HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformation Report 08-10Information Report
Report Number: 08-10
m For Public Information Meeting of
PICKERING Date: June 7,.2010
01
This report is prepared for the purpose of providing information to the general
public and the request is not a Planning Act application
Subject: Request for Site Specific Exception to the
Council Adopted Development Guidelines for the
Rosebank Neighbourhood DG 1/10
James Micklewright
447 Toynevale Road
(Lot 1, Plan 389)
City of Pickering
1.0 Background
• a conceptual proposal to sever the subject property was received from the .
applicant on July 9, 2009
• the proposal consisted of severing the lot into two, where the retained parcel
would maintain a 15.2 metre lot frontage with a 30.4 metre lot depth along
Toynevale Road and the severed parcel would have a 30.4 metre lot frontage
with a 1.5.2 metre lot depth along Oakwood Drive (see Information Compiled
from Applicant's Proposed Plan, Attachment #3)
• the applicant consulted with City staff to determine the appropriateness of the
application
• City staff advised the applicant that although the proposal to create a lot
conforms with the existing zoning by-law requirements, the proposal did not
comply with the minimum lot depth requirements of the Rosebank
Neighbourhood Development Guidelines
• the applicant was further advised that if adopted by City Council, a procedure
will be developed to address applications requiring a stand-alone exception to
any Neighbourhood Development Guidelines
• on October 5, 2009, City Council endorsed a procedure recommended by the
Planning & Development Department to circulate an Information Meeting
Notice through a mail out to residents within 150 metres.of the subject
property
• in April 2010, the applicant requested the initiation of the Guideline exception
process to proceed and to circulate the proposal to the public for comments
2.0 Property Location and Description
• the subject property is located on the southeast corner of Toynevale Road and
Oakwood Drive, west of Rosebank Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1)
• the subject property fronts Toynevale Road (approximately 15.0 metres) and
flanks Oakwood Drive (approximately 60 metres) (see Information Compiled
from Applicant's Current Plan, Attachment #2)
Information Report No. 08-10 Page 2
0 2 • the subject property has a lot area of 929 square metres
• the subject property contains a one -storey detached dwelling and is
surrounded by single detached dwellings
3.0 Applicant's Proposal
• the applicant has made a request for a site specific exception to Council
Adopted Development Guidelines for the Rosebank Neighbourhood to permit
a lot frontage of approximately 30 metres and a minimum lot depth of 15.2
metres to a proposed severed lot
• the applicant intends on retaining the existing dwelling, sever the rear portion
of the subject property through a future appliction to the Durham Land
Division Committee and varying a number of zoning performance standards
through a future application to the Pickering Committee of Adjustment to
permit the construction of one new detached dwelling on the severed lot
• the property is subject to the provisions of the Rosebank Neighbourhood
Development Guidelines (RNDG) and is situated within Design Precinct No. 2
• Design Precinct No. 2 requires for all new lots to have a minimum lot depths
ranging between approximately 30 metres and 36 metres (see Attachment #3)
• prior to filing development applications with the Region of Durham (Land
Division) and the City of Pickering (Committee of Adjustment) the applicant is
seeking approval of a site specific exception to the Guidelines
4.0. Official Plan. and Zoning
4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan
• the Regional Plan designates the subject property "Urban System.— Living
Areas"
• "Living Areas" are to be used predominantly for housing purposes
• the proposal appears to comply with the Durham Regional Official Plan
4.2 Pickering Official Plan
• the City of Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property as "Urban
Residential — Low Density Areas" within the Rosebank Neighbourhood
• "Urban Residential — Low Density Areas" are intended primarily for residential
uses
• properties designated as low density permits a maximum of 30 units per net
hectare
• despite the maximum density provisions of the Plan, all properties located
within the Rosebank Neighbourhood, west of Rosebank Road permit a
maximum density of 17 units per.net hectare
• the creation of one additional lot on the subject property will propose a net
residential density of approximately 21.5 units per net hectare
• the Plan designates Toynevale Road as a Collector Road, which is designed
to provide access to individual properties to local roads and other collector
roads
Information Report No. 08-10
Page 3
although the applicant's proposal to sever the lot appears to meet the general
intent of the Plan, the proposal does not comply with the absolute density
requirements established by the Plan for the individual lot
the proposal will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the
Pickering Official Plan
4.4 Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines (RNDG)
• the subject property is situated within the Rosebank Neighbourhood and is.
part of the RNDG
• RNDG were originally adopted by Council on January 22, 1979 and last
modified on October 19, 1992
• RNDG are intended to provide a framework for new lot creation within the
neighbourhood
• the property is situated within Design Precinct No. 2 of the RNDG
• Design Precinct No. 2 requires all new lots to have a minimum lot frontage of
approximately 15.0 metres and minimum lot depths ranging between
approximately 30 metres and 36 metres
• the applicant's proposal does not meet the intent of the development
guidelines for minimum lot depth
4.5 Zoning By-law 3036
• the subject property is zoned "R4" — Fourth Density Residential Zone under
Zoning By-law 2511.
• this zone permits a single detached dwelling with a minimum lot frontage of
15.0 metres and a minimum lot area of 460 square metres
• the by-law requires minimum front and rear yard depth of 7.5 metres
• the applicant is proposing to construct a dwelling that will result in a reduced
front and rear yard setbacks a with a functional rear yard amenity area in one
of the side yards (see Attachment #2)
5.0 Results of Circulation (see Attachments #4 & 5)
5.1 Resident Comments
upon writing this report, two comments have been received:
Greg Jizmejian - does not support the proposed development
(552 McLeod Crescent) - concerns with proposed increased density and
house siting (see Attachment #4)
Robert Carriere - not opposed to the amendment
(444 Toynevale Road) - requests for the proposed development to strictly
adhere to the existing "R4" zoning performance
Information Report No. 08-10
Page 4
i
04
standards
architectural design should be considered as a
condition of development (see Attachment #5)
5.2 Staff Comments
in reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been identified
by staff for further review and consideration:
• examining whether the proposed development will maintain the character
of the area
• examining whether the proposed development will maintain spirit and
intent of the Pickering Official Plan
• evaluation of the proposed in terms of the siting and functional layout of
the future lot and dwelling
• ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with, and sensitive
to, the existing surrounding development
• reviewing comments received at the Information Meeting as well as,
comments received during the processing of the appliction
6.0 Procedural Information
written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning
& Development Department
oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting
all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report
prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent
meeting of Council or a Committee of Council
7.0 Other Information
7.1 Appendix No. I
• list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City
Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing
report
7.2 Information Received
full scale copies of the Applicant's submitted plan are available for viewing at
the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department
Information Report No. 08-10
Page 5
05
7.3 Company Principal
the owner and applicant of the subject property is James Micklewright
�Nl£Zb
shley Yearwo d Ross Pym
nner I (Acting) Manager, Development Review.
AY:RP:ld
Attachments
Copy: Director, Planning &.Development
06 Appendix No. I to
Information Report No. 08-10
Commenting Residents and Landowners
(1) Greg Jizmejian
(2) Robert Carriere
Commenting Agencies
(1) none received to date
Commenting City Departments
(1) 'none received to date
INIrO @ATION MEPQr27# ! g�o
�
r
M;IHMR� Picil FA If=
.,,
ATTACHMENT#.
INFORMATION RFPOPT#
-
08 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S
PROPOSED PLAN
DG 1110
J. MICKLEWRIGHT
TOYNEVALE RD..
I.
PROPOSED,;
DWELLING
' PLACEMENTqq
`
ij
L -41M
uj
0
O f
1 Y/ I 0I1. .
0
I �I. M
I PROPOSED ..
' DWELLING O
PLACEMENT Q
I i
I
15.2m
1 I
I 1
THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BYTHE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING&
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING INFORMATION SERVICES
DIVISION MAPPING AND DESIGN, SEPT, 11, 2009.
ATTACHMENT# -,To
INFOHMMIONREPORT# o - o
INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S CURRENT PLAN
DG 1/10
J. MICKLEWRIGHT
L
>
C
{
i
Y•
O
O
'
s
Q
1
O
i
F
1
k�
iI
EXISTING
CHAIN LINK
(I
FENCE
.I
TOYNEVALE RD.
•- r
EXISTING
DWELLING
1.3m
EXISTING
GARAGE
15.2m
E
0
m
.3m
EXISTING
:HAIN LINK
FENCE
1•
THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING 8
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING INFORMATION SERVICES
DIVISION MAPPING AND DESIGN, SEPT. 11, 2009.
10
Yearwood, Ashley
ArrAr, nT#_4_T0
INFORMATION REPORT# 0$'10
From:
Jizmejian, Greg [greg.jizmejian@nbpcd.com]
Sent:
May 11, 2010 8:20 AM
To:
Yearwood, Ashley
Cc:
Erica Jizmejian
Subject:
DG1/10-447ToynvaleRd.
Attachments:
ATT00001.txt
Dear Ashley,
I reside at 552 McLeod Crescent, close to this property that is seeking to get a "Site Specific Exception". Unfortunately, I
am unavailable to attend the Public Meeting on June the 7th due to a business trip. If my wife is available that night, she
may attend the meeting, but here are my thoughts and comments.
1. 1 am apposed to any higher density plan in our neighbourhood. There is a distinct and unique feel to our area. Tall
trees, individually designed homes, and space. Any increased concentration of buildings will contribute to a change to
that perceived unique environment.
2. Although this change is being requested on an exceptional basis, there are other projects all vying for "exceptions" to
approve plans for more homes on less land. This is a trend that must be stopped.
3. This specific proposal would cause the northern lot to have a home too close to Toynevale Rd, and on the west side,
too close to Oakwood Dr. This would crowd the street and possibly cause restricted view of traffic at that intersection.
While I can appreciate a property owner's desire to capitalize on potential ways of -increasing value, it should not be at the
expense of the neighbourhood. We look for win/win situations. This is a win/loose proposition, and hope that it is denied.
Regards,
Greg Jizmejian CFP, CLU, CH.F.C. I Estate & Insurance Advisor I Vice President I 1 First Canadian Place, 47'h floor
Toronto, ON, M5X 1 H3 I P 416 359-5660 F 416 359-49411 areg.iizmeiianCcDnbpcd.com
"More people should learn to tell their dollars where to go instead of asking them where they went."
Roger Babson
All insurance products are offered through BMO Nesbitt Burns Financial Services Inc. by licensed life insurance agents, and,
in Quebec, by financial security advisors. Life insurance sales are made by Estate & Insurance Advisors. You may also
wish to seek independent legal and/or tax advice on your personal circumstances.
ATTACHMENT# 5 TO
INFORMATION REPORT#
Yearwood, Ashley r '
From:
Robert Carriere [robert.carriere@gmail.com]
Sent:
May 13, 2010 11:54 AM
To:
Yearwood, Ashley
Cc:
Shields, Debbie
Subject:
Comments regarding DG 1/10 - Request for site specific exception
Good morning'Ashley;
This email is in response to your letter regarding DG 1/10 with property location 447 Toynevale Rd. I live directly across
the street from the proposed site at 444 Toynevale Rd. Please add the following comments to this application and any
other matters for the Rosebank neighbourhood if applicable:
In principle, there seems to be a bigger issue with the,R4 zoning guidelines that could dilute the appeal to this '
neighbourhood. Although the R4 guidelines allow for lot sizes of roughly 50 feet by 100 feet, this now seems to be small
for this area. If I have my facts correct, when Rosebank Public School was being planned, zoning was changed for
Moorelands/Cowan to allow for higher density housing in order, to justify the school. This made sense at the time,
about 30+ years ago. With the introduction of much larger houses in this area over the last several years, more affluent
individuals are looking for housing in Pickering beyond Deercreek and are spotting at this area as a place to build their
homes. There are already many areas within. Pickering with smaller lot sizes so to continue splitting lots in this area to
minimally adhere to R4 zoning doesn't make sense. That said, any larger developments requiring a Development
Agreement with the City in this area must strictly adhere to R4 zoning guidelines until a review of such guidelines (if any)
is completed.
Specific to application DG 1/10, it appears that the exception is minor in nature with a concern I have plus
considerations the City may need to review:
1) Concern: No architectural designs have been submitted with the application so I want to ensure that the
houses being constructed are in line with what has been built in the Rosebank area over the last five to ten
years. A good example is 480 Oakwood which was completed within the last year. If done properly, I look
forward to seeing the final product from the builder through my front window!
2) Consideration: Slope on Oakwood Drive: I live at the top of this street and during the winter, I can't count the
number of times cars have ploughed into my driveway/lawn due to the slope on Oakwood; this is where one of
the proposed houses will face, potentially creating dangerous conditions based on the driveway location. Last
winter, my boulevard tree (a 20 foot Maple) was taken out by a car that couldn't stop so homeowners pulling
out of this proposed driveway may be at risk which may be compounded by a potential lot design that must
consider a very shallow depth (15.2 metres). I'm not sure how the design and house location can litigate this
risk, if it needs to be considered at all.
Bottom line: Splitting one lot into two is fine but the R4 zoning guidelines are outdated for this neighbourhood and
developments larger than three houses must -strictly adhere to R4 guidelines today until they can be reviewed to better
reflect the neighbourhood for the next 20 years.
Debbie, I would like to receive notices of future meetings and any updates on this application if possible please.
Feel free to contact me'for clarification or other requests/questions.
Robert Carriere
444 Toynevale Rd.
Pickering, ON, L1W 21-11
905 509 6913