HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/2006
C¿tt¡ o~
Minutes I Meeting Summary
Statutory Public Information Meeting
Council Chambers
Thursday, June 15, 2006
7:00 pm.
COUNCILLORS:
Councillor Brenner - Chair
Councillor McLean
Councillor Dickerson
ALSO PRESENT:
Ross Pym
Rick Cefaratti
Lynda Taylor
Franco Romano
David MaKay
- Principal Planner, Development Review
- Planner II
- Manager, Development Review
- Action Planning Consultant, Agent for the Applicant
- MHBC Planning
- Home Depot & Brookdale Centre Inc.
Lynda Taylor, Manager, Development Review, provided an overview of the requirements of the
Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under
consideration there at.
NING BY-L
1685279 ONTARIO INC.
1741 FAIRPORT ROAD
(LOT 126, PLAN 1051 NOW RP 40r-23692 PART 1)
CITY OF PICKERING
1. Planner Comments
Rick Cefa, ratti Planner II gave an overview of the property location, applicant's
proposal and the City's Official Plan policies pertaining to this site, as outlined in
Information Report No. 08-06.
2. Applicants Comment
The Applicant's representative, Franco Romano, explained that the proposal is for two
commercial use buildings. Previously, the applicant received approval "in principle"
for nine detached residential homes. He further explained that the residential
Page 1
CORP0228-2/02
proposal might not go forward as CN Rail has appealed the application and the
applicant cannot meet certain safety specifications specified by CN Rail. He also
noted that CN Rail supports the conceptual retail proposal set out in this application.
The proposed buildings are designed to integrate with the existing residential
landscape and will include offices, personal service shops and retail stores. The
applicant encouraged the residents to view the design and provide feedback.
3. Comments from Members of the Public
Sylvia Spencer
771 Sheppard A ve. East
Ms. Spencer stated her objections to this proposal as follows:
· Proposed buildings are too high.
· No Fire Gates proposed.
· More garbage will be generated.
· No solar energy design in the proposal.
· Wants no outdoor patios or live music.
· No noise abatement proposed.
· Too many strip malls already in the area- businesses will not survive (i.e.
Dunbarton Plaza)
Lome Moore
1014 Dunbarton Road
Mr. Moore also had concerns with the height of the proposed buildings. He stated that
this neighbourhood consisted of single family dwellings and the commercial proposal
was not compatible. Additional traffic was also an issue for him and he did not
support access to Dunbarton Road. He stated that traffic was already poor and
difficult to manoeuvre in this area and this proposal would increase the traffic
congestion.
Gail Chow
1811 Fairport Rd.
Ms. Chow supports the idea of quality retail stores, just not in this area. She noted the
ongoing concerns with Fairport Road/ Dunbarton Road traffic congestion and to add
another high density building would only increase the traffic congestion. She further
stated that if CN Rail was concerned with the safety of the children within the previous
draft plan proposal, then why would they approve/support the application for a day
care use within the retail plaza proposal.
Page 2
CORP0228-2/02
Scott Currie
1738 Appleview Road
Mr. Currie shared the concerns with the previous speakers and noted that CN Rail
need to clarify their comments relating to the concerns of "life risks". He further stated
that this commercial proposal was not compatible with the residential character of the
area. He was also concerned with poor access and sightlines to the site. Lastly, he
noted that the application had a reference to a 'hotel application', which was definitely
not compatible with the area. Mr. Currie would prefer that the lands remain zoned for
residential uses.
Chris Karkas
905 Dunbarton Road
Mr. Karkas advised that he had height restriction concerns. In addition, he stated that
a commercial building generated much more garbage than a residential area and
putting the two side by side would only create problems.
4. Response from Applicant
The Applicant's representative, Franco Romano, addressed the residents concerns
by stating that the applicant was willing to discuss the fence height and materials at
the site plan stage. He further stated that his client was considering a slanted/peaked
roof design to reflect the residential landscape. He also stated that there are no plans
for outdoor patios in the proposal. He confirmed that the proposed building is only
one storey, with the actual height being dependant on the final design. He further
stated that there would be only one driveway in front of the site, similar to the
residential proposal and similar to residential units in the area, which would facilitate
one car at a time onto Fairport Road. The applicant stated that CN Rail prefers the
commercial proposal to the residential and further discussions/meetings with CN Rail
will take place to discuss the range of uses. He also stated that the waste location on
site can be reviewed to relocate it away from the existing residential, at any rate it will
be enclosed. Lastly, he stated that vibration and marketing studies are not typically
done for this type of commercial project adjacent to residential providing
neighbourhood functions, not affecting downtown uses. Mr. Romano advised that CN
Rail requires a minimal separation distance of 30m to residential buildings; this
requirement affects two thirds of the site and therefore virtually eliminates the
potential for residential development on this site.
5. Staff Response
Rick Cefaratti summarized the questions and concerns by clarifying that the proposed
commercial building was a one storey building. In addition he explained that Staff was
waiting for CN Rail's written comments for this application.
Page 3
CORP0228-2/02
1. Planner Comments
Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, gave an overview of the property
location, applicant's proposal and City's Official Plan policies pertaining to this site, as
outlined in Information Report No. 09-06.
2. Applicants Comments
David MaKay, from MHBC Planning, representing Home DepotlBrookdale Centre
Inc., provided a PowerPoint presentation of the proposal. The proposed site includes
the existing Lick's Plaza and tenants would be able to relocate into the new re-
developed site. He explained that currently access aligns with Walnut Lane through a
public road system; however, the evolution of the site over the long term, would
comply with The City's guidelines. He also stated that traffic, environmental, soil and
market studies, are being finalized with no impact expected to the downtown core.
He further explained that The City would have additional tax revenues from this
proposal and an estimated 500 jobs wouldl be created. Lastly, he stated that
construction would begin in 2006 with an expected fall 2007 opening of the Home
Depot facility.
3. Comments from Members of the Public
Sylvia Spencer
771 Shepard Ave. East
Ms. Spencer expressed concerns that no solar power was proposed. She wanted to
know if this proposal incorporated plans that would set aside funds toward the
restoration of Pine Creek. In addition, she is concerned with outdoor patio use, as
she feels this type of facility would create excessive noise. Another concern is with
the timing of Home Depot deliveries, and lastly how seriously did this proposal
compromise The City's Guidelines.
Christian Hepfer
Emix Ltd
Nerotal Ltd.
27 Dunloe Road
Toronto, ON
Mr. Hepfer is the owner of 1101 and 1099 Kin ston Road. He noted his support of the
Page 4
CORP0228-2/02
application, and provided written correspondence in this regard. He noted that the
proposed re-zoning and ensuing development would complement the existing use in
the area. He further advised that they would like to be closely involved, and noted the
following concerns;
· traffic flow in and out of site.
· public road infrastructure. (continue Liverpool Road as planned)
· building placement and the direction the buildings face.
· setback from the 401 in line with current buildings.
. truck access times and route.
In summary, he stated that currently the zoning of the properties was very restrictive
compared with the proposed zoning for the subject property and strongly encouraged
the re-zoning to apply to all lands south of Kingston Road and to the east and west of
Dixie Road.
Bob Oldman
555 Kinston Road W.
Ajax. ON
Mr. Oldman, is the representative for Lakeridge Properties, who are the owners of the
adjacent lands to the subject re-zoning application. He noted his clients' support for
development and revitalization of this area and furthermore that Lakeridge Properties
would co-apply for rezoning of their properties. He did point out that there was an
access concern over their lands to the Home Depot site, and the effect of the
proposed access on the EMS site is of concern. He noted that building F would
interfere with their property's sightlines. He concluded by stating that these issues
must be addressed prior to forwarding this proposal to Council.
Doug Howard
1775 Storrinqton Street
Mr. Howard had some questions regarding the notification process. He stated that the
traffic into the Glendale neighbourhood would be a major concern and objected to
Walnut Lane connecting into the plaza. He was particularly concerned with traffic
turning into Walnut Lane, especially when trucks would be turning into the site from
the east and to the south. He noted that this area had mature trees and asked if these
would remain. He questioned the need for more retail space, as there are already
several empty retail units in the area. Lastly, he asked when the final construction
phase would be completed.
Mr. D'Souza
1105 Dunbarton Road
Mr. D'Souza also questioned how residents are notified of any re-zoning application.
He reiterated the previous residents concerns with traffic congestion in the area. He
Page 5
CORP0228-2/02
further wanted to know if residential taxes would be reduced as a result of the
increase in the commercial property taxes. Lastly, he questioned whether or not this
application would impact the re-sale value of the area homes.
4. Response from Applicant
David MaKay addressed several aspects of the resident's comments/concerns. First
there would be a review of the energy sustainability concepts and the public road
access issues that would address the safety concerns and access issues. With
respect to the building placement, the applicant was willing to work with the adjacent
landowners. He further stated that the traffic study recommended various
options/improvements to the area traffic flow, i.e. traffic signal timing, and that there
would be consultation with the City and the Region to review access flow options. He
also stated that landscaping would be addressed during the site plan review process
and that every effort would be made to retain existing trees wherever possible. He
explained that the construction schedule was yet to be determined, however, it is
expected that construction would begin in the fall of 2006. The Home Depot building
would be completed in approximately seven months. The remaining building schedule
would take another year for the completion of the other buildings. He also noted that
the City and TRCA would review stormwater management reports to minimize impact
on Pine Creek. Lastly he explained that Dixie Road would be used for truck traffic
access and that Home Depot would have night deliveries in order to avoid conflict
with customers during the day.
5. Staff Response
Ross Pym, Principal Planner, clarified the notification process. He stated that letters
are sent out to all residents within 120 metres of the site, advising of the proposed
application. In addition, three signs are posted on the site and the proposed
application is also posted on the City website. Lastly, he confirmed that further review
of TCW guidelines would be required in conjunction with traffic and other submitted
reports.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm
Page 6
CORP0228-2/02