HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 23-02 (Addendum)
. 00./"')
", (.,
REPO R T TO CO UN ClL
-
FROM:
Neil Carroll DATE: May 31,2002
Director, Planning & Development
ADDENDUM TO REPORT NUMBER: PD 23-02
SUBJECT:
Northeast Quadrant Review:
Final Report
Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Revised Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines
City of Pickering
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.
That Council received Addendum to Report Number PD 23-02 for information;
2.
That Council adopt the recommendations contained in Report Number PD 23-02 with the
inclusion of a site-specific official plan policy and Development Guideline exception
from the requirements for a public road connection and second storey functional floor
space for the Wood/Carroll property; and
-
3.
That Council recommend that the Ministry of Transportation approve an intersection
design at the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersection, which
includes the addition of a north leg to provide access for vehicles entering the proposed
development on the old Dunbarton school property, and that this intersection maximizes
all movement options.
ORIGIN:
City of Pickering Planning Committee, at its meeting held on May 13, 2002, referred Planning &
Development Report PD 23-02 - Northeast Quadrant Review back to staff for further
information.
AUTHORITY:
The Planning Act, RS.O. 1990, chapter P.1
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
-
No direct cost to the City is anticipated as a result of the proposed Official Plan policies.
However, there will be costs associated with maintenance of the public road recommended
within the Quadrant by staff. These costs are similar to the public road maintenance costs
already endorsed by Council in the currently approved Northeast Quadrant Development
Guidelines.
Addendum to Report PD 23-02
Date: May 31, 2002
003
Subject: Northeast Quadrant Review
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
",-..
Planning Committee, at its meeting of May 13, 2002, referred Report Number PD 23-02 back to
staff for further information. In response to the issues raised by Planning Committee members
and residents, an Addendum Report has been prepared. The Report includes a chart detailing the
options to address the issues, and staff comments on those options. Two changes are outlined to
the recommendations of Report to Council PD 23-02. Further, staff has clarified other matters
that were raised at the meeting by the landowners pertaining to the internal public road, the
Dunbarton School property, second storey functional floor space, and the Kingston
Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersection.
BACKGROUND:
1.0
Planning Committee
On May 13, 2002, Planning Committee received Planning & Development Report
PD Report PD 23-02 recommended that the Pickering City Council:
-
. receive the background reports entitled Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast
Quadrant Transportation Study, Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports, and the Amberlea
Creek Northeast Quadrant - Assessment of Alternatives;
. endorse the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review";
. direct staff to hold a Statutory Public Information Meeting to discuss potential
amendments to the Pickering Official Plan
. adopt in principle the revis~d "Northeast Quadrant development Guidelines; and
. require the proponents of major development applications within the Northeast
quadrant area to contribute their proportionate share of the Northeast Quadrant
Review costs.
At the meeting, a number of deputations were heard (see Attachment #1).
, Mr. Ron Richards, representing North American Acquisition, advised Committee that the
criteria for mixed corridor is unattainable and requested that the Development Guidelines
be flexible. He requested that the City adopt a resolution encouraging full access at the
Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersection and that reconsideration
be given to a gar bar and car wash facility on the property. Ms. Lorelei Jones,
representing Hayes Line Properties Inc., advised that the Ontario Municipal Board.
decided that no internal public road was required for the Wood/Carroll property and that
the requirement for a second storey functional floor space be deleted. Further, there were
a number of concerns expressed by the public pertaining to increased traffic and safety
resulting from medium density development on the Marion Hill property and the
redesignation of other lands in the Quadrant from low density residential to medium
density residential.
Committee referred Report PD 23-02 back to staff for further information. The purpose of
this addendum report therefore is twofold:
-
.
to provide options pertaining to the Issues raised, and staff comments and
recommendations on those options; and
to clarify issues pertaining to the internal public road, the Dunbarton School property,
second storey functional floor space and the Kingston RoadlHighway 401 westbound
on/off ramp intersection. .
.
.004
,-.
-
--
Addendum to Report PD 23-02
Date: May 31, 2002
Subject: Northeast Quadrant Review
Page 3
3.0
3.1
3.2
2.0
Issues/Optionsl for the Northeast Quadrant
2.1
"Issues/Options" Chart
As directed by Planning Committee, staff has considered the issues raised at the May 13th
Committee Meeting. To assist Committee members, a Chart has been prepared which
lists the issues raised, provides options to address each issue, and outlines the 'pros' and
'cons' of each option (see Appendix 1). Thus, members can review each issue, consider
the options presented, and provide direction to staff if Committee withes to take a
position that differs from the recommendation in PD 23-02.
For issues 1 through 7 on the attached Chart, the option identified as 'Option l' is the
approach supported by staff in Report PD 23-02. For issue 8, being the treatment of the
Amberlea Creek watercourse, three options are included: piping the watercourse,
relocating it to the edge of the affected properties, and protecting the stream in its current
location as an open space corridor. Staff initially supported the piping'ofthe watercourse
provided a net environmental benefit to Amberlea Creek and Frenchman Bay was
achieved downstream. While staff continues to support this option, we are also able to
support both other options that relocate or retain all and part of the watercourse through
the quadrant as an open space feature.
Other Matters
Dunbarton School property
At the meeting, a concern was expressed over staffs support for the reuse of the
Dunbarton school building. There is no current heritage designation on the property and
Heritage Pickering has advised that the school building has little architectural or heritage
merit. There is no requirement in the proposed policy or guidelines to preserve the school
building as presently sited as it may significantly restrict the development options for the
property.
It is not staffs intent to require or encourage the re-use of the building; however, should a
development proponent express an interest in preserving or re-using the building, such an
interest would be accommodated by staff.
Internal Public Road
At the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing on the appeal by Hayes Line Properties
Inc. respecting the Wood/Carroll property, the appellant's traffic expert indicated that
connectivity between the subject property and the abutting properties did not need to be
provided by means of a public road for operational purposes. In its decision, the OMB
did not require a public road, but expected the site plan agreement to include a system of
reciprocal easements to provide connections to the two abutting sites. The OMB decision
noted that one of its three tests applied in consideration of zoning approvals is conformity
to the Official Plan. Since the City's Official Plan had no requirement for a public road
to connect these properties, the OMB did not require it in its decision.
The policy proposed by staff would change the Official Plan to require a public street
connecting Delta Boulevard to Kingston Road at the Dunbarton School site. Any future
zoning change proposals would be subject to that policy requirement. Although the OMB
ruled against the requirement for a public road over the Wood 1 Carroll property, this
ruling was made in the absence of a Council approved policy requiring the road. Staff
continue to believe that there is planning merit to support the internal road and that this
position can be argued at the OMB if necessary. Council should also be aware that the
Ministry of Transportation has verbally indicated to staff that the City's request for
a new access to the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound onloff ramp intersection
may not be approved if the connecting access and road were not public.
Addendum to Report PD 23-02
Date: May 31, 2002 0 0 5
Subject: Northeast Quadrant Review
Page 4
-
It is the Ministry's view that a road under public ownership ensures long-term
maintenance, enforcement of speed and vehicular movement controls such as stop signs
in order to provide uninterrupted northbound movement from the Highway 40lon/off
ramp, and access cannot be stopped or closed by the private landowner.
Accordingly, the proposed policy requiring a public road connection in the interior of the
Quadrant is appropriate and is now more supportable for operationa~ reasons than at the
time of the Hayes Line OMB hearing. Nevertheless, staff is recommending a site-specific
exception from the requirement for a public road connection, to specifically recognize the
Hayes Lines development approved by the OMB. Staff is proposing the following policy
addition:
"Despite the designation of a Collector Road on Schedule II -
Transportation System, connecting the Highway 401 westbound ramp to
Delta Boulevard, and Woodlands Neighbourhood Policy 11.8 (f)(iii), the
implementation of the Collector Road through the Hayes Line Properties
Inc. lands, being Part of Lot 28, Range 3, Broke Front Concession,
City of Pickering, is not mandatory for the zoning approved by the
Ontario Municipal Board decision issued on May 21, 2002, and instead
may be achieved by the provision of easements in favour of the City and
abutting land owners granting access to the abutting easterly and westerly
properties."
A similar exemption would be made to the proposed Development Guidelines.
3.3
Second Storey Functional Floor Space
-
In recognition of the OMB decision pertaining to the issue of "functional" second storey
space for the Hayes Line Properties, staff is also recommending the inclusion of a
site-specific official plan policy and Development Guideline exception from the proposed
requirement for second storey functional floor space for all commercial development in
the Quadrant. Staff is proposing the following policy addition:
"Despite the Woodland Neighbourhood Policy 11.8 (e)(C), the
requirement for second storey functional floor space is not mandatory for
the zoning. approved by the Ontario Municipal Board issued on
May 21, 2002 on the Hayes Line Properties Inc. lands, being Part of
Lot 28, Range 3, Broke Front Concession, City of Pickering."
As well, a similar exemption would be made to the proposed Development Guidelines
3.4
Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersection
~
Mr. Ron Richards, on behalf of North American Acquisitions, has requested that Council
adopt a resolution encouraging full access at the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound
on/off ramp intersection from the Dunbarton School property. Although the Ministry of
Transportation supports northbound through movement from the on/off ramp, there is no
signal capacity and no free signal timing available to accommodate southbound through
movements from the proposed access road to the 40lon ramp (see Attachment #8 to
Report PD 23-02).
The Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study - Phase 2
Report identified that only southbound left and right turn movements from the access
road could be accommodated. The left turn movement is a key part of the access
management plan for the Quadrant as the south bound left turn currently permitted for
properties located on the north side of Kingston Road may be prohibited in the future by a
raised center median on Kingston Road.
- 0 0 B Addendum to Report PD 23-02
Date: May 31, 2002
Subject: Northeast Quadrant Review
Page 5
-
It is therefore important for the City to request that the Ministry of Transportation permit
southbound left turn movements from the access road at the Kingston Road/Highway 401
intersection. It should be noted that discussions are ongoing with MTO, Durham Region
and property ownerldevelopers with respect to the proposed access plan and related
changes to the intersection. The resolution proposed by Mr. Richards is only partially
supported by staff.
CONCLUSION:
As directed by Planning Committee on May 13, 2002, Planning Report PD 23-02 was
referred back to staff for further information. In response, staff has prepared a chart
listing the issues raised, the options to address these issues, and the pros and cons of each
option. Further, staff has clarified other matters that were raised at the meeting by the
landowners, and two minor changes are recommended to the proposed policy and
guidelines as contained in PD 23-02.
APPENDICES:
I
"Issues/Options" Chart
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Minutes of Planning Committee Meeting
-
Prepared By:
Approved 1 Endorsed by:
,RPP
ing & Development
Grant McGregor, MCIP,
Principal Planner - Policy
~~
Catherine L. Rose '
Manager, Policy
-
GM/CLRljf
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering
City Council
-
--
.-..
APPENDIX I TO 0 (} '7
ADDENDUM TO REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02
ISSUES, OPTIONS & COMMENTS RESPECTING THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT
Aßfk§x I to Addendum Report to Council PD23-02
-"NO
ISSTJES .
RAISED.
...;>.',:,
1.
Access to Sheppard
Avenue
,...
~
2.
New Collector
Road
-
Option 1 *
Permit full moves
vehicular access :/Tom
Marion Hill
development to
Sheppard Avenue as
one of three vehicular
access points.
Option 2
No vehicular access
to Sheppard Avenue
(permit emergency
vehicle access by
knock-downlkey
operated facility).
Option 1 *
Require a 10 metre
wide public road
across the north edge
of McConachie and
Hayes Line
(Wood/Carroll)
property to connect
Delta Boulevard to
new public road
proposed for old
Dunbarton school
property.
Pros
. best access to Sheppard, Whites and Highway 401 for future
townhouse residents, visitors and delivery personnel;
. best emergency services access to townhouse development;
. minimal traffic impact on the area disperses traffic impacts;
. Sheppard A venue has sufficient capacity to support nominal
increase in traffic at peak hours;
. less impact on traffic flow on Sheppard Avenue than individual
driveways to detached houses;
. connects the new residential development with the Sheppard
Avenue community - fosters improved neighbourhood cohesion;
Cons
. nominal increased delay for left turns :/Tom Sheppard Avenue to
Whites Road south at peak hours;
. concern expressed by residents that access to their driveways on
Sheppard Avenue will be made more difficult;
. concern expressed by residents that traffic :/Tom Delta Boulevard
will infiltrate to Sheppard A venue despite the proposed gated
entrance to the Marion Hill property ;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
. no change to real or perceived traffic operations, turning
movements on Sheppard Avenue;
. Marion Hill is willing to implement this option if required;
Cons
. circuitous travel patterns forced on future residents, visitors and
delivery personnel to access Whites Road southbound, Kingston
Road westbound or Hwy 401; will result in additional traffic on
Delta Boulevard and at Delta/Kingston Road intersection;
. provides a residential 'address' that is accessed only through a
commercial area;
. may result in more traffic using Sheppard Avenue to gain access
to Kingston Road via Fairport Road, which may result in some
unsafe and illegal turns to avoid such travel/turn restrictions;
. confusing for visitors, delivery people and emergency services to
access the proposed townhouse development;
. proposed development will be less integrated into residential
community to north and east;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not supported by staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
. approval of access to signalized intersection at 401 westbound
on/off ramp may be denied by MTO because private easement
access cannot guarantee same operational control as a 'public'
road;
. provides for internal east-west connections from the rear of the
commercial properties between the school property and Delta
Boulevard at such time as the Region of Durham restricts left turn
access from Kingston Road;
. provides alternate public road access most likely to encourage
mixed use/higher density development in rear portions of
commercial properties fronting Kingston Road and residential
properties fronting Sheppard Avenue; thereby reducing access
*as recommended by staff in Planning & Development Report PD23-02
Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD23-02
..{'
009
ISSUES'
RAISED
" "C()l\1:MEN.r~.
'...' "',
NO
-
Option 2
-
Require public road
across rear of
McConachie and
Dunbarton school
,properties ending at
two cul-de-sacs
outside of
WoodiCarroll
property.
Option 3
Require private
easement access
across all properties.
and traffic impact of such redevelopment on Sheppard Avenue
should such higher intensity redevelopment occur in the future;
Cons
. modestly reduced development areas and modestly increased
costs to private developers for higher standards required of a
public road;
. Hayes Line noted that it would appeal any policy which
introduces a new public road requirement across rear of their
property;
. justification for need for a connection across rear of commercial
properties as a 'public' road denied by OMB in recent appeal
decision for Hayes Line applications - this decision may
influence the OMB's position respecting the need for a 'public'
road across the middle of the quadrant;
----------------------------------------------------------------------_u_---------
Supported by Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
. builds on road block in City's ownership at rear of Delta
Boulevard development;
. allows City to guarantee efficiency, safe standards and
maintenance across public portions of the access;
. site specific policy would be added to recognize OMB decision
on Hayes Line property;
Cons
. does not satisfY MTO requirements for a public road access
across rear of all these properties necessary to justifY access to
Kingston RoadlHighway 401 ramp intersection for old Dunbarton
school property;
. degrades efficiency of access across rear of properties;
. only allows public road access for future intensified development
for the rear portions of only those commercial or residential
properties that abut the public portions of the road access;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Supported by Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
. least regulated access arrangement across rear of commercial
properties;
. somewhat less c'Ostly to private owners;
. least impact on commercial properties fronting Kingston Road;
Cons
. allows least chance ofMTO approval of any access to old
Dunbarton school site property at signalized Kingston
Road/Highway 401 ramp intersection;
. may require return of road block behind Delta Boulevard to
abutting landowner and replaced, if possible, by an access
easement arrangement to provide rear access to McConachie and
Wood/Carroll properties;
. requires high degree of landowner coordination and good will to
achieve easements across all properties; one uncooperative
landowner can prejudice achievement of internal coordinated
access;
. least amount of municipal control of efficient traffic movement,
safety, maintenance and speed regulation;
. does not guarantee a logical/functional alignment of access across
*as recommended by staff in Planning & Development Report PD23-02
..-..
010
Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD23-02
.
NO
ISSUES
RAISED
'OPTIONS' ,
"
-
3.
Buffering 1
Compatibility with
Marion Hill
property .
--
",..
4.
Consideration of
properties east of
Dunbarton school
property
Option 1 *
Along the eastern
boundary of the
property, a 6.5 metre
setback is required.
. Option 2
Require the retention
of the existing stream
corridor within the
City owned lands and
provide a minimum
10 metre setback on
each side.
Option 3
Develop a
requirement to plant
significant vegetation
on the private
property to the east,
in a layout designed
by a landscape
architect.
Option 1 *
No requirement for
consolidation of lots
within Precinct E.
precinct;
. limits long term redevelopment opportunities for residential
properties fronting Sheppard A venue by removing future access
to internal public road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Supported by Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
. this landscape strip would allow the Marion Hill development to
be both visually and physically separated from the existing
development in an attractive manner;
. ability for City to control form of development on it's own lands
should it decide to sell them; City can require transitional design
strategies such as housing form, buffing, fencing ect.;
Cons
. the buffer area would be dimensionally smaller than the existing
open space feature, which includes mature vegetation;
Pros
. a great majority of the existing mature vegetation could be
preserved;
. this feature could continue to provide an aesthetic quality to the
neighbourhood and allow for some limited passive recreational
space;
. it would increase the percentage of "open space" within the
developed lands and therefore reduce the overall perceived
density.
Cons
. limits the financial return to the City for the sale of its lands;
. limits the financial return to the developer of these lands by
decreasing the number of units the land can accommodate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
. would provide a strong buffer for the home most effected by the
new medium density development;
Cons
. does not effect the perceived density nor the proximity of the new
development to the existing neighbourhood;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not supported by Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
. permits the redevelopment of each lot in the Precinct on a site
specific basis subject to criteria;
. consolidation not precluded;
Cons
. integration oflots more difficult after redevelopment has
occUlTed;
*as recommended by staff in Planning & Development Report PD23-02
Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD23-02
011
"NO
ISSUES
RAISED
. .
OPTIONS:
-
5.
Retain low density
designation for
existing residential
lots in Precinct B.
--
-
Option 2
Require consolidation
of properties within
precinct prior to
redevelopment
Option 1 *
Designate the entire
Precinct to medium
density residential
(restricting maximum
density to 55 units
per net hectacre and
pennit development
below 30 units per
net hectacre).
Option 2
Retain the existing
designation of low
density residential
and medium density
residential for the
nine lots in the
Precinct;
. minimal recognition of the area evolving into a more dense
community;
. smaller parcels have more limited redevelopment opportunities;
. may result in some residential uses remaining for longer tern in
closer proximity to commercially redeveloped properties;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
. provides the opportunity for a comprehensive design of the entire
Precinct including higher densities or a range of uses;
. provides the opportunity to access impacts holistiGally;
Cons
. essentially 'fÌ'eezes' individual properties fÌ'om redevelopment
opportunities;
. lot assembly considered long-term;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Supported by Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
. consistent with the Official Plan encouraging higher densities in
selected locations, usually close to Mixed Areas;
. simplifies the designation on the entire Precinct;
. provides opportunities for redevelopment in a manner that is
compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood;
. density increase would not exacerbate the existing traffic
problems with respect the traffic flow on Sheppard Avenue;
access to Sheppard Avenue from medium density development
would be minimized;
. provides an appropriate transition between new commercial
development along Kingston Road and the character of the
existing neighbourhood along Sheppard Avenue;
. proposed policy would cap maximum density at 55 units per net
hectacre, also permit residential development below the minimum
net density of 30 units per net hectacre;
Cons
. potential introduction of additional medium density residential
development into an existing area with low densities;
. potential increase in traffic and noise associated with medium
density development;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
. resident concern that medium density development would be
introduced along the frontage of Sheppard Avenue;
. resident concern about increased traffic and density resulting
from medium density development would no longer be an issue;
Cons
. no recognition of the area evolving into a more dense and mixed
community;
. reduces redevelopment options for residents on south side of
Sheppard Avenue;
*as recommended by staff in Planning & Development Report PD23-02
01.2
Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD23-02
""NO
ISSUES
. RAISED
. OPTIO:N"~
--
7.
--
-
Gas barlcar wash
within the
Quadrant.
2nd story functional
space and
minimum building
frontage
requirements
Option 1 *
Prohibit the
development of any
new gas bars,
automobile service
stations or car washes
within the Quadrant.
Option 2
Permit gas bars/car
washes within the
Quadrant.
Option 1 *
Require commercial
development to
provide second storey
functional floor space
and buildings closer
to the street edge.
Option 2
No second floor and
no requirement for
buildings close to the
street.
. existing medium density designation applicable to rear of
properties is not practical from a development perspective.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Supported by Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
. screening and buffering may not be sufficient on the school
property to protect the residential development along Sheppard
Avenue from adverse impacts;
. public and staff concerned with noise and traffic and lighting
from proposed gas barlcar wash facilities;
Cons
. restricts the range of uses currently permitted under Mixed
Corridor;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
. provides the opportunity for automobile related services;
. would take advantage of the auto-oriented area of Kingston Road
and the Highway 401 on/off ramp;
Cons
. proliferation of additional gas barlcar wash facilities along
Kingston Road;
. built form contradicts the City's 'mainstreet' objective for the
Quadrant;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not supported by Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
. consistent with the 'mainstreet' objective for the Quadrant
regarding higher intensity;
. provides opportunities for a greater variety of uses within
buildings;
. buildings brought close to the street edge would improve
pedestrian access to buildings;
. improve the visual appeal of the Quadrant;
Cons
. owners claim that market demand for second storey functional
floor space limited;
. contrary to conventional market driven single storey development
along KiJ:~gston Road.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
.
provides developers with the simplest form of development to
lease;
Cons
.
less opportunity to accommodate a mix of uses;
*as recommended by staff in Planning & Development Report PD23-02
Appendix I to Addendum Report to Council PD23-02
013
-'NO
ISSUES
RAISED.
'OPTÏONS>
,"
," '
,', ,>,' ','
,.<;;\;~j/::CQMl\-lEms;.
,"., ' i"":::,:",~,,,',;;',',: ." ' ..
",c,,:;,.' :),:;;.' ,
" ,
-
.-
8.
Piping
Amberlea Creek
tributary
Three option's
proposed: enclosing
(piping) the
watercourse,
relocating it to the
edge of the property
or protecting the
stream in its current
location as an open
stream corridor.
Option 1 *
Pipe the tributary -
for the watercourse
located south of
Sheppard Avenue to
the Highway 401
ramp intersection;
Option 2
Relocate watercourse
to eastern edge of
Marion Hilll
McConnàchie and
Pickering Holdings
properties with
reduced buffer on
each side.
.
ensures that the view from Kingston Road is that of large
parking areas with buildings located behind;
discourages a high quality pedestrian environment within the
Quadrant;
contributes to an outdated fonn oflow intensity, single purpose
development;
supports auto-oriented retailing and services.
.
.
.
Pros
. maximizes land area/land value for development, including City
owned lands forming the east part of the Marion Hill application;
. maximizes assessment base for this area of the City of Pickering
(ie: with net long-tenn benefit to all City taxpayers);
. will produce net environmental benefit to Amberlea Creek and
Frenchman's Bay provided the stonnwater pond is constructed
east of Bayfair Church;
. will reduce long-tenn erosion/rehabilitation costs to City and
landowners south ofHwy 401;
. already a somewhat degraded natural setting;
Cons
. reduces 'green/natural' area in this part of the City;
. removes a natural buffer/vegetation between existing low density
residential dwellings and commercial uses on Delta Boulevard;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pros
. retains buffered 'green/natural' area;
. increases developable area/land valueslassessment base for City
and/or private landowners;
. retains green buffer between existing low density dwellings and
commercial uses on Delta Boulevard;
. simpler more efficient approval process to satisfy TRCA
requirements; ,
Cons
. no improvement to downstream erosion;
. costly endeavour with limited increase to developable area/land
valueslassessment base;
. retention of open stream significantly restricts development on
two private properties;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
*as recommended by staff in Planning & Development Report PD23-02
APpeQðlx 1 to Addendum Report to Council PD23-02
NO
, ISSUES
RAISED
'. ,'O¡>TIONS"
'ÇO l\flVI:ENTS"
Option 3
Pros
-
Allow for protection
of watercourse in
City owned property
as an open stream
channel with 1 0
metre buffer each
side.
. provides opportunity for natural buffer between existing residents
on Sheppard Avenue and the proposed Marion Hill development;
. retains present meander belt and pathway of watercourse with
least impact on existing open creek reaches and vegetation;
. provides opportunities to use stream corridor as pedestrian
pathway;
. least short-term cost to City;
. allows City to retain watercourse over its lands in present natural
condition, while enabling other landowners to pursue piping;
. introduces a significant open spacelnatural feature into this are of
the city and provides for passive recreational uses;
Cons
. produces least amount of developable land/land value and
assessment value for City and private landowners;
. provides no opportunity to address stormwaterlerosion issues for
downstream reaches of Amberlea Creek and Frenchman's Bay;
. if a stormwater pond is not constructed to mitigate and improve
impacts of piping, then erosion rehabilitation costs will continue
for downstream properties;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
*as recommended by staff in Planning & Development Report PD23-02
Attachment 1
Plannin'g Committee' Meeting Minutes
~onday,~ay13,2002
7:30 p.m.
Chair: Councillor Johnson
015
-.
2.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 23-02
NORTHEAST QUADRANT REVIEW: FINAL REPORT
PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
REVISED NORTHEAST QUADRANT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
Received and Referred
Back to Staff
a) Sylvia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Ave. E., made the following recommendations
with respect to the,Proposed Official Plan Amendment: Precinct A - remove
proposed road off Sheppard Ave. with an entrance only for emergency
vehicles; opposed to traffic calming measures if speed bumps included;
Precinct B - no justification for these lands to be medium density; bridging of
creek is needed; Precinct C - parking is a concern; Precinct D - a study
should be undertaken on the Dunbarton School Site; the portion of this land
abutting Sheppard Ave. should be low density; Precinct E - access should be
off Sheppard Ave.; Precinct G - concerned about noise, should be a 10 metre
buffer.
-
b) John Ibbitson, 787 Sheppard Ave., requested that Precincts A, B, C & D
remain low density. He advised that he has always been opposed to changing
the south side of Sheppard Ave. to medium density and requests that a low
density of 30 homes be approved. He stated that the area wildlife will
disappear if this is approved.
c) Bill Sorenberger, 750 Sheppard Ave. stated his concern with increased traffic
and ~ccess to this site for emergency vehicles. '.
d) David Steele, 966 Timmins Gardens, stated his pleasure in hearing that no
decision has been made on piping the creek and he requested a report on the
size of the retention pond.
e) Tim Costor, 827 Sheppard Ave., advised that he is a resident of Precinct E and
requested that a condition requiring land assembly of the four parcels in
Precinct E before land development is permitted be included.
-
f) Ron Richards, representing North American Acquisition, stated their strong
objection to the guidelines and advised that the criteria for mixed corridor is
unattainable. His client has developed the old Harwood Mall, this being done
by giving flexible land use. There should be Interim Development Guidelines
that represent the economy and be flexible. The Ministry of Transportation
may not allow access at the off street ramp, a resolution should be added to
encourage a full access intersection. It is not feasible to retain the Dunbarton
School. This site is ideal for a gas bar, he requested staff consider interim
uses, abandon using school and reconsider gas bar and car wash.
g) Lorreli Jones, representing Wood Carroll, stated that their largest concern is
the public road advising that the Ontario Municipal Board decided that no
public road is necessary. Also stated their concern that the Official Plan
provides for a functional second storey and requested that Council delete this.
h) Jim Robb, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, stated his concern with piping
Amberlea Creek adding that this would compromise the quality of water. He
stated that the creek should be looked at as an amenity.
016
Attachment 1
Planning Committee Meeting Minutes
Monday, May 13, 2002
7:30 p.m.
Chair: Councillor Johnson
-
i) Wilma Travail, 734 Sheppard Ave., advised that she is adjacent to the
proposed road and is concerned with the increased traffic and safety. The
road is like a roller coaster causing difficulty in the winter to stop and to see
oncoming traffic. She further stated that if we continue to cover creeks how
are we to know what goes into the lake.
j) Vincent Santimora, representing Marion Hill, advised that in discussions with
the Region the requirement for a median has been removed. He stated their
concern with the requirement for an easement. He suggested that the sidewalk
go through the City lands. He also advised that his client agrees to pay their
share ofthe study costs.
k) John Overzet, 650 Lakeridge Road, stated his concern with the condition
respecting the sharing of costs with Marion Hill. He requested that discussion
immediately occur regarding the future use of the blocks of land on the east
and west side of the north end of Delta Boulevard.
1) Judy Stapleton, 1834 Shadybrook Dr., questioned how the traffic consultants
arrived at the estimate of an increase of 15 cars an hour from this
development.
-
--
-
--
7.
-
Cüq o~
017
REPO R T TO CO UN CIL
FROM:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning and Development
DATE: May 1, 2002
REPORT NUMBER: PD 23-02
SUBJECT:
Northeast Quadrant Review:
Final Report .
Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Revised Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines
City of Pickering
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
That Council receive as background information the Kingston Road - Whites Road
Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study, Phase 1 report, dated September, 2001, and
the Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study,
Phase 2 report, dated May, 2002, prepared by TSH Associates for the City (previously
distributed under separate cover); .
2.
That Council receive as background information the Amberlea Creek Northeast Quadrant
- Assessment of Alternatives, dated September, 2001, prepared by Schollen & Company
Inc. for the City, (previously distributed under separate cover);
3.
That Council endorse the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review", as set
out in Report to Council PD 23-02;
4.
That Council direct staff to hold a Statutory Public Information Meeting in June 2002, to
discuss potential amendments to the Pickering Official Plan that are required to
implement the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review", as set out in
Appendix I to Report Number PD 23-02;
5.
That Council adopt, in principle, the revised "Northeast Quadrant Development
Guidelines" as the City's strategy for detailed land use, urban design, transportation and
stormwater, as set out in Appendix n to Report Number PD 23-02, and that staff be
requested to fmalize the Guidelines in light of the final official plan amendment that is
brought back to Council;
6.
That Council require the proponents of major development applications within the
Northeast Quadrant Area to contribute their proportionate share of the Northeast
Quadrant Review costs prior to zoning by-laws being adopted for their lands; and '
That Council direct the City Clerk to forward a copy of Report Number PD 23-02 to the
Region of Durham, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and the funding
landowners within the Northeast Quadrant.
ORIGIN:
Council Resolutions #24/01, passed on March 5, 2001, which directed staff to commence with
the Northeast Quadrant Review, and established pre-budget approval to undertake the review of
the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines.
0 18. REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02
Northeast Quadrant Final Review
May 1, 2002
Page 2
AUTHORITY:
The Planning Act, RS.O. 1990, chapter P.13
-
FINANCIAL Th1PLICATIONS:
No direct cost to the City is anticipated as a result of the proposed Official Plan policies.
However, there will be costs associated with maintenance of the public road recommended
within the Quadrant by staff. These costs are similar to the public road maintenance costs
already endorsed by Council in the currently approved Northeast Quadrant Development
Guidelines.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 1990, Council approved the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. The Guidelines
contemplated a high intensity of mixed-use development with substantial underground parking.
An internal residential neighbourhood focused around a ring road, and an interior linear park was
illustrated. Additional commercial and office, with office-support commercial was proposed for
the Kingston Road and Whites Road frontages.
Due to recent market interest throughout the Quadrant and landowners requesting changes to
specific elements of the current Guidelines, Council subsequently authorized a review of the
Development Guidelines. As part of the Quadrant Review, the City retained the consulting
services of Schollen & Company, TSH Associates, and Markson Borooah Hodgson Architects to
assess the environmental, transportation and land uselurban design components.
-
Through the environmental analysis, it was determined that a net environmental benefit could be
achieved by piping the tributary of Amberlea Creek through the Quadrant, if a downstream
stormwater management facility was constructed. For the transportation analysis, it was
concluded that a proposed new public road through the Quadrant between Delta Boulevard and
the new signalized access opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp would co-ordinate
internal movement between sites, allow orderly development of the Quadrant, reduce congestion
on Kingston Road, and provide for future intensification through redevelopment over time.
. In addition, through public and landowner consultation, staff has prepared revised Development
Guidelines that are more responsive to development interests while still maintaining the
principles of higher intensity, mixed use and pedestrian connectivity that are articulated in the
current Development Guidelines. Further, a number of potential amendments to the Official Plan
are proposed, which implement the recommendations of the Northeast Quadrant Review. The
next step in the planning process is to hold a statutory public information meeting in June with a
final recommendation report being brought back for Council's consideration in the fall.
BACKGROUND:
1.0
Location and Description
-
The "Northeast Quadrant" lands are generally bounded by Kingston Road to the south,
Whites Road to the west, Sheppard Avenue to the north and the Amberlea Creek tributary
to the east. These lands are currently subject to the Northeast Quadrant Development
Guidelines. The Boyer property, located at the southwest comer of Kingston Road and
Highway 401 on/off ramp and the old Dunbarton School property have also been
included in the review area (see Attachment 1 - Review Map). '
019
REPORT NUMBER PD 23.02
Northeast Quadrant Final Review
May 1, 2002
Page 3
A tributary of Amberlea Creek traverses the Quadrant and flows in a southerly direction
under Kingston Road, through the Boyer lands, under the Highway 401 on/off ramp,
connecting to the main branch of Amberlea Creek and into Frenchman's Bay.
-
1.1
History
The existing Development Guidelines were formulated through a review of the land use
policies in the Highway No.2 - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Study initiated by
Pickering in the late 1980's.
In 1990, Picken:ng Council adopted the Development Guidelines for the Northeast
Quadrant. The Guidelines contemplated a high intensity of mixed-use development with
substantial underground parking. An internal residential neighbourhood focused around a
ring road, and an interior linear park was illustrated. Additional commercial and office,
with office-support commercial was proposed for the Kingston Road and Whites Road
ftontages. A copy of the concept .plan from the current Development Guidelines is
attached (see Attachment #2).
Recently, there has been significant market interest throughout the quadrant and
, landowners are requesting that changes to specific elements of the current Guidelines be
made. These changes relate to the arrangement of uses, design matters, provision of the
park, provision of the internal ring road, and access to the external road network.
-
As well, other on-going challenges include the interest in primarily commercial
development adjacent to Kingston Road, the high cost and resultant lack of interest in
underground parking, the difficulty in implementing the internal public ring road, and the
location of the Amberlea Creek tributary bisecting the Quadrant. In an effort to be more
proactive in working with development interests, the City commenced a review of the
Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines.
1.3
Development Applications
Within the Northeast Quadrant Review area, several development applications have been
submitted including: '
. Wood/Carroll (Hayes Line Properties) (A 22/00)
. Lydia Dobbin/City ,of Pickering (Marion Hill Development Corporation)
(OPA 01 002/P & A 04/01)
. Michael Boyer/Pickering Holdings lnc.Neridian Corporation (A 40101)
. North American Acquisitions (old Dunbarton School Property) (OPA 01-003/P &
A 10101)
A brief summary of each application is provided in Attachment #3 to this report.
1.4
Quadrant Review
-
On May 3, 2001, Council approved a budget allocation for the Northeast Quadrant
Development Guidelines Review with a total developer contribution of not less than
50% of the total Review costs. To assist in the Review, the Planning & Development
Department retained the following consultants:
. Schollen & Company, an environmental consultant to determine the feasibility for
piping the Amberlea Creek tributary;
. TSH Associates,. transportation consultants, to undertake a traffic and access review
for the entire Northeast Quadrant; and
. Markson Borooah Hodgson Architects, a urban designer/facilitator to assist staff in
the review of land use and urban design matters.
() 2 ~)REPOR T NUMBER PD 23-02
Northeast Quadrant Final Review
May 1, 2002
Page 4
The Amberlea Creek Northeast Quadrant - Assessment of Alternatives report prepared by
Schollen & Company Inc. determined the implications and benefits of piping Amberlea
Creek tributary traversing the Northeast Quadrant and concluded'that a net environmental
benefit could be achieved by piping the tributary of Amberlea Creek through the
Quadrant" provided a downstream stormwater management pond was constructed.
-
TSH Associates prepared two reports for the transportation component. The Phase 1 -
Final Report examined existing traffic conditions, access opportunities and constraints
within the Quadrant and concluded that the major signalized intersections in the
Northeast Quadrant Review area are operating at or above capacity. In Phase 2, it was
concluded that a proposed new public road opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/off
ramp would provide additional signalized access to the Northeast Quadrant and facilitate
the possible implementation of access control measures along Kingston Road.
A summary of these Reports are provided in Attachment #4 to this Report. As well,
copies of the reports are available for public review in the Planning & Development
Department.
2.0
Public Consultation
2.1
Public Meetings
-
Over the course of the Review, meetings have been held with the landowners to introduce
and discuss the study process, a revised set oflirban design and land use principles for the
Quadrant and the results of the transportation and environmental studies. This
information was then presented at a public meeting held on October 30,2001. Notes of
that meeting are provided in Attachment #5 to this report. On November 24, 2001 a
design workshop was subsequently held, with both area residents and landowners, to
discuss urban design and transportation issues with the City staff and the City's
consultants. Notes ofthe workshop are also provided in Attachment #6 to this report.
On April 9, 2002 a further public meeting was held to present and discuss the results of
the review, including land use concepts, transportation, and urban design matters for the
Northeast Quadrant. A meeting of landowners was also held on April 17, 2002 to discuss
their views.
2.2
Agency Comments
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
-
The TRCA indicated support in principle for a proposed downstream stormwater
management facility located east of the Bayfair Baptist church property that could enable
further changes (piping) to the upstream portion of the Amberlea creek that runs through
the Quadrant location for this facility. It was noted that that the works constitute a
harmful alteration disruption and destruction to a watercourse and as a result, noted that a
suitable compensation arrangement would be required to support the project. Further
verbal comments have been received from TRCA indicating that City would be required
to undertake detailed flood line mapping, a detailed erosion assessment and preliminary
engineering of the proposed facility to confirm the required and available storage volume
of the proposed stormwater facility (see Attachment #7).
Ministry of Transportation (MTO)
The MTO provided comments on the Phase I Final Report of the
TSH Transportation Study' for the Northeast Quadrant. The comments emphasized a
preference that no access onto I<ingston Road directly across from the Highway 401 ramp
terminal be provided. However, provided the need for such an access could be justified,
MTO would require the road to be a public road with no access, conflict points or sharp
REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02
Northeast Quadrant Final Review
021
May 1, 2002
Page 5
-
2.3
-
3.0
3.1
radius curves for the first 110 metres of the north limit of the current
Kingston Road/Highway ramp intersection in order to provide adequate stopping
distances for any vehicles that run the amber light at the intersection. MTO commented
that they would prohibit full moves access points along. the fIrst 180 metres of this road
(see Attachment #8).
In a subsequent letter, MTO re-emphasized that no access onto Kingston Road across
from the Highway 401 ramp terminal be provided; however, MTO is prepared to
co-operate and work with City and Regional staffs toward a design, which would be
acceptable to all parties concerned (see Attachment #9).
Comments received from Area Residents and Property Owners
.
Vivian Vandenhazel, 1757 Fairport Road, indicated objection to the piping the
Amberlea Creek tributary as it would only increase the proposed density for the
subject lands and that open spacelpark should be planned along the watercourse.
She also suggested the following: the proposed density of development is too
high; the existing mature trees must be preserved, the single family character on
the south side of Sheppard Ave should be maintained; and there is not enough'
park lopen spacel bike path development (see Attachment #10).
.
Robert McConachie, 770 Kingston Road, indicated that the City should be
responsible for paying the entire consulting costs or require all landowners in
Quadrant to pay equal amounts toward the cost of the studies
(see Attachment #11).
.
Kim Baker, Valarie Lawson, and Shane Legere, 765 Sheppard Ave,
. 757 Sheppard Ave, and 751 Sheppard Ave., indicated they shòuld have the
opportunity to sell off.a portion of their backyards for development. They also
commented that it would beneficial to the City and its residents that development
of this area be appealing to the eye, easily accessed and with amenities and
services that are best suited for the area (see Attachment #12)..
.
Stefan & Raffi Nalbandian, 1475 & 1485 Whites Road, indicated that "Access
Concept B" proposed in the Transportation Study restricts access to our property
by "right in-right out" access only (by means of raised center median). Proposed
restricted access devaluates our property and as much changes the original
grounds upon which we acquired our property. Therefore we support the
alternative "Access Concept A" which enables safe pedestrian crossing of Whites
Road and unrestricted access onto our property (See Attachment #13).
DISCUSSION
Vision for the Quadrant
A revised vision for the Northeast Quadrant is being recommended by staff, which
reinforces the importance of the area as a gateway to the City, supports a mix of land uses
at higher intensities, and reinforces arid enhances the pedestrian network. At the same
time, the Guidelines are cognizant of current development realities while providing the
foundation for redevelopment and intensification opportunities in the Quadrant. As well,
instead of the current requirement in the Development Guidelines for a ring road, an
internal road network is proposed that would provide access to existing and proposed
signalized intersections - Delta Boulevard 1 Kingston Road and Kingston Road!
Highway 401 westbound onlofframp.
-
022 REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02
Northeast Quadrant Final Review
May 1, 2002
Page 6
Further, to ensure that main street characteristics of higher intensity and mixed use are
achieved in the Quadrant over time, the revise Guidelines include provisions that address:
.
.
- .
.
.
.
building frontage, heights, and massing/appearance;
building relationships to the main public streets;
streetscape elements;
access and circulation;
parking and service areas; and
pedestrian amenities.
The Guidelines also, in recognition of the existing character of Sheppard Avenue, require
development proposals to be in a form and scale that is compatible with the existing low
density residential land uses.
3.2
Recommended Land Use
Through community and landowner consultation, staff concluded that the high intensity,
mixed residential 1 commercial 1 office development concept originally contemplated for
the Quadrant will not be achieved in the near to mid term. However, an appropriate and
compatible land use concept has been identified that is more responsive to development
interests while still respecting the community context.
-
Staff recommends residential medium density development on the south side of
Sheppard Avenue, as a buffer between the existing low density residential development
on the north side of Sheppard Avenue, and new moderate intensity commercial uses on
Kingston Road. Over time, it is anticipated that some of the commercial properties will
redevelop and further intensifY.
A land use map that appears, on Page 7 of this Report specific land use delineates
precincts areas within the Quadrant. The delineation is based on existing property
boundaries, Delta Boulevard and the proposed east-west public road. Land use
designations are discussed for each precinct.
Precinct A
The retention of residential uses within the North East Quadrant was an important
conclusion of both the 1980's review and the current review. What has changed is its
location from both the north and central part of the lands, and a collapsing of the three
tiers oflow, medium, and high residential density to a single medium density.
.-.
It is proposed 'therefore that the lands within this Precinct currently designated Mixed
Corridor along the Whites road frontage; Low Density Residential along Sheppard
A venue frontage; and Medium Density Residential in the interior be designated to
Medium Density Residential with a maximum density restriction of 55 units per net
hectare. This would simplifY the number of designations, reduce the allowable densities
in some portions of the Precinct, and increase it modestly in other portions. These
increases in residential density can result in a housing form that respects the existing
character of Sheppard Avenue. Further, it would provide an appropriate transition
between the single detached dwellings on the north side of Sheppard Avenue and
proposed commercial uses along Kingston Road.
A proposed policy would require the design of properties being redeveloped for
residential and commercial purposes on the south side of Sheppard Avenue to be
compatible with existing residential development. Further, a single vehicular access to
Sheppard Avenue is proposed from Precinct A, which will allow future residents to travel
in all directions from this site, resulting in a nominal increase in traffic in the area. The
Precinct is adjacent to an arterial roadway with sufficient capacity to support the traffic
anticipated from a medium residential density development. A policy promoting the
REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02
Northeast Quadrant Final Review
023
May 1, 2002
Page 7
reduction of traffic speeds and improvement of pedestrian safety along Sheppard Avenue
by implementing pavement markings and other measures is proposed. The City will
consider additional "traffic-calming" techniques following the adoption of a safer street
traffic management policy.
-
-
0-
m I
I
IL/
SPRUCE -- - -
AVENUE
~-
Planning & Development Department
NORTHEAST QUADRANT LAND USE PRECINCTS
- ~gu<¡g'ÄFri'S NEIGHBOURHOOD rn LAND USE PRECINCTS _.~ ~g~~~~TQUADRANT
l'
-
SCALE 1 :6000
DATE OCT. 29, 2001
Precinct B
Nine residential lots fronting Sheppard Avenue, east of the City's property, characterize
this Precinct. The lands are currently designated Low Density Residential along the
Sheppard A venue frontage and Medium Density Residential in the interior. The existing
residential character is low density residential. It is envisioned that over time some of the
residential lots will be assembled and/or developed at the higher end of the density
provisions. This is consistent with the views of some of the property owners in the
Precinct who indicated an interest in subdividing their lots for development purposes. It
024"
REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02
Northeast Quadrant Final Review
May I, 2002
Page 8
-
is therefore appropriate to extend the Medium Density Residential over this area with the
density restricted at 55 units per net hectare over the entire Precinct. As well, the new
official plan policies and Guidelines recommended for Precinct A are applicable to this
Precinct. In this way, any new development along Sheppard Avenue will be required to
be compatible with the character of the existing neighbourhood. A further policy has
been added to permit residential development below the minimum overall net density of
30 units per net hectare for lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue. This will enable
some of the lots to be redeveloped on a site-specific basis without having to be
consolidated.
Precinct C
The lands within Precinct C include existing retail uses on Delta Boulevard, on the north
side Kingston Road are currently designated Mixed Corridor along the frontage and
Medium Density Residential in the interior.
The current Guidelines envisioned medium density residential uses in the internal portion
of the Quadrant centered on an internal ring road with an interior linear park, and
commercial/retail uses on the Kingston Road frontage. The Guidelines also contemplated
separate underground parking for residential buildings. Through the Review and working
in part with proponents of development applications, it was determined that surface as
opposed to underground parking was appropriate as there were insufficient parcel sizes to
accommodate separate commercial and residential developments. The Mixed Corridor
designation is proposed for Precinct C.
-
As well, to achieve the City's 'mainstreet' objective, the revised Guidelines require
second storey floorspace and a minimum building height of two-storeys. The inclusion of
the second storey functional floorspace would be expected to attract uses such as offices,
adding variety to the mix of uses and times of activity in the Quadrant. These are
important objectives of the City for 'mainstreet' - Kingston Road, and for the Northeast
Quadrant.
Precincts D and E
Precinct D is currently designated Urban Study Area. This designation permits
conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education, passive recreation, similar
uses and existing lawful uses. Council may replace the Urban Study Area designation for
the "old" Dunbarton school property with appropriate land use designations and policies
by amendment to the Official Plan, following completion of a land use, transportation and
design study that responds appropriately to the dual frontage of the property along
Kingston Road and Sheppard A venue, identifies an appropriate means of conserving and
re-using the Dunbarton school building, and adequately addresses the location opposite
the Highway 401 on 1 off ramps. Precinct E consisting of four parcels to the east of the
school property are currently designated Urban Residential Areas - Medium Density.
,-
Through the Review process, it has been determined that a redesignation of the
Dunbarton School property and the four adjacent properties to Mixed Corridor would be
appropriate and would provide opportunities for redevelopment on all four properties.
The 'old Dunbarton school' building is not designated as a historical building by either
local or provincial authorities; however, staff supports the' re-use of the school building
for other purposes. The revised Guidelines require any commercial buildings located in
the northern portion of the school property to present a building face to Sheppard Avenue
that reflects, a residential character.
As indicated earlier, an application has been received from
North American Acquisitions Corporation to develop the school property for retail,
personal service, office and restaurant uses in addition to gas bar and car wash facilities.
Staff does not support additional gas bar and car wash facilities within this already
REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02
Northeast Quadrant Final Review
025
May 1, 2002
Page 9
-
congested area, and is proposing a new policy prohibiting the development of any new
gas . bars, automobile service stations, or car washes for lands designated Mixed Used
Area - Mixed Corridors or Medium Density Residential within in the Northeast Quadrant.
The revised Guidelines for commercial proposals along Kingston Road would also apply
to Precincts D and E.
Precincts F and G
Both properties are currently designated Mixed Corridor. No changes to the Official Plan
are required; however, any commercial or residential developments on either property
would be subject to the revised Guidelines. Any development on lands within Precinct F
would be required to maintain a 10-metre buffer strip from Amberlea Creek unless piped.
3.3
Internal Public Road
-
The current Guidelines contemplated an internal ring road, with an interior linear park as
a focus for a residential neighbourhood, and to accommodate access movement within the.
Northeast Quadrant. Through the Review process, it has been determined that an internal
east-west public road (10 metre wide right-of-way), through the Quadrant wouldprovide
an appropriate traffic circulation system between Delta Boulevard and the new signalized
access opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp (see Access Concept E in
Appendix 11). This internal public road would co-ordinate internal movement between
sites, allow orderly development of the Quadrant, reduce congestion on Kingston Road,
and provide for future intensification through redevelopment over time. Staff is
proposing that the new public road be designated as a collector road on Schedule II -
Transportation in the Official Plan.
The public road would also provide access to signalized intersections at Delta Boulevard
and the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp intersections at Kingston Road. The
Ministry of Transportation has indicated that a public road is required in order to permit
access from the Dunbarton school site to the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp
intersection and that access to the public road should be limited in proximity to the
signalized intersection to ensure that free flow of vehicles can be maintained. It is
recognized that the access plan, and the related major changes to the intersection will
require approval by both the Region of Durham and the Ministry of Transportation.
A requirement for a public road would be implemented through imposition of a
Holding Provision in the Zoning By- laws for lands in the Quadrant except for the Wood,
Carroll properties (the OMB decision for these lands accepted Wood Carroll's approach
to provide a right-of-way only). The provision would require property owners to enter
into development agreements requiring construction and conveyance of a public road to
the City's satisfaction before removal of the holding provision.
3.4
Amberlea Creek Tributary
-
The previous Development Guidelines did not contemplate an open channel for this
stream. The Schollen report on the feasibility of piping the creek has concluded that a net
environmental benefit will result from construction of a downstream stormwater pond on
lands north of Highway 401, and could ~llow consideration of piping the tributary. Until
a decision is reached on the matter of the stormwater management facility, the creek
channel will remain open. This will require applications to respond to TRCA's normal
requirement for a 10-metre buffer between development and the stream corridor.
3.5
Stormwater Treatment
The Schollen Report on the Amberlea Creek tributary, the potential for a downstream
Amberlea stormwater quantitylquality control facility is being investigated. In the event
development within the Quadrant precedes construction of the Amberlea pond,
026 REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02
Northeast Quadrant Final Review
May 1, 2002
Page 10
--
landowners within the Northeast Quadrant will be required to contribute to the proposed
downstream stormwater control works and provide on-site treatment. On-site stormwater
treatment is to be implemented through future site plan approval. A policy is proposed
requiring any developer to construct on-site controls if development precedes a
downstream solution. On-site controls will address both quantity and quality stormwater
concerns.
3.6
Potential Amendments to the Pickering Official Plan
As mentioned previously, ame~dments to the Official Plan will require further public
consultation process separate from this Review. Accordingly, staff recommend that
Council direct staff to hold a Statutory Public Information Meeting in June 2002, to
discuss the details of the potential amendments to the Pickering Official Plan required to
implement the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review", as set out in
Appendix I to this Report
3.7
Proposed Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines
The proposed new Northeast Quadrant Guidelines were prepared to assist the public and
developers with interest in these lands, and to assist the Planning & Development
Department in reviewing proposals in this area. The preparation of the guidelines
required a review of current policy, a rethinking of the existing Northeast Quadrant
guidelines, and a number of meetings with the various stakeholder groups in this area. A
distillation of issues relating to the City's urban design objectives and the concerns of the
development community and the neighbouring residents was also required.
-
The Guidelines are laid out to first provide the City's overall urban design objectives and
then to elaborate a set of guidelines, which implement these objectives. The objectives of
the City can be summarized as allowing these lands to evolve in an appropriate manner,
while striving to provide a safe, pleasant environment that displays a high quality urban
image and to integrate this new development sensitively into the existing neighbourhood.
The Guidelines themselves are separated into guidelines for Commercial Development
Proposals and guidelines for Residential Development Proposals, and cover matters
ranging from building location, height and appearance to landscaping, site layout
requirements, storm water management and traffic.
The Guidelines are the result of a collaborative effort between all of the stakeholders and
the Planning & Development Department and shall provide a framework to review the
various development proposals in this area. They are provided as Appendix II to this
Report. Staff requests that Council adopt the Guidelines in principle that they be brought
back to Council for final adoption with the formal Official Plan amendment.
3.8
Study Costs
-
Staff recommends Council re-affirm the requirement that applicants pay a proportionate
share of the study costs before zoning is approved for each site. It is recommended that
this be a requirement prior to removal of the Holding symbol from the proposed zoning
for the subject lands.
Council previously required cost sharing of the Review, with benefiting
landowners/developers contributing at least 50% of the anticipated $50,000 study cost.
Some additional work has been necessary to complete the study, due to the requirements
of approval agencies. This work was undertaken with the concurrence of funding
landowners. It is recommended that Council re-affirm the requirement for benefiting
landowners to pay all costs in excess of the City's initial $25,000 commitment. If these
costs are not recovered in 2002, they will be increased in accordance with the
Southam Construction Index. '
REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02
Northeast Quadrant Final Review
0217
May 1, 2002
Page 11
CONCLUSION
--
The Review provides a renewed vision for the future growth and evolution of the
Northeast Quadrant. The draft Woodlands Neighbourhood policies and
Development Guidelines establish a comprehensive framework for guiding private
development and private investment within the Quadrant, while ensuring a sensitive 'fit'
to the existing neighbourhood context. As well, the framework provides direction and
guidance '[or the reorganization of the built and natural environments that could result in
the transformation of this section of Kingston Road into a more vibrant "mainstreet".
It is therefore recommended that Council endorse the recommendations of the "Northeast
Quadrant Review", as set out in Report to CoWlcil PD 23-02 and adopt, in principle, the
revised "Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines". Further, it is recommended that
staff be authorized to hold a Statutory Public Information Meeting in June 2002, to
discuss potential amendments to the Pickering Official Plan that are required to
implement the recommendations of the "Northeast Quadrant Review".
-
-
0.28 REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02
Northeast Quadrant Final Review
May 1,2002
Page 12
APPENDICES
I. Potential Amendments to the Pickering Official Plan
ll. Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines
-
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Northeast Map
2. Current Northeast Quadrant Development Guideline Concept
3. Summary of Development Applications
4. Summary of Reports prepared for the Northeast Quadrant
5. Notes of Public Meeting held on October 30,2001.
6. Notes from Design Workshop held on November 24,2001
7. Comment Letter from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority dated October 24,2001
8. Comment Letter from Ministry of Transportation dated November 9,2001
9. Comment letter from Ministry of Transportation dated February 26,2002
10. Letter from Vivian Vandenhazel dated October 30,2001
11. Letter from Robert McConachie dated November 6, 2001
12. Letter from Kim Baker, Va1arie Lawson, and Shane Legere received February 12,2002
13. Letter from Stefan & Raffi Nalbandian dated October 30, 2001
Prepared By:
Approved 1 Endorsed by:
--
"_\'i l
-\.,\A 'd"'.\..-. rl'" ---,_J\. "'(','~
, "N ,\! \':'-.. \ \! '
Grant McGregor, MCIP, ; P
Principal Planner - Policy'
~l' ,
cd~~ f~
Catherine L. Rose
Manager, Policy
GM/CLR/pr
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Operations and Emergency Services
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering
City Council",
';// , I ' ¡;
-
APPENDIX I TO
REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02
--
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE
PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN
FOR THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT AREA
--
-
029
-OJjO
POTENtIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE
PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN
FOR THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT AREA
-
Certain formal amendments to the Pickering Official Plan are required to provide
a strong policy foundation for the City's objectives for the Northeast Quadrant
Area. The following potential amendments have been drafted based on the
conclusions reached through the Review of the 1990 Northeast Quadrant
Development Guidelines. All potential amendments to the Official Plan will
require a further' public consultation process, including a Statutory Public
Information Meeting. Staff will initiate this process once directed to do so by
City Council.
Potential amendments to the Pickering Official Plan include:
-
1. Amending Schedule I - Land Use Structure by redesignating lands as
follows:
. the south-east quadrant of Whites Road and Sheppard A venue
from Mixed Use Areas - Mixed Corridors and Urban Residential
Area - Low Density to Urban Residential Area - Medium Density;
. the 'old' Dnnbarton School property from Other Designations -
Urban Study Areas to Mixed Use Areas -Mixed Corridors;
. the properties lying east of the 'old' Dunbarton School property,
west of the main Amberlea Creek tributary, and south of
Sheppard Avenue, from Urban Residential Area - Medium
Density to Mixed Use Areas - Mixed Corridors; and
. the interior lands located north and east of Whites Road and
Kingston Road from Urban Residential Area - Medium Density to
Mixed Use Areas - Mixed Corridors,
as illustrated on Schedule' A' attached to this draft Amendment;
2. Amending Schedule II - Transportation System, to add a
Future Collector Road, opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/off
ramp to connect with Delta Boulevard, as illustrated on Schedule 'B'
attached to this draft Amendment;
3. Revise policy 11.8 - Woodlands NeighbourllOod Policies, by retaining
the existing sections (a), (b) and (c), renumbering existing section (e) as
(d), and adding new subsections (e) through (g) as follows:
WOODLANDS NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICIES
"11.8
City Council shall,
(a)
in the established residential areas along
Highbush Trail, Old Forest Road,
Rosebank Road and Sheppard Avenue, encourage
and where possible require new development to be
compatible with the character of existing
development;
encourage the introduction of uses and facilities
into the neighbourhood that complement and
support secondary school students and activities;
despite Table 6* of Chapter Three, establish a
maximum residential density of 55 units per net
hectare for lands located on the north side of
Kingston Road that are designated Mixed Use.
Areas and abut lands developed as low density
development;
(b)
-
(c)
* Table 6 is attached to this Amendment for information purposes only; it does not
constitute part of the Amendment.
Page 2
Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02
031
Potential Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area
--
-
-
(d)
accommodate future improvements to Sheppard
Avenue and Rosebank Road within the existing
20 metre road allowance, except at intersections
where additional road allowance width may be
need to provide vehicular turning lanes;
(e)
to provide clearer direction for land use within
, the lands covered by the Northeast Quadrant
Development Guidelines,
(i) further its objective of transforming Kingston
Road into a "mainstreet" for Pickering by
requiring the placement of buildings to
provide a strong and identifiable urban edge,
the construction of some multi-storey
buildings, and the provision of safe and
convenient pedestrian access; accordingly,
for the lands designated Mixed Use Areas -
Mixed Corridor, City Council shall require,
(A) buildings to be located close to the
street edge, with the minimum
specified percentage of their front walls
required to be located within build-to-
zones to be established in the
implementing zoning by-laws for each
site;
(B) all buildings to be a minimum of two
storeys in height;
(C) commercial development to provide
second storey functional floor space,
with the minimum percentage of their
gross floor area to be provided in second
(or higher) storeys to be established in
the implementing zoning by-laws for
each project;
(ii) despite Table 10* of Chapter Three, establish
a maximum residential density of 55 units per
net hectare for lands located within the area
governed by the Northeast Quadrant
Development Guidelines that are designated
Urban Residential - Medium Density, in light
of theÎr location abutting lands developed as
low density development;
(iii) despite 11.8(d)(ii) above, and Table 10* of
Chapter Three, permit residential development
below the minimum resid~ntial density of
30 units per net hectare for lands on the south
side of Sheppard Avenue;
(iv) require new development to establish
buildings on Whites Road and Sheppard
Avenue close to the street edge, with the front
doors facing the street, with a specified
percentage of their front walls required to be
located within build-to-zones to be
established in the implementing zoning
by-law for this site;
(v) restrict the height of the Sheppard Avenue
elevation of new dwellings fronting Sheppard
Avenue to a maximum of two storeys;
(vi) require a minimum of four functional storeys
for the Whites Road elevations of new
dwellings fronting Whites Road;
*
Table 10 is attached to this Amendment for information purposes only; it does not
constitute part of the amendment.
0 '.~. I~)
'.' (..,
Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02
Page 3
Potential Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area
--
--
-
*
(vii) recognize the existing low density
development on Sheppard Avenue, and to this
end, require the design of new residential or
commercial development to be compatible
with existing development with respect to
such matters as building heights, yard
setbacks, building orientation and massing,
access to sunlight, and privacy;
(vi) despite sections 3.6(b)*, 3.9(b)* and 15.38*,
and Tables 5* and 9* of Chapter 3, prohibit
the development of any new gas bars,
automobile service stations, or car washes for
lands designated Mixed Used Area - Mixed
Corridors or Urban Residential - Medium
Density;
(t)
to provide clearer direction for transportation
matters within and around the lands covered by the
Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines,
(i) support shared access points between
properties along Kingston Road, in
consultation with the Region of Durham;
(ii) endeavour to secure with the approval of the
Ministry of Transportation and the Region of
Durham, in consultation with the affected
landowners(s), a signalized intersection 'for a
future collector road opposite the Highway
401 westbound on/off ramp;
(iii) despite Section 4.10(c)(i)* and in accordance
with Section 4.11(a)*, reduce the width of the
future collector road to 10 metres, to the
satisfaction of the City;
(iv) restrict vehicular access from Whites Road to
the property located at the south-east corner
of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, in the
future, to right-in/ right-out turns only
through the installment of a centre median
down Whites Road between Sheppard Avenue
and Dunfair Street;
(v) promote the reduction of traffic speeds and
improvement of pedestrian safety along
Sheppard Avenue by implementing pavement
markings and other measures, and
considering "traffic-calming" techniques
following the adoption of a City policy;
(vi) require pedestrian access, by means of
easements, from Delta Boulevard and from
the future collector road through the old
Dunbarton School site to Sheppard Avenue;
(vii) require vehicular and pedestrian access, by
means of easements, from Delta Boulevard to
Whites Road;;
(viii) require easements to connect the old
Dunbarton School site to the Mixed Corridor
lands to the east;
(ix) require easements across the lands located
south of Kingston Road and west of Highway
401 westbound on/ off ramp in order to
provide access to Delta Boulevard;
Sections 3.6(b), 3,9 (b), 14. 10 (c) (i), 14. 11 (a), and 15.38, and Tables 5 and 9 are
attached to this Amendment for information purposes only; they does not
constitute part of the Amendment.
Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02
Page 4
033
Potential Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area
-
-
(h)
-
(g)
to provide clearer direction for environmental and
stormwater management matters respecting the
Amberlea Creek tributary that flows through lands
covered by the Northeast Quadrant Development
Guidelines,
(i) support the principle of piping the' Amberlea
Creek tributary that flows through the
Northeast Quadrant lands and, at the same
time, recognizing the interests of landowners
within the Northeast Quadrant on whose
lands Amberlea Creek tributary flows to pipe
that tributary, and the interests of the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority to
maintain the Amberlea Creek ttibutary
through the Northeast Quadrant lands as an
open and buffered creek channel;
(ii) require any developer of lands within the
Northeast Quadrant proposing to pipe or
relocated the Amberlea Creek ttibutary to:
(A) submit an environmental/
stormwater management report, to the
satisfaction of the City and the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority,
which report must demonstrate a
sttategy resulting in a significant net
environmental benefit to the watershed
if justifying piping of the creek;
(B) obtain appròpriate approvals and
permits from public review agencies;
and
(C) satisfy any required compensation
under the Fisheries Act; and
(iii) ensure that development proposals are
undertaken in a manner that does not
adversely impact downstteam water quality
and quantity through the use of on-site
controls and/or financial contributions to a
downstteam stormwater facility if necessary;
and
to provide additional direction on implementation
matters for lands covered by the Northeast
Quadrant Development Guidelines,
(i) through the use of the holding provisions of
the Planning Act, require where necessary,
proponents to enter into agreements with the
City, Region and other agencies as
appropriate, respecting various development
related matters including but not limited to:
the construction of a collector road across
their lands to the City's satisfaction and
èonveying the road to the City upon
completion; entering into cost sharing
agreements between each other where mutual
shared access is necessary; providing or
exchanging easements over lands where
necessary; payment of study costs; and
providing contributions to the cost of a
downstream stormwater management facility,
if necessary."
4. Delete in its entirety, section 3.16, Urban Study Area: Old Dunbarton
School policies, which policies identify that City Council shall,
following the results of an appropriate land use, transportation and
design study, establish appropriate land use designations and policies
for the snbject lands, by amendment.
Cross Reference:
City-initiated
!!<view oflbe Nonbeast Quadrant Development Guidelines
May 3, 2002
034
-
-
-
Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02
Page 5
Potential Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area
Selected Policy Extracts from the Pickering Official Plan
Referred to in the Potential Amendment
Provided for Information Purposes Only- Not Part of Potential Amendment
f""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".,.......................,.......,..........~...,.............,.,.............,..................-.........................,....................................."""""""""""""""""1
, TABLES' .
¡....... ........... ............, ....... ....... ....... ..;... """""-1"'" ....,.., ...~.......;.........., ""'7"'" ë~~ """""',' ~ ,~- ..f......~.. :., ~ .c..... ~......~ """ ....;,_......, '-~ ;..,..,.., "'."', ........ ............ ........ "......,.........." ...;'¡
¡ Mixed Use Areas ¡ Permissible Uses' , ¡
"'.'. ,
I Subcategory:r" (JieÍltric!îo~~and'llini~~9nsonilièuses~emûssible;arising from other I
I................ -..,...... ..... ........ ........ ...".. """"""- ,j .......,.... ..............."... P.~ ~ ,~!:~..~!.~ ~ .!.l~!:.~~,Ê. !?..~ ~!~,~!~~, ~..~ ?~!~ 8:. ~ r.:!,~ ~..~.1.......... ...... ...............1
'I '
! LocalNodes ¡ Residential; ¡
I' j ¡
. i :
¡ ¡ Retailing of goods and services generally serving the needs of the ¡
I I surrounding neighbourhoods; I
¡ ! Offices and restaurants; ¡
¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡ Community, cultural and recreational uses. ¡
1............................,...,................:.....................:-1.............................,..............................................................".................................................................:....................................................¡
I Community Nodes ,I All uses permissible in Local Nodes, at a larger scale and intensity, I
il and serving a broader area. ¡
~.........................................,..,........................;+'".................................................................................................................."..........................................................................................1
¡ I ;
I Mixed Corridors i All uses permissible in Local Nodes and Community Nodes, at a !
¡ ¡ scale and intensity equivalent to Community Nodes; I
¡ i ¡
¡ I Special purpose commercial uses. !
r"""""""""""""""""""':""""""""""""""""1""""""""'"........................,.................................-..............,................"'"'"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1
¡ ÐowntownCore I All uses permissible in Local Nodes and Community Nodes, at the ¡
¡ ! greatest scale and intensity in the City, serving City-wide and regional ¡
, :. .
I !levels; I
¡ " ¡ Special purpose commercial uses. ¡
1, ....... ..".... ...",.......... ....... .......,......"... ,... -~.... _1.. -...... .-...." - ........ ....,,--.. ..-.......... .". -... ........." ......"...... -"'-"""" ...., ....... ......,-.-........... ...... ..........".. -""'" ........,.. ...........!
3.6
City Council,
(a) ...;
(b) may zone lands designated Mixed Use Areas for oQ,e or more
purposes as set out in Table 5, and in so doing will apply appropriate
performance standards, restrictions and provisions, including those set
out in Table 6;
Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02
Page 6'
035
Potential Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area
Selected Policy Extracts from the Pickering Official Plan
Referred to in the Potential Amendment
Provided for Information Purposes Only - Not Part of Potential Amendment
-
f"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""',,"""""""""""""""""',,"""""'"""""""""""""""",............,...............,......................""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""1
i.................................................¡...........................................................,.....,.........................~~~.~......:....,...........~....,..........................................:.....................,..........................................1
¡ Mixed UselMaximumand,Mihimum ¡ MaXUn~.G~~ss I Maximum ¡
, , ' :' , ., ,,' ,.' " I
! Areas!.Net Residential flensity I Leasaþle'J\~QQrspace färjFloorspace Index!
! Subcategory I '(indwellings.pe~lÎectare) !' the,Retåilingo~Goocls '! .{total building ¡
¡ I ' '1 :andSemces ¡ floors pace divided ¡
II. " , I (in.squå~~A~~fres}1 by totaUotarea) I
r...........................................~:..¡.,.::..::.::..ëë......................................:.........~..................."....+....................:.:...;.....~....._............;........;;......................+......................-...........................................j
I Local Nodes! over 30 and up to and I up to and including 10,000 I up to and including I
¡ I including 80 ¡ ¡ 2.0 FSI ¡
¡ ¡ ¡ ! ¡
>'....,...........................................1...............................................",...........................................,........................................................."""""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""""'","""""'..m"""""......,
¡! ¡ '! !
I Community over 80 and up to and I up to and including 20,000 I up to and including I
! Nodes I including 140! ! 2.5 FSI !
¡""""""""""""""""""""""""'r""""""""""""""""""'".....................................................¡......................................................................................,t........................................................................!
¡ Mixed ¡ over 30 and up to and ! determined by site-specific! up to and including!
¡Corridors ¡ including 140 ¡ zoning ¡ 2.5 FSI ¡
................................................l.........................................................................................+.....................................................................................}........................................................................j
¡ Downtown ¡ over 80 and up to and ¡ up to and including 300,000 ¡ up to and including ¡
. I ' . .
¡ Core ¡ including 180 ¡ ¡ 3.0 FSI ¡
1.................................................1.............................................................................................1........................................................................................1.........................................................................1
--
""""""""""""'.."""""""""""""""""""".."""""""""""'""""""""""""""""""""""'...""""""""""""""""""""""""""...............
¡'" 'TABI£9.. "j
" 'I
r"""",'.."""""".."""""""";',"""",',':',""":"..r"""""""""""';"""""""""""""",""""""""""""""""""""'---:-:~.............................¡
! pPetp:J.issible Uses, ,(ß.esmcpons ,and ¡
¡ DesignatiotJ. ','limitations on the,usespcrQJÌsstblc:, arising ,from I
¡ , ' ¡ other policies of this Plan,. will be detâiled in ¡
I l,zoningby4aW8.):' 'I
~...............",.....::....".;.........,......'.~....~~....~4'"""""""""""..................................;.............;...;..................",...,..............""""""""""1
I uÏ'bå1!~Resid,ential'! Residential uses, home occupations, limited ¡
¡Areas',>" ' " 'I offices serving the area, and limited I
¡' i retailing of goods and services serving the ¡
¡ ¡ area; ¡
! ¡ ¡
! J Community, cultural and recreational uses; ¡
I! !
I, ".1 Compatible employment uses, and ¡
! ':.: ",1 compatible special purpose commercial L
!. <" """,' ',' "" -',1 uses serving the area. I
L.._.......;.,...~."......;....;;:.~~~.;~;;;;":¡:;,,,:......L....................................-..................................................-...,-..............."..............Î
3.9
City Council,
-
(a) ...;
(b) may zone lands designated Urban Residential Areas for one or more
purposes as set out in Table 9, and in so doing will apply appropriate
performance standards, restrictions and provisions, including those set out
in Table 10;
r: ~:!:::::::::~ :::~: = ::::: :~:::::=:= :::~~~:::: ::::::::::::::::::: :=::~::::::=!~~~:i !Q:::::~:: :::::~~::::~= :~:::::::: :~::~~ :::: ::::: ::: ~::: :::::: ::::::¡
rRe~ide~tiaLAr ,~Maximumand"Minimum I
I.. , ",ea "'N 'R .d'" .'1"'" . ,
i,'S\b"',":"t'" '," ,',.l'"',etesl",e,ntHtl:venslty,, !
I U caegpry ''OJ',, ,." . ' " ,!
! '" '~:" ,i(indwelling$ipet'nethectare) I
~.........,....::~.,¡:....:.............,.'......'c...............;.;...:..,:......;.f~'~""""""""""":""""'"""""";~""""""""""""""""""",,.............................!
ILowÍ)ensityArea,;:c:J up to and including 30 I
!,.;..~";.~..........::::..................,;,;,";............~...:L:::,.:,J......""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".......!
I MeâjiImDensity:A,rea.,::,'! over 30 and up to and including 80 ¡
f-""""":~""~'~"7,',~..~.~~~..........:,:ë:':;""':"""'7"J""""".................................".........................-.....-..............-...................¡
!I-J;!g.qDe,t].SltyArea,'j over 80 and up to and including 140 ¡
L,L......~...."................:~..................,;................::....J...._................................................................................................................1
Appendix I to Report to Council PD 23-02
Page 7
'0:36
Potential Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan - Northeast Quadrant Area
Selected Policy Extracts from the Pickering Official Plan
Referred to in the Potential Amendment
Provided for Information Purposes Only- Not Part of Potential Amendment
-
4.10
City Council shall,
. (a) ...;
(b) ...;,
(c) recognize the following municipal road categories, wherein,
(i) Collector Roads: generally provide access to individual
properties, to local roads, to other collector roads and to Type C
arterial roads; carry greater volumes of traffic than local roads,
including automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles and transit; and
generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 20 to 22
metres; and
4.11
Despite section 4.10, City Council may,
--
(a) vary road right-of-way widths, and related road category intersection
,criteria, for roads under its jurisdiction and which are not
designated on Map 'B' of the Durham Regional Official Plan, either
upward or downward, without amendment to this Plan, where
circumstances warrant such action, including,
(i) at intersections to improve sight-lines, accommodate turning
movements, and provide for transit stops; ,
(ii) for traffic calming purposes, and to provide for the installation,
where warranted, of traffic circles and other similar features;
(iii)where rear yard lanes are provided;
(iv) to avoid providing excessively wide roads or boulevards; and
(v) to improve streetscapes and/or reduce the crossing distance
between buildings and activities on opposite sides of a street;
and
15.38
Within the urban area or within a rural hamlet, City Council may
approve a site specific. zoning by-law with appropriate provisions and
restrictions, to permit a retail gasoline outlet in any land use
designation except Open Space - Natural Areas, provided,
(a) the retail gasoline outlet maintains the goals, objectives and
policies of this Plan;
(b) the retail gasoline outlet obtains access from an arterial road as
identified on Schedule II;
(c) the retail gasoline outlet is not located adjacent to or opposite a
school;
(d) the number of retail gasoline outlets is limited to a maximum of
two outlets within 100 metres of any intersection; and
(e) the retail gasoline outlet will not adversely affect the safe and
convenient movement of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
-
SCHEDULE IAI
,
I"~
I-
I
i '
, .
I.
I.
I
~~
0
--
"{
z
«
Q)
w
(f)
0
rv
Lf
,~
~~
',-
~l
0
(t
..~~
'1~'
,
.\
.!
, , ¡ l-
nWI,mÖNJlI r: r 1()M 'Mlxm U!';:: AI1!-:AS-MIXED
. (:0 I 111 Ii Jons. AND lInnN.J rr=S: )I:NTlAL
. AnrAS.LoW IJFNSIiY N1[Mj" IO'URBAN
, nESIIJ[\I I I,'t ", iI.:r,s MLlJllJ..' D[NSIlY"
--.l
II--
IY
0
(l
IY
«
LL
I,;
I, ¿"")/ \
-. r '1 '::1
<;~J ' j!
;/ /1
/ I,
,'/A-,
/ .
/ - .-
,
, ,\
\- "
¡- -
4 r r-
REDESIGNATE FROM "OTHER
DESIGNATIONS-URBAN STUDY AR, EAS"TO!
"MIXED USE AREAS-MIXED CORRIDORS"
1/'-/ I '
,'-.-
-- --,
.,-_.,-
-
- -.'-.-;-:._-',
bi
r
.
EX I1U( T I'IU ):\1
s('lII-:m 1"- 11"0 TilE
I)I(~I(EI~I N(;
()FFlt~I¡\L I)LAN
LAND USE STRUCfURE
..
-:""'.=:
... ..
EMPLOYMENT AREAS
~ PRESTIGE EMPLOYMENT
FREEWAYS AND MAJOR UTILITIES
~ CONTROLLED ACCESS AREAS
, '.. . ',,', " ."
.'."
_I
,:un 10:\ 1
~ ;~'-,:;-, "', '" -"II"'JAL
eJ ',".'_'-A ""A,
',"X
"
URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OTHER DESIGNATIONS
LDW DENSITY AREAS . URBAN STUDY AREAS
~ MEDIUM DENSITY AREAS
..
. ,.. -'. 1
;
- <.
"., : '.
'!:
,.
\
':;
~':""'-""'" ',--
~"""'--"<'--"
",' :
t . \, ~
~IIU':T I 01' J
. "-. "~. :"':::~":'<\...::~.: "'-"~'
SCHEDULE IB'
-):J::
,-O__J r !
J -L <] ~
C-: --= ~ . ~ - ~---,(
-~. 'I I
~' f--
~l Ô
= 1-- . : IV ~. -& '
r- ([J --L X <{
~ C.. R. -' . LL- ~ ~;;.
-------------~-- .-------------------------.-, -- ------------------------ ----------- \
\ \ ---~.;;
=H - PAiR. AVE. ~--_øøg
ADD NEW -
C COLLECTOR ROAD --
-
~1C_-
II
A
~.,
-~
~
~
^
~ -
,
L
,.,
..i
¡
t
+ì
\
J-
~
~
;'
PICKERING
OFFICIAL PLAN
EDIDON2
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
--.,.--.--- ----""" -- - ----
EXIStING
FUTUßE
-
. FREEWAYS
III .. .. ...
l
""""""'" TYPE A ARTERIAL ROAOS ... "".. ~V
- TYPE B ARTERIAL ROADS - .. II ..
,....
--... TYPE C ARTERIAL ROADS eo""""""
- COLLECTOR ROADS ......""'"
LOCAL ROADS
~ 0 FREEWAY INTERCHANGES {',
....
RAILWAYS
ftHtHH- GO RAIL tH- ftt
............ TRANSIT SPINES
.............
CRY OF PICIŒRING l'
PtANNINO .. D£VEL.Of>MÐn' D£PAImIEHr
- 0 ""'""""'" 2000
..... - -- -""-. ""-PICIœMIO"'-""""""
""""-""""""""""""""""""""""""'-1Ð<r. 111
o~r7
APPENDIX II TO.
REPORT NUMBER PD 23-02
-
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR
THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT
--
-
O~38
~
~
II:
a
Woodlands Neighbourhood
Section F1 .
Nonheast Quadrant
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
¡g
J:
~-
,
n.
~
~
¡¡¡
Id
VI
0
II:
WELRUS S'
Id
0
:J
II:
11.
,IJ);PRuCE
:r
¡:
;u
!J
LJ
~
-------
-
~
II:
a
.-
--
TOYNEVALE
ROAD
....
z
=:::::::;¡
~
Id
0
I1J
a
-
-
Draft Northeast Quadrant
Development Guidelines - Table of Contents
O~i9
Sections
Fl.1
General Description
Fl.2
Development Framework
F1.3
Urban Design Objectives
F1.4 Urban Design Guidelines
F1.5 Transportation
F1.6 Stormwater
Fl.7 Implementation
-
F1.8 Summary
Figure 1
This Draft Guideline was prepared for
discussion purposes, May 3, 2002
-
Page
1
2
2
3
13
14
15
16
17
04.(]
--,--.-..,.,...
--
Draft Northeast Quadrant
Development Guidelines
F1.1
General Description
The revised Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines apply to lands generally located
between Kingston Road and Sheppard Avenue, east of Whites Road, and for lands located
at the southwest corner of Dunfair Street and Whites Road. In addition, through the review
that led to these Guidelines, a parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Kingston
Road and Highway 401 on/off ramp was added (see attached Figure A - tertiary plan).
The previous Development Guidelines were formulated through a larger review of the land
use policies in the Highway No.2 - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Study initiated by
Pickering in the late 1980's. In 1990, Pickering Council approved Development Guidelines
for the Northeast Quadrant. The Guidelines contemplated a high, intensity of mixed-use
development, with substantial underground parking. An internal residential
neighbourhood, focused around a ring road with an interior linear park was illustrated.
Additional commercial and office, with office-support commercial was proposed for the
Kingston Road and Whites Road frontages.
-
Recently, there has been significant market interést throughout the quadrant but landowners
are requesting that changes to specific elements of the current Guidelines be made.
Accordingly, City staff in collaboration with the consulting firms of TSH Associates,
Schollen & Company Inc., and Markson Borooah Hodgson Architects, major landowners
within the Northeast Quadrant Area, commenced a review of the Northeast Quadrant
Development Guidelines. .
As background to these development guidelines the following reports were prepared for the
City of Pickering: the Kin'gston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation
Study, Phase 1 Final Report, dated September, 2001, prepared by TSH Associates; t~e
Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quådrant Transportåtion Study, Phase 2 Final
Report, dated May, 2002, prepared by TSH Associates; and the Amberlea Creek Northeast
Quadrant - Assessment of Alternatives, dated September, 2001, prepared by Schollen &
Company Inc.
F1.2
Development Framework
The Northeast Quadrant is an important focal point in the City of Pickering and acts as a
'gateway' for the planned Seaton Community. This intersection brings together access to
and from the 401, downtown Pickering to the, east and the planned Seaton Community to
the north. The visual character of this intersection should serve to substantiate the role of a
'gateway' and shift the focus from the present highway commercial developments presently
positioned at the street corners.
--
It is recognized that the spatial and land use characteristics of the three main roads
bounding the study lands are quite different, and correspondingly urban design concepts
are proposed and elaborated for each in section F1.5.
....---.
041
Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002)
-
F1.3
Northeast Quådrant Objectives'
Page 2
1. To provide a quality urban image by
encouraging the placement of high quality
buildings located to define the street edge.
2. To provide a quality urban image by
encouraging a harmonized and complemental)'
landscape treatment throughout the
Northeast Quadrant.
3. To provide a quality urban image by
encouraging a coordinated effort to improving the streetscape that includes
pedestrian oriented furnishings and other appropriate improvements.
-
-------
-'
AN Al"TRACT1VE COltliE'R
C1t~TEf A 't0CAl POINT
4. To provide a safe, pleasant,
romfortable and convenient environment
supporti ng all modes of travel
including bicycle, pedestrian and
vehicular traffic.
5. To minimize views to large parking
areas by utilizing appropriate principles
of site planning and street edge
treatment.
6. To ensure that new development is
compatible with existing development
while ailowing appropriate evolution
of this area.
7. To recognize the need for efficient vehicular movement through and within
this area including access to individual properties.
-
B. To recognize and support all efforts to address the storm water management
issues facing this area and to work cooperatively with all agencies towards a
suitable resolution of issues.
, 042
Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines,(May 3, 2002)
Page 3
-
F1.4 Urban Design Guidelines
The following guidelines have been developed to help meet the above stated
objectives.
F1.4.1
Commercial Development Proposals
In reviewing any commercial development proposals fronting Whites Road or
Kingston Road:
. . This. will be implemented by the
establishment of provisions within the
zoning by-law creating a. build to zone;
along Kingston Road 40% of its length
will contain the front walls of buildings
and 30% of the build to zone's length
will contain the front walls of buildings
, along Whites Road. Wherè the configuration
of a property makes this requirement onerous, special considerations can be
made.
Building Appearance:
. Buildings shall be constructed
with heights greater than one
storey with building height
not less than 6.5 metres.
. A minimum amount of
functional second storey floor
space will be required for
each development in the
quadrant, with a ratio established
in each implementing zoning
bylaw.
. Development will employ
innovative architectural designs
utilizing high quality materials
to humanize the street, .
mitigate the effects of traffic, and present an attractive frontage along public
roads. '. , .
1.0
Building Placement:
'R.o...........
'NOT
.. n" S -
, ¡<b.
-
1t
2.0
-
. Buildings should be located close to the
street with' no parking between the
buildings and the street.
, jjjj}n - -.... ,..-/_.?'
1ft IllIt ~
!1 . DLII:uJDID i
~~~~
~ ~-:E!~
~ -
. .........
. +-6 .
0 -b'
COMMERC"'L' ...c ...,t-?
RC¥\J) FRO NTAGE
043
Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3,2002)
Page 4
-.
. No blank walls shall be exposed to public right of ways.
. Buildings that front the street should be constructed with street level
windows and entrances to buildings directly off of the publiC right.
. Covered entries in order to provide points of refuge to pedestrians and define
entry points shall be provided at all public entrances.
. A minimum of 50% glazing will be required on the
facades facing Kingston Road where possible.
. Pedestrian entry doors facing Kingston Road will be
required regardless of whether these are the main ........
entry points.
-
J('(X:Ç. ìo"f 1=-
--- r ~Q,UIPM"IiT l.LJ:;:
ill 1=þ..~ I
:J /~~""""~ L
:J l- '1 [
~I \~
3.0
, Rooftop Equipment
. All mechanical equipment must be
adequately screened and all commercial
buildings should contain their rooftop
mechanical equipment either in small
rooftop elements or under roof profiles.
4.0
Parking:
. Parking areas will be required to
be attractively buffered from public
rights-of-way through the appropriate
layout of plant and landscape
materials.
.
JJJJ
Parking areas shall be set back a
minimum of 3.0 metres from adjacent
residential development. .
- TARK1HG- - - ~. r ---
\t .
I I : ~
I
-- -
-.
. The majority of' parking shall be -
provided at the rear of the site
behind the main buildings, and at
the side.
'STREET
'044
---.-...-...,. .-.-
,---
Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002)
.-
. Landscape islands a minimum - of
3.0 metres in width shall be required at
the ends of each parking row.
. Parking between building façade and
streetline is discouraged.
. Where appropriate, bicycle lock ups
shall be provided for employees and
patrons.
-
5.0
. ..
6.0
Loading & Services:
. All loading and selVice areas should be
located away from street frontages and
effectively screened. '
-
Page 5
I
7\'
i
t1
Road Boulevards:
. The Ki ngston Road and
Whites Road frontage's will
be 'urbanized and
landscaped appropriately as
part of any development
proposal. The City may
assist in implementation costs
for certain improvement
elements.
~~-'-
------ --.--:-::::-.--
---..
¡:~T /. ~
~ ~ 1.
á m~1.
I\illlliJ II
11 . II
045
Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3,2002)
-
7.0
8.0
-
9.0
Page 6
Odour Control:
. For all restaurant uses, restaurant cooking
ventilation systems shall incorporate ecologizer,
water wash, ultraviolet or other equivalent odour
extraction mechanisms sufficient to ensure that
the resulting exhaust is substantially odour free
and will not effect surrounding residents.
~
Drive-Thru Facilities:
. Drive-thru facilities shall be located
such that the pick up window or
stacking spaces are not situated
between the front wall of a building
and Kingston Road or Whites Road.
. Drive-thru facilities should provide
a minimum of 8 automobile
stacking spaces before the order
board and a minimum of 4
automobile staking spaces between
the order board and the pick-up
window.
1'1 5TRt::£T oor
-J, oR ItlTE"""'- LM..t
~'=JI 4ï
~~ ,~~~:w. .~ EIT.
a l¥i i
fR1 ()~YEK ----:to ð 1a ..,.
S ~OI\~V W l) ~ ð
~~~:~B;
C'f./i'S MIN. »
Vehicular Access:
.
-
. Driveways and parking areas located
between street! i ne and the front of the
building are discouraged.
~1J7E'W1tLI<¡
)-=
-
-.--
(,OIU:LI c.T
',"I:e~
.. Pedestrian and vehicular ~onflict points
should be minimized and pedestrians
. should be given priority at crossings by
treating the ground plane with textured
asphalt or pavers.
1'J"I\IE Wþ.'
10.0 Internal Public Lane
. Internal access for vehicular traffic and pedestrians
to other properties in the Northeast Quadrant shall
be provided by a publicly owned and maintained
lane, aligned as indicated in Access Concept E,
attached as Figure 1, of approximately 10 metres
-
I
,.,1.0;" 8.5m ;".5,r.-
d$lP"",^LK !
BOULE~~V
Î
NORTH
f)4'r
-' J
Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines {May 3,2002)
Page 7
in width, generally consisting of a 1.0 metre north boulevard, 8.5 metre
pavement, including curbs gutter and storm sewer and a 0.5 metre south
boulevard. A publicly accessible sidewalk shall be located on private
property on the south side of the lane.
-
11.0 Conditions Abutting Creek
----------: -~~:
~=~ ~ ~~-~~' ~= := ~==--; /
¿
=
v
,~
~
..---
Sï1:.~
(OM. .c.o'R~ll>o'R.. 40,"^- .L..
,. , , .
-
12.0 Pedestrian Environment:
. Clearly árticulated pedestrian access
from the public right of way to the entry
of all buildings will be provided.
. Where possible a minimum landscape
strip of 3.0 metres will be required
along building fr.ontages to allow .for
comfortable pedestrian circulation and'
adequate landscaping and site furnishings
to be integrated into these areas.
. In large parking areas landscaped
pedestrian walkways shall be provided
from the parking area to the main entry.
. No buildings or structures shall
be permitted within 10 metres of
the stream corridor of the
Amberlea Creek tributary. If
possible, this area adjacent to the
creek should be landscaped in a
manner that is sensitive to the
natural processes of the stream,
unless the stream is piped or
currently channelized.
~ ~-' -----
--':~:";'~" -'_n. -..".---..,.-':'."-:---
..--,-", -"- --
\1 }
\
,]d[
\f~\ ~
' t;J '\, "",. ;
\ ~j \:
13.0 Storage:
. Garbage arid recycling enclosures for commercial development will be fully
enclosed in roofed structures and located towards the rear of the properties.
. Garbage and recycling enclosures will be
required to be constructed of materials
matching or complementary to that of the
buildings.
-
. I
I .
I
rll._--_J
~,)iR15-\G,E a\c.LOS~~ Þ.Tt{~~-
04"7
. ..'
Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002)
Page 8
. Garbage and recycling storage can also be handled interior to the building
itself. '
. Any outdoor storage shall be completely screened within a structure.
-
14.0 landscaping:
. All areas not required for building,
storage, servicing, or parking shall
be landscaped.
. Front yard landscape areas should ~
be maxim. ized by minimizing access Þ
points and reducing the amount of 7../
paved area at the front of buildings. "1~-
. A continuous landscape connection
between the building front and the
street boulevard is preferred.
. Berms are not considered appropriate
along the frontage of a commercial
property.
. As the percentage of front yard landscaping decreases
quality of landscaping throughout the site shall increase.
-
15.0 Buffers:
. Adequate and attractive buffering between
commercial and residential development
shall be required¡ landscape elements
including fencing may be utilized
"f"'"
//
.../
the intensity and
c.OMI"\£R.c.\JIo\.. I R£SU'Et\"tIAL
.
/=~
-
16.0 Site Furniture:
. Bicycle lock-up areas and trash receptacles
will be integrated into development sites in convenient locations and shown
on site plans.
.
Attractive exterior seating
areas or courtyards
that include benches,
bicycle' lock ups and
garbage receptacles and
are safely removed
from vehicular routes
will be encouraged.
~tmmtE1
I ~~tJ~'::t]
-
IO==]
".~
---~-:. '\". ~
~~_._. - ,- ~. ;""'"
048
Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002)
Page 9
-
17.0 Signage:
. Site plan applications should identify sign details including location and size.
v
~
",1'#
Ill\!\
!-AU
-rO
r
-
~~)
-=-' ~I\d~
""--
t1 ,~
.~
. .. Fascia signs should be designed
to be integral with the buildings
façadè.
. Signage for second storey businesses
should be located on, a sign
directory near the main entry.
. Ground signs are preferred over
pole or pylon signs.
'-", ...;.
.~
--
18.0 Lighting:
. Lighting design should complement the
design of the development.
. Exterior lighting shall not spill over onto
adjacent properties or streets.
. Lighting shall be downcast to avoid
excessive light pollution.
. Lighting and light standards in public
areas including parking lots should relate
to the pedestrian ahd be limited to a
height of 6.0 metres.
19.0 Tree Preservation
. Established trees that provide significant buffering or aesthetic contributions
to the neighbourhood should be considered for preservation and protected
during construction. Tree preservation details will be required to be
submitted for the City's review.
20.0 'Former' Dunbarton School Site and lands to East
. Any buildings located in the northern portion of the sites shall include a
treatment of the north facing façade that presents a ~uilding face to Sheppard
Avenue that reflects a residential character.
--
049
..-.--..,
Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines,{May 3,2002)
-
-
4.
5.
--
F1.4.2 Residential Development Proposals
In reviewing residential development proposals:
Page 10
For the proposed residential development, at the south-east corner of
Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue¡ buildings shall be located close to the
street, with parking provi'ded at the rear.
1.
New residential development shall be integrated into the area in a manner
that is both respectful of the character of the existing neighborhood and
serves as an interface between this area and the surrounding lands.
2.
~
--~
AN ATTRACTIVE CORNEt{
C1t~TEí A "fOCAL fOINT
The south-east corner of
Sheppard Avenue and Whites
Road shall act as a transition
area between the higher
buildings on Whites Road and
the lower buildings on Sheppard
Avenue. This corner should be
treated as an important focal
point, and include landscape
and hardscape treatment to
create an identifiable amenity
area, preferably including pedestrian
connections into the site.
New residential development along Sheppard Avenue shall include no more
than four units that are attached before providing à break between building
masses.
The height of residential units
along Sheppard Avenue shall be
restricted to two storeys on the
front elevation facing Sheppard
Avenue, and shall include facades
that are mostly brick on all sides
facing the public right of way.
~
.5HEP1"A.1t.17 À~e.
2. \"To'Re'/ -
~_/' ---
~. ..~~. -----
...." --------
--.""'-.----'-"-:";::"",-"'- "'. -
:::=..-.-.......-.-..". ."'.'.. .,......,.......,...._,
1iJP.:EA,K
-t ""..:':.' r~ ~'::~';
~~
nuuu~ ~
,. 'I1\!I\I\\.i\!\¡[!!.!'~.;:~
'11,1 t, I'Í 'i: 'I.' II I: ! II Ò '. I '. '
, 1;1: i :, ;:" I !, ':; ¡: i 'i":
\ ( . . \. . i: I;' ¡ . .
U50,
Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002)
--
-
-
11.
A public pedestrian link which runs
north south from the end of Delta Blvd
connecting to the sidewalk on the
south side of Sheppard Avenue, and
, includes up-graded landscape treatment
and a minimum 2.0 metre wide
sidewalk, shall be included as an
easement for pedestrian access granted
to the City.
12.
Allowance for comfortable and convenient
pedestrian movement from areas north
and west of this location to destinations
to the south shall ~e integrated into t~e site layout.
Page 12
No buildings or structures shall be permitted within 1 0 metres of the stream
corridor of the Amberlea Creek tributary. If possible, this area adjacent to the
creek should be landscaped in a manner that is sensitive to the natural
processes of the stream, unless the stream is
piped.
13.
14.
Any building mounted utility boxes including
telephone and hydro shall be enclosed
within or behind a screening device, which
generally matches the materials used in the
building façade construction.
Any free standing utility boxes including
hydro, telephone, etc. shall be enclosed
within screening devices designed to match or complement the buildings.
15.
STA/rc:S c.^\T
I H 'Pt.A c. 1:.
All stairs, which are required on building
facades, shall be cast in place and not pre-
cast units.
16.
"f'OUtlpÞ,TIOti
The grade of the site along the Whites
Road frontage shall be raised so that any
proposed dwelling's front entry is at or
above the grade of the sidewalk on Whites
Road.
17.
--
-
051
Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3, 2002)
Page 11
/' ::::=- 6 .
~---- .n.--
r WHITE) ~"\7 .
4STOR.E'I
~
~~Arn
~CBrnœlI1
æ EB œæ rom rom IDlE
ææ
~ Sl\£VVAl<17 ME
2. c..Tc-rz.t::ý
New residential development along
Whites Road shall be a minimum four
functional storeys on the side of the
building facing Whites Road, and of
mostly brick facades on all sides facing
the public right of way.
7.
Architectural detailing and stepping the
footprint of the front and rear facades
shall be utilized to avoid the appearance
of long flat walls. ~V
~-
UMþULATIN6 1="OOTl'ttINT
C"R:EÅ-re~ 1t\1E"RE\T
----
:=::::::. -
--
====-. ====
= :::::::::-
8.
A new sidewalk shall be construèted along the south side of Sheppard
Avenue.
9.
A vegetative. buffer and a generous
sideyard width will be required along
the eastern property line separating any
proposed residential development at the
south-east corner of Whites Road and
Sheppard Avenue from th,e existing
neighbourhood.
. . ~
Attractive and appropriate landscaping L-
will be required both on the perimeters
of the development facing the streets and interior to the site.
I'
. I
iBUFFE'R~
I
J-~
10.
C) ~) I)
, '. (....
Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3,2002)
Page 13
-
18.
Garbage and recyclable material shall be
handled internally within each dwelling unit
(including its garage), and not within separate
buildings or centralized areas.
.J~
, .
,,; .~
,
. .
". ~'
19.
Lighting design should complement the design
of the development, shall not spill over into
adjacent properties or streets, and shall be
downcast to avoid excessive light pollution.
~,~
~~~
¡;¡^~t;Ac:,E
IHTe'Rt-tÄL
STOR.þ,,~e
. .
~¡
~O"'T EHTR.'f
Àt)OVE.
S\ÞEWÞ.L.K
G tÇ.a..ve
20.
For residential development along
,Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue,
the front entrance will face the public '
streets.
-
F1.5
Transportation
The three primary roads .surrounding the Quadrant are Kingston Road, Whites Road
and Sheppard Avenue. All are arterial roads that perform an important traffic
function in the City. As lands are developed along these roads, this function must
be maintained. Accordingly, the number and spacing of new access points to
Kingston Road, Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue will be carefully reviewed by
City and/or Regional staff. However, no through road is permitted to connect
Delta Boulevard to Sheppard Avenue or the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp
to Sheppard Avenue. '
It is anticipated that Kingston Road and Whites Road will be widened to six lanes
plus .auxiliary turn lanes in the future, and upgraded to standard urban cross-sections
with curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
-
Access Concept E, attached as Figure 1/ identifies the approximate alignment of a
proposed east-west road that is proposed to connect Delta Boulevard with the
Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp. Access to Kingston Road will .
occur at points indicated by Access Concept E, with signalized intersections along
053
----- ...-
-_._-._--------
Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (May 3,2002)
Page 14
--
Kingston Road occurring at the 401 westbound on/off ramp, Delta Boulevard and
Whites Road. The City of Pickering acknowledges and advises landowners and
developers that the intersection-of Kingston Road and the Highway 401 westbound
on/off ramp is under the sole jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation. Further,
the City acknowledges and advises landowners and - developers that remaining
access locations along Kingston Road and Whites Road are under the sole
jurisdiction of the Regiòn of Durham, and access perry¡issions may change over time
from full access to restricted access as traffic and safety conditions warrant.
A single access onto Sheppard Avenue from the new residential development,
located at the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, is supported.
Despite the access restrictions to Sheppard Avenue. shown on Figure 1,
Access Concept E, for a'ny new residentiaf development proposals located along
Sheppard Avenue east of the residential development proposed at the south-east
corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, the City will consider permitting
selected additional accesses.
-
As a condition of development, landowners will be required to enter into
development agreements to construct, at their cost, the new collector road, to the
City's satisfaction, Additionally, the City will support all opportunities for shared
access from abutting private property to public streets as well as coordinated
internal access, between private properties, and will require the granting of
easements in favour of neighbouring landowners and/or the City if deemed
necessary. Where the new collector road intersects with Kingston Road opposite
the Kingston Road/Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp, the proponent of
development on those lands shall - require approval of the entrance configuration
from the Ministry of Transportatipn in consultation with the Region of Durham, and
the City, prior to consideration by Council of any zoning by-law amendment
application for those lands. In the event the intersection is not approved, alternative
access to Kingston Road would be required.
F 1.6 Stormwater
-
The Amber/ea Creek Northeast Quadrant - Assessment of Alternatives study,
prepared by Scholl en & Company Inc., identifies an option for a storm sewer
extension of the existing system south of Sheppard Avenue to the Highway 401
westbound on/off ramp. The City supports the piping of the existing tributary of
Amberlea Creek, which traverses the Northeast Quadrant, as an integral component
of a storm water management system that includes a storm sewer system and a
stormwater management pond. The stormwater facility is required to control both
quality and quantity stormwater. A substantial net benefit to the downstream
environment must be demonstrated in order to warrant consideration of piping the
tributary.
"05(1
-.-..---
Draft Nartheast Quadrant Develapment Guidelines (May 3, 2002)
Page 15
-
lands lac¡;¡ted east .of the Bayfair Baptist Church are the preferred lacatian far a
starmwater management facility. Detailed siting, engineering and grading plans are
required ta assess the feasibility .of, and design optians far, a starwmwater
management pand (reference may be made ta the Assessment .of Alternatives study
far additianal starmwater management details available ta date).
If the starmwater management facility is approved, the City will be requiring
propanents .of develapment applicatians within the Northeast Quadrant and lands
currently draining inta the reach .of the Amberlea Creek tributary ta pay a
propartianate share far the detailed design wark and casts .of piping the creek, in
additian ta a share .of the tatal cast .of implementatian .of the propased
Amberlea Creek starmwater management pando
In the event that approvals are nat granted for the stormwater pand, .or develapment
proceeds ahead .of canstructian .of the pand, develapers will be required ta install
quality and quantity cantral devices and ta enter inta agreements with the City ta
cast share future starmwater warks. Further, in the event appravals from the
Taronta Regian Canservatian Autharity, Ministry .of Natural Resaurces, and the
Department .of Fisheries are nat granted ta pipe the creek, the landawners shall be
required ta maintain the Creek with appropriate setbacks.
-
F 1.7 Implementation
Cauncil and City staff shall implement the appropriate c.omp.onents .of the Nartheast
Quadrant Development Guidelines in the review .of all land use applicatians in the
Quadrant and thr.ough zaning by-Iáw perfarmance standards. Accordingly, - ta
ensure that prop.onents have cansidered this Guideline in the preparati.on .of any
major land use applicatian and ta assist the City's review, a statement .of haw the
propasal will achieve the intent .of the Nartheast Quadrant Develapment Guidelines
will be required ta be submitted to the City, priart.o the City's cansideratian .of an
applicatian far site plan appraval.
All building permit applicatians will als.o be reviewed in the c.ontext .of these
develapment guidelines including any carrespanding Siting, and Architectural
Design Statements.
Devel.opers .or property .owners will be required ta cantribute ta the casts .of
campleting the Review .of the Nartheast Quadrant Guidelines including the
transpartatian, environmental/stormwater and urban design campanents. Casts will
be adjusted annually based an the Sautham Canstructian Index.
-
055
Draft Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines .(May 3,2002)
Page 16
--
F1.8
Summary
The Northeast Quadrant Guidelines were prepared balancing the at times
competing interests in the lands of the various concerned parties. The Guidelines
were prepared to aid developers in designing their development projects, and to
assist the Planning & Development Department in reviewing proposals in this area.
A distillation of issues relating to the City's objectives and the concerns of the
development community and the neighbouring residents was required.
The Guidelines are laid out to first provide the City's overall objectives and then to
elaborate a set of guidelines, which implement these objectives. The objectives of
the City can be summarized as allowing these lands to evolve in an appropriate
manner, while striving to provide a safe, pleasant environment that displays a high
quality urban image and to integrate this new development sensitively into the
existing neighbourhood.
-
The Guidelines themselves are separated into guidelines for
Commercial Development Proposals, Residential Development Proposals and
further to cover Transportation, Stormwater Management, and Implementation
matters. The Guidelines are the result of a collaborative effort between all of the
stakeholders and the Planning & Development Department, al)d shall provide a
framework to review all development proposals in this area.
-
þ
)
.
~
--~III "-~ .
II~".
AVENUE
~
r-
SHEPPARD
++=
...
OUNFAIR
Not to Scale
J
-e
(
Leaend
B Future Development
g¿ Site Reference Number
ÇJ Existing Traffic Signal
":::':':~{"';o.' Wide Median (:t3m)/
_.-"",,-,.. Pedestrian Refuge
~ t Possible Gated Access
Proposed Raised Median
-- No Access
.J '- Right Turns Only
-" Left Turns / All Moves Access
Un Possible Future Median
(Subject to discretion of Durhem Region,
re traffic operations I safely monitoring)
Access Concept E
May 1, 2002
~
~1nf
t:~l::=:
-.
'-
c.n
0")
I-Ij
1-"
LQ
¡::
¡-.¡
CD
I-'
I'd
PI
LQ
CD
I-'
-....J
AnACHMENT 1.-,- JO'",-
REPORT' PO 2~-{)2.
057
-
~
-
L-E
STREET
--
--
~
--~-
-U- 111
~-
--
ÞrO\
~!~
~t?;
~
~
Planning & Development Department
:...~ NORTHEAST QUADRANT REVIEW AREA
.....
l'
-I DATE MAY 2,2002
,/
12.
I,..'. ç.
<¥cr.
. ~
..
I:
ot:
~o
iC~
~
Z
-
~
~
§
\.:)
~
Z
~
O.
~
~
~
=E--
~~
~~
~8
~
a
~
IZI
<
~
==
~
0
Z
E--
~
U
00
k1;
<:::>
066 t HJsrOldJS
CD
~'
~
~.,./
-- -..-....- -_. --- . --- --..----...-
NOIl'iMnm.:lNO:> NDIS30 NV8Hn 1VN1.:f
NVld 311S V3~ AOn1S
[
s
'DOM:I!I ..,..
1001-
.----.-------
"--
-
"'-r
lJD
'~nnu """.'1""'" """'"'1
'ì] 0 0 r:'] 0 LJ éI 0 ðD ¿¡ ŒJ ŒJ ~ I::J ¿¡ \:':Dò lJ ¿¡ éI ~ ru é1 éfb §
4
[?ßcj
c
t
ATTACHMENT' .~,. TO'.
REPORT' PD 2 -02 . '
059
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Within the Northeast Quadrant Review area, several development applications
have been submitted to the City as follows:
.
Wood/Carroll (Hayes Line Properties) (A 22/00)
-
The original application proposed zoning amendments to implement a preliminary
conceptual site plan that included 18 townhouses on the north part of the site and
1625 square metres of commercial/retail and restaurant uses on the lands fronting
Kingston Road.). Despite Council's authorization to undertake the Quadrant
review, Hayes Line Properties Inc. appealed Council's neglect to make a decision
on the application to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).
The application was revised through the submission to the OMB of a new
proposed amending zoning by-law. The City received circulation of the revised
by-law in December 2001 to implement a revised preliminary site concept. The
revised preliminary site concept eliminated the residential uses and reconfigured
one-storey retail/commercial/restaurant building envelopes. On February 14 and
15,2002, the OMB heard the appeal and delivered its decision on April 11, 2002.
The OMB approved commercial zoning for the entire property providing for:
one-storey buildings with a two-storey façade; the location of front walls of
buildings required to occupy at least 25% of a 'build-to' zone along the Kingston
Road frontage; connectivity of this site to abutting sites by means other than
dedication of a 'public lane'; a cap of 1200 square metres of gross floor area for
restaurants on the site and no requirement to impose a "Holding" zone to
guarantee certain public matters are addressed. The OMB will issue its formal
order once the final implementing Zoning By-law is provided to the Board.
--
.
Lydia Dobbin/City of Pickering (Marion Hill Development Corporation)
(OPA 01-002/P & A 04/01) ,
The proposal consists of constructing 97 stacked townhouses units with'a massing.
concept of 4 storeys fronting onto Whites Road, 2 to 3 storeys frontmg onto
Sheppard Avenue, and 2 to 3 storeys fronting onto a private loop lane in the
interior of the site. The application also applies to a City owned parcel of land,
previously owned by Veridian Corporation, which abuts the Dobbin property.
A statutory public meeting on the application was heard on May 17, 2001.
.
Michael Boyer/Pickering Holdings Inc.Neridian Corporation (A 40101)
The proposal consists of expanding the list of permitted uses by consolidating the
prevailing "sc-8" and "ca3-3" categories into a single and inclusive zone. The
application applies to lands located at the southwest corner of Kingston Road and
the Highway 401 on/off ramp east of Whites Road.
.
North American Acquisitions
(OPA 01-003/P & A 10101)
("old" Dunbarton School Property)
--
The proposal consists of constructing of 2,1000 square metres of retail store,
personal service shops, office and restaurant uses within two buildings located on
the east and north sides of the site. Gas bar and car wash facilities are located
within two other buildings on the west part of the site separated by a proposed
right-of-way to the abutting property to the west.
060'
ATTACHMENT' L1--TO
REPORT # PO ~.
SUMMARY OF REPORTS
A)
Environmental! S tormwater
Amberlea Creek-Northeast Quadrant Assessment of Alternatives prepared by
Schollen & Company Inc. in association with Aquafor Beech Limited and
LGL Limited dated October 2001, Revision # 1
-
A summary of the assessment contained within the report concluded the
following:
. reduced rates of erosion and enhance stability of Amberlea Creek downstream
of West Shore Boulevard will be realized through the construction of the
proposed stormwater management facility. The proposed stormwater
management will address flood and erosion control objectives for the
Amberlea Creek watershed, mitigating erosion and its associated impacts in
the downstream reach. The implementation of the stormwater management
facility will also reduce the extent of erosion protection work required to be
implemented over the long-term;
. water quality improvements will be achieved through the implementation of
the stormwater management facility and will enhance the viability of aquatic
habitat downstream. These water quality benefits will also have a positive
effect on aquatic habitat in Frenchman's Bay; and
. the implementation ofthe stormwater management pond will moderate water
flows, reduce erosion and consequent sediment accumulation in Frenchman's
Bay enhancing the long-term sustainability of the wetland.
-
A copy of the Amberlea Creek - Northeast Quadrant Assessment of Alternatives
report is available for public review in the Planning & Development Department
at the City of Pickering.
B)
Transportation
Phase 1 - Final Report prepared by TSH Associates dated September 2001
Conclusions reached as a result of the work undertaken for Phase 1 include:
-
. the major signalized intersections in the study area are operating at or above
capacity in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the exception of the
Kingston RoadlDelta Boulevard at it operates at a good level of service;
. the concept site plans for the propitious east of Delta Boulevard, including the
Wood Carroll lands and the Dunbarton school site reflect a highway
commercial orientation with a reliance on direct access to Kingston Road and
little opportunity for good internal vehicular or pedestrian connections with
adjacent properties;
. significant constraints exist to providing all moves access points along the
subject sections of the White Road corridor;
. it would be desirable to develop an access management plan that would
include the consolidation of access ;points al for the properties along Kingston
Road east of Delta Boulevard, the possible restriction of certain turning
movements along Kingston Road, and the provision of alternative access via
internal connections to adjacent properties and linkages with the east-west
road to access Delta Boulevard;
. it is desirable to mitigate the potential traffic impact on Sheppard Avenue by
providing access for new developments via adjacent Type A (Whites Road)
and B (Kingston Road) arterial roads and by providing an internal traffic
ATTACHMENTI~O
REPORT # PO - .
061
circulation system to serve the various properties within the Northeast
Quadrant;
. two access concepts A and B have been developed (see Attachments #3 and
4); these access points will be refined through discussions with the City,
Durham Region, MTO, and property owner/developers, and in the Phase 2
studywill be subject to a traffic operations analysis
-
Phase 2 - Draft Final Report prepared by TSH Associates dated May 2002
Conclusions reached as a result of the work undertaken for Phase 2 include:
-
. due to signalized intersection spacing constraints, there are no opportunities
other than the Highway 401 westbound on/of ramp location to develop a new
signalized access on Kingston Road in the subject corridor; .
. in the future, it is likely that access to Study Area properties on the north and
south sides of Kingston road will be restricted to right turns only. The
proposed access road, opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp,
would provide for traffic signal controlled left turn movements to and from
this development area; .
. the long-term development potential of the subject area is not likely to be
achieved without the provision of an internal road connecting the developable
properties between Delta boulevard and the Dunbarton school site, and the
related additional signalized access to Kingston Road opposite the Highway
401 westbound on/off ramp. It is the City's preference that the internal road
connection be provided as a public road way, rather than thorough property
easements;
. without the access road opposite the Highway 401 westbound on/off ramp, the
road connecting the properties along the north side of Kingston Road may not
be developed as envisioned and the implementation of access management in
the Kingston road corridor will be difficult in the future as no alternative
access plans will be possible;
. the analysis indicated that the proposed new road opposite the Highway 401
westbound on/off ramp would be beneficial for the operation of the Kingston
Road/Delta Boulevard intersection;
. the Whites Road corridor will be subject to access controls in the future as
development occurs, including section with raised center medians to control
left turn movements;
. it has been determined that is not feasible from a traffic operation and safety
perspective to signalize the intersection of Whites Road/Dunfair Street due to
its close probity to the existing traffic signal at Whites Road/Kingston road
and WhiteslSheppard Avenue; .
. with the existing residential land use along the Sheppard Avenue corridor, and
its functional classification as a Type 'c' arterial, it is seen as appropriate to
permit access for new residential developments proposed along the south side
of Sheppard Avenue. In considering the proposal for the Marion Hill
development, the combination of access to Sheppard Avenue, Whites Road,
and an internal driveway connection (possibly gated) at the north end of Delta
Boulevard would result in a nominal traffic impact on Sheppard Avenue
operation.
-
Copies of the Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant
Transportation Study, Phase 1 and Phase 2 Reports are available for public
review in the Planning & Development Department at the City of Pickering.
062'
,
---,
. .
ATTACHMENT' Õ TO,
REPORT # PO 2,Q-n2.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
--
Subject:
MEETING NOTES
Public Meeting: Northeast Quadrant Review
(Information Package providèd for pick-up at the meeting)
Meeting Date and Time:
'\
October 30, 2001
Pickering Civic Complex
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m. -10:00 p.m.
Attendees
Staff:
Consultants 1 Developers:
-
Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy
Grant McGregor, Principal Planner - Policy
Steve Gaunt, Planner. IT
Alex Artuchòv (representing Pickering Holdings (Boyer))
Lorelei Jones (representing Wood Carroll)
Ian Matthews (representing Marion Hill)
Robert McConachie
Stefán & Raffi Nalbandian (submitted letter, see attached)
Ron Richards (representing North American Acquisitions) .
Public/Other Area Resident$ & Landowners:
Councillors:
:!: 15
none present
******************************************************************************
Purpose:
'. to exchange information concerning the Northeast Quadrant Review
Catherine Rose:
. introductions'
Grant McGregor:
. . brief overview
-
063
------
--~n AGHMENT IJ ----5n~ro- "',
REPORTH PO 2~'O2. -
Meeting Notes
Northeast Quadrant Review: Public. Information Meeting
.
October 30,2001
Page 2
-
John Ibettson: .
. mentioned that his neighbour's property has an' angled property line at south-east
comer. .
. confused that Mixed Conidor is an option for his properly
. asks, "Where's the proposal"?
. is concerned about noise from car wash close to his home
. wants homes on south side of Sheppard .
. does not want gas stations or other commercial uses that stay open between 8 pm
and 8 am
. says Wood Carroll homes don't fit - conce:t:l1ed with style/price/property
valuelclass of occupant/height/ovedook over swimming pool/privacy
. says residential area north of road should ftont road and be low density
David Steele:
. is concerned with environmental Í1npact
. is opposed in general to piping creek
. wants Schollen report reviewed by Dr. Eyles at University of Toronto
. has no confidence in TRCA
.-
Ron Richards:
. stated st8;ff is not giving any real consideration to or consulting with development
interests, including transportation study'
. rejects staff's findings in the Information Package as they apply to his client's
property -
. use of word "development guidelines" wrong - should be "design guidelines"
. comment in Information Package that there is little opportunity for vehicular
access IS wrong -
. traffic conclusions in the Information Package are not the only conclusions
available and other options are possible including access to site at full intersection.
Grant McGregor:
. transportation issues will be reviewed and other conclusions are possible
Ron Richards:
. wants full commercial
. Mixed COlridor use optiol). does not clearly permit this
. suggests more meetings
-
064
----------..._,
ATIACHMENT # EJ TO
REPORT # PO ?3-n2.
Meeting Notes
Northeast Quadrant Review: Public Information Meeting
October 30,2001
Page 3
-
Irene McNamara
. too much density is being proposed
. no one asked home owners
. wants R3 zoning on Sheppard
. there is currently too much traffic on Sheppard
. currently dangerous on Whites for pedestrians
. proposal would create cònf1ict with traffic 1 don't add to it
. too. many homes proposed
. doesn't like 'Canoe Landing' development
. likes townhomes at Whitby Village
. traffic survey should not be done at mid-day
. don't want to be like downtown Toronto or Scarborough
. concerned with school services as they are too crowded already
. likes seniors' home or adult hol1;sing
. only comment was about Marion Hill
-
Sylvia Spencer:
. wants median on Whites Road for safety of kids
. no new traffic onto Sheppard
. can she buy back expropriated land? (Catherine advised she'd call Legal Services)
. wants low density residential in Precincts D and A .
. wants access onto Sheppard from City lands for only eight houses - low density
Le. rear land
. and same on school site - would be seven hous,es
. access concèpt b preferred
. wants development on Nallandian to be street-oriented
. why full median across front of Boyer property - should be more breaks for turns ,
. concerned with noise - lots of roads proposed
. fumes from Wendy's and Tim Horto~s are bad
Tim Costar:
. lives in E ,
. none of plans recognize existing character of development on Sheppard Avenue
Irene Wolf:
. lives on north side of Sheppard Avenue
. wants low-density residential along Sheppard Avenue
. too much development proposed - density is too much
-
. .
nh~
- \- ~)
ATTACHMENT # '5 ' TO --,
, REPORT # PO 2..~-O2.
Meeting Notes
Northeast Quadrant Review: Public Information Meeting
October 30,2001
Page 4
-.
John Ibettson:
. maintain low density on Sheppard Avenue
. there are too many townhomes proposed
. there are too many cars and that the traffic is dangerous
lVIrs. Costar:
. concerned with safety of any proposed bank because robbers can easily escape
onto Highway 401
Several People:
. no restaurants, car wash, gas stations or bank
Ian Matthews:
. there are always concerns
,. willing to meet with residents
Lorelie Jones;
. developers concerned that information from City not good enough
. not enough land for public road on their property
. will want all coIi1mercial on Wood Carroll site
-
Wilma Flavelle: ,
. Sheppard and .Whites are plugged with traffic
. too much traffic, parked cars - all day and mght
. Sheppard not safe ,
. lights from Tim Hortons shine onto our properties
Several People:
. Boyer's has loud speakers that disturb area residents
Mrs. Costar:
. lights from 401 off-ramp shine onto our properties
l\1:rs. Ibettson:
. how high of a fence, can she build [call Clerk's for sign by-law information]
Mr. Costar:
. lives in Precinct E
. can it be a mix of use?
. could access be provided from lonner school site?
-
llB6
-- -,,-
. -
------. --.
- ATTACHMENT II 5 TO
REPORT # PO 2:=:\ - 02.
Meeting Notes
Northeast Quadrant Review: Public Information Meeting
October 30,2001
Page 5
-
Ms Parkes:
. lives in Precinct E
. should be mixed use
. access from school site should be provided for
. lands could be developed for a dental office -
. don't let design of North American Acquisitions proposal land-lock their property
Sylvia Spencer:
. why does creek have to be piped?
. wants a park, creek and walkway from medical centre to Delta Boulevard
David Steele:
. if keeping stream - needs a buffer
Tim Costar:
. concerned that stormwater pond could be dangeroús for kids and will breed
mosquitoes -
--
Catherine Rose:
. wrap-up -
. welcomes sharing Schollen study with David of University of Toronto
Next Steps:
. originally anticipated proposed Official Plan Amendment being forwarded to a
Statutory Public Meeing and Council before end of year
. in light of comments, probably not making recommendations before end of year
. willing to have additional meetings between developers and residents -
Mr. McNamara:
. will residents get to see another revision prior to it going to Planning Committee?
. wants more time than a month -
. wants everyone on street to be contacted
Attachment
ataJI7 pltgr tgorluor1h<U/M.... To Pile0ct3 DNd - 0100
-
A. T.TACHMENT#2:~ ,?TO
REPORT # PO .' - Q .
06~(
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEETING NOTES
Subject:
Northeast Quadrant Review
Design Workshop
-
Meeting Place and Time:
November 24,2001- 9:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.
Pickering Civic Complex - Library Auditorium
Attendees:
Staff:
Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy
Grant McGregor, Principal Planner - Policy
John McMullen, Senior Planner -Site Planning
Steve Gaunt, Planner n
City's Consultants: Ronji Borooah, Planner & Architect, of
Markson, Borooah, Hodgson Architects Ltd.
Garry Pappin, Transportation Consultant, of
TSH Associates
Landowners /
Agents:
Lorelei Jones (representing Wood, Carroll, et al)
Ron Richards (representing North American Acquisitions)
Robert McConachie
Robert Gordon
Mr. Case
Vincent Santamaura (representing Marion Hill)
Alex Artuchov (representing Pickering Holdings (Boyer)
--
Residents:
Vivian VandenHazel
Raouf Besharat
John Ibettson
Atin Picton
Mr. & Mrs. Costar
John Hache
Bonnie Bayes & Mr. Bayes
Irene McNamara
Robert Laurie
Diana Robinson
Irene Moult
John Mahar
Bill Sornberger
Sylvia Spencer
Wilma & Ken Flavell
David Steele
Councillors: none present
******************************************************************************
-
068. Meeting Notes
A IT AGHMENT II Lo --" TO ",
REPORT # PO ?3-()2. '.
November 24, 2001
Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop
Page 2
WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS (Catherine Rose):
. outlined purpose and intent of to day's workshop;
--
0 review new transportation information;
0 provide opportunity for residents, staff and developers to discuss
opportunities, constraints of the Quadrant, the sites within the Quadrant
and the individual development proposals.
TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION UPDATE (Gary Pappin, TSH Consultants):
. presented an update of fmdings and alternative access opportunities and
constraints within the Northeast Quadrant.
--
Resident's questions/comments (includes comments recorded on flip charts):
. what is the purpose of traffic signal at Dunfair?
. when were traffic counts done? - they appear to under represent reality;
. cars infiltrate to Sheppard to avoid right turn from Whites Road northbound to
Kingston Road eastbound;
. concerns with parking at medical centre, and drop-offs at school;
. current traffic situation is broke - adding development makes it worse, not better;
. no enforcement of parking on Sheppard Avenue;
. parking in front ofDunbarton High School is a problem;
. build public parking;
. speed and volume on Sheppard Avenue;
. delays (4+ cycles) to turn left at Whites Road to Kingston Road;
. suggest physical traffic, calming speed bumps on Sheppard Avenue;
. speed of traffic on Whites Road down to Kingston Road problematic;
. widen Sheppard Avenue and allow ón-street parking;
. delays turning right from Whites Road north to Kingston Road east;
. consider an all-way pedestrian lights at Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue;
. students jay-walking causes delays and safety concerns;
. widen Kingston Road and Whites Road;
. consider parking metres.
BREAK-OUT GROUPS
GROUP 1 - KINGSTON ROAD DEVELOPMENTS (Facilitator: Steve Gaunt)
(Wood/Carroll [Hayes Line Properties], North American Acquisitions
[Dunbarton school site], Boyer/Pickering Holdings)
--
~
I ,
--
-
06B
Meeting Noles ~~~~~~~6 # 2~2 TO ~ November 24, 2001
Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop Page 3
Ron Richards (for North American Acquisitions):
. offered to meet with residents to discuss his proposal;
Lorelei Jones (for Wood, Carroll (Hayes Line Properties)):
. not supportive of public road;
. prepared to work with City and residents to achieve an acceptable access
easement across their property.
Sylvia Spencer:
. if no public road, rear of lots will be landlocked;
. wants the Sheppard frontage lands to remain as low qensity residential.
. ,
Mrs. McNamara:
. vehicle repair shops, restaurants, gas stations, car washes, car sales and banks
should not be permitted in the Quadrant; ,
. concerned with buffering for light; screening and fencing should be done
properly; trees, including the whole tree line and particularly the existing big
maple tree, should be retained;
Mr. Ibettson:
. objects to townhomes;
. wants good buffering and screening between existing homes and yards and
proposed new development.
A Resident:
. Ministry of Transportation and Communications has control over road access
from Kingston Road and the length of such road
Ron Richards:
. the cost of constructing and providing the land for a public road will be too
expensive for his client; consequently, other developers and/or the City should
contribute to its cost.
A Resident:
. regarding buffering: asked for an example of adequate buffering/sound barriers to
protect residential uses from car washes and gas stations; need trees back to buffer,
noise from Highway 401 ;
. opposed, to building height above one storey near the rear of existing homes;
should not have two storeys close to any existing houses.
Meeting Notes
010
ATTACHMENT # ~ O"'¿ TO
REPORT # PO . .
November 24,2001
Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop
Page 4
Ron Richards:
. his client is a commercial developer - not residential;
. wants his commercial development to have minimal effect on residential uses;
. it is inherently difficult to achieve a suitable interface between residential and
commercial use
.-
Residents:
. office uses are Okay;
. does not want car wash or gas bar uses;
. need adequate buffering between residential and commercial. uses.
Ron Richards:
. needs to first see how access road onto his site will work, then will develop
detailed designs to determine whether economics of development can work;
. this location is good for retail 1 restaurant 1 gas station uses;
. it is difficult to rent second-storey space;
. as plans evolve, Ron will keep residents informed of his evolving proposal.
--
Resident(s):
. don't object to. commercial uses in. general; do object to noise 1 smell expected,
from gas station or car wash use; .
. wants to keep the ability to have easements from the school site property to
properties to the east;
. need buffering along the north edge of Wood Carroll, McConachie and school site
properties;
. should keep trees;
. need fencing;
. detailed design should look attractive;
. pedestrian access is needed.
Alex Artuchov (for Boyer I Pickering Holdings Agent):
. no specific development is proposed and Mr. Boyer wants to broaden the
permitted uses on his site at this stage.
-
ATTACHMENT # u," TO " 071
Meeting Notes REPORT # PO 2~ - 02. '. . November24, 2001
Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop Page 5
GROUP 2 - MARION HILL DEVELOPMENT (Facilitator: Grant McGregor)
-
Grant McGregor:
. Introductions;
Vincent Santamaura:
. Provided the Group with an overview of the Marion Hill Development;
Grant McGregor:
. Reviewed the design challenge statement and urban design objectives
All:
. There was considerable discussion on the volume and speed of traffic on Sheppard
Avenue especially at peak times and on weekends. Also, mentioned was the parking of
cars on the south side of Sheppard Avenue by parents dropping off and/or picking-up
their children ftom the Dunbarton High School. It was suggested that the City should be
enforcing the no parking bylaw.
--
. The participants in the Group generally agreed that the Marion Hill townhouse proposal
was too dense for the neighbourhood. As well, there were concerns expressed regarding
the proposed ,building heights along Sheppard Avenue and that sl;lch heights should be
similar to the heights of existing residences. In addition, the need for more open space
areas especially for children and the need for more parking areas within the development,
were expressed. The Group indicated their preference for eight single detached lots along
Sheppard Avenue as opposed to the Marion Hill townhouse proposal. Townhouse units,
if constructed should be located in behind the single detached lots and similar in design to
the townhouse units constructed by John Body Homes in, Ajax. Vincent Santamaura
provided the Group with alternate desiglls for the proposed townhouse units along
Sheppard Avenue that emulated the existing building size and height of residences on the
north side and suggested that parking be provided in sculpted areas along the side of
Sheppard Avenue. '
. There was a suggestion ITom one of the Group' participants that a greenspace corridor
along the frontage of Sheppard A venue should be incorporated into the Marion Hill
proposal. This would allow future residents the ability to have flower and shrub beds in
the front of the units.
. There was considerable discussion' and concern about the ,impact of traffic from the
Marion Hill proposal onto Sheppard Avenue. As a result, the Group indicated that access
onto Sheppard Avenue for the Marion Hill proposal was inappropriate. Alternatively,
access should be directed to Delta Blvd and/or Whites Road.
-
. N ATTACHMENT # l.o TO November 24, 2001
Meetl11g otes REPORT # PO 2~.Q2.
072
Review of Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines - Design Workshop Page 6
. One of the participants who lives directly across the road from the proposed driveway
location into the Marion Hill site indicated a concern with both lights shining into their
house from cars and increased traffic making their driveway difficult to utilize.
-
. It was noted that the medical art building at the corner of Whites Road and Sheppard
Avenue has created a traffic and parking problem for the neighbourhood. There was a
suggestion that the City owned lands be swapped for lands opposite the medical arts
building in order to accommodate additional parking. There was also the suggestion that
the City owned lands, in conjunction with a natural trail along Amberlea Creek, be used
as a public open space feature for the quadrant.
. It was noted that public bus service is no longer provided on Sheppard Avenue so
residents are forced to use their vehicles. This is particularly bothersome to the elderly
who are dependant on public transportation to get around.
. The Group raised the issue of odours emulating ftom the fast food restaurants located
along Kingston Road affecting their quality of life. As well, noise issues were identified
with respect to the servicing of these restaurants in the early morning especially with
respect to waste haulage. There was a suggestion that garbage enclosures at Marion Hill
be provided. .
. In additiòn, there was a concern about the high number of cars idling their engines while
in the restaUrant drive thru's and the related impact of exhaust fumes on the surrounding
environment.
--
. Three was coinment from one of participants of a review by Dr. N. Eyles on the City's
report Amberlea Creek-Northeast Quadrant Assessment of Alternatives that piping the
creek is not appropriate.
. The Group indicated that they would be like to see an alternate design for the Marion Hill
proposal illustrating what the proposal would look like with single detached residential
lots fronting onto Sheppard Avenue.
SUMMARY/WRAP-UP & NEXT STEPS (Catherine Rose):
SGlsm
5 taWs gaun tlmi scIN ortheas tQuadran t Workshop. doc
. indicated that staff will arrange a meeting on Transportation issues to address the
current traffic conditions with Regional and Pickering Works staff within a couple.
of weeks [now slated for January, 2002];
. indicated that a' copy of the notes from this Worksliop and the previous' October.
30th Information Meeting to the participants at those two meetings;
. indicated that, as a result of this workshop, that the statutory public information'
meeting for the Northeast Quadrant Review will be rescheduled from the
previously announced December 20, 2001 date to a later date and that any report
on the findings of the study will be in the new year [subsequent notice to be
mailed]. .
-.
onservatìon
TORONTO AND REGION
073
.R~ \GJ \~ U ~ ~ -~D\
7 l.Ç;~b ì
ATTACHMENT # _~..TO
REPORT ¡PO '2~- O~. "-.~ 0 C T 3 0 2001 }
TY OF PICKERING
C\ PICKER.ING, ONTARIO
October 24, 2001
-
Ms. Catherine Rose
City of Pickering
Pickering Civic Centre
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1 V 6K7
RECEÐlfEij-:'
OCT J 1 2001
Dear Ms. Rose:
CI f{ ::Jr: ;,C¡Ci1..L,ìjj\jG
i'L¡,:'.""",', 'N'"
PEVELOPMEN1 'ÕËPARTMENT
,-
Re:
Amberlea Creek. Northeast Quadrant Report
Assessment of Alternatives
City of Pickering'
. Further to our discussions and after reviews of the above report prepared by Schollen & Company
Inc., The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff offer the following comments.
The proposal is to develop a comprehensive plan for Stormwater Management for the Amberlea
Community, by placing a Stormwater Management Pond on two intermitted tributaries (described
as AC3 and AC5). The works would appear to benefit downstream portion of Amberlea Creek and
Frenchman's Bay which currently received large amounts of sediment fròm the upstream
developed community. From the inventory provided it is evident that the tributaries upstream of the
prepared pond are degraded and a large percentage of flows result from stormwater run-off.
Given the potential benefits to Frenchman's Bay, TRCA staff would support in principle the
proposed Stormwater Management Scheme and the resulting changes to the upstream portions of
the creeks AC3 and AC5. However we would note that the works constitute a Harmful Alteration
Disruption and Destruction and as a result note that a suitable compensation arrangement would
be required to support the project and we are prepared to work with the Municipality, DFO and
MNR to help further this project.
.-..
We are prepared to work with the municipality Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the
Ministry of National Resources to help further this project.
We trust that this. Is of assistance.
Yours truly,
// .I .
/2- cJLAL
bRussel White
Senior Planner
Development Services Section
Extension 5306
RW /gc
cc:
Laud Matos, DFO
Rob Fancy, MNR
F :\PRS\CORRESP\PICKERIN\AMBERLEA. WPD
.",.",.=.,~,~t!~~:!!!!!,,~¡Ÿ:!.:,~!!!.od~'!.-.:::~iy am~ G~eenSfJi1ce IÞ Education fàt Susfi1iudble living
5 Shoreham Drive, Down~vi~w, Ö;;¡;M3N1S.t(41~)'661~66ÕÔFÄX661~6898~~::::t;~~~;~~~_'~r~_"~-~~m:
-
-
NOV-,-O9'ù}(FRj) 16:07
,CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
TEL:4162354267
~. UU2
O~((1
Ministry of
Trunlportllthm
Mlnl8t~re des
Tranapons
ATTACHMENT#- B. ~.=TO
REPORT # PO '2~.O2..
CW)
Ontario
Phone: (416) 235-3509
Fax: (416) 235-4267
E-mail: charles.petro@mto.gov-on.ca
Corridor Management Office
7th FloaT, Atrium Tower
1201 Wilson Avenue
Downsview. Ontario
M3M U8
-
November 9, 2001
File No: 42-80197
City of Pickering
Planning & Development Departmen~
Pickering Civic Complex
One The ESplanade
Pickering, Ontario
LIV 6K7
Attention: Grant McGregor
Dear Sir:
RE: Kingston Road - Whites Road No~theast Quadrant T"ransportation Study
Phase 1 Final Report
City of Pickering
Highway 401
,-.. We have reviewed the submitted infonnation and offer the following comments:
It is this ministry's preference that there be no access on Kingston Road directly across the Highway 401
ramp tcIDlinal. We would therefor encourage development as shown in Alternative 5, Alternative 6 and
Access Concept A. .
Our concerns regarding the alternatives involving access across from the Highway 401 E-E/W ramp are as
follows:
. As mentioned in the report, the need for this access must be justified. The Delta Boulevard access
may be sufficient to serve the development. Benefits of the new access would have to be weighed
against impacts oflDearing directly across a ramp terminal.
. Any access. acroSs from the ramp terminal shall have no southbound through movement to access
Highway 401 WB- This through movement would probably necessi~ate an additioIlal signal phase,
which is not possible as the signals are at capacity and the signal timing has no free time. Signal timing
must be maintainèd to ensure preference is given to ramp traffic. .
. If northbound through movements are considered from the ramp to the access" it must be ensured that
minimum stopping distances are maintained. The (:UITent advisory speed on the ramp is 50km/hr.
There is the possibility of northbound ramp through vehicles crossing the intersection at 60km/hr-
70kmlhr if they are trying to "beat" an amber signal. Therefore if the 70kmllir is assumed, a minimum
..".,.
ATTACHMENT I Ts TO
REPORT I PO 23 ~ 02 .
075
------- ,
NOY,-O9'Ql(PRI) 16:07
CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
TEL:41G2354267
Po 003
-
stopping distance of 110m is required, wmch means there should be no accesses, no conflict points, no
sharp radius cmves, etc. within 110m north of the north limit of the intersection. ,
. Some alternatives consider a southbound left turn movement to go east on Kingston Road. This
presents a conflict point ifnorthbound ramp vehicles are permitted through the intersection to the'
development (Alternatives 1, 2, and possibly Access Cóncept B). Ifnorthbound ramp vehicles are not
permitted through the intersection, as ShOWTl in Alternative 3, "no though access" signage would have
to 6Tected for the ramp. This may not be effective, and depending.where this sigIÚng is erected, it may
possibly confuse Kingston Road left turn and right turn vehicles attempting to access the development.
. The road would have to be a public road, (not an entrance as indicated in OP A 01-OO3/P and ZBA
AIO/Ol, for North American Acquisition Corp). We would also reqtÚre that there be no full moves
access points along the first 180m of this road. .This requirement may preclude the viability of the gas
bar as imlicated î.rÌ the OP A/ZÐA. '
We are also pTep~ed to discuss accesS opportunities as they relate [0 Highway 401 and ramp tenninals at
\,ylrites Road and Kingston Road, during Phase 2 ofilie Transportation Network review. We will require:
1. Estimates of site generated traffic from all existing and proposed land uses within the study area.
2. Detailed traffic operational analysis of the impact of future traffic on tb-e level of traffic sèrvice on
Highway 401 and associated ramps and ramp terminals on Whites Road and Kingston Road.
Analysis of existing traffic conditi~ns
Table 1 - Characteristics of Study area foads - does not include the Hwy 401 WB on ramp from
southbound on Whites road. From Figure 1 - Study Area - the Whites road north and south approaches on
ramps to WB 401 fall within the boundaries of the Study area. At least the on ramp fi-om the north
approach of Whites road should be included for analysis in Phase 2. This one lane on-ramp had peak a.m.
vo.1ume of about 1900 vph, acèording to ourJ995 database. '
-
Please provide justificati~n for the assumption that p.m. peak hour volume is 12% .of daily traffic (Table 1
~olunm 6). A check with Kingston on/off ramp 1995 data indicates an average of about 6.7% of daily
traffic as p.m. peak volume, ~d ranges ITom 6% to 10%. Using )2% for aU roads in the study area
underestimates the daily traffic where the actual percentage is' less. The consultant should determine the
actual percentage for each roarl- Also, it should be confumed that the daily traffic is an estimation of the
annual average daily traffic. As well, Table 1 does not indicate the dates for the p.m~ peak hour volumes
from which the daily 1raffic was estimated. We beHeve the sòurce is the p.m. peak flows given in Figure 3
ofilie report. Table I. which appears before Figure 3, doesn't indicate that
Additional comments will be provided once a detailed analysis is received.
-"-
I trust that this is sufficient to your needs. Please do not hesitate to call should you require fiuther
information or clarification. '
Yours truly,
'p~~
Charlie Petro ,
Project Manager
00;:;-
cc.
Tom Hewitt, MTO
Michael DeMichele. MTO
Ken Sherbanowski, MTO
Steve Gaunt, City of Pickering
Steve Mayhew. Durham Region
-
ATTACHMENT 1/ q. TO
REPORT # PO ?h-O2.
. "
r.tß.r2ô'Q2(iUE118:00
n7E
- " J
CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
TEL:4162354267
P. ßß2
Ministry of
Tr.n~pDl'tllfløn
Ministðrr des
TrallJporU
(j)
Ontario
-Phone: (416) 235-3509
iax: (416) 235-4267
E-mail: charJes.petro@mto.gov.on.ca
Corridor Management Office
7th Floor. Atrium Tower
1201 Wilson Avenue
Downsview, Ontario
M3M 118 "
February 26, 2002
File No: 42-80197
City of Pickering
Planning & Development Departmen"t
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering," Ontario
LIV 6K7
Attention: Grant McGregor
Dear Sir:
~"--"
-
RE: Kingston Road - Whites Road Northeast Quadrant Transportation Study
Proposed Access Opposite Kingston RoadIHlghway 401 Westbound OnlOff Ramp
City of Pickering "
Further to the meeting of January 30, 2002, we offer the following comments:
It is £his ministry's preference that ~ere be no access o~ Kingston Road direétly across the Highway 401
ramp tenninal and would therefore'encourage development of one Of the other options outlined iIl your
Transportation study, Phase 1 Final Report 4ated S,eptember2001. We appreciate the municipal need for a
ràmp terminal access road, but wé are reluctant to approve it at this time, as many details still need to be
resolved to our satisfaction. This ministry is prepated to co-operate with your staff, and regional staff, and
to work toward a design, which would be acceptable to al1 parties concerned. To this end, since it is your
,-' desire to pursue the ramp tenninal access road option, W(: offer the following points fòr consideration:
. The need for thi$ access must be justified. Other options must also be examined and the benefits of any
new access options would have to be"weighed against impacts oflocating access directly across ftom
the ramp terminal. Some prelùninary de$ign work would also need to be undertaken. This ministIy is
not prepared to sacrifice Level ofServÌce oflheHighway 401 Ramp Terminal. Also, any
roadway/intersection/ramp improvements.shouJd an acceptable design be developed and approved,
shall be at no cost to MTO.
.:. Any access acrOSS from the ramp temrinal shall have no southbound through movement to access
Highway 401 WE. This through movement would necessitate an additional signal phase. which is not
RECEI'fED
FEB 2 "7 2002
CITY OF PICKi:RING
PLANNING f\ND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
-
,--'--
:~~~~ ' ~~ -
CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT TEL:4162354267
077
FEB. '.26' Q2(TUEI 18:01
Po 003
possible as the signaI$ are at capacity and the signal timing has no ftee time. Signal timing must be
maintained to ensure preference is given to ramp traffic.
. Proposed road must be desìgn~d to meet the desiW1. parameters oIthe offrarop i.e. 70 km/hr design
speed.
-
. Northbound through movements .fi:óm the ramp to the access road, must be provided. Minimum
stopping distances must be maintained.
. A southbound left turn movement to go east on Kingston Road. presents a conflict point if northbound
ramp vehicles are permitted through the intersection to the development. At this time the Ministry is
not prepared to accept these movements. Similarly, it left turn movement into the development from
eastboUlld Kingston Road also presents. a conflict. Signal timing priorities must be as follows: 1)
Highway 401 Ramp, 2) Kingston Road (Arterial Road), and finally, 3) Development access Toad at
rænptenWn~. .
. The road would have to be a public road, (under Municipal jurisdiction ànd maintained to municìpal
standards). We would also require that there be no full moves access points along the first 180m of this
road. This requirement may preclude the viability of any development near the intersection.
In order to further au! evaluation of access opportunities as they relate to Highway 401 aIld ramp tezminals
at Whites Road and Kingston Road. we will require:
1. A detailed ttaffic impact study, which reflects and identifies all of the proposed geometries of the
rooow~ "
'-
Please note that all comments submitted to you in our letter of November 9, 2001. still apply.
-
I trust that this is sufficient to your needs. Please do not hesitate to call should you require further
infonnation or clarification. .
. Yours tm1y,
~~
Charlie Petro
Project Manager
=
CC.
Tom Hewitt,MTO
Michael DeMichele, MID
Ken Sherbanowski, MTO
Steve Gaunt, City of Pickering
Steve Mayhew, Durham Region
"-"
--
!£-~ .. - ATTAGHMENT#~O-- TO.,
--___??8___- .-..- _____..H_____..--n.- -. -____H~EPO~:~~~. ~~~=~----_._. . 'v.V tAAf.____-l£1I\LD£ALJ1£ZE:.~..- '.
-..._----- ._--------[~\~-~Ç};: IvrL___~~ ----.--------------....-____.(li_Î _-ffuIlJ?QßT .-/SQ----- --- -'
¡
. ---------.--------L----tie-V-'-rlOOt--'--... - - -' ----..----- eiS-:K € e. LAJ. G- ':'O_'M -----.-.'-
. .
-_----:.-_----.!.EP.lC:'ERiNG :' H----.----.---______L.JJI ¡ T I ----~--.
.ANNING ,'.~ O
'. . :;.:3'MENT DEPAATME~
""----
. -
-"H"--____--"'-'--"'-------,,-<---,,-,- """H.-- -'-.-.."---- ----- -- '----'--_____'H____'_-----,---~,--, H__,--_-
- "-------""--
--,_.._-,-_-:-_---,------------;._...:_-~.::~---_..:_-_.._.:...O-c.:.t -.3 Q ,.~OJ-- H__"'- "'-- .
--
G ~-:i- ~b ~'G r ~~ ===-,- ~~-~~.. -~~~~-= -.."~ ~~_:--=-----=-_. ~- -~-~ .- H_, .
P.lcillJl~.'--L_.íLJ ~...cl~. .--J?J.fI~{(^~--___.....m.. """"'--" .....- -..-- .. . - '.. .- "-..- <-- h
-'---'-.-----------.____'h'_'" -"- .. ..- "'. . .._.-. -"---- - " ...
...... ""'" .-.«.... ,
. . "_. ... "'" -... .....
_ße.~~..!l!ø- ~a ~ 1- .-0 u.cd. rQtSi_.._gg,v.i~w___. . '..h_.____-
.. . """" ""'-' .....-....
.. ..... "-"'....'--.
---""'-.-...-.--.-------.-«.--....-........."""""","h'__'_-hh___'h.._-._h".h,,_,"""--_....__h-.__._h...... h......... ..--< ..-. '--"--"'-----"-'-'-""""'-'-""""-'","'.h
..._-_.._.-1._---~ v(" .._-~--_.~.c_gco.s refß.r.dÙ~:~h'" cJ..£rl.IC)(J~(f1g.!.;:t.!(I'h..t~,J'Y:_ç. .c¡..~9:.~!c.l o;t;
L.. _.ßf(~_jMJ..kc- CQur_~~5.... ....'. ~JJd(:liÚ~_~., ..o.t_aJl..w' alY...(Clur. 5è.$. .io..E1d<e C!~^j
.--(j'rieÚ~ .....lC\..-ihg_.....ilik ..Rù;;lßes.....t:1ç¡.LCJLn.h€.' J£¡rJous_.._tj°Ll.fr nú\fl.¿--. ..ar:d...__.f.oILLtQn:_.
. _..~1o-L_-~.cQ_u.P--~L.ar..e:.Jr~.~;:^5-ÌQ_h.preseCJ..!~h_.í&l,h mQLa¡nf~.._. i.1 .fJ'Q...-/g:s. /)0... S:f.O.s. <2....
.....flL_l:u.o.o&L_Cf.f.e..b....ID...eì~.ci~......i£--_.fJ.)....c]iQc..j..Jpstr.~.1Y'.. h.w....tA.G 1fcs. Q.~. ..f'-c.o.:-..
....._i.et:kcL__Âhfb.ìf\..%.... s.U£.JÚh.~.g -,~..-i[L_.Q.h..J_u.M~L~d___crt'_he.k ~ . '. "'h"" "" h"""" ..
.. ""-..'--' .." h ....... .
---.......-......- ..
.h"'_" .. -""...
/ ~..LjLQW.ili.....1rt.~§L' - 'hJiu.c.h._h..af. .t~... . u...f\d_ti¿flQ~. .1.9-f'q{ .NS. old 9 rou,.)~..
. h:t[J_t?~... .,J1g.SLh.m..!.l:;.j~.J~_~J~.~eC!L~hd ... -]oh .ce.ffi2.~_..fbl Jutr.'Ç(\ .. t(QD~.ÇAC, .f?,X~~-~ t.
...fG~rû...~.CliC (fuok9_. to....._fu__.L\Um~FQ<J.~d(L~_- ..th.r.QV5" ~ .Þel~ fX?(rn¡i~ç(
, u", I S. ". \
.._at.....W~D-~-~_.~ tl-I!Ï\--r~h..'IDJ!._s-J"" rtar ../iç.¡f¡¿~+fff"...:.-}__. ]~ _:tr.f.f?-.... pC99 i'h~.. .-. '.
h- Qi\\Cj~t~,Q..hÙrol.. ...kb.¡.ic.d.'h_-C~. .4r~ .Q.~bgt(G:l (I ~- .pJggsJ 'f\() (V?_--Ç9/J c.rf! hkJ.
...' .. ..
3., h]].g_. o.œ~Q~::f5t ..o.£.hFtt~c.. L¡t~r.ùJ hq5d.ro.<';,i(Ç~llJ ¡'(\c..-- eo. ~<d. (Iì /hi')
._ú..ceQ.'h_.w.í.th-..&_tu.(Le.~.~ClDì_tf.fcl. çL~~.f_JQ~:..H~. Ih,'.~ My ~1 b.-'?:.
..~pc~u:~.~..... hh_'__'_-----" .
'-"-__"'_h
-
A.IT.. A.CHMENT#~TO '.
REPORT # PO . ... '.
079 "
.. ----..
'. . ... ......------. .....-.---
.------.--- ..- . ....
-
~'. __lro..ç..ç.\,Co,.. Tk. h\'«jh c{Qr)~it-J / hi"jl\ irQ{"f,'c....ot~ûdðp¡Y\e~s propoSeol
,-,-Q~ per(Y'\.i+ied.. fn~ NE q._u.adra..r-:t ore U(1Q.c.C epiabl€., HLP~. ~
,--j~._. opera.1 ¡"~ 0-1" Cafûc ìi~. now. ThQ..re.. Qí€. {(\kr~èci¡'öA5> c'-- -
-- S.~r:d: ./ (o.1(P'f' t (J.,-xJ Lù~i*c;, / f-tuJ<j . d. wh, c" 1Y.J ~ 0. v~~ ~
-' hißb .1\uJ'f\bec..ot o.ccidJ¿f\.Í5. -rkr<. ûr~ o.lc;x) cifS "ðl\ (y()b{efY1S a-r
.... H~~~' / S.Mpp;vdl ~frfX>,t+ clue 10 -f .~. a/co '5+0..+1'01---' Q(\cJ. ot
. _c;h.eppard / loki-k~ clue.., to ,~d..e'juo-:/-€. ")arJ¿/~ CL-r ~ ('Y\ecilca-{
,__b~i Idi'j. ca.v.C:.(~ p?opW...io p:1rk in no parkl"'3' Clrt'Q5 on S~fbrl
.. _Threi~ ('ù- _CD.paci~J"_'-fþ("" furfN¿î ~ve,(øpfJ'\.QJ req..n-(l'(\j
_..._,_..VQ.hl'Culo( -{rQ~-{,'c.. e~..- hok\<:., dr(vQ th.rovS""s, h"3h cl€i\s¡i-j
r.ê?lc~~ìo..\ I r~ ~to I...lrClr:tS \ COIÎ veo.ie(\(.IL ~iDr{5 o~l ~QS bars J
- - u"le,?s +her( o.rfL rr'GlJ'or. cie~I'ß("I. <..ro..r-&~ 0 Iì -thQ. rowS.
-....- -
..
'..- .._...~-------._.._,---,----,-..
_...-..~_._.... -....'
-,-
-). . ".
...---'-----.--
"----'----..'------
. Ldi _:H""kù~ ,'",ßtd4=>r'l'J- o.t'.d. ooT
~f'\U.w. tu()fleLt9~~e.s
ord- ~IY\.L"'~"~ _bsed 0('\ veht'(u tar.
___--::f.r:a££cc.: -I:Nz ~.e fure . ì~L rÙÃ~lli~ a 1';- . pclLI.r11'on or-,o(
~--~ ct er;i rue. " i 0(\. CJ f ve ,ga.íccLlo.Ù-4-_-
-
- (
.. '
..-..----...----
---. . -- ----.. ..------..
; .
------
----.-.---
. .
-,
-- --.. .__..---_.~ --------_..-..-------~
----.--- - -...... -""------"-------'-""---- .......---.------......--:-----------------...--.----
---.---
,- -... '---~-' ----.. "-.--------
, -
- -- -"----"" .. "'- "-----' .-..- .----..-....".. _..----
-...
- ---,-"'--,--,
"-.---....--- .
-----------. -.- .-- -
. r
, -
- -----.---....-------.--- ----,.. .--'.. ,-' ------------"---
.'
-- ""'-- "--'-- _..--- ------"" .-.---'-'----.-...-
~--
- -"-"-- ..-'-------- ---- .........-- ---"'---
-...---------.---.-
----.-------..
., .
"--""""--....----..---.--.-...-.. ._....-...,..... -------.--...---.........--,..--:.'---..------------..... '-""----"-" -------...--....------..--.----.----
- .-....----- ""'---'-"--.------.-..-- -.. .
"
".. -.--..-....---...- ---... ... -~-,...._-_.._,--_.. '-"..--,..""
.-. - --"""-"""'- . '-' ---------..---------..
. -----'-"'-"""--'--..., .......----..---------------...------..-.----------..-------.--
080
ATTACHMENT #---ÌL--ro
REPORT # PO 2?J -{)2
Dear Catherine Rose
Nov. 6 2001
-
Re: Stormwater Management Study
Transportation Study
Development in the N.E. Quadrant
As I stated to Ron Taylor and yourself at the landowners meeting of March 2001,
that I would not agree to give anymore financial retribution for any more studies in
The NorthEast Quadrant.
At the landowners meeting of March 2001, it was understood the landowners
and The City Of Pickering would be both involved with the consultants in these
studies. Since The City was the only one involved with the consultants the City
should be the only one to pay for these studies.
In 1999 I hired a consultant and biologist to perform an independent study on
this water course from Frenchman's Bay to Sheppard Ave. where this watercourse
turns into a massive system of storm water piping for the development north of
Sheppard Ave. to my astonishment the two studies from different consultants }lave the
the same outcome. I feel The City Of Pickering has wasted two years of my life and
held up development in the North East Quadrant for a long period of time.
--
The stonn water problem we have now from Sheppard Ave. to Frenchman's Bay
was created by the residential and commercial development north of Sheppard Ave.
which the City let be built with insufficient stonn water management facility.
There has been other studies done on this water course in the West shore area
because of a serious erosion problems. The city paid for these studies to be done.
In my opinion, the City is being predigest against the land owners of the North
East Quadrant.
If the Landowners of the North East Quadrant .have to financially contribute to these
studies, all Landowners of the North East Quadrant should pay equal amounts not the
payment schule set up by the Planning Dept. because these studies might contribute
some information for the development to all properties in the North East Quadrant not
certain property owners.
-
. ATTACHMENT#__L_.~-fU
REPORT f! PD~- O~.
081
-
The transportation study shows two different schemes on two maps I feel
if the best feature were used from both these maps, to make it a must that the
entrance on the north side of Kingston Rd. would be between Wood Carroll west
property line and are-east property line aligning the entrance to these properties
with Michael Boyer east entrance on the south side Kingston Rd. allowing a break
in the future center medium if there was ever one put on Kingston Rd. Maybe there
could be some consideration on the north of the properties for an internal road of
minimal width from Delta Blvd. to the Hwy. 401 interchange stoplights.
Every public meeting I have attended, there are a small handful of residents from
Sheppard ave. that bring up the same complaints about development in the North
East Quadrant. It is about time personal from the City's Planning Dept. and the
Ward One Councilors stop looking at maps and pieces of paper and personally come
and look at these properties of the North East Quadrant to make their own decisions
about the accusations of a small minority of Sheppard Ave. residents and decide for
themselves if these accusations are real or a figment of their imagination.
I was very discussed with the public meeting of Oct 30 2001 where the meeting got
out of control and no one from the Planning Dept. could accomplish getting this meeting
back into some kind of orderly fashion, again nothing was accomplished. There was a
mention of another public meeting on Nov. 17 2001 I would hope that this meeting will
have a chairperson to keep this meeting in an orderly manner and be able to explain to the
public if any issues arise. .
Thankyou
.-
cc; N Carol
G McGregor
Councilor Brenner
Councilor Ryan
R McConachie
.. . ./:~:~¿;;~ 9~;:::~::':":::'~.~~
~'- ~..-
-
n~f)
',,0 I..t
ATTACHMENT #_.12 u TO '.
REPORT # PO 23-02.
RECEIVED
FEB 1 Z 2002
The City of Pickering Planning
And Development Department,
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Re: N.Q!1heast OuaQrnntPevelopment
-
As land owners of765, 757 and 751 Sheppard Avenue, and being 3 of 4
lots which will be directly affected by the development ofllie Northeast Quadrant
of Whites Road, Kingston Road, and Sheppard Avenue, feel that based on neigh-
boring concerns we would discriminated against in any endeavors to be included
(as per the approved NorthEast Quadrant Land Use and Guidlines) of the oppor-
tunity to sell off a portion of our backyards,for development.
We realize that the Northeast Quadrant needs to be carefully planned, as
Whites Road and Kingston Road is the main entrance off Hwy. #401 into the
City of Pickering. It would be beneficial to the City of Pickering and it's residents
that development of this area be appealing to the eye, easily accessed and with
amenities and services that are best suited for the area.
We have no objections to re-zoning to accept these changes and would like
to kept infonned of all Applications, Amendments etc , but we would also like to
be given the opportunity, should it arise to be separated fÌom the fourth lot 771
Sheppard Avenue which has shown no interest to have these lands developed.
-
. Yours Tndy,
,-'
Kim Baker . Valarie Lawson Shane Legere
765 'Sheppard Ave. 757 Sheppard Ave. 751 Sheppard Ave.
Pickering, Ontario Pickering, Ontario. Pickering, Ontario
LIV IG~4 LIVJG4,,"......"._~.... LIV IG4
E C ",
/' , .' ". 'OJ <;;;:;. c:?
-,/, ...-" -, .::........-~" .-. ----.-- 'r
,','" .. ". ----~'::'" , .
C.C ~ MJC¡Pai Board'-"--C=:::~ ~ ,
File #ZO 1 0070
-
-
,-..
;.
ATiACHMENT #~r~o' _o_TO'.
REPORT # PO ~~ - {\'2 . 0
083
Stefan and HaJji Nalbandian
3-30 Rivermede Road, Concord, ontario, UK 3N3
October 30, 2001
Mr. Grant McGregor
Planning and Development Department
City of Pickering
0 One The Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario, L1 V 6K7
RECEIVED
OCT 3 0 2001
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
He : 1475 & 1485 Whites Road
Public Meeting 0
North East Quadrant Review
Mr. McGregor
We bought our properlY, mu.nici¡IallY /mOWn as 1475 &; 1435 Whit2s Road
. bllSed on /h2 Northeast {ùl4drant Development Guj¡k/ines, which provides lor full
access road for our properly onto Whites Road.
For tonight p¡,bUc 1II eeting we received for co nurtmIS the KIngston Road-
. Whltes Road Nor/heJJSt Qpadtant TransJ1OI1IlIÏDn Stu.q, prepared by TSH. In this .
s/Jldy in the alIerrwDve« Acces.< Concept B « you Me proposllllf to restriCl the ( £Cess
to our properlY by "right in- right 0111" access rOllll only (by means of raised cell/e1'
mødian). propøsed restricted access devo1uaJeS our properly and as _h changes the
originul grounds upon which we øcqø/red our propertY. Therefore we support the
alternative" Access Con.œpt A "wlrlch enables safe pedesfriaJl° crassing of Whites
Road and unrestricted access onto our property.
Yours truly
Stefan and Ra/fi Nalbandian
~
."....