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; (6) "Club" shall mean a building or part of building in which a not-for profit or non- commercial organization carhes out social, cultural, welfare, athletic or recreational programs for the benefit of the community, but shall not include an adult entertainment parlour as defined herein; (7) "Commercial Club" shall mean an athletic or recreational club operated for gain or profit and having public or private membership, but shall not include an adult entertainment parlour as defined herein; (8) (9) "Commercial-Recreational Establishment" shall mean a commercial establishment in which indoor recreational facilities such as bowling alleys, miniature golf courses, roller skating rinks, squash courts, swimming pools and other similar indoor recreation facilities are provided and operated for gain or profit, and which may include an arena or a stadium but shall not include a place of amusement or entertainment as defined herein; "Commercial School" shall mean a school which is operated for gain or profit and may include the studio of a dancing teacher or music teacher, or an art school, a golf school or any other such school operated for gain or profit but shall not include any other school defined herein; (10) "Day Nursery" shall mean lands and premises duly licensed pursuant to the provisions of The Day Nurseries Act, or any successor thereto, and for the use as a facility for the daytime care of children; (11) "Dry Cleaning Depot" shall mean a building or part of a building used for the purpose of receiving articles, goods, or fabrics to be subjected to dry cleaning and related processes elsewhere, and of distributing articles, goods or fabrics which have been subjected to any such processes; (12) (13) "Dry Cleaning Establishment - Non-venting" shall mean 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 with 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 be used which do not omit noxious odours or fumes and in which no noise or vibration causes a nuisance to neighbouring premises; "Financial Institution" shall mean a building or part of a building in which money is deposited, kept, lent or exchanged, and which includes a chartered bank or a branch thereof; (14) ."Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate of the floor surface contained within the outside walls ora storey; (15) (16) "Floor Space Index" shall mean the ratio of the aggregate of the floor areas of all buildings and structures within a defined land area to the area of the defined land area. "Food Store" shall mean a building or part of a building in which food, produce and other items or merchandise of day-to-day household necessity are stored, offered and kept for retail sale to the public; (17) "Games Arcade" shall mean any building, room or area in which are offered facilities for the play of: (a) three or more games of chance; 268 3 (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; (18) "Gross Leasable Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys above or below established grade, designed for owner or tenant occupancy or exclusive use only, but excluding storage areas below established grade; (19) "Laundromat" shall mean a self-serve clothes washing establishment containing washing, drying, ironing, finishing or other incidental equipment; (20) "Lot" shall mean an area of land fronting on a street which is used or intended to be used as th'~ 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 whOle of a lot or block on a registered plan of subdivision; (21) "Mechanical Car Wash" shall mean an establishment where facilities are provided for the washing and cleaning gf vehicles using production line methods employing mechanical devices wholly enclosed within a building; (22) "Personal Service Shop'l 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-mb parlour as defined in the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto; (23) "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-mb parlour as defined in the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto; (24) "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-mb parlour as defined in the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto; (25) "Restaurant-Type A" shall mean a building or part of a building where food is prepared and offered or kept f~)r retail sale to the public for immediate consumption on the premises or off the premises, or both on and off the premises; (26) "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; (27) "Structure Height'_' shall mean the vertical distance between the established grade and the highest point of the structure; (28) "Vehicle Repair Shop" 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; (29) 4 2 g 9 "Yard" shall mean an area of land which is appurtenant to and located on the same lot as a building or structure and is open, uncovered and unoccupied above grotmd except for such accessory buildings, structures, or other uses as are specifically permitted thereon; 5. PROVISIONS (2) (1) (a) Uses Permitted ("MCA-l", "MCA-2", "MCA-l/CO-l" and "MCA-I/CO-2" Zones) No person shall within the lands designated" " MCA-1 , "MCA-2", "MCA- 1/CO- 1" and "MCA-I/CO-2" on Schedule I attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (xvii) (xviii) (xix) (xx) assembly hall bakery business office club commercial club commercial-recreational establishment commercial school day nursery dry cleaning depot dry cleaning establishment - non-venting financial institution food store games arcade laundromat personal service shop place of amusement or entertainment professional office restaurant - type A retail store vehicle repair shop (b) Permitted Uses ("MCA-I/GS3" and "MCA-2/GS3" Zones) No person shall within the lands designated "MCA-1/GS3" and "MCA-2/GSY' on Schedule I attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure except in accordance with the following provisions: (i) (ii) (iii) all uses permitted in Section 5(1)(a) automobile service station - type B mechanical car wash (a) Zone Requirements ("MCA-l"," ,, MCA-1/GS3 , "MCA-1/CO-I", "MCA-l/CO-2", "MCA-2" and "MCA-2/GS3" Zones) No person shall within the lands designated "MCA-l", " ,, MCA-I/GS3, "MCA-1/CO-I", "MCA-1 /C0-2", "MCA-2" and "MCA-2/GS3" on Schedule I attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure except in accordance with the following provisions: (i) BUILDING LOCATIONS: A No building or part of a building shall be erected outside of the building envelope illustrated on Schedule II attached hereto; B No building or part of building or buildings shall be erected, on the lands designated "MCA-l/CO-l" on Schedule I attached hereto, unless a minimum 70 % of the length of the building is located within the build to zone; (i) C (iii) (iv) (v) 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. FLOOR SPACE INDEX: A B For the purpose of calculating floor space index each area designated on Schedule I attached hereto shall constitute a separate "defined land area". 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 the total adjusted minimum number of parking spaces for all uses. E Table 1 Peak Period Factors (Average Weekday) Land Use Morning Aftemoon I Evening (7 am - 12 pm) (12 pm - 6 pm) (6 pm - 12 am) Office 1.00 .95 .15 Retail .50 .70 .75 Total Table 2 Peak Period Factors (Average Weekend) Land Use Morning Afternoon Evening (7 am - 12 pm) (12 pm - 6 pm) (6 pm - 12 am) Office .15 .15 .10 Retail .75 1.00 .50 Total F G H K For the purposes of section 5.(2)(v), and for applying the figures in Tables 1 and 2, use categories are determined in accordance with this paragraph. The following uses are considered: (i) "Retail" uses: assembly hall, bakery, club, commercial club, commercial-recreational establishment, commercial school, day nursery, dry cleaning depot, dry cleaning establishment - non- venting, financial institution, food store, game arcade, laundromat, personal service shop, place of amusement or entertainment, restaurant - type A, retail store, and vehicle repair shop. (II) The following uses are considered "Office" uses: business office and professional office. Despite paragraphs A to F above, for automobile service station - type B and mechanical car wash uses, there shall be provided and maintained on the lot a minimum of 4.0 parking spaces per 100.0 square metres or part thereof of gross leasable floor area; For any mechanical car wash on the lot, there shall be provided and maintained at each vehicular entrance thereto a vehicular stacking area consisting of an aisle with a minimum perpendicular width of 3.0 metres, a minimum overall length of 60.0 metres, and a minimum centre-line turning radius of 7.5 metres for the purpose of accommodating a vehicular queue. All parking areas shall be surfaced with brick, asphalt or concrete, or any combination thereof; All parking areas shall be set back a minimum of 3.0 metres from any road allowance and the lands which constitute this setback shall be used for landscape purposes; Any parking structure or part thereof which is below grade on all sides shall comply with the provisions of Section 5(2)(a)(v)J of this By-law; 272 (vi) L M DRAFT The maximum structure height for all parking structures shall be 10.0 metres; 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. 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 wash, 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. E (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. 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-l/CO-l" and "MCA-I/CO-2" as illustrated on Schedule I attached hereto. 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(0, 5.21.2(0, and 5~21.2(k) of By-law 3036, as amended, shall not apply to the lands designated "MCA-l", "MCA-I/GSY', "MCA-l/CO-l", "MCA-I/CO-2", "MCA-2" and "MCA-2/GSY' on Schedule I attached hereto. (3) By-law 2920/88 which amended By-law 3036 is hereby revoked. 8 273 8. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take effect from the day of passing hereof subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, if required. BY-LAW read a first, second, and third time and finally passed this day of ., 2002. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk 274 <~ 0 ~Y MCA-1 2¢,6m '~2.8m MCA-2 GS3. J 0_ w 166.6m ~ MCA-I/CO-1 N DELINEATES ZONE BOUNDARY AND "DEFINED LAND AREA" BOUNDARY GARDEN CENTRE AREA SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS DAY OF '2002 MAYOR CLERK 275 3A-1/GS3 0 rY MCA-2 GS3 MCA-1 J 0_ w MCA-I/CO-1 BUILDING ENVELOPE BUILD-TO-ZONE SCHEDULE TF PASSED THIS DAY OF TO BY-LAW 2O02 MAYOR CLERK ATTACHM£NT t [ TO REPORT t PD ,2./F' ' g'- ,,~ ROSE:FIELD ROAD ROAD BRANDS ROAD OLENANNA SUBJECT -- PROPER'fY A.O~ City of Pickering BAYLY Planning & Development Department DATE FEB 8, 2002 PICKERING ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD. 277 INFORMATION REPORT NO. 10-02 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF March 21, 2002 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 13 SUBJECT: City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02 On lands owned by O.P.B. Realty (Picketing Centre) Inc. Part of Lot 21 & 22, Concession 1 (Picketing Town Centre) City of Picketing 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 3.2 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION - the subject property is located on the west side of Glenanna Road between Kingston Road and Picketing Parkway; (see Location Map - Attachment #1); - the subject property currently supports a mixed use shopping mall; - the surrounding land uses include residential uses to the east, office/commercial uses to the north and east, and Highway 401 to the south. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL the City of Picketing, in consultation with representatives of the Picketing Town Centre, are proposing to amend the existing zoning to implement development contained in the Picketing Downtown Core Development Guidelines, with the intent to permit the establishment of free standing office buildings on the south side of the Picketing Town Centre lands. (see Proposed Office/Employment Areas - Attachment #2). staff have conducted a preliminary review of the existing zoning by-law and have prepared the attached chart to identify the proposed amendments to the existing zoning by-law provisions that are intended to implement the recommendations of the PickeringDowntown Core Development Guidelines; (see Proposed Zoning Amendments For The South Side Of The Picketing Town Centre Lands - Attachment #3). OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan the Durham Regional Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being within a "Main Central Area" within which the main concentration of activities, including an array of community, office, service and shopping, recreational and residential uses should be located; the application appears to conform. Pickering Official Plan the Picketing Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being located in a "Mixed Use Area - Downtown Core" within the Town Centre Neighbourhood. This designation permits, among other uses, the retailing of goods and services at the greatest scale and intensity in the City serving City-wide and Regional levels; the application appears to conform. Information Report No. 10-02 278 ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD Page 2 3.3 3.4 4.0 4.1 Compendium Document to the Official Plan the subject property falls within the area of the Council Adopted "Picketing Downtown Core-Development Guidelines". The guidelines are intended to guide the development or redevelopment of sites within the designated areas; the Picketing 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 will 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 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. 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/employment 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-law 2920/88. This zoning permits a wide 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 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). 4.2 Agency 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. Information Report No. 10-02 KF'I'ACHUEI~rI' # ~ TO REPORT f PD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Page 4.3 Staff Comments 5.0 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 through review of the application, staff have identified the following items as issues that must be considered prior to the forwarding of a recommendation report to City Council. The issues are as follows: · traffic impacts · parking requirements/supply building setbacks and height · floor space limitations for office uses · exploring the implications of the proposed zoning change on future development on-site and to guide the development of additional future buildings on-site, and to ensure that the future zoning provisions will not prejudice the implementation of the pedestrian and vehicular connections outlined in the Downtown Core Development Guidelines. representatives from the Picketing Town Centre have committed to the preparation and submission of a traffic report in support of the proposed zoning amendments prior to the preparation of a Recommendation Report being forwarded to City Council. 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 Recommendation 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 decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk. OTHER INFORMATION Appendix No. I list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing report; Information Received - full scale copies of the Applicant's submitted plan are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Picketing Planning & Development Department; Company Principal - the representative for the owner is Mr. Allan Arsenault, Manager of the Pickering Town Centre. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Tyler Barnett Planner II TB/jf Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development Department Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review ATTACH~ENT #. ~ TO R~POR'r ~' PD ~ ~, ' ~P ~ ..~ APPENDIX I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 10-02 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS (1) Kim Donovan, Picore Holdings Limited, 1305 - 1315 Picketing Parkway COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) (2) Vetidian Connections Ministry of Transportation COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS (1) Planning & Development REPORT t PD Excerpts fi-om ~ ~ Statutory Public Information Meeting Min t3s Pursuant to the Planning Act ~ TO Thursday, March 21, 2002 7:00 P.M. Chair: Councillor Johnson The Manager, Policy, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. (I) CITY INITIATED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 02/02 ON LANDS OWNED BY O.P.B. REALTY (PICKERING CENTRE) INC. PART OF LOT 21 & 22, CONCESSION 1 (PICKEmNG TOWN CENTRE) o o o Tyler Barnett, Planner II, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #10-02. Mr. Cechetto, 103, 1400 The Esplanade North, questioned the number of floors, footprint size and ground floor space. He expressed concern with unknown height of the most easterly building and parking and traffic. He advised that he submitted a letter to the Clerk on March 20, 2002. Councillor Johnson ~xplained that the larger tower will be situated to the west of the site and the shorter tower to the east. Tyler Barnett, Planner II, advised Mr. Cechetto that his letter was received and will be reviewed during processing of the application. He further advised that a traffic study has been requested from O.P.B. Realty, owner of Pickering Town Centre. Ivy Lo, owner of 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 staff are recommending the site be pre-zoned to encourage site development, parking may be above ground, garage or combination of both. He further advised that office use will be added to current permitted commercial uses and that the site currently permits financial use. 282 ATTACHMENT #, /7z' TO REPORT ~ PD .... ~ ~, - c, ;"¢- PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM March 5, 2002 To: From: Subject: Tyler Barnett Planner 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 (Pickering 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) The proposed 0 metre building set back from Picketing Parkway should be conditional on the entire building including footing, foundation, excavation and perimeter drainage etc. maintaining that required 0 metre distance. Robert Starr RS/jr Attachment Copy: . Coordinator, Development Approvals ATTACHMEN'r # --' TO REPORT # PD. ~ &, -c~ ~ OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING D1VISION Aptil2,2002 To: From: MEMORANDUM Tyler Barnett Planner Richard Holbom, P. Eng. Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering RECEI / APR z,. 2002 Cr]'y OF' PICKERING PLANNING AND Subject: City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/02 On lands owned by O.P.B. Realty (Picketing Centre) Inc. Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 1 (Picketing Town Centre) City of Picketing The Municipal Property & Engineering Division is in receipt of the above noted application to amend the zoning on the subject lands 1) This Division is requesting a traffic study be performed to determine impacts on Picketing Parkway at Glehanna Road and how they can be mitigated. 2) 3) Consideration should be given to closing the western most entrance of the property, to concentrate ingress and egress to the south end of the site. The Development Charges By-law includes funds for a full traffic signal at the intersection ofPickering Parkway/Glenanna Road in 2008. 4) Parking considerations must include: location for snow storage, overflow parking during peak seasons, as well as on-site storm water managment. 5) Consideration for location of potential terminus of pedestrian bridge over 401 must be given. Please advise how these comments will be incorporated into the application. RH:ds . yhard Hojt~o-r~%. e. Eng. Copy: Director, Operations & Emergency Services I:~SITEPLAN~02-02.docApr-02 284 ATTACH~:,SNT #. ~ ,TO ~EPOP'r ,~ PD ,:~ ~, - o_~__._ ....... RECEIVED CITY OF PICKERING ATTACH~,~E~JI' #_ 7' TO 7 ATTACHMENT ff,,, ~ 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) Morning Afternoon Evening Morning Afternoon Evening Retail 4124 2060 2890 3095 3095 4124 2060 Uses (%) (50%) (70%) (75%) (75%) (100%) (50%) Office 1190 1190 1130 1130 180 180 120 Uses (%) (100%) (95%) (95%) (15%) (15%) (10%) Total 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 m2) 3.5 spaces\100 m2 of Gross Leasable Floor Area (proposed G.L.F.A. of 34,000 m2) (%) = 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 which represents the "worst case" scenario under the shared parking formula.