Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 45-06 REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: PO 45-06 Date: September 11 , 2006 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/06 S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. 1215 - 1235 Bayly Street Part of Block V, Plan M-16 City of Pickering Recommendation: 1. That Council ADOPT the Development Guidelines for the Bay Ridges Plaza area, as set out in Appendix III to Planning Report PO 45-06. 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/06 submitted by S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd., on lands being Part of Block V, Plan M-16, City of Pickering, to amend the zoning to permit a mixed use development consisting of apartment buildings containing commercial/retail uses and townhouse dwelling units, be APPROVED, with an U(H)" holding provision subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Planning Report PO 45-06. 3. That the amending zoning by-law, to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/06, as set out in Appendix II to Planning Report PO 45-06, be FORWARDED to City Council for enactment. 4. That traffic signals be installed at the intersection of Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive, in consultation with the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering, as a condition of proceeding with development and that the full cost of design and construction be the responsibility of the owner. Executive Summary: The applicant proposes to redevelop the Bay Ridges Plaza for a mixed use condominium development consisting of apartment buildings that contain ground floor commercial/retail uses, and townhouse dwelling units, including some live-work units. The mixed use proposal will contain approximately 2,100 square metres of commercial/retail floor area and a total of 473 dwelling units (347 apartment units and 126 townhouses). The proposed mixed use development is aligned with the principles of intensification and transit oriented development. The subject land is in a detailed review area, which requires development guidelines to be prepared. Design guidelines to guide development of the property have been prepared and are presented for adoption. The application has been assessed against the guidelines. Report PO 45-06 Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06) Date: September 11, 2006 '. ') ," t· ._:3 Page 2 The recommended provisions to be included in the implementing zoning by-law provide for an appropriate density for an infill site, resulting in transit supportive intensification next to a transit spine. The recommended guidelines and zoning conditions require and encourage the incorporation of elements of sustainability in both the site plan and building design. Retail floor space of 2000 square metres is recommended to be required to be introduced in the first phase of development to ensure continuity of commercial services to the neighbourhood. The mixed use development will also provide protection to the natural environment associated with the Douglas Ravine. The design, as modified in accordance with this report, is considered compatible with the surrounding land uses. It is recommended that the implementing by-law contain an U(H)" holding provision to ensure that the City, Region of Durham and Toronto Region Conservation Authority interests are addressed through the execution of appropriate agreements. The recommended implementing by-law is appropriate as it implements the Official Plan, is in accordance with existing and emerging Provincial policy, continues to provide substantial commercial services to the neighbourhood, and constitutes appropriate land use planning. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. Background: 1.0 Introduction S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd., submitted an application to amend the zoning by-law to implement proposed redevelopment of the subject lands (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The redevelopment plan proposes to create a mixed use development on a 3.38 hectare site, consisting of townhouses, back-to-back townhouses, and a mixed use building consisting of ground related retail/commercial uses, office uses and two apartment buildings (see Attachment #2). It is anticipated that a condominium proposal for the townhouses will be a common element condominium for private internal roads, visitor parking areas, a parkette and playground, a walkway and perimeter landscaping elements. A portion of the property contains lands associated with the Douglas Ravine which will be conveyed to a public authority. Since the June 1, 2006 public meeting the applicant has submitted a revised development plan. The revised plan is provided for reference as Attachment # 3. Changes include: · the removal of development from a portion of the lands in the north-east portion of the property; · a reduction in the number of dwelling units; · the establishment of a 10 metre development buffer from the top-of-bank of the Douglas Ravine; · a reconfiguration of the proposed parklparkette space; and, Report PD 45-06 t: :.5 èubject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06) Date: September 11, 2006 Page 3 . the removal of townhouse dwelling units backing onto Douglas Ravine. The concept site plan does not propose the creation of new municipal streets, rather the creation of private roads/laneways. All of the freehold townhouse dwelling units will front onto private roads with the exception of those units proposed to have direct access onto St. Martins Drive. The statistical information/development detail and comparison of the original plan and the revised plan are outlined in the Applicant's Development Detail chart (see Attachment #5). 2.0 Comments Received 2.1 At the June 1 2006, Public Information Meeting A large number of residents appeared at the Public Information Meeting to voice their opposition to the proposed development and to raise concerns related to: · density/too many dwelling units; · proposed development not compatible with the neighbourhood; · loss of the commercial retail uses; · traffic and parking impacts on neighbouring properties; · the need for traffic signals at St. Martins Drive and Bayly Street; · height of the apartment buildings; · impacts on the Douglas Ravine; · impacts on schools; · the application not in compliance with the Official Plan; · poor business practices with dealing with the plaza tenants; · some residents acknowledged the need for redevelopment of the site. (see text of Information Report and Meeting Minutes, Attachments #7 and #8). 2.2 Written Public Submissions on the application Prior to and immediately following the Public Information Meeting on June 1, 2006, numerous area residents expressed written objection and concern with the initial application. Approximately 30 letters or emails have been received expressing opposition to the application. Issues identified in the correspondence are similar to those expressed at the Information Meeting (outlined above) with the following additional concerns: · accessibility of services for the numerous seniors who live in the area and depend on the existing plaza for personal needs; · an evacuation plan for the area needs to be considered given the proposed increase in traffic; · a community that is predominately residential cannot possibly be sustainable; · the residents need to be able to work and shop in their community, preferably without needing to use cars; · the proposal will have a negative impact on property values in the area; Report PD 45-06 Date: September 11, 2006 I ~ 3 'ï ...1. Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06) Page 4 · the impact of the development on green space in the area, and not enough parkland space for the number of proposed dwelling units; · with the loss of the grocery store from the plaza there is no grocery store south of Highway 401, which makes it expensive for people to get groceries by taxi (see Attachments #9 to #37). The Pickering East Shore Community Association (PESCA) provided written comments on the original application (see Attachment #38). They are opposed to the initial proposal, however, they are not opposed to the redevelopment of the Bay Ridges Plaza in general. Their specific concerns include: · apartment towers are too high; any building on the site should not exceed seven storeys; · concern with off-site traffic and on-site parking; · the additional dwelling units will increase the already congested roads in the area; · the parking requirements for the dwelling units should be increased; · the environmental impact the proposed development will have on the Douglas Ravine and Frenchman's Bay; · a viable community commercial plaza, of similar size to the existing plaza should be incorporated into the redevelopment of the site; · further demolition should not occur until the plaza is completely vacant; · the impact of the application on the Emergency Evacuation Plan needs to be examined. A letter from the Bayshore Towers Board of Directors was received advising that the redevelopment of the plaza has generally been well received and supported (see Attachment #39). 2.3 Agency Comments Toronto and Region Conservation Authority - TRCA provided preliminary comments advising the subject property is within the TRCA Regulated area and all applicable requirement and polices will need to be satisfied; - TRCA has verbally advised that their detail requirements can be addressed in the site plan approval process and this will include but not be limited to the conveyance of the portion of the Douglas Ravine and the buffer strip to a public authority; (see Attachment #40). t' 3 ~~eport PD 45-06 Date: September 11, 2006 Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06) Page 5 Region of Durham GO Transit CN Rail _ the proposal is permitted by the policies of the Durham Region Official Plan; _ municipal water supply is available from the existing utilities; _ sanitary sewer service can be provided subject to the replacement of the sanitary sewer from Radom Street to Wart Street at the applicant's expense; _ driveway access onto Bayly Street will be restricted to a right-in right-out only and road improvements for the intersection of Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive will be required; - the application has been screened in accordance with Provincial Interests and Delegated Review and there is no concern; _ the application is consistent with the Region of Durham Community Strategic Plan; - the Region has no objection to the approval of the application (see Attachment #41). _ requires a noise and vibration study to their satisfaction and the entering into an agreement with GO transit (see Attachment #42). - requires a noise and vibration study to their satisfaction and the inclusion of warning clauses in all development and purchase agreements (see Attachment #43). No other agency that provided comment has objection to the applications. Certain technical issues and requirements related to the proposed use of the site can be addressed during the site plan/condominium process, should this application be approved. 2.4 City Departments Development Control - will require a stormwater management report and various other detailed engineering information (at site plan review stage) (see Attachment #44). Report PD 45-06 Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06) Date: September 11, 2006 '3 '-, ..' ~) Page 6 3.0 Discussion 3.1 Development Guidelines are recommended for approval; proposed redevelopment generally reflective of the guidelines and supported subject to certain revisions The subject land is within a Detailed Review Area of the City's Official Plan, which requires development guidelines to be established for major development. The preparation of the development guidelines were undertaken with initial assistance of a consultant. City staff revised and finalized the draft development guidelines. An Urban Design Workshop/Charrette was held in December 2005 to obtain input on the guiding principle for redevelopment of the Bay Ridges Plaza and the abutting plaza. The objective of the development guidelines is to articulate urban design guidelines for the redevelopment of the site. The guidelines for these lands have been prepared within the context of Provincial policy, City of Pickering and Region of Durham Official Plans, as well as Transit Oriented Development and Sustainable Development principles. The guidelines will help ensure that development will be designed appropriately and will assist in the review of this rezoning application. Attached as Appendix III to this report are the recommended guidelines. The principles of the guidelines are: · to create a higher intensity of development and to provide a mix of uses to create a vibrant development; · to provide for a range of housing choices for residents; · identify, protect and enhance the public realm and open space features; · to promote the development of the site with sustainable development principles; · to provide retail commercial uses at a scale to serve the surrounding community. The application has been assessed against the proposed Development Guidelines and generally the application complies. There are a few elements of the application that will need to be modified to comply with the guidelines. Conditions are being recommended to ensure full compliance with the guidelines. Generally, the following is recommended: · permit the redevelopment of the subject lands for a mixed use development; · allow for the maximum density permitted by current Official Plan Policy; · allow for apartment buildings having the proposed height of 16 and 18 storeys; I !3'~ , ~eport PD 45-06 Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06) Date: September 11, 2006 Page 7 · restrict development within ten metres of the top-of-back of the Douglas Creek; · require that the commercial component of the proposal be constructed in the first phase of development; · require all independent vehicular access to dwelling units be provided by internal private roads other than the primary internal road system (especially the east-west road which should be designed and enhanced as a pedestrian friendly area with wider sidewalks); · require that the intersection of St. Martins Drive and Bayly Street be signalized at the owner's expense; and, · require a walkway for public use be incorporated into the Douglas Ravine buffer area site design, 3.2 The Proposed Density/Number of Dwelling Units is Supportable and Complies with the Official Plan The subject land is designated Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area in the Pickering Official Plan. Permissible uses within Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area includes, amongst others, a variety of residential uses including townhouses and apartment buildings, retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants. The Pickering Official Plan establishes a density range of over 30 and up to and including 140 dwelling units per hectare for development within a Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area. The subject land is considered an appropriate location for intensification and this type of mixed use/higher density development near a transit corridor is supported by the recently approved Provincial Places to Grow Plan. This Provincial policy identifies various growth centres, of which Pickering is one of two growth centres in Durham Region. It is anticipated that this location will be within Pickering's growth centre due to its proximity to the GO Station, lending further support to allowing the maximum density permitted by the current Official Plan. A maximum of 473 dwelling units are permitted on the site based on a net designated area of 3.38 hectares. The revised application proposes the maximum permitted number of dwelling units, being 473. The current plan has 347 apartment units (240 units in building "A" and 107 in building "B") and 126 townhouses (38 traditional design townhouse units, 76 back-to-back townhouse units and 12 live-work townhouse units). It is anticipated that the allocation of the dwelling units may be modified slightly in order to incorporate the staff recommended changes, however the maximum number of dwelling units over the total site will not exceed 473. Report PD 45-06 Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06) Date: September 11, 2006 e ·3 ,'::- " .,.. Page 8 3.3 Proposed Mixed Use Development is Compatible with Existing Neighbourhood The subject land currently contains a commercial plaza of approximately 5,500 square metres which has been serving the surrounding neighbourhood for years (original plaza built in the mid 1960's). The neighbourhood is primarily a mix of detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, townhouses and an apartment building in the immediate area. The subject land is located in an evolving part of the City. Recent development (Canoe Landing townhouses at Bayly/Begley, Captain's Walk and Frenchman's Bay Village on Liverpool Road South) is indicative of the change occurring in the neighbourhood. The site's proximity to the GO station (approximately a five minute walk) makes it a suitable and desirable location for a mix of uses as proposed by the applicant. The existing commercial plaza has historically played an important role in servicing the neighbourhood. Residents advise of their need to walk to commercial facilities, especially the seniors living in area. Therefore, in order to meet the needs of residents, it is appropriate to retain substantial commercial floor space within the project. While it is unlikely a food store will locate within the mixed use building, it is anticipated that other appropriate retail uses serving the day-to-day needs of the neighbourhood will locate in the project. Currently an 18 storey apartment tower exists directly south of the subject lands. The proposed 18 and 16 storey apartment buildings will provide noise buffer to the remainder of the site and the area to south, frame the street and provide a focal point to the area. The proposed townhouses are also very compatible with the neighbourhood, considering part of the subject site abuts an existing townhouse complex. Therefore, the proposed land uses are considered compatible with the surrounding area. 3.4 Site Access and Traffic Movements on Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive are Acceptable with the Installation of a Traffic Signal at the intersection Bayly Street, where it abuts the subject property, is designated as a Type A Arterial Road in the Region of Durham Official Plan. Type A Arterial Roads are the highest order arterial roads and are designed to carry large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speeds. Bayly Street is a four-lane cross-section in the vicinity of the subject property. St. Martins Drive, where it abuts the subject site, is designated as a Collector Road in the Pickering Official Plan which is designed to provide access to individual properties, to local roads, and to other collector and arterial roads. St Martins Drive is currently a two-lane cross section adjacent to the subject lands. 3' ,Report PD 45-06 t' \) Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06) Date: September 11, 2006 Page 9 The applicant's traffic consultant has submitted a traffic report that recommends that intersection improvements be undertaken, including the incorporation of turning lanes and the installation of traffic signals at the intersection. The study identifies that with the proposed development, turning movement characteristics of Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive will function at a poor level of service in morning and evening peak hours. With the suggested recommendations and improvements, the intersection would then have an acceptable level of service function. The Region of Durham has advised that a road widening and eastbound right turn lane is required for Bayly Street, and that vehicular access to the site from Bayly Street will be restricted to a right-in/right-out only. Intersection improvements will be required on Bayly Street at St. Martins Drive, including the construction of a westbound left turn lane. It is noted that the Region of Durham is not recommending the installation of traffic signals at the intersection, as traffic warrants have not been met. City staff recommend that full signalization of the intersection be required coincidental with development, to ensure the intersection operates at an appropriate level. As part of the conditions of approval, it is recommended that the intersection improvements be undertaken coincidental with development and that the applicant be responsible for all costs related to these improvements. 3.5 Provision of Commercial/Retail Opportunities Required in Initial Phase of Development One of the major concerns expressed by area residents is the loss of retail floor space from the site (especially the food store) that will result with redevelopment. The Bay Ridges Plaza has provided an important retail commercial resource for the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood since the late 1960's. The Plaza contains approximately 5,500 square metres of retail space, which until recently included a food store of 1, 280 square metres. The applicant's proposal introduces approximately 2,133 square metres of retail commercial floor space, primarily within the ground floor of the mixed use buildings (apartments). However, as the timing of construction of the mixed use element of the project is subject to market conditions, there is no guarantee as to when this 'replacement' commercial floor space will be introduced. The loss of commercial services to this neighbourhood will have significant impacts which will only be increased with the early introduction of 126 new townhouse units. Clearly it is important to minimize the duration of the loss of retail commercial services to area residents. Report PD 45-06 Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06) Date: September 11, 2006 t'3/ Page 10 To address this matter, the applicant is working to relocate some of the important retail commercial services (such as pharmacy) to the adjacent small plaza (525 square metres) at 1261 Bayly Street, which they recently purchased. While some existing tenants at 1261 Bayly will be displaced, the opportunity will be provided for certain tenants of the Bay Ridges Plaza to relocate so that service can be continued now and during the construction of the project. Staff commend the applicant for the initiative they have taken in this matter. However, while this action will provide for the interim and proximate supply of limited retail services to the neighbourhood during the construction period, there is no assurance that this floor space will continue to be provided. It is still considered essential that permanent new replacement commercial floor space be introduced in the first phase of the project, within the mixed use buildings adjacent to the St. Martins Drive/Bayly Street intersection. This will ensure commercial services are provided as an integral component of the project, and at as early a stage in development as possible. It will serve to maintain some of the commercial facilities that the neighbourhood has come to rely upon. A commercial component of a minimum 2,000 square metres is recommended to be required in the first phase of development, in a true mixed use fashion. This requirement will be included in the site plan/development agreement and the zoning by-law. 3.6 Parkland The City will be requiring cash-in-lieu of parkland from the applicant in order to satisfy the full provisions of Section 42(1) of the Planning Act. Further, the applicant will be required to design and construct certain amenity areas, including a 'parkette' within the development in order to provide outdoor amenity space for residents of the project. For development of this nature, and in accordance with the Planning Act, the City of Pickering Official Plan provides two options for the calculation of required parkland dedication. The first is the conveyance of land or cash-in-lieu of land at an amount of five percent of the proposed land to be developed. The second option, as an alternative for High Density Residential Area or Mixed use Areas, requires land or cash-in-lieu of land at a rate of up to one hectare for each 300 dwelling units proposed. It is recognized that the second option may have significant financial impact on the viability of the project. The first option, being the five percent calculation, is recommended as this may assist the economics of site development, especially when considering the significant costs associated with sanitary sewer upgrades and installation. t: 3 .Report PD 45-06 Date: September 11, 2006 Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06) Page 11 3.7 Sustainable Principles are being addressed The City of Pickering is undertaking a number of initiatives to promote and encourage sustainable development. Staff are evolving criteria to help measure the level of sustainability of development proposals. Applications are now reviewed with consideration given to environmental, social, and economic sustainability. Elements of sustainability have been included in the Development Guidelines and provide direction in both application and site plan review. These elements include: · mix of housing types to provide diversity; · walk to GO Station; · protection of natural environment, enhancement of public open space; · providing commercial/retail floor space to serve the neighbourhood; · intensification / compact urban form; · reduction of reliance on the automobile; · enhanced pedestrian environment; · employment opportunities; · recycling encouraged; · walkway and connection to a transit spine with public access through the site; · energy and resource efficiency; · LEED or green technology building design. The applicant's current site plan incorporates many of these elements, others will be introduced and considered as the design progresses and the site plan is finalized. 3.8 Some areas of the application will need revision in order to meet the intent of the recommended Development Guidelines The applicant's revised concept plan reflects general compliance with the recommended development guidelines. However, there are areas of the applicant's concept plan and requested zoning standards that are not in compliance and where modifications are recommended by staff, as outlined below. A staff concept plan illustrating recommended areas of revision to the applicant's plan is attached (see Attachment # 4). 3.8.1 Parkinq Ratio to be increased to provide residential visitor parkinq and adequate commercial parkinq The applicant and staff have agreed on a parking ratio (including visitor provision) of 1.25 spaces per unit for the apartment units, and 2.2 spaces per unit for the townhouse units. These requirements are considered appropriate considering the project's close proximity to the Pickering GO Station and the applicant's stated intent to market a transit oriented project. Report PD 45-06 Date: September 11, 2006 t'3 ::1 Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06) Page 12 Resident parking for the apartment buildings will be provided in underground garages, while parking for the townhouses and retail/commercial floor space will be surface parking. The location for visitor parking will be determined through the site plan process (see applicant's parking rationale letter - Attachment #6). For the commercial component of the project, the applicant proposes a parking ratio of 3 parking spaces per 100 square metres of floor space. The most common by-law standard for commercial development in the City is 5.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of floor space. While a significant component of retail business will be through walk-to traffic, this commercial floor space will also serve the broader Bay Ridges Neighbourhood and will attract considerable automobile traffic. Staff recommend that a commercial parking requirement of 4.5 spaces per 100 square metres of floor space be imposed. This requirement recognizes that there will be a degree of shared parking in the mixed use component of the project, with residential visitor parking and some commercial parking being shared on a regular basis. 3.8.2 Direct Driveway Access onto the primary road system identified in the Development Guidelines is not supported The recommended Development Guidelines place a special prominence on the 'primary internal road system', which includes both the east/west road from St. Martins Drive and the north/south road from Bayly Street. This road system links St. Martins Drive and Bayly Street and provides for continuous pedestrian movement both to and through the site. Direct vehicle access (driveways and aisles) to the primary internal road system should be minimized to support priority to the pedestrian environment and maximize opportunities for on-street parking. With the elimination of driveways, garages, and aisles, the streetscape will be improved and a better framing for views to Douglas Ravine will be provided. This access restriction will help create a high quality pedestrian environment that is not disrupted by driveways and aisles, creating a safer and more pleasant walking environment. The elimination of garages from the front of these townhouse units will allow for a more attractive streetscape, and assist in the creation of an attractive internal pedestrian promenade. 3.8.3 Live/Work townhouse require improvements to streetscape throuqh the elimination of direct driveway access from St. Martins Drive The driveways that are proposed to access onto St. Martins Drive for the live/work units should be eliminated. The live work units should be ground oriented and present a pleasant streetscape that is not encumbered by driveways and garages. These live/work units should have their vehicle access from an internal road at the rear of the unit. Therefore, the back-to-back form of townhouses is not appropriate at this location. .' " f, t ,t, . Report PD 45-06 Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06) Date: September 11, 2006 Page 13 The opportunity for enhanced on-street parking in front of the live/work units (on the east boulevard of St. Martins Drive) will be explored through the site plan process. 3.9 Technical Matters 3.9.1 Site Plan Aqreement will be required to address the importance of Site Desiqn A site plan 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 and the design of the site achieves compliance with the Development Guidelines. Matters to be addressed included, but are not limited to, ensuring the site can accommodate recycling/3-stream refuse, noise attenuation, stormwater management, sustainable building designs, and the opportunity to introduce some at-grade accessible units for the physically challenged. This required agreement, and several other development implementation matters, are incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for this application, and are found in Appendix I to this Report. 3.9.2 Proposed Zoninq By-law to Include a U(H)" Holdinq Provision to address City and Aqency requirements The draft implementing zoning by-law recommends that the subject property be rezoned to permit the proposed mixed use development containing a maximum of 473 dwelling units. The by-law proposes permitting townhouses in the southern portion and the apartments and commercial uses in the northern portion. The remaining portion, being the valley lands and the buffer area, are recommended to be zoned open space. The amending zoning by-law incorporates an U(H)" holding provision that will require the owner to satisfy certain conditions prior to the lifting of the holding provision. These conditions will include entering into a site plan/development agreement with the City to address matters listed in Appendix I to this report. These matters include requirements of the City, Region, and Toronto Region Conservation Authority and will require the construction of 2,000 square metres of commercial/retail floor space in the initial phase of development. The draft zoning by-law contains performance standards that would permit development in accordance with the recommendations of this report. This includes, amongst others, a minimum commercial/retail floor space of 2,000 square metres, a maximum height of 18 storeys for the apartment buildings, 2.2 parking spaces for all townhouse units, and a minimum parking ratio of 1.25 spaces per apartment dwelling unit and a minimum commercial parking ratio of 4.5 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area. Report PO 45-06 Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06) Date: September 11, 2006 I. 11 .¡ . '-J: I Page 14 The lifting of the U(H)" holding provision will occur promptly after all the required conditions have been met. The lifting process is within the control of Council and there is no public notice required, nor can the public appeal the lifting of the uH". The City has used uH" holding provisions in its zoning by-laws on several occasions, where project complexity and associated development conditions of both the City and agencies warrant a higher level of control. The utilization of the holding provision also allows the City the opportunity to advance rezoning applications prior to the applicant satisfying all requirements of other agencies such as the Region of Durham and Toronto Region Conservation Authority. Utilization of the (UH") holding provision allows the zoning to advance and become final, while ensuring that appropriate development conditions are secu red. 3.9.3 Sanitary Sewer replacement required As noted by the Region of Durham the sanitary sewer that services the subject land does not have the capacity for the number of proposed dwelling units. The Region requires the replacement of the sewer from the subject lands to Wart Street at the applicant's expense. This replacement will alleviate certain problems that currently exist downstream along the run of the sewer. 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant has been advised of the recommendations of this report. The applicant does not agree with the recommended parking ratio for commercial floor space, the requirement to prohibit direct driveway access onto the primary internal road system, the requirement to build commercial floor space in the first phase of construction, and the placement of an (UH") holding provision on the amending zoning by-law. APPENDICES: APPENDIX I: APPENDIX II: APPENDIX III: Recommended Conditions of Approval for A 06/06 Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Recommended Development Guidelines t' 4!~ Report PD 45-06 Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06) Date: September 11, 2006 Page 15 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Original Development Plan 3. Revised Development Plan 4. Staff Concept Plan 5. Applicant's Development Detail Chart 6. Applicant's Parking Rationale Letter 7. Text of Information Meeting Report 8. Minutes from June 1, 2006 Statutory Public Information Meeting 9. Resident Comments (Attachments #9 - #37) 38. Pickering East Shore Community Association 39. Bay Shore Towers 40. Agency Comments - TRCA 41. Agency Comments - Region of Durham Planning Department 42. Agency Comments - GO Transit 43. Agency Comments - CN Rail 44. City Department Comment - Development Control Prepared By: Approved I Endorsed By: RP:jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Rec~mmended for the considE!rªtion of Pickering City Cou þ " Thomas J. Quinn, RDMR., CMM 111',,,,- Chief Administrative Officer ~'1-- lYOt;l 100d?J;tA11 a Q i1' 1/ & -3/ [1 ( ) ::> o 1: :z ~ o I- [1 ( ) ::J o I: :z ~ o I- on "6 ~ ~ \ ::s:. gSnO~NMOl \- ~ ~ ~ aAlt:It1 ~NU<WW '.16 IU (f) :::) o IU X ~- Z2 ~ \3 ~ ~ (f) IU (f) IU :::) <..) o « :r: 0- Z (f) ~ :s ~ ~ ~ ~ Qo! ~~ ~ J2I1O:) t;I;;iZNV;. Z « 0{f) oL z0 tf)1U-Z IUI-I-O o:::){f).-J IUO-:::) O-oLið!O to 7'" U ~J 1i ~ ~ 11\ ~ ~ j ::5 « ~ \3 ~ o « r ~- I II" I ¡ - _ e-_ 1-- STREET -I _ I- _ I O--Z~-If- L 0 ~~-I~ /-..... f--- Q.. g I---- _ ~ I W I---- _ . /1-- ~ - /' 1---1 y- - PATMORE - røÆ~<vr--......:= NE =~ <J - -~ -~ !~ 1----1- -= I---- Planning & Development Department t 30 ;;,f-::>[:,I1 tt ¡ TO I ,,-;VI I Pú Lf 5, c.} h ~y li~Q I <í or>' ~ ~ V V~o~ I ./ dO:) \ V v-\~ v/ I I o~ I 401 \N Þ-- '( r\\Gr\ C.N.R, SSí SíP- ~ , 6Þ.'{'-~ r--î ~~,\~\\\\J///~ -- f- \ \ \ \\ \\ \\~ 2:: Ct: .---- ~ ¡@íþ..l'I~ '== 0 'Y:~ - (J) ,.....-,i(í¡ -z ßß ~ r-- Ct: ) r----1ð'-;J r- i-- () e- « L~~~E~ ~'<.LII \ -i ~ f- ~ I-- (J) -j= Yß V SUBJECT PROPERTY f-- f-- \ ~~ ~. JJ ~ ~~~ II~~ I ~ City of Pickering PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF BLOCK Y, PLAN M-16 OWNER S. R. & R. BAY RIDGES LTD. FILE No. A 006/06 I § \ ' ; ) ~=----- ~~ / V",J/ '[7 I-- '- - 1 / I II POPR =~ -I II TATRA ...J I , GR[¡i ;::¡<v fv~ ~ DATE MAY 8,2006 SCALE 1:5000 DRAWN BY JB CHECKED BY RP l' ~_ó{Q Sour-c..: Toronet Ent.erprises Inc. and it. suppliers. All rights Re.e~ed. Not. a p"1.~n of survey. 2005 MPAC and its suppliers. All richts Reserved. Not CI pion of SUNe , PN-3 APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 45-06 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR APPLICATION TO AMEND ZONING BY-LAW A 06/06 t,: 4 -j , <..J t 44 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 06/06 to be Included within the Proposed Zoning By-law "(H)" Holding Requirements 1. That the amending zoning by-law include an U(H)" holding provision that requires matters to be addressed to the City's satisfaction prior to the lifting of the U(H)" holding provision. Prior to the lifting of the U(H)" the owner shall execute and register a site plan/development agreement, satisfy the Region of Durham, financially and otherwise and satisfy the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, financially and otherwise. 2. That the owner enter into an site plan/development agreement with the City to reflect the comments of the report of the Director, Planning & Development report number PO 45-06. The agreement shall ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: (a) the construction of a walkway within the Douglas Ravine buffer area; (b) providing any required easements; (c) parkland dedication; (d) noise attenuation; (e) satisfaction of the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act; (f) construction management plan; (g) stormwater drainage and management system; (h) design of some units to meet accessibility requirements; (i) design the development for 3-stream refuse handling U) that all buildings address LEED components 3. That the site plan/development agreement include a clause that the owner shall provide to the City of Pickering a clearance letter from the Region of Durham that advises that all of the Regional matters, financial and otherwise, have been addressed including, but not limited to, satisfactory arrangements for the sanitary sewer services to the subject lands, satisfying all requirements of Regional delegated review responsibilities and the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of St, Martins Drive and Bayly Street. 4. That the site plan/development agreement include a clause that the owner shall provide to the City of Pickering a clearance letter from the Toronto Region Conservation Authority that advises that all of TRCA matters have been addressed. 5. That the site plan/development agreement and zoning by-law include the requirement for 2000 square metres of newly constructed retail floor space to be constructed in the first phase of development. APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 45-06 DRAFT IMPLEMENTING ZONING BY-LAW ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 06/06 t4;) 46 BY-LAW NO. Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2520, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham in Part of Block Y, Plan M16, in the City of Pickering. (A 06/06) WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of The City of Pickering deems it desirable to permit a mixed use development of apartment buildings that contained commercial uses and townhouse dwelling units on the subject lands, being Block Y, Plan M16, in The City of Pickering; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 2520, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. 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. 2. AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shall only apply to those lands in Part of Block Y, Plan M16, Pickering, designated "RH/MU-2", "SA-LW", "SA-8", "MD-H6", and "OS-HL" on Schedule I attached hereto. 3. 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 erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations. (2) "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. (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) - 2 - l..~, 'ArT ,~.'" , '/'I r J t 4 / "Body Rub Parlour" includes any premises or part thereof where a body rub is performed, offered or solicited in pursuance of a trade, calling, business or occupation, but does not include any premises or part thereof where the body rubs performed are for the purpose of medical or therapeutic treatment and are performed or offered by persons otherwise duly qualified, licensed or registered so to do under the laws of the Province of Ontario. "Build-to-zone" shall mean an area of land in which all or part of a building elevation of one or more buildings is to be located. "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. "Convenience Store" shall mean a retail store in which food, drugs, periodicals or similar items of day-to-day household necessities are kept for retail sale primarily to residents of, or persons employed in, the immediate neighbourhood. "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. "Dry CleaninQ 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. "DwellinQ" shall mean a building or part of a building containing one or more dwelling units, but does not include a mobile home or trailer. (10) "DwellinQ Unit" shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a single, independent, and separate housekeeping unit containing a separate kitchen and sanitary facilities. t 4<5 - 3 - ..WAFT (11) "Dwellinq, Sinqle Attached or Sinqle Attached Dwellinq" shall mean one of a group of not less than three adjacent dwellings attached together horizontally by an above grade common wall. (12) "Financial Institution" shall mean a building or part of a building in which money is deposited, kept, lent or exchanged. (13) "Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the area of the floor surface contained within the outside walls of a storey or part of a storey. (14) "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 or kept for retail sale to the public. (15) "Gross Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys of a building or structure, or part thereof as the case may be, other than a private garage, an attic, or a cellar. (16) "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. (17) "Laundromat" shall mean a self-serve clothes washing establishment containing washing, drying, ironing, finishing or other incidental equipment. (18) "Lot" shall mean an area of land fronting on a street which is used or intended to be used as the site of a building, or 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. (19) "Multiple Dwellinq-Horizontal" shall mean a building containing three or more dwelling units attached horizontally, not vertically, by an above-grade wall or walls. (20) "Multiple Dwellinq-Vertical" shall mean a building containing three or more dwelling units attached horizontally and vertically by an above-grade wall or walls, or an above-grade floor or floors, or both. (21 ) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) - 4- (,49 "Personal Service Shop" shall mean an establishment in which a personal service is performed and which may include a barber shop, a beauty salon, a shoe repair shop, a tailor or dressmaking shop or a photographic studio, but shall not include a body-rub parlour as defined in the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto. "Private Garaqe" shall mean an enclosed or partially enclosed structure for the storage of one or more vehicles, in which structure no business or service is conducted for profit or otherwise. "Professional Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in which medical, legal or other professional service is performed or consultation given, and which may include a clinic, the offices of an architect, a chartered accountant, an engineer, a lawyer or a physician, but shall not include a body-rub parlour as defined in the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto. "Restaurant - Type A" shall mean a building or part of a building where food is prepared and offered or kept for retail sale to the public for immediate consumption on the premises or off the premises, or both, but shall not include an adult entertainment parlour as defined herein. "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. "Storey" shall mean that portion of a building other than a basement, cellar or attic, included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor, roof deck or ridge next above it. "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 ground except for such accessory buildings, structures, or other uses as are specifically permitted thereon. 4. PROVISIONS ("RH/MU-2" Zone) (1) Uses Permitted ("RH/MU-2" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "RH/MU-2" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: t d') -5- (a) bakery (b) business office (c) convenience store (d) commercial club (e) day nursery (f) dry cleaning depot (g) financial institution (h) food store (i) laundromat U) multiple dwelling-horizontal (k) multiple dwelling-vertical (I) personal service shop (m) professional office (n) retail store (2) Zone Requirements ("RH/MU-2" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "RH/MU-2" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building except in accordance with the following provisions: (a) BUILDING HEIGHT: (i) For Multiple Dwelling Vertical uses: Minimum Maximum 5 Storeys and 15 metres 18 Storeys and 60 metres (ii) For Multiple Dwelling Horizontal uses: Maximum 12 metres (b) BUILDING LOCATION AND SETBACKS: (i) Buildings and structures shall be located entirely within the building envelope shown on Schedule II attached hereto; (ii) No multiple dwelling-horizontal shall be permitted within 60 metres from the lot line that abuts Bayly Street; (iii) No building, part of a building, or structure shall be erected within the "RH/MU-2" Zone, unless a minimum of 70% of the length of the build-to-zone, contains a building or part of a building; - 6- l.'5 j (iv) Despite Section 4.(2)(a)(i) above, a 2 storey, 6.5 metre, building height may be permitted at the north-west corner of the property, adjacent to the intersection of St. Martins Drive and Bayly Street, as a component of the minimum five storey building; (v) No multiple dwelling horizontal uses shall be erected, unless a minimum of 70% of the length of the build-to- zone, as illustrated on Schedule II attached hereto, contains a building or part of a building; (vi) For multiple dwelling-vertical buildings located within the "RH/MU-2" Zone, and within the build-to-zone, any portion of a building or structure in excess of 13.0 metres in height, shall be set back a minimum of 3.0 metres from the main wall of the building or structure; (vii) Notwithstanding clause A above, below grade parking structures shall be permitted beyond the limits of the building envelope identified on Schedule I attached hereto, but no closer than 0.5 metres from the limits of the lands; (viii) The horizontal distance between multiple dwelling- horizontal buildings shall be a minimum of 1.8 metres; (ix) Despite the provisions of Section 5.6 of By-law 2520, the requirement for frontage on a public street shall be satisfied by establishing frontage on a common elements condominium street. (c) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: (i) There shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 4.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross floor area for all permitted uses listed in Section 5(1) of this by-law, except for multiple dwelling-vertical, multiple dwelling-horizontal uses. Non-resident parking shall be provided at grade, in a below grade structure, or both; (ii) For multiple dwelling-vertical uses, there shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 1.0 parking space per dwelling unit for residents, and 0.25 of a parking space per dwelling unit for visitors. Parking spaces for residents shall be provided in a below grade structure; r::n -7- t~.:. (Hi) For multiple dwelling-horizontal, there shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residents, and 0.2 of a parking space per dwelling unit for visitors. Parking spaces shall be provided at grade, in a below grade structure, or both. Parking spaces may also be provided in a private garage attached to the rear of the dwelling unit it serves; (iv) All entrances and exits to parking areas and all parking areas shall be surfaced with brick, asphalt or concrete, or any combination thereof; (v) At grade parking lots shall be permitted no closer than 3.0 metres from the limits of the "RH/MU-2" Zone identified on Schedule I attached hereto, or any road. (d) SPECIAL REGULATIONS: (i) Non-residential uses shall only be permitted within a building containing dwelling units. The non-residential uses shall be limited to the first two storeys of a building; (ii) The minimum aggregate gross leasable floor area for all non-residential uses shall be 2,000 square metres; (iii) The maximum aggregate gross leasable floor area for all restaurant type "A" uses shall be 500 square metres; (iv) No drive through facilities are permitted on the lands designated "RH/MU-2" as illustrated on Schedule I of this by-law; (v) Despite Section 4(2)(b )(i) of this By-law, outdoor patios associated with a restaurant type "A" are permitted to encroach beyond the building envelope as illustrated on Schedule II of this by-law; (vi) Despite Section 4(2)(d)(ii) outdoor patios associated with a restaurant type "A" will not be included within the aggregate gross leasable floor area requirements of subclause (ii) above; (vii) Clauses 5.21.2(a), 5.21.2(b), 5.21.2(e), 5.21.2(f), 5.21.2(g), and 5.21.2(k) of By-law 2520, as amended, shall not apply to lands designated "RH/MU-2" on Schedule I attached hereto. - 8- l'53 5. PROVISIONS ("MD-H6" Zone) (1) Uses Permitted ("MD-H6" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated II MD-H6 II on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (a) Multiple dwelling horizontal (2) Zone Requirements (UMD-H6 " Zone) (a) Lot Area (minimum): 70 square metres (b) Lot Frontage (minimum): 6.0 metres (c) Front Yard Depth (minimum): 3.0 metres (d) Side Yard Width (minimum): 1.2 metres except that no interior side yard shall be provided on the side where dwellings on adjacent lots are attached together (e) Building Height (maximum): 12.0 metres (f) Gross floor area (minimum): 100 square metres per dwelling unit (g) Building Separation: Despite section 5(2)(e) a minimum 1.8 metre separation between blocks of multiple dwelling horizontal shall be permitted (h) Parking Requirements: (i) For each dwelling unit there shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 2 parking spaces, one of which may not be located within a driveway, and one of which must be provided within an attached garage of the dwelling, any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from any street or drive aisle providing access to those lots, plus a minimum of 0.2 visitor parking spaces per unit. t 5 'f - 9 - 6. PROVISIONS ("SA-8" Zone) (1) Uses Permitted ("SA-8" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "SA-8" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (a) Single attached dwelling residential use; (2) Zone Requirements (USA-8" Zone) (a) Lot Area (minimum): (b) Lot Frontage (minimum): (c) Front Yard Depth (minimum): (d) Rear Yard Oepth (minimum): (e) Side Yard Width (minimum): (f) Building Height (maximum): (g) Gross floor area (minimum): 100 square metres 4.8 metres 3.0 metres 5.0 metres 1 .2 metres except that no interior side yard shall be provided on the side where dwellings on adjacent lots are attached together 12.0 metres 100 square metres per dwelling unit (h) Obstruction Of Yards: (i) Oespite section 5.8(b) of By-law 2520, covered and unenclosed porches, verandahs and flankage entrance features not exceeding 1.5 metres in height above the established grade may project no more than: A 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard B 0.6 metres into any required side yard - 10 - l'55 (i) Parking Requirements: (i) for each dwelling unit there shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 2 parking spaces, one of which may not be located within a driveway, and one of which must be provided within an attached garage of the dwelling, any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from any street or drive aisle providing access to those lots, plus a minimum of 0.2 visitor parking spaces per unit U) Special Regulations: (i) No more than 8 units shall be attached horizontally (ii) Despite section 6(2)(e) a minimum 1.8 metre separation between blocks of single attached dwellings shall be permitted. 7. PROVISIONS ("SA-LW" Zone) (1) Uses Permitted ("SA-LW" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "SA-LW " on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: Residential Uses: (a) single attached dwelling Commercial Uses: (a) business office (b) commercial school (c) personal service shop (d) professional office (e) retail store (2) Zone Requirements ("SA-LW" Zone) (a) Lot Area (minimum): (b) Lot Frontage (minimum): (c) Unit Width (minimum): (d) Front Yard Depth (minimum): (e) Rear Yard Depth (minimum): 180 square metres 5.0 metres 5.0 metres 3.0 metres 6.0 metres r::: ,'\ I ~n - 11 - #~T (i) Despite clause (d) and (e) above, front yard balconies, verandahs and decks, both uncovered and covered, may project fully into any required front or side yard; (f) Side Yard Width (minimum): 1.2 metres except that no interior side yard shall be provided on the side where dwellings on adjacent lots are attached together (g) Building Height (maximum): (h) Gross floor area (minimum): 12.0 metres 100 square metres per dwelling unit (i) Parking Requirements: (i) For each dwelling unit there shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 2 parking spaces, one of which may not be located within a rear yard, and one of which must be provided within an attached garage located to the rear of the dwelling, any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from any street or drive aisle providing access to those lots, plus a minimum of 0.2 visitor parking spaces per unit; (ii) Clauses 5.21.1 a) to 5.21.2 f), inclusive of By-law 2520, as amended, shall not apply to the lands designated "SA- LW" on Schedule I attached hereto; U) Special Regulations: (i) Despite section 7 (1) of this by-law, non-residential uses permitted within the "SA-LW" zone designation may be established only within the ground floor of a dwelling unit; (ii) No driveway access from St. Martins Drive for individual dwelling units shall be permitted; (Hi) Despite Section 2.46 of By-law 2520, St. Martins Drive shall be considered as the front lot line; (iv) Despite section 7(2)(f) a minimum 1.8 metre separation between blocks of single attached dwellings shall be permitted. - 12 - t'5;' 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS ("RH/MU-2", "SA-LW", "SA-8", "MD-H6" Zones) (1) For residential uses, the lands designated "RH/MU-2", "SA-LW", "SA-8", "MD-H6"" on Schedule I attached hereto, shall be developed at a density of over 30 units per net hectare and up to and including 140 units per net hectare up to a maximum of 473 dwelling units; (2) Despite Section 5.6 of By-law 2520 and Clause 3(18) of this By- law, the requirement for frontage on a public street shall be satisfied by establishing frontage on a common elements condominium street; (3) All visitor parking spaces that are required for multiple dwelling- horizontal for each zone may be provided within any of the lands designated "RH/MU-2", "SA-LW", "SA-8", and "MD-H6"; (4) That the internal zone lines separating the residential zone categories shall be deemed to be the center line of the internal private road. 9. PROVISIONS ("OS-HL" Zone) (1) Uses Permitted ("OS-HL" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "OS-HL" on Schedule I attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (a) preservation and conservation of the natural environment, soil and wildlife; (b) resource management; (c) pedestrian trails & walkways. (2) Zone Requirements ("OS-HL" Zone) (a) No buildings or structures shall be permitted to be erected, nor shall the placing or removal of fill be permitted, except where buildings or structures are used only for purposes of flood and erosion control, resource management, or pedestrian trail and walkway purposes; (b) Despite Clause (a) above, tot lots, visitor parking spaces and associated traffic aisles are permitted within the "OS-HL" Zone as illustrated on Schedule I attached hereto. t -5 "j - 13 - rrr r,J 10. PROVISIONS ("H" Zone) (1) Uses Permitted Zone Requirements ("H" Zone) Until such time as the "H" Holding provision is lifted, the lands shall not be used for any purpose other than any use permitted by the General Commercial Zone "C2" of Zoning By-law 2520, subject to the provisions of Section 11 of By-law 2520. (2) Removal of the "H" HoldinQ Svmbol The "H" Holding Symbol shall not be removed from any zone until such time as a Site Plan Agreement and/or a Development Agreement has been executed with the City of Pickering and registered that provides for: (a) Appropriate arrangements have been made to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering that all the requirements for the development of the mixed use have been complied with, including but not limited to, environmental and engineering requirements, building designs, phasing of construction including the requirement for a minimum of 2000 square metres of new commercial floor space in the first phase of development, easements, urbanization of the boulevard, installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Bayly Street. and St. Martins Drive and all financial matters; (b) Appropriate arrangements have been made to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham for the provision of sanitary, water and transportation services and environmental and engineering requirements; (c) Appropriate arrangements have been made to the satisfaction of the Toronto Region Conservation Authority for the provision of environmental, engineering and land conveyance requirements. 11. BY-LAW 2520 By-law 2520, 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 relevant provisions of by-law 2520, as amended. - 14- (,59 12. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. BY-LAW read a first, second, and third time and finally passed this 2006. day of David Ryan, Debi Bentley, City Clerk ~ t üU 40Î \-\\G\-\'-N ~'{ C.~·R. {H)RH-MU-2 PLAN M16 NORTH PART OF BLOCK Y 40R-3151 PART 2 TO 5 1 I :.:r-1O.0m 1, I / ",bS-HLJ 0/ I r--l0.0m E I re E "! ;:: 157.7m W ~ ~ E 0:: '" I ..: {H)MD-H6 0 <C ... E ... en PLAN M16 NORTH PART OF BLOCK Y .,; '" 40R-3151 PART 2 TO 5 .-.. WAYFARER :r: 14Q,8m "-" E {H)SA-8 LANE " <Ó N 138.1m (f) Z I- 0:: « ::;¡;: L I- (f) - "'- \. "- RADOM STREET \. - / / ( I I l' N SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS DAY OF 2006 MAYOR - DAVID RYAN CITY CLERK - DEBI A. BENTLEY E "! ;;; r-\ \ G r-\ '-N Þ- '< WAYFARER LANE L - ........ '\ ........ '\ A-OÎ c.~·B.· --, -- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (H)RH-MU-~ \ \ \ \ \ \ 4.0m '. \ =~~_________________________J_______\ Bþ-'<L'< 3.0m w ~ 0::: o ~ . <C U) ..-.. J: "-" (H)SA-8 4.0m (H)MD-H6 (/) Z ¡:: 0::: « :::¡;: ~ BUILD- TO-ZONE I BUILDING ENVELdPE I ¡-: (/) RADOM STREET -- SCHEDULE n TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS DAY OF 2006 ~," t'ut ¡,) / " / ~lbS-HL 01 I I I / / ( I I MAYOR - DAVID RYAN CITY CLERK - DEB I A. BENTLEY l' Ii , ~" I·h / . v_.. APPENDIX III TO REPORT NUMBER PD 45-06 Recommended Development Guidelines Bay Ridges Neighbourhood I' '0'" ~.: . .J Section C2 Bav Ridges Plaza Redevelopment DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ~ m ALE)( ROBERTSON "ARK ~ ~ MONTCOMERY LAKE ONTARIO PLUMMER ST. i 22 ~ o z 3 õ Q « o II: .. I~ u I ~ m I I "ARK / PICKERING GENERATING 5TA~ IV 1',61 Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Development Guidelines - Table of Contents Section Page C1.0 General Description 2 C1.1 Guiding Principles for Redevelopment 2 C2.0 Land Use Objectives 3 C2.1 Urban Design Objectives C2.2 Urban Design Concept 3 4 C3.0 Urban Design Guidelines 4 C3.1 Site Context: views, street edges, intersections, adjacent public transportation and the ravine C3.2 Site Organization: street and blocks, major open spaces and linkages, service areas C3.3 Built Form C3.4 Streetscaping and Landscaping C3.5 Parking, Parking Locations and Treatment C3.6 Sustainable Design Practices C3.7 Signage C3.8 Lighting 4 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 C4.0 Phasing of Development 14 Figures Figure A - Urban Design Concept Plan Figure B - Build to Zone, Vistas and Views Plan The Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Guidelines were adopted by Pickering City Council on Bav Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment Paqe 2 C1.0 General Description t'6;~) The Bay Ridges Plaza is located at the north limit of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. The Neighbourhood lies generally on the east side of Frenchman's Bay and extends from Highway 401 to Lake Ontario. The site subject of these development guidelines comprises an area of approximately 4.3 hectares and supports two commercial plazas located on the south side of Bayly Street between St. Martins Drive and Douglas Ravine. These plazas are municipally known as 1215-1235 Bayly Street and 1261 Bayly Street, and currently contain retail and office uses. These commercial plazas serve the surrounding neighbourhood. Vehicular access to the site is from St. Martins Drive and from Bayly Street. Highway 401 and The Canadian National Railway (CNR) mainline are located immediately north of Bayly Street. The site is bounded by: · the CNR mainline and Highway 401, located immediately north of Bayly Street, are major transportation corridors that are readily visible from the north side of the site. · Douglas Ravine provides a major open space feature for the area generally, and for the subject site specifically on the east side of the site. · detached homes with reversed lot frontages are located on the west side of St. Martins Drive. · a residential development south of the subject site includes an 18-storey apartment building and townhouses. C1.1 Guiding Principles for Redevelopment The site is located in an evolving area of Pickering. The Bay Ridges Neighbourhood is primarily a mix of 1960's and 70's detached, semi-detached, townhouse and apartment dwellings developed over the 1950's, 60's and 70's which can be described as a neighbourhood in a zone of revitalization and transition. Further west of the site, off Bayly Street, a townhouse development was constructed in 2003, while south on Liverpool Road a nautical village has evolved by Lake Ontario with the Captain's Walk and Frenchman's Bay Village, The Millennium Square and the Waterfront boardwalk. These developments are indicative of intensification that is helping to revitalize the housing stock and rejuvenate the area. The guidelines for these lands have been prepared within the context of Provincial policy, City of Pickering and Region of Durham Official Plans, as well as Transit Oriented Development and Sustainable Development principles. Transit Oriented Developments (TOO) are pedestrian-friendly, mixed use communities that encourage residents and workers to drive their cars less and ride transit more. Bav Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment ',' Bß The major principles of TOO include: Paqe 3 - A grid network instead of a discontinuous road network Street-oriented uses along arterial roads - A mix of higher density uses Improved access between arterials and the interior of blocks Reducing reliance on automobile use and parking Sustainable Development and Building is generally defined as: "The use of design and construction methods and materials that are resource efficient and that will not compromise the health of the environment or the associated health and well-being of the building's occupants, builders, the general public, or future generations." As a background for the preparation of development guidelines, an urban design workshop was conducted on December 13, 2005 to obtain stakeholder input for the redevelopment of this site. There was general agreement at the workshop that the site is a good candidate for redevelopment with a mix of uses, including high density housing particularly in light of its proximity to the Pickering GO Station. The site's proximity to the Pickering GO Station is approximately 400m or a 5 minute walk away, which makes it a very suitable location within the City of Pickering for redevelopment and intensification with a mix of residential and commercial uses. C2.0 Land Use Objectives The objective of this document is to articulate urban design guidelines for the redevelopment of the site. The guidelines will help ensure that development is designed appropriately and will assist the municipality in the review of applications for redevelopment. C2.1 Urban Design Objectives These Development Guidelines utilize the urban design objectives of Chapter 9 "Community Design" and Chapter 13 - "Detailed Design Considerations" of the Pickering Official Plan as a foundation. It is the intent of these guidelines to further those objectives and introduce and augment those listed below: · to create a higher intensity of development and to provide a mix of uses to create a vibrant urban community · to provide for a range of housing choices · to identify, protect and enhance the public realm and open space features · to promote development of the site based on sustainable development principles · to retain retail commercial uses at a scale that serves the surrounding community. Bav Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment Paqe 4 1.'6(' An Urban Design Concept has been prepared to graphically illustrate the basis for the guidelines. This concept incorporates input gathered at the public workshop, as well as coordination meetings with the Planning & Development Department and the planning and design team preparing the development master plan for the site. (See Figure A - Bay Ridges Urban Design Concept). The primary elements of the concept (as shown on Figure A - Urban Concept Plan) include: · an area for high density mixed use buildings along the frontage of Bayly Street · surface parking for mixed use development behind the Bayly Street buildings · a primary internal road system comprised of two main roads running east-west through the site and a north-south road that connects to Bayly Street. · the primary access road from St. Martins Drive, which becomes a main east-west connection for the site will provide pedestrian access and views to Douglas Ravine · the north-south road, which connects the east-west road to Bayly Street will provide additional access to the site · an area for townhouses south of the east-west road, including traditional townhouses with backyards, back-to-back townhouses and stacked townhouses · an amenity area/parkette and a pedestrian walkway adjacent to the edge of Douglas Ravine C3.0 Urban Design Guidelines These guidelines have been prepared in keeping with the City of Pickering Official Plan objectives, site-specific development and design parameters, discussions with City of Pickering officials, and the findings of the urban design workshop regarding this site. C3.1 Site Context: views, street edges, intersections, adjacent public transportation, and the ravine Basis Higher density and compact urban forms are more able to support public transit than traditional development. This site's strategic location, adjacent to Bayly Street and in very close proximity to the Pickering Go Station, provides a significant opportunity to introduce a more compact and dense built form. Municipal policies encourage and require more sustainable development densities along key transit corridors and/or in close proximity to transportation nodes. Bav Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment Paqe 5 tj ..-. I ," - <> There is no possibility of development on the north side of Bayly Street, across from the site, as it is dominated by the CNR mainline and Highway 401. Therefore, it is important to provide a strong built form along the south side of Bayly Street. A built form edge should be aligned with the Bayly Street right of way, which would act as a buffer to any development on the interior of the site. Any widening of the Bayly Street right of way adjacent to the site should be kept to a minimum width to support a pedestrian environment. The site should be landscaped along the street frontages and building siting and massing should provide presence to the street and appropriate interfaces with existing developments and the Douglas Ravine. Guidelines 1. Recognize the prominent location of the site at the intersection of an arterial corridor (Bayly Street) and a collector road (St. Martins Drive). Design the development to have an enhanced presence along the two public roads with generous and appropriately placed landscaping to help create the pedestrian environment, and prominent building massing and articulation. 2. Provide architectural design that is well articulated and reflective of the prominence of the site location at the intersection of St. Martins Drive and Bayly Street. 3. Create a strong built form along the Bayly Street frontage of the site by providing for a continuous street edge of buildings with height and massing emphasis to help "frame" the street. 4. Ensure a widened right of way for Bayly Street is minimized to support a compact built form, and a pedestrian street environment. 5. Organize the site layout of buildings, roads, laneways and open spaces to take advantage of the Douglas Ravine as a protected and enhanced natural feature. No residential rear yards are to be located adjacent to the ravine. 6. Configure the site to provide convenient pedestrian access, both from and through the site, to the nearby Pickering GO Station. 7. Provide traffic signals at the intersection of St. Martins Drive and Bayly Street, in consultation with the Region of Durham. Bav RidQes Plaza Redevelopment PaQe 6 I;sr) I fICiURE: B I Build to zone, Vistas and Views Plan m.....___......·m.m.._..___....__m_...··..·__.....·...··..·._ ___ .............m........_._ .. . . .......--.-..----~::.=:::~;:::';;-,:--_._- .).t, ~ y\^~ ._r..\.~:.:-._:;.1;~-:;;,:7~T..'.~~.. - n." . .......... --. ....~<,. ".... .--...._.-:.~::o'"'-'--^"--_.._..._...._-_._-........"- , 'r-------1 I ' 'LfæNI7¡ i ",0' __ .~ ViEWS AND VISTAS ~-~,_.,-- " ,', ,. . ..,H~;;·'·1"H : - BU'LD TO ZONE ~"..-'-' ,.~_ ~~~;~'~'-{ ,,),ì<~: -; 1\ -'--"" ",,/ ~;.ú-;~<;,q," ,..- - -- . X' " ." \ ' -.... -<. \. ~ /<,. '" \ ....>.... (('i)'¡, ,:...~~~~~~)\\ - "'--"'7'l;::\ <::'~/:\i!~~.,'\\\.~\' y ( 0 t\ \">\' \\ \'" ,.. .. ¡>\ g ~ 2: C3.2 Site Organization: street and blocks, major open spaces and linkages, service areas Basis The site is rectangular in shape with street frontages on its north and west sides. Bayly Street is an arterial corridor and is uniquely positioned to provide for high density buildings containing mixed uses such as residential and commercial. The potential building footprints, associated service spaces and parking for the high density development along Bayly Street significantly influence the layout of the full site. Development with lower densities should be considered mainly for the southerly sections of the site to take advantage of the noise attenuation provided by the high density development along Bayly Street. St. Martins Drive is a collector road capable of carrying greater traffic volumes than local roads. Vehicular access to the site shall be provided from both Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive. Full signalization is recommended at the Bayly StreetlSt. Martins Drive intersection. The primary internal road system should link with St. Martins Drive and Bayly Street and provide for continuous pedestrian movement both to and through the site. The east-west road section from St. Martins Drive should provide a vista to the Douglas Ravine, provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the interior of the site, and link with the north/south road section from Bayly Street. Direct vehicular access (driveways/aisles) to the primary internal road system should be minimized to support priority to the pedestrian environment and maximize opportunity for on-street parking. , _ Bav Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment \' ¡U Paqe 7 The presence of Douglas Ravine at the site's easterly periphery is a major asset. A parkette to serve residents of the site shall be required adjacent to the ravine top-of-bank to take advantage of the views into the Douglas Ravine, and assist in integrating the development with the ravine feature. A pedestrian walkway shall be introduced on public lands along or near the top of bank of the ravine to provide a link to the Bayly Street sidewalk and the Pickering GO Station. This pedestrian link is an important part of the larger pedestrian network which is also intended to connect the Pickering GO Station to the north side of Highway 401 through a future pedestrian bridge. A landscaped focal point should also be considered centrally on the site, preferably at the intersection of the two primary internal roads. Currently, there is a pedestrian connection between the site and the residential buildings south of the site. This connection should be reviewed in light of the layout of the site and maintained if feasible. To create an attractive public streetscape, service areas should not be visible from the streets and should be designed as an integral part of the buildings. Landscaping should be used to provide buffering of service areas on the site where required. Guidelines 1. Place high density mixed use development along the Bayly Street frontage, with particular emphasis at the intersection of St. Martins Drive and Bayly Street. 2. Provide commercial uses, which are visually and physically accessible to pedestrians from Bayly Street, and from the northerly section of St. Martins Drive. 3. Situate medium density residential development south of the high density residential and commercial developments along Bayly Street. 4. Locate a main east-west entry point and access road/laneway from a central location along St. Martins Drive. Ensure that this access provides, and suitably frames, views into Douglas Ravine and provides for a pedestrian walkway that connects to the parkette at the terminus of the east-west road. 5. Provide a primary internal road system comprised of two linking main roads; one running east-west through the site from St. Martins Drive, and the other running north-south from Bayly Street. 6. Design the east-west road to provide for two-way traffic with on-street parking and an ample pedestrian sidewalk on both sides. 7. Design the primary north-south road to provide for two-way traffic, with access controls to and from Bayly Street in consultation with the Region of Durham. This road is to provide for an ample pedestrian sidewalk on both sides. Bav Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment Paqe 8 ~7 I u I 8. Ensure a high quality pedestrian environment by limiting the number of north-south streets, to ensure that vehicular access will not disrupt the pedestrian walkway along the east-west road. Furthermore, no residential driveways are to access directly onto the main internal east-west road. 9. Locate a parkette at the edge of the ravine and ensure that it is linked to the rest of the site visually and physically. 10. Place a walkway on public lands along or near the top of bank of Douglas Ravine, which provides a continuous link between the Bayly Street sidewalk, so as to enable connection to the Liverpool Road and Bayly Street intersection as a means to create a strong link between the existing neighbourhood, the site, and the Pickering GO Station. 11. Locate a landscape area centrally on the site that provides for a landscape amenity. 12. Provide a pedestrian walkway between the subject site and residential community located to the south either by maintaining the current location or by a new connection, if feasible. 13. Incorporate storage and garbage areas into the buildings they serve and locate them away from public streets. Ensure that the internal layout of mixed use buildings are designed to accommodate recycling programs. 14. Use landscaping to buffer service and parking areas, particularly to shield views from public roads. 15. All mechanical equipment must be adequately screened and all commercial buildings should contain their rooftop mechanical equipment either in small roof top elements or under roof profiles. 16. 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. 17. For all restaurant uses, restaurant cooking ventilation systems shall incorporate ecologizer water wash, ultraviolet or other equivalent odour extraction mechanisms sufficient enough to ensure that the resulting exhaust is substantially odour free and will not affect the surrounding residents. 18. No drive-thru facilitates are permitted for any use. C3.3 Built Form Basis Buildings should be located in groupings that enable the efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians on the site. t ' '7 ,~:Sav RidQes Plaza Redevelopment PaQe 9 Attention should be paid to the Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive intersection, where buildings should be located in close proximity to the corner, appropriately massed and articulated to take into account their prominent location to both public street frontages and to provide a landmark. Building heights for high-rise buildings should respect a pedestrian scale. In this regard, a layered building approach should be considered, which expresses a base, or podium, upon which the high-rise component of the building would be placed. Further massing measures should be considered depending on the proposed heights of high-rise buildings. Medium density buildings, such as traditional townhouses or back-to-back townhouses, should be designed to provide a variety of rooflines, massing features and articulated façades. Reverse lot frontages should be avoided along existing public streets or any new internal streets. Building façades must be designed to provide an attractive presence. Particular design emphasis should be placed on all building façades adjacent to public streets. As well, development adjacent to the primary road system should have buildings oriented to compliment the street, with main entrances facing this main axis. Having main entrances on these streets will support an active streetscape and promote the principle of "eyes on the street". Guidelines 1. Locate the highest buildings along the Bayly Street frontage. A "landmark" presence should be provided at the intersection of Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive. 2. For high-rise buildings, provide a minimum two-storey base building, or podium, above which the high-rise portion of the building would be placed, using set backs to maintain the pedestrian scale of the base. T~ ~IWI' Bav Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment Paqe 10 , ~7'~" f'''' ,. "J 3. Require a sunshade analysis to ensure that impacts of building heights to the existing neighbourhood are mitigated. 4. Consider massing or building façade treatment measures to express the upper floors (top) of high-rise buildings. 5. Use architectural elements such as cornices, entry features and upgraded material treatments to add visual interest to all buildings on the site. 6. Promote an active streetscape, commercial building façades using ample glazing facing the public streets. Place commercial building entrances to be visible and accessible to pedestrians. 7. Avoid monotonous rows of townhouses by providing appropriate breaks between rows of townhouses. Design a dynamic façade for a block of townhouses by occasionally varying the front yard depths, using large windows, and by providing a varied roofline. 8. Create a strong built form edge along the main primary internal road system, with main entrances facing the street, porches, and visible living areas on the ground floor. 9. Avoid reverse lot frontages for townhouses along the public streets and any internal streets or laneways. C3.4 Streetscaping and Landscaping Basis Architectural and landscaping design elements should be complimentary to create a distinctive development. The public streetscape must integrate with the private development to form a high quality urban environment. The Bayly Street frontage is the main arterial frontage of the site. While a strong built form image is recommended along this frontage, street tree plantings on both the north and south sides of the street would further enhance the area. The plantings on the north side of Bayly Street are intended to provide a visual buffer to the CNR mainline and Highway 401. Street trees, and other landscaping using trees and shrubs, should be used extensively within the site to delineate internal streets and laneways, major access points into the site, and accentuate open spaces. To provide for a more immediate landscaping impact on the site, the use of larger caliper deciduous trees and taller coniferous trees is recommended. I....·j L' ( q. Bav Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment City of Pickering and Region of Durham public streetscape initiatives are to be implemented in concert with the landscaping on the subject site to create a pedestrian supportive and pleasant urban environment. Plant street trees on both sides of Bayly Street. Plantings on the north side of Bayly Street, in consultation with the Region of Durham, shall contain deciduous and coniferous trees to provide year-round visual buffering. Design the public sidewalk, street furniture and plantings on the south side of Bayly Street to promote pedestrian use by providing a minimum 2m sidewalk width, decorative paving, pedestrian- scaled street light fixtures and other pedestrian amenities. Provide a minimum width of 3m in the front yard of buildings along St. Martins Drive for landscaping. Delineate internal streets and laneways by using trees and shrubs. Provide a variety of native plantings on the parkette and open spaces. Require decorative features such as gazebos for the parkette adjacent to the Douglas Ravine. Require a minimum caliper of 70mm trees for deciduous trees and a minimum height of 2m for coniferous trees in landscaped areas. Refer to Arterial Corridor Guidelines prepared by the Region of Durham when selecting street tree species for the Bayly Street frontage. Guidelines 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. C3.5 Parking, Parking Locations and Treatment Basis Paqe 11 ,', ", to .:f--i' ~ ~, L-I6I-t\ING ~~f'!.)..NTIN<?~_ ~ í ~f6NPO" :;:. , ~T f't..ae.~I~ The City's desire to create a transit oriented and sustainable development is accomplished with higher densities and more compact urban forms with a reduced reliance on the number of car trips and demand for parking spaces. Parking requirements for the site should take into consideration the close proximity of the Pickering GO Station and the greater "walk to" opportunity provided by higher residential density. Bav Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment Paqe 12 !.' 7 :!)' ..... ,~ An abundance of surface parking often creates environments that are desolate and not supportive of pedestrian activity. Where they have to be used, measures such as perimeter landscape screening and landscape islands, assist in creating a more satisfactory design for surface parking areas. To create a site design that is dominated by well-designed buildings and landscaping, particularly for high density mixed use buildings, parking should be located underground. In certain instances, such as for retailing and for townhouses, parking may have to be placed at grade. Along public street frontages parking will not be placed in front of buildings. Guidelines 1. Consider reduced parking ratios for residential and commercial developments on the site. 2. Use underground parking, particularly for high density mixed use buildings. 3. Where surface parking lots are used, provide generous landscape screening along the perimeter of the lot. In addition, place landscape islands within the parking lot to reduce the amount of hard paved surfaces. 4. Delineate the major pedestrian routes within a surface parking lot, which lead to adjacent buildings, with decorative paving or similar treatments. 5. If surface parking is used for townhouses, particularly if located in the front yard, provide landscaping on the adjacent areas. Consider the use of decorative paving for hard surfaces. 6. There shall be no surface parking in the front yard of buildings along St. Martins Drive. 7. Encourage on-street parking on the primary internal road system. 8. Consider providing on-street parking on the east side of St. Martins Drive, south of the entrance to the site subject to boulevard improvements to help set out and delineate the parking area. ~ C3.6 Sustainable Design Practices Basis The City of Pickering is currently undertaking an initiative that seeks to achieve long- term environmentally, socially and economically sustainable communities through design principles such as: · creating socially cohesive and diverse communities through a mix of housing types and employment opportunities · promoting alternative transportation and energy · promoting efficient use of resources · locating residential areas close to recreational and commercial services with pedestrian and cycling connections f"'"" (> t 'OBav Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment Paqe 13 These design principles should be followed in the development of this site in support of creating a sustainable neighbourhood. While several rating systems are available to measure environmental performance of buildings and sites, proponents are encouraged to use LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) as the rating system. LEED measures and ranks a building's environmental performance under six general categories: Sustainable sites; Water efficiency; Energy and atmosphere; Materials and resources; Indoor environmental quality; Innovation and design. Benefits of employing sustainable building technologies include measurable reductions of waste, decreased water use, energy savings, reduced operating and maintenance costs and improved indoor air quality. Guidelines 1. Encourage, as a minimum, the achievement of LEED - Silver to ensure sustainable building practices are achieved on the site by considering the following: energy saving windows, construction materials, fixtures and systems green roofs building design innovative stormwater management techniques, such as porous surface paving materials water conservation measures recycling and composting arrangements use of native tree species in landscaping maximizing the natural irrigation of trees recycling trash chute for metal, paper and mixed trash for apartment buildings smart meters, which record the time of day that electricity is used so customers can use electricity at less expensive times of day C3.7 Signage Basis Signs are an important element of commercial activity. Types of signage regularly used for commercial uses include: fascia signs; rooftop signs; and free standing ground signs. Signage should be part of the overall development design and work in concert with buildings and landscaping on the site. In placing signs on a site or a building, proponents should be mindful of impacts on the public streetscape. Bav Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment Paqe 14 t,'7 Î Signage can also be used as a creative tool. In certain instances, a coordinated sign system, which utilizes up-to-date display technologies, lighting and other means, can contribute to a vibrant and animated streetscape. In this regard, Bayly Street should be considered a prime candidate for any such creative expressions. Guidelines 1. Incorporate all signage into the design considerations for buildings and landscaping. 2. No freestanding roof-mounted billboard signs shall be permitted. 3. Fascia signs that are in proportion and architecturally coordinated with the building façade will be encouraged. 4. Limit the use of ground signs, except when incorporated into the landscaping. C3.8 Lighting Basis The use of lighting to enhance a developments attractiveness and safety of the built environment is accomplished by promoting the use of lighting that is of appropriate quality, intensity and design. The City of Pickering promotes limiting the effects of unwanted light on people, property and the natural environment. Guidelines 1. Lighting design should complement the design of the development. 2. Promote the use of lighting to enhance and define the aesthetic and functional quality of the public spaces such the pedestrian walkway and parkette. 3. Promote the use of lighting fixtures that are compatible with the scale of pedestrian activity. 4. Exterior lighting shall not spill over onto adjacent properties or streets. 5. Lighting shall be downcast through the use of full cut off fixtures to avoid light pollution. 6. Lighting and light standards in public areas including parking lots should relate to the pedestrian and be limited to a height of 6 metres. 7. Promote the use of lighting that is environmentally friendly in terms of generated light levels and energy conservation. C4.0 Phasing of Development Basis The Bay Ridges Plaza, built in the 1960's provided 5,500m2 of retail, personal service, office and food store service to the neighbourhood. Commercial retail uses Bav Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment u7 ij comprise an important aspect of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood and must be provided in any redevelopment of the site. Guidelines Paqe 15 · encourage efforts to provide continuity of service during the construction phases in the commercial areas of significant relevance, through business relocation and phasing incentives · require the inclusion of significant replacement service commercial floor space (new construction) in the first phase of redevelopment of the site (approximately 2,000m2). tTT þ,Cfrn:rn # () TO ;. PO '15 - 0 '" 1.'81 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS SUBMITTED PLAN S. R. & R. BAY RIDGES LTD. A 06/06 From Information Report No. 07-06 l' roLL SCALE: COPIES OF THE: APPUCANrS slJSiltTTED PIAN ARE AÞI4ItAB£E FOR Y/EWING AT THE: CITY OF PlCK£RING PU.NNING ... DEt£LOPItIENT ŒPAHT1.IENr. THIS I.IAP WAS PRODIJCED BY THE: CITY OF PICKER1NC PiANN1NG ... DEt£L0PItIENT' ŒPAHnIENT. /NFI:JIfl,(ATlON ... StJPPOHT SEfMCE5, ,f44y It 2fXJ6. 8'-, " " . '- INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S REVISED SUBMITTED PLAN S. R. & R. BAY RIDGES LTD. A 06/06 3· _,.,,___,__ I Ú "L'".,,¥ 5 - o...~__..", ~ J I I l' FULL SCN.£ COPIES OF THE APP/JCANrs SlJ8AliTTéD PIAN ARE AIf4llABLE FOR V/£W1NG AT THE CITY OF PfCKERtNG PlANNINC .. DEVElOPf.lENT DEPAHnÆNr. THIS MAP /II4S PRODIJCE1) BY THE CITY OF PICIŒRINC P/ANNIN(; ... DEVElOPf.lENT DEPARnÆNr; INFORiMT/ON ... SVPPORT SFJMCF:S. AllCllST (8, 2006. '.... ".- "n # Ii TO 11,,,1-:,:;',1...\." . ,- [:7Î'J¡ii 1/ PD i/ 5· 0 " c"8 ') , oJ STAFF CONCEPT PLAN SCALE: 1 :1500 YLY STRBBT__=:'::--- ..- 2 rtW!II: s _3 _4 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ç I à . t84 Attachment # 5 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT DETAIL Details of Application Oriqinal Plan Revised Plan (Attachment #2) (Attachment #3) Total gross lot area - 4.067 ha - 4.308 ha Valley lands (land below top of bank) - 0.609 ha - 0.609 ha Road Widening - 0.007 ha - 0.09 ha 10 metre buffer from top of bank - - 0.223 ha Net lot area - 3.38 ha - 3.38 ha Number of Traditional Townhouses - 71 - 38 Number of Back-to-Back Townhouses - 78 - 76 Number of live-work Townhouses - 12 - 12 Total Number of Townhouses - 161 - 126 Number of Apartment Units Building "A" - 243 - 240 No. of One bedroom Units in BuildinQ "A" - 140 - 150 No. of Two bedroom Units in Building "A" - 103 - 90 Number of Apartment Units BuildinQ "B" - 168 - 107 No. of One bedroom Units in Building "B" - 101 - 60 No. of Two bedroom Units in Building "B" - 67 - 47 Total Number of Apartment Units - 411 - 347 Total Number of One bedroom Units - 241 - 210 Total Number of Two bedroom Units - 170 - 137 Total Number of Dwellinq Units - 572 - 473 Apartment BuildinQ "A" HeiQht - 16 storeys - 16 storeys Apartment Buildinq "B" Heiqht - 18 storeys - 18 storeys Commercial - Gross floor Area - 2,062 mL - 2,133 mL Surface Parking for - 60 spaces - 58 spaces apartment/commercial buildinq Underground parking for - 462 spaces - 546 apartment/commercial buildinq Total parking for apartment/commercial - 522 Spaces - 604 building Parkinq per townhouse - 2 spaces - 2 spaces Townhouse Visitors Parkinq - 9 spaces - None desiqnated Total townhouse parkinq - 331 spaces - 252 spaces Total Parkinq on the site - 853 spaces - 856 spaces 10 tiS GOo t'85 Commercial Facus Advisory Services Inc. Affiliated with R~Þl( Commerdal fOCUs Inc. 69 Yorkville Ave.. Toronto, Ont. M5R 1 B8 Tel: 416712-9309 Fax: 416972-9588 EMail: CFAServices©aol.com August 18,2006 Mr. Neil Carroll, M.C.I.P. RPP Director, Plaming and Development Department City of Pickering, Ont. L1V 6K7 Att: Ms. Lynda Taylor Delivered by E Mail Dear Ms. Taylor: Re: Parking Standards Rationale As per our meeting August 10, 2006, we agreed to provide for your consideration our parking standards rationale for the subject rezoning application. In our planning report supporting the rezoning application, the theme of a "New Paradigm" of Land Use Planning in Ontario and that of Transit Supportive Redevelopment principles were put forward throughout the planning justification document. At the risk of being repetitive, in Attachment C (Transit Supportive Land Use Planning Guidelines of the Province) we took guidelines 4.5.1 on reducing parking requirements, and applied it to the subject site. As well, with Attachment D in the planning report, we applied some of our experiences in other jurisdictions on the key ingredients of Transit Oriented Development. Specifically, these experiences all point to a reduced parking standard near transit nodes with similar characteristics as the Liverpool GO Station surrounding area. Lastly, we examined the MBPD prepared February 2006 Draft Urban Design Guidelines. On page 4 of the report, it is stated that a major principle of Transit Oriented Development is the need to put limits on parking. On page 24 of the report it is stated that" A significant corollary to the desire to create more sustainable, higher density and compact urban forms is the reduced reliance on the number of car trips and a reduced demand for parking spaces. Therefore, given the close proximity of the plaza site to the Pickering GO station, any development proposal should consider reduced parking ratios for the residential as well as commercial buildings." The report, in addition, provided additional guidance with guidelines 35, 36 and 370n page 25. Lastly, and most importantly, we examined the approaches of suburban municipalities in the GTA to determine their approaches to transit oriented development and sustainable redevelopment. The Region of York passed Official Plan Amendment 43 in response to changes in terms of sustainable development and in order to implement the York Region Rapid Transit Plan. As a result, the plan permits 2.5 FSI at Regional Centres and encourages the local municipalities to encourage transit oriented development by addressing "appropriate parking design and standards". As a result of this policy initiative, the following are representative examples of how the municipalities have adopted new standards: The Town of Markham in their Markham City Centre By law (2004-196) applies parking standards of 1.2 spaces for apartments as a maximum. One spot per apartment unit with .2 for visitors. For townhouses they require one spot within the structure and one spot on the driveway. The secondary t'8b 6 'I L (;;> . Page 2 August 18, 2006 plan calls for on street parking: "It is intended that on street parking will be encouraged at appropriate locations on all roads, except Regional roads, busways alleys and lanes, in order to provide some of the parking required for adjacent development to assist in calming traffic movement and thereby enhance pedestrian safety. The Markham City Centre By law applies to an area that can be compared to the Bay Ridges area and the subject application. The Town of Richmond Hill has implemented the Regional Policy by adopting a graduated scale for parking standards for higher density transit oriented development at the Langstaff GO Station, ranging from 1.5 parking spaces/ unit for un~s greater than 1,000 sq. ft, 1.2 parking spaces for under 1,000 sq, ft. 1.0 spaces for under 800 sq. feet to.9 parking spaces/unit for units under 500 square feet plus .25 spaces for visitors parking. For Block town housing such as back to back units, 2 spaces plus .25 for visitors standards are applied. The site attributes of this Langstaff Go Station development are very comparable to the Liverpool Go Station area and the Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment application. . The City of Vaughan applies 1.5 parking spaces per unit for multiple family units and 2 spaces for town housing. The City of Mississauga is implementing a new zoning by law in the fall of 2006 and the proposed by law proposes the following standards: Condominium Apartment Dwellings: 1 space per bachelor unit, 1.25 per one bedroom unit, and 1.40 for two bedroom units. For Condominium townhousing 2.0 spaces and .25 visitors spaces per unit. In summary, this application represents Transit Oriented Redevelopment within the greater City Centre, within a short walking distance of the Liverpool GO Station. As well, the site is serviced by Durham Transit The redevelopment of the subject site has been designed to reflect the latest sustainable planning design standards for parking. The standard of 1.1 parking spaces per residential unit with .15 for visitors for the high rise residential units, mostly accommodated underground, represents good transit supportive planning. In addition, additional surface parking spaces are provided for the commercial components at 1 space per 34 sq m, of retail area reflects current planning standards in the GTA. As well for the townhousing, 1 parking space per unit in the garage, and 1 parking space per unit in the driveway, supplemented by surface visitor parking at strategic locations throughout the site, represents good planning and in conformity with provincial policy guidelines and the recommendations of the draft urban design guidelines prepared for the area by MBPD. Please contact us should your require further clarification on the planning approaches taken on this exciting transit oriented redevelopment application. Yours sincerely, Stephen I. Fagyas, M.A., M.C.I.P. Commercial Focus Advisory Services I~; ,J',y 'qq J,"7 To ~, «, ¡C, " ,,1r ...l-_, ,- -t¡ 5, 0 {, l,87 Cift¡ o~ INFORMATION REPORT NO. 07-06 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF June 1st, 2006 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/06 S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. 1215 - 1235 Bayly Street Part of Block Y, Plan M-16 City of Pickering 1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION - the subject lands are located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive; - a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1); - the property is currently occupied with the Bay Ridges Plaza that contains a variety of commercial uses including retail, personal services, office uses and a car wash; - the vast majority of the property not occupied by the building is paved for parking purposes with the exception of the portion of the property along the eastern side which is sloped and forms part of the Douglas Ravine; - the site's topography, other than the Douglas Ravine portion is relatively flat; - the property is encumbered by an existing easement in the eastern portion of the property for sewer purposes; - access to the existing site is provided by a driveway off of Bayly Street and two driveways off of St. Martins Drive; - the subject application does not include the lands associated with the smaller plaza at 1259 Bayly Street: - surrounding land uses are: north - on the opposite side of Bayly Street is the CN rail line and Highway 401; - townhouses and apartment building; - open space lands being the Douglas Ravine; - on the opposite side of St. Martins Drive are detached dwelling lots that front onto Tanzer Court. south east west \. " t: 8 ~~formation Report No. 07-06 - 07 ..,.__ ;. ",,' PL-':L.ß- (: (... _.,_" Page 2 2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. have submitted an application to amend the zoning by-law in order permit a mixed use development consisting of townhouses, back-to-back townhouses, and a mixed use building consisting of ground related retail/commercial uses and office uses and two apartment buildings; the applicant also proposes to create some live-work units that will front onto St. Martins Drive; - the applicant's proposed site plan is provided for reference (see Attachment #2); - the proposed apartment towers on top of the commercial units are located at the north-west corner of the property with the rest of the development being occupied by grade related residential development in the form of freehold townhouses and back-to back townhouses; - the proposed site plan does not propose the creation of any new municipal streets, rather the creation of private roads/laneways; it is anticipated that the individual townhouse dwelling units will be created by means of an application for a common element condominium; the condominium proposal will be a common element condominium for private internal roads, visitor parking area, parkette and possibly some perimeter landscaping elements; it is anticipated that the apartment building will be subject to a traditional condominium application in order to create the individual dwelling units; - the apartment building complex with the commercial component will have underground parking for the residents and surface parking for commercial users; - the proposal is intended to be developed in phases, the first phase being the freehold and back-to-back townhouses in the southern portion of the site, with the commercial component and the apartment buildings being built as later phases; - the following chart outlines the existing site details: Details of Proposed Development Total gross lot area Valley lands (land below top of bank) Road Widening Net lot area Number of Traditional Townhouses Number of Back-to-Back Townhouses Number of live-work Townhouses Total Number of Townhouses Building "A" Building "B" Number of Apartment Units Total number of Dwelling Units 4.067 ha 6,089.4 m2 750 m2 3.383 ha 71 78 12 161 243 168 411 572 Information Report No. 07-06 rTTA"Wfqn II 7 TO : .'¡' '~pr: -2/ 5· 5;;' ·6 Page 3 t· 8· (.'J. \... ,. Apartment Building "A" Height Apartment Building "B" Height Office - Gross floor Area Retail - Gross floor Area Commercial - Gross floor Area Surface Parking for apartment/commercial building Underground parking for apartment/commercial building Total parking for apartment/commercial building 3.0 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING 16 storeys 18 store¥s 1,021 m 1,041 m2 2,062 m2 60 spaces 462 spaces 522 Spaces 3.1 Durham ReQional Official Plan designates the subject lands as Living Areas; areas designated as Living Areas are intended to be predominantly used for housing purposes, and may include limited office, retail and personal service uses; in consideration of development applications in Living Areas the intent of the Plan is to achieve a compact urban form, including intensive residential, office, retail and service and mixed uses along arterial roads and in conjunction with present and potential transit facilities; Bayly Street where it abuts the subject lands is designated as a Type A Arlerial Road; - the proposal appears to conform to the Durham Region Official Plan; 3.2 PickerinQ Official Plan - the Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area and Open Space Systems - Natural Areas; permissible uses within Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area include, amongst others, a variety of residential uses including townhouses and apartment buildings, retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants; - the Pickering Official Plan establishes a density range of over 30 and up to and including 140 dwelling units per hectare for development within a Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area; - the proposed application is proposing 572 dwelling units to be located on a net designated area of 3.38 hectares resulting in a net density of 169 dwelling units per hectare; - the current number of dwelling units does not comply with the density provisions of the Official Plan, maximum density of 140 dwelling units per hectare; Mixed Use Areas are intended to have the widest variety of uses and highest level of activities in the City when compared to other designations; the lands that are designated Open Space - Natural Area represent lands that are in proximity to the Douglas Ravine; Information Report No. 07-06 I' ''',) l' J\ 7 '15- (: C, Page 4 permissible uses within land designated Open Space - Natural Area include conservation, environmental protection, restoration and passive recreation; _ the subject lands are within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood of the Official Plan; _ the subject lands are within a Detailed Review Area which requires development guidelines for major development and no development guidelines currently exist in the Official Plan Compendium for this area of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood (see Section 3.3); in conjunction with this application staff are preparing development guidelines; Schedule II of the Pickering Official Plan - Transportation System designates Bayly Street where it abuts the subject site as a Type A Arterial Road; Type A Arterial Roads are the highest order arterial road and are designed to carry large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speed; Bayly Street is designated as a Transit Spine where a higher level of transit service is to be encouraged; Schedule II of the Pickering Official Plan - Transportation System designates St. Martins Drive where it abuts the subject site as a Collector Road; Collector Roads are designed to provide access to individual properties, to local roads, and to other collector and arterial roads; Schedule 11/ of the Pickering Official Plan - Resource Management designates a portion of the subject lands associated with the Douglas Ravine as Shorelines and Stream Corridors; Shorelines and Stream Corridors identify lands that may be prone to water impacts, such as flooding, erosion and slope instability, and requires an environmental report to be submitted that appropriately addresses any environmental constraints on the subject property; the subject application will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the applications; 3.3 Development Guidelines for the Bav Rid~es Neiqhbourhood _ with the submission of the subject application the need for development guidelines for the subject lands was identified; Development Guidelines will examine the land use mix and arrangement, the scale and intensity of use the transportation network and community design requirements; the preparation of the development guidelines has been initiated by the City with the assistance of a consultant; _ the preparation of the development guidelines included an urban design workshop that included representatives of the area residents, applicant, City staff, Regional staff and TRCA staff; a draft of the Development Guidelines was prepared by the consultant and is currently being reviewed; the development guidelines will address the mix of land use, development layout, open space distribution, built form, street presence, building height/massing and articulation, view corridors and sustainability practices; Information Report No. 07-06 7 .', "/5'" 0 b Page 5 l'91 a copy of the Draft Urban Design Concept is provided for general reference (see Attachment #3); preliminary review of the draft guidelines indicates that certain design matters will need further investigation resulting in refinements and enhancements; it is anticipated that the Development Guidelines will be finalized by staff and brought before City Council for consideration; 3.4 ZoninQ Bv-Iaw 3036 _ the subject lands are currently zoned "C2" - General Commercial Zone by Zoning By-law 2511, as amended; the existing zoning permits a variety of commercial uses including retail stores, restaurants, service stores, business and professional offices, car wash, dry cleaning and laundry and automobile service station; _ an amendment to the zoning by-law has been requested by the applicant in order to permit the proposed mixed use development; _ the applicant has requested an appropriate zone that would permit the proposed uses. 4.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION 4.1 Resident Comments _ written comments have been received from numerous residents providing comments and concerns/opposition with the application; comments included concerns with: · loss of commercial facilities/grocery store, specifically to the number of seniors living in the immediate neighbourhood; · site density/number of units; · increased traffic in the area; · access locations to the site; · impacts on schools/capacity for students; · on-site traffic movements; · construction activity, phasing of development, timing of demolition of the existing plaza and impacts on the remaining businesses; · impact on the ravine/environmentally sensitive lands; · dangers to pedestrian traffic; · urban design; 4.2 AQencv Comments no formal agency comments have been received to date; t n> _J__ Information Report No. 07-06 " 7 in ''-ï 5:' c~ ¿:~ Page 6 ""1.íf'~;; ~r ~.rr 4.3 Staff Comments in reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: · concluding/reducing on the number of dwelling units to ensure compliance with the Official Plan density maximum of 140 units per hectare; · reviewing the traffic report to determine the impact of the proposed development on the existing traffic in the area; · comparing the application to the final version of the development guidelines to ensure general compliance to the guidelines which will include development layout, building locations, massing, height and lotting fabric, streetscapes, vista, compatibility and integration to surroundings; · ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with, and sensitive to, surrounding land uses including shadowing, noise, pedestrian linkages, scale and intensity of the uses; · reviewing the site servicing and down stream constraints and the related financial impacts on the site development will have to be addressed; · ensuring adequate parking is provided on the property in appropriate locations; · need to analyze the constraints and benefits the application will have on both the subject property and on the surrounding community, given the role of the existing use provide to the community; · need to consider the environmental impacts on the Douglas Ravine, the limit of development associated with the top-of-bank, and trail locations/connections with the open space system; · stormwater management matters as they relate to the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan; · reviewing the lotting pattern of the townhouses to ensure an appropriate urban design in terms of the need to front onto primary roads and to avoid backing onto the ravine; · reviewing the proposed development to ensure that adequate information is provided, that technical requirements are met and that the proposed site design is appropriate; · reviewing the emerging Provincial Policies related to urban growth such as the Places to Grow Policy which has identified Pickering as a growth centre (therefore the need to achieve certain intensification requirements at appropriate locations that will exhibit a high quality urban design based on appropriate development design guidelines); · ensuring the application can achieve a high level of sustainable components; - the Planning & Development Department will conclude its position on the application and its design after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. Information Report No. 07-06 i':'!'1Þ:'['T~JT {f 7. Tn t./ 5- (.) (-0:0 Page 7 t·. n'~ -. ;:}--' 5.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION _ written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; - oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Councilor a Committee of Council; if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding either the proposed zoning by-law amendment application, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk; if a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the City of Pickering in respect of the proposed zoning by-law amendment, does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Pickering before the zoning by-law is passed, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal; if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision of the proposed zoning by-law amendment application, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal. 6.0 OTHER INFORMATION 6.1 Appendix No. I list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing the report; 6.2 Information Received _ full scale copies of the applicant's submitted plans are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department including: · proposed development plan; · Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Javar Consultants Inc., dated February 2006; · Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Jacques Whitford Engineering, dated August 13, 2004; · Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Jacques Whitford Engineering, dated August 30, 2004; · Planning Report, prepared by Commercial Focus Advisory Services Inc., dated February 23, 2006; · Shadow Study, Prepared by Kirkor Architects & Planners, dated February 3, 2006; the need for additional information will be determined through the review and circulation of the applicant's current proposal; · ._ 19formation Report No. 07-06 l' ~ it 7 if 5'· 0(.", Page 8 _ also available is the draft design guidelines that is currently being reviewed with an expectation it will be refined prior to being finalized for Council's consideration (a copy of the draft guidelines is available on the City' website cityofpickering.com or from the Planning & Development Department. 6.3 Company Principal - the owner of the subject lands is S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd.; - Stephen Warsh is a principal of S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. ORIOINAL SIGNED BY ORICiINAL SIGNED BY Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner - Development Review Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review RP:ld Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development 7 'i I..~ 2:- 0 G,. (,95 APPENDIX NO. I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 07-06 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS (1 ) Ekkehard Zorn (2) Joyce Harkness (3) Margaret Sutton (4) Mary Jeffery (5) Jean Taylor (6) Brenda Wessely (7) Meredith Clark (8) John Smith (9) Maureen St. Jean (10) George Kolesnikovs (11) Pasquale Malandrino (12) Patricia Elson (13) Mike Danischewsky COMMENTING AGENCIES (1 ) none received to date COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS (1 ) none received to date \.g{) C¿ú¡ o~ ATTACHfJ:ENT # X TO REPORT Ii PD i./ ç;- IC; l Minutes / Meeting Summary Statutory Public Information Meeting Council Chambers Thursday, June 1, 2006 7:05 pm. PRESENT: Councillor Ashe - Chair Councillor McLean Councillor Dickerson Councillor Pickles Councillor Brenner (8:30 pm) STAFF: Ross Pym Neil Carroll Birgit Wilson - - Principal Planner, Development Review - Director, Planning & Development - Recording Secretary GUEST: - Stephen I. Fagyas - Lead Consultant for SR. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. Councillor Ashe provided a brief explanation of the purpose of the meeting and introduced staff. Ross Pym, Principal Planner, 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. Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Ref # (summary of discussion) 1. ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 06/06 S.R. & R. BAY RIDGES LTD. 1215 -1235 BAYLY STREET PART OF BLOCK Y, PLAN M-16 CITY OF PICKERING 1. Planner Comments Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, provided 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. 07-06. He confirmed that the subject application did not include the lands associated with the smaller plaza at 1259 Bayly Street. Page 1 CORP0228-2/02 Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Ref # (summary of discussion) ; "'1 .H'H:' PC' I Ii # 0 TO "" .!-",o.) h'il-.\ 0 fiE?OR1 # PO 1./ 5 ~ 0 (0 1.:9;7 2. Applicants Comments Stephen I. Fagyas, Lead Consultant for S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. provided an overview of the proposed development using a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Fagyas stated that this presentation will be made available to the public on their website. He further stated that this proposal has a high level of sustainability and they had conducted a comprehensive planning analysis, considered all the possible impacts and concluded the application complies with all relevant policies. He concluded his presentation by introducing the architect and landscape personnel who worked on the design of this proposal. 3. Comments from Members of the Public Robert & Marlene Gardner 1890 Valle v Farm Rd.. Mr. & Mrs. Gardner purchased a unit on Radom Street for their physically challenged son 3 weeks ago. Mrs. Gardner stated that the prime reason for purchasing in the area was that their son could have safe access to essential services, i.e. grocery store, pharmacy, dry cleaners. She asked the Chair why potential homeowners were not informed of this proposal. Mr. & Mrs. Gardner also stated that this proposal lacked consideration for all seniors living in this area as their essential services would be taken away and that the increased density of the area would cause major traffic problems, making this a very unsafe area for pedestrians. Jim Dabney Radom Street. Mr. Dobney expressed concern about the boutique style stores that are proposed for the area, should the re-zoning be accepted. He stated these stores would not reflect the fact that senior citizens are on a fixed income and need to have access to stores, and services that reflect price points for their limited income. Ed Fulton 705-1210 Radom Street. Mr. Fulton objected to statements made that the Price Chopper store was in financial difficulty. He noted that this statement was made by a 17 year old employee of the store and that no one in management would have discussed serious financial matters with this employee. He disagreed with the statements made. Letitia Wise 31-1230 Radom St. Ms. Wise expressed concerns with the parking spaces in the proposal. She noted that the proposal allowed for 532 spaces, however, there would be 582 units.. She also had concerns that essential services, i.e. grocery store, pharmacy, dry cleaners, would no longer be available to seniors and that the proposed "little shops" would be too expensive for people on a fixed income. Also, that the proposed towers are too Page 2 CORP0228-2/02 t·93 Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Ref # (summary of discussion) "!""i "'0 TO ~." t.."'."""".....,.~..__. 'Ii! ;-'ij 'L5,:..f?.J.E. ._.. high for this neighbourhood. She stated her objection to the fact that no additional traffic lights being proposed. Doris Hopper 204-1210 Radom Street Ms. Hopper stated that the community did not agree with any of the proposed plans and that the plaza should not be torn down as it is a fully sustainable plaza. She further expressed concern that the proposed 16-18 storey condominium/apartment complex as this conflicts with the city's own zoning guidelines. She stated that these lands are the gateway to the beautiful waterfront of Pickering, and it should be developed to attract tourism. She asked the City Planners, Councillors and the Mayor to have a vision that promotes development of cultural components for this area, looking at the example of the GT A. She proposed that instead of another townhouse, condominium complex the city partners with private, corporate sponsorship to build a Concert Hall, Museum or Theatre. She concluded that any plans which displaces current storeowners should include fair compensation, which to date has not been addressed. Paul Crawford 867 Antonio Sf. Mr. Crawford noted the Official Plan is Mixed Corridor, therefore there needs to be a mix of uses and the need for jobs. Does not support the application as the area is a stable neighbourhood. His opinion the application does not comply with the Region or City Official Plan. Carmen Montgomery 239 Lupin Drive She is also concerned with losing the essential services the plaza now provides and that no fair compensation has been offered to the business owners to vacate their current leases if the plaza is torn down. She spoke of the environmental issues with this proposal. She stated that the proposed high-rise building contravenes the current height restrictions of the area. The high density will require more ambulances, police, etc., and this cost will not be incurred by S.R.& R. Bay Ridges Ltd., rather the taxpayers. She stated that the traffic study, which Mr. Fagyas reported on, was not correct and that if traffic patterns are observed at 5:00 pm instead of 6:30 pm the conclusion will be a lot different. Lastly, she reiterated that the residents of this area are vehemently opposed to this proposal and the city should listen and look for a more sustainable plan for the residents/taxpayers of the Bay Ridges area. Tim Dobson 1310 Broadview Street Mr. Dobson is the President of the Pickering East Short Community Association (PESCA). He represented the membership at the meeting and voiced the following concerns for this proposal: . PESCA should have been properly informed i.e.: a formal presentation. Only a Page 3 CORP0228-2/02 Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Ref # (summary of discussion) , . (/ '0_ ,. _-'_.... ..0 _.". IV·.,.- R- " P'I", U 5- ò t;;, ìt., U .,,, LJ ---L.___,,__... 1: 9H brief mention was made at a general meeting. The Councillor provided little or no information. · April 2006 members of PESCA voiced strong objections to proposal. · Any re-zoning requires extensive public meetings, one meeting is not enough. · Traffic concerns - more congestion to the surrounding area - unsafe for children, seniors. · Estimates 250% more traffic in the area. · Object to proposed building heights-no taller than 5 storeys. · Proposed parking spaces are not enough. · Negative waterfront enjoyment. · Environmental impact needs to be addressed. · Health and safety issues. · Demolition of phase 1 - how will this impact tenants/store owners who will remain during this phase. · New retail spaces are at risk. · No Emergency Evacuation Plan has been put forward. · PESCA is not opposed to the Bay Ridges area development, however, much more discussion, alternative proposals, and consultation with all concerned must take place. Mr. & Mrs. Rozenfals 816 Helen Crescent Mrs. & Mrs. Rozenfals questioned why the developer was only interested in building residential units. They stated the need for the growth of local business development and commercial space. Pasquale Malandrino Chiaue Hairstvlinq, 1215-1235 Bavlv Sf. Unit 450 Mr. Malandrino explained the difficulties that are being encountered by the plaza business people when trying to contact S.R & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. First a wrong telephone number was printed on a flyer and then when the correct number was obtained, messages are not returned. He stated there is a high level of frustration among the business owners, as there seems to be no accountability by the developer to tenants or the public for their safety or any financial restitution being offered to vacate leases early. He concluded by stating that negotiations must take place and that business owners must receive compensation for vacating their leases early. Eillen Higdon 852 Fairview Ave.. Ms. Higdon is opposed to this development. She is concerned that not enough in- depth studies have been done to sustain this development. In particular she is not happy with the environmental impact, traffic impact. She concluded by stating that tenants must be dealt with fairly if they are being asked to vacate their leases early. She feels more clarification on the lease issue is required and that to date the approach by the developer in this area has been "draconian". Page 4 CORP0228-2/02 ...' '" ,.,,~ ,,- ~ ,. ..LdJ Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Ref# (summary of discussion) g HU'()H ¡ 1/ PiJ ,.,__If..~_"=...~:) §? Dave Mathews 714 Annlands Street He also opposes this development. He cited environmental issues as well as traffic issues. When the existing tower on Radom Street was built it was recognized as a mistake and should not be repeated. He further stated that the citizens of this area would not let this project happen without a fight. John Blue 4730 Thornton Road Mr. Blue stated that they own and operate a Laundromat and Car Wash business. Over the past 10 years they have been able to grow their businesses significantly and wonder why S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. has not been able to sustain the plaza. Their issue with this development is also the lack of negotiations and fair compensation for vacating their lease. Ken Devine 1210 Radom Street, Apt. 506 Mr. Devine stated that the Bay Ridges area does not need more residential units but rather affordable shopping for seniors south of the 401. He noted that a Hasty Market grocery store is not affordable for people on a fixed income. Jacqueline Smart 829 Fairview Ave. Ms. Smart made the following comments in stating his objections to this development: . Price Choppers did not want to close; however their rent increased 85%. . Traffic lights on St. Martins Drive are required. · The entire traffic flow in this area needs to be studied further. · What is the timeframe for Phase 1, 2, & 3; 5 years apart? · Not enough parking spaces are allotted to each unit at present. · Even though this plan is in accordance with the Durham Region Plan, it is not acceptable to the residents of this area. · The proposed high-rise units should be limited to 5 storeys. · Will there be more medical services provided to sustain the increased population, i.e.: doctors. She concluded that all opposition to this project should be directed in writing to the Ministry of the Environment, The Region of Durham and their elected officials. Carolyn Huston 898 Antonio Street She stated her objections to the fact that in both the Durham Regional and Pickering Official Plan there was no projection of the population growth for this project. Page 5 CORP0228-2/02 Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Ref # (summary of discussion) <::1/ g T .......:.#._..:. _0 ':iF Ii PD.. Ð .. 0 {<:> ~ 1.1 1 ....... Bonnie Littley 1499 Sandhurst Crescent She is with the Ontario Smart Growth Network. She stated that this proposal had merit, the Site Plan looks good, but not for the Bay Ridges area. The Site Plan shows no schools, sidewalks, only driveways, and the proposed playground/parkette is extremely small. She concluded by stating that more than one meeting needs to take place to find a more suitable solution to re-building the Bay Ridges area. Bianca D'Souza 1117 Tanzer Court She stated her opposition to this proposal, as she is concerned for the safety of the children in this area. She fears that Radom Street will become a speedway if no traffic lights are installed. Pedro Gonzales 875 Chapleau Drive Mr. Gonzales shares the concern of the previous resident and in addition questions whether there is a budget for more schools, police and medical facilities to sustain the increase in population. He also stated that if there is a nuclear accident, the limited exit routes from this area would cause a bottleneck, thus prohibiting speedy evacuation. Tom Rock 961 Mount Castle Crescent Mr. Rock is concerned that there are too many grey areas with this development. He feels there is non-compliance with regard to the wetlands. He also noted his disappointment with the public information process as he feels the public are not given all the facts. He also stated that the applicant/developer is not listening to the community and questions whether the development will actually be built as proposed or will there be changes made along the way without notifying the public, once the developer has all the approvals. Lastly, he stated that there should be height restrictions on any highrise proposal for this area. Mark Willis 1866 Faimort Mr. Willis owns the dance studio in the plaza and is now the largest tenant. Initially had many concerns with the application, however have had very professional discussions with the new owners and feel he has been treated fairly. Paul A vis 931 Livemool Rd. Mr. Avis stated that to date the OMB has turned down all appeals of this nature. He suggested that the best solution is for the City of Pickering to negotiate with developers for the best, most suitable development that addresses all the concerns by residents thus far. Lastly, he noted that written comments against this proposal are the best way to get action. Page 6 CORP0228-2/02 , I)' r) .!.. i. {_ Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Ref # (summary of discussion) c" 11 (ij' t./5-oL Angelina Moore 1235 Random Street She stated that if this development goes through, the schools in the area would be overpopulated. The student/teacher ratio will result in teachers being over worked. She also expressed concern with the increased traffic for the area and that the parking on Radom Street will also become an issue. Christopher Dean 1155 Tanzer Courl Mr. Dean questioned the accuracy of the Traffic Impact Study, as he believes that this development will cause major traffic problems, increased street parking and generally unsafe conditions for pedestrians. Abdul Prenji 1011 Sherman Street Mr. Prenji stated that he is the owner of the local Pharmacy and wanted to express thanks to all the residents of the area for their support by coming to this meeting. 4. Response from Applicant Mr. Fagyas encouraged the public to visit their website in order to view the PowerPoint presentation of this project. He stated that all technical documents are available for review and that this application complies with all the required elements. He also explained that the Plaza is financial difficulty and will be torn down. Lastly he stated that the application is for a zoning change and this is the right of the owners. 5. Staff Response Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, stated that there is some misinformation in regard to this application and encouraged all interested parties to come to the Planning & Development Department at the City Hall to look over all the documentation that is available. An example of the misinformation is the parking spaces being provided on the site and many people have been referring to the wrong number of total spaces available. 6. Comments from the Chair Councillor Ashe advised that the Planning and Development Staff would be available for a short eriod of time after the meetin for an one who wished to s eak with them. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm CORP0228-2/02 Page 7 Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Page 1 of 1 r1hGHL~E'n # 9 TO FF';)Rl Ii PO ~ 5 - 0 b 103 Pym, Ross From: Elaine Cote [emc@gzlegal.com] Sent: April 26, 200610:56 AM To: Pym, Ross Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Mr. Pym: I have received the notice forwarded by Councillors Dickerson and McLean with respect to the above noted redevelopment. I have concerns about this redevelopment proposal with respect to the environment, population density, availability of services and vehicle access. I would appreciate receipt of information regarding the proposal as it is available and look forward to the opportunity to attend public meetings in this matter. Elaine Côté emc@gzlegal.com telephone: 416-642-5415 fax: 416-512-9992 This e-mail message is privileged, confidential and subject to copyright. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. 01/09/2006 Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Proposal Page 1 of 1 ¡ 'J' L.\ __ ~ t ID 'j' \ I r'L: ~_:!::~..".... ~ Pym, Ross From: Drapeau, Deborah [DeborahDrapeau@tdsb.on.ca] Sent: April 26, 2006 12:51 PM To: Pym, Ross Cc: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Proposal When will the public meeting be held? I am getting the impression that this is a done deal and there is no chance that the people of Pickering will be able to halt this development if it is something they do not desire. Surely the meeting at the East Shore Community Centre is not intended to be "the public meeting" indicated on your flyer? Deborah Drapeau 01/09/2006 ""I ¡, ¿/ .. . íC , , ~,~'~'~~::'~-;~ ¡ 1) (:" ~\. ,J Pym, Ross From: Sent: To: Subject: Georgs Kolesnikovs [waterworld@rogers.com] April 27, 2006 7:46 AM Pym, Ross Bay Ridges Plaza redevelopment Sir-- I am most concerned about the negative effect such a development will have on my neighborhood and would like to request that you add my name to your emaillist for updates. I'd also like a my own copy of any notification that is sent to my condominium board. We need stores, banks and other services south of the 401, not 560 additional households with the resulting problems for traffic, education and other municipal services. --Georgs Georgs Kolesnikovs 1210 Radom Street #707 Pickering, Ontario L 1W 2Z3 Telephone: 905.837.0102 Facsimile: 905.837.9253 E-mail: waterworld@rogers.com 1 i () l'" _I... ) /~ <if 5-: () Þ From: Johnny [mailto:bayridges6@sympatico.ca] Sent: Thu 27/04/2006 10:18 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: Bay Ridges Devolpment Dear Mr McLean There was a very good turn out at the PESCA meeting April 26th. Myself I think most residents will settle for the townhouses but cannot accept the building of high-rises. You may remember several times it was mentioned that the City of Pickering had promised and I think put into writing, that no high-rises would be built on the south side of the 401 and that all high-rises would be built around the town centre area where the Tridel apartments are now. May I suggest that you and the other councillors or the planning department search the archives, because I really believe that this statement was made and it's only fair for the council to be faithful to the residents. Regards John Smith Page 1 of2 13 '-I 5- ,-, f::, 107 Pym, Ross From: Ekkehard Zorn [ekkehard@sympatico.ca] Sent: April 29, 2006 9:00 AM To: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor; Pym, Ross Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza Development Proposal Gentlemen As a long time resident of the City of Pickering, I am somewhat concerned about the recently announced plans for the Bay Ridges Plaza. It is my understanding that the plaza is to be re-developed with, according to the flyer sent out by Mr. Dickerson and Mr. McLean, some business development, as well as 161 townhouses and two apartment buildings having a total of some 400 units. By my calculations, this would amount to approximately 561 units, exclusive of the commercial development. Please do not misunderstand, I am not against the development. On the contrary, I suggest that some form of overhaul of the plaza is long overdue. This should have occurred some time ago. From a business point of view, this would create numerous jobs and other sources of business opportunity. It would help the City grow and prosper. Having said that, my concerns involve, firstly, the loss of the last real shopping facility south of the 401 and, secondly and most importantly, the traffic chaos that a proposal such as this will no doubt create. Concerns such as the proximity to the ravine will, no doubt be handled appropriately by the Toronto Conservation Authority. With respect to the first point, while inconvenient, I am sure that some alternatives will appear, possibly from the proposed commercial component on the main floor of the development. People will adapt and find new alternatives once the existing ones disappear. My main concern is one that has been growing over the past number of years. It involves that the fact that the existing intersection of Liverpool Road and Bayly and the current plaza entrance, including the 8t. Martins Road alternative, are extremely dangerous places to be, whether on foot or in a vehicle. On almost a daily basis, accidents occur in this area due to the ever increasing traffic flow and the lack of changes over the years. I have witnessed near misses, both vehicle against vehicle and vehicle against pedestrian at the Liverpool/Bayly intersection. In addition, leaving the existing plaza, whether by the existing access / egress point or from 8t. Martins Road, is, to say the least, an adventure, even during times of slower traffic. As a pedestrian, I have witnessed and been involved in near misses involving vehicles and pedestrians resulting, as a general rule, from the fact that drivers are seeking to gain a slight advantage over on-coming traffic and, in doing so, tend to forget pedestrians using the Liverpool Road / Bayly Street crossings in accordance with the existing lights. Once again, with the increased traffic flow, this situation will undoubtedly increase in frequency. While I am not a planner and cannot offer solutions to this obvious problem, I merely wish to state that, as a user of this intersection and the existing commercial development, I am concerned that, with the increase in traffic flow caused by this development, this entire intersection will become a much more dangerous place to be, unless remedial action is taken during the planning stages. To attempt to correct the problem after the fact would, at best, be most difficult. Logically speaking, one must assume that, of the total of 561 proposed units, at least an additional 561 vehicles would use the existing traffic arteries, many during peak times. Realistically, the actual number of cars added during the peak periods could be considerably higher. If one assumes that each home will have two cars, the numbers become much more unnerving. The thought of this increased traffic volume using this intersection in its present state is truly frightening. Once again, please let me re-iterate that I am not against the development of this land. In fact, I look forward to the increased population base since it will undoubtedly increase the taxes coming in, thereby allowing the City to offer a greater range of services and facilities. I only wish to voice my concerns about the traffic problems that have existed for a number of years and were aggravated by the opening of Tim Hortons and will, undoubtedly, be 01/0912006 ~ {) .:.~ ~._ ~ \.J Page 2 of2 ATTACHMENT #_/3__ TO ~¡[' J¡::'j Ii PD ,0/ 5 ~,Ö b further aggravated by this development. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Ekkehard Zorn, MCI, FRI, CST Zorn Appraisal Services Limited, P.O. Box 184, PICKERING, Ontario L 1V 2R2 Phone: 905-831-6780 - Fax: 905-831-9209 Email: Business-zornapps@sympatico.ca (Personal - ekkehard@sympatico.ca - for all non-business matters only) NOTE: This email communication and any attachments to it are intended solely as a private and privileged communication between the sender and the party or parties specifically named in the original message and is for the sole use of such party or parties. If this email was sent to you in error or if you are not an intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments immediately without making any form of copy or placing any reliance upon any information or comments herein contained and notify the sender by return email of the error and our records will be amended accordingly to prevent any further occurrences of this error. At the time of sending, this email and any attachments thereto are thought to be free of any known virus or any other form of harmful defect that might affect any computer system receiving same. It is the sole responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is, in fact, virus free and the sender accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. 01/0912006 /'1 .35'·ö(? From: Georgs Kolesnikovs [mailto:waterworld@rogers.com] Sent: Sat 4/29/20069:21 AM To: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor Cc: *****Mayor; McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: RE: Bay Ridges Plaza redevelopment >After listening to our reasons why we believed there ought to be a >commercial/retail component in any redevelopment, they eventually >presented a plan to our Planning Dept. including some 40,000 sq ft for >just those purposes. Many of us in the neighborhood are grateful for the action you and your colleagues have taken so far. >However, the process is just getting underway and there is much >negotiating to be completed before arriving at a Council meeting - and >even then the plan is subject to changes before being voted upon. What >we do not particularly wish to see is for the proposal to go off to the >Ontario Municipal Board for a decision. I would suggest that right now you, we, everyone concemed, start planning on how to keep the OMB out of this matter--or all municipal and neighborhood concems will be for naught. --Georgs Georgs Kolesnikovs 1210 Radom Street #707 Pickering, Ontario L 1 W 2Z3 ~UB 110 /5 '-15-,) G From: Maureen St. Jean [mailto:mstjean7@rogers.com] Sent: Tue 5/2/20064:37 PM To: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor Subject: RE: PESCA Meeting, April 26th/2006 Hello Mr. Dickerson, Thank you for your detailed response to my very angry e-mail. Please understand my complete frustration and sadness about the closing of the Bay Ridges plaza. I moved to Bay Ridges in 1969 and have lived in two locations. My three children attended Holy Redeemer School from 1975 to 1985. I was a volunteer with the PTA, Boy Scouts, Block Parents, Red Cross Blood Donor Clinic and a baseball coach. During this time, I have done my best to support local merchants. I have purchased my groceries, required prescriptions, flowers and hair cuts at this plaza. It was convenient, friendly and provided a perfect alternative to the Mega stores. My biggest concern about the closing is the many seniors or folks that don't drive and living south of Highway 401. They are now forced to take a cab or the Flag Bus. However, this was a daily walk and kept them active. Special Note: The Flag Bus is a wonderful concept and the drivers are exceptionally kind. You are correct that any business needs to make a profit. Plus, a business or new development needs to be a good fit for the community. I am not opposed to new homes in the area. I do think that South Bay Ridges needs a better focal point better than the Shell station and the Tim Horton's. I honestly thought that Pickering council had more power. You did explain this in detail. Thank you. I am sure you know all of the following information: The Plaza stores have no basements. The townhouses on Bay!y Street have sump pumps in their basements. The condo building on Radom Street has redone their underground garage twice. Thanks for listening to my comments, Maureen StJean Mstjean7@rogers.com 905-831-5187 /10 ¡)L. ._...l·L~_;_º-.f2_ 11.1 From: Maureen St. Jean [mailto:mstiean7(iùrogers.com] Sent: Thu 4/27/2006 1: 13 AM To: newspaper; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: PESCA Meeting, April 26th/2006 Gentlemen, How dare you think that Bay-Ridges residents are so stupid? Why did you put Linda Taylor in the hot seat? She was just the messenger of your plans. Please pass this on to Dave Ryan. Sorry, I don't have his e-mail address. All three of you had very weak responses. All of you were not aware of the Bay Ridges Plaza closing would affect many people. Please wake up and smell the (:offee. None of you live south of Liverpool Road, I assume. This development plan has been "in the works", for a couple of years. CIBC closed in July, 2004 and no leases were granted unless on a monthly basis. Price Choppers was not allowed to renew their lease. You guys know this and do you care? When does a non-resident owner dictate his rules to the community? This owner is systematically forcing small business' owners out. He raises their monthly payments or forecloses. He must pay you a lot of money for this destruction. I am disgusted that you sent a stupid letter before the meeting. You were just trying to cover your asses. You don't have to respond, I honestly can't believe that elected officials turn a blind eye to insane developments that do not nurture or care for the community. Please rethink this entire revamping of the Plaza. Thank You, Maureen StJean 905-831-5187 '!f) ..!. t.. /7 . Ie .'f...$-D.~,' From: Johnny [mailto:bayridges6@sympatico.ca] Sent: Sat 06/05/2006 8:52 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Cc: DCC#19 Office; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor Subject: Bayridges Re-Development Mr McLean Are you or any body in planning aware of what seems to me an improper statement on the, Application to Amend Zoning By-Law submitted by the owner of the plaza. On page 2 section 10 they have answered no to the question of a right of way, well there is a right of way that runs from the rear of the Condominium 1210 Radom st, it runs from the rear drive way up too the start of the bayridges property. People have used this right of way for many years to get through to the plaza and Bayley street. It was my understanding having lived here for many years that the right of way path could not be closed to the public. John Smith Apt 410 905-839-8524 Page 1 of 1 iff 45 -0 b 113 Pym, Ross From: joyce harkness [houston1937@hotmail.com] Sent: May 12, 20066:12 PM To: Pym, Ross Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza Dear Mr. Pym, We are planning to be at the meeting of June 1,2006 if! can make it, but in case I can't I would like the city to know why the plaza meant so much to many residents in this area. We live in the 1235 Radom 81. townhouses and I am not able to get out a lot of the time due to illness. My husband who is blind and had a stroke cannot walk too far any more. Price Choppers was just within what he could mannage. Now, I know there are many older or disabled people within the houses and appartment and seniors building who cannot go too far either and some probably cannot drive, so how are they to get their food to eat? Many are probably alone and maybe do not have family to help them. My two kids work in Richmond Hill and 400 north ofHwy. #7. By the time they get home they are very tired and have families and lives of their own to look after. They do what they can, but with the stores up the steet we can do for ourselves. A lot use Radom to short cut to south Liverpool now, can you imagine what it will be like with more traffic on BaIley? People do not know what a white cane stands for anymore, my husband has nearly been hit a couple of times crossing Liverpool and BaIley, by left turning cars. Think what is going to happen when slow walking seinors try crossing to get to Loblaws. I do hope we will be able to attend the meeting as we are interested in what happens in our area. Thank you Joyce Harkness 1235 Radom 81. #95 Pickering 01/0912006 , 1 r J it /9 if5-o~ Pym, Ross From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jean Taylor Deansilver16@hotmail.com] May 12, 2006 9:49 PM pym, Ross Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; Ashe, Kevin, Councillor Bay Ridges Plaza Hello Mr. pym Having finally found out what the proposed use for the Bay Ridges Plaza is in the note Councillors Brenner and Ashe sent out I felt it necessary to contact you to find out a little more as well as voice my concerns. Having lived in the area for thirty years, this year, 24 of them in the townhouses at 1235 Radolïi St. and most recently for the last 6 just off Bayly on Vistula Drive, I feel I am representative of the Community. When the proposed plan a number of years ago was to demolish the Bay Ridges plaza and put in Low rental Highrises, I and my neighbours were vehemently opposed to it for the same reasons I am now opposed to this new proposal. DENSITY!!! TRAFFIC!!! CONGESTION!!! The Town thoughtfully took away the Eastbound Exit/Entrance ramp to the 401 from Liverpool about 20 years ago which continues to affect the traffic and congestion on Bayly street, with commuters trying to get to & from the 401 daily having to exit at Whites & travelling at breakneck speeds along bayly St. With over 661 townhouses and condos proposed, this could easily equate to a minimum of an additional 700 cars (in actuallity, the number will most likely be more than 1000) using Bayly St. daily to try and get to & from the 401. I would like to ask if you have ever tried to get anywhere on Bayly eastbound or westbound in the morning or evening, with the volume of traffic we currently experience? I drive to Markham daily, using Bayly both ways, and my husband takes our youngest son to school daily (Pickering High) & we both experience traffic congestion. If this proposal is in consideration, I would like to add a few things to consider at the same time. What is going to be done about Bayly Street? What is going to be done about the sidewalk on Bayly which is mere feet from the road that cars travel at speeds of 80-100 km on (even though the speed limit is 60kph)? What is going to be done about the continual speeding? What is going to be done about giving the St. Martins Seniors a place to shop? What is going to be done to protect the creek and surrounding area for the wildlife? It's a mess now and there was only a plaza there. What consideration is going to be given to the current residents of this community and the havoc that this added congestion will wreak on them? I understand that this is a prime peice of land and always has been due to its' proximity to the Go Train, but the only issue here should not be how much money the developer can make or share with his advocates, it should be 1 "Is this really the best use of this land for the residents of this Community? My vote is a STRONG NO! I hope you get thousands of emails with these sentiments and that someone actually listens to them! Thank you for your time. Jean Taylor 970 Vistula Drive, Picketing, Ontario L 1 W 2L5 905-839-1454 Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special stationery, fonts and colors. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAP I D= 1994&DI= 1034 &SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&H L=MarkeC MSN IS_Tag lines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. 2 . i2c_..__10 i./S·ôb, 11 ~j " 1 " Jib Pym, Ross c20 if 5 - "" b From: Sent: To: Subject: WILLIAM SUTTON [tylersutton@rogers.com] May 15, 2006 2:44 PM Pym, Ross New Development (Bay Ridges Plaza) To Mr. Ross Pym; Mr. Pym I have been a residence of Pickering for the past 30 years. I live in the VVestshore area. My main concern about the future development replacing the Bay Ridges Plaza is the additional traffic in that area. Presently I try to avoid going to the area of The Pickering Town Centre, as the amount of traffic and accidents have substantially increased along Bayly. What is the plan for street lights on Bayly? I know that they have radar set up on Bayly on the weekends, as I spend many times going back in forth to Don Beer Arena, but try setting one up during rush hour between 4:30 and 7:00 PM and I am sure that your police will hit their quota on speeding tickets very quickly. This is a very dangerous road and now adding to the amount of people using the corner of Liverpool and Bayly sounds rediculous and I cannot believe this project was passed. Nevertheless, it has been passed and it will be very interesting to see your plan for traffic conjestion. I look forward to hearing from you. Mrs. Margaret Sutton 1 c2/ ¿:¡ 5 '" b 117 From: Meredith C. [mailto:nurse_mere@hotmail.com] Sent: Mon 15/05/20065:23 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: New Development in Bay Ridges Hi Bill, This is Meredith Clark, Jim Clarks daughter. I thought I would email you with my concerns about the new town homes going in at St.Martins and Bayly. I recently moved in to this area because Iiked the fact that I could run up to the store if I needed somthing. My Grandmother used to also live in the aprartment building right behind the plaza, and would go to the plaza daily for groceries. I think putting this new develpment in this area is a bad idea for many reasons. 1. There are so many eldery people who depend on the convience of the grocery store. 2. There is not one Grocery store south of the 401, which makes it expensive for people to get groceries by taxi. 3. I have three friends who have already lost their only income with the recent closure of Price Choppers, and are now forced to travel by bus to Scarborough or Whites road for employment. 4. Town homes are ugly, and expensive, and have a tendency to become slums. Also my generation doesn't want houses that have no land. And the baby boomers don't want them because they can't do the stairs with thier weakening bones and muscles. 5. These new homes will bring more crime to our area. 6. The traffic in this area is horrible, and to put in homes and Appartment buildings, with buisness under them on Bayly is a very bad idea. It is hard enough to get out of Begley from 8am - 8pm what do you think adding 300+ more cars to the problem will do? 7. I have four kids in school right now, and they are forced to be in split classes due to the high volume of children. The average home has 1 - 3 children in it that attend school. I'm tired of my kids being in split classes, and this is only going to get worse. Plus they take the bus, and now there will have to be more buses on route to the local schools 118 .;21.- '/5"00 8. I think that Pickering is more concerned about bringing up the volume of people living here, and not thinking about the visual effects that town homes and buildings have on everyone. Where did our pretty Pickering go? 9. I know for a fact that since my Mom and Dad moved to pickering 30 years ago, my Dad has gone to that Barber. Now he has to go somewhere else. There are so many people in this world who don't like change, how many other people have to find a new barber now Ok so I'm stretching out my concerns a bit, but if you lived in this area you would be fighting too. As you know having a nice big house is comfortable and gives a feeling of pride. Being able to send my kids in to a backyard where they're safe is important. I remember growing up with Shannon and playing in your backyard all the time. These new town homes won't have the same safe feel. I agree with occuping some of the space for some nice detached homes, but there should be a grocery store facing Bayly with the homes all around it, much like Finch and Dixi plaza. Thank you for taking time to read my concerns. I hope they will be taken seriously. Meredith Clark (905) 421-9388 1016 Albacore Manor Pickering ~;< Lj5-ð<O 112) From: Brenda Wessely [mailto:Bwessely@eol.ca] Sent: Mon 15/05/2006 4:39 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: development in Bay Ridges Dear Mr McLean; While it is possible that I will attend the meeting on June 1 st, I wanted to let you know of my many concerns regarding development in and around Bay Ridges. It was very disappointing to read the recent newspaper article, especially after having received your letter that you as counselors have not taken a position. If this is so, then why did the News Advertiser state that the development was seen by the city as "not a bad thing for Pickering"? This sounds like a position to me, but as usual I'm not surprised. As many noted at the PESCA meeting, there seems to be no concern on the part of ANY elected official in Pickering for the people of Bay Ridges. We say this because EVERY development that we as rate payers have opposed over the years has gone through anyway. Let me enumerate: Radom Tower, Canoe Landing, Liverpool Road Townhouses, all built and all hindering the community in one way or another. The waterfront development of which the city is so proud cannot be easily enjoyed by the very ratepayers who helped foot the bill. There is completely inadequate parking and the road allowance was narrowed making access difficult. Canoe Landing is far too close to the road and that back row of townhouses is constantly having new owners as people realize their proximity to the highway and traintracks. Some lovely old trees were cut down to build these homes and some of the view of the bay has been impeded. As for Radom Tower, it was supposed to be the ONLY tall structure EVER allowed south of the highway and will now be used as justification for building more. The cities development plan Doug spoke of is, I thought, meant to encourage development in the downtown core. This would be located north of the highway in proximity to the Pickering Town Centre and the city hall, not in Bay Ridges. It is little wonder that we are skeptical of any meaningful dialogue or resistance to whatever changes developers want and have already planned. The Rose Coperation, who has purchased both the Plaza and Art Thompson Arena has 2 developments listed on their website and both are listed as high density. In saying that you would address concerns regarding traffic, local schools etc, did you know that the Catholic School Board has plans to close Holy Redeemer School? I would think this would seriously jeopardize easy accessibility to schools for planned new residents. As well, should the school close that property would be sold and also likey be developed. Additionally I have concerns about the Krosno Plaza as it seems if there are empty stores (Which there are) we run the risk of this happenning all over again in another year or two at two more locations in Bay Ridges. Both of those sites would afford views of the lake and the bay if a builder built high enough and believe me they would if allowed to do so. Do you live in Bay Ridges? I know that our homes are the oldest in the community and most likey the lowest valued. Believe me, that's definitely the message I get every time council approves yet another development that I don't want and that is not, in my view, to the betterment of my community. Of course those new developments provide a larger tax base of more expensive homes, so why not go for it and forget the needs and concerns of those already here? If city hall and the counselors truly haven't taken a position, why did the paper report otherwise? Sounds like just another case of crocodile tears to me. Sincerely, Brenda Wessely 905-839-4081 " "iU' ........ ..." <23 'IS-ore From: Mike Danischewsky [mailto:danischm@nflcanada,com] Sent: Thu 5/25/2006 10: 13 AM To: pym, Ross Cc: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: RE: Bay Ridges Development Ross, I recently received the memo from the City of Pickering Councillors' Office regarding the proposed re-development of the Bay Ridges Plaza. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting on June 1. I would like to receive any minutes/notes from the meeting if there are any. After studying the proposed plan from the applicants in the newsletter, I have some concerns relating to the proposed development: 1. # of units (density). I believe that there are too many units in the proposal that will lead to overcrowding in the area. Many complexes that are constructed to fit in "as many people as possible" lead to a general downward spiral in conditioning of the units. 2. Size of condominiums. The two buildings are too tall for the area. The current apartment building just south of the proposal sticks out like a sore thumb in the neighborhood. Two more buildings would make it worse. 3. Traffic. I understand a traffic impact study will be undertaken. It is a fairly quiet neighborhood currently and I believe the number of units will lead to increased traffic congestion. This is a residential neighborhood, quite different than the townhouses located near the Pickering Town Centre which is a higher traffic area 4. Green Area - Similar to many condominium developments in Toronto, this proposal has one tiny parkette in the plan. This has made Toronto a concrete jungle. Pickering has many parks but I believe any proposal should address the lack of green space on the property. I believe Vancouver has a by-law that addressed this issue with condo developers and I believe a similar condition should be applied to this plan I am not against the re-development in this space, however, I do not believe the current plan is satisfactory. I would be much more prone to support a development similar to the one on the waterfront on Liverpool (by the marina) - higher priced low-rise condos/town homes with retail involved. This would keep this quiet, residential area in tact, address the traffic congestion issue (fewer units) while also increase local property values. The location is excellent for commuters given the proximity to the 401 and GO Station. If the developers could sell fewer properties at a higher price and make the same amount of money they would be pleased. I appreciate you taking the time to read my comments and, again, would appreciate any updates, feedback or more information on this. Regards, Mike Danischewsky Coordinator, Events & Football Development NFL Canada 50 Wellington Street East, 3rd Floor Toronto, ON M3C 2A9 (416) 322-6214 - ph (416) 322-6725 - fax Page 1 of 1 ;'1 ,~_.:2_'i._ Tn ., JFì i Hl..-i.2:..e.k.. , I) .Ii _ ~...l Pym, Ross From: NoraleaPicont@aol.com Sent: May 28, 2006 11 :32 AM To: Pym, Ross Cc: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor Subject: Bay Ridgs plaza Sir: This is to register a complaint against the proposed redevelopment of Bay Ridges plaza. Much of the information being circulated is to say the least suspect. Other than Price Chopper, the busineses that have left were forced out by the strong arm tactics of the present owner! There is no indication on the proposed plan for any retail space. Nor is there any indication where the existing retailers who wish to remain will be located during redevelopment. The phases proposed seem to preclude this. There are many seniors in the area whom rely on the pharmacy for their necessary prescriptions, as well many do not own cars so have to walk!!! theother shops such as the barber and beauty outlets provide much needed services. Further more the adition of a minimum of 500 cars will cause many problems on baily street. This in my opinion is nothing but a get rich scheme by the developers. Please do not let it go forward in it's present form. 01/09/2006 Page 1 of2 i l) ) -- ..... {.. '""~ 2..___. TO 'i.¿,~ ,9",6." Pym, Ross From: Jennifer Dempsey [Dempsey.J@sympatico.ca] Sent: June 4,200611 :11 AM To: Pym, Ross Cc: info@dougdickerson.ca; McLean, Bill, Councillor; Mayor Web Email; Ashe, Kevin, Councillor; Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; Pickles, David, Councillor; Johnson, Rick, Councillor Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza Zoning By-law Amendment Application - A 06/06 To: Ross Pym, Principal Planner - Development Review From: Jennifer Dempsey 1152 Tanzer Court Pickering On L 1 W 3S6 phone: (905) 420-4236 RE: Zoning By-law Amendment Application - A 06/06 I do not support the above Zoning By-law Amendment Application. I attended the Public Meeting on June 1, 2006. Many residents spoke out against this amendment, and I can honesty say I did not disagree with any point any of these speakers presented. The uniformity of public opinion on this application is truly remarkable. There is indeed something wrong with the democratic process in Pickering if the town staff and politicians support this application. Below are a few of the reasons I cannot support this application. _ Sustainable communities - Pickering claims to be embarking on the sustainable community process. A community that is predominately residential cannot possibly be sustainable. The residents need to be able to work and shop in their community, preferably without needing to use cars. As someone at the meeting pointed out, the sole purpose of this huge residential development is to allow commuters to Toronto close access to the GO station, perpetuating the town's role as nothing more than a bedroom community of Toronto. If I were to see an application to build 2 office towers instead of 2 residential towers I would be supportive. I might actually be able to get a good-paying job in Pickering and not have to commute to Toronto every day! - precious green space - when the transformer spill polluted the waters of Pine Creek, the town expressed great outrage and pressed the offender to clean up and restore the creek. (Indeed much of the landscaping currently in and around Bay Ridges Plaza is due to this remediation, not to the previous or current owners of the plaza.) If Pine Creek and Douglas Ravine are indeed so important to the town, then the town planners and politicians need to be particularly vigilant in protecting them from further degradation. The application to build to 'top of bank' is truly alarming. The short term construction damage and the longer term damage from runoff and people activities would doom the creek and ravine, and the downstream Frenchman's Bay. - There is no doubt Bay Ridges Plaza is in trouble and requires investment to become viable again. I do not know how much effort the previous owner put into trying to keep the Plaza vital, but I did not see any signs of investment. I saw many 'to lease' notices, but few businesses would be attracted to a site that is clearly being allowed to be run down by the owner. This situation reminds me of a previous application in the town to turn agricultural land into a cemetary. The new owner deliberately allowed the land to become overgrown, etc. then argued it was not profitable to farm it. This application was approved. A few years later, the proponent went bankrupt, the land went up for sale, and guess what it is being used for now - agriculture! Similiarly, did the previous Bay Ridges Plaza owner deliberately let the plaza degenerate so that it could be sold to a residential developer for a higher price than if it was sold commercially? Possibly yes, or possibly the previous owner did not know how to revitalize the plaza or was unwilling to take on the investment. Most businesses require continual improvement and investment to remain profitable - it is part of doing business. - There is no doubt the current owner is deliberately letting the Plaza run down so that an argument can be made 01/09/2006 ~.5 '15 ô (~ Page 2 of2 1 ') ,', -...J for this rezoning. If the town allows this rezoning to go through, the few smaller commercial hubs in Pickering are at risk of the same fate. The town should make it clear to developers that if they buy a commercially zoned site, they will have to develop a commercial property. _ I could go on and on about this application. One final comment I will make is that I do not believe this applicant has any intention of either building any commercial properties, or of building the apartment towers. Once most of the site has townhouses on it, the applicant would announce it is not viable to build the commercial buildings or the apartments, and apply to build more townhouses. If this site is ever deemed mixed-use, it should be stipulated and enforced that the commercial is built first, before any residential development is allowed. Sincerely, Jennifer Dempsey 01/09/2006 \ .) lL. "'4'''' I ~6J '15: 0 ~ Crawford, Paul Subject: summary or presentation June 1/06 CLARIFY: PKG OP Map: Does it show present zoning or planned zoning? Is it NOWMixed Corridor? OR is it intended to be Mixed Corridor?'- etJl'1/",/C¡ze¡fJ-i--- It is noted (page 62) that Mixed is Retailing, Offices, Restaurants, Community and Recreational uses, and Residential........Similar to Table 2 Land Use Category/Criteria/and Sub-Categories. This being a Mixed Use Area. (Note: Keeping this property as is and making the present Plaza viable keeps the Job Component PLUS property remains available (open) for future expansion to preferred uses that are outlined in Regional Plan and other policies relative to Jobs and Population Ratios.) Once use for Residential its gone!!! I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION FOR REZONING. WE NEED TO LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT IS IN KEEPING WITH OPs AND POLlCIES/ Pickering's OP (page 59, 3.6) says City Council SHALL encourage widest variety of uses on Mixed Use areas. but seems to limit the highest intensification to Kingston Rd and The Downtown area. AND refers to The Durham Regional Plan. THE DURHAM REGIONAL PLAN: Section 1 Goals and Directions, Item 1.1.1. C) "employment opportunities are important" & 1.2.1 Goals of this Plan, Item C) in part "increase job opportunities for its residents" / AND 1.3.1 E) "increasing employment opportunities and balancing growth in population with growth in employment. Section 2.2 all about environment and protection of waterways and sensitive areas. and Section 3 Economic Development. Item 3.1 GOALS, item 3.1.2 "To match population growth with an adequate increase in employment opportunities. Item 3.2.2 Regional Council shall adopt a ratio of jobs to population of 500/0. 3.3 Policies, Item 3.3.1 "in consultation with municipalities, develop and economic strategy" .....3.3.1 D) "means to achieve the ratio of jobs to population at 500/0; 3.3.2 .. ."the need to balance population growth with employment opportunities...." and 3.3.4....to monitor Regions progress in achieving employment target..." and goes on to describe various ways of encouraging employment and growth.......and ENDS with Item 3.3.10 (page 15 of ROP): "I n the preparation of Municipal OPs, Coucils shall ensure the inclusion of Policies and Designations to implement the intent of the Plan (ROP) and the provision of this «Section" 1 I, '.\' .;) {;, ¡.', ,.. _ __..""..._....""""...."""'..u h~;·J¡::'i ~. PL__~ 5 :::.._':':...b., '¡ ') c' .!. ¡.. J This brings us back to the Pickering Plan which refers to the Regional Plan and these sections. And back to this application for rezoning and this proposal. Does it conform to these expectations? AND if it doesn't, why are we allowing this preferred area be changed??? ~ .... ,~I ' / ~~W., #I. --I:ø $//33 k 7 &(/~ ¡/ 7 a~() . c¡ ~J ~& /¡." / . J- (ú/ (7 ~ ~ þft~~' r / , I) ,~~, ~ .;. lJ -7 i "","" ."') 7 ¡..,,,,,,,,''It_Of 1" ,,:Þ J¡~' ¡' p¡j .._~'i.k. ! , I '\(. ,.) {'/ ' (,.,~ / l./ ;'14. II;¿' c¿' Q /) 7~>q~ r~! <; (;,)......<...... .,C' ( . -/). . / .( '?/.'.'.'.' ' ,I:. .. at' ,? (; t " ", ~4_-~ (t\i~ .~~ ,/L(."-<..-(...() i .1 ,,,jJ; ) /1. / ..' (,)],?. Á-'-''z.¿,èß-. L2. "4Vru2,V 7' 'l>- ~ v ~0 ¡v~ ! '- " cY" ( ) ~ . . 0.' ' .( ,:;v'l ,{! '//.1' "" , '- " . . ) /_. ",,(, ~c",6' L.t........ /,,¿/I /-.::.v 4," ." / ". -L/ \.- w,_~,) \,..-' / ;) w: j" / . .L" ILl. ¡. .. "\ ¡r .,~, '-,( ¡;,..c ' '-¿; . ;,1 ,/ ..:. /7 I '11 . ,.'~) /. . ....t ,:.-~ '-I ....,j',' ./ J ,'( ,~,:2 é (. .~. t~, RECEIVED '"'UN 0 1 2006 CITY OF PICKER PLANNING & DEvELOPJ~N~ OEPARTMENT ""-~' ' / 't C> '" I '~'-'L'':' _,:..<1. /1 :;.BC< \.O{~55, ,{/~~ pz: ¿Î,)t:ù.k:,{.)l . ,-;/~..}[(..>L/.'.'(" "C1.:;).">'-( " r ¿- ~/ ?~r~¿4i éV ,-' t:-" (L.- .y< ---0 { ::J ' / ,;1' ,,~ g __ 'T -),'1 ¿~ ',; IJ ; I /1,' / I /~~' jfµ.aA:~'...c1 ß'!O( ~ fl./^z.,L ,-<J..At)'cj2£.o( (1/ / _ r>{' (',; #' ~~~J~::ç!:;~--;/r:: ::::;:;¡ ;¡:k~ -L}"-e. ,ch_~.Æ-.e.4,.,'.'~ ¿;,/~..¿k./ ./'.L~, f1;. . /o-¿~~ßYL,d ~¿tf ,~,~~ r~ ~ßÍ;¡ ,::!:;~~~ j~.Y_~~~. ,~~~þ~ ,~~/0~/' ,~~ ~~.. .1f:.'=- --£~-f ,~. ~~- ~-- ~¿ --c~~ ~¿~A~' ~~ .¿~ ~ ~~~~/~ ~,Þ:J:~' ,-:4L~__, A:'~' ~ c;7A'~~~<-<,y¡¡;.J--<V /.¿~ -= ~;j _ ~ ~ /0---- ~'-é'~£ ~~_~.' ,~. _..~~. ~~r:<.,;{ß.~,~ ~ // /~ A.L- _ -0-cA/¥f:J!~~.-Nr ~ z/~ (Ç~ C d~ .~¿y ~ ~ ~ ',' -;,,,¿JAY /~ /~ tJ~~4 ~~ ~/ ~d ~ <V-- ~/' ~-.......# ".. 4../'( __ /' ,"f~ ,/...-<V' .fi-~ ól7 /~~.'h ~h~ ß. '15., (1 G . /, /7' '\.,.L., ~ ,) '''' . - r - - c7 .. ~ ..¿:;x¿.-tH'.Æ~.,..,..A -'- '- I ...>-:tj~ /~__ ~ /'} / '" ~ ~Æ/· ~~-O( _-'L/;'-V ,/'(.../'1-~ ~'-cL.- ? i0.' f.'.. ,. . ::. ~.--c v~ r~ /YUÞ7J...~ PI' ~ ~ £L. /¿J ~ ~...¿..--- ~.;Z/~~~~~~ ~A.-/...tWè# ~ zð=-:;ot-~ . C:: ~ c:9. /~_ ..a..-- /'.ß~ A'~A-4"'- ø..;;;.. /~~:.A r dë.p,~./~..4 ~ .~.(/~ ~ ~. .~.,ßo(j~4U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .-é.Æ¿ r~~~~ ~~~~~ 4~ _~ ~. ph2 ~ J%I. 40- ~ ~ ~ é;;,:t;¿ ~ ¿;¿ -a..-v- 4~ rz7,~Á:' ~~&~ r~~ ~g-=-~~' ~~ é&-~~Þ~ .A~~~ ß::;d4~~ f 6/02- ~.. ~~ ~. . J2 .~ ,41~~~ ;/'d ~ ~ ¡!"""7-"--~ -' ·r.<Y~~· ~~ C~~ c ~ 0 r::- '--1V Dr,,) (; . Page 1 of 1 '¡ I) \', __ ::. Ö ó7 ~. '-I5-ob Pym, Ross From: FRED ARCHER [fredarcher@rogers.com] Sent: June 1, 2006 9:49 AM To: Pym, Ross Cc: Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; Ashe, Kevin, Councillor; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: bay ridges plaza Mr.Pym, As a resident of 1100 Begley S1. I am very concerned about the above "proposal" to add "high density" structures and ruin the "landscape" of this area. As a Member of the Board of Directors ofD.S.C.C. 176, I request to be added to the mailing list for any infonnation. Our residents are concerned about traffic flow and a perceived decline in the value of their home investments if the proposal includes high rise buildings and I know there are concerns from the South Liverpool Condo owners, MANY of whom purchased these Homes with no knowledge ofthis POSSIBLE POTENTIAL EYESORE & PERCEIVED DECLINE IN THEIR INVESTMENT. I would like to think that there are many options and a tremendous opportunity for a DEVELOPER who is innovative and working with the Planners can devise a "UNIQUE", "PLEASING" addition to the area rather than striving to load in as many tenants/owners as possible. Let's pray that the CITY AND DEVELOPERS take a long tenn approach and DEVISE AN AWARD WINNING REDEVELOPMENT Fred Archer D.S.C.C.176 TREASURER 905 8396912 01/09/2006 :;? q ¡:', 0/ 5- -'~~' b '; ') 9 J.~ \ Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:48 AM To: 'rpym@city.pickeirng.on.ca' Cc: 'bmclean@city.pickering.on.ca'; 'info@dougdickerson.ca' Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza Rezoning and Development proposal Mr. R. Pym Planning Department City of Pickering Re: Bay Ridges Plaza Re-zoning/Proposed Development Monday, June 05,2006 Dear Mr. Pym I attended the meeting on Thursday June 1 as well as the previous meeting held at the East Shore Community Bldg. on May 10th regarding the above development. I realize that this site needs to be developed and wish to put forth my comments on the proposed changes. 1) 1) Traffic - I live just south of Radom. Radom is used by the local residents as a means to get to their homes from Bayly and the plaza. There are also people who use Radom as a means to access Liverpool Rd. during busy times on Bayly. As you know, Bayly can become quite congested, particularly in the left hand turn lane during rush hour as people are trying to either get over the bridge or get onto the 401 Westbound. If the residents on the new development have trouble getting into the left hand turn lane or the wait is overly long, they can take Radom over to Liverpool Rd., turn left and go from there. The problem with this is that there are already wait times for people at Radom and Liverpool (and Haller and Liverpool) to turn. I know, I do it every day. And the wait times are not only during rush hour. For instance last night I was going to Kinsman Park at 8:55 p.m. I sat at Haller and counted 21 cars going south. The 1 yth car slowed down to let me turn right. Adding more cars (and they will use Radom [& Haller if Radom get too congested]) will just cause more problems. And additional traffic in the residential area south of Radom. (P.S. The stop sign at Douglas and Chapleau doesn't work - it slows some people down but many ignore it altogether). Added to this mix is the amount of parking allowed on Radom. Having more traffic will cause huge problems and potentially more accidents. 2) 2) Parking - There is absolutely not enough parking allowed in the proposed development. Notwithstanding the provincial encouragement to use public transit (as was so kindly pointed out by one of the presenters at the May 10th meeting), if sufficient parking is not provided, there will be no fix for this problem. There is no other land that can be made available for parking. Cars will be illegally parked, tempers will flare, there will be discord among the locals and the problem will not go away. This is not to be taken lightly. You can't ban cars from the development or put a limit on how may cars per unit (i.e. only 1 car). Any businesses that are in the development won't have sufficient parking to keep customers and we will then be left with unused units. What will you do to fix a parking problem in this area? The only solution I can see is to pave behind the homes backing on to Bayly, just west of St. Martin's. Wouldn't they love that! Of course you could always rent the northwest corner of Bayly & Liverpool and put parking there. .¡ " > ¡"' __ .) d ;;1.7 '15 - ", (~ 3) 3) Density - Lowering the density will help with both the parking, traffic, & schooling problems. Also I think that the size of the buildings (two condo towers) is far too high. The people on the west side of St. Martin's will have zero privacy. I would prefer to see buildings less that 8 stories - this would look a lot nicer too. 4) 4) Schooling - With the current density proposed, where are the children to go to school? I know Sir John A. Macdonald takes the children from the current condo building. With the potential loss of Holy Redeemer, there could be a real problem with schooling even divided between Bayview Heights and Sir John A. Also, kids will be walking on Bayly to go to school. Right now there are not a lot of elementary kids who use Bayly. With the Tim Horton's traffic, the development traffic, the Shell Stn traffic, there could be a lot of problems. If the kids cross Bayly at Liverpool, is there going to be a school crossing guard? That would certainly not help traffic at the intersection during rush hour. I know there is a crossing guard at Tatra but you can't force kids to not cross Bayly at Liverpool. 5) 5) Loss of amenities to South Pickering - many people in south Pickering are feeling abandoned. We lost the library, then the hardware store, post office (although the variety store at Krosno has now picked that up), the banks (Royal and CIBC) and now our grocery store. The closest store is Loblaws. Although a great store for quality and variety, it is also expensive and you have to cross the bridge to get to it. Have you ever walked that bridge? In the middle of winter? Anyone who did walk to Price Chopper and wants those products and prices now must drive (or take ~ to % of an hour by bus) to get to another low price store. Remember the comment under parking about using public transit? Well, everyone now uses their car to get groceries. This makes the bridge even more congested more of the time. This includes our summer residents at the marina of course. We will certainly see that this year. 6) 6) Evacuation - At the May meeting, the developer was not aware that there was an official evacuation plan for the area. Has this been taken into consideration with the amount of people being added to the area? It must be noted that many single family dwellings in Bay Ridges are not single families. There are multi generational families and many basement apartments - not all legal and therefore not on the tax rolls. When I first moved into my home nearly 26 years ago, there was not a lot of street parking and certainly not the number of basement apartments. Now, all streets have parking all night, basement apartments on every street and there is a lot more traffic in the residential areas. Evacuation is limited to access of the bridges at Whites, Liverpool and Brock. Should there be a problem with 1 of those access points, 1/3 of the population must go to the other points. We have very limited ways of going north and adding a lot of people will just make it that much harder. I can't emphasize enough the problem I have with the traffic that will be generated from this development. Please do not approve this without having a full plan in place to contain the traffic and parking. Once done, it can't be undone. Respectfully, Valerie and Randy Blyth 863 Chapleau Drive Pickering, Ontario L 1 W 1 P6 (905) 839-7441 rdvrs863@rogers.com cc B. Mclean Regional Councillor Ward 2 & D. Dickerson City Councillor Ward 2 ::5c' 'IS-of:, Bø~shore Towers 131 Durham Condominium Corporation No. 19 1210 Radom Street Pickering, Ontario L1W 2Z3 Tel: 905-839-1246 Fax: 905-839-7714 June 9, 2006 RECEIVED City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, ON LIV 6K7 JUN 'J 6 2006 CITY OF PiCf'\ERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTIIlJENT Attention: Planning and Development Dear Sirs: Re: Bav Rid2es Re-Develoument Plans The Board of Directors of Durham Condominium Corporation No. 19 (DCe 19) has concerns with regard to the redevelopment of Bay ridges Plaza (the Plaza). DCC 19 has invested significant physical and financial resources attempting to ascertain the source and repair leaks in the underground parking garage. The Board of Directors is concerned the ongoing problems we have experienced may largely be due to the volume of water draining from the adjacent Plaza lands. The notable difference in the elevation between the two properties results in significant run-off toward our building. In addition, the car wash located at the south east comer of the "Plaza" may be compounding the problem. We also have concerns about the condition of the buried services discharging water from the premises. On Wednesday, June 7, 2006, an owner in the building reported seeing soap bubbles coming from several areas in the lower level of our underground parking garage. On Thursday, June 8th, 2006, Guardian Property Management Services contacted the City of Pickering to report this problem. We were pleased to have Mr. Mike Hillis, City of Pickering, Foreperson, Skilled Shop, Municipal Property & Engineering Division, Operations & Emergency Services Department, attend 1210 Radom Street, Pickering, that morning to observe first-hand, our complaint. He visually inspected the car wash and reported that all of its bays' catch basins were full of water and bubbles. As the development of the Plaza continues, DCC 19 respectfully requests that the City of Pickering takes all necessary steps to ensure the Plaza property is adequatley drained. We i 3,) -'- ¡.., 30 t.f 5 - (.) ~~ ask that a "Water Shed" study or an appropriate alternative be commissioned to ensure that the new development does not adversely affect our property in any way. Please be advised that we will be monitoring the redevelopment of the plaza very closely to ensure that we do not experience any "side effects" such as cracking in the foundation walls of the building. We would appreciate this matter being tabled for discussion in the near future. Representative from our Corporation are available to discuss this matter at any time. As the plans for development evolve, the Board of Directors for DCC 19 would also like an opportunity to meet privately with all parties involved. We thank you in advance for your consideration. If you have further questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Andrew Slater, R.C.M., Property Manager, Guardian Property Management Services Ltd. at (905) 427-8535, extension 27. Sincerely, ~~ an Stainton, Building Administrator, DCC 19. cc: Mayor, David Ryan City Councillor, Ward 2, Doug Dickerson Regional Councillor, Ward 2, Bill McLean City of Pickering, Bylaw Department, Brad Suckling Board of Directors, DCC 19 Page 1 of 1 31 'I 5 (.') (~ Pym, Ross 133 From: PAUL CRAWFORD [paulc6@rogers.com] Sent: June 10, 2006 2:50 PM To: Pym, Ross Subject: BayRidges Plaza you may further this to Bill McLean and Doug Dickerson. Our concerns are: Why the loss of the plaza in particular a grocery outlet? What caused Price Chopper to leave? Why can't we have grocery service during change to Plaza? We would like to see the services kept as is or up-graded and for services to remain where they are. Marilyn Crawford, Sharon Crawford, 867 Antonio St. 01/09/2006 Page 1 of 1 3"· . .! " It 3;< L/ 5 -0 to Pym, Ross From: Rourke, Heather on behalf of Planning Web Email Sent: June 16, 2006 8:48 AM To: 'Hotmail' Cc: Pym, Ross Subject: RE: Bay Ridges Plaza redevelopment - parking Good morning, Mr. Fages, and thank you for using the City of Pickering's Planning Web Email. By copy of this message to Mr. Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, your comments below will be placed accordingly within the Application file. Thank you for providing your input into this Development Application. Regards, Heather Rourke Planning & Development Clerk Planning & Development Dept. The City of Pickering 905.420.4660 ext 2022 h rOiJrl<e@çity.pickering.on.ca -----Original Message----- From: Hotmail [mailto:patfages@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 16, 20067:36 AM To: Planning Web Email Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza redevelopment - parking To whom this may concern, I would like to comment on the Bay Ridges Plaza redevelopment. I live in the Bayshore towers just south of the proposed redevelopement site. Since we have already lost most of our retail stores in the Bay Ridges plaza, everytime you need to buy something you now have to take the car. I was suprised to hear in the new initial proposal, that parking allocation was not very generous. You currently can not park on St-Martin or Bayly. Parking north of Bayly will not even be option to consider because of the train track. That would mean that all additional parking requirements (created by insufficient parking allocation in the new project) would have to spill out south towards Radom street which is already fully used most of the time. I am in favor of a quick approval & redevelopment of the plaza site, but please consider adequate parking requirements. Even if people go to work using the GO trains, you still need cars for shopping & visitors. Thanks Patrick Fages 1210 Radom, apartments # 1708 - # 1709 Pickering 16/06/2006 , "...,2,¿".... <~ T{ '-I 5' ~ c.' 0 "3- 1 J ( J) RECEIVED Input and Appeal from the Tenants of Bay Ridges Plaza .JUN 0 5 2006 _ Delivered June 1 st, 2006, at the Pickering Council Chamber CITY OF PICKERING . . 1.. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT - re: Bay PrIdges Plaza Rezonmg App lcatIOn DEPARTMENT I will be speaking today, on behalf of the majority of existing tenants at Bay Ridges Plaza. . .. Given that the rezoning under discussion today is the last barrier of major of significance to the execution of the Master Plan ....... we, as tenants and citizens of Pickering ... feel it is the right thing to do, to pass on an indication of what our experience has been in dealing with the developers / owners / landlords over the past 10 months. This may serve to provide insight into the nature of future interactions with these people as they proceed to establish themselves in your community. -------------------------------------------------- This Public Relations Bulletin is a typical example of the type of approach we've come to know from the developers, which often involves hiring an arms length, third party to act as a face or front for their strategies. In this case, they have hired Public Relations firm to re-frame reality in their favour. This document, which we have already responded to in print: .. firstly... Claims that tenants plan to vacate as their own leases conclude. this is not, at all, a true representation of the overall picture. In fact, the developers intend to start executing their re-construction based plans long before our leases are actually up. ... secondly this document claims the plaza will continue to languish. If the plaza is languishing, it is a direct result of their own actions. Actions such as .... locking tenants out. .... actually turning off tenants' electricity..... and otherwise attempt to scare them into leaving... while not allowing any of the empty units to be rented out. (2 ') I"' i.Jo 3:3 if 5 - C) "" And finally... for now, considering the time constraint. .. this document contends the plaza will become a potential safety concern. This claim would seem to serve no other purpose than to scare local residents into thinking they should be in favour of a safer alternative - ie, rezoning and redevelopment! Instead of scaring people with the prospect of crime or danger, shouldn't a responsible landlord take firm responsibility for their business plans? Shouldn't they be making the community's safety their absolute first and foremost concern? Is that not a priority of the Master Plan? Instead of identifying plaza security as a responsibility and a priority, they see fit to use it to scare people to choose their preferred end result. These are a few examples of reframing the facts for their own gain, that we have seen on numerous occasions. And possibly most interesting of all, there is no disclosure of accountability on the Bulletin. Not even the Public Relations firm has put their name on it. Calls to the phone number on the bulletin.... were either not returned, or were responded to with inaccuracies. One patron of the plaza called the number, worried about what was going to happen to her friends' business. The response ?? . . .. In an attempt to portray a picture of perfect cooperation from the landlords, the caller was told that numerous phone messages were left with the business, in other words, a commendable communication effort on the part of the developers. In reality, the business in question does not even have an answering machine. The claim was absolutely not true in the slightest. ---------------------------------------------------------------- And this is just a microcosm of what we have experienced since the new owners took control. ( j 33 L/ S c.) b ~ 3· ., - 4 And at the end of the day, if and when we confront them with these types of perspectives, they outright deny any wrongdoing,. . . and instead, go on the offensive, by saying they are offended by the nerve of ANY such a suggestion. So, what are we to do?... ?? Just be satisfied to let them tell their own version of the plaza reality? ---------------------------------------------------------------- Many of us have several years left on our leases. In order to allow a hypothetical redevelopment in any timely manner. . .. we would have to forego the right to do business for the remainder of our lease terms. And we would be willing to make that compromise. But in such a case, it seems only right that we would be fairly compensated for closing down what we've established here, and clearing the way for these elaborate plans. In fact, other than the huge sacrifice business-wise, we are NOT against the bigger picture of community re-development .... If the community sees it as an improvement to the present plaza and the services it provides them, that's good enough for us. But how can we be willing to accept a version of the truth that predicts or allows the plaza to turn into a crime zone,. . . . . . And can we trust that the developers will not use the prospect of demolition as a means to force us out, WITHOUT proper compensaton. This proposed process would already be a major road block to the running of our businesses, without that kind of crippling disruption. All we feel we can do now, is look to the community and the councillors, and if plans do proceed, to the developers,. . . . .. to help ensure it all proceeds with honesty, compassion, and accountability. , 'J' J.;e) 33 '-I 5 0 ~ So, at this time, long before any potential shovel goes into the ground, or any bulldozer starts shaking the foundations of Bay Ridges. ... we appeal to all of you - not to forget about us. If this does proceed to the point of reconstruction. .. we, as tenants, are all absolutely willing to commit to fair and.equitable negotiations... - negotiations towards agreements that would move us out, and clear the way for demolition.. . However, we appeal to you, on moral terms, if nothing else, to help us ensure, specifically, that demolition is not used as a tool to uproot us ... and that it does not start. . .. until fair and equitable negotiation has taken place.... and the plaza is empty. Thanks a lot for you time ... attention 3t.f '-I 5 0 '" Pym, Ross From: Bianca D'Souza [dsouzabc@hotmail.com] Sent: June 19. 2006 4:21 PM To: Pym, Ross Subject: Bay Ridges Redevelopment Proposal Good afternoon, Attached below are my comments regarding the Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment proposal. Regards, Bianca D'Souza 1179 Tanzer Court 905 831 2893 'k?: * eSafe scanned this email for malicious content *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders "'; * * *** 01109/2006 Page 1 of 1 J3D LfO¡J ......, 3Y 'l-5ob, As a resident ofthe Bay Ridges area, I am extremely disappointed regarding the proposed amendment application to change the Bay Ridges Plaza to a residential/commercial area. I have many concerns on many issues which will affect the area in which we live. · Existing businesses-As someone who continues to support the businesses that remain in the Bay Ridges Plaza, what will become of those business owners who do not wish to leave? · Traffic Flow- There is a strong concern for safety with regards to speeding on Bayly Street. The erection of a light at the comer of St Martin and Bayly is fundamental to the well-being of everyone who lives and drives in the area. With the construction of over 500 units, the traffic flow will increase radically in an area that is already flooded with constant speeding cars. There will also be a large increase in the volume of cars that will use Tanzer Court as a shortcut to Bayly Street. Speeding traffic on our residential street full of children is not welcome. · Lack of parking on residential streets-If residents of the new proposed townhomes/condominiums are assigned only one parking spot, St Martin's St., and Radom St do not have the space to support additional parking · Accessibility to services-When my husband and I chose our horne, two of the major reasons that we selected this location was safety, proximity to basic services, and also environmentally protected area. Now all 3 of these factors are being slowly eradicated. Too many homes in a small area is cause for concern, and the land itself is a commercially zoned area. Why the change? Why the existence of by-laws if they are so easily altered? Thank you in advance for allowing me to share my comments. I look forward to updates on any changes that will affect me, and my young family. Best Regards, Bianca D'Souza 1179 Tanzer Court 905-831-2893 35 i..¡5-·()b 141 -----Original Message----- From: Hazel Daubeny [mailto:hazel.daubeny@sympatico,ca] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:38 PM To: Planning Web Email Cc: tdoyle@durhamregion.com Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza Gentlemen Surely it is time for common sense to prevail! Instead of greed. Bay Ridges is a residential community very much in need of revitalizing by a new "modern" plaza. As residents since 1964, we have lived in a house now as retirees we have moved into Bayshore Towers, like many other residents we are dependant on having a GROCERY store and DRUG store at least. Traffic congestion on Bayly Street is severe at present and the addition of a High Rise building makes no sense at all. Should there ever be an emergency requiring evacuation (Hydro Plant) there would be no chance of leaving the area. Congestion in local schools is also another reason to re-consider the re-zoning. Let alone the parking problems. We are asked constantly NOT to use cars in hot weather in particular due to air pollution, fat chance for seniors that have chosen to live in our peaceful community. The Developer is not doing us any favours, their interest is to make money for themselves (understandable) however: We need consideration, this land will be lost forever and more thought must be given. At worst scenario a low rise (5 story) building AFTER the shopping area has been completed. As one person at the meeting stated, if they build the housing first they can just up-roots and leave without the shopping facility ever being completed. Surely we have been manipulated by "Big Business" enough, listen to the residents. Jim and Hazel Daubeny 905-837-8216 4... .'; , , .~ ~". ¡:.., 3b '-/50b -----Original Message----- From: Anna & Sylvain [mailto:Anna.Sylvain@mail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 09,20069:10 PM To: info@bayridgesplazainfocentre.ca Cc: ddickerson@city.pickering.on.ca; bmclean@city.pickering.on.ca; rpym@city.pickering.on.ca Subject: Recycling... In Durham Region, more than 22,000 residents are serviced by the weekly Apartment Building and Townhouse Complex Blue Box Recycling Program. To be eligible for this service, the buildings and townhouses must receive municipal garbage collection services. Will the new complex be serviced by this Recycling Program? Also, Pickering has now a new Green Bin Program. However, Apartment Building and Townhouse Complex are excluded from this program as they have not been constructed to accommodate it. Will the new St. Martins Square be constructed to accommodate such program for all its residents? Regards, Sylvain Trépanier Email: Anna.Sylvain(a)mai1.com 1:'age 1 or 1 ;:'...3.7.. ,,' '-!5"Ub ,; 4,0) J. ~ ...) Pym, Ross Jennifer Dempsey [Dempsey.J@sympatico.ca] July 9, 20064:23 PM Pym, Ross Johnson, Rick, Councillor; Pickles, David, Councillor; Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; Ashe, Kevin, Councillor; Mayor Web Email;McLean.Bill.Councillor;info@dougdickerson.ca Subject: Re: Bay Ridges Plaza Zoning By-law Amendment Application - A 06/06 From: Sent: To: Cc: July 9, 2006 To: Ross Pym From: Jennifer Dempsey Dear Mr. Pym: I received a phone call from the development company that bought Bay Ridges Plaza. They indicated they got my name and phone number from the sheet I signed at the June 1, 2006 public meeting. I did indeed provide this information. However, I assumed this information would be used by the City of Pickering. I admit I do not remember if there was any notification on the form that the information would be shared with the developer. In future, I will be much more careful before I provide such information at any city function. I would not have provided the information if I had known it would be given to the developer. I have signed such lists before at previous Town meetings and was never contacted by developers or interested parties. If there was no notification on the form that the information would be shared with the developer, then I believe the City of Pickering has violated privacy laws by sharing this list with the developer. I request that the City inform the developer I DO NOT want to be contacted by them again. I want my name and phone number removed from all their records, and I refuse the City of Pickering permission to share it with any other party. Unfortunately, this incident has increased my concerns about the too-friendly relationship between the City of Pickering and developers. Sincerely, Jennifer Dempsey 1 Q/07/2006 ·: 4 /1 .1 'i i'lfiORE COMMU\lÜ 1-' .. ~_~ if ¥ -- PESCA 3~ if 5 (.') '" Pickering East Shore Community Association June 1, 2006 Subject: Redevelopment of Bay Ridges Plaza (BRP) The Pickering East Shore Community Association (PESCA) has established an Ad Hoc Committee to review the Bay Ridges Plaza (BRP) redevelopment proposal and to establish the PESCA position on this proposal. The Committee consists of a cross-section of members of the PESCA Board of Directors, and the Board has authorized and supports the position taken by the Committee and the recommendations included in this briefing. PESCA welcomes the opportunity to summarize the concerns of the citizens of Bay Ridges at the Public Meeting of June 1, 2006. However, it is PESCA's position that any changes to the existing zoni!1g and approval of any Development Plan should be preceded by extensive public consultations. A. PESCA 2006 Annual General Meeting PESCA members are the residents of the Bay Ridges neighborhoods. At the 2006 Annual General Meeting, held on April 26, 2006, PESCA members were very vocal with respect to the proposed redevelopment of BRP. Many residents rose to express their concerns at the meeting, and in fact the vast majority expressed opposition to the proposal. Some of the issues which emerged at the AGM included the following: · very little information had been distributed in the area to explain the nature and timing of the Developer's proposal; · the project included excessive density in a small area; · the condominium towers were viewed as being too tall; · the local residents oppose the loss of retail facilities on the south side of Highway 401; · there were many concerns about additional parking and traffic congestion; · the Developers' tactics to remove the existing retail tenants came into question; · the health of Douglas Ravine and Frenchman's Bay were a concern; . the impact on the emergency evacuation plan was questioned. tCfŒ COMMU,I¡'-2. ~.~ S ~ L ~_~ ~ ~ ~ PESCA 3g' $<' 5 (" b 14~') Pickering East Shore Community Association B. Specific Concerns PESCA is opposed to the Developer's current proposal. However, PESCA is not opposed to the redevelopment of the Bay Ridges Plaza in general. Specific concerns we have with the current proposal include the following: 1. Condominium tower height 2. Traffic and parking 3. Environmental impact 4. Loss of retail businesses and 5. Impact on the Emergency Evacuation Plan These concerns are examined in more detail below. 1. Building Height and Dwelling Unit Density PESCA is concerned about the proliferation of very tall buildings at this location. We acknowledge the presence of an existing 18- story building, but we feel very strongly that this is a trend which should not be encouraged. There are many who regret the proliferation of tall condominium buildings along the waterfront in the city of Toronto, for example, and we believe that policies which promote the same trend in Pickering are misguided and short-sighted. With regard to density, the Pickering Official Plan calls for a range of 30 up to 140 dwelling units per hectare. The proposal, at 169 units per hectare, significantly exceeds even the highest density specified in the Official Plan. PESCA proposes that the Developer examine options which incorporate buildings that are a maximum of seven storeys tall. 2. Traffic and Parking: The existing traffic study has been examined, and the results were found to be unsatisfactory. We have the following concerns: · the current proposal allocates only 1.1 parking spaces per living unit. According to a University of Toronto study, the average household in this area has 1.9 vehicles. It can be expected that many new families will seek parking elsewhere, causing further congestion on surrounding streets · based on internal vehicle counts, a traffic increase of 250% can be expected on St. Martin's Street PESCA "]''ii '-/ S (: í.., J.41.) "St'DRE COMMW,v~ 1.~ \!1 · R g......! .-. Pickering East Shore Community Association · the Liverpool Rd/ Radom Stl St. Martin's StI Bayly St corner is already heavily congested. We believe the addition of approximately 600 new dwellings will contribute substantially to this congestion. This congestion will threaten vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian safety, have an overall negative impact on the quality of life in our community and adversely affect the enjoyment of the Waterfront Trail for all. It is proposed that the City of Pickering conduct more detailed traffic impact studies to determine the true impact on road safety and congestion at a very early stage in the approvals process. 3. Environmental Impact: PESCA is concerned about the long- term health of the Douglas Ravine and Frenchman's Bay, especially in view of Pickering's stated commitment to environmental sustainability and the work conducted as part of the Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project. Specifically, the proposal so far is very short on detail with respect to the potential impact that demolition, construction and dense habitation patterns will have on the ravine, the watershed and the Bay. It is proposed that the Developer work with PESCA and knowledgeable local citizens on an Environmental Impact Plan for this project. 4. Commercial/ Residential Mix The loss of significant retail facilities is seen as a major concern, and PESCA lacks confidence that the Developer will provide adequate retail services to compensate for the loss. To quote Ms Doris Hopper of Bayshore Towers, in Danielle Milley's article in the News Advertiser on May 8, the plaza is a "lifeline." Ms Hopper and other area residents, especially older residents at Bayshore and the St Martin's seniors' residence are losing critical amenities such as a supermarket and pharmacy. The Developer's current proposal increases residential units in Bay Ridges by approximately 20% while decreasing the commercial amenities by 80%. There are additional concerns regarding the existing tenants. It has been suggested by the Developer that demolition of some of the plaza could commence while the remaining tenants continue to operate their businesses. This raises significant issues, including the viability of the businesses trying to operate on a demolition/ construction site and the threat to public safety on the site. ~o¡,HOR£COMlo!Ul,'-.1 ¡8¡ ~ ~ .. -Ç....~ ~ ~ ~ PESCA 3Jf f5~"(\ (. ~ 4 ''1 -'- , Pickering East Shore Community Association PESCA proposes that any new development on the site include increased commercial space, more closely approximating the facilities to be lost. Further, it is PESCA's position that no demolition should occur on the site until all existing tenants have vacated. 5. Emergency Evacuation Plan Say Ridges neighborhoods co-exist with the world's largest nuclear plant. Most residents are very aware that emergency evacuation from the area, while only a remote possibility is a contingency which must be addressed. Liverpool Road and Bayly Street are major evacuation routes and to date, no information has been collected to indicate the potential impact of the redevelopment project on the local emergency evacuation plan. It is PESCA's position that this impact should be carefully examined before any redevelopment is approved. In conclusion, PESCA favours a cooperative approach as the future unfolds for the Say Ridges Plaza site. We seek the support of Pickering City and Regional Councillors, the Planning Department and the Developer to address all of these important concerns, and we urge area residents to provide their input at every opportunity. Tim Dobson Chair, BRP Redevelopment Committee Pickering East Shore Community Association 143 i'iJ'lJRfCOMM/.I.1q~ "'8?; ;¡; g ~ ª ..~~~ " - 32 PESCA L/5 o~ Pickering East Shore Community Association Summary: PESCA's Official Position on the Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment PESCA is opposed to the current proposal to redevelop the Bay Ridges Plaza. We are in favour of redeveloping the Bay Ridges Plaza in general, but feel the following concerns need to be addressed: 1. Building Height Any buildings on the site should not exceed seven storeys. 2. Traffic and Parking A more comprehensive and up-to-date traffic study is needed and the parking allocation should be increased from 1. 1 vehicles per dwelling to more closely reflect the City average of 1.9 vehicles per dwel/ing. 3. Environmental Impact An environmental Impact Plan should be developed with input from PESCA and knowledgeable local citizens and environmental groups. 4. Commercial/Residential Mix Our residents need a viable community commercial plaza of similar size to the existing plaza, especially with the proposed increase of residences. As well, there should be no demolition of the existing plaza until such time as it is completely vacant so as not to infringe on the rights of the remaining tenants to conduct their business and protect the safety of the members of our community who still frequent these businesses. 5. Emergency Evacuation Plan The impact of the additional residences on the existing evacuation plan should be carefully examined before any redevelopment is approved. r-03-1-2006 09:25A FROH: .3C¡ i.f5~(,)b TO: 4169729588 P.l-! 14;] Bø~shore Towers Durham Condominium Corporation No. 19 1210 Radom Street Pickering, Ontario LIW 2Z3 Tel: 905-839-1246 Fax: 905-839-7714 July 31, 2006 S R & R Bay Ridges Ltd. 69 Y orkville Avenue Suite 400 Toronto, ON M5R IB8 Attention: Mr. Steven Warsh Dear Sir: Redevelopment of Bay Ridees Plaza The Board of Directors of Durham Condominium Corporation No. 19 would like to extend their appreciation for your assistance with alternative temporary parking arrangements for our residents. Many of our residents have participated in the information seminars that your firm has provided. They have commented that the meetings were very informative. Although there are always hurdles to overcome in a project of this nature, the redevelopment of the plaza has generally been well received and supported. Should you require any additional support or assistance in this regard, please feel free to contact us. We would like to welcome you to our neighbourhood and we anticipate a long and mutually beneficial relationship. Sincerely, ? ~/~ Board of DirectŒ Durham Condom urn Corporation No. 19 .JUI'!-"-!.I.-':::'''-!''-!O "",0''-1,,,) r~ . t:.JJ." 1:::.1-' }dO v-'TORONTOAND REGIONt:Y-. #\..,onserva Ion for The Living City RECEIVED¡ #-;-f-ô ___ TO k PD -75- 0 b .......___·'._.n......"" JUN 0 1 2006 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT . DEPARTMENT CFN 37347.06 May 30 J 2006 VIA MAIL AND FAX (fax. 416..972.~588) ~ L1P~ iÞ(i) ~~€N '^~ /l.c1;~ P-t1YJ / )¡'"tPHeN ~'Y4-S ~05~~e1J~~r-' "'"- ~ Steven M. Warsh . Partner S & R Development Group Lirnïted 69 Yorkville Avenue. Suite 400 Toronto, ON M5R18B DATE: îJlJf\4'Z" '2.ðC1..b Re: Zoning By.Law Amendment Application. No. A 06/06 1215 -·t235 Bayly Street (Bay Ridges Plaza}. CIty of Pickering . . S. R.&R.Bay Ridges'Limited Dear Mr. Warsh: Thank you for meeting with TRCA staff on May 29, 2006 to discussed your proposal for the redevelopment of the Bay Ridges Plaza.in the City of Pickering. Attendance at this meeting at our head office included Mr. Steven M, Warsh. S & R Development Group Limited, ·Mr. Stephen I. Fagyas; Commercial Focus Advisory Services. Inc., and Steven Hèucnert, Senior Planner, TRCA. During this meeting we referred to Drawing No. RZ-02, Site Plan Projec;t'Statistics, prepared by Kirkor Arct)itects, dated March 27, 2008, received by City of Pickering Planning and Development on April 5, 2006, and received by TRCA staff on May 11. 2006. Although we have not receiyeq a complete application from S & R Development Group or the City of Pickering, we would like to 'clarify the TRCA's program and policy interests relating to your Zoning By-Law Amendment Application, as follows: TRCA Permit Requirem.ents The subject property is partially within a TRCA Regulated Area. In accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 (Development, Interf~rence with W~tlands'and Alteråtions to Shorelines and Watercourses), a permit is required from.the TRCA prior to any of the following works faking place: . 1. straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in anyway with the existing channel of a river. creek, stream or watercourse, or for changing or interfering in any way with a wetfand; . 2. development, if in the opinion of the authority, the control of flooding¡ erosiqn, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development. Oev~lopment is defined as: 1. the construction, reconstruction, erection or· placing of a building. or structure of any kind: ~. any change to a 'building or structure that would have the effect of altering the 'use or potential. use of the building or structure, increasing the size of the building or structure or increasing the number of dwelling units in the building or struc~ure; 3, site grading; . F'I~OMe\PUBLlC\DEVeLOPMeNT sERvlgeslouRHAM REGIONIPICKIË~ING\12Hi· 12$1;; e~yl.Y '.DOC L¡o RECEi \leU ¡ r- "I -. ~ 1 i/ S (' (. JUN 0 1 21106 Steven M Warsh 2 OF DICKEAING Ma 30 2006 . . - - r.['(Y 'BE' '[hQ\?~A¡:t'n . Y I PLANNI~~PÂRTMENT 4. the temporary or p~rmanentptacing dumping or removal of any material, originating on the site or elsewhere. . . Please contact TRCA staff to· obtain permit approval prior to the issuance of any municipal grading or building permits. TRCA Policy and Program Interests Notwithstanding permit requirements, the Toronto and Region Cçmservation Au~hority's policies for defining valley corridor boundaries are guided by our "Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program" (VSCMP). The VSCMP guides our review of development-proposals and p/i;!rm,ît and planning applications. The overall objectives of these policies is 10 prevent new development from occurring within areas that maý introduce a risk to life and property assOciated with fiooding, ,erosion and slope instability, or is not compatible with the protection or rehabilitation of these areas in their natural state. For the subject properly, the VSCMP policies define the valley corridor boundary as follows: 1. If the valley slope is stable. a minimum of 10 metres· inland from the top of the valley . bank; or . 2. 'If the valley slope is not stable; a mìnimum of 10 met~es·from the predicted long term stablè slope projected from the existing stable/ståbilized toe (base) of.slope, or the predicted location of'the toe of th~ slope as shifted as a result 'of stream erosion over a ., 00 year period ; or 3. If there is· signifi'cant vegetatiçn, the limit. of-this vegetation plus ten metres.. . ¡nsummary, the limits of the valley corridor will be défined by the greater of the top of bank, the predicted long term stable slope line, or the limit of vegetation, plu~ a minimum 10 metre buffer. No development Îs permitted within the valley corridor. Identification of Development Limits· . Thede\lelopment'/imjts on the subje~t property need to be identified; as follows: 1. The top ofbf,;mk a~ staked in 2004 has not b~en identified to our.satisfaction..The top of 'bank should be illustrated on'a full size Plan 'of Survey, provided to TRCA. and confirmed in writing by TRCA staff. The top of bank is valid for a period "f five years. at which time if development is not substantially undelWay then a new top of bank 'staking will.be . required. . , 2. The long term stable slope line has nolbaen ìdentified. Therefore. a detailed . Geotechnical Slope Stability Study Îs required in areas where the slope factor of. safety is less than 1.5. The Study should'be based on a subsurface investigatíon. and cross- sections .identifying the long term stable slope line, along with the location of the Úne o'n the Plan of Survey,' should be provided to TRCA and confirmed in wriUng by TRCA staff. 3. The limit of vegetation associated with the valley (th~ dripline) has not been identified. This c~m be approached in one of two ways: 1) TRCA staff can visit the site with your SU'rveyor and stake the dripline of vegetation; or 2) your environmental consultant can F:\HOME\PUBLIC\DI:VELOPMENT SERVICES\OURHAM REGION\PI~KERING\ 1215 - 1235 SA VI. Y _ 1.DOC o.J'-'I' 0:....1.1. 0:-0:....10:....1'-' I .~'-'...~'-' , ¡:- ') J ~.... L¡o .:¡ .5· c (. Steven M. Warsh - 3- May 30, 2006 identify the dripline, stake the feature on the ground, and TRCA staff will visit the site to confirm the location is accurate" The dripline should then be illustrated on the Plan of Survey, provided to TRCA. and confirmed in writing by TRCA staff. Once identified, the valley corridor (including the 10 metre buffer) should be renaturalized with native trees and shrubs appropriate for the soil conditions, re-zoned to an Open Space designation and transferred to public ownership. Development, including rear yards, roads, and accessory structures, etc. Bre not permitted in the buffer. We are willing to discuss the appropriate location for a public access'trail relative to the buffer zone if such access is required by the City of Pickerin·g. Clarification At our môeting of Mäy '~I ,QQ61 you represented that the proposal illustrated on Drawing R~-02 referenced above was substantially "approved" by Carolyn Woodland of our oHlce·at a prevIous meeting on February 10, 2006. Please be advised that this representation is false and, rather, the importance ·of providing a 10 metre. buffer from the various features identified above was expressed by our staff at that meeting. Application and ,Clearance Fee Please be advised that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has imp.lemented a revised fee schedule for our planning application review services. This application is subject to a $8,650 minor multi~unit application fee. An additio.nal $2,875 clearance fee wiil become due upon final clearance. The applicant is responsible for fee payment and should .provide the fee, made payable to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to the City of Pick.ering upon acceptance of a complete application. Otherwise, you can forward the application fee directly to this office 85 soon as possible in order to ensure timely review. If convenient, the clearance fee may also be provided at .this time. Please disregard if the fee has already been sent We trust this letter clarifies the public interest relative to natural heritage and hazard land management. We support the principal of this important urban regeneration project and we look forward to working with you. . Please feel free to contact me if you have any..further questions. 7Z/¡~~ . Steven H. Heuchert, MCIP~ RPP, MRTPI Senior Planner . Planning and Development Extension 5311 . cc: Stephen I. Fagyas, Commercial Fqcus Advisory Services Inc. (fax. 416.972.9588) Ross Pym, City of Pickering (fax. 905.420.7648) . . F:\I"¡OME\PUBLlC\DeV~LCJPMENT SERVICES\DURHAM REGIONIPfCKERING\ 1215 - 1235 BÅ YL v _'.DOC The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department 605 ROSSLAND ROAD E 4rrl FLOOR PO. BOX 623 WHITBY, ON L 1N 6A3 (905) 668-7711 Fax: (905) 666-6208 E-mail: planning@ region.durham.on.ca www.region.durham.on.ca A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning "Service Excellence fur nil Communities" iff If ::.) .> (\ C, 1 t':~i -- ~,) August 24, 2006 Ross Pym, Principal Planner Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplande Pickering, Ontario L 1V 6K7 Mr. Pym: Re: Zoning Amendment Application A 06/06 Applicant: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Limited Location: 1215-1235 Bayly Street South side of Bayly Street, west of Liverpool Road Municipality: City of Pickering This application has been reviewed and the following comments are offered. The purpose of this application is to amend the zoning of the subject property to permit a range of residential, retail and office uses in the redevelopment of the Bay Ridges Plaza site. The site plan includes streetfront and back-to-back townhouses, including live/work units, and two apartment condominium buildings with ground floor commercial office and retail uses. Reaional Official Plan The lands subject to this application are designated "Living Area" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Living Areas are to be developed in a compact urban form through high densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along arterial roads. Living Areas are predominantly for housing purposes. Limited retailing of goods and services in appropriate locations as components of mixed use developments may be permitted within Living Areas provided that the functions and characteristics of the Central Areas are not adversely affected. Provincial Policies & Deleaated Review Responsibilities This application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial plan review responsibilities. Phase 1 and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA), prepared by Jacques Whitford Limited, have been submitted in support of the application. A subsurface investigation of the site indicated that measured concentrations were below the Ministry of Environment (MaE) criteria and that no further environmental investigation of the subject property is considered to be warranted at this time. As a Phase II ESA was completed for the subject property and as a more sensitive land use is being proposed, Regional policy requires that a Record of Site Condition be submitted to the MaE and filed electronically on the Province's Environmental Site Registry. }34 l¡¡ ,~) (,': (~,~ Page 2 An Environmental Impact Study (EIS), prepared by Watershed Management Ecology, was submitted in support of the application. As the subject property is adjacent to a stream tributary of Frenchman's Bay, comments from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) are required upon review of the EIS indicating that the proposal addresses the Natural Heritage policies (Section 2.1) of the Provincial Policy Statement. TRCA is to ensure that the recommendations as outlined in the report, including the mitigation methods and the setback from the valley top of bank, are sufficient protection from adverse impacts from development. A Noise and Vibration Study, prepared by Sernas Associates, has been submitted in support of the application to address traffic noise generated from Highway 401, Bayly Street and the CN and Go-Transit Railways. The study has been reviewed by this department and provides calculations and recommendations that would meet the requirements of the Region of Durham and the guidelines of the MOE. An agreement between the City of Pickering and the applicant should contain the necessary provisions to ensure the implementation of the noise attenuation measures, including warning clauses, as recommended in the report. The City of Pickering is encouraged to use a holding symbol "H" in conjunction with the required zone category, and indicate the uses permitted at such time in the future as the holding symbol is removed by amendment to the by-law. Prior to the removal of the holding symbol, all requirements of the Region's delegated review responsibilities including; the completion of the Region's reliance agreement letter, the submission of a Record of Site Condition, confirmation from TRCA regarding the EIS recommendations, and the inclusion of noise provisions in a City of Pickering agreement, are to be completed to the satisfaction of the Region. Regional Services Municipal water supply is available to the subject property from existing utilities on Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive. Sanitary sewer services are available; however, upgrades are required to adequately service the proposed density. Please see the attached Works Department review of this application for further details on water supply and sanitary sewer services. Transportation. Access and Intersection Improvements Bayly Street, Regional Road 22 is designated as a Type "A" arterial road in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Type "A" arterial roads are to have a right-of- way width ranging from 36 to 50 metres. The Region will require a minimum road width of 18.0 metres from the centerline of Bayly Street across the entire frontage of the property. ;: r.:~- -!~~) ÿ/ o £. c f-c. Page 3 A right turn lane and raised centre median are required for the Bayly Street access to the site. Access to Bayly Street will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements only. A left turn lane on Bayly Street is required at the Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive intersection. The left turn lane should be designed to incorporate the centre raised median on Bayly Street. Please see the attached Works Department review of this application for further details regarding transportation requirements. The use of a holding "H" symbol is further encouraged and should not be lifted until the requirements of the Works Department, including servicing and transportation improvements, have been identified in agreements through the site plan approval process. Community Strateaic Plan The proposal is consistent with a number of Community Strategic Plan (CSP) actions including developing a viable, affordable and integrated transit plan by promoting higher density land uses. The proposed intensive development supports the revitalization and development of the urban area and implements effective land use planning that supports compact development. A primary objective of the CSP is to ensure balanced growth and livable communities by encouraging development that enables an improved live-work relationship. The development would appear to achieve this objective by contributing to the mix of residential, office and commercial development being proposed. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. ,.. .'. / ¡f ,:/,/ j l /"'/ \~ !¡. J1 /;/,t/l / . '<~",:/{..A VV1 ~/ I V V V :, " Dwayne Campbell, Planner Current Planning Attach: Works Department review comments cc: Peter Castellan, Regional Works Department (no attachment) ~Î. 5 (, .lfl if r (" (, ------....-.......... _--...._,1:::::.:.. '. .':-- ,..,",:~,':""J -¡; Ii I:{~"""'~ "'"....' ",. ., " .', .,., ' . . . i:;;.:~";;' ""'. ," ' . . :.> .": "'~"';-::'M_,'l' ~~.._-~..:-.'...._ .._.._. :"-.:~..~:..;:.~::~~t, ' JUt 2 b. 2DDô' .' ,'. , . 7A~7!::i!/ê' .....,~-,~...._.. .:,..'r':":':'~;j' u .~~~~.. '. I . '- .~~- F/LE#. . . --..-:--.;.w.'_'_.'.."_._--:- . . . . . ~. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM .' To: Dwayne' Campbell . . Current Operation,s Branch' From: Péte Cast.ellan' . I?~velopi'ne~t. Approval~ Division, '.' . . . Date: ,July 25,2006 , . .' " . . . ., 'Re:" ·Zoning 8'y-l~w Amendment Apþliçation ADe/06 . , '·'.'Appl.icant: S·:R & R.' Bay Ridges PI~z~" 1215..1235 B.ayly Street :. ,:'. , " City of Pickering . . ..'. 'Our FHe:' RZ..· OS;.o6.;P , ,. The. Règional. Municipality . of Durham· . Works Dópar1ment 605 ROSSLAND RO. E, :. P.O. BOX. 623 WHITBVON L1N6A3 . T~~.Region '.of Du. rho am Works Departme'rit ha. s revie~ed·.'Jhe abo,.,v~-noted CANA~ 906.668.7711 . " ',' rezoning application and offers th~ following ·comments.·' . . . Fax: 905-666·6206 . , .;-mail: General' . , works@re9ion.durham.~':I'c;'a.· ". '.. ". ... ., .. '.: . .. ...... .:, . '.. , ... The· subject pr.oþ~rty. is cUrrently serviced·. with· .municipal wâtermains and wv.:w.region.durham.on.~a san~tafy sewers. . Any ~xisting ser.vices not util.ized must be abanç!oried. a1 the .. ·C. R. CurtiÌJ. P. &ng., NBA ma,ihlines, at the appficants expense. ,., '. '. .... Commj~sioñerofWork5·· ' ';'S"" ....". : . .:'.. ,. . . .. .'.:, :.., ~anit~ry. e~er Ser.vice ". .-:. .. ,. .,' . . , '. .' .. . .. ., ,.. ,.. Th.e subj'e~t. property is part of the sanitary drainage areat~at is. triþu~a!y to the . :' '. :.' Livèrpo'ql Róad 'Sa,n ita ry. S~wage ..F~u(11PÎJlg Statio,n,. $.a.nitary fIÇlws, from' the . .: ' .'.. '.. subject property '~re conveyed to .the L,iverpoof Road· S.S.P,.S.. through .·a , ..: ' . .., 'residen~ial areß,.alc;mg-Douglas,Av,en¡j,e, Front Roåd, W.harf street árid Liverpool' '.:', ;. :,,:.. Road.;Based on a sa~itary se~er anålys'~ of.the existing ~ahitary sewer system·.. . '.': (u$ing'an infiltrationF'?lte' ofO..52·I/s .due to found.ation dràjn connections), the. . · :'.: th!3or(i!ticaf. flows íh~ tne sanitary 'séwer~ ¡nçica~e. that severf:! ' iegs of s'an(tary' ,... . sewéf are presently operating in',a surcbarged conditio·n... There, have' been · ' instances of þasement flooding which has occ~rred ~uring significant rafnfålls . .. ' . '. with the· most récent b~sement floÇ)ding resulting from: the significant rainfali . eventon,A~gÙ:st 1.9,2005. With the redevelop'm$ritofthe'subj~ct property from '. .. a cOmr1Jerci~1 compon~nt to. 8' residential, comp.one,nt; an iricre~seln sanit~,ry: · :,.. søwer tløws ~nd t~~¡'efO:re, .surchargiryg wit~in the existing sanitary sewer system , , 'is' e~peCted;'" There i$ no sanitary sewer c~pac.ity, available, .within· the existing. . . . sanìtary' sewer,syste~ fo'r·the ,,þroposed dens.ity·of the :súbj.ect-d~velopment. . Therß ì;:; capacity for apprQximately 70 un,its based qn 'calculated flows from the'. 'exi.sti·ng I~od use. To, provide ad~quate 's~nitary sewer capacity for the proþo$~d ... . ... 'deve'lppmen~, the:.,existing S;3nitary. s~wer ..~j . requi~e: replacement· between. , R?J"dom Street ~nd Livêrpool- ~oad at W~arf Stree~ with a' pipe of h ighar c~paGity .' . and at a.lower ~I~vation 10 increa$~,the safety factor àgainst ·the. potential of' :. basen:ten~ .f1oC?din~ occurrences.:: .' '. . , , . . " .' .. .' .., " '," .. '. ...·..2 ~. . ~. . . . '. ....""111. ".__..,.......,¡""'....:..~ 'Municipai. W~ter' Supply'. .:. . ',the sybjéd.p~op~'rtYls lo.qated within the Zon.e 1Wat~r P~ess~.re District oftMe" wafer'supply sY$tem fer. Pickering'. The estimated static water þre~su re for this · area ranges. bei.yJeenBQ. psi to 8S pSi: Sínc~'the' estimatedstatië water pressure" ..' · exceeds the..maximum·aUo,,:/ance.·of 80 psi, w~ssur~ r~ducing valves· will be 'required to be located· within the subject develoPllJent. . " . ". .:':. ·.W~te~~rippiY to the' su.bi~d,prop~~· is ~~ailable fróm·~.ith.erthe ~xi$ting 350 mrrr .' . . watër:main' 9.n:8'aYIYStreèt.or. the éxisting;200 mm watermåin·on. St..M~rtins " . '.' ::': .' ' : '. brive~ :.',' ...... . '. '.. . , ' ' .. . . . . trc-nsp?rtation' ..' '. ......:.. ,': . ", '. ' '. ". .... T~¢ Régionpl-WorkS .Dèp~rtrrye~t..will.reqÜire the .Qwrie.rto "convey sufficient rOad .'. .... .allo¥{ance·· widen.ing to provide: .a . minimunr'.oF1 a.o m· measured. from the : . ....... .' 'c~ntreline ofthè dgh(ofwaytd th.e·south,stre~t line a.crossthé.tõt¿ÙBaylyStreøt '.' ,'. ,'" ~fr~~.t~g~.·. :.:';.: ':.. ...'.:., ,.'~':" .>...: :.., :'..... '. . :.' . .:":: " . '. : The ·Daval.ope.r Will b~ responsibie for all ,costs. a~sociated with providing safe . ..... ·.àcgess ~o'~he déveloprrient.. .Thh~ shall include the..¢onsti'uctioll of an eastbound , .: ". right ·t~rn lane· tør the 'propo$~d 'entr.ance' t(). Bayly Street. The' Bayly ~trèer ',,' ". . .a.ccess· will be' r~strict~d ·to a .'rig~t:"in!ríght-out operation by Ò1èáns of.a center" .' .. · 'raised median.' .' . .:.":'" .' '. . . . '. .... '. Åaditi'o~a;IY:~ r~ad i~~'~vements are r~qu;redat ~h~ int~r.sect¡o~ 'ofBaÿly Str~~t. '. ..." " . : . ,'and St. ~artin.s·Driv.e.This rf3quirés the 'constructi()n O:f. a vyestbound· e1t'turn.· "" ",,' '. ',., :."I;~me ón. ~ayly. Street. . The left turn ' áne shou~d be designed to incorporate thé · .. .c~iite(ráj~ed median..on BayIY'$treet- n·otecfabovè. This will.result in median' . .'., . . :,' ." construction- from thè intersection of St: 'Martins Drive to.2S. metres east of the' .... . '.' .... ·,p¡,op~.se~entr.ar1c~. :.' , ". '..:." ....'..' ,.......:..'. ". . .., '...:. . .... . ,.... .··Àn' :r.9~cJ 'iníprq~~'m~nts ~re. tabs:. :designed ·,In. àcçordånce.with thg'TAC' · . :"guidèlines: , ': '. .~. :, -:- ..' ." . . ..'.: '. . " .' . , . '," . , . . . ~ . . .' ,. ,'/ , . . . . .. ., .. . . - - - - ~- - - ............. ---'-'" -.... <,JOJ,J\"J\JUU;UUW ~ . UVu . " " .~/.·;... . .'15- () 0,' .(i ~·""'r J ;.).,'. .. . , ~ . .' -2 ~ " , " . ., . . ,':". . .. '". '·ô., S.. . ....,.. ", ..' . .' .qn:'rriary . . '" . ". .. . . .. . · . .." .' . " . ", ",' "..'. ',' .,"' ,.....'..' · . '. . Thè Region's Works Department hç¡s' .no öbjectioh to the. fùrther processing 'of. . ···this· zóníng ··amendment. applicatiQn.· The·..·applicant....shall ,S-ubmit' détai.l~d 'e:Agí~e~ring': draw'ì'ngs. ·for. th~ $anitary. sewer . improvements; . ån~ ',·t6ad . jmprovs'merit~ 'in, sl!'pport of :the .$~bseq4erít site plan applicati~~ .... . '. :. . . . " . . .... . '. . .' . ".. ," " ...:~... .' ··,Pete·CastéJlan ' . .. '. D~vélópment:~Bproval$ Divisi?~:.:. '. . ' '. . . .' . ...., . . , ,,' , '. . ' . . . . . ; , . . , . . '. '. . . . . . . . . . . . '. .. .' c.··· . Engjnèering Planning &'~tudie~ . . ". TrtinsPor1:ation 1rifrastrù.ctur~'·· .. , ' . . '1""'0 l~ö Transit 20 Bay Street · Suite 600 . if.2 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2W3 ¥ S - () f:~ Phone: (416) 869-3600 · www.gotransit.com May 23,2006 Phone: (416) 869-3600 ext. 5408 Fax: (416) 869-1563 Email: adams@gotransit.com Ross Pym Principal Planner - Development Review Planning and Development Department City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario LIV 6K7 RECEive«) Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/06 Proposed Mixed Use Development - S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. 1215-1235 Bayly Street, Pickering GO Transit Comments MAY 2 6 2006 ~~A\\ CITY OF PICKER! _ .. ~ à PLANNING & DEVElOPM~~ a ~~ ~~ DEPARTMENT A>~.Ã. ÿ.... ~....? ~a < v~ ~1-~ ~~-e;~ "'Q~ ~ ~~ ~~i~ ~o~ Dear Mr. Pym: This letter is in response to your May 10, 2006 notice regarding the above-noted application. GO Transit operates commuter rail service on the GO Subdivision, located north of the CN Kingston Subdivision and the subject site. Given the close proximity of the rail corridor, this development will be expected to comply with GO Transit's Principal Main Line Requirements. Key factors to be considered are identified below. Specific details relating to each can be clarified once formal development plans are circulated. Ultimately these matters should be addressed in the Conditions of Draft Approval for these lands, to be cleared by GO Transit. 1. Appropriate building setbacks (up to 30 metres) and safety measures (berm structure or equivalent) will be required for residential development with exposure to the rail corridor. Specific requirements and design parameters will be dictated by the nature of the land uses and the site development configuration proposed. 2. The Owner will be required to engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and vibration in order to recommend abatement measures necessary to achieve acceptable conditions for the proposed residential land use. A warning clause will be required for residential uses within 300 metres of the rail corridor. Subject to the review of the noise report, GO Transit may consider other measures recommended by an approved Noise Consultant. In addition, the Owner shall, through restrictive covenants to be registered on title and all agreements of purchase and sale or lease, provide notice to the public that the subject mitigation measures are not to be tampered with or altered and further that the Owner shall have sole responsibility for and shall maintain these measures to the satisfaction of GO Transit. ,"~.'''''''.;C_.-''''.<;'''', .1.'-'- .,.......".;,'..... "..'.",', ,", .,",",," ,,_,,- "'~" ".-'...r__·'....""'."N""-'"'.'·~" ...,""ß....,· .'"",';~'C''; .,";""',....."'_·:AJ=........,,'."·.~,,.-=a·.~..""¥,"'.." <;; ...;.."....=.. '''';:.' '·.'·r""~.~·"_·'.·- .;",\"",""."/"_;",~",--."~",,,,,,,.,., .' "",~.,",.,. """-.-;::r'~""'-,","".'~S:;J"""..:c""':';3I:":¡'" ",-=-"""""",.""~...,,,....,,,,,,,.=.,,.."... ~.."",,....,.....,,=,"""""<-'=_<>-_.<t....-_=,,,,.,.,,..__=·.~.,.,.,~.,,,,·.,o",.-.",,-.,,,,,,,,,,,".,,.",,,.,..,..~,,..~,".,,.,~,,~." GREATER TORONTO TRANSIT AUTHORITY 'I). ";;ì '-. I ,>._!.:..;;.....~L.~2_.. 15~J Page 2 of2 3. A three-party agreement should be established to stipulate how GO's and CN's concerns will be addressed. This agreement should be registered on title prior to the passing of the By-law. We trust that the City will have regard for the above-noted requirements in their decision regarding this application, and we request notice of any further developments related to these lands. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you have and comments or questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, i~5í Transportation Planner cc: GeoffWoods - CN Dan Francey - GO Transit Page 1 of 1 . , , ') 1 Ù\. '13 rr 'I () (? Pym, Ross From: Geoff.Woods@cn.ca Sent: June 15, 2006 5:00 PM To: Pym, Ross Subject: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, File No. A 06/06,1215-1235 Bayly Street Ross, CN has reviewed the above noted application and has the following comments: 1. 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). CN 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." 2. The Owner is required to engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and vibration and provide abatement measures necessary to achieve the maximum level limits set by the Ministry of Environment and Canadian National. We request notice of Council's decision. Regards, tt#tf1tftlt#-J:I.I:I.##J:I.I:I.#.t! /ltttfffff###################### Geoff Woods, BES, MCIP, RPP Manager, Community Planning and Development CN Business Development & Real Estate 1 Administration Road Concord ON L4K 1 B9 Tel.: 905-760-5007, Fax: 905-760-5010 Email: geoff.woods@cn.ca tt#tf ¡¡ ;ï:: ;';' /;' i! ft####;'! ;';' ii:: ;'/ !i Itftf:ftftHtf/############### 15/08/2006 '1 f! ._, '-Ill- .. '15' L ~; r't .J. (L PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM June 23, 2006 To: Ross Pym Principal Planner- Development Review From: Robert Starr Supervisor, Development Control Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/06 S.R. & R Bay Ridges Ltd. 1215 - 1235 Bayly Street Part of Block Y, Plan M-16 City of Pickering Development Plan Phase 1 and Limited Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments by Jacques Whitford - Scoped Environmental Impact Study by Watershed Management Ecology - Traffic Impact Study by Javar Consultants Inc. Noise & Vibration Impact Study by Sernas Associates Say Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Planning Report - Shadow Study We have reviewed the above noted reports and Plans in support of the application and provide the following comments: General Comments 1. The City of Pickering's Fill & Topsoil By-law prohibits soil disturbance, removal or importation to the site unless a permit has been issued. No on-site works prior to Site Plan Approval is permitted without a permit. A copy of the By-law and Permit Application is attached and should be forwarded to the applicant. 2. All off-site works may require the applicant/owner to enter into a Development Agreement with the City. 3. We will require a Stormwater Management Report to be submitted. The report must address quality and quantity controls. As well, the report should minimize any discharge of stormwater to the valley & stream corridor. " "f3.pss Pym 1 bA06/06 - S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. 1215-1235 Bayly Street ,( '/'/ T ,. ,,_..._"_ 0 if 5.....,{.~.f::, June 23, 2006 Page 2 4. We will require a grading and drainage plan which indicates that redevelopment of the site can be completed without adversely affecting the neighbouring properties and without affecting the adjacent stream corridor to the east of the site. 5. We will require a Construction Management! Erosion & Sediment Control Plan to be submitted which clearly shows how the applicant will ensure that no silt will leave the site and contaminate the adjacent valley & stream corridor. As well, the plan must address mud and dust control. 6. We will require a Tree Preservation Plan. The plan must ensure protection of the valley wall. 7. Relocation of any utilities in the road allowance will be the responsibility of the applicant. Site Plan 1. The applicant is to provide documentation from TRCA indicating approval of a 5.0m setback from the staked top of bank on the east side of the proposed development. 2. The Site Plan should address any proposed offsite works such as, but not limited to, sidewalk installation, road widening and lane realignment on Bayly and St. Martins Drive. Noise & Vibration Impact Study 1. The Vibration Study (Appendix 4) references CP Rail guidelines. The Rail tracks adjacent to the site are owned by CN Rail and GO Transit. The report should be revised to reflect the proper guidelines. Phase 1 & Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment 1. No specific comments. Scoped Environmental Impact Statement 1. Ensure that the Construction Management and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan addresses the concerns detailed in the report with respect to silt control measures to prevent sediment loading of the valley and stream corridor. Ross pym A06/06 - S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. 1215-1235 Bayly Street ~, ~.., ~ 4 LfY 'i 5c ( June 23, 2006 , ,"", .: h J .Iv.) Page 3 Planning Report 1. No specific comments. Shadow Study 1. No specific comments. Traffic Impact Study 1. We will require a more detailed conceptual design of the Bayly St./St. Martin's Rd. intersection and left turn lane to identify the works required on St. Martin's and to determine if additional road allowance is required. The design is to ensure pedestrian safety is accommodated. Should there be any questions or concerns regarding the above comments please contact the undersigned or Paal Helgesen at 905.420.4617. ~ Robert Starr Supervisor, Development Control RS:ph 1:\Developmenl\ Zoning By-law Amendment Application AOG/06 - S.R & R. Bay Ridges lid Copy: Coordinator, Development Approvals Technician, Development Approvals