The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNovember 26, 2001PICKERING AGENDA PLANNING COMMITTEE Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer NOVEMBER 26, 2001 Planning Committee Meeting Monday. November 26, 2001 7:30 P.M. Chair: Councillor McLean ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of November 12, 2001 MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION PAGE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 42-01 LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW FINAL REPORT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OPA 01-001/P (CITY INITIATED: LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION) AMENDMENT 6 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN INFORMATIONAL REVISION 8 TO THE PICKER[NG OFFICIAL PLAN LIVERPOOL ROAD WATERFRONT NODE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 1-166 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 36-01 DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SP 2001-03 974582 ONTARIO LIMITED (GLENBROOK HOMES) (FORMERLY G. & A. HILTS) PART OF LOT 22, RANGE 3, B.F.C. (LANDS ON THE EAST SIDE OF LIVERPOOL ROAD AND SOUTH OF WHARF STREET)_ 167-210' (III} ADJOURNMENT 0 ! RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the background reports entitled Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Part 2- Phase 1 and Liverpool Road South Area/)etai/ed Review - Part 2-Phase 2, prepared by the Planning 8,: Development Department. with consulting assistance from the firms of TSH Associates and Markson Borooah Hodgson Architects. be RECEIVED for information (the documents were previously distributed under separate cover): 2. That Report Number PD 42-01 be RECEIVED as the Final Report on the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review: 3. (ay That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-001/P, initiated by the City of Picketing, to redesignate certain lands in the Liverpool Road South Detailed Review Area to Open Space 3?stem - Marina Areas on Schedule ] Land Use Structure, to revise the boundary of the Wetlands' designation on Schedule III-- Resource Management and to replace section !,/. 4 Ba3' Ridges Neighbourhood Policies with new policies, be APPROVED as set out in Attachment #1 to Appendix I to Report Number PD 42-0 l: (by That the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 6 to the Picketing Official Plan be FORWARDED to Council for enactment as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 42-01' That the revised Liverpool Road Waterfront 3k~de Development Guidelines, be ADOPTED as the City's strategy for detailed land use, urban design, and transportation within the Liverpool Road South Area as set out in Appendix II to Report Number PD 42-01; That "Informational Revision 8 to the Picketing Official Plan" be ADOPTED, as set out in Appendix III to Report Number PD 42-01' That City staff REVIEW implementation matters annually and, as a part of the annual budget process, allocate funds as appropriate toward pubiic infrastructure improvements for the Waterfront Node, as set out in Appendix B - Implementation Strategy of the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines; and That the Citv Clerk be directed to forward a cop.,,' of Report Number PD 42431 to the City's Waterfront Coordinating Committee, the Region of Durham. and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. O2 REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE: November 20, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: PD 42-01 SUBJECT: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Final Report Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-001/P (City Initiated: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Implementation) - Amendment 6 to the Pickering Official Plan - Informational Revision 8 to the Picketing Official Plan - Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines City of Picketing RECOMMENDATIONS: That the background reports entitled Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review- Part 2-Phase 1 and Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review - Part 2-Phase 2, prepared by the Planning & Development Department, with consulting assistance from the firms of TSH Associates and Markson Borooah Hodgson Architects, be RECEIVED for information (the documents were previously distributed under separate cover); That Report Number PD 42-01 be RECEIVED as the Final Report on the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review; (a) (b) That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-001/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to redesignate certain lands in the Liverpool Road South Detailed Review Area to Open Space System - Marina Areas on Schedule I- Land Use Structure, to revise the boundaD' of the Wetlands designation on Schedule III- Resource Management and to replace section 11.4 - Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Policies with new policies, be APPROVED as set out in Attachment #1 to Appendix I to Report Number PD 42-01; That the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 6 to the Pickering Official Plan be FORWARDED to Council for enactment as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 42-01; That the revised Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines, be ADOPTED as the City's strategy for detailed land use, urban design, and transportation within the Liverpool Road South Area as set out in Appendix II to Report Number PD 42-01; o That "Informational Revision 8 to the Pickering Official Plan" be ADOPTED, as set out in Appendix III to Report Number PD 42-01; That City staff REVIEW implementation matters annually and, as a part of the annual budget process, allocate funds as appropriate toward public infrastructure improvements for the Waterfront Node, as set out in Appendix B - Implementation Strategy of the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines; and Report to Council PD 42-01 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Final Report & OPA 01-001.'P (City-initiated) Date: November 20, 2001 Page 2 03 That the City Clerk be directed to ibrward a copy of Report Number PD 42 01 to the City's Waterfront Coordinating Committee. the Region of Durham, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. ORIGIN: On December 6, 1999, Council passed Resolutions ~222 99 and 0223/99, which directed staff to commence with the Detailed Review of the Liverpool Road South Area, endorsed a terms of reference for the Detailed Review. and established funding in the budget to undertake the work. AUTHORITY: The Planning ..tc~, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 1 FINANCIAL iMPLICATIONS: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed Official Plan policies; however, thc hnptemcntation Strategy identifies various undertakings that will have future direct and indirect (staff time) cost implications ,%r the City. Specific implementation projects and their associated financial implications will be presented to Council for consideration in future budgets. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Planning & Development staff, in consultation with TSH Associates, Markson Borooah Hodgson Architects and TCI Management Consultants Limited, and with public, landowner and agency consultation, has completed a land use, urban design, transportation, and environmental management review of the Liverpool Road South Area. The Review Area generally extends southward from Commerce Street. including both sides of Liverpool Road to Lake Ontario, extending west to Frenchman's Bay and east to the Hydro Marsh. The Detailed Review consisted of two pans: Part 1 focused on background information about the review area, the arrangement of land uses, development guidelines addressing the height and massing and placement of buildings, and an implementation strategy. Part 2 established a "Great Lakes Nautical Village" design theme for the area. as expressed in detailed architectural, landscape and streetscape guidelines. During Part 2. revisions were also made to the land use, and corresponding revisions were made to the Development Guidelines. The review was initiated in 1999, as a restllt of the City receiving two major development applications (Picketing Harbour Company and 794582 Ontario Limited - formerly 'Hilts'), on lands within an area identified as a Detailed Reviev, .Area. The Picketing Harbour Company application was subsequently revised to decrease intensity, and rcconfigure uses. and propose marina supportive uses on the Coolv,'ater Farms property through another application. All applications were used as input for the Review. The Review recommends changes to the Picketing Official Plan, adoption of Development Guidelines including complementary implementation matters, and other required Infornaational Revisions to the Official Plan. O4 Report to Council PD 42-01 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Final Report & OPA 01-001/P (City-initiated) Date: November 20, 2001 Page 3 The Review results in a land use and design strategy that guides future investment decisions and forms the basis for reviewing current and future development applications. The adoption of recommendations will put in place a land use and design framework that: establishes a Marina Mixed Use area, along to the water's edge, which shall be the primary area for marina, and marina-support uses; establishes a complementary Liverpool Road Corridor for tourist and service commercial uses, along Liverpool Road; identifies the City's interest in acquiring additional lands for public parking in the area south of Wharf Street; and recognizes residential as a possible option on certain lands within the Waterfront Node provided significant public benefits are achieved (including 'retail convertible' construction on the Liverpool Road Corridor, and publicly accessible water edge open space for lands west of the Liverpool Road Corridor). In addition, the framework: establishes designations that protect the Lake Ontario shoreline and other sensitive natural features; establishes opportunities to rejuvenate the Fairport Village area; establishes a Great Lakes Nautical Village design theme; reaffirms the City's commitment to ongoing infrastructure improvements in the area; and identifies the possible need for development agreements to address infrastructure improvements prior to by-laws being approved for redevelopment. A review of the submitted development applications against the proposed policy framework finds that the Hilts proposal is permitted (against both current and proposed policies), and the Picketing Harbour Company/Coolwater Farms proposals may be permitted subject to compliance with the policy framework, and the applicant's concurrence with conditions of approval that Council may impose. The proposed policies promote the continued operation of the existing marina and marina support uses, while providing new opportunities for tourism and marina support uses to be established. New residential development is also permitted provided significant public benefits are achieved. This adds further opportunity for the vitality that comes with mixed uses along the Waterfront Trail, active street/pedestrian realm, and waterfront public access opportunities. To implement the results of the review, amendments and informational revisions are required to the Pickering Official Plan, and Development Guidelines are required to be added to the Compendium Document to the Pickering Official Plan. Staff recommends that Council adopt the recommendations outlined in this report. These recommendations will allow private sector investment, coupled with continued public sector municipal infrastructure projects (such as road modifications/signage/lighting, etc.) to achieve an overall community benefit. Staff also recommends that a copy of Report Number PD 42-01 be forwarded to the City's Waterfront Coordinating Committee, the Region of Durham and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Report to Council PD 42-01 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Final Report & ePA 01-001/P (City-initiated) Date: November 20, 2001. Page 4 0 5 BACKGROUND: 1.0 History 1.1 Stud,',' Area The Liverpool Road South Study .Area generally extends southward from Commerce Street to Lake Ontario. ext'cnding west to Frenchman's Bay and east to the Hydro Marsh. Both sides of Liverpool Road and the historic "Village of Fairport" are included. Existing development in thc area includes a mixture of housing, marinas, restaurants, boat storage, marine service, the Region o1' Durham sewage pumping station, the fenner Coolwater Farms aquaculture i~cilitv, park and natural open space uses (.sec Location Map Attachment #1). 1 '~ Detailed Review In July 1999, the C'itx received two major development proposals in the Liverpool Road South Area. One application was submitted by the Picketing Harbour Company (ePA 99-004/P and A 22 99), /'or the East Shore Marina lands. The other application was submitted by 794582 Ontario Limited - Glenbrook Homes [tbrmerly G. & A. Hilts] (A 23/99), tbr land on the east side of Liverpool Road, just north of the sewage pumping station. The applications proposed a "marine village" concept consisting of townhomes, boat storage areas, and tile potential for marinas, marina-supportive uses, commercial uses. and higher density residential uses. The applications were submitted on lands identified as being within a Detailed Review Area in the Pickering Official Plan. The Plan requires Council to complete a review of land use, urban design, transportation, and environmental management matters, as may be required, for the area prior to major development occurring. The submission of the Pickering Harbour Company and Hilts applications triggered the need for the Detailed Review. Accordingly, Council passed P, esolution #181 99 in September 1999, which directed staff to prepare a terms of reference for a Detailed Review of the area. The resolution also stated that no recoinmendations were to be t'orwarded to Council on any major development proposals within the study area until the Detailed Review was completed. In December 1999, Council endorsed a terms of reference /bt the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review. Tile Planning & Development Department was directed to initiate the study, and funding was established to undci-takc tiao work. Three consulting firms were retained by the City to provide professional assistance with marina development, urban design and market analysis. The tlrms x~cr'e TSlt Associates, Markson Borooah Hodtson Architects and TCI Management Consultants Limited. Key personnel from thos~ firms combined with staff from the Planning & Development Department formed a study team to undertake the Detailed Revicx~. As set out in the terms of reference, the Detailed Review consisted of two pans. Part 1 focused on background information about the study area. land use, building mass and placement, and an implementation strategy. Part 2 focused on detailed design matters including the establishment of a "Great Lake Nautical \'illago" theme ibr the area, and architectural, streetscape and landscape guidelines. A brief description of the Reports prepared Ibr Pans 1 and 2 is provided in Attachment Report to Council PD 42-01 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Final Report 8,: OPA 01-001/P (City-initiated) Date: November 20, 2001. Page 5 2.0 Public Consultation 2.1.1 Overview 2.1.2. 2.1.3 Consulting with residents and landowners within and around the Study Area, as well as technical agencies and interested others, has been an integral component of the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review. The time and effort taken by all who have contributed is greatly appreciated. The consultation program included the following public meetings: · a public meeting/workshop, held April 18th, 2000, to provide background information and discuss key objectives; · a public meeting, held May 16th, 2000, to discuss the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review: Part I -Phase 1 Report; · a public Executive Committee meeting, held on June 13th, 2000, to discuss the results of Part 1 of the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review, and seek direction to commence Part 2; · a public Council meeting, held on June 19th, 2000, to discuss the results of Part 1 of the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review, and seek direction to commence Part 2; · a public meeting, held March 8th, 2001, to discuss the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review: Part 2 - Phase 1 Report; · a Statutory Public Meeting, held on April 19th, 2001, held for the proposed City-initiated Official Plan Amendment OPA 01-001/P arising from the Review; and · a public meeting, held May 8th, 2001, to discuss the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review: Part 2 - Phase 2 Report. Copies of the public consultation summaries contained within the Part 1 - Phase 2 Report and the Part 2 - Phase 2 Report are provided (see Attachment #3). The summaries identify the issues that were most frequently raised by the public. As well, numerous meetings were held with landowners and residents throughout the Detailed Review. Public Information Meeting A statutory public information meeting was held on April 19, 2001, to discuss the City-initiated Official Plan Amendment. Information Report No. 11-01, which outlined the proposal by the City to put in place land use designations and polices for the Liverpool Road South Area, was prepared. The text of the Information Report is attached (see Attachment #4). At the meeting, a number of local residents appeared to express their concerns with increased neighbourhood traffic, visitor parking, waterfront promenade, and bay-fill. Minutes of the meeting are included as Attachment #5. Additional Information All public and agency comments received on the City-initiated amendment and through the Detailed Review, from commencement of Part 1 through to this report are attached (see Attachments #6 to #41). All were considered in the preparation of the Official Plan Amendment and Development Guidelines. Report to Council PD 42-01 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Final Report & ePA 01-001/P (City-initiated) Date: November 20, 2001 Page 6 07 3.0 3.1 3.1 Discussion Guiding Vision for the Waterfront Node The recommended guiding vision for thc \Vaterfront Node is that of a "Great Lakes Nautical Village" with a mix of uses and an ambiance that is inviting. Both the recommended amendment and the recommended Development Guidelines address this theme. As described in the Development Guidelines, "the Village should be an interesting place to live, work, and visit. Recognizing Frenchman's Bay as a boating tourism area, the Nautical Village would provide seasonal marina facilities with visiting boaters. Additional land-based recreation and tourism opportunities will bring visitors from the local area interested in spending a few hours to most of the day in the area. The nature of the Village will be geared toward pedestrian comfbrt, including street amenities." The Development Guidelines continue noting that "the character of the Great Lakes Nautical Village will be established by its series of small blocks with frequent and regular views out to the water. Thc streets will ibrm view corridors and act as public open space. A well-connected network of public open space and streets, which exhibit a high level of streetscape design and quality, furthcr reinforces the character of the Village. The streets will provide pedestrian-friendly spaces." Further, the guiding vision for thc Nautical Village states that the "existing marinas have provided a focal point and key character-setting element lbr many years; the continuation of marina uses m these areas will persist as a key character-setting element of the Village" and in addition to thc marine-related activities, "the Village will offer a variety of other uses that provide opportunities for people to live, work, shop and play within the area. These additional uses include residential development subject to certain restrictions, retail operations like craft stores, boutiques and bookshops, as well as other uses such as restaurants, art studios, and ofrices." Recommended Land Use Concep_[ The recommended anaendments to the Picketing Official Plan and complementary Development Guidelines, establish a land use and design framework that sets lands aside for marina and marina support uses, identifies lands for tourism and service commercial, recognizes the City's interest in securing additional lands for public parking south of Wharf Street, and identifies selected opportunities for new residential development subject to significant public benefits being achieved. In developing the land use concept, consideration has been given to the issues that have been raised by members of thc public, landowners developers and agencies through the consultation sessions held as part of the Detailed Review, the statutory public information meeting on the City-initiated Official Plan Amendment, and the comments received on the site-specific development proposals. To discuss the land use concept, Figure 1 presented on the next page shows 5 land use precincts. O8 Report to Council PD 42-01 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Final Report & CPA 01-001/P (City-initiated) Date: November 20, 2001. Page 7 ~ I~ / t ~ L~NE L N~\ llll. ll~ i I ~ COMMERCE ! STREET r I ~ ~~[~ F IZ i OObMAR --~ % X~kX V .~,GEVIi.~,G~ ~ . B ROADVIEW STREET < cZ: I ...... N~ y ANNLAND ~TREET ~ / ( ~ ,, ~/~ MARSH '-.... ~ BEACHFRONT ~ LAKE ONTARIO City of Pickering Planning & Development Depa~ment ~ND USE PRECINCTS PRECINCT A MARINA MIXED USE AR~ PRECINCT B LIVERPOOL ROAD CORRIDOR PRECINCT C PUBLIC USE/PARKING AND BOAT STORAGE AR~ PRECINCT D ESTABLISHED BUILT AREA ~ I 100 PRECINCT E NATURAL AR~S AND OPEN SPACE AREA m.,... FIGURE 1 NOV 20, 2001 3.1.1 Precinct A: Marina Mixed Use Area PrimaD, Marina Area Precinct A is the Marina Mixed Use Area. Precinct A represents the primary marina area within the Waterfront Node. The marine operations, which include marina and marina supportive uses, provide a focus for waterfront activity. The lands within this Precinct are currently designated Open Space Areas - Marina Areas. The amendment to the Official Plan recommends that additional lands north of Wharf Street be redesignated from Urban Residential - Low DensiO, Residential Areas to Marina Areas. Further, the amendment recommends new neighbourhood policies be added to the Plan clarifying the primary role of this area for marina and marina support uses within the Waterfront Node. The amendments reflect the 'working marina' as the historic basis for the Waterfront Node, and responds to the strong public comments to retain the opportunity for marinas, and marina support uses to flourish. Report to Council PD 42-01 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Final Report & CPA 01-001,P (City-initiated) Date: November 20, 2001 Page 8 O9 3.1.2 Residential U~'es In Figure 1, a sub-area within Precinct A is stladed and identified as A-1. The recommended amendment identifies sub-area A-i tls an area wherein Council may consider tile introduction of residential uses sub.jeer to conditions. The recommended conditions include Council being satisIicd that: a functional marina operation can be maintained on remaining land,,,: appropriate operating conditions and infl'astructure is in place for a functional marina: a significant public benefit is provided as part of the redevelopment project: and other applicable policies and Guidelines are complied with. The recommended policy identifies, as a minimum, the provision of publicly-accessible space at the water's edge o1' Frenchman's Bav to qualil? as a significant public benefit for residential redevelopment within sub-area A-1. For lands designated Marina :\reas, the current Official Plan policy only permits "limited residential uses in conjunction with a marina". This restrictive approach is replaced in the proposed amendment xvitla an 'appl'oac}~ that is still restrictive, but specifies revised criteria that a landowner must i1200t in order to establish residential uses. Fu~her, the recommended amendment establishes thc maximunq densitx tbr residential as 55 units per net hectare. The inclusion of residential as a possible use xxithin tile \Vatcrfi'ont Node introduces the option fora greater mixing of uses, creating more vibrancy, more 'eves on the street', and opportunities for activity at different times of the da>'. In addition, there are opportunities for cross-marketing of ncxx residential uses with modifications to the marina facilities. Further, the opportunity for residential uses provides an incentive lbr private investment in the area, if it occurs in a manner that will result in a public benefit in keeping with the Waterfront Node objectives. Precinct B: Liverpool Road Con-idor Tourism and Service Commo'c'h~/ h'scs Precinct B, (see Figure 1 ). is tile Liveq~ool Road Corridor. Precinct B represents an area for tourism and service commercial uses that complement the marina, recreational and waterfront trail uses within tile Waterfl-ont Node. The lands within this Precinct are currently designated O/wJ~ 5)';acc Areas- Marina Areas and Urba~ Residetttia/Area.s' Lo~' D~'~.s'itv Re.s'id~,~h~/. The amendment to the Official Plan recommends that the Lox,,' Density Residential lands (fronting the west side of Liverpool Road, north of \\'hart' Street, and fronting the cast side of Liverpool Road, south of Wharf Street). be rcdesignated to .Xh~r,~c~ .4reruns. Further. tile amendment recommends new neighbourhood policies be added to tine Plan identilying that retail, office and personal service uses to serve the tourist, recreational and other community needs be permissible within tiao lands abutting Liverpool Road. Given the prominence of Precinct B lands, the recommended amendment docs not permit boat storage adjacent to Liverpool Road. Further. tile recommended Development Guidelines require that any off-street parking associated with free-standing office, retail or personal service uses shall be located within a rear or side xard. The recommended Development Guidelines also require buildings to be located close to the street, with a mininauna height of two storeys, and designed using a Great Lakes Nautical Village theme. A high quality pedestrian realm, coupled with commercial uses offers a means of achieving a lively pedestrian environment with more amenities for both local residents and visitors alike. This adds further opportunity for the vitality that comes 10 Report to Council PD 42-01 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review - Final Report & OPA 01-001/P (City-initiated) Date: November 20, 200! Page 9 with mixed uses along the Waterfront Trail, active street/pedestrian realm, and waterfront public access opportunities. Residential Uses Building on the "village" concept, and in keeping with the benefits that come with mixed uses, the recommended policy also permits, subject to conditions, the introduction of residential uses within Precinct B, along Liverpool Road. The recommended conditions are that Council be satisfied that: a significant public benefit is provided as part of the redevelopment project through a requirement that residential dwelling units along Liverpool Road be designed and constructed in such a way that the ground floor can be easily converted in the future; and the development complies with other applicable policies and Guidelines. StafFs original approach to this issue was to require full commercial Building and Fire Code compliance in the ground floors at the time of initial construction. However, further review found the Code requirements for building commercial to be substantial, and to require firewalls that would create a less than desirable external design. As well, landowners have expressed concerns about the high up-front construction costs, and the limited market to immediately support all units with a commercially designed ground floor. Thus, the alternative approach for 'easy convertibility' is recommended. In this way, opportunities for limited seasonal and year round commercial within any of the residential units would be provided. 'Retail Convertibility' Meetings have been held between the City and landowners to discuss this approach and the applicability of the Ontario Building Code as it applies to converting a portion of the ground floor of an existing townhouse unit to an unspecified retail use by the owner. The key requirements ~vhich would be required to convert an existing residential building include: · roughed-in washroom facilities that meet barrier-free standards for the commercial component; · fire alarm, if the building is four storeys including basement; · 1 hour fire separation between residential and commercial occupancy; · 100 psfdesign floor load for commercial use: · separate mechanical Systems to service the ground floor; · separate exits to the exterior for each use; and · emergency lighting in an enclosed exit. Other upgrades may be applicable depending on the proposed design, extent of construction and scope of commercial use. In addition, the design of the residential units would incorporate such elements as higher ceilings, kitchens and dining facilities on the second or third floor, doors generally at-grade access, and special attention to window/door openings, which would make the buildings more readily adaptable to future commercial uses. Further, the exteriors would also reflect the Great Lakes Nautical Village theme by incorporating design details such as balconies, decks, covered entrances, pedestrian scale doorways, awnings and window boxes. Front balconies are encouraged to be as deep as possible to allow for covered patios for future storefronts. The recommended policy requires proponents of rezoning to enter into development agreements respecting the provision of such construction features to enable easy retail conversion. Report to Council PD 42-01 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Final Report & ePA 01-001/P (City-initiated) Date: November 20, 2001 Page 10 11 3.1.3 Some comments have suggested thc land use policy not allow residential along Liverpool Road. Staff does not agree with this approach. Not only does residential provide activity along the street, the Citx's retail market consultant noted there are only limited opportunities for retailing at tins end of Liverpool Road. Market opportunities equated to about one to two shops per >,,.'ear. Further, tine consultant noted there may be more seasonal than year-round uses. The recommended approach, to permit residential uses with built-in 'retail convertible' ground floors in each unit, prevents a vacant boarded up streetscapc. Itl addition, it maximizes tine chances for homeowners to establish businesses as they are able and interested, and as market conditions permit and change over time. Precinct C: Public Use Parking and Boat Storage Area Precinct C, (see Figure 1/. is an area for ncx~ Public Use Parking and Boat Storage. These lands generally include the Citv's current parking lot, lands to the east of that lot at the south end of tile 'Cool\rater Farms' property, tile Region of Durham's sewage pumping station, and the lands cutwcntlv oxvned by Ontario Power Generation located behind the 'Hilts' property. Precinct C represents an area where thc City will pursue public parking facilities, alone or in partnership with other landowners. Pti\ate landowners may establish boat storage. A public walkway mav also be pursued along tile xvcstem limit of this precinct. These uses \rill complement marina functions, and xvater/'ront recreational opportunities associated with the Millennium Square. tile \Vatcrfl'ont Trail, and tlnc emerging Waterfront Node. Lands within Precinct C are desigmated as O/~c~ Space &'szem - .\,k~tural Area in the current Official Plan. No change is proposed in ttnese designations. Based on new information respecting tile flood lines associated with these lands received since the May 8th, 2001 public meeting, staff is no longer proposing redesignation of these lands to Marina Areas as was contemplated at that time. Rather, the recommended policy clarifies that despite the Natural Areas designation, parking and boat storage are permissible uses within Precinct C. The recommended policy direction for Precinct C responds to the concerns expressed about the lack of parking in Waterfront Node, lbllowing thc success of the Millennium Square this summer. Notwithstanding tile recommended policy for Precinct C, the recommended amendment and development guidelines continue to provide for on-street parking on both sides of Liverpool Road, south of \Vharf Street. and on one side of other streets within the Node. Staff supports on-street parking as it tends to slow passing vehicles, and creates a barrier /'or the pedestrian between tile sidewalk and the street pavement. In addition, tile recommended amendnlent identifies that Council may accept cash-in-lieu of parking in this area, particularly ibr the small-scale retail developments anticipated along Liverpool Road and in Fairport Village. Ttnis may assist in securing lands for public parking elsewhere in the area. As part of the recommended implementation strategies, it is recommended that Council monitor the parking situation over time and mitigative actions be taken if required. Precinct D: Historic Village of Fairport Precinct D, (sec Figure 1), includes thc historic Village of Fairport. Precinct D represents an area within the Waterfront Node where opportunities exist to rejuvenate the historic village functions by permitting the introduction of small scale businesses into the existing residential area. 12 Report to Council PD 42-01 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review - Final Report & OPA 01-001/P (City-initiated) Date: November 20, 2001 Page 11 3.1.5 3.2 3.3 The recommended amendment and Development Guidelines recognize the importance of protecting the character of the historic village while providing an opportunity for revitalizing a "village" function by permitting such activities as tearooms, craft shops, art studios, and offices. The recommended policy specifies that the additional uses would be subject to the consideration of site-specific rezoning applications. Precinct E: Natural Area and Open Space Area Precinct E, (see Figure 1), is the Natural area and Open Space area. Precinct E represents the areas permitted for a mix of active and passive recreational uses, except xvhere lands are environmentally sensitive, such as the Hydro Marsh, where no development is anticipated. The Progress Bay Front Park is currently designated Open Space System - Marina Areas, while the remaining areas (East Spit, Beachfront Park, Millennium Square, Hydro Marsh) are designated Open Space System - Natural Areas. No change is recommended to these designations. Existing provisions of the Pickering Official Plan will govern land use within. However, through the Revie~v, new information was received about the boundary of the wetlands for the Hydro Marsh. The recommended amendment to the Pickering Official Plan reconfigures the boundary of the ~Fetlands in the vicinity of the Hydro Marsh on Schedule II! - Resource Management. Other Aspects of Amendment 6 to the Pickering Official Plan In addition to those specific matters identified in the previous section affecting Schedule I - Land Use Structure, Schedule III - Resource Management, and Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Policies, the recommended amendment includes a number of other important policy statements. They include: · encouraging all proponents of development to consider publicly-accessible points of interest adjacent to Frenchman's Bay, where feasible; and · establishing conditions under which proposals for bay-fill may be considered including that the proposal demonstrates no adverse effect on the aquatic environment (which is consistent with the federal Fisheries Act and the provincial Environmental Assessment Act), is limited in scale, is designed to facilitate public amenities, and is supported by appropriate required reports. Staff recommends that the City-initiated Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-001/P be approved as set out in Amendment 6 to the Pickering Official Plan (see Exhibit # 1 to Appendix I to this Report). Further, staff recommends that the By-law to adopt Amendment 6 to the Official Plan be forwarded to Council for enactment (see Appendix I to Report Number PD 42-01). Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines The development guidelines, which were adopted in principle by Council last June, have been revised moderately, including minor reformatting of Figures to reflect the revised land use precincts and policies. In addition, the recommended Guidelines contain descriptions and illustrations of the Great Lakes Nautical theme and detailed architectural, landscape and streetscape guidelines. Report to Council PD 42-01 Date: November 20, 2001 13 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Final Report & OPA 01-001/P (City-initiated) Page 12 The Waterfront Development Guidelines will provide direction for future development including public infrastructure projects within the Liverpool Road South Area. The Guidelines will assist with tile review of development applications, and provide direction for thc preparation of development proposals. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council adopt the revised Liverpool Road \\'aterfront Node Development Guidelines attached as Appendix II to Report Number PD 42-01. as tile City's strategy for detailed land use, urban design, and transportation within the Liverpool Road South Area. 3.4 ~lementation Strategy The Implementation Strategy was presented in the Part 1 - Phase 2 Report and adopted "in principle" by Council last June. The Strategy addresses the components of a desirable waterfront that assist in implementing land use, design and development matters, or are complementary strategies and initiatives. Minor refinements are made to fine-tune tine Strategy and to ensure consistency with thc Development Guidelines and the City-initiated Official Plan Anlcndment. As part of the Strategy's actions, it is suggested that Council consider allocating, as part of its annual budgeting process, monies tbr complementary public infrastructure improvements. These improvements will, in some cases, be shared with other panners. Staff suggest that funds be set aside for such matters as streetscape, gateway and special sidewalk treatments, pedestrian lighting and signage, eventual burial of hydro wires, and tree planting within the \Vaterfront Node. While the implementation matters identified are aimed at Council. there are other levels of government, public and private agencies, private and non-government organizations, and others who will collaboratively assist in thc achievement of a successful waterfront node. A number of actions have been identified through the Detailed Review that would assist in achieving the objectives for the Liverpool Road South area. The Implementation Strategy includes such actions as: · pursuing opportunities to increase public access to the water's edge, where feasible; · budgeting for infrastructure projects such as sidewalks and street light poles; · investigating the opportunity tbr additional parking areas within the \\;aterfront Node; · involving thc City's Waterfront Coordinating Committee in efforts to improve the navigability of Frenchman's Bav and its harbour entrance: and · continuing efforts to improve the ecological state of Frenchman's Bay and Hydro Marsh. It is recommended that the "Implementation Strategy". be adopted, as part of Appendix B to the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (see Guidelines, Appendix II to this Report). 3.5 Informational Revision 8 to the Pickerin~3 Official Plan Information revisions to the Plan are required to identity the adoption of the Development Guidelines for the Liverpool Road South Area. In June 2000, Council adopted in principle Informational Revision S to the Plan, which included an updated Neighbourhood Map for the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood and informational text. The recommended Informational Revisions reflect Council's adoption of the Guidelines on both the Neighbourhood Map and in the related informational text. No changes are necessary from the earlier version. Staff recommends Council adopt the Informational Revision 8 to the Picketing Official Plans set out in Appendix II to Report PD 42-01. 14 Report to Council PD 42-01 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review - Final Report & OPA 01-001/P (City-initiated) Date: November 20, 2001 Page 13 3.6 Development Applications As explained in section 1.2 of this Report, a Detailed Review of the Liverpool Road South Area in the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood is required prior to Council considering major development applications. Once Council adopts the Liverpool Road South Area Waterfront Node Development Guidelines, this Official Plan requirement will be satisfied. The City is currently processing major development applications by the Pickering Harbour Company/'Coolwater Farms' proposal, and 794582 Ontario Limited (Glenbrook Homes - formerly G. & A. Hilts). With respect to the Hilts proposal, a Report to Council on the draft plan of subdivision is being forwarded to Planning Committee for consideration at the same meeting date of this Report, the Final Report on the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review. The implementing zoning by-law for 'Hilts' is scheduled for the next Council meeting on December 3, 2001. Following receipt and review of outstanding supporting reports for the Pickering Harbour Company/'Coolwater Farms' applications, and following further review' and analysis of the applications, in light of the Council adopted policy, a Report to Council will be prepared on these applications. It is anticipated that the Report would be forwarded to the Planning Committee in the New Year. CONCLUSION: With Council's adoption of the recommended Official Plan Amendment, Development Guidelines and Informational Revisions to the Official Plan, a comprehensive framework will be established for guiding future private development and public infrastructure investment within the Waterfront Node as envisioned by the Liverpool Road South Detailed Review. The framework includes direction on the "Great Lakes Nautical Village" theme, urban design principles, environmental management, and land uses within the Node. These recommendations will allow private sector investment, coupled with continued public sector municipal infrastructure projects (such as road modifications, signage, and lighting) to achieve an overall public benefit. It is also recommended that Report Number PD 42-01 be forwarded to the City's Waterfront Coordinating Committee, the Region of Durham and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. APPENDICES: I By-law to adopt Amendment No. 6 to the Pickering Official Plan for the Liverpool Road Area (Amendment included as Exhibit #1 to By-law) II Waterfront Node Development Guidelines, for the Liverpool Road Area III Informational Revision 8 to the Pickering Official Plan, for the Liverpool Road Area Report to Council PD 42-01 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Final Report 8,: OPA 01-001 P ICity-mitiated) Date: November 20, 2001, Page 14 15 ATTACHMENTS: Map 1. Liverpool Road South Map Report and Meeting Minutes 2. Description of Reports prepared for the Liverpool Road Souttn Area Detailed Review 3. Public Consultation Summaries for Part 1 -Part 2 and Part 2 - Phase 2 Reports 4. Text of Information Report Nc). 11-01 5. Minutes of Public Intbnnation Meeting Agency Comments 7. $. 9. Comment Letter from tile Durtnam District School Board (letter dated May 29, 2000 Comment Letter from Veridian Connections (letter dated May 4, 2001) Comment Letter from Durham Region t>lanning Department (letter dated June 25, 2001 ) Comment Letter from Toronto and P, czion Conservation Authority (letter dated June 7, 20001 Resident Comments 10. Craig Bamford (letter dated May 1(), 2001) 11. Yvonne Burns (received at May 16, 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 12. W. Callaghan (received at May 16, 2000 Public Meeting/Workslnop) 13. Paul Crawford (received at May 16. 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 14. Jim Daubeny (received at Mav 10, 2()0() Public Meeting'Workstnop) 15. Dianne Daniels (received at May 10, 2000 Public Meeting \Vorkshop) 16. George Daniels (received at May 16.2{i)00 and May 8, 2001 Public Meeting/Workshop) 17. Gordon Ednfiston (received at May 16. 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 18. Ms. Fleming (received April 19. 2000) 19. Sue Hamilton (received at May 16. 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 20. Leifand Franny Jensen (received at April 18, 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 21. Paul Kelland (received at May 16, 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 22. Bruce Logan (received at Mav 16, 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 23. Jim Lucas (letters received Mav 1, 2001, May 30. 2001, June 20, 2001) 24. Dee Dee Markham (received at May 16. 2000 Public Meeting/Workstnop) 25. Vickie Massey (received at May 16, 2000 Public Meeting/Workslnop) 26. Dave Matthews (received at May 16. 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 27. Stephen McKean (letter dated April £5,2000) 28. B. A. Metcalf(letter received June 5, 2()01) 29. Tom Mohr (received at May 16, 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 30. C. O'Leary (received at May 16, 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 31. Gary Peck (letters dated June 12, 2000, May 16, 2001, July 30, 2001, August 4, 2001) 32. W. S. Rae (received at May 16, 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 33. Mr. and Mrs. Russell (received at April l(q, 2000 Public Meeting Workshop) 34. Joan Skelton (received at May 16. 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 35. Ctnris Spence (received at May 16, 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 36. Mr. David Steele (letters dated April 19. 2000. April 30, 2()00. May 22, 2000, June 13, 2000, May 11, 2001, May 12, 2001, May 14. 2001, May 22, 2001) 37. Kevin Taite (received at May 16, 2000 Public Meeting Workshop) 38. Sylvain Trepanier (received at May 16, 2000 Public Meeting, Workshop) 39. Peggy Wilmot (received at May 16, 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 40. Joe Winters (letter dated May 15,2001 ) 41. John Wintony (received at May 10, 2000 Public Meeting/Workshop) 1.6 Report to Council PD 42-01 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Final Report & OPA 01-001/P (City-initiated) Date: November 20, 2001 Page 15 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed by: Grant McGregor, MCIP, RI~P- ' Principal Planner - Policy Nei'l Cal~/MCIP, I~P Director, PI~ i~.ng~ Development Catherine L. Rose Manager, Policy GM/CLR/sm Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Operations & Emergency Services Director, Corporate Services Solicitor for the City Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ~ ,,__ Thon~ J.Y"Q~i~n, ¢ier A~inistra~e~ APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 42-01 17 BY-LAW TO ADOPT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 6 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN ' 18 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 6 (OPA 01-0 to~th }~pp~l~for the City of Pickering WHEREAS pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), thc Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing may by by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; AND WHEREAS on February 23, 2000 Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000 which allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; AND WHERERAS the Region has advised that Amendment 6 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Amendment 6 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering is hereby adopted; That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments; 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this __ 2001. day of MAYOR ~~x~ WAYNE ART CLERK BRUCE J. TAYLOR Exhibit "A" to By-law AMENDMENT 6 TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN 20 AMENDMENT 6 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: LOCATION: BASIS: The purpose of this amendment is to redesignate certain lands along Liverpool Road, south of Annland Street, from Urban Residential Areas- Low Density to Open Space System - Marina Areas, update the Wetland boundary of the Hydro Marsh, and add new policies for the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. The amendment affects lands within the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node, which includes lands on both sides of Commerce Street, extending west to Frenchman's Bay and south to the Lake Ontario shoreline, along both sides of Liverpool Road, and east to the Hydro Marsh, in the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood of the City of Pickering. This amendment to the Pickering Official Plan has been determined to be appropriate following the completion of the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review in the fall of 2001. Main conclusions from the Review include, that: a marina mixed use area, along the water's edge, shall be the primary area for marina and marina-support uses; a complementary Liverpool Road Corridor shall accommodate tourist and service commercial uses; the City shall pursue acquisition of lands for additional public parking within the Waterfront Node; and residential uses are an option on certain lands within the Waterfront Node provided certain conditions are met including the provision of significant public benefits. The recommended guiding vision for the Waterfront Node is that of a "Great Lakes Nautical Village" with a mix of uses, high quality building design, and an inviting ambiance. The nature of the Village will be geared toward pedestrian comfort, including street amenities. ACTUAL AMENDMENT: The Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: Amending Schedule I- Land Use Structure by redesignating lands on the south side of Annland Street west of Liverpool Road and lands on the east side of Liverpool Road generally south of Wharf Street from "Urban Residential Areas - Low Density Residential" to "Open Space System - Marina Areas", as illustrated on Schedule 'A' attached to this Amendment; Amending Schedule III - Resource Management to reflect new mapping of the provincially significant Hydro Marsh wetland as illustrated on Schedule 'B' attached to this proposed Amendment; and 3. Replacing policy 11.5 - Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Policies with the following: "11.5 City Council shall, (a) recognize that the area generally situated from Commerce Street stretching south to the Lake Ontario shoreline, on either side of Liverpool Road, exhibits a unique mix of built and natural attributes that establishes the area as the ~Liverpool Road Waterfront Node~; (b) promote the Waterfront Node as a boating, tourism and recreational area; Amendment 6 to the Pickering Official Plan (continued) 21_ (c) require that future development within the \X'aterfront Node capitalize upon these unique attributes, which include Frenchman's Bay, Lake Ontario, the Hvdro Marsh, Ci~' parks, Millennium Square, marine activities, and the historic Village of Fairport; (d) for lands within the Waterfront Node, require building fi)tins and public space to be of high quality design with a Great Lakes Nautical Village theme as detailed in the Council-adopted Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines, to create a vibrant pedestrian environment; (e) for lands xvithin the \Vaterfront Node, further identify, as Marina Mixed Use Area, those lands that, (i) constitute the primary marina precinct within the \Vaterfront Node; (ii) are located as follows: the northern two-thirds of the fl)rmer 'Coolwater Farms' property, extending west across Liverpool Road to Frenchman's Bay, and stretching north to Annland Street excluding the Liverpool Road frontage; and (iii) are illustrated for reference on the Tertiarx Plan contained within the Council-adopted Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines; (t) for lands identified as the Marina Mixed Use Area, and despite Table 3* of Chapter Three, (i) restrict the variety of permissible uses to those that strengthen and complement the existing working marinas and cater to the Pickering community, and boating public, as follows: marinas, yacht clubs, and mooring facilities; marina supportive uses; restaurants; limited retail and office uses; and those uses permissible in Open Space System -Natural Areas and Recreational Areas; (ii) further identify a sub-area of land located south of Wharf Street, 35 metres from the edge of Frenchman's Bay, wherein despite (i) above, residential uses, up to a maximum density of 55 units per net hectare, may be considered, subject to conditions; accordingly, City Council, in considering rezoning applications for residential development for lands in the sub-area, shall be satisfied that, · a functional marina operation can be maintained on the remaining lands; · appropriate infrastructure and operating conditions are in place for a functional marina; · a significant public benefit is achieved, which as a minimum shall include the provision of publicly-accessible space at thc water's edge of Frenchman's Bay; and · other applicable polices of the Plan are complied with; (g) for lands within the Waterfront Node, further identify.', as the Liverpool Road Corridor, those lands that, (i) represent a tourism and sen'ice commercial use area to complement the marina and recreational uses; (ii) are located on the east side of Liverpool Road on the former 'Hilts' lands, and extending west across Liverpool Road to a depth of 30 metres, and stretching north to Annland Street; and (iii) are illustrated for reference on the Tertiary Plan contained within the Council-adopted Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines; For convenience in reading this amendment, a copy of Table 3 of Chapter Three of the Picketing Official plan is provided at the end of the :Xanendment. It does not constitute part of the Amendment. o Amendment 6 to the Pickering Official Plan (continued) (h) for lands identified as the Liverpool Road Corridor, and despite Table 3* of Chapter Three, (i) restrict the permissible uses to retailing of goods and services, restaurants, offices, and community, cultural and recreational uses, to serve the tourist, recreational, boating and other community needs; (ii) further permit, despite (i) above, the establishment of residential uses, up to a maximum density of 55 units per net hectare, subject to conditions; accordingly, Ciw Council, in considering rezoning applications for residential development for lands in the Liverpool Road Corridor, shall be satisfied that, · a significant public benefit is achieved through the design and construction of the dxvellings to allow the ground floors facing the street to be easily converted to accommodate a range of uses including the retailing of good and services, and offices; and · other applicable polices of the Plan are complied with; (i) for lands within the Waterfront Node, further identify-, as the Public Use/Parking and Boat Storage Area, those lands that, (i) are subject to environmental constraints where the City has, and wishes to pursue additional parking, and where the City may pursue additional trail connections, and where private landowners wish to establish boat storage areas; (ii) are located east of Liverpool Road but west of the Hydro Marsh, including the City-owned parking lot, and extending east to the edge of the Hydro Marsh, stretching north to include the Durham Region Sewage Pumping Station, and lands behind the former 'Hilts' property; and (iii) are illustrated for reference on the Tertiary. Plan contained xvithin the Council-adopted Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines; (j) for lands identified as the Public Use/Parking and Boat Storage Area, and despite Table 3* of Chapter Three, (i) permit conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education, and passive recreation uses; (ii) also permit parking and boat storage on the southern third of the former 'Coolwater Farms' property, and the lands behind the former 'Hilts' property, in consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; (k) prohibit boat storage immediately adjacent to Liverpool Road; (1) require new buildings along Liverpool Road south of Wharf Street to have a minimum building height of two storeys and to reflect the Great Lakes Nautical Village theme by incorporating design details such as balconies, decks, front porches, wider doorways, street level access, awnings and window boxes; (m) as a condition of rezoning, consider requiring proponents to enter into agreements with the City, Region and other agencies as appropriate, respecting the provision of infrastructure to support marina, commercial and residential uses; For convenience is reading this amendment, a copy of Table 3 of Chapter Three of the Pickering Official plan is provided at the end of the Amendment. It does not constitute part of the Amendment. Amendment 6 to the Picketing Official Plan (continued) .9_3 (-) with respect to the provision \X'aterfront Node, consider: (i) permitting landowners to of parking within the enter into long term agreements with other landowners respecting the provision of required parking; (ii) accepting cash-in-lieu for required parking where appropriate and having considered the adequacy of alternate parking supply; and (iii) securing lands for public parking to sen, e the area; (o) encourage opportunities to rejuvenate the historic Village of Fairport as a "lakefront village", and to this end, shall consider site-specific rezoning applications to permit in conjunction with the residential use, activities such as tea rooms, craft shops, art studios, and professional offices, provided that: (i) the scale of the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses; (ii) appropriate off-street parking is available either on the lot or in nearby public parking areas; (iii) the exterior of the home retains its residential character; (ix') signage is discretely accommodated; and (v) any other matters identified by Council are addressed appropriately; (p) when considering proposals for bay-fill, ensure the proposal does not adversely affect the aquatic environment, is limited in scale, designed to facilitate waterfront public amenities and pedestrian access, improves environmental conditions of Frenchman's Bay and its shoreline, and is supported by an environmental report addressing the requirements of section 15 of this Plan and any other requirements of public review agencies; (q) through the review of development proposals and in consultation with landowners and surrounding residents, endeavour to provide publicly accessible spaces, adjacent to the water's edge, where feasible and appropriate; and (r) encourage the use and operation of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail in a manner sensitive to the interests of the neighbouring residents, and provide local trail connections xvith the Waterfront Trail in appropriate locations." IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in tta0 City of Picketing Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this .-~nendment. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set lc)nh in the City ot' Picketing Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Amendment 6 to the Pickering Official Plan (continued) EXTRACT FROM THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN For Reference purposes only; does not constitute part of the Amendment CITY POLICY THBI~ 3: TABLE $ Open Space Permissible Uses System (Restrictions and limitations on thc uses permissible, arising from other policies of Subcategory this Plan, will be detailed in zoning by-laws.) Natural Areas Conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education, passive recreation, and similar uses; Agricultural uses outside of valley and stream corridors, wetlands, environmentally significant areas, and areas of natural and scientific interest; Existing lawful residential dwellings; a new residential dwelling on a vacant lot. Active All uses permissible in Natural Areas; Recreational Areas Active recreational, community, and cultural uses, and other related uses. Marina Areas All uses permissible in Natural Areas and Active Recreational Areas; Marinas, yacht clubs and ancillary uses; Marina supportive uses, restaurants, limited retail uses; limited residential uses in conjunction with marinas and yacht clubs; Aquaculture and other related uses. SCHEDULE 'A' EXTRACF FROM SCHEDULE I TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN MIXED IJ%E AF~E,~% LOCAl N()Dt !~ REDESIGNATE FROM "URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS-LOW DENSITY AREAS" TO "OPEN SPACE SYSTEM-MARINA AREAS" LAND USE STRUCYURE i M['[ O~ ME NT Ak,iFA% t F~E[:WA¥% AN[) MA.IOR I.JTILITILS ~'~ PF,~E%TI(3E EM~'[O~MEI~/ ~ CONIROLLED A(£CES% AREA~G 2fi SCHEDULE 'B' FT~ENCHMI hi '.9 COMIERC STREET ANNLAND WHARF STreET EXTRACT FROM SCtIEDULE rfrTO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN REVISE ~&ETLAND BOUNDARY AS SHOWN RESOURCE MANAGEMENq' (MAY INCLUDE HAZARD L~DS) WETLANDS APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 42-01 27 LIVERPOOL ROAD WATERFRONT NODE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES o$ I-'ICKI~;RING Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Section C1 Liverpool Road Waterfront Node DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES L~'£ ON?~/O 2-9 Liverpool Road Waterfront Node (November, 2001) Development Guidelines - Table of Contents Section C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.3.1 C1.3.2 C1.3.3 C1.3.4 C1.3.5 C1.4 C1.4.1 C1.4.2 C1.4.3 C1.4.4 C1.4.5 C1.5 C1.6 C1.7 C1.7.1 C1.7.2 C1.8 General Description Guiding Vision - "Waterfront Village" Land Use Objectives Natural Areas and Open Space Area Established Built Area Marina Mixed Use Area Liverpool Road Corridor Public Use/Parking and Boat Storage Area Development Standards Views and Vistas Transportation Network Street and Block Pattern Built Form Fairport Village Parking Strategies Environmental Management Servicing Water and Sewage Stormwater Management Implementation Appendix A- "Detailed Architectural, Landscape and Streetscape Guidelines" Appendix B -Implementation Strategy FIGURES A B C D E Tertiary Plan Views and Vistas Public Streets and Trails Potential Development Blocks Build-to Zones 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 5 6 8 9 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 13 25 4 5 7 8 9 The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines were adopted by Pickering City Council 3O Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) C1.1 General Description The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node ~> located at the southern t~p of rise Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Bax Ridges Iie~ on the east side of Frenchman's Ba~. Highway 401 is the neighbournood's northern limit, and Lake Ontario is its southern I~mlt. The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node extends from the lots on the north side of Commerce Street southerly to Lake Ontario along both sides of Liverpool Road. It extends west to include all of the properties i~av~ng access to, anti exposure to, Frenchman's Bay, including the water lots under the Ba~. The Node includes the i~stor~c "ViilaAe of Fairport". KrosnoCreek abuts ti~e east edge of the Node. Further east is Alex Robertson Park, Sandy Beach Road, and the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. To the south is Lake Ontario. To the west lies Frenchman's Bax, and furtt~er west is the West Shore Neighbourhood. To the norti~ lies a mixture o?old cottage style development, as well as newer 1950's and 1960'_~ subdivision development. A commercial area serving the Neighbourhood is located about a half a kilometer to tt~e north at the intersection of Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road. The Node'shistorx,'~sclo_~olx linkedxxlth it>~xdterlront location. Over ti~e years, numerous marinas, boat storage, and marine _~er',~('c, !)k~-ii~esses ha~,e operated in the area, and a number continue to operate. ~ s~xaqu pumping statlol~ operates on the east side of Liverpool Road. Additionallx ti~e Node offers opportunltie~ for formal and informal recreational activities with natural open <pacu, park areas, and trails. At the time of adoption of these Guidelines, it was realized that some parts of the area exhibit a somewhat unkempt, or disuseci appearance, while others exhibit extreme attention to detail, design and maintenance. Imestment and attention by municipal, other government and non-government organizations, by individuals, and by private landowners, residents and business operators, will help polish this "diamond in the rougt~" C1.2 Guiding Vision - "Great Lakes Nautical Village" The guiding vision for the entire Node is that of a "Great Lakes Nautical Village" with a mix of uses and an ambiance that is inviting. The Village should bean interesting place to live, work, and visit. Recognizing Frenchman's Bay as a boating tourism area, the Nautical Village will provide seasonal marina facilities with some opportunities for visiting boaters. Additional land-based recreation and tourism opportunities will bring visitors from the local area interested in spending a few hours to most of a day in the area. The nature of the Village will be geared toward pedestrian comfort, including street amenities. Tt~e character of the Great Lakes NduticaJ Village will be establ~si~ect by its series of small blocks with frequent and regular v~e~s out to the water. The streets ~ill form view corridors Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 2 and act as public open space. An added benefit of this form of development is that from Frenchman's Bay, the Great Lakes Nautical Village will be permeated by view corridors, rather than being a continuous wall of buildings. A well-connected network of public open space and streets, which exhibit a high level of streetscape design and quality, further reinforces the character of the Village. The streets will provide pedestrian-friendly spaces. Due to the proximity of the Bay and the relatively intense marina uses established in this area, the entire neighbourhood has been influenced by a "nautical heritage". The existing marinas have provided a focal point and key character-setting element for many years; the continuation of marina uses in these areas will persist as a key character-setting element of the Village. Accordingly, lands adjacent to the Bay, Krosno Creek and Hydro Marsh will feature a variety of marine-related activities, and in some instances public amenities. In addition to the marine-related activities, the Village will offer a variety of other uses that provide opportunities for people to live, work, shop and play within the area. These additional uses include residential development subject to certain restrictions, retail operations like craft stores, boutiques and bookshops, as well as other uses such as restaurants, art studios, and offices. C1.3 Land Use Objectives The Tertiary Plan (Figure A on page 3) provides additional direction on land uses within the Node. Objectives for each land use are detailed below. C1.3.1 Natural Areas and Open Space Area Four areas are found within this land use: Progress Bay Front Park; East Spit; Beachfront Park; and, the Hydro Marsh. The two parks are anticipated to include a mix of active and passive recreational areas, as welt as vehicle parking within or near the parks. The "Millennium Square" - a public gathering place, is situated at the foot of Liverpool Road, adjacent to Beachfront Park. The Hydro Marsh is an environmentally sensitive wetland in which development is not permitted. Development adjacent to the wetland must be designed in a manner, which mitigates detrimental impacts on the wetland. The East Spit exhibits the characteristics of a dynamic beach. Public uses are appropriate on the Sp~t, as are a limited number of use- supportive buildings (washrooms, landmarks, canteens, etc.). Vehicular access to the East Spit and Beachfront Park shall be restricted to emergency vehicles and maintenance equipment. C1.3.2 Established Built Area This area consists largely of the historic Village of Fairport. Of interest is protecting the character of the historic village while providing an opportunity for revitalizing a "village" function by permitting such activities as tearooms, craft shops, art studios, and offices. The additional uses would be subject to the consideration of site-specific rezoning applications. Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 3 32 .3.3 Marina Mixed Use Area These lands will develop in a manner ttnat creates a high quality built form that is sensitive to views of the water, provides a critical link for visual and piwsical public accessibility to the waterfront where appropriate, ha> an attrachve pedestrian scale, and builds upon exishng neighbourhood patterns. The mix of uses will relate to tine area's nautical i~eritage, and tine mix may ~arv depending on tt~e location of the lands witin~n the area. Ttnis area is the primarx,' marina area. Throughout the area, permissible uses consist of: marinas, yacht clubs, moorlngfacilities, and ancillary facilities; marina-suppom~e uses and facilities; restaurants, limited retail; public open space; and communlh,, cultural and recreational uses. The retailing may be limited in both the type and size. For lands sinown as shaded within ttne ,xtanna Mixed Use Area, residential uses may be permitted subject to conditions. Tt~esecondihorns inciudethe requ~rementttnatafunctional marina operation is maintained on the remaining lands and tt~at a s~gnlficant public benefit is provided. The provision of publicly-accessible space at tine x~ater's edge would qualify as a significant public benefit as part of a redevelopment project. The inclusion of residential as a possible use introduces a greater mix of uses, creates more vibrancy and opportunities for activity at different times of ttne day. In addition, there are opportunities for cross-marketing of new residential uses wittn tine marina facilities. C1.3.4 Liverpool R()ad Cor'rid()r Certain lands ors tine Tertiar~ Plan ~r'e identified as the Llserp(~ol Road Corridor. Development along Lixerpool Road ~sill aci]~eve a thigh level of design and architectural quality, featunng a vibrant pedestrian envir(mment. This area represents the tourism and service commercial uses tisat complement the marina, recreation and waterfront trail uses within the Waterfront Node. Residential uses within the Liverpool Road Corridor would als() be permitted provided that a significant public benefit is provided. To qualify as a significant benefit for residential development, the ground floor of the residential units fronting on Liverpool Road must be designed and constructed in such a way tinat ti~e ground floor (:an be easily converted in the future to accommodate a range of uses. Over time, the area will offer a mix of uses including residential, commercial, retail, and office, which contribute to an inviting public realm at street level. C1.3.5 Public Use/Parking and Boat Storage Area This area includes the City's parking lot, and lands directly east of the City's parking lot on the 'Coolwater Farms' property (currently proposed for off-season boat storage), the Region of Durham's sewage pumping station and the lands currentlx owned by Ontario Power Generation located behind the 'Hilts' property. These lands represent an area where the Citx,' is investigating tne opportunitx tor additional public parking facilities, aloneorin partnersn~pwithotherlancJo~vners. Private landowners Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 4 may be permitted boat storage. A public walkway may also be pursued along the western limit of this area. These uses complement the marina function and waterfront recreational opportunities associates with the Millennium Square, the Waterfront Trail, and the emerging Waterfront Node N ~ -- T1 I i J<' S SHEARER ~ BAYVIEV~/ S 'im~ ~OA~ ~ ~ % ' ~ATERPOINT N ........ il ~/ ~ I I ~ · k DRIVE D ] /-- /~ / / ~, X X ......... X ~ X [ BROADVIEW STREET <~ ~[ " ".~ 's~~5"~<~' ~C ~ ~ I ~ ' " " . . . . __ City of Pickering Planning & Development Depa~ment TERTIARY P~N - LIVERPOOL ROAD WATERFRONT NODE ~ ESTABUSHED BUILT AREA ~ ~ ~ WATERFRONT NODE BOUNDARY MARINA MIXED USE AREA ~ MILLENNIUM SQUARE ~ NATURAL AR~S AND OPEN SPACE AR~ ~ LIVERPOOL ROAD CORRIDOR FIGURE A ~ PUBLIC USE/PARKING AND BOAT STORAGE AR~ NOV 20, 2001 Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 5 3,4 C.1.4 Development Standards Chapters 9 - "Community Design" and 13 - "Detailed Design Considerations" of the Pickering Official Plan provide a comprenens~ve "toolkit" of urban design pnnciples, which are to be employed ttnroughout the Cq~. This section of the Development Guidelines follows from ti~e discussion on the "Great Lakes Nautical \"illage" vision, and applies the Official Plan's design "tools" to the Waterfront Node. Tinis d~rect~on includes such matters as placement of new streets, massing and siting of eu~ldings, and streetscape design. Detailed design matters, such as arcinitectural themes, landscaping, and design of public roads and trails, are discussed in AppendixA - "Detailed Architectural, Landscape and Streetscape Guidelines". C1.4.1 Views arid \"istas Currently, there are open v~ew~ to Frenchman's Bax from Lixerpool Road, soutln of Wharf Street, which providea sense of place to the waterfront Iocauon. Views such as these are considered to be of pnmarb ~mportance to the establishment and preservation of a sense of place. Ttnese views create ttne unique atmosphere of tine area, and help define the vision for the Node. To preserve, enhance arid maximize opportunities for views from the area towards Frenci~man's Bay arid Lake Ontario, is of primary ~mportance and shall be a key consideration in the review of any development proposal. Of utmost importance is the need to protect wews, and frame v~ew corridors, at frequent intervals along Liverpool Road to Frenchman's Bay. The views and vistas conceptualized in tile following drawing will help to mulntdln tills area's link to tile waterfront as well as protect and enhance Li~erpuol Road Sc)urn < unique ~ense of place. flL_~': i_~- - Frenchman's Bay ~ ~ ~'- ........... ' Rgure B-Vews and Vstas Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 6 C1.4.2 Transportation Network 35 A complete transportation network consists of three primary levels. Roadway surfaces are designed to accommodate vehicular and bicycle traffic, sidewalks are designed to adequately and safely accommodate pedestrians, and a trail system provides other critical links in the vicinity. t?oadways Existing roads shall be maintained in their existing configuration. Consideration should be given to creating an attractive bus stop near Liverpool Bridge. New streets will generally feature an 18-metre right-of-way and will be designed in accordance with the evolving character of the area. The use of rear lanes should be encouraged in new development so that garage faces and driveway cuts are minimized along Liverpool Road. Where laneways are public, they shall generally be 7.5 metres in width with underground services. Liverpool Road shall become the new spine of the proposed public open space network. It will have on-street pedestrian facilities of the highest quality, including wide, hard-surfaced walkways, lighting, seating, trash receptacles, drinking fountains, public art, and signposts. Detailed guidelines for road design are included in Appendix A - "Detailed Architectural, Landscape and Streetscape Guidelines". Sidewalks The principles of continuity, safety, convenience, handicap accessibility and comfort will be employed to create a sidewalk system throughout the Node. It will be appropriate to have a sidewalk on both sides of Liverpool Road with access from the public sidewalks into adjacent buildings by a minimum number of steps. Streets leading perpendicular from Liverpool Road to other parts of the study area may require sidewalks on only one side of the street. New public "laneways" may carry such Iow traffic levels that the lane itself may adequately accommodate pedestrian traffic. Opportunities to create additional off-road trail connections along the edge of Frenchman's Bay to Alex Robertson Park and along the Lake Ontario waterfront should be explored through the review of development applications. Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 7 Frenchman's Bay Hydro Marsh ,I Milennium Trail Potential Access Routes um Square Figure C - Public Streets and Trails Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 200]) Page 8 C1.4.3 Street and Block Pattern There are established block patterns that currently exist along Liverpool Road north of Wharf Street. It is these streets that provide the framework from which an area is experienced. New driveways or streets, if required and access points should continue this traditional block pattern. Extension of the small blocks will provide additional street edges, greater permeability within the neighbourhood, and frequent views to the water. Applying the existing block pattern to lands south of Wharf Street will create three blocks on each side of Liverpool Road. These lands provide areas of opportunity for the development of new City blocks. Existing blocks to the north and east have already been fully developed and will remain in their current built form conditions. The new blocks facilitate implementation of the land use objectives for these areas. COMMERCE Frenchman's Bay ANNLAND WHARF STREET BROADVIEW STREET STREET STREET J Figure D - Potential Development Blocks 3 Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 9 38 C1.4.4 Built Form New buildings should be designed to be ~elcoming and friendly to pedestrians. This should be accomplisi~ed througil features such as front porches, high quality landscaping of front yards, large windows on the ground floor, and s~gnage of an appropriate character. All architectural design must be of a high quatit,v, t~letnodolog~es that include various design elements for reducing the bulk of a building's appearance si~ould be developed as part of the architectural design. Enhanced flankage elevations will be required for corner lots. The materials, rooflines, (tesi~I3 elements and detaiJ_~ of new buildings should harmonize with the Great Lakes Nautical Village ti~eme. The design of buildings directly adjacent to the street w~ll be an important part of the creation of a cohesive design theme ~or the streets ~n the area. A continuous street wall (occasionally ~nterrupted to maintain ~lews of tt~e Ba~, ~s ~deal for this kind of street treatment. Buildings along Liverpool Road shall be built (:lose to ti~e street without too much variation in setbacks. This form will i~etpto provide conta~nn~ent to the street. Ample fenestration on the front face of buildings will assist in creat~nq a safe, in~lting environment along the street. Buildings along Liverpool Road must be designed ~n a manner such that they can accommodate a range of uses over time. Ground-level rooms at the front of buildings will be highly visible, feature ample fenestration, ariel be easik' accessible from the street. These ground-level rooms must be constructed to ti~e appropriate Building and Fire Code standards for easy conversion to accommodate a range ofcommerciaFtype uses. Signage for any businesses Iocatect here taus; be discreetly located and (onsistent with the architectural theme of the building. The design of the public r~qnt-of-way bet~xeen the curb edge and pnvate property is considered to be critical to the successful development oi this areal. Special attention wilt be given to developing a cohesive streetscape treatment that can be applied to private development arid the public realm througt~out ti~e corridor. The streetscape treatment will include paving material, ligt~ting, signposts and street furniture (seating, waste receptacles and drinking fountains), which will be located in distinct areas adjacent to the sidewalk for easy pedestrian access. Buildings along Liverpool Road must be designed in a manner such Frenchman's Bay ~- - Hydro Mamh ~' ~. ~-~.. J I Budd-to Z .... for 0 mi 500 m Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 10 that they can accommodate a range of uses over time. Ground-level rooms at the front of buildings will be highly visible, feature ample fenestration, be easily accessible from the street, feature minimum ceiling heights for ground floors of 2.7 metres, and be suitably arranged to accommodate such activities as retail shops, studios, offices and living area. These ground-level rooms must be constructed to the appropriate Building and Fire Code standards for commercial-type uses. Signage for any businesses located here must be discreetly located and consistent with the architectural theme of the building. To foster variety and interest along the street, new development should be freehold tenure, or a form of condominium that cannot place restrictions on the commercial uses encouraged for the area. Detailed streetscape guidelines are included in Appendix A- "Detailed Architectural, Landscape and Streetscape Guidelines". C1.4.5 Fairport Village The Fairport Village area once featured a variety of small commercial operations that offered goods and services to the local residents. Provided the character of the area is not affected, it is desirable to reintroduce this type of activity within the Village on a limited basis. If a landowner wishes to incorporate uses such as tea rooms, craft shops, art studios, and professional offices within a dwelling, site-specific rezoning applications will be required. Matters that will be considered in the review of the applications include: the availability of off- and on-street parking; that minor or no exterior renovations are required; and that signage is discretely accommodated. C1.5 Parking Strategies Creative parking arrangements, not previously employed in Pickering, are required for this area. Opportunities for parking include: · securing additional lands on the Coolwater Farms property for public parking at the foot of Liverpool Road; · requiring that all new residential development provide appropriate off-street parking; · permitting on-street parking on one side of Liverpool Road north of Wharf Street, on one side of other streets north of Wharf Street, on both sides of Liverpool Road south of Wharf Street, and one side of any new east-west streets south of Wharf Street; · consider permitting commercial parking lots and off-site parking under long-term leases; · consider accepting cash-in-lieu of parking in this area, particularly for the small-scale commercial developments anticipated along Liverpool and in Fairport Village; · encouraging Sandy Beach Road as an alternative access route and overflow parking destination; · accommodating event parking at nearby schools and the GO station; and · exploring opportunities to partner with Ontario Power Generation on additional parking behind the 'Hilts' lands. 4O Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November 2001) Page 11 C1.6 Environmental Management Development proposals within the Node must management policies of the Picketing Official Plan. interest: comply with al relevant resource The following matters are of particular · no development or filling shou[c] be permitted within the Hydro Marsh; · Environmental Reports are required for deNelopment proposed within 120 metres of the Hydro Marsh wetland boundarN to determine appropriate development limits and edge management strategies; · proposals for bay-filling should be designed to ensure the protection of the aquatic environment along the shoreline iincluding fish habitat): proposals must be accompanied by extens~Ne Environmental Impact Statements, and be subject to all relevant approvals; · additional progress should be made on the "Frenchman's Bay Watershed Management Strategy" /preliminary report received by Council in 1998); · the impacts of boating activities on the natural environment should be considered in the rewew of any new docking facilities; · on-going initiatives for the restoration of krosno Creek, Hydro Marsh and Frenct~man's Bay should be continued; and · opportunities to outfit all .~torm sewer_, that outlet to Frenchman's Bay with oil/grit separators should be pursueci. C1.7 Servicing C1.7.1 Water and Se~saSe The Region of Durham \',,orks Department ~ndicates that ample capacity exists with water supply to serwce new development ~n the Liverpool Road \Vaterfront Node. Sanitary servicing constraints have been identified for major ne~ residential development and commercial uses generatingi~igh volumes of waste. The Region has identified both interim and long-term solutions to address ti~ese limitations. Applicants should consult with the Regional Works Department ~n th~s regard. C1.7.2 Stormwater Managemen~ All new development must incorporate stormwater "best management practices" to ensure that post-development flows are of equai or superior quality and quantity to that of pre- development flows. Liverpool I~oad Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 200]) Page ]2 C1.8 Implementation Council and City staff will rely on the direction provided by the Official Plan and these Development Guidelines in the review of all development applications in the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node. The Guidelines should also be referred to in the preparation of: · zoning by-law amendment applications; · draft plans of subdivision; · draft plans of condominium; · siting and architectural design statements; · site plans; · land severance applications; · variance applications; · building permit applications; and · construction/engineering drawings. 41 Appendix A to Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Detailed Architectural, Landscape and Streetscape Guidelines Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 14 4 Detailed Architectural and Landscape Guidelines Lake Ontario, Frenchman's Bay and Krosno Creek frame the Study Area on three sides, shaping its development as a marine activity node. The Area represents a complex mix of landscape components - buildings, public spaces and street networks that has developed over time in response to this intimate geographical relationship. These landscape components include the side streets that run east and west from Liverpool Road, the historic Village of Fairport, the proposed Front Street Park, the Millennium Trail and Square, the active marine nodes and vacant open space. Liverpool Road links these landscape components together: and is itself, an important landscape component. In order to reinforce and capitalize on the Area's unique natural setting and marine association, a conceptual design theme has been generated to guide future development within the Study Area. Detailed design guidelines have been prepared to operationalize the theme, ensuring that all development initiatives, whether restoration and/or new construction, result in a complementary and consistent built form. Opportunities to apply the design theme and guidelines to different landscape components throughout the Study Area have been proposed for the following 'Design Precincts': Liverpool Road Liverpool Road Liverpool Road Liverpool Road Liverpool Road Liverpool Road Liverpool Road Liverpool Road Side Streets and Bayly Street intersection and Krosno Street intersection and Commerce Street intersection and Annland Street intersection between Bayly and Krosno Streets between Krosno and Commerce Streets between Commerce and Wharf Streets between Wharf Street and the Bridge Liverpool Road Waterfront Node DeveLopment Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 15 Theme Due to the proximity of the Bay and the reiati~el~ ~ntense marina use established in this area, the entire neighbourhood has been influenced b~ a 'nautical heritage'. The 'Great Lakes Nautical Village' tt~eme reflects ttse outcomes of historical research on the earl~ I~fe of the Bay, Fairport Village and Pickering; an extensive consultation process: and rev~e~x of current planning policy and development directions for the Area. <t the core of the ~uidelines ~s the underi}ing Great Lakes 'Nautical \ ~ilag~ theme that i~as evolved based upon the Study process. Public, stakeholder, land owner and municipal consultation, background research, previous studies, rnarket factor~ and sound de~,i,qn pnnc~ples have been combined to distil tile theme to the Nautical \'illage concept. In addition to the ()bx iouq aesthetic characteristics of the Great Lakes Nautical Villa? theme are a series of other, equally important, first pnnc~ples mat the design guidelines and future development should reflect. These other first principles have been derived from the work previously completed by the various Pickering in~t~at~ves such as the Pickering Waterfront 2001 Mayor's Task Force, Liverpool Road South Detailed Design Part One, P~ckering Officiai Plan and extensive public and focusedconsulmt~on. Tile otner first princlples inherent in the Nautical Village tr}eme include: · L ~, of ars eco-s~>tum approach to enhance sustainabillty anti ~nvironmen~al responsibility; Retention and promotion of marine and marina related uses; Design and speofication of appropriate building materials and strategies that reflect current development initiatives, harsh climate and public nature of the area; · Consideration of and provision for all people; · Design for the accommodation/integration of mixed uses. These principles l¥ill be included in the consideration and definition of all detailed guidelines. Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 16 4 Architectural Guidelines Built Form ; · Buildings along Liverpool Road from Wharf Street south to Coolwater Farms to be aligned so that main entrances front onto Liverpool Road; · Front walls of buildings to be located in a build-to zone of 3-4.5m from front property to provide enclosure to the street, except for the 'Coolwater Farms" property where a 15 - 16.5m setback is required to accommodate a servicing easement; · "Build-to zones" will be established along Liverpool Road typically requiring that a minimum of 85% of any new building be set back 3.0 metres to 4.5 metres from the front property line (see Figure E - Built-to Zones), except on the "Coolwater Farms" property where the build-to zone must accommodate servicing easement. Setbacks greater than the build-to line will be permitted if the result is a hard-surfaced outdoor seating area (i.e. restaurant patio), or a public resting node along the street; · Encourage front porches, covered entrances and upper floor decks - front porches to be as deep as possible to allow for covered patio for future storefronts; front porches, terraces, and decks can be built in front yard space (i.e. from front wall to property line); · Generally, as-of-right building height for new development along public streets south of Annland should be 3 storeys or 11m. However, new building should not exceed 3 storeys when located adjacent to existing residential buildings; · New buildings on Liverpool Road, south of Wharf Street, shall have a minimum building height of two storeys; · Decorative features - such as towers, turrets, etc. - are encourage to rise above the height limit, provided no habitable space exists above the 3~d floor; Buildings to be sited so that there is a view and access corridor approximately midway between Wharf Street and the road to the treatment plant; Buildings along Liverpool Road must be designed in a manner such that they can accommodate a range of uses over time. Ground-level rooms at the front of buildings will be highly visible, feature ample fenestration, be easily acceptable from the street, and be suitably arranged to accommodate such activities as retail shops, cafes, studios and offices. These ground-level rooms must be constructed to the appropriate Building and Fire Code standards for easy conversion to commercial uses. Signage for any businesses located here must be discreetly located and consistent with the architectural theme of the building. Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 17 46 Buildings Buildings should be designed so that the ground floor ~s available for retail, office or other publicly- oriented uses, and have easy and convenient pedestrian access from the sidewalk and front yard. Buildings si~ould be designed so that the ground floor use carl be separated from upper floor uses (if different) to meet Ontario Building Code requirements. Architecture of buildings along Liverpool Road to follow nautical theme, be characterized by facades of varying designs that ~ncorporate balconies, decks, front porches, awnings, and window boxes. Nautical Village elements for buildings include: · Maintaining a scale of smaller historic buildings, sc) that larger buildings need to be broken down visually into smaller components; · Front entrances encouraged to haxe large and generous porches with upper floor balconies or decks above porches; ground floor x~lndows encouraged to be part of extended front porch, or have awnings or canopies, which carl also contain signage; · Exterior cladding materials that ~ould nave been used in earlier buildings along waterfronts, e.g. brick or siding, but not concrete block: · Exterior trim in contrasting colour te.g. ~xntte, tying in witt~ the colour of porches, balconies, railing and other decorative treatment; · Windows to have proportions that reflect tino~e of earlier buildings, not a typical horizontal strip window; however, ground floor ~s~ndo~xs to be bigger, to act a store front windows; windows to have trim surrounds: · Window colour and pattern to b(? ir',, keeping ~tn rest of exterior treatment · Roofs not to be flat, but to be steeply p~tciled: · Front yard treatment can include nautical elements found in working waterfronts; · Signage to be scaled for pedestrians, not xenicles; signs to be mounted on walls, awnings or canopies, or as projecting s~gns to act a> secondary signs; colour of signs to be in keeping with colour and treatment of building; ligt~ting for s~gns to be external, but not backlit, backlit plastic signs acceptable. Landscape Guidelines Historically nautical villages had very little vegetation standing in and/or around the working waterfront. The Great Lakes Nautical Village will also have very few trees within the public road allowance due to limited space and spatial conflict with the markers, lights and buildings. North of the Village, on the side streets and behind Liverpool Road frontages, a variety of trees can be incorporated. The trees should be planted to accomplish specific goals such as shade provision, visual screening, physical barrier and aesthetics. Native species should be used to reduce the potential for species invasion within the nearby, sensitive areas. Long-term plantings such as trees and shrubs have been listed on the attached Preliminary Plant List. \Vherecolourandornamentals are desired perennials and annuals should be used. Ti~eselect~on of these plants should be based upon the desired effect and proven success rate. Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines [November, 2001) Page 18 4 SHADE TREES Botanical Name Common Name ht Comments/Features Acer saccharum 'Green Mountain' Green Mountain Su.c]ar Maple 18m wax), green leaves, hardiest form of su~lar maple Celt,s occidentahs Hackberr';/ 20m leaves and form resemble elm. native tree var)' tolerant of harsh conditions iCercidiph~flum japonicum Katsuratree 16m narrow form, leaves emerge reddish purple and change to bluish (~reen 'Fraxinus penf~s~avnica 'Summit' Summit Green Ash 15m upright, columnar form. uniform branching, tolerates ur0an conditions Gmk? bitoba 'Princeton Sentr~' Princeton Sentry Ginkgo 16m slow-growinc~, e×tremel¥ tolerant of urban conditions, colurnnar Iorm Gledilsia triacanthos 'Skyhne' Sk}4me Locust 15m fine-textured ~eaves. tolerant of harsh condmons, upright form ORNAMENTAL TREES Botanical Name Common Name Hat,Iht Fellable/Flowers Prunus virgimana Chokecherrv 8m white flowers, ~reen leaves chancre to maroon, red-black fruit S~ringa reticu ara 'lvon,¢ Silk' Ivor~, Silk Tr~e Lilac 7m Ifragrarlt white flowers late Jungeadl/Jul),, single!multi stem Viburnum lentaoo Nanny'berry 6m white flowers in spring, native, purplish in fall, ~lngie,'mulb stem LOW LEVEL PLANTING Botanical Name Common Name Hei, Foliage/Flowers Comus aiba 'Ele~antissima' Silverleaf Do,wood 2~n greenland white variegated leaves, burgundy-red braoches in winte; -- Comus sericea Red Osier Dogwood 2m native, bright red stems, dark ~reen leaves /M),rica pens),lvanica Northern Ba},berr,l 2m native, aromatic blue-~re~ fruit, tolerant of urban conditions Potontilla fruticosa Shrubb), Cinquefoil lm small green leaves, compact native shrub, small .vel;ow flowers all summer lRosa ru,qosa Ru~osa Rose 1,5m ~reen leaves, yellow in fall, pink white flowers ali summer, prickly stems ~piraea alba Steeplebush 1.5m native, white flowers in spnng, dried flower heads are attraclive all winter SCREENING Botanical Name Common Name Hei, Folia~e/Flowers P,cea abies Norway Spruce 2C~m pend~l~s, graceful branches when mature Picea ~lauca White Spruce 20m compact native evergreen, needles aromatic when crustmd IPicea pun.qens 'Glauca' Ceiorado Blue Spruce 20m blue needies, ve~ hard), Pinus resinosa Red Pine 20m long needles in bundles of 2, native, reddish bark, intolerant of shade Plnus strobus Eastern White Pine 25m Ion~ soft needles, bundles of 5. native. Ontario's provincial tree S),rlnga vul.qaris Corm'aCh Lilac 4m 'var), hardy, fra.~rant flowers in earl), June Thula occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 15m scale-hke ever(~reen folia~re, nalive, ~ood for hedclintq/windbreaks IViburnum triiobum IAmerican Hi.qhbush Cranberry 3m native, white flowers in spring, red berries in tatJ '" Streetscape Guidelines The termination of Liverpool Road at the south spit does not accommodate through-traffic, limiting the economic viability of proposed commercial development in the Study Area. Without this traffic flow to support the Village's destination value, it is necessary to create an effective series of 'gateways' and focal points, connected by a high quality streetscape, that attracts and maintains interest as visitors progress southwards alon§ Liverpool Road. The detailed streetscape guidelines for each 'Design Precinct' incorporate interpretations of the 'Nautical Village' theme that reinforce the visual and functional continuity of the Study Area. A series of markers and poles are proposed. NhLrker ~ l,i~h! Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 19 Liverpool Road and Bayly Street Intersection Creating a "gateway" to the study area on Liverpool Road at Bayly Street ~s intended to attract vehicles travelling on the major east-west regional arterial just south of Highway 401. The gateway is to consist of: · Two, nautically-themed markers at the ~ntersect~on - eaci~ ~llustrat~ve of a mast (a metal or wood pole), "sail" (colourful banners), stays (diagonal cabling!, and a flag at the top of the pole to complete the image; · Uplights for night-time illumination of banners; · Special paving treatment of pedestnan crossings at tile ~ntersect~on to signal start of a new pedestrian-oriented environment along Liverpool Road soutt~ to the Bridge; · The exact location of intersection markers will be finalized bx,' the Region of Durt~am (for Bayty Street) and City of Pickering (for Liverpool Road). Liverpool Road and Krosno Street Intersection Creating a second "gateway" at Krosno Street is intended to attract travelers down Liverpool Road by maintain visual continuity and ~nterest between Baxlx Street and the 'Nautical Village'. While Liverpool Road slopes down from Bavix Street and offers a view of Lake Ontario, it is important to provide visual cues that lead the transition to stmet~cape elements further south. The "gateway is to consist of: · Two, nautically-themed markers at the ~nter'seo;~on - each comprising symbols related to those at Bayly Street in terms of de>i,qn pr'~nc~ples, but with triangular-shaped "sails"; · Uplights for night-time illumination of "salis' ,banners); · Special paving treatment of pedestrian crossings at Krosno Street to encourage pedestrian activity and safety along Liverpool Liverpool Road and Commerce Street Intersection Creating a third "gateway" is intended to act as an entrance to the "N~]utical Village" that highlights the proposed Front Street Park and Mi/leniumTrall. The "gateway" i_~ to consist of: Two, nautically-themed markers at tile ~nter_~ection - eacil compns~ng symbols similar to Krosno Street Intersection; Markers establish a triangular ti~eme of pennants, which ~s eci~oed in the shape of banners, pennants and stays on streetlights south of Commerce (as well as the family of other design elements, including pedestrian scale street Iigists, hanging flowers, street signs and pedestrian level way-finding signs). Liverpool Road and Annland Street Intersection Creating a fourth "gateway" ~s intended to parallel the Commerce Street Intersection, closing the proposed Front Street Park loop. The "gateway." is to consist of: · Similar treatment in terms of ~ntersect~on markers as Commerce Street Intersect,on; · Curb "bulge-outs" similar to those at Commerce Street to increase pedestrian convenience of street crossing and for traffic calming; · Special pavement treatment at pedestnan cross~n~qs. Liverpool F~oad Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 20 Banners Banners are intended to provide opportunity for identification and way-finding along Liverpool Road from Bayly Street to the Bridge, and throughout the Study Area. The banner program is to include: · Way-finding to the "Nautical Village", special promotional events (e.g. Waterfront fair), seasonal events (Canada Day, Christmas, Easter, etc.) and other marketing events to promote the Village; · Flexibility in changing banners to provide varied information on each seasonal event or promotional opportunity. Liverpool Road between Bayly and Krosno Streets Streetscape improvements on Liverpool Road between Bayly and Krosno Streets are intended to create a new character that is more comfortable and friendly. Streetscape elements will provide containment to the street independent of existing buildings, increase pedestrian amenity and convenience, and allow opportunities for promotional and wayfinding signage. Improved streetscaping along Liverpool Road south to the Bridge can create an instant change of character in the public realm. Liverpool Road is to be treated as a major pedestrian link for people to have an attractive environment for walking down to the bridge during special events. The proposed streetscape elements consist of: · Comprehensive tree planting program on the boulevard, eventually providing a mature tree canopy over the sidewalk and enclosure to the street; · Standard metal poles and cobra-head streetlights but have triangular banners similar to those at the Krosno Street intersection markers; · Streetlight poles to have brackets for hanging flower baskets from Bayly Street to Krosno. Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 21 5O Liverpool Road between Krosno and Commerce Streets Streetscape ~mprovements on Liverpool Road between Krosno and Commerce Streets are intended to continue the street enhancements established further north. The proposed streetscape elements consist of: · Same treatment of the street light poles - cobra-head streetlight, banners, and hanging flower baskets; · Same tree planting program to provide containment of street; · New sidewalk construction on tile ~est side from Park Road to Commerce Street with a width of 1.5m {any new sidewalk reconstruction on Liverpool Road should include widening the sidewalk from 1.2m tol.5m!; · Provide traffic calming measures by using paint to create striped zones next to the curb to reduce traffic lanes to 3.25m maxlr}~um width. Liverpool Road between Commerce and Wharf Streets Streetscape improvements on Liverpool Road between Commerce and Wharf Streets should reinforce the role of Commerce Street Intersection as tile ma~n entrance point to the "Nautical Village". Pedestrian amenity and cno~ce ~s to be reinforced from this intersection to provide two routes: west along Commerce Stree[ ~o the proposed Front Street Park and Millennium Trail, and south along Liverpool Road to tile Bridge. Ti~e proposed streetscape elements, in addition to the intersection markers described abo~e, con~st of: · Street curb and boulevard widening: · Narrowing pavement width to t~(~. 3.25m traffic lanes for traffic calming and greater convenience for pedestrians at street crossings; 0.Sm Sod Liverpool Road: Wharf Street to Commerce Street 0,5m Sod Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 22 5 · From Commerce to Wharf Streets - new street light fixtures of nautical type at Iow height, triangular banners continuing the theme of Liverpool Road, hanging flower baskets, and addition of pedestrian scale light on boulevard side to illuminate sidewalk; · Boulevard to consist of a new 1.5m sidewalk on west side and the existing east side sidewalk to be widened to 1.5m when it requires repair/reconstruction; · Provision for future parking lane of 2.5m on west side of Liverpool Road, as warranted by demand arising from new retail at "Nautical Village"; · Continuing traffic calming through striped zones next to the curb and reduction of traffic lanes to 3.25m. Same streetscape treatment as Commerce to Wharf Streets Liverpool Road between Wharf Street and Coolwater Farm Streetscape treatment is intended to create a zone that evokes a working waterfront, as well as a zone that is neither car-dominated nor pedestrian focused, but is used for both. This will be the "main street" of the "Nautical Village", with wide sidewalks and active ground floors accessible to pedestrians. The proposed streetscape elements to consist of: · Unit paving treatment of front yards and sidewalks, to create a wide pedestrian zone; · Parking lane on each side of street to be built of unit pavers and at the same level as the sidewalk. This provides the flexibility to transform the parking lanes into a wider pedestrian zone during special events, when on-street parking could be banned; · Parking lane separated from sidewalk with furniture strip, along with unit pavers. The strip has street lights, benches, bike racks, trash/recycling containers and newspaper containers that act as a buffer between parking and pedestrians; Front Yard ' ~idewalld- I ] -Parkin~ ' - Traffic -' - Traffic - 'FTarkJng / ] ~idewalk~ Front Yard Porch Unit Pavers Lane Lane Lane Lane I I Unit Pavers Porch Fum[tura Strip- Fumitura Strip- Cobbled Pavers Cobbled Pavers 20.0m R.O.W. 26,0m - 29.0m Liverpool Road: Great Lakes Nautical Village (Coolwater Farms to Wharf Street) Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 23 · Street light design to have special light at high level ~ith Millenium Trail pedestrian lights (wt~itei at Iow level on bott~ sides~o illuminate the side~valk and parking lane. The light pole will accommodate flower baskets, triangular banners on one side and a string of pennants on other side, plus diagonal stays at top; · Traffic lanes to be constructed with aspi~aJt and roll curbs out of concrete; · Curb and boulevard to 'bulge-out' at \Yi~arf Street to allo~x for only two traffic lanes of 3.25m eact~. Liverpool Road between Coolwater Farm and Bridge Same treatment as for Liverpool Road from \~. i~arf Street to Coolwater Farm. Since no buildings or potential front yards exist, a separation w~ll be pro~ ided between the sidewalk at the property line and adjacent parking uses through a I()~ fence of metal posts and bars or wood posts and rope. 3.Om Sidewalk/ Unit Pavers 2.6m 3.4m ! 3.4m Parking Traffic Traffic Lane Lane Lane Unit Pavers Patterned Pattemed 1.0___.m___m,,. __ or Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Fumiture Strip- Cobbled Pavem 20.0m R.O.W. 3.0m Sidewalk/ Unit Pavers Lane Unit Pavers or Asphalt 1 .Om Fumiture Strip- Cobbled Pavers Liverpool Road: Bridge to North edge of Coolwater Farms Property Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 24 Side Streets - Commerce, Front, Annland and Wharf Commerce Street is intended to function as a pedestrian link to streetscaping elements to consist of: Future ~ Lane Lane Existing 20,0m Commerce Street: Liverpool Road West to Front Street Trail zcm Lane Lane zone [ 8.5m Existing 20.Om Annland Street: Liverpool Road West to Front Street Front Street Park. The proposed New concrete 1.5m sidewalk on the north side; · Street lamps on the north side only using nautical theme - high street light fixture plus lower light on sidewalk side for pedestrian comfort and safety; · Posts to have stays, maybe no banners; · Reduce traffic lanes to 3.25m with painted striped zones at curbs. Front Street treatment is similar to Commerce Street, consisting of: · Same lamps with potential for banners; · Lights on west side only; · Design of sidewalk from municipal drawings for Front Street Park; · Reduce traffic lanes to 3.25 using painted striped zone at curbs. Annland Street treatment is similar to Commerce Street, consisting of: · New 3m wide sidewalk on the south side to allow for continuation of Millennium Trail; · Street lamps on south side only with higher and lower lights, including wayfinding markers for Millennium Trail; · Traffic lanes to be reduced to 3.25m with painted striped zones at curb. Wharf Street to remain in current condition as a "working" street for marina activities in waterfront, and not part of the pedestrian trail system. 5 54 Appendix B to Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (November, 2001) Implementation Strategy 55 LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY This section addresses those components of a desirable waterfront, which assist in implementing land use, design and development matters, or are complementary strategies and initiatives. While the implementation matters identified here are aimed at Council, there are other levels of government, public and private agencies, private and non-government organizations, and others who will collaboratively assist in the achievement of a desirable waterfront node. To assist in the implementation of the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review, Pickering City Council shall consider: · as occasions arise, and through the development review process, identify opportunities for providing public access to Frenchman's Bay; where appropriate; · as part of the annual budget process, allocate monies for complementary public infrastructure improvements (such as signage, pedestrian-oriented (coloured) paving; pedestrian lighting, sidewalk enhancements), within the Waterfront Node;through the development review process, apply site plan control to residential developments along Liverpool Road that feature commercial business zoning; · request that the Director, Planning & Development, submit an annual monitoring report in the fall of each year which comments on the success of the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Official Plan policies and development guidelines, and recommends actions that pertain to the findings of the report; · request that the Director, Operations and Emergency Services, in consultation with the City Clerk, submit an annual monitoring report in the fall of each year which comments on the traffic and parking conditions within the immediate environs of the Waterfront Node, and recommends actions that pertain to the findings of the report; · request that the Directors of Planning & Development, and Operations & Emergency Services, coordinate a Year 2002 budget submission for modifications to Liverpool Road, in accordance with the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines); and · request the Directors, Planning & Development and Operations & Emergency Services to investigate with Ontario Power Generation the opportunity for additional parking 'behind the Hilt's property'. To assist in furthering waterfront, tourism, boating and marine related activities in the Waterfront Node, Pickering City Council shall consider: · as a high priority, through its Waterfront Coordinating Committee, take a leadership role in coordinating partnerships, and identifying and securing sources of funding for the on-going maintenance of the harbour channel, improvements to the harbour channel, and dredging of Frenchman's Bay; · through the development review process, enact agreements to exempt landowners from the requirement to provide parking where appropriate, by providing cash-in-lieu, for the small-scale commercial uses within the Node; · through the development review process, consider permitting all or a portion of the required parking for marina and marina-support uses to be provided off-site through long-term lease arrangements; · consider on-street parking on both sides of Liverpool Road, south of Wharf Street; · at an appropriate time in the future, consider the use metered on-street parking in the Node, particularly on Liverpool Road south of Wharf Street, and in public parking areas; · through the development review process, secure lands under parkland dedication for public parking; Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Developmen? Guidelines (November, 2001) Page 27 · make formal arrangements (if required), with the Durham Region Catholic Separate School Board, to lease (or sign appropriately) parking at Holy Redeemer Separate School for overflow parking purposes; · through its Waterfront Coordinating Committee. investigate with Ontario Power Generation the opportunity for additional parking at the foot of Sandy Beach Road: · through its Waterfront Coordinating Committee. consider investigating further the establishment of a boat launch at the foot of Sandy Beach Road on the west side of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station; and · through its Waterfront Coordinating Committee. consider, in partnership with other landowners, the establishment of a water taxi between the east and west spits. To assist in improving the health of Frenchman's Bay, Pickering City Council, shall consider: · through its Waterfront Coordinating Committee, continue working with existing partnerships, and identifying and securing sources of funding, for the preparation of hydraulic and sedimentation models of Frenchman's Bay, including the channel to Lake Ontario. as well as Krosno Creek and Hydro Marsh; · as part of the annual budget process, continue funding of subwatershed and stormwater management studies for each of the creeks flowing into Frenchman's Bay. as required; · as part of the annual budget process, continue funding of remedial stormwater management projects for the various watercourses flowing into the Bay; · as part of the development review process, require new development to have a net positive impact on the health of Frenchman's Bay, and treat stormwater, at a minimum, through the use of oil-grit separators; and · ensure any proposal for bay-fill is designed to improve environmental conditions along the shore, is supported by appropriate studies to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies, and receives all required approvals and permits. To address other matters raised during the course of this Detailed Review, Pickering City Council, shall consider: · through its Waterfront Coordinating Committee. consider whether the issue of people living permanently on their boats in the marinas requires further municipal review; and · through its Waterfront Coordinating Committee, consider whether the issue of resident geese in the area are a nuisance and requires further municipal review. APPENDIX III TO REPORT NUMBER PD 42-01 INFORMATIONAL REVISION 8 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN 58 INFORMATIONAL REVISION 8 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN Informational revisions to the Official Plan can be adopted by Council at any time, The revisions required to reflect the completion of the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review are as follows, Revise the introductory text to the Bay Ridges Ne~ghbourhood ~n order to ~dent~fy that Council has adopted the "Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines", such that the ~ntroductory text reads as set out below; 2. Revise Map 13 - Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges, to add shading to indicate that the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Rew'ew has been completed (see next page). NEIGHBOURHOOD 3: BAY RIDGES Population Pr(~jccrit)n IYYd ]¥/?/datio~z 7,800 Prq/~clea' (;rcm'z/~ 1,700 l>et:c~l [,cma.,'c 2 l.S 2016 P~jml3t/o, 9,500 ADD ~' Description th:' h:d:':, :vans:iai>si( >:: c< )rrid, ~:-. and l~:ikc ()ntario ::car :t:c IL:: :':<~I:: c:i'k l?~'~s: :tls<)includes three elementary ~,:: i~rosno B<,uicva:'d :2:':::' l.:vcrp<)ol Road, and on [{::5 general and p:'cs:~c cn:pl()ymcnt areas located north and :<ruth of Bavlv >trcct, cast ()f San& Beach Road Has :::::::::::::::::::::::: scnsmvc areas associated with Frcnchnx:m'$ Bay itl:d tile ]A:lqc ()nrario xvatcrfront Has four I)ctailcd Review Areas within its t0oundary: (i) lands and water su:-r<)u::dmg thc existing marinas; (~) thc lands arc,und Livcrm ): ,1 R< ,ad, ()ld ()rchard Road and Krosn<, t:<?::icv::r~:: ::: m::d. ar<)::nd thc Bay ~dges Plaza, west <)( l.:vcrp<~<d R<,,td: ::::d :v lands ar<)und thc GO Transit stau<):: and castcri', xlt )::~ t%,, lv 5tree: City (7,~uncil }2:t5 ;Id: >ntcd Jo: cl<>pmcn: guidc~nes as follows: Thc "],ivc:'p:~(>] R(,::d :'::crfrtmt Node Development (;uidc[lnc5" , f< ):' l::nd5 5:::'r< mrading thc existing marinas) 5 MAP13 NEIGHBOURHOOD 3: BAY RIDGES ~AYLY FRENCHMAN '$ BAY FRONT LAKE ON?ARIO LEGEND NEW ROAD CONNECTIONS (PROPOSED) DETAILED REVIEW AREA LANDS FOR WHICH COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES (REFER TO COMPENDIUM DOCUMENT) PEDESTRIAN/BiCYCLE CONNECTION (PROPOSED) TOWN OF PICKERING PLANNING DEPARTMENT I SYMBOLS NEIGHBOURHOOD BOUNDARY PLACE OF WORSHIP PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCHOOLSEPARATE ELEMENTARY~] HISTORIC VILLAGE GO--TRANSIT STATION SENIOR CENTRE LAWN BOWLING COMMUNITY CENTRE PARK PROPOSED PARK MARINA ARENA YACHT CLUB FIREHALL NOTE: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS APPEAR ON SCHEDULE I PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN: Chapter Eleven - Urban Neighbourhoods ocaddro w~st udies%l;verpol~pd prn hur.dwg 60 ATTACHMENT ~/--...L.~TO REPORT # PD.._._~2 -o / ~VA TEPPOIA/T S T/EEET COMME~C£ ~ i DRIVE t:ii! ~ ' 1 l~I~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I City of Pickering Planning & Development Department LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA .... STUDY AREA acaddraw~studles\liverpoMivsth 2dwg i DATE APR 17, 2001 ATTACHMENT# ~ TO REPORT#PD z/.~-o / LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW Part 1 - Phase 1 Report The report provided an opportunities and constraints analysis, guiding principles for discussion, a draft land use plan for the study area, draft development guidelines, and a draft implementation strategy. Copies of the Part 1 - Phase 1 Report were circulated to Members of Council, senior City staff, commenting agencies, as well as members of the public for review and comments. The Part 1 - Phase 1 Report, prepared by the Planning & Development Department, and the consulting fim~s of Totten Sims Hubicki Associates, Markson Borooah Hodgson Architects and TCI Management Consultants Limited, provided a good synthesis of information, comments and proposed directions. Part 1 - Phase 2 Report The second phase of Part I involved the refinement of the land use plan, development guidelines, and implementation strategy contained within the Part 1 - Phase 1 Report. Following the May 16, 2000 public meeting, the study team reassessed various aspects of the Phase 1 Report in light of comments received, and made appropriate revisions. The revisions to the principle components of the Part 1 - Phase 1 Report were included within the Part 1 - Phase 2 Report. The Report consists of six parts: Part A: Part B: Part C: Part D: Part E: Part F: Public Consultation Summary; Revised Land Use Plan; Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines; Revised hnplementation Strategy; Informational Revisions to the Pickering Official Plan; and Potential Amendments to the Picketing Official Plan. The Part 1 recommendations on land use, transportation, urban design, environmental management and implementation were presented to Council in June, 2000, and were adopted in principle only with some revisions (see resolution #96/00, Attachment #3). Part 2 - Phase 1 Report The Part 2 Phase 1 Report was prepared by the Pickering Planning & Development Department, and the consulting firms TSH Associates and Markson Borooah Hodgson Architects, in March 2001. This Report recommended a "nautical village" theme for the Area, and gave examples of the various design elements that could guide private development and public infrastructure investment within the Detailed Review Area. A public meeting was held on March 7, 2001 to present and discuss the Reports findings. Part 2 - Phase 2 Report The Part 2 - Phase 2 Report was also prepared by the Picketing Planning & Development Department, and the consulting firms TSH Associates and Markson Borooah Hodgson Architects, in May 2001. The Report contained proposed refinements to the draft Official Plan Amendment for the Liverpool Road South study area, proposed refinements to the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines that were 'approved in principle' by Council through Part 1 of the Detailed Review, and draft detailed architectural, landscape and streetscape guidelines that build on the Great Lakes Nautical Village theme identified through Part 2 - Phase 1 of the Review. A public meeting was held on May 8, 2001 to present and discuss the Report. 62 LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW: PART 1 - PHASE 2 REPORT PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY Consulting with residents and landowners within and around the Liverpool Road South study area, other interested people and groups, public agenCies, the consulting team, and key City staff has been an integral component of this study. In addition to informal conversations with members of the public, the following key consultation sessions have occurred: · a public meeting/workshop, held April 18'~, 2000, to provide background information and discuss key objectives and aspirations that members of the public hold for the area; · a workshop/design charette, held Apdl 25:L 2000, with key City and agency staff to examine land use and design options; · a stakeholders' workshop, held April 26~.L 2000, to discuss issues and emerging development principles with community representatives, major property owners in the study area, and key agency staff; · a meeting with major property owners, held May 2nd, 2000, to discuss issues and emerging development principles; and · a public meeting, held May 16% 2000, to discuss the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review: Part 1 - Phase 1 Report. The report discussed at the May 16:,~ public meeting provided a draft land use plan for the study area, draft development guidelines, and a draft implementation strategy. Approximately 70 people attended the meeting, and a variety of comments were made either verbally or through the submission of comment sheets (written comments are available for review at the Planning and Development Department). Correspondence received since the May 16th meeting is attached to this summary. The following discussion identifies issues that were most frequently raised by members of the public. Each issue is accompanied by a staff response. Protectin.q the Environment Concerns were raised regarding the potential for new development to have a detrimental impact on the area's natural features, including Frenchman's Bay, Krosno Creek and the Hydro Marsh. Staff Response When development applications are submitted, several "development review" policies within the Pickering Official Plan are triggered, including requirements for the submission of Environmental Reports that determine potential negative impacts and means of mitigating those impacts. The recommended Development Guidelines (see Part C), provide additional direction on this matter, including the positions that: no development or filling should be permitted within the Hydro Marsh; buffers and edge management strategies are required around the marsh; and on-going initiatives for the restoration of Krosno Creek, Hydro Marsh and Frenchman's Bay should be continued. Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review: Part 1 - Phase 2 Report A-1 ..~ ATTACHMENT #. .TO ~5PORT # PD ~,/¢? - o ( '63 Bay-fill Concerns were raised with future possibilities of bay-fill occurring within Frenchman's Bay. The "Pickering Ajax Citizens Together" group has taken the position that no bay-filling be permitted. Staff Response It is our understanding that properly designed fill operations can revitalize shoreline and improve fish spawning and habitat areas. To completely prohibit bay-filling may preclude opportunities to improve certain segments of the Frenchman's Bay shoreline. Such improvements may also be appropriate to accommodate public waterfront amenities, such as a waterfront prOmenade. Proposals to fill within Frenchman's Bay, regardless of the extent of the proposed bay-filling, will require permits from the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and possibly the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources. All proposals to bay-fill will require detailed Environmental Impact Studies, and be subject to the consideration of the appropriate approval authorities. Increased Nei.qhbourhood Traffic Several people, particularly those living along Liverpool Road, were concerned with the prospects of increased traffic in the neighbourhood resulting from additional development. Staff Response As lands in the area redevelop, traffic volumes will increase. However, this increase will be relative to the intensity of future development. The recommended Development Guidelines (see Part C), establish parameters for future development that is consistent with other development currently found within the Bay Ridges neighbourhood. The Development Guidelines do not contemplate a "regional scale" level of development, as the corresponding intensity of development would be inappropriate for this area. Certain events and summer weekends may generate peak volumes of traffic higher than what is typically experienced. If that occurs, steps can be taken to minimize the effect on the neighbourhood. This could include signage directing vehicles to other access routes (Sandy Beach Road), and providing shuttle bus service from other parts of the City. If increasing traffic volumes and speeds result with an undesirable situation in the future, Council could, at its discretion, implement traffic-calming measures to curtail the inappropriate activity. Parkinq The Part 1 - Phase 1 Report identified opportunities to meet future parking demands in the area. Several people objected to the suggestion that certain existing and future roads should accommodate on-street parking, and were concerned that there may not be enough parking. Staff Response The parking strategies included within the recommended Development Guidelines (see Part C), are a "package" of opportunities, suggesting both on- and off-street parking. All will likely be required to accommodate future parking demand in this area of limited available land. Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review: Part 1 - Phase 2 Report A-2 Parking on public roads is an excellent means of managing parking demand, and its documented impacts include reduced traffic speeds, which can decrease the likelihood of accidents. On-street parking also provides a buffer between pedestrians on sidewalks, and vehicular traffic. If on-street parking is instituted and problems are experienced, Council can choose to revise or cancel the on-street parking program. However, staff believe the proposed opportunities for parking will be adequate. Potential Loss of Marina Activity The recommendations found within the Part 1 - Phase 1 Resort did not state that any particular waterfront-related land use must occur within the area. Conceivably then, according to the Phase 1 Report, the entire area could be developed for residential purposes without marina or other waterfront-related activities This was of great concern to several individuals attending the May 16~,' meeting. Staff Response The study team re-examined this part of the land use plan and development guidelines, and we agree that redevelopment along Frenchman's Bay must incorporate waterfront-related activities. To allow otherwise could result with a lost opportunity of substantial proportions. Revisions have made to the Development Guidelines (see Part C) and provisions included in the Potential Amendments to the Pickering Official Plan (see Part F) that will establish a "Waterfront Use and Amenity Area" adjacent to the Bay. Uses permitted in this area will include marinas, yacht clubs, marina-supportive facilities, mooring facilities, the waterfront promenade and other public activity areas such as public piers and public squares. Additional uses such as residential, commercial, retail, and office uses, could be considered within the Waterfront Use and Amenity Area, provided that detailed development proposals incorporate marinas, docking facilities, marine-related activities, and/or public activity areas. As originally discussed in the draft development guidelines, a publicly-accessible waterfront promenade remains a required element of any redevelopment proposal. Proposed Boat Ramp at the Front Street City Park At the April 25~h public meeting/workshop, a concept plan for the new Front Street City Park was shown, which included a boat launch to Frenchman's Bay. At the May 16:' meeting, neighbounng residents continued to express concerns with the boat launch aspect of the concept plan - citing the lack of appropriate parking as their major issue. Staff Response The planning and design process for the Front Street City Park has involved a process separate from this Detailed Review. The concerns regarding the boat launch were forwarded to the Operations and Emergency Services Department, as will a copy of this Report. Final decisions on the design of this park have yet to be made. Additional Issues Additional issues that were discussed at the May t6TM meeting include: building heights; public funding for channel entrance improvements; displacement of geese; sewage capacity; and removal of derelict barges. Staff considered all comments in the preparation of the Phase 2 Report. Where necessary, minor revisions and additions were made to various parts of this Report to address the comments. Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review; Part 1 - Phase 2 Report A-3 ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD_ LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW: PART 2 - PHASE 2 REPORT PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY Consulting with residents and landowners within and around the Liverpool Road South study area, other interested people and groups, public agencies, the consulting team, and key City staff has been an integral component of this study. The information report discussed at the April 19th statutory public information meeting provided a proposed amendment to the Pickering Official Plan, which proposed new land use designations and policies for the Liverpool Road South Area. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting, and a variety of comments were made either verbally at the meeting or through subsequent discussions with staff. The following discussion identifies the issues, which continue to be most frequently raised by members of the public through both consultation sessions held as part of the Detailed Review and the statutory public information meeting. Each issue is accompanied by a staff response. Great Lakes Nautical Village Members of the public suggested that the theme for the area should refer to a 'Great Lakes' Nautical Village. Staff Response Staff agrees. Both the draft amendment and Development Guidelines will' incorporate this theme and include features of typical 'Great Lakes' waterfronts. Potential Loss of Madna Activity The public and some landowners continue to reiterate their concern that the proposed amendment does not sufficiently restdct lands adjacent to Frenchman's Bay for marina, yacht clubs and marina-supportive facilities. Further, it was noted that a developer may not be prevented from proposing solely residential development within the 40 metre corridor along Frenchman's Bay if publicly accessible spaces and amenities were provided. Consequently, the entire area could be developed for residential purposes without marina or other waterfront-related activities. Staff Response The intent of the "Waterfront Use and Amenity Area" was to establish a corridor stretching approximately 40 metres inland from the edge of Frenchman's Bay, running from the Front Street City Park though the Marina Mixed Use area to Liverpool Road. Generally, the area would be reserved of exclusively for marine-related activates, including madnas, yacht clubs, marina-supportive facilities, mooring facilities. At Council's discretion, additional uses such as residential, commercial, retail and office uses could be considered within the 40 metres, provided that detailed development proposals made appropriate accommodations for marine related activities and/or public activity areas. Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review: Part 2 - Phase 2 Report A-1 6G Staff has re-examined this issue and accepts the concern that redevelopment along Frenchman's Bay could potentially allow uses other than waterfront-related uses. This is inconsistent with keeping the area as a 'working waterfront', which is the basis for the Waterfront Node. Revisions have made to delete clause (g) from the draft Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan (see Part C) and the "Waterfront Use and Amenity Area" from the Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (see Part E). In this way, the area is reserved for marine-related activities including marinas, yacht clubs and marina-supportive facilities. New residential development, retail and office uses are directed to the Liverpool Road Corridor as identified in the Guidelines. Over time, the area will offer a mix of uses that contribute to an inviting public realm at street level. Waterfront Promenade Based on the comments received to-date, there continues to be concern for establishing a waterfront promenade along Frenchman's Bay. Staff Response As indicated in the previous comment, there is concern that the lands along Frenchman's Bay could be developed exclusively for residential with the only public benefit being the waterfront promenade. Yet, there does not seem to be landowner or public support for the water's edge promenade. If pursued, the promenade could lead to redevelopment almost entirely for residential purposes, in return for an intermittent, if achievable, water's edge trail. It would also compete with Liverpool Road for scarce municipal infrastructure expenditures. Accordingly, staff is deleting the waterfront promenade from both the draft Amendment (see Part C) and the Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (see Part E). In recognition of the desirability of providing diverse and satisfying public access opportunities, however, staff is suggesting that a new clause be added to the draft Amendment (see Part E) encouraging proponents of development to consider publicly-accessible points of interest adjacent to Frenchman's Bay, where feasible. For example, restaurant patio areas or benches along the shore could still provide the public with an opportunity to experience and appreciate the Bay's scenic features. Proposed Boat Ramp at the Front Street City Park Concerns have been raised with respect to the proposed boat launch at Front Street City Park and the proposed parking tot. Staff Response The planning and design process for the Front Street City Park has involved a process separate from this Detailed Review. However, in recognition of the concerns expressed regarding the boat launch, the Operations & Services Department revised the concept plan to reduce the scale of the facility. The current design would not permit the backing-up of boat trailers into the water. Canoes, kayaks and similar smaller craft would be off-loaded from motorized vehicles at the top of boat launch area and carried to the water. The proposed parking area within the Park complies with the City's policy on providing parking in public areas such as parks. The revised concept plan has been reviewed with the City Councillor. Since a similar facility is not being planned at the foot of Sandy Beach Road on the west side of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, clause (n) has been deleted within the draft amendment (see Part D). Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review: Part 2 - Phase 2 Report A-2 ~TTAOHMENT #.,,. ] TO S£?ORT # PD ,Z',/~ ~ c] (' 67 Bay-fill Concerns have been raised with respect to permitting bay-fill occurring along the edge of Frenchman's Bay. Staff Response Last June, Council substituted the clause on bay-fill. It was their intent to severely restrict proposals to fill along the edge of Frenchman's Bay to those instances when it was the "best environmental benefit" to Frenchman's Bay and its shoreline, and when it would be absolutely required to facilitate waterfront public amenities and pedestrian access. Comments have suggested that this policy could be improved by providing better clarity on how to define the term "best environmental benefit". Further, some comments suggest there remains merit in allowing limited bay-fill along the shoreline to achieve the public objectives within the Waterfront Node. In response to providing clarity to the policy regarding the use of bay-fill, wording has been added to require proposals to demonstrate "no adverse effects" on the marine environment. This is consistent with the terminology used in the federal Fisheries Act and the provincial Environmental Assessment Act. This ensures that proposals for bay-fill does not impair water quality, aquatic habitat, and adjacent uses from the loss of fill. Increased Nei.qhbourhood Traffic Several people, particularly those living along Liverpool Road, were concerned with the prospects of increased traffic in the neighbourhood resulting from additional development. Others expressed concern with the ability of buses and other emergency vehicles to tum around at the foot of Liverpool Road. Staff Response As lands in the area redevelop, traffic volumes will increase. However, this increase will be relative to the intensity of future development. The revised Development Guidelines (see Part C), establish parameters for future development that is consistent with other development currently found within the Bay Ridges neighbourhood. Certain events and summer weekends may generate peak volumes of traffic higher than what is typically experienced. If that occurs, steps can be taken to minimize the effect on the neighbourhood. This could include signage directing vehicles to other access routes (Sandy Beach Road), and providing shuttle bus service from other parts of the City. If increasing traffic volumes and speeds result with an undesirable situation in the future, Council could, at its discretion, implement traffic-calming measures to curtail the inappropriate activity. The City's design for the reconstruction of the foot of Liverpool Road now accommodates the turning of buses and emergency vehicles. Parking The Part 1 - Phase 1 Report identified opportunities to meet future parking demands in the area. Several people objected to the suggestion that certain existing and future roads should accommodate on-street parking, and were concerned that there may not be enough parking. Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review: Part 2 - Phase 2 Report A-3 ,~TTACHME~T ,¢._...~.~ TO q£PORT # PD Staff Response The parking strategies included within the recommended Development Guidelines (see Part C) is a Upackage" of opportunities, suggesting both on- and off-street parking. Opportunities for parking include: requiring that all new residential development provide appropriate off-street parking; continuing with on-street parking on one side of Liverpool Road north of Wharf Street and on one side of the other streets north of Wharf Street; on both sides of Liverpool Road south of Wharf Street; and one side of any new east-west streets south of Wharf Street. Parking areas will comply with the City's parking by-law, which restncts parking to a 3-hour maximum. As part of the package of opportunities, Council may accept cash-in-lieu of parking in this area, particularly for the small-scale retail developments anticipated along Liverpool Road and in Fairport Village. This will assist in securing lands for public parking elsewhere in the area. The City is also pursuing additional City parking behind "Hilts" property to address concerns regarding overall capacity. The parking situation will be monitored over time and mitigative actions taken if required. Safety Several people were concerned with continuing the Millennium Trail through the Liverpool Road Corridor and the potential for the pedestrian/cyclist/vehicle conflict. Staff Response The blending of the Millennium Trail into the Liverpool Road Corridor is appropriate since it enables the cyclist the choice of movement on and off road. The users, depending on their capability, can choose their preferred route. For example, cyclists can either ride their bikes on the road or walk their bikes on the sidewalk. This option also reinforces the special distinctive nature of the area similar to other locations along the waterfronts of Lake Ontario. Protectin,q the Environment Concerns were raised regarding the potential for new development to have a detrimental impact on the area's natural features, including Frenchman's Bay, Krosno Creek and the Hydro Marsh. Staff Response When development applications are submitted, several "development review" policies within the Pickering Official Plan are triggered, including requirements for the submission of Environmental Reports that determine potential negative impacts and means of mitigating those impacts. The revised Development Guidelines (see Part C), provide additional direction on this matter, including the positions that: no development or filling should be permitted within the Hydro Marsh; buffers and edge management strategies are required around the marsh; and on-going initiatives for the restoration of Krosno Creek, Hydro Marsh and Frenchman's Bay should be continued. Currently, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is carrying out some work to delineate new fill and flood lines, and an Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) designation for the Liverpool Road South area including a portion of the Coolwater Farms property. The results of the Authority's work may require future amendments to the Shoreline and Stream Corddor and ESA designation in Schedule III Resource Management to the Pickering Official Plan. As was indicated at the statutory public information meeting, a clause was added to the proposed amendment requiring the proponent, prior to the approval of a zoning by-law amendment, to confirm the developable area of the Coolwater Farms property with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review; Part 2 - Phase 2 Report A-4 ATTACHMENT #. -~ TO REPORT # PD ¢-/,~ - o / 69 Control Architect A concern was expressed about the policy requiring proponents to provide funding for a control architect, which is retained by the City to assist in the review of development proposals. Also, a part of clause (i), there was a concern that the proposed policy that would have permitted Council to enter into agreements with proponents Won any other matters" did not provide clear parameters to guide private development. Staff Response The intent of this policy was to ensure that all proposals including residential complied with the Development Guidelines. Under the revised amendment, residential proposals south of Annland Street are only permitted within the Liverpool Road Corridor. Given this more limited scale of residential development, staff is now satisfied that there is sufficient direction in the Development Guidelines to ensure that development along Liverpool Road achieves a high level of design and architectural quality for the area. Accordingly, the assistance of a control architect is not longer necessary. On the matter of permitting Council to enter into agreements with proponents on any other matters, the City has, through the development application process, the ability to require agreements to be entered into. Accordingly, clause (i) is deleted from the draft amendment (see Part F). Maintenance of the Waterfront Node The long-term maintenance of the area, especially along Liverpool Road relating to such services as litter pickup and snow removal was expressed. Staff Response The City will endeavour to provide a level of maintenance that is commensurate with the level of use of the facilities throughout the year. Mixed Commercial- Residential along Liverpool Road A concem was expressed regarding the proposed policy requirement of new residential development along Liverpool Road being designed to accommodate a range of uses including commercial, personal service and office on the ground floor. As well, some comments suggested that some units along Liverpool Road be constructed without a commercially-designed ground floor. Staff Response Staff has examined the issue and found the costs of accommodating commercial on the ground floor of a residential unit to be marginal. For example, a 100 square metre retail room at the front of a 300 square metre residence would cost approximately $15,000 to $20,000 more in construction costs. These costs can be recovered through the business lease, business tax expenses, etc.. In keeping with the intended function of the Liverpool Road Corridor, staff still recommends that all residential adjacent to Liverpool Road be required to accommodate a commercially-designed ground floor. Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review: Part 2 - Phase 2 Report A-5 ATTACHI.",ENT # ¢ TO PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 11-01 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF April 19. 2001 IN ACCORDANCE V(ITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT. R.S.O. 1990. chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment ,Application ePA 01-001/P City-Initiated: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Pan of Lots "" and '~' _, __ _~, Range ~ B.F.C. (Lands on bod~ sides of Commerce Street, extending west to Frenchman's Bay and somh to the Lake Ontario shoreline, along bod~ sides of Live~ool Road) City of Pickcrins 1.0 2.0 2.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION tile proposed amendment xxould apply to lands within the Liverpool Road South Study Area, including t~oth sides of Commerce Street, extending west to Frenchman's Bay and cast :o tile thdro Marsh. Both sides of Liverpool Road and the historic "Village off Fairport" are included (see Attachment #1 ): existing development in tile area includes a mixture of housing, marinas, restaurant, boat storage, marine service, the Region of Durham sewage pumping station, the ibrmer Coolwater Farms aquaculture facility, park and natural open space uses. BACKGROUND Liverpool Road South .&rea Detailed Review in July, 1999, the City received two major development applications for lands within an area identified by the Picketing Official Plan as a Detailed Review Area. The Official Plan requires Council to complete the Detailed Review prior to dealing xvith major applications: in December, 1999, Council endorsed the Terms of Reference tbr a Detailed Review of the Liverpool Road South Area to establish comprci~ensive hind use, urban design, transportation, and environmental management guidelines for tho area. The Detailed Review consists of txvo parts: Part t focused on background information about the study area, land use, development guidelines and an implementation strategy. Part 2 establishes a design "theme" for tile area, and expresses that theme in detailed architectural, landscape and streetscape guidelines: the final products of tile Review will be a City-initiated Official Plan Amendment, Development Guidelines including an Implementation Strategy, and Inlbnnational Revisions to the Pickering Official Plan. Some additional intbrmation on the Detailed Review is provided in Attachment #2; ill June, 2000, Council discussed potential amendments to the Picketing Official Plan resuhing from Part 1 of tile Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review. At this meeting, Council: received as background information the "Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review- Part 1. Phase 1 and 2 Repons": Information Report No. 1 I-01 ATTACHMENT# ~ .TO REPORT ~ PD. z/,2 - © [ Page 2 adopted in principle the "Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines", the "Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Revised Implementation Strategy", and related informational revisions to the Pickering Official Plan; directed City Staff to hold a Statutory Public Information Meeting following Part 2 of the "Liverpool Road South Detailed Review" to discuss potential amendments to the Pickering Official Plan required to implement the results of Part 1, as set out in Appendix V to Report Number PD 26-00 and further modified by Council [Council replaced Clause (m) with a new clause, and deferred Clauses (g) and (h)]; directed City Staff to commence with Part 2 of the "Liverpool Road South Detailed Review"; and directed the City Clerk to forward a copy of Staff's Report prepared for that meeting to various committees and agencies; copies of Council Resolution #96/00 from the June 2000 meeting, and Appendix V from Report Number PD 26-00 are provided as Attachments #3 to #4 respectively, to this Report; in February, 2001, Part 2 of the Review commenced: in March, 2001, Council directed staff to commence the City-initiated Official Plan Amendment for the entirc Liverpool Road Waterfront Node concurrently with Part 2 of the Review; Council directed that staff hold the required Statutory Public Information Meeting on April 19, 2001, to consider potential amendments to the Pickering Official Plan to implement the results of the Detailed Review. 3.0 OFFICIAL PLANS 3.1 Durham Regional Official Plan the Durham Regional Official Plan designates Frenchman's Bay as a "Waterfront Place". Waterfront Places shall be developed as focal points along the waterfront, and exhibit a mix of uses that attract people for a variety of reasons. The predominant uses may include marina, recreational, tourist, cultural, and community use. Residential uses and employment uses may be permitted. ;vhich support and complement the predominant uses; 3.2 Pickering Official Plan currently, the Pickering Official Plan designates a major portion of the area as "Open Space System - Marina Areas" In addition to conservation, passive and active recreational uses, and community and cultural uses, this designation identifies the following permissible uses: marinas, yacht clubs and ancillary uses; marina supportive uses, restaurants, limited retail uses; limited residential uses in conjunction ~vith marinas and yacht clubs; aquaculture and other related uses; the East Spit, the Lake Ontario shoreline, and the Class 2 wetland to the east of Frenchman's Bay are designated "Open Space System - Natural Areas" by the Pickering Official Plan. Permissible uses in this category include primarily conservation, education, restoration, and passive recreation uses; the balance of the area north to Commerce Street and immediately beyond, is designated as "Urban Residential Areas - Low Density" by the Pickering Official Plan. This designation permits primarily residential development at a density of up to 30 units per net hectare. However, other uses may be permissible including: limited offices serving the area; retailing of goods and services serving the area; compatible special purpose commercial uses serving the area; community cultural and recreational uses; and compatible employment uses; 7 o Intbrmation Report No. 11-01 ATTACHMENT ~, z./' TO Paoe 3 ,~E?Oa'r # PD., z,/& _ c" / = 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.2.1 Schedule III of the Plan - "Resource Management" designates portions of the lands adjacent to the water's edge as "Shorelines and Stream Corridors". This designation recognizes that certain lands generally associated x~ittn water bodies and stream corridors may feature hazards such as flooding, slope instability and erosion. PROPOSED PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT General Overview the purpose of tins City-initiated amendment is to put in place new land use designations and policies for thc Liverpool Road %outh Area, to implement the results of the Detailed Revie~v. Complementary "I~'czzcU)'otu :Vode Development Guidelines" will also be Iht\yarded to Council to assist in implementing the study results, and to provide furdaer guidance on the policies and designations. The proposed amendment has been prepared considering comments by the public, landowners and agencies as well as thc modifications by Council during Pa~ 1 of the Review, and considering comments to-date during Pa~ 2: the proposed amendment is provided as .Appendix I to this P, cport, and includes both proposed text policies and proposed schedule changes. It is proposed that the Picketing Official Plan be amended bx: 0 redesignating cc~Tain lands to "Open Space System - Marina Areas" on Schedule I Land Use Structure. as tbllows: lands on the south side of Aimland Street v, est of Liverpool Road: lands on tile east side of Liverpool Road south of Wharf Street: and lands on tine east side of Liverpool Road known as "Cool\valet Farms" together with tile abutting City-owned lands [see Schedule A to Appendix I]' 7 revising tile boundap,' of the "Wetlands" designation on Schedule III - Resource Management, to reflect new mapping of the provincially significant "Hydro Marsh" xvetland [see Schedule B to Appendix I]: and 8 replacing policy 11.4 Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Policies with new polices to: 8.1 incorporate the vision Ibr tine Liverpool Road Waterfront Node [see primarily clauses (a)- (e) but also (f) - 8.2 permit a wider range of uses within the Marina Areas designation subject to certain conditions [see causes (t) and (g)]: 8.3 require building designs along Liverpool Road to accommodate ground floor commercial opportunities [clause (h)]: 8.4 identit\' additional implementation strategies for using agreements with the City and parking arrangements [clauses (i) and (j)]; 8.5 encourage tine introduction of small-scale commercial uses within Fairport Village on a site-specific basis [clause (k)]: 8.6 clarit\' the circumstances under which bay-fill may be considered [clause (1)]: 8.7 provide direction on detemnining development limits on the lands known as "Coohvater Farms" [clause (m }]' and 8.8 providing minor rewording of existing clauses on a municipal boat launctn and tile Lake Ontario \Vatcrfront Trail [clauses (n) and (o)]; Detailed Comments Vision the proposed Official Plan Amendment provides a strong policy foundation for guiding future private dexelopment and public infrastructure investment within the Waterfront Node as envisioned by tile Liverpool Road South ,Area Detailed Review: tile proposed amendment promotes the nautical heritage et' tile area including marine and marina-related uses: tile amendment encourages a mix of uses including marinas, yacht clubs, marina- supportive facilities, public open space, residential, limited retail, offices, as well as Information Report No. 11-01 ATTACHMENT #, /''/ ,TO REPORT # PD z/~2 - ~ ,' Page 4 all other uses permissible within the Natural Areas and Active Recreational Areas designations; based on comments to-date through Part 2 of the Review, there continues to be general support for the vision for the area; a comment received at the public meeting held during Part 2 - Phase I of the Review suggested the "theme" for the area should refer to a "Great Lakes Nautical Village". Although the draft amendment was circulated referring to just a "nautical village", it is noxv suggested that clause (e) of the amendment be revised to refer to "Great Lakes Nautical Village"; 4.2.2 Waterfront Promenade - based on comments received to-date during Part 2 of the Review, it appears some confusion continues to exist about the use of lands within 40 metres of the shoreline, and with the objective of establishing a "waterfront promenade"; - as a long term objective, it is proposed that Council work towards the establishment of a publicly-accessible promenade on lands adjacent to Frenchman's Bay [see clause (e)]; it is important to articulate such an objective rather than pursue it 'unofficially' as has been suggested by some; however, it is further recognized that this long term objective may require a variety of implementation approaches (such as leasing land, establishing rights-of-ways, using parkland dedication, etc.), would primarily be implemented in a collaborative approach with "willing" land owners, may vary considerably in terms of its actual proximity to the shoreline, and may in some cases, because of the specific use ora property, not be achievable; - it is anticipated that the waterfront promenade would be located somewhere within the "40-metre waterfront use and amenity zone", but the promenade would not be 40 metres wide; the actual width and design is being examined in the detailed guidelines being prepared as Part 2 - Phase 2 of the Review; however, at this time, its width is anticipated to be in the range of 3 and 5 metres; 4.2.3 Waterfront Use and Amenity Zone Council, as part of the consideration of Appendix V to Report Number PD 26-00, deferred clause (g) and clause (h), [now clause (g)] for consideration in Part 2. At that time, concerns were expressed regarding the waterfront corridor, stretching approximately 40 metres inland from the edge of Frenchman's Bay, running from the Front Street City Park to the bridge at Liverpool Road; at that time, some comments expressed concern that the policy did not sufficiently restrict lands adjacent to the waterfront for marina, marina-support, waterfront and public uses, and it was feared that the marina uses will be lost; others believed there should be an opportunity to allow some redevelopment for additional uses within this 40-metre wide corridor area providing publicly-accessible spaces and amenities are provided; these opposing opinions appear to still be represented in the comments received to-date during Part 2 of the Review; accordingly, staff re-examined the issue but found the policy approach similar to that recommended by staff in June 2000, best meets the overall objectives of creating a vibrant, active, mixed-use Waterfront Node. The wording of the proposed amendment that was circulated for comment (and is attached to this Report as Appendix I), protects the lands for marina, marina supportive uses, and public and conservation uses unless other public objectives for public waterfront accessibility can be achieved through a proposed development; some comments have suggested that retailing and shopping activities should be focused along the waterfront, (not along Liverpool Road); the proposed policy would allow such retail opportunities should the market be there; additional comments on this revised clause are sought; 74 Intbrmation Report No. 11-01 ,'-%?L, aT¢ PD ¢02 - c_: / Page 5 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.2.8 Liverpool Road Corridor clause (h) of the proposed policy requires dwellings fronting on Liverpool Road to be designed to accommodate commercial uses on tile ground floor: some comments received to-date during Part 2 et' the Review continue to question the viability of commercial uses along Liverpool Road. particularly in the winter; however, the proposed policy approact~ onh' sets up the opportunity tbr commercial uses, it doesn't make it mandatory: Bay-fill the proposed amendment includes C_'ouncil's substitution in regards to bay-fill [see clause (1)], with a minor revision referencing the need to complete appropriate supporting repons. Based on verbal comments received through Part 2 of the Review to date, this policy remains somev,'hat controversial: the intent of the clause, as modified bx Council in June 2000, was to severely restrict proposals to 1-ill along the edge oi' Frenchman's Bay when it was the "best" environmental benetit to Frenchman's Bay and its shoreline, and when it would be absolutely required to facilitate waterfront public amenities and pedestrian access. Some comments have suggested that the policy could be improved by providing better clarity on t~ox~ to define the term "best environmental benefit". Further, some comments suggest there remains merit in allowing limited bay-fill along the shoreline to achieve public objectives within the \Vaterfront Node. Additional comments from the public, a~encies and landoxx nors are sought in this regard; Parking the proposed policy v, ill enable the City to usc some ncxx parking arrangements such as oft-site parking, and tbnnal on-street parking to serve thc area: however, concerns regarding the adequacy of parking Ibr the Waterfront Node continue to be expressed during work on Part 2 of tile Review: several people objected to the suggestion that certain existing and future roads should accommodate on-street parking, and were concerned that there may not be enough parking; providing adequate parking tbr tile attractions, facilities and uses within the Waterfront Node ,,,,'ill be a collaborative eftbrt between the City and other private landowners during the development of the area: the parking strategies included within the policy and the Development Guidelines are a "package" of opportunities, suggesting both on- and off-street parking: all will likely be required to accommodate future parking demand in this area of limited available land: and the parking situation will also need to be monitored over time: Village of Fairport the proposed amendment encourages opportunities to rejuvenate the historic Village of Fairport by permitting small-scale commercial uses in conjunction with residential uses, subject to certain criteria and site-specific rezoning applications; Development Limits the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is undertaking some work. which may lead to new fill and flood lines, rind an Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation on a portion o1' the lands knov,'r~ as "Coohvater Farms". This information is still in the earl,,' draft stages. Thus. a proposed clause (m) has been added to the draft amendment requiring the proponent, prior to tile approval of a zoning by-law amendment, to confirm the dexelopable area of the Coohvater Farms property with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority: Information Report No. 11-01 ~TTACHMEI~T #... ~ TO REPORT # PD ~.-~ - ©; Page 6 4.2.9 Wetland the report of the Biodiversity Monitoring Program for the Pickering Nuclear Site, prepared by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, indicates that the wetland evaluation record has been updated for the provincially significant "Hydro Marsh" wetland. As a result, the wetland boundary for the Hydro Marsh on Schedule III - Resources Management is proposed to be revised to reflect current information; 4.2.10 Environmental Considerations protection of the ecological system continues to be of high importance, the existing Pickering Official Plan contains many polices to safeguard the natural features and functions that apply to this area; the proposed policy for the Waterfront Node builds on these policies in noting the requirement to undertake an environmental report for any proposed bayfilling and highlights the new environmental information emerging for the "Coolwater Farms" property. 5.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION 5.1 ResidenL Community Association and Agency Comments no written comments have been received to-date on the proposed amendment application; 5.2 Comments from Part 2 of the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review to-date, there has been one public meeting, several workshops, telephone conversations, and other discussions with residents, landowners, and agencies regarding Part 2 of the Detailed Review; in the course of those discussions, comments have been made that apply to the land use and policy issues; accordingly, staff has used those comments to help draft the amendment, and to provide the discussion in section 4.2, for consideration by others, to assist staff in finalizing the amendment for Council's consideration. 6.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 6.1 Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority - the Region of Durham may .exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional approval if such applications are determined to be locally significant, and do not exhibit matters of Regional and / or Provincial interest; - the Region has verbally confirmed that this application is exempt from Regional Approval; therefore, should Pickering Conncil give notice of a by-law adopting this proposed amendment, it will be subject of a 20-day appeal period; 6.2 General ~vritten comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk. 76 h'fformation Report No. 11-01 ATTACH!,',ENT #?....~TO SEPORT ¢ PD~ ' c / Page 7 7.0 7.1 OTHER INFORMATION A_p__pendix No. 1 - proposed City-initiated Picketing OflScial Plan Amendment Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Reviev,'. March. 20()1. to implement the ATTACHMENTS: Liverpool Road South Slap Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Reviexv Council Resolution ~96 Potential Amendments to the Picketing Official Plan. Appendix V to Report Number PD 26-00. June. 2000 Prepared By: Approved, Endorsed By: ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Grant McGregor, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy GM/]l?phpr Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Catherine L. Rose Manager. Policy ~TTACHMENT # ~ TO REPORT # PD z../~ _ ~ / PICKERING 77 EXCERPTS FROM THE STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, April 19, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The Manager, Current Operations Division, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration thereat. on) OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OPA 01-001/P CITY-INITIATED: LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW PART OF LOTS 22 AND 23, RANGE 3, B.F.C. (LANDS ON BOTH SIDES OF COMMERCE STREET, EXTENDING WEST TO FRENCHMAN'S BAY AND SOUTH TO THE LAKE ONTARIO SHORELINE, ALONG BOTH SIDES OF LIVERPOOL ROAD) Grant McGregor, Principal Planner, Policy, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #11-01. David Hume, Director of PACT, stated he has lived in the Frenchman's Bay area for 30 years and it has tremendous potential. A very good job has been done on the plan and the Nautical Village will be very positive in the neighbourhood. He stated his concern with the wording in the plan for the area west of Liverpool Road and south of Wharf Street. It states mixed use, therefore the developer could not be prevented from building a residential development or blocking out marina uses. He is also concerned with the walkway along Frenchman's Bay and questioned whether or not it had to run along the lake. o Paul Kelland, 921 Grenoble Blvd., questioned the status of Part 2. He suggested re-examining cash-in-lieu of parking. Jacqueline Smart, 829 Fairview Ave., stated her concern that the marina could be eliminated and further stated that a nautical theme means boats and water. The plan should include zoning for an operational marina. She also stated her concern with the possible construction of a four storey building which would then require landfill. Re-designation of zoning does not allow over development in this area. o Barry Farquharson, advised that he owns the property across the street from the Front Street Park'and does not want 'the proposed parking lot and stated that a provision should be put in place exempting the park from development. He also stated that the situation with the Priest property is being mishandled. The Progress Club is leasing this property and the residents are not privy to what is stated in the lease. He questioned who comments should be forwarded to and also requested that Page 33, Clause N be made clearer. ° Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy Division, stated that the boat launch is not being pursued by the City from this park and the concepts for the park are being done through the Operations & Emergency Services Department. Marina Area designation and natural open space is intended. Parking is required in a public area such as the park. Tom Mohr, 842 Naroch Blvd., stated that Front Street Park is a vibrant area and should be used for waterfront activities, it is a people place and should be used as such. He stated that he would like to get a copy of the latest settlement between the City and Pickering Harbour Co. 78 AT'TAOHMEN'f #__~..~ ~TO ~EPOR'f # PD ¢,¢'~' - ~! ¢' 10. 11. 12. 13. BarD' Farquharson, advised that he has a right to see things done properly. He would like to see only a traffic loop in the park for maintenance, drop-off and emergency vehicles. Don Given, representing ltarold Huff, Picketing Harbour Co. stated that an exiting and different type of development has been created at tile bottom of Liverpool Road. }lc stated their appreciation with the xvay things have been handled by Councillors tfolland and McLean. He would like certainty of what can happen in the area and stated that they presented a application that was viable for tile area. He stated that change is inevitable and the residents are ready for change. He questioned what the implications are on Provincially significant wetlands. He requested that Council advise v, hat uses they prefer and what's allowable. He suggested flexibility for retail along Liverpool Road. He advised that some building types may not be viable due to concerns relating to building and fire codes, and parking. He further advised that it is the intention of everyone to have a marina but this cannot be legislated. Jacquetine Smart, advised that tile by-law requiring planting has never been enforced on the ltarbour Co. property. She agreed that a inarina cannot be mandated but through thc Ofticial Plan marina land can be mandated. She stated that tile Harbour Company holds tile charter to tile land below Frenchman's Bay and this charter makes tile }tarbour Co. responsible to maintain navigability to and from the Bay, which they are not. GAD.' Peck, advised that Cool \Vatcr Farms are looking for a proponent, tte would like to see a paragraph included that states what Council wants on these lands. Don Given, advised that Mr. Huff stated that thc charter does not say anything about obligations but rights. [te further advised that Mr. Huff has maintained the entrance to the Bay. Martin Herzog, Liverpool West Community Assoc., stated his pleasure in hearing there will be a marina. He would like to be assured that there will not be any residential use to the west of Liverpool Road. He suggested finding out what is required for a marina and working from there. ATTACHMENT d~, ~ TO REPORT # PD ~ - ~ ( 7~ THE DURHAM DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Facilities Services 400 Taunton Road East Whitby, Ontario L1R 2K6 Telephone: (905) 666-5500 1-800-265-3968 Fax: (905) 666-6439 May 29, 20000 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One the Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 RECEIVED HAY 3 0 2000 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Attn.: Miss Catherine Rose Dear Miss Rose, RE: Liverpool Road South Area Land Use and Design Study Part 1 -Phase 1 Report City of Pickering Staff have reviewed the information on the above noted, and under the mandate of the Durham District School Board, has no objections. Yours truly, Christine Nancekivell, Planner SO A'D'ACHMENT II--TO REPORT ~ PD.._.~.~- c ,' YERIDIAN CONNECTIONS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW PROJECT NAME: 12~,crpool Road Sour& Area Deauled Revxew Part of Lots 22 and 23, Range 3. B F,C MUNICIPALITY: Pickenng ti REF, NO.: OPA 01-001 / P SUBMISSION DATE: Match 29, 2001 · No comments on the proposed amendment.. Technical Representative - Peter Petriw Telephone 427-9870 Ext. 3252 PP/d£ ~0 '~ 0[~0 619 906 'ON ×d~ N~I~I~A ~ £I:60 I~H IO0~-bO-A~W ATTACH ' rr,_ _r0 REPORT ~ PD_ ~'r'~ - <_'~ / $1 June 25, 2001 RECEIVED JUN 2 7 CITY OF PICKERING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The Regional Municipality of Durham Planmng Department' Mr. Nell Carroll, Director of Planning Planning Department City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering ON LlV 6K7 Dear Mr. Carroll: 1615 Dunaas St. E 4th Floor Lang Tower West Building RO. Box 623 ~^/h'itby, ON L1 N 6A3 ;) 728-7731 , ax: f9051 436-6612 www. rear,am.on.ca A.L: Georgieff, MCIP. RPP Commissioner of Planning Re: Region's Review of an Application to Amend the City of Pickering Official Plan Area Municipal File No: OPA 01-001/P Cross Ref. Files No.: OPA 99-004/P & A 22/99 Applicant: City of Pickering initiated Municipality: City of Pickerin9 This application has been reviewed by the Region and the following comments are offered with respect to the Regional Official Plan, other applicable Regional policies, and the proposed method of servicing. The purpose of the amendment is to implement the land use designations and policies contained in the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Study. Specifically, to re-designate certain lands located south of Annland Street, west of Liverpool Road; land on the east side of Liverpool Road, south of Wharf Street: and lands on the east side of Liverpool Road known as "Coolwater Farms", to "Open Space System -Marine Areas". In addition, the "Wetland" designation is being revised to reflect the latest mapping of the "Hydro Marsh", a provincially significant wetland and various policies, applicable to area, are being amended as well. We note that the land south of Annland Street is also the subject of a related local official plan amendment and zoning by-law application to permit a marine village combining marina, 'hotel, residential, retail office and entertainment uses. More specifically, the proposal includes a townhouse development consisting of 40 town'house units and a block for mixed uses that may include a hotel / apartment (124 units) building with some commercial/office opportunities on the ground floor and a boardwalk. This area of Frenchman's Bay is designated "Waterfront Place" within the Durham Regional Official Plan. Waterfront Places are to be developed as "peOple places" with the exception of significant natural areas, which wil be protected in their natural states. Waterfront development shall not negatively impact environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife habitat ~ dSeevCetilocn 14.39 of the Durham Regional Official Plan permits residential .~.4:~ opment, which supports and complements the uses predominant within the "Servi¢~X~'llenceWaterfront. Predominant uses may inc ude marina, recreational, tourist, and for 100% Post Consumer 82 ATTACHMa~ REPORT Page 2 cultural and community uses, as well as residential and employment uses which support and complement the predominant uses. The scale of development shall be based on and reflect the characteristics of each "Waterfront Place". In the review of development proposals within the Waterfront, the following should be considered: · Environmental constraints and opportunities; · Maximization of public access to the Waterfront Place; · Emphasis of the unique landscape features and heritage resources to strengthen community identity; · Development of east-west natural corridors to link Waterfront Plaoes and natural areas along the waterfront and to develop north-south valley systems. These items will be addressed through the development control guidelines and policies recommended in the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Study. In addition, it is anticipated that Regional transportation and servicing requirements will be addressed through the processing of site specific development applications for lands within this area. Accordingly, this application is considered to have no significant Regional or Provincial concerns and, in accordance with Regional By-law 11-2000, is exempt from Regional Approval Please advise {he Commissioner of Planning of your Council's decision. If Council adopts an Amendment, a record must be submitted to this Department, within 15 days of the date of adoption. The record should include the following: · two (2) copies of the adopted Amendment; · a copy of the adopting by-law; and · a copy of the staff report and any relevant materials. Please call me if you have any questions. Yours truly, L_,J. irrf Blair, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director, Current Ope~-ations Branch \\FS PL0002\DATA\DATA\pim\tc\devapp\lopa\PostE xe mpt~on Pickering'~001-001 p ,2001-001 review.doc /~TTACHMEN7 REPORT 83 {~THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 http://www, trca.on.ca June 5, 2000 Miss Catherine L. Rose Manager, Policy Division Planning and Development Department City of Pickering Pickering Civic Centre One The Esplanade Pickering, ON LlV 6K7 Dear Miss Rose: Re: Phase One Report Detailed Review Liverpool Road South Area City of Pickerin~l Further to our discussions and upon detailed review of the Phase 1 Report please accept the following comments. The report is partially intended to clarify a number of issues not properly dealt with in the Official Plan and examines opportunities and constraints for development within the area and broad land use objectives. While your official plan provides direction on dealing with environmental protection and enhancement staff recommend that this phase 1 report outline environmental constraints that are particular to this neighbourhood study. We suggest the following: Section 5 - Detailed Land Use Plans: This section provides a synthesis of the natural heritage principles. The synthesis should include the principle of protecting and enhancing the existing system. Perhaps principle 8 could be adapted to reflect this as a guiding principle. Precinct I - Hydro Marsh: While this area is a Provincially Significant wetland the reference to Class 2 should be removed as the class reference is no longer used by the province. Further, the development goal should note that this area is part of the natural heritage system and not ecological system. 'Ecological system' should be replaced with 'natural heritage system' in other sections of the report (i.e. precinct 2 and 3 lands). Precinct 4 Other uses supportive in this area include boating and recreational boating access and supportive uses. Precinct 5 The description of the area should include the waterfront and provincially significant wetland and note that some areas may be subject to lake level impacts. ATTACHMENT #_. ' TO f~EPORT # PD.,, %~:'- o / Miss Catherine L. Rose -2- June 5. 2000 Section 6 - Development Guidelines 6.3 Development Framework Hydro Marsh Development Goal This Section should be revised to read "having s~gnificant ecological and public value". Beachfront Park This Section should be revised to include "while respecting its dynamic nature as a sand spit on the Lake Ontario Shoreline" Marina Mixed Use Development Goal These lands should also be developed in a mariner that respects the adjacent wetland and its features and functions. It should also be designed to not have an impact on tine areas subject to flooding as a result of high lake levels. As a general comment, the linkage between Frenchman's Bay as a boating tourism area and destination with a safe harbour entrance should be highlighted in tne draft Detailed Land Use Plan and Implementation Strategy. Implementation Strategy 7.2.2. should be modified to read as follows: Through its .................. consider investigating further the establishment of a boat launch at the foot of Sandy Beach Rd. on the west side of Ontario Power Generator - Pickering Nuclear. Section 7.2.3. should be modified to read: Ensure any proposal for bay-fill is designed to facilitate waterfront public amenities and pedestrian access, and to improve environmental conditions ........... As per our discussion we note that a new section addressing environmental impacts will be added to the document. This section will further outline tine principle of protecting the natural heritage system including Frenchman's Bay and Hydro Marsh and will outline that further assessment is required to determine the impacts of increased boating uses within Frenchman's Bay. We await the addition of this section and note that it is important to provide future direction to the study process. We trust that this is of assistance. Yours truly, Plans Analyst Development Services Section Ext. 53O6 RW/fa cc: Larry Field, TRCA $.5 T.E. Craig Bamford 528 Marksburv Road Pickering Ontario LIW 2S6 craigbamfprd~sym_L0_atico.ca The City of Picketing May 10, 2001 One the Esplanade Picketing, Ontario Attention Catherine Rose RE LIVERPOOL ROAD DESIGN STUDY PART 2 PHASE 2 REPORT Dear Catherine After attending last nights meeting on the Liverpool Road Design node, I revisited the final Mayor's Task Force Report and noted the checldist on page 31 fl~r a successful design of the Liverpool Road Tourism Node. I must say that the consultants and planning staff have done an excellent job addressing issues such as treatment of the Liverpool Road streetscape from Bayly to Commerce, developing the Fairport Village theme, landscaping and elimination of above ground hydro lines. This brings me to the area south of Commerce, which presents the most challenge. Under the title, Public Access to the Water's edge on page 33, the task force report states that: "People come to the water's edge to enjoy the breeze and the boats.., with proper design, the waterfront promenade can become the area's main street. Streetscape will be an extremely important attraction with sttch amenities as light-posts sporting hanging plants and theme banners, plns seating areas immediately beside the promenade. Outdoor restaurant seating areas will encourage the public to stay longer. Bontiques, antiques, art and craft shops should also do well." The above picture of a tourist node oriented toward Frenchman's Bay is in direct contrast to the commercial emphasis/ nautical village now being proposed beside Liverpool Road with much more limited views and access through developed areas to the water. I submit that the elimination in the guideline of a pedestrian promenade in close proximity to the water's edge is an incorrect direction to take. We don't have to create an artificial nautical village along Liverpool Road. We do have the opportunity to experience a Great Lakes Nautical Village along Frenchman's Bay through all stakeholders working together to paint the picture. The draft report suggests that the pedestrian promenade was deleted because of lack of public support. I believe that comments at a previous meeting were 86 ATrACHMENT,¢ ?& TO REPORT ~ PD~ misunderstood. I have serious concerns about use of bay-fill in order to accommodate the pedestrian trail on Pickering ttarbour Company Lands. 1 would not be opposed to constructing portions of this promenade on pilings, in order to create an appropriate edge to the bav and promenade. More discussion is required on thc topic of bay-fill by all stakeholders as this topic continues to be a major topic of concern by members of tile public. Please note that I do support deletion of section C1.4.6 titled Development within the Waterfront Use and AmeniP,,' area, The real challenge is to design tile area south of Commerce to ensure that first and foremost, viable working marinas can exist while allowing appropriate mixed use commercial residential activities to occur on lands surplus to active marina operations in close proximiP,.' to the water's edge. I strongly believe that the emphasis must be on directing people as quickly as possible from Liverpool Road to the water. This can be done along pathways between bnildings fronting on Liverpool Road. IE IF A BUILDING IS PLACED AT A 45-DEGREE ANGLE TO LIVERPOOL ROAD, PATIO AREAS CAN BE CREATED IN TIIE CORNERS, MORE LIGHT GETS TO LIVERPOOL ROAD, AND PATHWAYS CAN FOLLOW BUILDINGS TO THE WATER. This Dpe of design also avoids the creation of a tunnel along Liverpool Road, opening views in the middle of the blocks to the water. It is the water and presence of active boating activities that is the unique attraction. It is the water that will bring tourists to Picketing. It is the attraction of sitting by the water, perhaps on the deck of a restaurant partly on top of tile water (Ontario Place) that will entice Picketing residents to patronize future commercial establishments. It is the separation of traffic on Liverpool Road from people and the lure of views of water and boats that will create a unique environment to which people will come again and again. It is the attraction of residents and tourists to this area that will bring business success to landowners. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTttER, 1 SUBMIT THAT AkL STAKEHOLDERS MUST REVISIT AND AGREE ON WHAT THE PRIORITIES ARE FOR THIS AREA. I WILL DISCUSS SIX ITEMS ITEMS AS FOLLOWS: REJUVENATING THE MARINA AREA, ENSURING AND SETTING OUT A WORKPLAN TO ADDRESS TIlE HARBOUR ENTRANCE ISSUE, DISCUSSION OF FUNDING OPTIONS, INCLUDING THE DETERMINING THROUGH I)ISCUSS1ON TItE CURRENT POSITION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERMEMENT, ENSURING THAT AN UNDERSTANDING EXISTS AS TO HOW ONGOING COSTS OF HARBOUR OPERATION, DREDGING ETC WILL lie HANDLED AND ENSURING TttAT TRANSIENT DOCKING IS AVAILABLE TO ATTACHMENT ~_ /o TO REPORT # PD ~-/~ - ~ / 87 e STIMULATE DAYTIME/OVERNIGHT NEIGHBOURING HARBOURS. VISITORS FROM DESIGNING A TOURIST NODE AROUND THE ACTIVE MARINA INTERESTS AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH INCLUDES AN APPROPRIATE MIX OF COMMERCIAL/RESTAURANT/RESIDENTiAL USES ON LANDS SURPLUS TO ACTIVE MARINA OPERATIONS IN COMBINATION WITH A PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE (ACTING AS A MAIN STREET) IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE MARINA/WATER'S EDGE. ENSURING THAT SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATERFRONT NODE, A SEPARATE PROCESS OCCURS WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE REHABILITATION OF FRENCHMAN'S BAY AS A HEALTHY ECOSYSTEM AND CORRECT EXISTING DEFICIENCIES IN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. ( The University of Toronto has applied for funding of $175,000 to initiate study work this summer). ENSURING THAT THE WATERFRONT TRAIL IS ACCOMMODATED, BOTH AROUND THE BAY (THE MONARCH TRAIL) AND ACROSS THE EASTERN SPIT (THE FIRST NATIONS TRAIL) WITH NO IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. ( The Peake trail extending eastward from Liverpool has been accommodated in this area. PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE BOAT LAUNCHING PROVIDING FUTURE RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES THE HARBOUR ENTRANCE/MARINA INTERESTS First and foremost, we must have successful marina interests and a healthy bay. Planning around an active marina is a very complex process. Before any planning should occur on the area around the active marina area, all stakeholders must agree on the optimum scale of marina activities and the infrastructure requirements associated with the successful operation of marina facilities. It is imperative that Picketing Harbour Company provide this information. Specifically, how many boat slips are required to create the critical mass to allow the economical ongoing successful operation of marina activities (dredging etc.) on the bay? What marina related activities are desired in addition to dock facilities (i.e. Clubhouse facilities, boat sales, boat service, supplies, gas handling)? Is winter boat storage to be provided in this area or at another site? Do the current marina owners intend to continue to offer public boat launching and what are the incremental parking requirements associated with this activity Can residential development in 8S ATTACHMENT #._//~ TO REPORT # PDt__ conjunction with marina redevelopment serve as an important funding source for infrastructure improvements, through sales to purchasers of a boat slip? After marina infrastructure requirements are determined, what land is available for mixed-use residential development? What scale of development is required to support underground parking for uses of mixed-use buildings? How can appropriate screening be put in place to separate any boat servicing or storage contemplated at this site fi'om thc rest of the site? Are density transfers appropriate, to optimize tile design of the site and provide incentives both for underground parking and private contributions toward funding of a pedestrian promenade? What is tile estimated cost of harbour entrance improvements and what funding is required from the federal and provincial governments as a prerequisite to harbour development arrd implementing tire approved Liverpool Road Design Stud),'? As an im~nediate challenge, as part of discussing how an active marina will function on the bay, it is imperative that handling of dredged material be reviewed, with the objective of removing trucks from the east spit and millennium square. This topic should be discussed further between the Waterfront Coordinating Committee, Picketing Harbour Company and Dr. Nick Eyles. DESIGNING THE TOURISM NODE I submit, that it is only with a full understanding of tile requirements for successful marina operation and with the full participation of tile land owners in expressing their objectives for development for their properties, that a a successful public design exercise can occur, which will both set out how thc area will function (i.e. parking, pedestrian flow, bicycle flow, trail location etc) and thc role of government in worldng with private landowners to accomplishing the vision. The final Liverpool Road Design Guideline must be a blueprint which tire City and landowners can take forward to the province and the federal governments as part of a formal request for financial support where required (harbour entrance, bay rehabilitation). Some numerical quantification of auticipatcd benefits would be useful in support of this type of application, particularly as it pertains to tile funding requested for harbour facilities. Discussion must be initiated now with the Federal Government, to ensure that their position on various issues is known at thc outset. REHABILITATION OF THE BAY Tile design guideline identifies on page I)-2 several steps currently ongoing through the Waterfront Coordinating Committee to rehabilitate thc Bay. The list was not intended to be complete, but there is a danger with tile wording of some of thc existing points, in that the actions enumerated here only those currently planned. I would suggest that reference be changed to: -4 ATTACHMENT #.,,/o TO REPORT # PD ~ - o / "Through its staff attd Waterfront Coordinating Committee and with the active participation financially and otherwise of the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority, University of Toronto, the provincial and federal governments and other organizations intplement action programs necessary to restore and maintain the ecological objectives and health of the Frenchman's Bay Watershed which includes Krosno, Pine, Dunbarton attd Amberlea Creeks." This wording should be in addition to the second point on page D-2. THE WATERFRONT TRAIL My vision of the waterfront trail continues to include the official pedestrian portion of the waterfront trail as close as possible to the water with bicycles on Liverpool Road. Discussion must occur with each landowner as to how this can be implemented on individual properties. The original wording on this topic was appropriate. This topic requires further discussion with the stakeholders, through the design process. As I said at Tuesday's meeting, the deletion of trails on the east spit appears to preclude the ferryboat connection across the spit. With respect to the form of pedestrian promenade on the east spit, the Mayor's Task Force envisioned a trail adjacent to transient docking in this area. If transient docking will not occur in this area, then a much simpler and less expensive trail would be possible in conjunction with renaturalization of the east spit. It is important to note that the vistas both north and south from the east spit have not been identified in the plan. Further, in conjunction with the harbour entrance, some limited commercial development, or a small museum structure may be appropriate at the end of the east spit in conjunction with a seating area for people to watch the boats come in. Have we explored the potential for a very simple and inexpensive trail along the north side of Frenchman's Bay, so a family can walk around this area? Ontario Hydro owns most of this land, and with short boardwalks in a few places a short interpretive loop would be created around Hydro Marsh. LIVERPOOL ROAD In summary, I am in agreement with the streetscape treatment dmvn to Commerce Street. My vision sees shifting of the focus of the tourism node to the west side of buildings on the Picketing Harbour land adjacent to an active marina and the ~vater, thereby separating people from cars as much as possible. At the last Waterfront Coordinating Committee Meeting I tabled some photos from Bronte (Oakville) Port Credit, and Etobicoke of building designs, which work along their 90 ATTACHMENT,~ / o TO REPORT # PD '-/o.? - ~ / waterfronts, i believe that these same sorts of design (ON A SMALLER SCALE with maximum height to be agreed at the outset) should be considered as part of a mixed use design concept for lands identified as surplus to those required fin' ongoing marina operation, providing parking is accommodated with each building's underground. The height of buildings is a major concern of residents. I believe that it is possible to define geometrically a plan, where one or two taller (5 story above underground parking on north side) buildings can be accomnmdated in a way that will avoid any negative impact (shadows ere) on the residential community to the north in an aesthetically pleasing way. This type of arrangement was negotiated in consultation with a comlnunity on the north side of Higlmay 2 a few years ago where similar concerns existed from residents. Further consultation should occur with the neighbourhood, ou any specific proposals that any landowner would like to see incorporated in the design guideline. Of particular uote is the potential for decks overlooking the bay and terracing of a building toward the water. (see pictures of Bronte Harbour building provided at last meeting). Restaurant uses could be accommodated within such a design, with decks overlooking the bay. Mixed use at grade shouht be a requirement in this area. PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCIIING 'File Mayor's Task Force spent considerable time on the topic of a public boat launch. It is imperative that fisherman and other tourists have an appropriate place to launch boats. Marina operators indicated that they did uot want to provide this type of facility in the long-term, due to parking requirements. The elimination of unofficial boat launching from locations such as the west spit is imperative it' our recreation objectives in "Rotary Fairport Beach Park" are to be achieved. In looking around for alternate locatious, the Front Road location was rejected as unacceptable for launching motorized craft, due to lack of parking, and a serious concern about launching motorized craft into Frenchman's Bay as close to the marsh complex. After visiting nearby boat launching facilities, such as those at Bluffers Park, the need for adequate parking was reinforced, as was the need for protection from waves when launching directly into Lake Ontario. After an extensive review of alternate locations, two were identified. Tile first was east of the Nuclear Station toward the Ajax Border. This location was rejected by PARU due to the time requirement for them to respond from Frenchman's Bay to any emergency, and distance to Frenchman's Bay in the event that small boats needed to find a safe harbour in a storm. The second location identified was at the foot of Sandy Beach Road on land owned by Ontario Hydro. The.main attractions of this area include: 1. Half of the berm required to provide protection frown waves ah'eadv exists as a result of design of the nuclear station. 6 -ATTACHMENT ~, / o TO ~EPORT # PD '~/~7 - ~ / 2. Parking lots exist on the Ontario Hydro property that are largely empty on weekends. Items 1 and 2 combined will contribute to substantially lower construction costs. 3. This area is easily accessible from Sandy Beach Road for vehicular traffic, therefore keeping boat trailers off Liverpool Road 4. The use of this area as a boat launch, with its parking lots etc. reinforced Sandy Beach Road as another gateway to our waterfront. It must be emphasized that Ontario Hydro was approached on this location, and did indicate that it could be made available when the Town wishes to proceed with development. While development of this facility may not occur immediately, the Official Plan should preserve this use for the future. I recognize that in the last two months, Ontario Hydro has indicated a desire to construct a windmill in this location. I believe that through proper design, both activities can be accommodated. PROVIDING WATERFRONT RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES Another topic, which received considerable discussion as part of the Mayor's Task Force process, was the future construction of a facility for the Rowing Club currently housed in trailers on the west spit. I believe that an appropriate location may exist within the design area for this type of facility and believe that watching rowing is another activi~ that would draw people to this area. Specifically, could a small clubhouse faciliD, be accommodated in Front Road Park adjacent to the dock facility now proposed? It may also be appropriate to accommodate windsurfers and other small craft users in this facility. In conclusion, the Mayor's Task Force went as far as it could, but not all residents were able to participate in its deliberations. The task force recommended the current process, so that all of the stakeholders could participate, determine how parking could be shared, traffic flow would occur, building massing should occur, a pedestrian promenade could be implemented and marina interests would be rejuvenated. We have a target to have the final design study complete in June. I am requesting that all stakeholders participate together to establish a solid planning guideline and framework/timetable within which the landowners are prepared to proceed to create the Liverpool Tourist Node, as the unique tourist destination and commercial success which the Task Force envisioned. I would be pleased to discuss the above further with you. Yours truly, Craig Banfford 91 9 2 ATTACHMENT #__// TO REPORT # PD., ~2 -,::p j LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feet free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once alt of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of .our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): P / ,/ ' Name and address (optional): ATTACHMENT #_/a TO 9 3 REPORT # PD ~ ~o / - LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): 94 ATTACHMENT# /~ TO REPORT # PD. -~'~ - J / LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their tl~oughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feet free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we wilt collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): ,' ..:::/ ,/ -ATTACHMENT #_/~ _TO x REPORT # PD_ /-/~- © / x.~ 95 LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): 96 ATTACHMENT # /-~- TO SEFORT # PD__.2x~ - ~ ~ LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): ATTAOHMEN? # /~. LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): 98 ATTACHMENT# /& TO .~EPORT# PD ,-./02 -6 / LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW Response Sheet From The Public Meeting/Workshop May 8, 2001 COMMENTS ,-/ (P~e~e pr;n~ your,~me and ~de,'e~ ~o we o~, m~e ~,re you're o, ~he m~;/;,g ;;~.) Please provide us your comments no later than Wednesday May16tn, in writing, using the response sheet if you wish, by telephoning, or e-mailing to: Grant McGregor, Principal Planner - Policy, Planning & Development Department, One the Esplanade, Picketing, ON LIV 6K7; Telephone (905) 420-4660, ext. 2032; Fax (905) 420-7648; e-mail .qmc.qre.qor(D, city picker n.q on ca I:\LIVERPOOL~AG ENDA.DOC ATTACHMmT i~_ / 7 TO 9 9 .REPORT#PD_ ~ -ol LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): 100 ATTACHMENT ~ /'~ .TO REPORT# PD~z- - ~ f Memo to file: Ms. Fleming - RE: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Wednesday, April 19th, 2000. Ms. Fleming was unable to attend the public meeting, but telephoned with these comments. As a conservationist, it is Ms. Fleming's opinion that major changes in fauna are occurring in the Bay. The noise pollution caused by power launches will affect the wildlife in the area. A widening of the channel, or a change in the configuration of the lakeshore will also negatively effect wildlife in the area. Rather than allow for the intensification of land use in the area. it is Ms. Fleming's opinion that the best use of the land is ora more natural and relaxed nature. S.D. Std/Steve/bayridg2.doc ~EPORT # PD_ ~.-.~ ~ o / LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public DiScussion Session, we Will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): REPORT t PD~ RECE]¥ED LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA LAND USE AND DESIGN STUDY~,pi Response Sheet From The Public Meeting~orkshop April 18, 2000-'' CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS P~NNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ~" (1 ' l~ print your nam~ and address so we ~an mak~ sure lou're o~ th~ mailin~ / - ,; t,:?, Please provide us your comments no Pater than Tuesday April 25TM, in writing, sheet if you wish, by telephoning, or e-mailing to: using the response Geoff McKnight, Planner, Planning and Development Department, Picketing, ON LlV 6K7; Telephone (905) 420-4660, ext. 2032; e-mail .qmckniqht~bc ty.p ckering.on.ca. One the Esplanade, Fax (905) 420-7648; sxg/Liverpool/agenda ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD_ LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): 104 ~.TTACHUEI;T REPORT LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): MAY--Oi--O1 0~:06 PM LUCAS PROPERTIES 9053192060 P.02 A'FTACH~f, EbJT ~/_.~. :~ TO MEMO TO: CATHERINE ROSE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: JIM LUCAS JAMES LUCAS PROPERTIES LIMITED DATE: MAY 1,2001 105 RECEIVEO lVlAY - I 2001 DEVELOPr ' PICKEILrNO HARBOUR LANDS, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Dear Catherine: Further to our meeting in your office last week, I would like to provide you with my thoughts, expressed during our meeting, as to why I believe the development I would propose for the Pickering Harbour lands makes sense, both to the developer ~nd to the City of Pickering. I ully appreciate the history of this site, having reviewed of the pertinent materials, reports, etc,, However, I firmly believe that in order to reach a meaningful conclusion to the issues that separate the interested parties, it is important to undcrstagd and state for thc record, that in order for thc City of Rckerin8 to truly realize the potential of the Liverpool Road area, and to give positive etfect to the overall plans for the area, it would be a tremendous advantage to have the Picketing Harbour lands in production. Our architect and I have worked up a preliminary proposal, and you havea copy of the initial layout drawings, which we believe will provide the economic hue for achieving some, if not all of the City's objectives, even if they do not take the exact form proposed in some of the language currently in the draft changes to thc Official Plan, I have listed below those benefits I believe will be available if our development concept is entertained. I would like to further our plens, a~d I am working on "off site" boat slorage because I believe that this aspect ofland use is detrimental astetk, gly, to both development on the site and in the area where the city is spending so much money to Create a pleasant "people place". I further believe that it is important to create a strong residential component in order to foster a year round envirortm~nt. As Ion8 as we find a pragti~sal solution to maintaining the marina, redcvclopmcnt ofthc subjcct lands will certairdy create a very sped~d overall environment, Isn't. it worth working together to achieve goals rather than have confrontation through opposition to the Official Plan that will most certainly happen unless we can get our respective interests on the same side of the table. From my viewpoint, what I am proposing is similar to a number of fine examples in Ont~o that exist and lave been very successful, Politics aside, good planning bring~ resulu. Please consider what I have proposed and I will look fort,yard to timbering our proposal at the earliest possible date. MAT--BI--BI 03:06 PM LUCAS PROPERTIES 9053192060 P. 03 BENm._..FITS TO LAND USE CONCE?T- BICKE~G HAB. BOUR LANDS The City of Pi~kefing's desire to open up the vista toward the Lake from Liverpool Road toward the South is a great idea. The City'l investment md works on the waterfront are in a large measure mmething that will attract developers into the ~rea as investors. Such investment will enhance what is planned for the overall area. The making ora public place will only have more ~pact ii'there is a strong ~identisl component lhat extends the use of the waterfront lx'yond Summ~'/easo~ use. It is impotent and iml:*'ative to bring people into the area for more than just Summer activity. The imistence of continuing mmna operations wi~ o~tiirte boat storage mitigates against the ve~ cosmetic work the CiTy is dragS. Rather, 8~fing the boat storage away fi.om the water's edge wilt serve to enhance the view ~nd character of the waterfront as a people place. The site plan and design criteria we tuvc in mind will p'e s you positive }xneilt to thc community, support the Livt, rpool R. oad stret'tscape, and enhance the investment the City is making in the area, What we aJ'e proposing does not involve filling in the bay, but does feature in improvement in the water line ~nd boat slips, which will visually and functionally ,nhance the shoreline. For retail, to work in the ar~ it must be water related, Thus our concept allows for some office/retail, oriented to mane and ~onal u~, supported, in p~, by the residential uses on sit~ and in the ~rea. 10 11 Our proposal creates the financial b~sis for allowing the continuance of marina related operations a~d the wry marina it.ll, by reducing the land area dedicat~l to this ~rpose, and adding residential owners who themselves may very well have boats in the marina. Area security would atto improve duc to thc presence of y~ar round occup~s, Our development will be thmed don8 the nauti~ concept, and ~tur~ some of the same ~olor and design features which the City has in~rporated into the public areas, as well as a ,ontinuation of some of the features propos~ along Liverpool Road, We like some of the d~ign concepts proposed for the area. if Pickerin/l-Iarlx~ur Company were to do nothing, then the Liv~ool Road concept has little chance oftlkin8 on ~he sii;nificance ~v~on=d by your ~nsultants. Our planned developm~! will si~iflcantly enhance the str~tscape, and in faa, contribute to the ~,h01e area, The srthltt~turlfl feature we have proposed for our development create a strong physical balance when viewed from~the water or the West side of the bay. This will add a dynamic dimension to the overall d~elopment of Fren,hman's Bay ~rea, Our planned p~ople promenade extendin/from Liverpool i, oa~l to lhe bay is a significant feature to th, development and area, ~d supports some of the vi~ ~rmections that are contain~ in the Pan One- Ph~.~e One Ik, poa, MAY--O1--O1 0~ :07 PM LUCAS PROPERTIES 905~192060 P. 04 ATTACHMENTI.,~ _TO REPORT t PD. '7',~' ~ ! '107 On balance, we believe our proposal brings with it major benefits to the City, the neighborhood, and will resul! in a viable mixed use development on the l~ickering Flarbour lands. ! trust you will find our comments helpful in you review. Prc~idcnt '"~% , James Lugs Pro~ert4es Lim{t~ Lucas Properties Inc. 108 ATTACH/V, ENT ~EPORT # PD~ JAMES LUCAS PROPERTIES LTD. WORKING PAPER PROPOSED LAND USES LIVERPOOL ROAD CITY OF PICKERING May 30, 2001 In trod uction: James Lucas Properties Limited is a Full service development company Our strength is in the conceptual planning, development, and management of commercial and residential projects By way of example, our most recent project is The Garden Homes of Lorne Park, a twenty/'our home, high end, empty nester- bungalow development, nestled in the old Lorne Park area of Mississauga Designed by Michael Spaziana, Architect. The property was a challenging site, in a very well established location w/th very strong community involvement. The project was very successful, and was awarded the Urban Design Award of Merit for Community Context. Our extensive work with the community and representatives of the Planning Dept. in the City of Mississaugas resulted in one hundred percent community and Council support. In April, 2001, Picketing Harbour Company approached us with a view to development of their property fronting on Liverpool Road. Since that time, we have studied the various repons prepared for the City of Picketing, inclusive of Part One - Phase One Report, Part Two- Phase One Report, and Part Two- Phase Two Report. We have had extensive discussions with various parties involved, inclusive of other land owners, businesses in the area, and representatives of the City of Picketing. We realized that plans for the area were being developed very quickly, and that City initiated proposed amendments to the Official Plan were being pressed along for adoption by mid-June, 2001. That did not leave much time for planning and response. We had climbed onto a "moving train". However, based on our research we did prepare a preliminary land use proposal which was predicated on securing off site boat storage. That plan was reviewed in a meeting on April 27,2001 w/th Catherine Rose and Ron Taylor of the Pickering Planning Department. That meeting was followed up with a memo to Catherine Rose dated May 1,2001, outlining our concerns and reasons why we felt that our land use plan for the marina were beneficial for the City and the Liverpool Road concept Subsequent telephone calls to Ron Taylor went unanswered. Then, on May 8,2001, we attended a public information meting in the Council Chambers, and received a copy of Part Two - Phase Two Report, which we only had a few minutes to read before it was presented by representatives of the Planning Dept. The report was quite disturbing. Others were equally concerned, and some have written outlining their views. The Report fails to maintain many of the recommendations set out in the Part One - Phase One report, and seems also to reverse some of the more acceptable provisions of the Pan Two - Phase One Report. The proposals as they now stand, severely restrict land uses in the area because they may be skewed toward political objectives rather than balanced overall planning incorporating those natural market needs and trends for properties such as are located in the Liverpool Road area. This will certainly lead to an objection and appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Further, the proposals create "conflict of uses" within the area. Trying to force development of retail and/or office space within residential town homes, creates parking needs that result in a town home "sandwiched" between a public road and significant parking to the rear, ATTACHMENT t, ~ ~ TO REPORT t PD y~7 - o t Pg. 2 thus adversely impacting on the quality of life of the inhabitants. The units will cost more to build, and thus purchase, and may place an owner in the position of having to lease out retail space. Unless the purchaser happens to own a retail business that will work in this market, he/she may have to find another tenant and become a landlord. The subsequent tax liability both in terms of increased municipal taxes, and/or the impact of classification of the home as a revenue producing entity,' all create serious financial consequences for an owner. Liverpool Road terminates at the lake, and has virtually no retail potential. In fact, the Part One - Phase One Report specifically comments on the limited potential for retail in this area. That report also pointed out the there is limited residential potential, unless a project has a strong unique character that attracts people to it. We concur. The "forced" continuance of marina outside storage, in conjunction with the marina operations, and the reference to maintaining the area as a working waterfront, will serve to create operational problems in a mixed use property and mitigate against public enjoyment of the waterfront area. The earlier concept of a public walkway along the waterfront portion of the lands would cause conflict of use between public and private marina operations. We realize that the walkway may now be varied and in part be located along Liverpool Road, and that one of the features of our plan, ie, to incorporate public access and views from Liverpool Road toward the bay may now be acceptable to the City. This was a concept supported by the Part One- Phase One Report. As we examined the various points of view, and the objectives we understand are paramount to the City's plans, we came to the conclusion that it might be possible to bring forward a land use plan that incorporates many of the objectives, design, and other land use interests, while at the same time, be based on solid project/development economics that will work in the market, provided all parties are genuinely interested in working together and willbe reasonable. We are not prepared to provide our concept plans and not hear back, only to find that the proposed amendments have been changed to preclude our revised scheme. This makes' the exercise with City of Pickering representatives very suspect, to put it bluntly. Simply stated, if the City were to persist in the current context of their comments and proposed amendments, the approved land use concepts may never be realized because developers and property owners simply will walk away from investing in development that will not work in the market. OVERALL AREA CONSIDERATIONS: Today, we are again presenting a refined land use proposal that we believe has a lot of merit. The purpose of this presentation is to create meaningful dialogue before more reports are written, and it is our sincere desire to work together to achieve mutually acceptable, market based, proposals. Residential- Our plan provides for 69 town homes, all with a reasonable view of Frenchman's Bay. This allows proper sound economic development. The town homes that are to be located along Liverpool Road, will maintain the streetscape proposed by Markson, Borooah, Hodgson, but on sound economic basis. We want to discuss some additional design concepts for our street related units. There is no provision for retail space in the units. However, because the homes will incorporate a "home 110 AT'FACHMEN'I' # ~ --~ TO Pg. 3 office" space designated at the street side of the unit, the main living floor area of the unit will be above grade. This concept allows for a deck to be incorporated at the rear of the unit over top of the garage, thus facing toward the bay. The garage would be at the rear of the unit, behind the "home office" space. We do not agree with a rear lane and a separated free standing garage which leads to owner inconvenience, and snow removal and maintenance problems The street related units mav also have a "loft' area which also allows for ~ome additional views of the lake and potential for a balcony from a principal bedroom. The overall residential development will have a nautical theme, promoting the nautical village concept forming part of the Markson, Borooah, Hodgson Report Public access- Rather than have a conflicting walkway along the waterfront, we propose to incorporate a "promenade" extending from Liverpool Road toward the bay, culminating at an architectural feature that looks out onto the bay. This architectural feature will create a significant vista of the bay and surrounding marina, the spit, etc., and be a pleasant feature visible from the west side of the bay. This we believe will have appeal to the community. Another unique aspect to the proposed promenade is that it will intersect with Liverpool Road in a strategic area, giving more impact to the streetscape and interaction between the development and the street. It will also afford the proposed town homes (Mr. Winter's development), on the East side of Liverpool Road, some improved marketing stature in that several of these units will look through our proposed promenade toward the bay. There will be a natural flow from Liverpool Road into the development and back again to Liverpool Road. With our functional design concept, there wilt not be any conflict with marina operations or the on site residential uses. This works well for all concerned. As discussed previously, we fully intend to incorporate some of the architectural features which the City has used in Millennium Square into our project. By way of example, the interlocking stone, colours, lighting, and banners. The banners will direct people on site, and identify, marina operations. Marina- The Picketing Harbour Marina will be maintained There will be some cosmetic improvements to the marina slips, and shoreline (no filling is contemplated), except to top dress the edge of water and make it safe and operational. Offsite storage is a part of our marina use plan There will be a dock manager's office, and we have incorporated a marine supply store. This is the logical place for such a store, in easy access of boaters. There would also be laundry and washroom facilities. Perhaps, we can incorporate a "cafe", and other small seasonal water related retail units. This aspect would be a function of more refined design and market study as to feasibility. We have incorporated sufficient marina related land area, which will be accessed from a new boat launch isle- way leading from Liverpool Road along the South boundary of the property, down to the bay. The boat launch equipment will thus be in a safe area, out of view, and cross Liverpool Road at a location that is very feasible in relation to the streetscape All residential units will be North of this access route and not impacted by continuing marina operations. Off site storage- The Coolwater property has been secured under contract of sale. We have some ideas for this property in ATTACHMENT #..__~ :~ TO .qEPORT # PD c/,,z ~ c, I 111 Pg. 4 addition to the controlled use for boat storage during the Winter. Specifically; To modify the design of the existing office structure with a nautical design in support of the area's overall theme. To upgrade the existing building to serve Picketing Harbour Compb. ny office needs, boat storage administration, and boat service. The existing building has three garage doors allowing minor boat servicing. To use part of the office building to house Swans Marina sales office, with display of their new boats for sale on the asphalt area in front of the building. Swans now lease land and boat launch services from Picketing Harbour Company, and we have assured Mr. Luttner that his interests will be protected in our plans. This will also improve the use of facilities on the Swans Marina property and relieve congestion. City parking- Assuming our development is approved, we plan to allocate a portion of the property for public parking, under a nominal lease agreement with the City of Pickering, in the same area which the City previously maintained public parking. This will serve to satisfy the City's parking needs. Some boats could be stored on this area during the Winter, but made available early in each Spring for on-going use by the City. To fill in the existing in-ground storage tanks on the property and use the new surface area for boat storage. Our contemplated uses for the Coolwater property are environmentally friendly, maintain existing buildings, will clean up unsightly tanks and material on the site, and with new exterior treatment, conform to the overall architectural theme being proposed for the area. In addition, our contemplated use will serve Swans Marina, and have significant positive impact for the public through improved area ambiance and thus public enjoyment. Concerns: Based on our experience to date, the out come of our earlier meeting with the City, and general information we have obtained in meetings with area representatives, we understand that current proposed changes to the Official Plan are politically motivated, and are in response to earlier proposed development plans tabled by Picketing Harbour Company and Mr. Joe Winters for their respective properties. On May 10,2001, I attended a meeting of Waterfront Coordinating Committee members, chaired by Councilor Mark Holland. During that meeting we outlined our concerns, and so did others who have financial interests in the area. This meeting was a good opportunity for an exchange of views. There was a positive tone to the meeting and generally everyone seemed to be willing to work together to bring about a well conceived set of proposed amendments and land use plans. To that end, Councilor Mark Holland agreed that it may be worthwhile to ask Council to defer adoption of the proposed amendments until their Sept. meeting, thus allowing more time for additional planning. We have set up a meeting with Mark Holland for June 8,2001. In the meantime, Planning Staffrequested an earlier meeting to take place on May 30, 2001. We have agreed on the clear understanding that Councilor Holland is aware of the meeting. We will keep our meeting with Councilor Holland as scheduled for June 8. 112 ATTACH~,~ENT ~_? ? TO '--ET:ORT # PD., ..¢~; - c / Pg. 5 With respect to the current stage of the proposed amendments, we want to offer the following comments; I The Picketing Harbour Company have certain rights of ownership .Amendments to the Official Plan that will diminish these rights without agreement with Picketing Harbour Company, will certainly be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. 2 The purpose of the effort we have made to date, as quickly as possible, is defined as being with the intent to resolve land use plans Ibc the marina property, on the clear understanding that it is intended to maintain the marina operation as long as economically feasible in the market. There is no underlying plan to terminate or reduce the marina, except with respect to relocation of the boat storage operations. 3 The in-fill proposal for the bav is not pan of our plans, and once agreement is reached on the form of our intended development, the current zoning application before the City for the Picketing Harbour marina property, will be amended and substituted with a new plan for the property 4 It is fi~lly intended to develop a consensus Ibc the property that has the benefits outlined above for area residents and the City. 5 Picketing Harbour Company, through development of it's matina lands will create the "village" atmosphere articulated in the various reports. Without this development, the ~411age will really not have any substance. 6 With our contemplated form of development, the Coolwater lands wilt be upgraded, put to the best use, and allow for boat storage to be placed in an appropriate area relative to the long term best interests of the City and area residents. 7 Debate with Picketing Harbour Company as to land use and marina will be put to rest and thus foster better understanding and relations as to other Picketing Harbour Company ownership in the area, and as to how the ultimate navigation of Frenchman's bay will be facilitated. 8 The marina lands will be appropriately developed, the marina operation will be upgraded, there will not be a conflict of use on the lands, the Millennium Square project ~511 have additional private investment and support. East Spit: The Part Two - Phase Two report - contains a land use proposal under C1.3 1 -Natural Areas and Open Space. This proposal is entirely unacceptable in it's present form. Specifically, it proposes - "vehicular access to the East Spit and Beachfront Park shall be restricted to emergency vehicles and maintenance equipment". Picketing Harbour Company owns a major part of the East Spit and access to these lands are protected at law. This property is used by Picketing Harbour Company to facilitate operation of it's marina, and to maintain navigation to the bay. Accordingly, there can be no limitation on access. Recent improvements to create Millennium Square appear to have been designed to limit such access. By agreement with the City, Picketing Harbour Company's ownership fence has been temporarily removed to allow the City of Picketing to complete it's improvements, on the clear understanding that access will be protected. Picketing Harbour Company is not prepared to accept the above contemplated change and will appeal any such language to the Ontario Municipal Board. ATTACHMENT# o? ~ TO SEPORT # PD_ ~',..2 - o ~ 113 Pg. 6 Councilor McLean in his Ward 2 - Spring and Summer Newsletter, commented" There have been innovative ideas presented to council by staff for Liverpool Road that could create a waterfront area that is for people not town homes. This area is now being referred to as a Great Lakes Nautical Village with a vision of creating a small downtown with a southern Ontario nautical t eme ... h " We submit- that town homes of a scale, density, and harmonious design, do not take away from, but rather add to the "village" concept. We do not understand what Councilor McLean means by a "small downtown", because there will not be any significant development that will contribute to a downtown type of area. If, in fact, town homes are not permitted on an acceptable, market reality based concept, then the area will remain as it is now, with some City funded cosmetic improvement, leading to a public park. We simply do not understand how this amounts to either a village or a downtown environment. By the way, people live in town homes. These uses are not mutually exclusive. Land use designations: To reach consensus, we propose the following: I Marina Property That residential development be permitted, as contemplated in the drawing submitted today, for 69 townhouse units, and that marina use is also permitted. 2 Coolwater Property That office, marina, marina related outside storage, parking, and marina related service bays, be permitted. 3 The East Spit That the East Spit private land continue as permitting marina, marina related and marina support uses, including improvements to navigation, of Frenchman's Bay, and that continued access (which exist at law), be re-affirmed. With the above in place and framed within the proposed amendments and language related thereto, we will have the basis of agreement, and positive results for all concerned. The City of Pickering will not have compromised their overall objectives for the area, and will have opened the door for good cooperative dialogue in the future. We will take the initiative and invest the time and effort it will take to bring community interests up to speed and gain their support. Yours sincerely, James Lucas President James Lucas Properties Limited. ATTACHMBVT REPORT # PD~ JAMES LUCAS PROPERTIES LIMITED 2005 Parklane Cr, Burlingtork Ontario, 9os.3 tg,::to6o June 20, 2001 WORKING PAPER - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT- LIVERPOOL ROAD- PICICERING, ONTARIO. TO: M~MBERS OF P,A.C.T. C/O MR, DAVID STEELE RECEIVED JUN 2 0 ?ULI1 CI FY O;: i~'iCKEi"HNG F L;',NNIHG ,',NO DEVELOPMENt CF F~ARTMENT MEMBERS OF P,E,S,C,A. C/O M~ PAUL KELLAND Gentlemen, and Members Ixt accordance with your request, I am plea.~d to provide the fotlovdng overview of our planned developm~t for the land~ now or,~upi~ by E~ Shor~ Iv~'irm on Liverpool Road. By way of introduction, I would like to describe how Jmes Lu~ Properties Li~ted came to be involved. Mr, Harold Hough was introduced to me by a mutual friendJconsultant tho: has advi~ both of uS for tony ye, ga, He f~lt that w~ would bc ~le to work robber, This h~ prov~ to be the ca~. From the out~, Mr. Hough ~ d~o~str~,~ s r~ tle~t~ to ~ the propmy d~veloped in a q~lity manner that ~1 ~pport the long~' t~'m go~h, of the City of Picketing ~d the surroundinB community. I have invested over two month~ le. aming the Est0ry of this afeg studying the vsriou~ reports prepaxed by ~or~ltm to the City, ~nd in mgtings w~th v~0us l~0pl~ i'0m th; ;ommunity, ~ p~ h~v; ~vo~v~ fi.om this r~sau'¢h, coam~ani, ~ hav~ r~.~iv~d fi.om various interested p~ple, and of course, meetings with r~premntstivcs ofth~ City of Picketing ?ls,'aing IL-,p~ment Further, the development plm we tsbl~l at ~ Waterfront Committ~.age~ on Thur~ay, June 14,200l is bas~ on car,dui and ~ensive study on how to insure the continmg mm~ operations are ~ ~cl work l:rrop~riy, Pr0 i a turn won two l ign ror,.r, development in 1987, and th~ latest in 199~ for a ~que residcnti.l proj¢~ kaown u The C..-srd~ Homes of Lome Plrk. Out a.rchit~ on both oflheg venture~ is Mich~l Sp~, ~chaa ~ been invotv~ with the Liverpool Road site as our proj~ ~hitect. M. ik~ ~ 1t vet"/good gl'up of colllmuriity itsucs, lllld k ~lly ifformgl on the Picketing walerbont plans, ~d ~e importsace of'the subject prol~, He number of the meetinss in the ar~ inclusiv~ of sev~rsl wia ae Piaru~ini~ Dept,, srxi hss sp~t considerable time w0r~g with us on development concepts, layout, ~d trina op~tio~ ~ PRO.CT: The subj~'t lands are in a strategic location in relation to thc overall development of · viable %,illage" as ,mvlslonM by the eonsultsnts working for the City of ?id~erin& Fundamental to our plan is th~ retention of · "'working and viable ma,firm". It has been decidexi to relocate those portions of rn~.rina operations that ~e ~% ~ ~teaa.a~t to took at, ~d accordingly, a ~rnt~a~-~ for the putcl'u~e of he Coolwater property h~s been REPORT ~f PD ,-,/'~ - o i 1!5 completed. The Coolwater property is in ne~ of'gener~l clean up, and should be used in a man,er that will benefit the whole area. Accordingly, our plan of development embraces two parcels of htnd the Coolwater ~ite as well as paxt of the existin& East Shore Marina lands. There are significant positive results in the plan we have develop~ for the properties, and I would llke to outline th~rrn aS follows: Residential town homes - Thc creation ofresidentiaJ units on the mm'ina site contributes to the overall "villa&e" concept, and will bdn8 people into the area to 1irt. This helps with creating a vibrant neighborhood, and also improves general security in the area, The homes will be designed to relate to commugt7 architecture ~nd character, and have the nauticfl village dcsi~ theme, Twenty two of the homes will front on Liverpool Road and thus ~ld a significant amount of character to Liverpool Road, Our d~etopmcnt hu a lower density level than Canoe Landing. In the order of 64 units to 6.08 acres versus 60 units to 1,4 acres at Canoe Landing, Working marina. The current marina will be ma/ned in operation. In fact, Picketing Harbour Company axe looking at th/s opportunity to improve the overall maxina, There will be some improvement to the shoreline (not bay fill), The docks will be improved, and we ~re assuming that a number of the new residents may ~lso have boats, There are feature areas for the marina such as a new building which will hous~ a boat~r's lounge, washrooms, laundromat facilities, dock-master's office, etc, gl supporting the marina operations. A Travel way- The boa, ts will be launched and hauled out in a direct line to the boat storage area, along a travel,way which is 35 f~ wide, ~creened from the development, and secure. This is a "working" area and as such will not have any other ace. s exit for authorized personnel, Boater drop offarea. Tl~s is a special axes where boaters can enter the project and through a "loop roM", drop offbeat suppl~es, and then trutffer over to the parking ma dcsigmte4 for boat~ on thc Coolwater property, There is room for upwards of 25 ~s in this controlled drop offarea, Public promenade- This isa mp~al feature oft. he development. Extending from Liverpool Road toward the Bay, to the West, this walkway will featur~ ~lljJar Interlocking atone, and colour and d~i~ as Mdlennium Square. Tho intent here is to ~ord the ~bti° e opportunity to view the sunsets to the West of the sito, and to enjoy ~noth~r v~ew of the water, rm~g to Liverpool Road to continue their walk to Millet~nium Square. We ~ve ~at tl~$ ~s someth/ng that will contribute to the over~ village throe, Note: We do not agree wlth a North/South walkway in the development. This direction offoot traffic would, in our view, result in conflict of travel in the development, corfflict with the imperative of ~afe riss'ina operations, and sene'ally sever one p~ of the development from the other. Rather, we firmly believe that good design dictates that the lhrdWest prom~de we have designed supports ~e and proper operations of the variou~ project components. Pg. 3 Town homes- The planned to,an homes are to b~ dcsign~ to afford es many as possible with good views ofthe water, either over the Bay, and from the from dong Liverpool Ro~, a view toward the Lake. Each town home will haw uniquely de,ign~l f~atures Some will have loft and loft balconies, the majority will have decks over the g~r~ge ar~, balconies from bedrooms, mc. The imtent is to give these town homes unique character. Cnuages- The individual 81rages will form pan of the ~t, and not t~ separated. We ~'e not in favor of septeat~l garage locations for re&ny rea,ohS ~temmln8 fi.om probl~s associated with this form ofde6gn in other projects we have observed. Pm'king - There ate two car spaces for each home, One in the garage, and the other in the driveway. There is also provision for the appropriate number of off street guest parking, Our internal ro~s are to be 25 feet wide, which is a good ~dth. Home office option- We have incorporated a home of~c,e option into the design of 16 of the Liverpool Rod fronting homes. ~s is a concept which the City of Piekerinlg wishes us to incorporate, We believe that such an option may prove appealing to those individuals who operate a business from their home. It could be that some may if, in fact, th~ units will b~ oc4;upied in this manner. We do not agr~ with providing retail apm;e m a function ora residence. However, we view th~ home office option as viable. With r~spm't to r~all, it ahould be noted we have incorporat~l two kiosk ar~.s along the promenade n~ tM wat~'. We bdi~ve retail would be best locat~ in relation to the water, We further b~li~ that r~y ~ail in the ~'~a will Iii:fly b~ ~.uong ~nd water relat~l. The water iz the patmount rea.son viiitor~ rome to the area. We hve also ~sumed that in the marina related buiid~, we can acx, ommodate some rmil such u a boaters supply store. This building will have 2,g~ ul, i~, at ~d~, ~nd will have ~ lecond floor to a~ommodate the boater's lounge, ~nd a deck overlooking the Bay. The Coolwater property is lsrse enough that a new structure of' about 10,000 st:l, fl:, could be built without impactin8 on Ix)st storage, alor~ the fi-ont portion of the proFerty, TI'tis wouid allow for additional mail ia the future should the market dictate with suflklent pat~g to supp0tt thi~ added retail or office usC. Stages of development- We are planning to stage the develo~ent on ~ite to allow for continued operation of the marina, and tim~y preparation of the Coolwat~' property. By way of'example, i.n order to accommodate boat storage with due r~ard for the s~.~sons of'operation, the Coolwater property would be prepwed during the Spring of 2002, and ready for occupancy of'the offica portion in th,, Surrum~r of 2002. Boat ~torag~ would, bt. gin in the F,,,II ATTACHMENT ,~? ~ TO ~EPORT # PD z_/~ _ o ~ 1._17 Pg. 4 The nex~ step would be to prepare thc existing marina property for construction while maintaining the marina in operation. This work could be undertaken in the late Spring and Summer of 2002. Formal ¢onstru~ion of the residential tmlts wou~d then begin in the Fa~l of 2OO2, and ready For occupaacy in 2003. During the Fall oF2002 and Spring oF2003, the existing docks and other related marina Facilities would be upgraded. These could be in operation by thc time the boats are launched in 2003, Coolwater property - It is proposed to renovate thc existing office building on the Coolwater property and give it i nautical theme. This building will house the administration offices of Picketing Harbour Company and possibly, Sw~ Marina with their boaI ~es facility. We have provided for Swans Marina to have a boat display area on the Coolwater property ifth~ so desire, This will improve tr~c to their operation which must now pass through the restaurant parking area. While we can not speak for Swans Marira, we have incorporated provision for this operation into our planning, Millennium Square Pa~king- The City of Picketing has leased a portion of the Coolwater pml~r~y for parking, Mr. Harold Hough is prepared to continue this relationship on the Coolwater property and we further plan to increase allott l area for this purpose, The City may u~e the designated area during the Surm~er, and it will revert to Picking H~our Company £~ Winter boat ~torage, This helps the City and eases, to some degr~, increased parking needs due to l~llen.nium Square. .SUMMARY: When we became involved in this project, it did not take long to realize that to effectively plan the development of the ~cketi~ I-Iarbour Company prop~y, it would be ner, essary to consider the overgl ~har~tn- and objcctlvea for the area. Our approach has bccn to try and develop a plan that e~compaises a variety of benefits, Here's what we believe our overall plan achieves; Improves the maxina op,~ation. Cleans up messy boat storage and places it in a better location on the (~oolwater site where it will be bettcr controlled., Creates residential deVelopment sttcl improves the viUage concept which forms pm of the City's obje~ives for the area, Blends residential With an effective operating marina. Improves the shoreline along the Bay without in-filling. Creates a safe marina operation in harmony with the residential component. Places the boat travel way on the south boundary of thc dov~iopment a~d in the best location to traverse Liverpool Road in relation to public spaces. F_.xtcnds in a positive way, public vistas of thc Bay, and creates an tntere~inB public promenade. 118 REPORT ~ PD~~-/~ - o ~ Pg, $ Supporls the EastYWest vlit~ envi~onecl in consultants reports to the City. Improves tho condition o£th¢ Coo]water property ~nd puts this prol~cty into a use that is compatible with area ch~ra.~ter, and needs. Creates opportur, ity for future r~ail d~elopment in the South srea of'Liverpool Road where it w~ll relate to Millenrfum Square. Crt, ares some retail opportunity within the developmenT, again, in relation to s,~,ason~ operation. Ensures the continu~ viable operation of the marin~, Supports the overall c~nc~ts put forward by the City's consul~ts, B~efit's the c0mm~ty at l~ge thr0u~ ne~' inves~ent in the neighb0rh00cl, Offers Swaas Marina a better arrsngment for ~ntinu~tion of'their business, Msintair~ ol~n vistm along Liverpool Ro~d, and substantially improves the general appearanc~ of' thc area South of Wharf Street, inclusive of the ¢oolwater property, On balance, we believe that the community ~1 be pleased with our overall pla~s £or the proptrty. We ~re willing to answer ~ny questio~ you may h~ve ~d will be plessed to srtend at ~mmunity meetings, Pre~ideo~,~ ATTACHMEI~r #~ PO., LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, 2lease indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): ? [4_,/~ f-'& LO ~ Name and address (optional): 17.0 ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): ..? j / Name and address (optional): REPORT ~ PD ~/~ - ~ / LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): ~,/~'/~//'~ - ,/~'~' ~, ,~'T~-~ ~ ~.:.~,~ 122 ATTACHMENT # ~ -? TO REPORT # PD~ Page 1 of l McKnight, Geoff F-r~m~ B~.si~eSs C~rnpg~er~ResoUrce~ [n°pr0biem~direct. c°rn] .......... Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 1:12 PM To: McKnight, Geoff Subject: LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA LAND USE AND DESIGN STUDY ~ Resident response Dear Mr. McKnight. I attended the open house on April 18, 2000 to view the proposal put forth for our neighborhood. I am writing to strongly oppose the construction of a public boat launching ramp at the West end of Commerce Street abutting the former Port Pickering Marina lands. I live at 688 Front Road. I have lived in Picketing in this area since 1958. My primary reason for objecting to the public boat launching ramp is that this will cause a massive injection of vehicle/trailer activity in a quiet residential neighborhood. We don't want this influx of traffic and parking chaos on our streets. I speak from experience. I am the youn¢est son of the former owner of Port P ckering Marina. I was raised in the Marina and Marina business from infancy. We discontinued providing a boat launching ramp within our Marina operation on the basis that it consumed and enormous amount of space to park and maneuver these vehicle/trailer combinations. Coupled to the fact that most operators don't know how or lack the skill to manage backing up and parking these vehicle/trailer combinations. With the popularity of fishing in Lake Ontario, we will have vehicle/trailer comi}inations lining our streets because there will be not enough room for parking. The former Marina grounds will be used as a passive park. There is not enough room to provide adequate parking even in there. The boat launching ramp should be located down at the Lake side along one of the spits (East or West) There is plenty of open land and no residential dwellings. By putting the launching ramp at the foot of Commerce Street also means destroying the small Marsh which does support aquatic spawning, bird nestin9 and in general, a natural habitat for wildlife. I will attend meetings in regards to the land use study. I am requesting your reply. Stephen McKean 688 Front Road Pickering, ON L1W 1N8 (905) 839-7474 emaih nopro_blem@no~aroblemw .e..b_ S.com 04/25/2000 ~'TTACHL'~'E~IT #~ ~ TO RF..?ORT # PD_ -~',,2-~ / 123 RECEIVED JUN- 5 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 124 ~TTACHMENT #_5~ ~' TO ~EPORT # 'ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is 'to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, 31ease indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): 1:>6 ATTACH~.,~E~T # :') o TO LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once alt of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): ATTACHMENT #..-~ / _TO REPORT # PD_ '-/~2 - ~ ( 127 Prudential Achievers Realty, Broker 3une ~.2, 2000 Mr. Wayne Arthurs Mayor City of Pickering Dear Wayne: As an interested party, ! am submitting my comments to yourself and Council on the Liverpool South study and the resulting staff recommendations. ! have been involved in waterfront development since 1968 and commercial/retail balancing since :1974 and feel qualified to comment on the s'[udy. My overall impression finds the study to be well written and the consultant's findings, for the most part, were reasonable. Their C.V. indicates prior experience in waterfront development comprised largely ofpublic or municipally owned land and initially they were not recognizing the large amount of privately held land and the unique ownership position of the Picketing Harbour Company Limited. ! must state that ! am still not sure that they have completely made the transition. Additionally, they put great weight on several delegations at the public meetings that form small but vocal groups purporting to represent large numbers of the public. To my knowledge, no attempt was made either by the consultants or by the delegations to poll the general public by survey or direct contact. Neither did anyone from the delegations ever meet with developers or landowners to get first hand information or suggest alternative methods of achieving goals. As you are now about to adopt the results of the study into guidelines and policy for the Official Plan ! would like to raise my concern in one significant area that, ! believe cannot be achieved and, if policy is not reasonably attainable should it, in fact, become policy? ! am sure that you have, in the past, dealt with many items which had to be modified from their original goals, to the detriment of the first applicants, in order to complete development areas in the city. ! am hoping that this will not be one of them. ! am referring to the planning initiative of a public walkway from Front Road Park to the MIIlenium Square, which is referred to prominently in the study. 643 Kingston Road Picketing, Ont. L1V 3N7 Office: (905) 831-7677 Fax: (905) 831-3482 335 Bayly Ajax, Ont. tlS 6M2 Office: (905) 428-761 Fax: f905) 428-761 ?~TTACHMENT #~T0 Analysis of the landholdings along the proposed route include 3 private residences, a small boat yard, a fenced equipment storage yard, gas docks, a public road, a private launch ramp, a 15 ton and 30 ton boat travelift, two mast cranes and access to four sets of docks occupied by boat owners concerned about the security of their investments. Public safety and public liability issues alone should determine that this route is not viable or attainable in its entire length, as they are intregal to the desired marine environment. Further, to create a lively, successful and vibrant commercial area on Liverpool Road pedestrian traffic should be directed down its length to the lake. The waterfront trail already does this in it's existing format, which also satisfies that Organizations' published mandate to travel through villages and residential areas as well as along the shore. This is the city's only opportunity to satisfy that mandate. Council might consider, instead, day use docks at Front Road park, dinghy docks on the east spit and perhaps a gazebo extending out into the bay at the west end of Wharf Street as a viable alternative to the proposed walkway. Facilities at the east spit and at the Front Road park for temporary docking of visiting boats will greatly enhance the use of the bay as an overnight anchorage and weekend destination. Thank you for taking the time to look at my views on this matter, l: may be contacted through my office if you have any further questions. Kindest regards, Gary D. Peck, O.O.L. Ont. ISO 9002 Certified CC: Regional Councillor Regional Councillor Regional Councillor Local Councillor Local Councillor Local Councillor Maurice Brenner Doug Dickerson Rick .]ohnson Dave Pickles Dave Ryan Mark Holland Director of Planning Nell Carroll 129 ThePrudentlal Achievers Realty May 16 2001 attn. Catherine Rose RECEIVED MAY 1 U 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GARY PE¢ Sales Representative ~' Master Diamond In response to the Phase 2 Part 2 draft report of the Liverpool Road South Area Review as presented in the public meeting of last week, I would like to submit the following comments. In general the report was well written and fairly easy to follow and understand. The landscape, streetscape and marketing banner treatments were well done and I note that provision has been made for the delivery of large boats by transport truck and for easy moving of boats to storage by hydraulic trailer and travellift In this area I feel that Phase 2 Part 2 has achieved the goals for which it was designed and advertised. I was very disappointed to see that Part 2 contained many significant changes to the land uses as adpoted in Part 1 in Council last June. This Part I document represented the guide to development planning and Land Value computation on various parcels by proponents and, while not perfect, was a workable document. The changes proposed represent a major departure from the Part 1 document, do not represent good planning principles, have the effect of lowering land values throughout the study area and indicate to me that the planners have lost sight of the vision of a year round recreational, residential and tourism node as contemplated by the Mayor's Task Force on the future of Frenchmans Bay. These changes further are ora nature that would seem to benefit certain needs of the city itself, in one case, and brings into question the Planning Dept's ability to produce a report that is unbiased, flee of political influence and produced in a manner fairly serving the needs of both the general public and the landowner. The following points in the Part 2 draft document are of particular concern: 1 )OriginalIy, residential was permitted throughout the entire study area, with certain restrictions such as the belt along the waterfront designed to ensure the continuation of water related activity, provide access to docks and public acessable vistas. The new format places severe restrictions on the residential potential, allowing it only on Liverpool road and then only in conjunction with retail main floor capability. The study conducted in part 1 clearly does not support this restriction fi-om both the absorbability or sustainability perspective. Residential development is critical to the overall success of South Liverpool and will draw buyers that want to live year round in close proximity to boats, water and a vibrant area~ 2) Coolwater Farms, as a development opportunity, is handicapped by the failure of The Toronto Regional Conservation Authority to address floodlines and fill lines in a timely manner. They have been involved in this study for sev~,~_l years through the Millenium Square and other initiatives. To leave a large hole in the study and put the onus on proponents is unconcienable without setting ,at least, minimum guidelines and objectives. Part 2 also removes the" build to" line from the south portion of the Coolwater site that existed in Part 1 It is signifiant in that this reduces the perceived value of the property and removes a line that has the only waterfront area on the property that does not front on a provincially significant wetland. This reduction in value and development restriction becomes suspect when coupled with the city's need for parking adjacent to the Millenium Square. 643 I(Jngston Road Pickering, Ontario LIV 3N7 (905) 831-7677 Fax: {905) 831-3482 467 Westney Rd. S. # A~ax, Ontario LIS F~': (906) 130 ATTACHMENT ~, ~ / TO ThePrUdent,al Achievers Realty GARY PECK Sales Representative ~' Master Diamond Club 3) Parking on residential roads in Fairpor~ Village was ori~naLly allowed on one side of the street as it is presently in most of that area. Part 2 puts a bike lane on both sides of the street and eliminates on street parking in the whole area. One bike lane should be sufficiant for this area given the seasonality of bikes and the need for par ~king by residents, their guests and the intention to allow limited commercial in the area by application. In conclusion ~ the Part 2 report, as presented, will not create a vibrant year round node in which to live, work and play. The Planning Dept and the consultants are no longer putting forward a document that is unbiased and unsullied by the needs of the city. It does not protect the Landowners right to obtain fair market value for their propen'y or to deve!op that land to it's full potential I trust that this will be rectified prior to this report proceeding to council. Yourstsrd'y// f~'~ ~ 643 Kingston Road Picketing, Ontario L1V 3N7 (905) 831-7677 Fax: (905) 831-3482 467 Westney Rd. S. # 7 Ajax. Ontado L1S 8V7 (905) 428-7677 Fax:. (905) 428-7680 'ATTACHMENT# ~EPORT # PD 131 P dential Achievers Realq, Broker Mr. Wayne Arthum Mayor The City Of Picketing July 30 2001 Dear Wayne I have just returned from an I 1 day trip by boat to the 1000 Islands area of the St. Lawrence river in which 1 have visited a number of waterfront areas both older and rejeuvenated. I visited Cobourg, Gananoque, Cape Vincent, Clayton, Alexandria Bay and Ivy Lea. On a previous trip this year I had occasion to spend two nights in Niagara on the Lake Cobourg, which has been held out as an example in the studies, has two completed Condo Townhome projects on their waterfront just west of their new town facilities and two more to the immediate north and northeast being advertised, they have no commercial on the water and rely on their existing Main street to meet visitors needs. Although it is an easy walk, them is no noticeable connection from one area to the other. Their parkland is further east as is the town run summer trailer park. I spoke with Everitt McNutt, property manager for the condos, he informed me that fully one third of occupants winter in the south and for the most part the purchasers are empty nesters, healthy and financially secure looking for a lifestyle that includes their boats and an active social setting. Gananoque put 6 small business outlets with Victorian styling on the water. I spoke with the former Mayor of the town and learned that their only name tenant was Tim Hortons, which pulled out after one season, and the others have changed hand several times to the point that the city has leased space from them for a museum / 1000 Islands intbrmation building so there would not be any vacancies. Other than the Gananoque inn and an ice cream shop all needs must be met by walking to the main street which is quite a distance. Anything but the simplest needs require a cab at least for the return trip. Alexandria Bay has extensive commercial on one main street but merchants are hurting and when I was there on a friday afternoon it was not crowded or busy, although the town docks were full and the two waterfront bars were very full. Most of these businesses close fi-om Thanksgiving to Memorial day. I will further point out that the last two towns recieve 1500 to 2000 people a day arriving to take boat tours of the 1000 Islands, their cottages and Boldt Castle that Pickering cannot expect to see. Niagara on the Lake did not put their town docks in the water this year, the only access by water is by Niagara on the Lake sailing club which is private and gated. Immediately upriver is a new Condominium project ofupscale townhomes and downriver are private residences until you reach the park, which has no boater access. All commercial except for two hotels is a brisk walk from the water. Niagara on the Lake recieves 5000 visitors a day in season due to its proximity to the Niagara Falls. The reason for my letter is simple. It has now been two years since Councillor Holland wanted to hold up development of the South Liverpool area for a six month study. At first, his vision of a strip of "shop homes" appeared to have merit, but, as the study progressed planning seemed to be pushing for more and more commercial and less and less residential in spite of the absobtion figures put forward by the city's own consultants in Phase 1 Part 1. The planning dept also seems to be trying to plan development far and beyond anything contemplated by the Municipal Act or the Planning Act. Whether this is unintentional or there is steering from Councillor Holland I would not know, but two years is a long time to be at the point we are now and find out that what they want built may not be built economically under the Building Code, may not be marketable at the prices needed to support such construction, may not be financeable in this format, do not qualify for the Ontario New Home Warranty program and ultimately will put so much commercial on Liverpool as to preclude any of it from having any sort of success. 643 Kingston Road Picketing, Ont. L1V 3N7 Office: (905) 831-7677 Fax: (905) 831-3482 335 Bayly Street West Ajax, Ont. L1S 6M2 Office: (905) 428-7677 Fax: (905) 428-7680 132 ATTACHMENT # ~---~TO ~E?OR'r # PD~ I have been less confident about South Liverpool for some time now and this last 11 days has opened my eyes to some pretty basic realities. I find that I can no longer support the concepts of commercial all the way up Liverpool to Wharf St in a "shop home" format and believe that limited commercial opposite The Waterfront Restaurant and adjacent to adequate parking is about all that the area will support. Wayne, It is time for you to take the helm as originally contemplated by your taskforce. I am c~ncerned that Councillor Holland has a dream that is unsupportable in reatitv and if it goes on much further we will lose two very good developers to other projects, the land w511 lie t'allow for a number of years and ultimately when it does get developed it will do so through a OMB decision that will mirror what I have set out above. I have seldom been wrong in my career but I am always ready to admit that I can be. If Councillor Holland can show studies or examples that support his vision acceptable to builders, consumers and financiers then he should bring them forward, otherwise I ask you and the rest of council to please put all this into a format that builders and bankers can live with and let us all get on with it There is potentially 30 million in new assessment at the bottom of Liverpool Road and a place where people can be proud to live and play many months of the year. It is about time that it was started. Kindest egarti_s_ .-~ ( / ~ Gary Peck O.O.LOnt. ISO 9002 certified sales representative gTTACHMENT# .~ / TO ~EPORT # PD /-/'~ - ~ [ 133 August 04 2001 Mr Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Dear Wayne RECEIVED AUG 7 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The attached letter was written as a summary of my recent trip and other cruises that I have made this summer. Prior to leaving I did not have an opportunity to read Jim Lucas' letter of July 24 or Mark Holland's reply of July 25 but having now read them and reading over my letter to you I have decided not to change a thing. I have visited virtually every significant port on Lake Ontario and the 1000 Islands area of the St. Lawrence River over the past five years, both US and Canadian, by boat. I would be hard pressed to find the criteria outlined in councillor Holland's letter Pg 1 Para 3 anywhere in that area. In fact Cobourg, Picton ,-Bath and Wellesley have nice new Condo projects up or planned adjacent to their Marinas. The only ports offering nearby commercial are those that happen to have a presence on the water of an established commercial district that also forms their main year round business area and can survive quite well without any additional summer traffic. Most ports require a longer walk than Picketing currently offers to significant shopping or a cab to major shopping as we have right now. Additionally most of these areas benefit from attractions which in themselves generate conciderable daily traffic such as tour boats, rapids rides or natural wonders which Picketing cannot hope to match. Councillor Holland's vision for South Liverpool, while noble, is flawed in that it is not sustainable in the long term and not marketable or financable in the short term. Kindest regards Gary Peck cc: All Councillors Jim Lucas Harold Hough Joe Winters Catherine Rose Neill Carroll Ron Taylor LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD 135 LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA LAND USE AND DESIGN STUDY Response Sheet From The Public Meeting/Workshop April 18, 2000 COMMENTS ! (P/ease print your name and address so we can make sure you're on the mailing fist.) Please provide us your comments no later than Tuesday April 25!h, in writing, using the response sheet if you wish, by telephoning, or e-mailing to: Geoff McKnight, Planner, Planning and Development Department, Pickering, ON LlV 6K7; Telephone (905) 420-4660, ext. 2032; e-mail .qmckn qht@c ty.pickerin.q.on.ca. One the Esplanade, Fax (905) 420-7648; s xg/l. ive r pool/agenda /~TTACHMENT ,~ -~ 5" TO LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once alt of the comment:question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, 3lease indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): ATTACHMENT #~.~ ~ TO ~EPORT # PD_ z'/o2 - ,.o / 137 LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): ATTACHMENT ~, -~ & ,TO Memo to file: David Steele - RE: Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review Wednesday, April 19th, 2000. David Steele was unable to attend the public meeting, but telephoned with these comments to make. Mr. Steele is opposed to the Bavlill. I te noted that a sediment study complete with computer model, is necessary prior to any decisions being made regarding the Bayfill. He also noted that it is necessary to examine the current location of fill that is causing siltation in the area. Sediment collectors xvill be required for the end of each pipe. Natural materials ought to be used to construct storm xvater ponds, to ensure a high standard of permeability. By allowing tbr a mixed use of residential and commercial uses, there is a potential for parking issues along Sandy Beach Road. These considerations need to be reviewed prior to the cz~rr.x lng out of this project. S.D. Std/Steve/bayridg.doc ATTAGH~ENT ~.~ TO 3EPORT # PD.. 9z~ --o / 13'9 From: Sent: To: Subject: Iht, Geoff Healey, Phyllis Monday, May 01, 2000 8:51 AM Rose, Catherine; McKnight, Geoff; Gaunt, Steve FW: Liverpool Road Design Study. For your information and response. ..... Original Message ..... From: david j. steele. [mailto:dj.steele@utoronto.ca] Sent: April 30, 2000 11:36 PM To: Healey, Phyllis Cc: David & Judy Home; fjd@idirect.com; herzog@ionsys.com; mulcon@home.com; pkelland@home.com; Tom Atkins Subject: Liverpool Road Design Study. David Steele wrote: At the stake holders meeting held on the 26/4/2000 it was mentioned that the consultants and planning staff are willing to meet on aone on one basis with anyone. It was also stated in the meeting that the Bay could be filled in if all environmental approvals where met.The issue around height restrictions on any proposed development was determined that the maximan high would be four stories high. The computer model for the WHOLE bay was recommended without disapproval or objections. Storm water management would be a high priority in the area. Grit collectors would "e installed in all storm water pipes that flow into the Bay this , ecommendation was met with no objections. 1 ).Would you please track all records and permits of the Bay infill that was carried out by The Pickering Harbor company from the east spit to the north.Would you provide me with all the approvals and copies of the permits including the T.R.C.A.permit?To include the parking lot at the waterfront bristo restaurant that was bay filled. 2).Would you please provide me with all the environmental approvals required for Bay infill. 3).Would you provide me with the statements from the public accepting the Bay could be infilled with the proper environmental approvals. 4).Would you provide me with the computer modeling cost for the whole Bay, as I indicated a fundraising project is now being prepared to complete such a study. 5).Would you provide me with the estimated time it would take to complete a computer model of the whole Bay. 6).The marine operations require a number of specific improvements tccording to discussions in the meeting would you obtain that list from Pickering Harbour Company for the public. 7).Who determined that no new public open space is required as stated in the stake holders meeting? 8).Parking was a big concern in the Waterfront Task Force Report how do you intend to address that problem in the design study area. 9).Mr Hough was appointed by myself as chair of the tourism section of the Waterfront Task Force Report, at no time did Mr. Hough object to the report both at the interim stage or the final report. The present application from the Pickering Harbor Company DOES NOT FIT INTO THE VISION OF THE WATERFRONT TASK FORCE report. 10).It seems that the developers are aiming to maximize the profits in the shortest possible time without taking into consideration the vision of the Waterfront which was to be UNIQUE. 11 ).Councillor D.Dickerson stated in the meeting that the developers 140 ,~TTACFIMENT # ~ ¢..: TO '~EPORT # PD~ know best and then described there proposal, does this pre- conclude his decision before the applicants go to council for approval. Is this a conflict of interest if he sits on the. T.R.C.A. board? 12).Mr Peck stated that he will go to the O.M.B. if the result of the study does not conform to his application on the East side of Liverpool Road. Is this threat having any influence on the planning department design study? 13).We would like a meeting with the consultants and planning staff as was offered to the developers. 14).Would you please provide me with all written correspondence on thiS design study? 15).Is it true the developers will make application to the City of Picketing in June before the study is completed in September as indicated in the meeting. 16).The millennium square was to be built for art and music shows this would interfere with the townhouse developments pnvacy?noise etc. 1 7).The walk around Frenchman's Bay should be as close to the water as possible. However, it should not be used as a excuse to fill in the Bay. Page 35 of the interim waterfront report gives a outline of proposed usage in the area. 18). On page 89 of the interim waterfront report Mr. Hough was requesting LAKE FILL for parking and marina operations. We investigated the cost to Lakefill to be around $20,000,000.if approval was given by the federal government. It was and is a concern that the marrne operation is not a high priority of the Picketing Harbour Company. As his application states a possibility of a future marina facility etc. 19).1f the City of Pickering give approval to the infill of Frenchman's Bay you have set a predicament for future applications. 20).1 do not have a copy of the final Waterfront Task Force Report as mine was borrowed and never returned. ATTACHMENT #, ~ ~ ,TO ~E?ORT # PD ~.-/'~ - o / 141 Pickering - Ajax Citizens Together For the Environment Chair: David Steele, 966 Timmins Gardens, Pickering, Ontario, LIW- 2Y2. Tel: (905) 837 0117 Fax: (905) (416) 287 7667. E-mail: dj.steele~utoronto.ca Mr. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor, City of Pickering, 1, The Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario. L1V- 6K7. May 22, 2000 Dear Mayor Arthurs, Liverpool Road Design Study Area Pickering - Ajax Citizens Together for the Environment (PACT) is deeply concerned with the issues surrounding the development of Pickering. We are particularly concerned to ensure that developments that could have an adverse impact on the environment are fully identified and that appropriate action is taken to address these concerns. We also strongly seek to ensure that people have access and enjoyment to the areas of natural beauty in the area in a responsible way. Board members of our association have attended public meetings concerning the development of the Liverpool Road Design Study Area and we are left with considerable disquiet as to the possible outcome of the planning process. In particular we seek to establish that the area to the south and south east of Wharf Street is not compromised by changes in future zoning such that they are to all intents lost to the public. We do recognize that these lands are in private ownership. We also know that development of the lands requires the permission of the public, through the municipal zoning and rezoning process. Our fundamental concem is that the lands may be developed in such a manner that the result could be that the entire area could become a residential development in its entirety, and that existing marina and public access to Frenchman's Bay could be lost to the public. At the meeting held on May 16, 2000, David Home, a member of the Board of PACT, who is also a yachtsman of tong experience, raised concerns about the eventual use of these lands. This was based on the likely zoning changes that will arise from the Guiding Principles stated on Pages 21 and 22 of the Phase One Report of the City of Pickering Planning and Development Department. Mr Home specifically asked for information as to the existing zoning of the area to the south and south east of Wharf Street, and P.A.C.T asks that this be provided. Mr Home referenced the following statements in the Report: · "Residential development is permitted throughout the Study area", Page 21. · "Structures along Liverpool Road, south of Wharf, should be able to be used entirely for residential, entirely business, or a mix.", page 21. · "Zoning for the lands along Liverpool Road, south of Wharf, should permit, as of right, both residential and commercial/business uses.", page 22. · "Buildings along. Liverpool Road shall be built close to the street without too much variation in setbacks." "Build to lines will be established along Liverpool Road requiring a minimum of 85 % of any new building to be set back a minimum of 3.0 meter's and a maximum of 4.5 meter's from the property line." 142 A:TACHMENT# -~(~ TO REPORT # PD~ -2- Taken together, these would represent a significant change in the present zoning, and could result in a totally residential development with the cut off, or at worst the closure of the Marina. At the meeting, Mr Jori Lmton of TCI Management, a Land Economist, agreed that the highest value to a developer results £rom Residential Zoning. PACT is concerned that thc resuh of the zoning changes for these lands could be a massive residential development built out to the minimum lot lines, the loss of' the Marina for public seasonal and transient boaters and the loss of employment in the area. PACT urges council to direct that the area continue to be a place for the enjoyment of the public and that zoning arrangements secure specific mixed use. Which was the waterfront task force vision of the area, rather than as of right options to benefit of the developer. We would also recommend to you if rezoning of any manna property is going to take place m the design study' area to residential mixed use the rezoning that would benefits the developer should be seen as a gift by the developer. That the developer should construct a public walkway to the water edge on exmting manna property as a gift to the City of Picketing residents. P.A.C.T urges council to undertake a computer model on storm water management in Frenchman's bay its creeks and to include the entrance to Frenchman's bay from Lake Ontario. That grit collectors be installed to all storm water pipes that mn directly into the bay. If a new residential development is to be undertaken south of Warf Street tile necessary storm water management plans be part of the approval process. With surface water to be included as part of the required storm water management plans. This recommendation would also includes the land on the east side of Liverpool road so that no run off from any proposals would EVENTUALLY end up in the marsh wetlands area or Frenchman's bay. The parking issue is still not resolved to the satisfaction of the residents that attended the public meeting. P.A.C.T. urges council to address this concern by adopting tile recommendations of the waterfront task force report. We are pleased that the boat launch has been located to the area recommended by the task force report, that mixed use is recommended by the land economic adviser the Cit.,,' of Pickenng hired for the Liverpool Design Study Area. Yours truly, David Steele, Chair, P.A.C.T. Chair, P.C.W.G Chair, Mayor Waterfront Task Force Report. ATTACHMENT # ,-~ 1-43 Rose, Catherine From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: david j. steele. [dj.steele@utoronto.ca] May 22, 2000 4:42 PM Healey, Phyllis David & Judy Home; dbrooks; Ryan, David, Councillor; emcmullen@home.com; rJd@idirect.com; herzog@ionsys.com; Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; pkelland@home.com; Holland, Mark, Councillor; Healey, Phyllis; Tom Atkins Liverpool Road Design Study. David Steele wrote: Hello Katherine Rose, Would you please deliver a copy of this e-mail to his worship the Mayor of Pickering Mt.Wayne Arthurs and the City of Picketing councilors. We at P.A.C.T. have spent a considerable amount of our time as board members of P.A.C.T. and citizens of Ajax/Pickering on environmental and planning issues in both the City of Picketing and the Town of Ajax. We at P.A.C.T. are committed to the Liverpool Road Design Study. As you are aware the Waterfront in Picketing is close to my heart. We could have a Unique waterfront in Pickering with all its natural environment along its Lakefront that includes Frenchman's Bay. We as citizens of our community with the elected council of the City of Picketing must work to improve the water quality in Frenchman's Bay and the creeks that flow into it. We owe it to our children of our City and the future generations of Ontario so they might see the beauty of nature and the ecological benefits of a natural environment. The attachment raises some of our concerns at P.A.C.T. in draft Report # 1 Liverpool Road Design Study, released by the Pickering Planning ~epartment asking for public comment. 144 Rose, Catherine Sent: To: Subject: Healey, Phyllis May 23, 2000 10:40 AM Rose, Catherine FW: Bay fill. Liverpool Road Design Study. ..... Original Message ..... From: david j. steele. [maz!!c:cs.sleeie}:scr:.~.-_:. Sent: May 22, 2000 8:04 PH To: Healey, Phyllis; Ryan, Davit!, ~?c',::.rillor Cc: Hotland, Hark, Councillor; [;s=v_a :. 7'~dy Home; ~renr:er, Idaurice, Councillor; pkellarxd@home.cem; iwhile :i,2-..ner Subject: Bay fill.Liverpool Road David Steele wrote: Dear Ms. Katherine Rose: This e-mail is Eo confirm that my prev:ous e-mall scaz~ very xlearl5 that P.A.C.T.is opposed to any Bay }fl!i wnaSsoever. Please see e-nail forwarded to you 22 days ago in wh~cr_ we are wa!IL:~} ~lY ~ wri~ien response from the planning deparEmenl %hat was pror:iseu 12 lis. ATTACH~IENT ~ J _TO .~FPORT ~ PD ~7/~- ,:> / 145 PRESENTATION BY MR. DAVID STEELE TO PICKERING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, REGARDING LIVERPOOL ROAD DEVELOPMENT NODE GUIDELINES JUNE 13, 2000 Members of Council: Tonight, i would like to take you back to Meeting #19/76 of the then Me r~oronto.,lqegmn.,~sr~T Conservation Authority. At that meeting a report titled "Future Development of Frenchman's Bay-Town of Pickering" was received. This report states: "Frenchman's Bay is the second largest body of protected water along the Metropolitan Toronto region waterfront. It has an interior shoreline of 3.3 miles with 180 acres of protected water and 52 acres of marshes .... Frenchman's Bay is one of the major natural resources along the shoreline of Lake Ontario in the area under the jurisdiction of the Authori~. . It was identified in the 1968 Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area as important harbour for recreational boating. It has also been identified by the authority, Ministry of Natural Resources, and naturalist groups, as being significant as a marsh area in which a wide variety offish and waterfowl thrive. Authority waterfront plans continue to recognize the importance of Frenchman's Bay for a variety of boating. These plans indicate boating largely being concentrated and expanded in the southeast corner of the Bay. Due to the lack oj" protected water along the waterfront for safe harbourage for small boats during sudden storms, the safety aspects offered by the Bay for recreational purposes must be realized. In terms of recreationa~boating, the~rst major area of protected water to the west of Frenchman's Bay is Ashbridges's Bay, a distance of approximately 16 miles along the waterfront. Bluffer's Park does offer some protected water at the present time, but the distance from Frenchman's Bay is still approximately ten miles. Authority waterfront plans continue to recognise the significance of the natural resource of the Frenchman's Bay marshes. The marshes are one of only a few such natural areas remaining along the waterfront in the Metropolitan Toronto region. The marshes serve as habitat and spawning or nesting areas for a variety offish and wildlife Frenchman's Bay has been found to be the most productive recreational fish area along the waterfront. Northern pike, yellow perch, white perch, rock bass, among others are frequently caught in Frenchman's Bay. Mallard and black ducks, blue heron, Canada geese and variety (sic) of terns and gulls can be seen in the marshes. In addition to the proposed major uses of recreational boati~g at~d passive uses itt conjunction with the natural areas, the Authority also i~te~zds to develop the tlatural sa~d beaclles of the Frenchman's Bay spits for swimming, stmbathi~g, etc., and to provide such ancilla~vfacilities a picnicing areas." On page 3 of the 1976 report, under the heading "Problem's Today", this same report states that: "continuing urban e~croachme~t immediately adjace~lt to Fre~chma~ 's Bay and along the 6 creeks that drain ittto the sot~th-east core,er qf the Bay, is r~'ecting the quality of the marshes and the water of Fre~chmat~ 's Bay. 77~is impaired quali(¥ may llave the adverse effect of limiting alternative ttses or event prohibiti~g t;roposed uses for the Bay". It is clear that the Metro Toronto Conservation Authority as it was constituted in 1976 did not contemplate any form of Bay infilling, when they state that: "Therefore, in order to combat water quality problems resulting from continued urbanization, consideration shouM be given to implementing building set backs from watercourses and around the marshes of the Bay, and to implementit~g btdlding by- laws to regulate the manner in which development is undertaken. Further, consideration should b'e gi~,en to developing a stornt water management philosophy for the Frenchman's Bay vicinity, which cottld include, itt part, new storm }pater systems terminating itt Lake Ontario as opposed to the Bay itself': This 1976 report concludes" "Although Frenchman,s Bay still remai~ts largely in private owtzership, the Authori(¥ has in fact established its intent to develop Fre~ch~nan's Bay as a major recreatio~al area, and this fitture must be platmed Jbr a~d accommodated tf such use.v are to be realized in the futurk." I had the privilege of chairing Mayor Arthur's Waterf~'ont 2001 Task Force. That report was . submitted in 1998 with numerous recommendations including: page 15 recommendation 4.11 The Pickering Planning Department should be encouraged to proceed with a Liverpool Road tourism design study and implementation timetable recommended for Pickering's Official Plan. We purposely departed from the Detail Design Guideline title for this study, used in the official plan, because the prerequisite to detailed design is a good understanding of what is required to achieve a successful tourism destination and what is economically feasible. REPORT # PD~ 147 We subnfit that before considering thc Phase one report before you tonight or Proceeding to Phase two, Council and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority must reconfirm (a) Their land acquisition program around Frenchman's Bay and revisit available funding SOllrCCS. (b) The role of the Pickering Harbour Company in funding channel improvements and maintaining navigation within Frenchman's Bay. (e) The responsibility of the City of Pickering to support Pic. kering Harbour Company's efforts to get approvals for channel imProvements. In the1995 Waterfront Trust document titled "Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy: Next Steps:" With respect to Picketing, on page 48 this report recommends: "MTRCA and'the Town of Pickering should proceed with the development of an ecosystem-based management plan (or some similar form of regeneration plan)for Frenchman's Bay, as recommended in 1991. This plan should include watershed planv .for ail tributaries fi. owing into the Bay and should be oriented to substantially lowerin~ sediment and pollution loadings to the Bal~, and to restoring habitat and recreational values. Until the plan is complete& new development adjacent to the Bay or in its watersheds shouM be discouraged". THE HARBOUR ENTRANCE AND VIABILITY OF MARINA INTERESTS Major area's of focus of the Mayor's Waterfront Task Force were on the need to improve'the Harbour Entrance, Frenchman's Bay water quality and the need to develop and economic and tourism strategy for Pickering's Waterfront, centred around Frenchman's Bay, Pickering's gateway from the water. In the context of the design guidelines before you tonight,'as in 1976, the two prerequisites to a successful economic and tourism strategy for the Pickering waterfront are: 1. The continued economic viability of future marina activities on Frenchman's Bay as a primary focus for a development strategy. 2. Restoration of the health of the Frenchman's Bay watershed's ecosystem 148 I believe that before finalizing the Development Guidelines before Council tonight, or . considering any development applications in this area, a number of questions much be answered by this council including: 1) What is the cumulative impact of all of the activities hy tiffs guideline including future construction, of buildings, seawalls, storm water discharge, hay fill and harbour entrance modification on Frenchman's Bay? It is inappropriate to consider individual applications for bay fill etc. on a stand-alone basis. It is the cumulative impact of all of your actions on the Frenchman's Bay watershed, which must be considered by this conncil before any one action !s allowed to proceed. Your official plan required this council to consider the cnmulative impacts. 2). Is this council committed to maintaining Frenchman's Bay as a port, and if so how many boat slips are required to support a viable marina area within Frenchman's Bay and where are these boat slips best located? Has the applicant provided any written infor~nation on bis plan lbr future operation of his marina and Frenchman's Bay? 3). gYhat onshore facilities are required to support this marina sector, including parking, club facilities, gas handling facilities, repair facilities, sales facilities and winter boat storage and what land areas should he reserved now for these uses? 4). Where can winter boat storage be best accommodated, how much land area is required and how can this site be designed to include appropriate bernfing from neighbours? 5). Should the public or private sector (or both) be providing pu.blic boat laulaching facilities and where should both these launching facilities and the required parking to support them be located? Please keep in mind that each boat requires two parking spaces. 6). }tow nmch transient docking is required to support daily visitors to the Liverpool Road Tourist node, where should transient docking be located and should transient docking be provided hy the public or private sector? 7). What fimding model does Picketing Harhour Company intend to follow to fulfil the financial obligations which it assumed for both the harbour entrance and dredging as part of the Preliminary Settlement Agreement with the Town of Picketing and is this funding model viable in the hmger term with the scale of Marine activity now proposed? 8). What, is council's residential target for this area, and can any increase be accom~nodated in a well designed thrbe or four story building, which would require less land than the townhouse form of development now proposed, thereby using a density transfer, making more land available for public use? 9). There is a reference in the Revised implementation study on page D-1 to the use of density bonuses. Have the two applicants and planning department considered how these tools could be used to place a higher density development in one part of the area under consideration, perhaps the east side of Liverpool and transfer a portion of the waterfront land on the west side of Liverpool Road to the public? 10). If these two develop~nent applicati°ns are allowed to proceed, and in two year's annual monitoring indicates a parking problem, what spare land will remain on' which to construct a parking facility?. Outside of the development guideline itself, it is imperative that before any development occurs, the Council of the City of Pickering establishes its priorities for future land acquisition within the bonndaries of the Liverpool Road study area to achieve (a) Objectives for public access to the water's edge, including a waterfront promenade and public parkland. (b) Objectives for preservation of marsbland. (c) Land required for realigmnent of Liverpool Road, such as a turning circle north of the bridge and land to be reserved for future offstreet parking as the need arises. COMMENTS ON DESIGN GUIDELINE BAY FILL I must emphasize that at no time did thc Mayor Waterfront,s Task Force consider the use of bay fill to implement a pedestrian promenade from the. Front Road Park: southward: I believe that this promenade should be-constructed on land purchased by TRCA and where necessary a dock structure could be used on pilings. The comment is made in the report that bay fill will be regulated in the future by having each application be accompanied by an environmental' report. I find this unacceptable; since I fear'a piece meal approach. It is this council's responsibility under its official plan to consider the cumulative impacts of development. This can only be done properly, if the limits of bay fill are clem'ly defined now in the study.and subjected tba rigorous modelling exercise, ideally in conjunction with modelling of. the harbour entrance and storm-water facilities which is currentl~ being reviewed bY the Waterfront Coordinating Committee. 5 150 The comment is made th'at bay fill will create fish habitat, but I believe that the same fish tnabitat can be created by use of armorstone along the existing shoreline itself. The report envisions use of bay fill to provide a public promenacte. Is tiffs because too high a density is being requested on existing land? In the past bay fill was used at Swans Marina to expand a parking lot to meet the town's requirements. What assurances do the public have that future appliants will not continue witln this type of justification? In section C 1.6 the guideline states "proposals for bay filling should be designed to improve the environmental conditions-along the shoreline. I would be much tnappier if this section stated that bay fill can only be used'to improve existiufi environmental conditions. In order to ensure that the town has control over future expansion, can it require a one-foot wide easement adjacent to all existing development as was done to control driveway access to Dixie Road and the agriculture reserve lands? ROAD NETWORK The Task force recommends that Liverpool Road is closed norttn of the bridge and a turning circle is constructed in the area wtnere the City currently leases parking. There is no mention of this road closure in tine guidelines, but they do show a road on tine spit. Have the consultants considered a looping road as part of future redevelopment of tile land currently occupied.by the Fish Farm? Could this type of road network be used to direct people into parking facilities located farther north? TRANSIENT DOCKING An important part of a waterfront is transient docking. A large part of the attraction of a waterfront is boats, and the closer the public can get to boats the better. Transient docking is important to enable visitors to patronize restaurants and other businesses established along the bay. Frenchman's Bay is a reasonable lunchtime destination for boaters from Whitby harbour and Bluffers Park. Transient docking is also important for da}r users of Pickering's launch facilities. The task force recommended transient doc~ng at Front Road Park and along the east spit. This concept should be incorporated into the design guidelines. FERRY DOCKING The task force recommended a ferry fi'om tine east spit to the west spit, It is important to agree now on a location for this on tile east spit, since the dock configuration must be such to allow fairly wide turns and protect the ferry's right of way. 151 PARKLAND DEDICATION When considering development adjacent to a waterfront, public access and setbacks should be a consideration. In the normal situation, dedication of parkland would be required as part of any development. I could not find any parkland dedications in either application. I request that the Director of Planning explain this. LOCATION OF PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCHING FACILITIE,~ ..I am pleased to see the possibility of a boat launch ramp at the foot of Sandy Beach Road again being proposed. The Task Force spend considerable time on this. and after visiting several - facilities, including those at Scarborough's Bluffer's Park, we concluded that insufficient parking existed at the Front Road location. It is important to realize that every boat. launched, from a trailer requires two parking spaces. The task force was also concerned with the number of motorboats being launched close to the north end of the environmentally sensitive'bay, rather than Lake Ontario directly. The task force identified Ontario Hydro property at the end of Sandy Beach Road as optimal for. a boat launch, since this launch could requires construction of a berm into Lake Ontario on one side only (the other already exists) and boaters could use the existing parking lots on ~Ontario ' Hydro property which are under-utilised on weekends. FLOATING DOCK IN FRONT ROAD PARI~- The task force report recognized the concept of a floating dock in Front Road Park'to be used by the canoe club. A floating dock could also he used by local residents to launch kayaks and -. canoes and similar'.non-m0torized boats, which could be carried TO THE FLOATING DOCK, by residents. While the future location of the canoe club has not been determined, the concept of a floating dock should be carried forward into the design guidelines. HARBOUR ENTRANCE CONSTRUCTION Under the Preliminary Settlement Agreement with. the.Township of Picketing and Picketing Harbour Company, the Pickering Harbour Company assumed responsibility for the harbour channel and all ongoing dredging of Frenchman's Bay. The City of Picketing has an obligation to support the efforts of the Pickering Harbour Company to receive federal approvals and support an application for federal funding of the channel entrance. 152 Is it now the position of the Pickering Planning Department recommendation to council asset out on page D-1 of the report that the City of Pickering Waterfront Co-ordinating Committee ' will "take a leadership role in co-ordinating partnerships and identifying and securing sources o f funding for the on-going maintenance of the harbour channel entrance, improvements to the harbour cham~el and dredging of Frenchman's Bay." LOCATION OF PARKING The Mayor Waterfront Task Force report suggests that a public parking lot be.located on'the Hiltz property' opposite the end of Wharf Street in an east west orientation. Winter boat storage was contemplated, as was berming to protect the neighbour's sight lines. This location was suggested to keep as many cars as far north as possible on Liverpool Road. Before further consideration is given to the Hiltz application consideration should be given to the amount of parking required and optimal location, operating procedures and design of this private parking lot. Does council support winter boat storage at this location'? STORM WATER MANAGEMENT A recurring theme in all documents, including the Mayor Waterfront task force report of 1998 in which Prof. Eyles completed a comprehensive environmental report on storm water management for Frenchman's Bay.The 1976 document discussed the need for storm water management. I recommend that council schedule a meeting within the next month of its own staff, TRCA, Pickering Harbour Company, Prof. Eyles, and interested members of its waterfront co-ordinating committee to discuss this topic including the Study Framework required and establish a list of priorities and timetable for implementation. As mentioned earlier in this report, it is imperative that all of the cmnulative impacts of the actions proposed by this guideline be assessed, before implementing Official Plan Amendments are reviewed~ through comprehensive modellimz of their impacts on our fragile Frenchman's 'bay watershed. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION Given the number of questions for council consideration raised above, I recommend that council consideration of these two applications be deferred until an August meeting of council. 153 Page 1 of 1 Rose, Catherine ..... Original Message ..... From: david j. steele. [mailto:dj.steele@utomnto,ca] Sent: Fridayf May llf 2001 11:56 PM To: Rose~ Catherine Cc.' C. Bamford; Mark Holland; dryan@city.pickering.on.ca; *Mayor Subject: Liverpool Road South Area. David Steele wrote: Catherine, I have completed reading the Liverpool Road South Area detailed revieTM phase two report that I received in the mail today. The changes inthe study are supported by the majority of the residents in the area mainly protection of marine property and small residential development on the west side of Liverpool road. Mr. Bamford has submitted a letter to Councilor Holland ' which I did review at draft form and made changes which was included in his letter. I do believe that Pickering planning department have done admirable work With consultants and all stake holders and the gap is being closed between all parties. I was very much in support at the waterfront implementation committee in which the plmming department was requested to meet all landowners and review a more specific detailed proposals landowners in the areas are contemplating in the study area. I have attached my letter of past that was addressed to Mr. Hough which tfighlighted my concerns many months ago that are still outstanding in the Liverpool Road South study area. I have Highlighted in yellow specific items that should be seriously discussed with landowners when you meet them. It is obvious that no developer will be breaking ground this year so no real urgency is required at this tim_e. September or October 2001 being the new proposed deadline requested by all landowners to complete the study would be fair if the intent of the landowners is to bring a more detailed plan of the area which is compatible to the residents vision that live in the area which is not available at the present time. The market cannot dictate 100% all the time as we would only see house building with no other usage being built. Which brings me to note no commercial mixed use was recommended on the west side of Liverpool Road. I am available at your convenience to discuss this matter in more detail. David Steele. 5/17/01 Rose, Catherine ..... Original Message ..... From: david j. steele. [mailto:dj.steele®utoronto.ca] Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 7:21 Md To: Rose, Catherine Cc: mholland@city.pickering.on.ca; dryan®city.pickering.on.c~; Craigbamford@sympatico.ca; *Mayor Subject: Liverpool Road Design Study. David Steele wrote: Hi Catherine, Further to my e-mail of yesterday in my response to ~he City of Pickering stage two Liverpool Road Design Study. I would like you to add the attached comments to my correspondence of Friday llth, 2001. With the landowners wishing to negotiate with the City of Picketing planning ~epartment on specific land usage and designs and are willing to bring a ~eveloper to the table With credibility it is very encouraging. Let the arm wrestling begin. Ail my e-mails to you are public documents that may be distributed to all interested parties. You may reach me at (home)905-S37-0117. or (work) 416-287-7371. David Steele. 966,Timmins Garden. Pickering. Ontario. 155' · 966,Timmins Garden Pickcring, ' Ontario. LI W-2Y2. To: Ilarold Hough. Fax: 905-839-4380. From: David Steele. Date: { 5/14/01 Chaff 2001,Waterfront Task Force. Re; CC: Official Plan Amendment. 99-004P Zoning By-law Aznendmcnt Applications A22/99 and A23/99 Pages: Tkree '/'he Clerk, Town o£Pickering Nick Eyles, Craig Bamford Vice- Chair's Waterfront 2001 Task Force Tcn-y White President, Brock East Community Association Paul Middleton. Vice Chair of P.A.C.T. Paul Kelland President, P.E.S.C.A. [] Urgent [] For Review [] Please Comment [] Please Reply x Please Recycle Thank you for your memo dated Aug 5 and fl~e accompanying copies of thc plm~ning applicatio~xs for the east and west sides of Liverpool mad south of Wharf Street. -Unfortunately, the information provided in the applications and in the inlbrmation reports, which I have subsequently obtained from the planning department, is inadequate to allow me to properly review your applications against the recommendations for this area set out in the Waterkont 2 001 Task Force report. 156 The applications which you have provided deal only with land use m~d provide very little in£ommtion on integration of these properties with others 0[ o;! !h,e scale oi~i~utt~e mmj~-!a °pe,r'at/oxYS Waterfront Development Principle 4 set out in the Waterfi'ont 2001 Task Force report is to With this in mind, objective 4.1 was "to implement a pkmning process for the Liverpool Road Comn-iercial Node". Recommendation 4.1.1 f'urther states that the Town o£ Pict,:ering Planning Department should be encotu*aged to proceed x~dth a Liye!t~oo! ,Kod,d_ tom'is~B d,,esig~,~ Sk!Q~Y and implementation thnetable through a public plmming process as contemplatext by Pickering's Official Plan. Botmdaries shonld be extended to include the re'ca fi'om Sm]d3 Beach Road to West Shore Boulevard. fi-i areport to Council dated October 30, 1998, subsequently adopted by Council, the Interdepartmental Development Team agreed amd stated that "the study will be a plmming design study (not a tourism design study). As well, the study will focus on Liverpool Road, fi-om Highway 401 to the lake. Funding for this study will be included in the Plmming Department 1999 budget submission". Unfommately, to date, Comqcil has not proceeded lhrther with the above design study, but I believe that it is imperative that lhis study commence immediately with full participation both by land owners m-id the public, i believe that this lhll public process should be structured so that clem' conclusions are reached with respect to lmad use for all areas and the integration ofvm-ions residential, commercial and marine uses. As part 6~ !hPd use planning, design ~henies ~d ~fahd~d~ sii°Uld be estabiisiieq, so that devdoPnqel'~tsBy Yarious imadowners will promote comfli6n thqnes m-id create tl-ie critical n'mss neceSsal5 i~or flle yem' rotmd success of thc commercial Bode: i ~so believe that as part o£lhis process a cle~ structure m~d timetable should be established ~9; m°diiieaii6fi~:[~th¢ hm'b0tff-e,n=?*3ce (j!~,c!udi,_~g ppbli~ / pr?a~te roles), c!-j.'te!~a for l~ce h~l!i!qg jrdnvjrPm~e.n,~t~g apprpp~jate, m~d responsibility tbr maintenance of'seawatls, public walkways ,'md relateA infrastructure. The design study should include dettdls on se~,icing m~d s!onp: wale!7 AS a Sep~te exereig~ii~i~]}. ~e encoura~ng Council to develop a mnetable ,and financiug meChmfism for irhpfo~gwater Clua!ity jn Frenchnmt3's Bay m!d its waters!led m~d rejuVenqtjag ttiis i~nPortan{ a~d ~a,~{i~ ~BgyStem' ' I must reiterate, that insufficient information exists in the public domain to allow a proper discnssion of'yom' application at the StatutoL'y In£ol-mation Meeting scheduled lbr August 24. With this in mind, I mn requesting that you request that fmlher consideration o£your applicatio~m be delayed until a Design Study has been completed, at which time a framework will exist within which public comment is possible. 157 By copy offl~is memo to the Cleric of the ~ibwn of Picketing, [ am formally requestinL~ fl~at Cotmcil proceed with a Detailed DesignStudy as recommended by the Interdep,-u~tmental Team. I am ftuthcr requesting fl~at Town Council prepare a Detailed Plan and Timetable, including financing for improvements necessary to improve FrenchmmCs Bay water quality and maintain the h~t%rity of tiffs important ccosystctn and watcrshcA. I would be pleased to discuss critm-ia for tl]e above with you, prior to fl~e meeting on Tuesday night. 158 Memorandum CC: From: Date: Re: Catherine Rose. Councilors. M.ttolland, D Ryan. David Steele. / Yacht Club Facilities. Catherine, When you have your meeting with landowners on Liverpool Road in respect to Liverpool Road design study would you please consider the £ollowing list of items as a check off list that are required in a good harbour facility with development: !). Number of docking slips lbr year round boating season. 2). Entranc~ to harbour. 3): Fuel, 4)! Maie/Ferm, de showers. 5). Water facilities. 6). Electricity. 7). Chandlery. 8). Telephones. 9). Crewing club. 10). Information booth. 11). Refuse area. l 2). Crane. 13). Laying up areas. 14). Washing/Drying machines. 159 May '17, 2001 15). No bay infill. Residential Development areas. 16). Mixed usage along Liverpool road. 17). Height restrictions with highest points being at Liverpool area with angle step down to Frenclmmn's Bay. 18). Parking requirements. 19). Enviromnent protection. 20). Possibility of promenade walk along Frenchman's bay? Not nmndatory if trade off is too allowed higher density on development land. 21). East spit.. 22). Wakeful materials according to all government regulations. 160 Page 1 of 2 McGregor, Grant From: Rose, Catherine Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:57 AM To: Carroll, Nell; McGregor, Grant; Taylor, Non Subject: FW: Platoon Boat. FYI ..... Original Message From: david j. steele. [mailto:dj,steele@utoronto.ca] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 200:[ 10:37 PM To: Mark Holland Cc: *Mayor; drYan@city.pickering.on,ca; Rose, Catherine; Buntsma, Everett Subject: Platoon Boat. David Stele wrote: Councillor Holland, I have gone through the Liverpool Road Design Study part two consultants report for the third time. My previous three e-mails sent to Catherine Rose covers items that arc required for a good yacht club facility and operation. A separate e-mail covers my concerns around the possible rezoning of Mr. Hough land. And finally my support to the City of Picketing staff and consultants who have worked diligently on the Liverpool desigq~ study as specified in the terms of reference. The only specific items that I have missed is a platoon boat and landing docks for the platoon boat which should be included in tile Liverpool design study (COlnmercial node). Without the Platoon boat the City of Picketing is without any connection fl'Oln east/west along the Lakel~ont. The cost to purchase and operate a platoon boat and to build the two docks or landing that are required is in the "Mayors Waterfront Task Force Report". If my memory is con'ect the estimated cost was around $40,000.0. for the boat and $5,000.00 for the landings. Honrs of operation,insurance etc is also included in the M.T.F.R. Would you please forward your plan for operation of a platoon boat and landings for docking. The bell we can inclnde in the purchase of the boat. The cost of a bridge (different types) making connection to the two spits is cost probative at the present time. The entrance to "Frenchman's Bay" and the east spit still remains to be resolved. The entrance to Frenchman's Bay is complex as the "Nlayors Waterfi'ont Task Force" had engineers fi-Om the Feds at one ofonr meetings thanks to Dan Mcteague. The feds are not interested period if the entrance to the bay is in private hands. I have in the past recommemted the Following in discussions with various stockholders: 1). Mr. Hough. Mr. Luttmer. Mr. Dyke. raise a letter of'credit payable to the City of Picketing for 50% of total cost of building a proper channel entrance. Mr. ftough who presently is responsible for making the bay entrance navagatable should contribute around $360,000.00. as dredging cost would no longer be required if the breaking walls are designed and constructed properly. This would leave around $140,000.00 for Mr Dyke and Mr. Luttmer to raise. 5/30/2001 Page 2 of 2 The ownership of the entrance to the Bay is then transfen'ed to the City of Picketing With conditions attached and then a application for Federal grant $1,000,000,00 to $1,500,00,00 should be applied for fi'om the feds. The City of Pickering should have preliminary discussions with Dm)prior to moving on this option. David Steele. David Steele. 5/30/2001 ATTACHMENT#. ~'-7' TO ~EPORT # PD_.__~,,--2 ~ ,~ ~ LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): REPORT # PD. ~..~-~ -o ! LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION 'SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfortable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. · To assist in the organization of'our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): Name and address (optional): lIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfodable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mic" forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, please indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): .May 15 2001 Picker/ag Ptarming Dept. Attn. Ms. C. Rose 'Glenbrook Homes 7 Briancliff Dr. Toronto RECEIVED HAY 1 U 2001 CITY OF PIOKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Subject: Part 2 Report Cmnments The. Liverpool.Road Somh Area Review report Part 1 was released May 12 2000 and coveredmany areas as stated in a letter recicved May 05 2000. Of prime intrest to me was" Areas of Land use" and "Scale of Development" that were being addressed in Part 1 Phase 1 of tlfis report On page t9 under Residential Uses 3.2.3 part (b) "Consutation" paragraphs 3 8:4 relates to residential development as well as part(d) "Guiding Principles" also relates to residential development, t could go on, but the point I wish to make is that this report dealt with the land uses. The Part 2 phase 2 report was set up to deal with Architectural, streeBcape and landscaping issues. Zoning By-Law application 23/99 was put forward incorporating the contents of Part 1 phase 1 "as presented" into it's body and approved ~n principle june 22 2000. At the time we recieved approval in principle and.made a site plan application'we did so based upon certain treatment of the surrounding parcels, namely, the Coolwater property and thc Pickering harbour lands. For our project to bc successful we. require a Marina operation nearby as well as new residential development in the area. The Part 2 phase 2 report has changed, from our point of view, the whole viability of our project and we believe that there is some question as to whether there now exists the critical mass to make the area successful on a year round basis. Although we are presently proceeding with our site plan application and our plan of subdivis/on is in the wore up stage we must inform you that our position is presently under serious review and if the land usage contemplated by Part 2 phase 2 is adopted we may decide to abandon, our project in it's present form.. This may result in Glenbrook homes making application to the OMB to allow a standard residential development on the site. Yours Truly ' ATTACHMEN'T #~/ .lO LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA DETAILED REVIEW COMMENT/QUESTION SHEET The most important aspect of tonight's meeting is to hear questions and comments from the community. For those who are more comfodable providing their thoughts in written form, rather than verbally, please feel free to use this sheet. At the beginning of the Public Discussion Session, we will collect these sheets and the Study Team will provide a response. Once all of the comment/question sheets have been addressed, people who prefer to address the Study Team verbally will be invited to participate in an "open mid' forum. To assist in the organization of our response to your comments and questions, ptease indicate the general category that reflects your topic(s). PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO YOUR TOPIC(S) OTHER (please specify): 16'7 PICK IedNG RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2001-03 submitted by Mr. J. Winters of Glenbrook Homes, on lands being Part of Lot 22, Range 3, B.F.C., City of Pickering, to permit the establishment of three development blocks to support 17 townhouse dwelling units providing minimum construction criteria to readily accommodate retrofit to accept commercial uses within the ground floor of those units, and to create a fourth development block within the rear of the subject lands to support vehicular access, vehicle parking and seasonal boat storage, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Planning Report Number PD 36-01. '168 REPORT TO COUNCIL FR. OM: Nell Carroll Director, Plalming & Development DATE' Nox'ember 19, 200l I~[EPORT NUMBER: PI) 36-01 SUBJECT: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2001-03 974582 Ontario Limited (GlenN:ook Homes) (][brmerly G. & A. Itilts) Part of Lot 22, Range 3, B.F.C. (Lands on the east side of l_iverpool Road and south of Wharf Street) City of Picketing RECOMME N D ATION: That Dralt P/an of Subdivision SP-2001-03 submitted by Mr. J. Winters of Glenbrook Ilomcs, on lands being Part of Lot 22, Range 3, B.F.C., City of Picketing, to permit the establishment of three devclopme~t blocks to support 17 townhouse dwelling units providing minimum construction criteria to readily accommodate retrofit to accept commercial uses within the ground floor of those units, and to create a fourth development block within tile rear of thc subject lands to support vehicular access, vehicle parking and seasonal boat storage, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to l~lanning R. cport Number PD 36-01. ORIG IN: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2001-03 submitted to the Region of Durham and circulated to the City of Picketing tbr comment. AUTttORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter i'. 13 FI. NAN CIAL IMPLICATION S: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of thc proposed development. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to establish three development blocks to support 17 three-storey "freehold" townhouse units, each providing at minimuln of 6.0 metres of lot frontage onto Liverpool Road. A map showing thc location of thc subject propcrty, a copy of the applicant's submitted dratt plau, and a copy of thc applicant's submitted building elevations are provided as Attachments # 1 to #3 respectively, to this Report. The proposed townhouses will be constructed in a manucr so that thc gl'Oulld l]oor o[' tile dwelling units can be readily converted to accommodate retail, office and personal service uses. Report to Council PD 36-01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2000-03 Date: November 19, 2001 Page 2 A fourth development block is proposed within the rear of the subject lands, to be owned "cooperatively" by each future owner of the 17 townhouse units, and intended to support vehicular access to the rear of the proposed dwelling Units, private vehicle parking for residents, patrons and public visiting the area, and seasonal boat storage. City Council, on October 1, 2001 deferred consideration of an implementing zoning by-law (A23/99) to allow the proposed development on the subject lands. That item was deferred to allow Council to first consider the City-initiated recommended amendments to the Picketing Official Plan (ePA 01-001/P) for the Liverpool Road South Area and to adopt Liverpool Road Waterfi'ont Node Development Guidelines. The proposed Plan of Subdivision will comply with fl~at draft zoning by-law, anticipated to be considered by Council on December 3, 2001, and conforms to the current policies of the Picketing Official Plan. The proposed development conforms to the recommended City-initiated amendments to the Pickering Official Plan (CPA 01-001/P) provided by Staff fbr Planning Committee's consideration at the special November 26, 2001 Planning Committee meeting, and conforms to the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (both as recommended by tim Executive Committee of Council in June, 2000, and as provided by Staff for Planning Committee's consideration on November 26, 2001). The proposed development will result in "freehold" development that contributes positively to the Liverpool Road streetscape and "Great Lakes Nautical Village" theme envisioned for the surrounding area. All interests of the City will be appropriately addressed through an associated subdivision agreement and the related site plan approval process (S 1/01). BACKGROUND: 1.0 Information Meeting A Public Information Meeting for this development proposal was held on July 12, 2001. Information Report No. 19-01, which summarizes the applicant's proposal and outlines the issues and comments identified to that date through circulation of the application, was prepared for that meeting. The text of the Information Report is provided for reference (see Attachment #4). Prior to the Public Information Meeting, comments were received from Canada Post, the Durham District School Board, Enbridge Consumers Gas and Le Conseil Scolaire Public de District du Centre-Sud-Ouest, all expressing no objection to this proposal. Canada Post confirmed that mail delivery to the proposed townhouse dwelling units would be an extension to the door-to-door service currently provided within that area. Enbridge Consumers Gas requested conditions of draft approval be imposed on their behalf including the requirement of an overall utility distribution plan, and suggested grading and locational criteria for the proposed gas lines. At the Public Information Meeting, the applicant was present to respond to questions regarding the proposal. The applicant noted that the proposed development plan had been revised numerous times to address issues and concerns raised by the community and City staff. The applicant responded to some of the issues raised by residents at the conclusion of the meeting. Minutes of the June 12, 2001 Statutory Public Meeting are provided for reference (see Attachment #5). Seven area residents commented at the Public Information Meeting, expressing concerns with the proposed development. Comments included: concern of increased traffic on Liverpool Road, particularly at the Liverpool Road/Krosno Boulevard intersection, and lack of sufficient parking to serve commercial uses and visitors; Report to Council PD 36-01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2000-03 Date: November 19, 2001 Page 3 · concern with the amount of notice provided to residents, the St_lllllller tinting of the Statutory Public Meeting respecting this application (to allow ample ~ime for review of issues by the community) and the inappropriateness o~' considering any development application in the Liverpool Road South Area prior to the conclusion of the City's Detailed Review of thc Area: · concern with the use and design of buildings, which do not encourage "tourist-type" development along Liverpool Road in keeping x~ ith the Liverpool Road South Design Study; · concern with traffic flow on thc subject lands as only one main access point is proposed; · objection to the method of calculating density Ibr thc prqicct (it was felt that only those lands supporting the dwelling units be included in a density calculation and not tile additional rear lands supporting associated parking and boat storage); and, ,, concern with the design of dwelling units to encourage viable commercial uses within the ground floor o£ dwelling units that comply with commercial building and fire code standards. 2.0 Additional lntbrmation Following tile Public Iuformation M¢cti~lg, written comments were received from Hydro One Networks inc. artd thc Durham Catholic District School Board, expressing no objections to this proposal. Additional written commen~s were provided by Veridian Connections, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, tile City's Development Control Supervisor, Nit'. [)avid Steele, and the P, egion of Durham Works Department. Veridian Connections expressed no objection to tile proposed development, and provided typical recommeuded conditions off draft approx al (see Attachment The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority expressed Ilo objection to tile granting of draft approval or site plan approval of the proposed development, subject to conditions of approval being fulfilled. These recommended conditions include: · the review and approval of a detailed report outlining the storm drainage system, and appropriate revisions to the submitted Stormwater Management Report and Environmental Impact Report to reflect this analysis; and, · the inclusion of appropriate wording itt the future subdivision agreement that acknowledges typical Authority practices, including necessary permits, maintenance of features and fencing. The Conservation Authority also provided suggested detailed revisions to the applicant's submitted reports (see Attachment #7). The City's Development Control Supervisor, commenting through the circulation of the related site plml application, provided detailed comments and suggested changes to the applicant's submitted plat'ts and reports (see Attachment #8). The Development Control Supervisor provided revisions to be incorporated into conditions of drall approval and site plan approval. The Region of Durham Works Department provided detailed servicing comments applicable to the proposed development (and development on surrounding lands proposed by the Pickering Harbour Company - see Attachment #9). The Region outlined sanitary sewer servicing constraints in the Liverpool Road South Area, and provided conditions of approval to be addressed by the applicant through the review of appropriate related development applications. Thc Region's suggested conditions of approval have been incorporated into tile City's recolnmended conditions of draft approval (see Appendix I). Report to Council PD 36-01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2000-03 Date: November 19, 2001 Page 4 1 '71 Mr. David Steele, of 966 Timmins Garden, expressed concerns with this proposal, and recommended alternatives respecting aspects of the development proposal (see Attachment # 10). In 1999, through the circulation of related Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 23/99, additional comments beyond those individuals and agencies noted above were received from: Bell Canada (providing typical conditions of draft approval - see Attachment #11); Mr. Craig Bamford, of 528 Marksbury Road, encouraging, at that time, a detailed review of the Liverpool South Area be conducted in keeping with the recommendations of the Mayor's Waterfront 2001 Task Force Report (see Attachment #12); and, The Pickering Township Historical Society, requesting, at that time, that a detailed review of the Liverpool Road South Area be conducted prior to the approval of any development applications in that area (see Attachment #13). Discussion 3.1 Appropriateness of the Proposed Development The proposed development is in keeping with the direction established by the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines, as recommended by the Executive Committee of Council on June 13, 2000. The proposed development is also in keeping with the Development Guidelines being recommended to Planning Committee on November 26, 2001. These Guidelines establish objectives for various land use areas identified on the Tertiary Plan for the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node. The Liverpool Road Corridor land use area applies to development fronting Liverpool Road. Development along this Corridor is encouraged to: · maintain a high level of design and architectural quality; · feature a vibrant pedestrian environment; and over time, offer a mix of uses including residential, commercial, retail, and office that contribute to an inviting public realm at street level. All of the subject lands are identified within the Liverpool Road Corridor land use area. The three proposed development blocks fronting Liverpool Road on the applicant's proposed subdivision plan are appropriate as they encourage buildings to be located in close proximity to Liverpool Road, providing containment to the street. Resultant visible front entries and front yards integrated into the design of the public realm along Liverpool Road will encourage greater pedestrian interaction. Each dwelling unit will be constrncted so that the ground floor of the unit can be readily converted to retail, office or personal service use, allowing over time, the evolution of mixed uses along the street. Block 4 on the applicant's proposed subdivision plan maintains a functional area where marina supportive uses (boat storage) and public parking can occur. Recommended conditions of draft approval include requirements that the applicant satisfy the City by entering into an appropriate site plan agreement that outlines details of the design of the proposed development, prior to any building permits being issued on the subject lands (see Appendix I). The site plan approval process is the most appropriate process to ensure detailed building design and appropriate property layout is achieved, and the objectives in the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines are addressed. Report to Council PD 36-01 Subject: I)raft Plan of Subdivision Applicatio1~ S1'-2000-03 Date: November 19, 2001 Page 5 The applicant will be required to satisfy thc City through the site plan approval process and through specific requirements of the subdivisiol~ agl'ccment, that resultant development: is in keeping with the "Great Lakes Nautical Village" theme envisioned lbr the area; provides a high standard of architectural design through upgraded materials and building features (such as gables, porches, awnings, interesting roof pitches, decorative features, and decorative doors and xx mdows): and, incorporates design features that encourage commercial uses to be established, by maimaining a high degree of pedestrian accessibility to the ground floor of units fi-om Liverpool Road and ensuring that minimum cOI~Stl'uction criteria of dwelling units will readily accommodate retrofit for COlnmercial uses within thc ground floor of those units. 3.2 Related Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 23;99 City Council, on October 1, 2001, deferred consideration of the implemcl~ting zoning by-law for the related zoning by-law alnendment application A 23/99. Thc applicant's proposed draft plan COllforms to the draft zoning by-law anticipated to be considered by Council on December 3, 2001. It is recommended that a condition of draft approval require that the related zoning by-law become tinal and binding to ensure zoning requirements are in place to control future development (sec Appendix I). It was initially proposed that an ilnplcmcnting zoning by-law not be lbrwarded to Council for the project until a development agreement had been entered into to the City's satisfaction. However, as this project is now preceding through plan of subdivision, the City can now establish necessary controls through conditions of draft plan approval (see Appendix I). 3.3 The Applicant's Proposed Subdivision Plan Development Blocks 1, 2 and 3 arc intended to support 17 three-storey toxvnhouse dwelling units, each providing a nfinilnum lot fl'ontagc et' 6.0 metres outo Liverpool R. oad. The applicant intends to create thc individual freehold lots through part-lot control. Development Block 4 is proposed within the rear of the subject lands, to be owned "cooperatively" by each future owner of the 17 tow~fl~ouse units, and intended to support vehicular access to the rear of the proposed dwelling units, private vehicle parking for residems, patrons and public visiting the area, and seasonal boat storage. The three Blocks abutting Liverpool Road establish an appropriate gI-oUpil~g Of dwelling units and provide vistas through the sub.jeer lands fi'om Liverpool Road to thc }fydro Marsh. Accessibility to the rear of the subject lands xxill be maintained through appropriate pedestrian connections forming part o£ Block 4. between Blocks 1 and 2 (where the proposed drive aisle is located) and bctxvccn Blocks 2 and 3. Blocks 1 to 3 have been deliberately limited in depth to maintain an adequate nfinimum building envelope for functional dwelling units to be coi~structed, while ensuring that dwelling Ulfits are located as close as possible to Liverpool Road, with no space allotted for private front yard amenity areas at gl'adc. Through the site plan approval process and required agreements, the front yards of proposed lots will be required to be interwoven into thc public realm, and not "privatized", which would discourage pedestrian accessibility. Similarly, rear yards will be required to provide fkmctional areas for residential and commercial vehicle parking, and not utilized as outdoor amenity areas that could conflict with vehicle parking and anticipated uses within Block 4. All amenity areas serving the residential units will be limited to above-grade features, such as raised decks and second-storey porches, that do not conflict with grade-related activities, xvhilc taking advautage of surrounding xicws. Report to Council PD 36-01 Subject: Draft Plan 01! Subdivision Application SP-2000-03 Date: November 19, 2001 Page 6 One main access point to the rear of the dwelling units and to Block 4 is proposed, and supported by Staff. The location of this access maximizes the distance from existing driveway access points along the east side of Liverpool Road, minimizing vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. The grouping of dwellings and single access point will maximize the amount of on-street parking that can be achieved in front of the subject lands, while minimizing the view of drive aisles. Pedestrian activity in front of the subject lands will only have to cross one vehicle access point, and building massing will be maximized along the frontage of the property. Staff support parallel on-street parking, not angled parking. One of the objectives 'for the area is to keep a narrow street tightly framed by buildings at the street edge. Angled parking requires wider pavement width and thus a Wider right-of-way width, working contrary to the design objectives for the area. Staff supports mixed use buildings, rather than retail-only buildings at the street edge and residential uses in behind as was suggested in submitted comments. The mix will keep activity focused along the street edge at all times of the day and year round. Block 4 is an appropriate size to accommodate the intended boat storage and parking activities permitted on those lands. This Block will also support the main rear drive aisle providing access to each proposed dwelling unit. Utilities serving the dwelling units wilt also be placed within this Block. Staff supports the intended uses on Block 4. The cooperative ownership of Block 4 will consist of each furore owner holding a one-seventeenth share of the ownership of the Block. A corporation with Board of Directors will be established to administer the maintenance and use of this Block. Each share will run with the title of the individual townhouse unit, so that only townhouse owners will own the rear Block. This proposed ownership is appropriate as dwelling unit owners will have control over "common" access areas, shared utilities and maintenance of the rear lands. It is recommended that the owner satisfy the City respecting the details of this arrangement, and provide additional easements and/or right-of-ways over Block 4 to protect individual owner interests (see Appendix I). 3.4 Technical Matters A future subdivision agreement between the City and the owner of the lands will be required to ensure that all matters of interest to the City are protected. This required agreement, and several other development implementation matters, are incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for this proposal found in Appendix I to this Report. Through the review of this application, it has been determined through the City's Municipal Property & Engineering Division that no road widenings from the subject lands are required to accommodate future upgrades to the Liverpool Road South cross-section. Should development of the lands occur prior to the initiation of Liverpool Road upgrades, the owner will be required to restore the Liverpool Road boulevard and road surface adjacent to the development to an acceptable temporary standard. The owner will be required to adhere to recommendations contained in required technical reports, to the satisfaction of the City and appropriate external agencies. Those required reports submitted and reviewed, to-date, indicate that the proposed development can be achieved, and subject to minor revisions and additional information, are acceptable to City Staff and external agencies. Those technical reports to be adhered to, and requiring final approval from the City, are outlined in Appendix ! to this Report. 74 Report to Council PD 36-01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2000-03 Date: November 19, 2001 Page 7 The owner will be required to satist,' the t4.egion of Durham respecting the servicing of the proposed development. To do so, the owner will be required to: submit and obtain approval of a fnnctional servicing report prepared by a qualified consultant, addressing the proposed floor elevation of buildings, and providing prelimina~ sanitary sewer plans and profile drawings t'or works servicing the proposed development; construct, in collaboration with the Region of Durhanl and other possible private landowners in the Liverpool l~.oad South Area, a 525nun sanitary sex,'er; · enter into a Regional servicing agreement, outlining details and commitments respecting Regional servicing: and, · restrict proposed commercial uses within thc subject lands to that o£ low water consumption/discharge (dry-use) establishments until such time as the twimm~g of the existing 900mm forcemain occurs. The conditions recommended by thc Region of Durham have been incorporated into the City's recommended conditions off draft approval outlined in Appendix 1 to this Report. Both City Staff and thc Applicant arc working with thc Region ut' Durham to further understand required servicing inqorovements needed in the Liverpool Road South Area. Thc related future implementing zoning by-law (A 23/99) and review of this proposal through the City's Site Plau Approval process (SI/01) will also address Regional servicing requirements, where warranted. 3.5 Parkland Dedication No portion of the subject lands is proposed to be dedicated lbr parkland purposes. Instead, the applicant will be rcctuired to prox idc thc City with cash-in-lieu o£ parkland. A condition of approval requiring the applicant to satis l;¥ the City respecting thc payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland is provided in Appendix I to this 4.0 ~tX121icant's Comments The applicant has reviewed and concurs with the recommendatioits outlined in this Report. Report to Council PD 36-01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2000-03 Date: November 19, 2001 Page 8 175 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Property Location Map 2. Applicant's Submitted Plan - Staff Recommended Plan 3. Proposed Building Elevations 4. Information Report No. 1.9-01 5. Minutes of June 12, 2001 Statutory Public Meeting 6. Agency Comment - Veridian Connections 7. Agency Comment- Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 8. Staff Comment - Development Control Supervisor 9. Region of Durham Works Department 10. Comment - Mr. David Steele 11. Agency Comment - Bell Canada 12. Comment - Mr. Craig Bamford 13. Comment - Picketing Township Historical Society Prepared By: Planner II Catherine Rose Manager, Policy Approved / Endorsed by: Director, Plannink-& Development RST/CLR/sm Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council . Th,ofn~'~i~Qui~]~, Chie~dmin~e Omce/ RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF AI)PROVAL FOR DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION S-P-200 l¥)3 APPENDIX I TO 1 7 7 PLANNING REPORT NUMBER PD36-01 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION S-P-2001:03 o GENERAL CONDITIONS That this recommendation apply to the draft plan of subdivision prepared by Donevan Fleischmann Petrich Ltd., Ontario Land Surveyors, dated June 11, 2001 (Job No. 2001 - 121), for Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2001-03 submitted by Mr. J. Winters of 974582 Ontario Limited (Glenbrook Homes), on lands being Part of Lot 22, Range 3, B.F.C., City of Pickering, to permit the establishment of 4 development blocks, three of which are intended to support 17 townhouse dwelling units (with initial construction to readily accommodate ground floor conversion for commercial uses), and one of which is intended to support access aisles, boat storage and/or vehicle parking, bearing the City's recommendation stamp. 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 PRIOR TO THE REGISTRATION OF TIlE PLAN: That the owner submit a Draft 40M-Plan to be approved by the City Planning & Development Department. That the implementing by-law for related Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 23/99 become final and binding. That the owner satisfy the City respecting the details of the cooperative ownership proposed for Block 4, and provide additional easements and/or right-of-ways over that Block to protect individual owner interests, where necessary. That the owner enter into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisPaction of the City which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: Storm Drainage (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting a stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision including the provision of any required easements; (b) That the owner agrees that development on the lands be subject to the recommendations contained in a Stormwater Management Report, approved by both the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; Grading Control and Soils (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting submission and approval of a grading and control plan, with special emphasis on co-ordinating grades with adjacent properties; (b) That the Grading Control Plans be prepared and reviewed in consultation with the required Environmental Impact Report; (c) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis; 178 -2- 2.4.3 Road Allowauces (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planniug & Development Department respecting the restoration of Liverpool Road, including curbs, stom~ sewers, sidewalks and boulevards; 2.4.4 Construction/Installation o£Citv Works & Services (,a) satisfaction of the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City; (b) satisfaction of the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements fo~: tile provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other sinfilar services; 2.4.5 Dedications/Transfers/Conveyances (a) any easements as required; 2.4.6 Construction Management Plan (a) That the owner make satisfactotT an'angcn~ents with tile City respecting the approval ot; and adherence to, a construction management plan; 2.4.7 Parkland Dedication (a) That the owner make satis£actory arrangements with the City respecting cash-in-lieu of the required parkland dectication; 2.4.8 Development Chargcs (a) satisthction of the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act; 2.4.9 Co-ordinated Development (a) satisfactiou of the City with respect to an'angcments necessary to provide for co-ordination of services with adjacent lands and any phasing of development that may be required; (b) satist:aetion of the City with respect to the provisiou of telnporary fencing and siltation controls prior to thc commencement of any works; 2.4.10 Edge Management (a) That tile owner agrees that developlnent on the lands be subject to the recommendations contained in an Enx'iromnentaI hnpact P, eport, approved by both the City and the Toronto and Region Conse~x'ation Authority, with special emphasis on the edge management techniques between the proposed parking and boat storage area (Block 4) and the l tydro Marsh: (b) satisfaction of the City and Toronto Region Conservation Authority with respect to the submission, approval, and implementation of an Edge Management Plan; (c) satisfaction o£ the City respecting any revision to the plan of subdivision deemed appropriate as a result of the conclusions and recommendations of the Edge Management Plan; 179 2.4~11 Design Planning (a) satisfaction of the Cily's Director, Planning & Development Department respecting building designs that maintain the "Great Lakes Nautical Village" theme envisioned for the Liverpool Road South Area through the Liverpool Road South Detailed Review process; (b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development respecting the establishment of high standards of architectural control for the project (secured through both a fim~re site plan agreement and the required subdivision agreement), and addressing appropriate design matters including, but not limited to, (vi) (vii) (viii) (i) the adherence to appropriate drawings and desi~,m details approved by the City through the site plan approval process; (ii) details respecting building envelopes, dwelling sitings and designs, resultant streetscapes, and rear garage locations; (iii) special emphasis on the design and upgraded treatment of all front and exposed side elevations visible fi'om Liverpool Road, including exposed walls abutting proposed internal private drive aisles and walkways; (iv) the provision of adequate off-street parking throughout the development, and the appropriate surface treatment of parking areas and drive aisles; (v) the satisfactory placement of one drive aisle and curb cut location on Liverpool Road that maximizes distances between existing adjacent driveways on the east side of Liverpool Road, provides adequate access to parking areas at the rear of dwelling units, and provides vehicular access to proposed Block 4; the provision and details of appropriate boundary fencing along the north, east and south lot lines of the subject lands, where deemed appropriate; details respecting architectural style, building materials and colours; ensuring that minimum construction criteria for dwelling units readily includes, but is not limited to the following: the provision of minimum dwelling unit ground floor areas of 60 square metres and upgraded floor load design; the establishment of integral features of a dwelling unit (i.e. kitchen and sanitary facilities) entirely above the ground floor of the dwelling unit; provision for roughed-in washroom facilities on the ground floor; the provision of a minimum finished ceiling height of 2.7 metres within the ground floor of dwelling units; the establishment of appropriate fire-rated materials in the ground floor construction of buildings to accommodate permitted non-residential uses; the ability to receive and control utilities independently within the ground floor of dwelling units (i.e. the ability to provide a separate furnace, electrical service, fire alarm, water and separate plumbing); separate exits to the exterior for each use; and, the establishment of the finished ground floor of dwelling units at a similar established grade as the improved future sidewalk along the east side of Liverpool Road in front of the proposed development, so that the ground floor of the dwelling units can be readily converted to accommodate retail, office and personal service uses, considering building design and Ontario Building and Fire Code requirements; (ix) (x) the design and construction of appropriately landscaped areas and fencing to buffer the public parking and boat storage area from existing and future development; details of front yard areas to ensure that commercial uses can be easily established, including pedestrian accessibility, landsCaping, surface treatment, utility corridors, front porch designs, window and door designs and signage considerations; and, 180 (xi) details of the location and design of lighting [including required directional lighting in the rear), garbage enclosures, signa~e, visible utility boxes, metres and transformers, decorative f`caturcs, and any other visible aspects of the project, as required; (c) satisfaction of' the City's Director, Planning & Dcvclopu~cnt respecting the establishment of warning clauses in ol'f`crs of purchase and sale intbnning future owners that any exterior changes to dwelling units arc subject to tile City's Site Plan Controls. 2.4.12 Archaeological Investigation (a) that thc owner complete an archaeological investigation itl l,:eeping with the requirements of the Nlinistw of Citizenship, Culture and Recreatior~ for such investigations, and adhere to any recommendations resulting from that investigation, to thc satisGction of the City and Region of` Durham; 2.4.13 Servicing Rcquirclnents (a) that the owner satisfy thc City o£ Picketing and the Region o~' Durham respecting improvements to existing sanitary sewer servicing in the IAverpool Road South Area to accommodate the proposed development; (b) that the OWller, (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) submit and obtain approval o£ a f`uuctional servicing report prepared by a qualified cousultant, addressing tiao proposed floor elevation of buildings, and providing preliminary sanitary sewer plans and profile drawings for works servicing tile proposed development; construct, itl collaboration with tile Region of Durhanl and other possible private landowners itl the Liverpool Road South Area, a 525nnn sanitary sexver; enter into an appropriate servicing agreement, outlining details and commitments respecting Regional servicing; and. restrict proposed commercial uses within the subject lands to that of low water consumption, discharge (dry-use) establishments until such time as the twirming of thc existing 9()0mm forcemain occurs. "ATTACHMENT 18]_ HALLER AVENUE OLD ORCHARD AVE. BOULEVARD At YSSUM ST. WAFE£POINr $TREE~ AVE. PLACE ILONA PARK ROAD BOUt EVARD CRT FOXGLOVE AVENUE BALATON AVENUE FRENCHMAN '$ COMMERCE STREET BROAOVIEW STREET ANNI~AND STREET COLMAR AVENUE PARKHAM CRESCENT BAY WHARF STREET SI LANDS TO A 23 SUBJECT TO SP-2001-03 LA City of Picketing ,470/0 Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PT. OF LOT 22, RANGE 3, B.F.C.; PT. 1, 40R-20148; PTS. 2 & 3 & PT. OF PT. 1, 40R-16148 OWNER GLENBROOK HOMES J DATE JUN 20, 2001 DRAWN BY RC APPLICATION No, SP-2001-03; A 23/99 I SCALE 1:7500CHECKED BY RT FOR DEPARTMENT USE 'ONLY PN-3 PA- ATTACHMENT # ~ .TO REPORT ~ PD~~ APPLICANT'S PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDED PLAN SP-2001-03 GLENBROOK HOMES EXISTING DWELLING ......... 0 ~ i / / / . ,.J,,t , / / ...,, ,' ..... LANDS SUBJECT TO A 23/99 ~ LANDS SUBJECT TO SP-2001-03 l'HtS MAP WAS PRODUCED ~3Y THE CITY OF PtCKERINO PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, OCTOBER 2, 2001. ATTACHMENT #_ :-~ .TO REPORT # PD~ 183 APPLICANT'S PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS SP'2001-03 GLENBROOK HOMES EEAI~ ELEVATION - EAST SIDE END UNIT ELEVATION - NORTH SIDE END UNIT ELEVATION - NORTH SIDE END UNIT ELEVATION - NORTH SIDE END LINtT ELEVATION - SOUTH SIDE ENO UNIT ELEVATION - SOUTH SIDE END IJNIT ELEVATION - SOUTH SIDE TI-IlS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARrMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, JUNE 20, 2001. 1.84 PiCKERING INFOILMATION REPOI,tT NO. 19-01 FOR PUBLIC INI~ORSIATION 51EETING OF July 12, 2001 IN ACCORDANCE WITII TIlE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF TIlE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter 1'.13 SUBJECT: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2001 974582 Ontario Limited (©lenbrook Homes) Part of Lot 22, Range 3, B.F.C. (Lands on the east side of Liverpool Road, a~d south of Wharf Street) City of Pickering 1.0 2.0 3.0 PROPERTY LOCATION ANI) DESCRIPTION - the subject lands are located on thc east side of Liverpool Road, south of Wharf Street, and arc currently vacant; a property location map is provided tbr re£crencc (see Attaclunent #1); existing detached dwelling units are located nortt~ of the subject lands; the Hydro Marsh is located to the east; a sewage pumping station and the 'Coolwater Farms' pt-opcrty are located to thc south (which functioned previously as a fish farm); and marina uses are located west of the subject lm~ds across lSverpool Road; - some clearing o£ thc property and the demolition of a detached dwelling have occurred recently; a lot suppoi'ting an original dwelling has been severed fi-om the applicant's origi/ml landholding at the llorth most portion o f the subject lm~ds. AI'PLICANT'S PROPOSAI. the applicant proposes to establish three development blocks to support 17 "freehold" townhouse units fronting onto Liverpool Road; - a tburth developmertt block is proposed within the roar of the subject lands, to be oxvned "cooperatively" by each future owner of the 17 townhouse units, m~d intended to support vehicular access to tho rear o£ the townhouse dwelling units, vehicle parking for residents, patrons and the general public visiting the area, and seasonal boat storage; the applicant's proposed subdix ision plan is provided for reference (sec Attaclnnent #2); the proposed townhouse dwelling units would be located on future lots providing a milfin~ul-n lot frontage of 6.0 metres aud a minimum lot area et' at)proximately 155 square metres; the future lots are to be created by part lot control; the proposed three-storey townhouse traits would be capable of supporting office, personal service and commercial uses within the grotmd floor; - the applicant's proposed building elevations are provided for reference (see Attachment #3). BACKG Re U ND the owner received approval of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 23/99 fi'om City Council in June 2000, subject to various conditions of approval being fulfilled by the owner t)rior to an implementing zoning by-law being considered by Council; Information Report No. 19-01 REPORT/~ PD~ Page 2 185 4.0 4.1 4.2 this zoning by-law amendment was approved in principle to permit townhouses, commercial uses, public parking and boat storage on the subject lands; one of the conditions of rezoning was that the owner satisfy the City with respect to the proposed method of lot creation; the owner, through this application for draft plan approval, is fulfilling that condition; the City's Planning & Development Department is currently reviewing details of the applicant's proposal through Site Plan Application S 1/01; a northerly portion of the owner's original landholding supporting a detached dwelling and associated accessory structure has been severed off tbrougb the approval of Land Severance Application LD 312/99; those severed lands, however, are still subject to related Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 23/99; the applicant's proposed development continues to be reviewed by the City within the context of the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review process, and the related City-initiated amendments to the Pickering Official Plan (OPA 01/001/P) that will implement the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being within a "Living Area", where development is intended to be predominantly for housing purposes; the proposal appears to conform to this designation; Frenchmans Bay is identified as a "Waterfront Place", encouraged to be developed as a focal point along the Lake Ontario waterfront, and encouraged to support a mix of uses and attract people for a variety of reasons; predominant uses within Waterfront Places may include marina, recreational, tourist and cultural and community uses; residential and employment opportunities that support and complement the predominant uses may also be permitted; the scale of development shall be based on, and reflect the characteristics of the specific Waterfront Place. Picketing Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being located within an "Urban Residential - Low Density Area" within file Bay Ridges Neighbourhood; permissible uses within this designation include residential uses, including townhous¢ dwelling units, home occupations, limited offices and retailing of goods and services serving the area, community, cultural and recreational uses and compatible employment and special purpose commercial uses serving the area; the Plan establishes a maximum density for residential development within this designation of up to, and including, 30 units per net hectare; the proposed development would provide a net site density of approximately 22.4units per hectare (based on the proposed 17 lots being developed on approximately 0.76 of a hectare of land); the applicant's proposal conforms to the policies of the Plan, and will be reviewed within the context of the Liverpool Road South Area Detailed Review process and the emerging Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines; in establishing performance standards, restrictions and provisions for development within Urban Residential Areas, City Council shall have particular regard to protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods, considering such matters as building height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking provisions and traffic implications; In lbrmation Report No. 19-01 Page 3 86 ATtACHI'¢ENT #~/-/ _TO 4.3 5.0 Liverpool Road, south of Amdand Street, is identified as a "Local Road", designed to carry local traffic and to provide access to individual properties, to olher local roads and collector roads. Zoning. By-law 2520,as amended thc subject lands are currently zoned "O1" Public Open Space Zone, and "MY' -iMunicipal Zone, by Zoning By-law 2520, as amended; this zoning will be changed in the future through the approval of au implementing zoning by-law resulting £rom Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 23/99, which has been approved in principle by City Council; the applicant's proposed subdivision plan respects the developn:tcnt standards anticipated to be imposed in that future in~plcmenting zoning by-law, including: · a maximum 11.0-metre townhouse height; · a minimum 6.0 metre lot width; · a maximum front yard setback of 3.0 to 4.5 metres, with permission for associated awnings, porches and other entrance features to encroach into the resultant fi'ont yards; · the ability for a broad range o£ commercial uses to be established within the ground floor oE toxvld~ouse dwelling units, at an approtmate commercial unit size and encouraging appropriate construction tectmiques to allow rton-residential uses to be easily established; · ail outdoor public parking area and boat storage area; and, · appropriate parking to serve both residents and visitors, through garages within the rear of the proposed dwelling units and an additional off-street parking space [bt' each of the residential and commercial units (in addition, parking can be accommodated within the proposed public parking area); no Further amendments to the zoning by-law are warranted to implement the applicant's proposed subdivision plan. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION (See Attaclm~crtts #4 to ~7) 5.1 Resident Comments - no resident comments have been received to-date; 5.2 Comments Canada Post - noted that mail delivery to tile proposed freehold towld~ousc units with potential commercial uses will be an extension to the door to door service currer~tly provided within that area (sec Attachment fi4); Enbridge Consumers Gas - requests conditions o£ draR approval be imposed on their behalf including the requirement of an overall utility distribution plan, and suggested grading and locational criteria t92' the proposed gas lines (sec Attachment fi5); No Objections or Concerns: - Durham District School Board and Lc Conseil Scolalr Public de District du Ceritre-Sud-Ouest {,see Attachments #6 and #7 respectively). 5.3 Staft Comments ill reviewing the proposed subdivision applicatioI~ to-date, the £ollowing matters have been identified by stall' for further review and consideration: · ensuring the arrangement and shape o1' the proposed blocks is consistent with the applicant's proposed site plan concept and anticipated zoo:ting provisions; Information Report No. 19-01 'gTTACHMENT REPORT # PD 23 E, ,- ~-)/' Page 6.0 7.0 7.1 7.2 ensuring that the propOsed development is compatible with, and sensitive to, the envisioned "Great Lakes Nautical Village" theme encouraged for the Liverpool Road South Area; reviewing supporting technical submissions and reports to ensure that adequate information is provided, and that technical requirements are met; · encouraging the fulfillment of conditions of approval imposed by City Council through the approval in principle of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 23/99; and, understanding the implications of the proposed "cooperative" ownership of the parking/boat storage block; a recommendation on tile proposed draft plan, and tile implementing zoning by-law resulting from Council's earlier approval in principle of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 23/99 are anticipated to be forwarded to Council on August 7, 2001. 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; if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding the proposed plan of subdivision, yon must request such in writing to the City Clerk; - if a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the Regional Municipality of Durham in respect of the proposed plan of subdivision does not make oral submission at the public meeting, or make written stlbmissions to the Regional Municipality of Durham before the proposed plan of subdivision is approved or refused, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss the appeal. OTHER INFORMATION Appendix I A list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing this report; Information Received - full scale copies of the Applicant's submitted plan are available for viewing at tine offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department; - the City of Picketing is in receipt of the following technical reports: · a Stormwater Management Analysis, prepared by Sabourin Kimble & Associates Ltd., and dated January, 2001; and, · a Scoped Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Tarandus Associates Limited, and dated March, 2001; the need for updated information and/or addendums to these reports will be determined through the review and circulation of the applicant's current proposal, and through the :further review of related site plan and zoning by-law amendment applications. I ~ 8 Inlbnnation Report No. 19-01 7.3 .Colll~ the applicant, Mr. Joe Winters, is the principal of 974582 Ontario Limited (Glenbrook Homes). oPdGtlq/kL sIGNED BY Ron Taylor Plmmer 2 ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Catherine Rose Manager. Policy RST/j Copy: Director, Plamfing & Development Department REPORT # PD ~ ~ -- D / 189 Excerpts of StatutorY Public Information Meeting Minutes of Thursday, July 12, 2001 STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES A StatutorY Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, July 12, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The Manager, Policy Division, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration thereat. O) o 5, DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION SP-2001-03 974582 ONTARIO LIMITED (GLENBROOK HOMES) PART OF LOT 22, RANGE 3, B.F.C. (LANDS ON THE EAST SIDE OF LIVERPOOL ROAD, AND SOUTH OF WHARF STREET) Ron Taylor, Planner II, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #19-01. Gary Peck, representing the applicant, stated that this plan has been revised several times over the past 12 months based on information from a previous Statutory Public Information Meeting and from the staff. Paul Hunt, 723 Hewson Drive, stated that he is opposed to this application. He inquired into the parking at the rear of the subject lands and stated that'he is concerned about increased traffic on Liverpool Road and the impact of increased traffic at Liverpool Road and Krosno Boulevard. Sylvain Trepanier, 1218 Monica Cook Place, stated that lie is concerned that this meeting is being held in July when most people are on vacation. He asked what is meant by "approval in principle" and stated that comments made by the residents will not be taken seriously. He was not notified of this meeting and indicated that many other residents were not notified. Notification of this issue must be made to a broader area as it impacts a greater area. He stated that he does not see a great deal of the nautical theme in the proposed development and asked if previous concepts have been shelved. Mr. Trepanier stated that the density should be calculated on the three residential blocks only and noted that much work is needed to comply with the design study. Dave Steele, representing the Waterfront Task Force and PACT, stated that in preparing the Waterfi-ont Task Force 2001 Report, it was contemplated that there would be very little development soutli of Wharf Street. He stated that he objects to this application and noted that the density calculation includes the block designated for parking. His report recommended that the subject lands be developed for tourism-type businesses and that the proposed development does not comply with the Liverpool Road South Study. He recommended that REPORI i¢ PD_ o 10. 11. 12. properties fronting Liverpool Road be zoned to encourage tourist-type conmlercial and other uses that SUl)port thc local area. Hc noted that residents are confused about the dif£erence between "retail" aud "conunercial" uses. He further reconuncnded that parking in front of tile subject development, along Liverpool Road, be angled parking and that tile dcvdopment comply with the Liverpool Road Design Study. No boat storage should be allowed on the subject lands and IlO maintenance on tile boats should be allowed. There must be control over storm water runoff and there should be a provision tbr retention ponds. The City should determine if there is to be public parking on the subject lands and ensure that there is all agreement to provide for this. He recommended that there be an entrance and exit at thc north mM south ends of' the subject lands to safely move motorists through thc property and onto Liverpool Road. John Garley, 810 ltelen Crescent, stated that he is concerned about how the subject lands will be assessed for the purpose of taxation. He noted that the parking block will be used by the public For parking and that the owners of the lands will charge for parking. Jacqueline Smart, 829 Fairviexv Avenue, stated that she was not notified of this meeting and noted that PESCA tried to notify interested residents. She stated that the proposed developments will provide for townhouscs that are similar to those in Canoe Landing which are very small m~d narrow and the proposed townhouses will not be ill character with the Millemfium Square and Trail. She is concerned that this development will set a precedent for greater density in futm'e applications in thc arca. She asked how cars aud boats can use the proposed parking lot without conflict and wanted assurance that there will be sufficient parking for cars year round. She asked it' the parking lot is not successful, could the lot be rezoned to permit more housing. Ms. Smart noted that this application is being approved belbre tile overall Liverpool Study is approved. She fm-ther asked what is meant by the tenn "part tot control" and what levels of connnercial or retail uses would be required. She asked to what level of the Building Code would the proposed townhouses be built. She stated that the residents were told by the representative for the applicant that the zoning has been approved in principle and there is nothing that will change as a result of tonight's meeting. Paul Kelland, 921 Grenoble Boulevard, stated that he understands that the zoning of the subject lands bas been approved ill principle and asked that the conditions of approval of the zoning be implemented. Paul White, 507 Cliffview Road, stated that he wanted to address this application in the context o£ access to the Lake. Development should be o17 the lfighest standard because of the high use o£ Liverpool Road by the public. The development of thc subject lands can be a showcase for the area. He noted that the parking area will bc used up vet?' quickly if it is to bc used lbr boat storage and parking for the commercial uses on tile subject lands. Jacqueline Smart, 829 Fairview Avenue, stated that seventeen townhouses have been allowed because tile density calculation includes thc parking lot. This will set a precedent tbr other developinei~ts in tile area to have a high density. Sylvain Trcpanier, 1218 Monica Cook Place, asked why thc City is looking at the cost of building the proposed townhouses and felt that this should be left to the builder. The builder should be required to build the proposed townhouses at the highest level under the Ontario Building Code for which the milts can be used. Thc waterfi-ont has been well developed and future owners must be made aware of public activity in the area. This application should be looked at ill conjunction with other applications that will be submitted iii the Future. Gary Peck, represcnth~g tile applicant, stated that tile number of sites bt the parking lot is actually over 100. If the cooperative owners of tt:.is parking lot attract sufficient business to keep the pm'king lot full then lhere will be no boat storaac, ttowever, until tile businesse.~ i, lhe nmnn~e,d lawnhmme,~ reach their ATTACHMENT # '" 'TO -REPORT# p ..... ~ ' - ~ D ..... 191 optimum, he anticipates that about 40% of the parking lot will be used for boat parking in the winter. There has been an intensive storm water management study of the parking lot and noted that the lot will have a gravel surface. The proposed development should emulate a Great Lakes Coastal Village and the proposed townhouses will have some features that are found in century houses in the area. The design of the townhouses is set up to accommodate a business on the main floor and will be constructed in such a way to accommodate a business. If a buyer wishes to intensify the use of a unit, they will be required to pay for any upgrades. Ar'[ACHMENT #_ ~ ,1'0 REPORI' # PD _'~ 6 ~ c; JUL g ZLILI1 U EVELO?',':?'~T D~PAFITMENT VERIDIAN CONNECTIONS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW Concessim~; BP3 (LJ.vczpool Road, south of ~(/~narf Street) MUNICIPALITY: Picketing REP. NO.: S-P-2001-03 SUBMISSION DATE: Jtme 12, 2001 Region of Durham Ref No. 66042 10- 11- Elecmc Service is available on rite road alloxwaacc(s) touching this properS', Servicing will be from th, cast side of Liverpool Road. An extension of tlie Corporation's plant is required on thc road allowance in order to senSce this project. cost- amount to be detemSned. All sucli extensions are normally undcrgtound. Thc applicant must provide accommodation on site for the Cotpota6ota's ~ansformer(s). · outdoor padmou~t in a 5m X 6m clear area Individual metering for each umt is teqaitcd. *I15e Applicant must provide a cm~ctet¢ enc:t~ed looped underground duct system from a supply point on the east side af L,iverpool Road to transfom~cr locat/ons on thc propertT. Thc following ,tandatd ft~ed fee costs ~G apply (ail fi~ares ate appto~matc): Service Connection Fee $130.00 pc~ uoit Existit~g Corporation plant on the east sdde of Liverpool Ro~d may havc to be replaced/relocated at the Applicaat'S cost to accommodate the proposed development. The Applicant must make disect application to thc CorpotatSon to obtain ~pecilic approval of the elec~-ieal ~ervice' axrangements and related work for Ods project. Thc applicant is cautioned that tenders, contracts, et work initiated ptlo~ to obtaining specific approval wil! be subject to c}~angc. A Mu.10-Tenant Agreement must be cntzzcd into and may' be reDsrered on fide as p,qrt of tl~-c servicing requirements. Legal costs for Offs ',~qll bc cl~argcd to thc Apphcant, All ~otk t¥om the public road allowance to the service ent. taacc and tb, c metering arr',mgement$ mu~t comply Mth thc Corpolation's teqaitcrnents and specifications. Prior to energizing any new sereice, the Applicant slaall apply to thc Corporatio~l's Cuatomer Ca~e Deparlment to opeal an energy account. CFI/TF1 ' I nlgn r',Tn r, nn ,nu Ull I LIUTflT\ITIA I1LI "~C , T T Idnll ATTACHMENT # TO Page 2 VEILIDIAN CONNECTIONS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW 12. 13, 14. 17. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the Applicant shall, by agreement, confirm acceptance o£ the terms and concUfions of providing electrical service. Where cranes osc matc~4al handling equipment or workerz must work in proximity to ex/sting overhead wkes, with the capability of contact or coming within tl~e limits of approach, the dcvclopc~:/btiildet shall pay all costs for the temporary ~elocafion, burial, o~'ptotcdion of the xeites, or other action deemed necessary by Vcfidian to provide for urorker safety and the semuity of thc electrical ~ystem. Landscaping, specifically ttccs and ,qhmbs, should be located away from thc CorpotaOon's ttans£orrnets, to avoid interference with equipment access. Will not attend scheduled City of Picketing DART Meeting for this development. · TtanJotmet~ to be located withha the above pmpcxty at the tear of the north end of Unit 1 and between U~xit 11 & 12 ~s per owner and City of Picketing request of May 9, 2001. · A concrete cuca~ed 3 phase primary ciscuit is located h~ the boulcvas:d framing this ~tevelopment. Vex/dian Connecti°ns has no objection to the proposed development, Please forward a copy of first submission civil dc~igia ~0 that a preliminary design and estimate can bc completed. Tcchrdcal Rcp~c~¢ntative - Dave Bell Telephone 427-91370 Ext 3233 PP/df Iq I1/ D ~'. o c, Rev, Date: November 1, 1999 $ Fonservat n TORONTO AND REGION AT'fACHMENf # ~7 .TO REPORT # PD~ July 3, 2001 Mr. John McMullen Planning and Development Depadment City cf Picketing Picketing Civic Centre One ~I he Esplanade' Piokering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr, McMullen; Re: Plan of Subdivision Application S.P-2001-03 (Region of Durham File 66047} and.Site Plan Application S 01/01 - Ward 2 629 Liverpool Road; Part of Lot 22, Range 3, B.F,C. East Side of Uvcrpool'Road.south of Wtmrf Street City o! Picketing Gienbrook. Homes O'FN 32195.01 We have received the above mentioned subdivision application and understand that the proposal is to build 17 toWnhouses and associated parking. Staff [lave provided comments on the. site plan'applicatlon on March 2 and Me[y 16, 2°01 and provide the following comments on both the site plan application and the subdivision application. The site is in.close proximity to the Provincially Significant Hydro Marsh wetland and the Frenchrnan'~ Bay Environmentally Sensitive Area and TRCA' stalf have concerns about environmental impacts of the proposed development on these sensitive'lar~ds. To address these concerns the applicant has provided two separate reports being ScOped Environmental Impact Study ar the Glenbrook Homes Site on Liverpool Road Picketing prepared for Glenbrook Homes by Tanandu~ Associates Limited, March 2001, and received by TRCA in March, 2001, and 5rormwa~er Management Analysis Liverpool Read Lands City of Picketing prepared by Sabourin I(imble & Associates Limited id January 2001 and received by TRCA February 26, 2001, Staff are gene?ally satisfied with the principle of development on the subject lands. We have reviewed the reports and note that most of our concerns related to protection of environmental features adjacent to the site and stormWater management can be'addressed as conditions of approval. In light of this we'have no obje~lions to draft plan approval or site plan approval subject to the following conditions, 1, Prior to final registration of ih~ plan or any phase thereof, or any on-site grading, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority must have reviewed and approved the following report describing: (a) A detailed report is) that describes tt~e storm drainage system for the proposed development. ]'hose reports must Include', (I) The manner in which stormwater will be conveyed, includir~.g how.the subdMslon ties into existing development; (~) APpropriate stormwater management practices (SWMPs) to be used to tree[ stormweter, to ensure no negative impact on the quality and quantify of ground and s~rface water resources; H~althy Rivers · Biodiversity and Greenspace ' Education for Sust;~inable Living g Shoreha w, O~rio M3N 154 (416) 661-6600 FAX 195 Mr. John McMullen - 2 - Jtdy' 3, 2001 (iv) The location and description of all outlets and other facilities which may require permits under provincial regulations: Proposed methods of oo'ntrolling or minimizing erosion and controlling siltation on-site and. in downstream areas during and after construction; erosion sediment control strategy which Includes' a description and plans to be prepared (b) The Plans be redline revised to accommodate the requirements of the Stormwater Managemen! Repons The applicant provide revised plans to the satisfaction of TRCA, These plans must Implement the recommendations of the final Environmental Impact Statement. That the applicant obtain all necessary permits under Ontario Regulation 158 prior to undedaking any works on 'the subject property, That the owner agree in the subdivision agreement, in wording acceptable to Th'; ¥oronto and Region Conservation Authority. (a) (b) to obtain all necessary permits referred to in condition 1 above. to maintain all stormwater management and erosion and sediment control struotures . operating in good repair during the construction period in a manner satisfactory to The Toronto and Regloh Conservation Authority. (c) to erect ahain link fencing at the edge of the valley ~orridor to the satisfaction 01 The TOronto and Region Consewation AuthoribJ~ That the applicant forward a copy of the subdivision agreement l'or each and any phaseof the development to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. In the interim, staff provide the following comments on the stOrmwater management report and environmental imp.ad_ statement which the applicant ha~ submitted to clear the above conditions: Revised Env. ironmentai Impact Slatement The lands to the east of'the subje~ property within the Hydro Marsh offer significant habitat to a wide variety of fauna, and. is an important stopover grounds for migratory birds as they [ravel north across Lake Ontario..The effects of further noise .and light pollution should be mitigated te avoid exacerbating the existing problem and to.cu[b any cumulative effects on fauna using the adjacent lands. To address these concerns: The berm and the ar.oas Surrounding the 5 m drainage swales must be planted with native, non- Invasive trees, shrubs and herbaceous species to attenuate light and noise generated by the development, Please submit a landsoape plan that indicates the proposed plantings. Mr. John'McMullen -3- In the interim years while tt~e vegetation eslablisl~es, a grass seed of native, non-lnva~iv.e species should be applied to the 5 m swales, This should be indic~zted on the landscape plan, and the submission should be accompanied with a species list. A species list should be reviewed. lhe use of directional lighting for the rear of the lots should be incorporated into a landowrler agreement or by-law. Slormw~ter Management 1 RCA staff received ihe report entitled Stormwa[er Managemen! Analysts, l/verpccl Road. Lands, City of Piokering, prepared January ;2001 and received February 26, 2001 at TRCA. We have the (ollowlng. comments; , The '[RCA does no[ require post to pre stormw;zter quantity controls for this area, due to the close proximity to the lake, However, if the. City of Plckering does require quantity controls, the overall SWM quantity approach is satisfactory to TRCA staff. The proposed berm and sub drain are not adequate for quality controls, A vegetated swale, minimum 5 metres, ~hould be implemented at each of. the proposed (four) curie, ts trom the berm, within tite property boundary, Please clarify the locations (four) of the ove~:llow weirs and sub drains on the plan view on drawing SG-1, , Please add more dimensions to the drainage detail on drawing SS*l (i.e. wtiat is the depth of Granular A material)'. Moreover, please clarify on the detail how far above'the sub drain is tl~e overllow weir located. o Please clarify.the maintenance requirement of tt~e proposed sub drain~. TRCA stall suspect th~tt these sub drains will fill up with sediment quickly given the small size of 100. mm. · The sump pump discharge shown in the sump' pump installation detail on drawing SS-l, should be directed to grassed areas where :possible. · A note/a~rrow should'l~e added to drawing SS-1 indicating the sub.drains and to refer to the detail; currently these is nothing to indicate what they are on the plan view. The above issue must be addressed prior to TROA clearance cf the applications. We trust that this is satisfactorY. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate.to contact Patti Young at eXtension 5324 or the undersigned at this office. Plans Analyst. .' Development Servia:es Section, Ext. 5308 PY/fa · Glenbrook'Homes (7 Br. lanclil[ Drive, Toronto, Ontario M3B 2G1) Don Speller, Tarrandus and Associates @abourin' Kimble & A~oelates Barbara. Hodgins, Region of Durham. TOTAL P.O~ ATTACHMENT #_fl ._TO REPORT # PD L? 6 --D i 197 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM July 18, 2001 To: From: Subject: John McMnllen Senior Planner- Site Planning Bob Start Supervisor, Development Control Site Plan Application S 01/01 - Ward 2. Waterfront Townhomes, Glenbrook Homes 629 Liverpool Road' Part of Lot 22, Range 3 B.F.C. (East side of Liverpool Road south of Wharf Street) City of Pickering We have reviewed the following documents and provide our comments: Plan Dwg. No. Site Plan by Avtech Designs I OF 3 Site Grading by Sabourin Kimble & Associates Ltd. SG-1 Date January 2001 Revision #2, 02/05/01 January 2001 Site Servicing by Sabourin Kimble & ASsociates' Ltd. SS-1 January 2001 Stormwater Management AnalYsis by Sabour/n Kimble & Associates Ltd. January 200 t Scoped Environmental Impact Study by Tarandus Associates Limited March 2001 s_ite Plan - D_._~ff_g,! OF3 I. Indicate locations' of curb depressions for handicap access. 2. The minimum curb radii 'allowed at the entrance to the site is 7.5m. Also, the radii at the east end of the driveway should be 7.5m minimum. The Site Grading Plan currently shows 8.0m radii. 198 ~EPORT # PD '5 ~. -' c~, I JOhn McMullen July 18, 2001 Page 2 Site Plan cont'd. Will the area located to tile east of the parkiug lot be sodded? The drawing indicates gravel, but this area is to be used for sto1'mwater management using 3:1 slopes (according to the Site Grading Plan). 4. What is the access driveway indicated on the plan for? 5. Parking spaces are indicated to be 3.66 x 9.52. There are four (4) spaces that are wider. Site Gradin~ 1. The cross-section of the PondA Overflow Weir shows a bottom length of 0.89m. The report indicates it to be 0,1 hn. o o 7, The weir details do not match the drawing. First, the weir details show a 4.5m be~Tn but the drawing indicates a 3.0m wide buffer lot' stonnwater management. Second, the weir details indicate the berm with a relatively flat top, but tile plan indicates more of a peak. At the northeast corner of the parking lot, there is no fall. Revise grades to ensure water is able to flow through the weir. The grades from the west edge of the parking ,lot to the limit Of ponding are 1.3%, not 1.0% as indicated on the plan. Tim weir for Pond B should line up with the low point (elevation 77.61). It seems to be too far south. The maximum ponding elevation for Pond B must match the detail above. Also, the elevation at the west side of the Pond B is indicated as 77.86, not 77.78 as per the report. Revise accordingly to match Stormwater Management Analysis. Tile drainage jnst south of Pond B does not have 1.0% fall as indicated on the plan. The elevation at the west edge of the parking lot is calculated to be 77.79 and the east edge of the parking lot is indicated as 77.78. Based on this there is no fall from west to east. A minimum of 0.5% is required. The grade from the west edge of the parking lot to the limit of ponding for Pond C is 0.2¢/0, not 1.0% as indicated. A minimum of 0.5% is required. At the southeast corner of tile parking lot, there is no fall. Revise grades to ensure water is able to flow through the weir. gTTACHMENT #~,~TO REPORT # PD~- ~:.~ ....... John McMullen July 18, 2001 Page 3 4. 5. 6. _S_Site Gradin:~ cont'd. 10. Provide a top elevation for the existing manhole at the south end of the parking lot. 11. The existing elevation at the south comer of the site is not legible. 12. Are the elevations at the north end of the internal road between the houses and the parking lot top or bottom of curb elevfitions? 13. The internal road, between the houses and the parking lot, should be at a consistent grade. It is currently designed with grades ranging from 0% to 3% every 4-5 metres. 14. The elevation between Units 4/5 at the east side is 77.37, but should be 78.37. 15. The elevation at the southeast comer of Unit 11 is 78.72, but should be 77.72. 16. Increase swale grade at the north end of the site from 1.3%. 17. The sidewalk between Units 11/12 is not l.Sm as indicated on the plan.. 18. Provide detail of superelevation for barrier curb. 19. Are top of curb elevations along Liverpool Road existing? 20. Provide a legend on the plan. 21. Road and boulevard to be as per Liverpool Design Study. Entrance to be reviewed. 22. The Site Plan indicates 61 parking spaces, not 65. Site Servicin~ Plan -Dwg. S ~S-~I 1. Confirm that Notes 5 and 6 refer to current Region of Durham standards.- 2. Pond A indicates 6.54 metres of 100mm pipe but only 5.5m is shown on the plan. The east perimeter indicates Snow Fench, should be Fence. Indicate existing sidewalk on Liverpo01 Road to be removed. The sidewalk between Units 11/12 is not 1.5m as indicated on the plan. The mud mat is to be 50mm crasher run, not 150mm. REPOR'I # PD .... ~.,~ ~ C: John McMullen July 18, 2001 Page 4 Site ServieinR cont'd: 7. Provide a Legend for the Plan. 8. The possibility of using FDC's for the site should be examined as opposed to discharging the roof drainage across the internal road and parking lot. Revise report and drawings as required. Stormwater Mana_geme~.~t Anal 'sy~ 1. Table 2 -- The 5 yr. storage for Pond C is shown as 7.94 cubic metres, but the notes indicate 7.49 cubic metres. 2. If the berms are used for quality control, specify the maintenance program required to ensure they remain functional. Sc_~ped Environmental In~laact Sttldv 1. ,~ummary of Development Yrol;osal - £age 5 - In the second paragraph, reference is made to the 1-year storm. This should be 100-year storm. General Comments 1. Should there be any further revisions to these plans in addition tO those mentioned above, please submit a detailed list with your next submission. Bob Start BS/lmc Copy: Development Approvals Co-ordinator Development Control Inspector Ron Taylor, Plam~er II ATTACHMENT# ~ 'TO . October 29, 2001 The Regional ' Municipality of Durham Plan ning Department . .. 1615. Dundas St. E. 4th Floor, Lang Towel West Building " PO. Box 623' ._. Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3 (905) 728-7731 "'" Fax: (905) 436-6612 ' www. re_gion~_durham o_p.~ca_ A.L. Georgieff, uciP, Ri~P: Commissioner of Planning ' ' Mr. 'Neil Carroll, Director 'or Planning Planning Department City of Picketing 1 The Esplanade Picketing ON. L1V 6K7. Dea~ .Mr.-C.arrolh Revi~ed Servicing-Comments for an ApPlication City of Picketing. Official Plan Area Municipal File No;: O'PA 99-004/P to Amend t'he Cross Ref.: Al3/01-& A 22~99 (Revised).and OPA 2001-001/P Applicant: The Rickering Harb'our Company Limited . .MuniciPality:. City of'Pickering · Fudher to, our. letterof. Oclober 17,2~001 following '. . - ' " · ' are revised ServiCing ' comments, related to the above noted, applicatiOns. Municipal water supply" · - ' is available from the existing.200 mm wa/ermam on. Liverpool Road and the existing 150 .mm.watermain on Wharf Street. Regional fire flow tests.yielded static pressures in' excess of 80 Psi. Therefore,. individual pressure-reducing.valveS WilI be required.in accordarioe with-the City of Picketing Plumbing Code, The existing sanitarY sewer system in' tributary area is at ca~.acit-'- . . . the Liverpool Road pum . Liver,-,-~,~ b~.-..~ ,~. .. v y-due', to sewane r,,,-,,,-,;~_ .:_ . . . ping Station .~__-' ~,~.y,.~.~.u ~'umping StatiOn .There '~ *'Y"I'~"'~' uapaclty constraints..at.th- uxuesswe infiltration in ftc,=, ',- ..... ' . . is a:hlstorY.uf basem,~,-,, ,q.-. ..... . . e recent high i .... ~ ¢,.~._:_- --~.uu? up. areas, durinn h a - . .. ,--,-u?umg due tO ~ ,,.-,,~, ,uws occurred-on Mav.12_l.~ ..~X~e vy r. alns, t0rms.. The most Within the. Liverpool Road Pumping Station tributary drainage area- - ,-,, ,-uuu, causing .13aserflent flooding ~he Region 'Of Durham hds recent'ly undertaken an'[JPgrade, evaluafion s!udy of the Liverpool Road Pumping.Station. The study indicates that.twinning o¢ the existing 900 mm forcemain would be .required fOr 'security and additional capacity. The .estimated cost-of this twinning is approximatelY. S3.'4 io $3 9 million. These works are identified in the draft 100% Posl Consumer ^TT^CHMENT#: ~ _ TO INFORMATION REPORT# Page 2 Region's Capital Budget and tile z~ /ear folecasi for year 2005. III addition. modifications of eleclrical aha security con~Isonents at the Liverpool Road Pumping Station are expected to oe u~deltaKen dUI'lng jear 2001 and early 2O02. Due to the pumping sl,ation cons[fa nts ti~e n]nin~um oasen~ent floor elevahons of the propose~J aevetopment must ~)e aoove 76.00 [neu-es This requirement is necessary.to prevent basement flooding and environmental da~nage in tt~e event o~ pumping stauon failure or sanitar) sewer surcnarge. Alternatively, l.he development wi. require orival,e pumping staLlol~s, v~nlcn may be an .option il: the site is serviced as a condominium. To provide additional capacty for the propcsed development and to alleviate surcharging and basenlent flooding aue to inlill,ral, ion. the existing sanitary sewers on Wharf Street. Liverpool Road aha on easement to the Liverpool Road Sewage Pumping Station. must be twinned with a 525 mm sanitary sewer. The 525 mm sanitary sewer will outfal di~e~tt~ u~to u~e Liverpool Road Pumo~ng Sl,ation. These works nave no~ Dee~ ncluded ~, l,!~e Region's Capital Budget. However they wilt be cons~cerea the Reg on s for[i~coming review for budget preparation. Alternatively, these works could oe consuucteu n conjunction wiih l,he subject development, through a subdivision or site servicing agreernent with the Regio.n of Durham. The applicant wouid De respc~sm)le for the cost of'.prpviding, as a minimum, a 200 mm a~ameter sanil,ary sewer, while the Region of Durham would be responslDle for overslzlng cos~.s. The esl,treated cost of consl,ruciing 430 metres of 52,5 mm sanitar) sewer is $410,000 The sanitary sewer works on Wharf Street wi only De required :~ the proposed develooment connects I.o the Whari' Street, sewer or il' tile roaa s olanned for reconstruction. As a result oi' tl~e prewous~y me~[io~ed COl~Sl. rall~ts, tile Reg o[/ will require that the commercia uses proposea w~tl~n the subject ands ~on tl~e east and west sides of Liverpool Road ~. se restricted ~o Iow water consumption/discharge (dry- use) establishments only, until twinning of the 900 rani l:orcemain has been complel, ed. In conclusion, the Region nas no oojectlon to further processing of tl~e subject applicatiofls. However. Regional approva~ of the development of the subject lands, through a site plan or plan of condominium, will be subject to the following conditions: Submission by the apphcant, of a functiona servicing re~ort prepared by a consullant identifying: the feasibility of oroviding a :mvate sanitary pumping stations; building floor elevahons: aha ATTACHMENT# ? _TO INFORMATION REPORT#~ Page 3 iii) preliminary sanitary.sewer plans and prol'ile drawings along Wharf Street, Liverpool Road and the easement to the Liverpool Road Pumping Station. Completion by the Region of the electrical and security rnodii~ications at the Liverpool Roads Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station, scheduled during 2001 and early 2002. construction, by the applicant, of a 525 mm sanitary sewer: i) easterly on Wharl Street from a point '120 metres west of Liverpool Road; ii)- southerly on Liverpool Road to the easement from tke Liverpool Road Pumping Station; and iii) easterly on the easement to Liverpool Road Pumping Station. Execution of a Regional servicing agreement with the applicant, covering all aspect, financial and otherwise, with respect to provision of Regional Services. Restricting of the proposed commercial uses Within the subject I~nds (on both east and west sides of Liverpool Road), to that of Iow water consumption / discharge (dry-use) establishments,only, until twinning of the 900 mm I~orcemain has been .completed. In addition, it s recommended that the applicant's Eng neet meet with Regional Works Department' staff to discuss servicing requirements prior to detailed design. ' Yours truly, - Tom Cadtnan, Planner Current Operations Branch :tc cc.: Regional Works Department- Cliff Curtis N:\pim\tc\devapp\topa\PostE{emption\Pickering\99~004\99-004P-w[ksR,doc ATI'ACI-IMENT ~ / cO TO F~EPOF~I # PDt- / Liverpool Road South Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2001-03. 11/'07/01. Glenbrook Homes (974582 Ontario IJimited) Part of Lot 22, Range 3, B.F.C. Obiectlons. o o Zoning- the existing Zoning is Urban Residentiai-I~ow Density Area. 'l'bc current City of Picketing official plan establishes a maximum density of up to 30 dwellings units per net hectare. The proposed development is 22.4 hectare but this includes Block 1 to 4 inclusive, Block 4 is half the site, which is designated for parking. The Waterfront Task Force 2001, which 1 chaired, recommended that the area be developed as a Conunercial/Tourism Node. Essentially uses that would support the adjacent marina land use as well as permanent residential population and the emerging Tourist Node that would bo a destinatioi~ to visitors. Parking-condominium (boat storage) is a concer,- strange arrangement with free hold townhomes and cooperative ownership of parking. Seasonal parking for boat storage and boat maintenm~ce is incompatible with the proposed residential usc. The proposal does not participate in the Guiding Vision esPoused by the Liverpool Road South Detailed Review Develotiment Guidelines. Recon,nendations. The units thatJi'ont onto_Liverpool Road shall be zoned attd purchased as comntercial/1Jusiness occupan O' th at supports tOaris,t, m arinlt activities of the area attd the eXisting year round residential comntuniO'. ParMng for the commercial units facing Liverpool road shall be attgled to meet the zoning by-law requiremettts for this (rl~e o fuse, al~propriately lJlaced in fi'ont of the corn itt ercial tilt its th at th e), serve. 3. The set back for the commercial units shall be set back to allo,, for the parkbtg itt J}'ont of contmercial units. The residential proposed units shall be above ~tnd behind tlte commercial units or another protoO,pe/O~wlogy/model that develops a reaidential blocli behind a Liverpool Road comntercial block. 'ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD_ 20 5 The proposal should follow Gaiding Vision espoused by the Liverpool Road Xottth Detailed Review Development Guidelines C2, 2/C-1.3.3/C1.4.4. as prepared by Markson Booroah Hodgson Architects. 6. There should be no storage of any boats in the residential parMng lot. Z There shonld be no tnaintenance of any boats bt the residentialparMng lot. 8. It is essential that the proponent tnake expHcit provision to prevent or minimize any impact arising from storm water runoff Oeater sedimenO from roads, cars and roofs. This is most important itt winter and spring when snowmelt runoff carries a high burden of road salt. Itt this regard, the design should consider inchtding provision for retention ponds or other suitable facilities such as oil/grit separators to trap ran off. 9. PnbHc/ Private parMng agreemeut should be finalized before arty approval to this application. 10. The proposed street sections for this portion of Liverpool Road are critical,to the success of the fittnre Tourism Node envisioned for this area (to make sense of Millennium Circle). The city must ensnre that it is designed "right" to establish "the rnle" for futttre dm,elopntent. David Steele. Chair Waterfront 2001 ,Waterfront Task Force. Chair P.C.W.G. Chair P.A.C.T. c.c. City of Pickering Planning Department. c.c. Mr. Gary Peck (Glenbrook Homes). c.c. City of Pickering Councilor's. c.c.P.E.S.C.A. c.c.L.W.C.A. c.¢. P.W.I.C. c.c.P.A:C.T. Board of Directors. 2O6 A'ITACHMENT ~ ~_~TO Right of Way F1 3 - 100 Borough Drive Scarborough, Ontario M1P 4W2 Tel: 416 296-6291 Fax: 416 296-0520 August 24, 1999 Town of Pickering Planning Department One the Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L!V 6K7 ~TTENTION!"G~6ff~MCKnigh~ RE: Zoning Application File No: A23/99 Part of Lot 22 East side of Liverpool Rd, south of Wharf Street Town of Pickering Thank you for your letter of July 27, above zoning ~ipplication. 1999 concernin, 4 the Please be advl. sed: 1 - Bell .Canada shall confirm that satisfactory arr~ngements, finaEciaL and otherwise, have been made with Bekl Canada for any 3etl Canada facilities serving this draft plan of subdivision which are required by the Municipal~.ty to be installed underground; a copy of such confir~]atlon shall be forwacded to the Municipality. 2 - Bell Canada requires one or more conduits of su~[fi(~ient size from eac.~ unit to the electrical room and one o~' more conduits from the electrical room to street line. If there are any conflicts with exisking Bell Canada facilities or easements, the Owner/Developer shall be responsible for re- arrangements or relocation. If you haYe any questions, please contact:Janice Young 296-6291. Yours truly, ~ /~an~ce ~oung Manager Right of Way 'ATTACHMENT#. REPORT # PD. 207 I am Craig Bamford of 528 Marksbury Road. In 1997 and 1998 1 had the privilege of being one of the Vice chair's of the Mayor's Waterfront 2001 Task Force which was chaired by David Steele. On October 30, 1998, Interdevelopmental Team Report IDT 08-98 was completed, which contains Town of Pickering Staff comments to council with respect to actions which it should take on the recommendations contained in the Mayor's Task Force Waterfront 2001 report. In the preamble, staff summarizes the key objectives of the Waterfront 2001 report. The first objective summarized is "Promoting Tourism on file Waterfront". Quoting from this section, "A Commercial/Tourism node" shouM be developed at the foot of Liverpool Road, following a planning and design exercise. In developing the node, consideration shouM be given to a variety of issues including traffic and parking, signage, Liverpool Road streetscape and closure south of the bridge, transient boat docking and winter boat storage, integrating the node with the trail system, public access, to the water, and developing a pedestrian square and landmark near the foot of Liverpool Road." Priorities of the Task force included: 1 reversing environmental damage to restore the long-term health of Frenchman's Bay. 2 improving access to the waterfront, particularly in regards to improving access to the water's edge. 3 improving the Channel entrance to Frenchman's Bay. 4. Developing an economic and tourism strategy,, focusing on a well · ATTAO}tMENI ~_._L~- ~T0 designed commercial node at the lbot of Liverpool Road with a distintive "promenade" along the waterfront. 6. Establishing guidelines for the development of the waterfront, including the commercial node at the foot of Liverpool Road. 10. Capturing the uniqueness of Pickering's waterfront and providing attractions that produce the critical mass necessary to both serve the needs of Pickering's residents and make Pickering a tourist desth~ation. The Task Force's implementation principle 4 is to Promote economic activities and employment on the waterfront which is compatible with other greenway objectives. To implement this principle, Task Force objective 4.1 is to implement a planning process for the Liverpool Road Commercial Node. Specifically, the Pickering Planning Department should be encouraged to proceed with a Liverpool Road tourism design study and implementation timetable through a public planning exercise, as contemplated for the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood in the Pickering Official Plan. Town staff's comment in their report to council dated October 30, 1998 is that town staff"agree, the study will be a planning and design study (not a tourism design study). As well, the study area will focus on Liverpool Road from the Highway 40I to the lake. Funding for this study will be included in the Planning Department's 1999 budget submision" I believe that Town Council should proceed hnmediately to give staff direction and funding to complete a detailed design study, with full participation of all landowners and the public. I RECE~ 2 ~ AUG 3 0 1999 ! TOWN OF pIC~EP, ING Xr"rAC~-~UE~T~. /2 TO REPORT # PD.~ :.~~-'~; ' c / With respect to the application tonight, in the absence of a Design Study for this area, and from .the information provided by the applicant, it is impossible for me to judge it against the objective of the Waterfront 2001 Task Force objectives. I do, however, request that the applicant request that the town delay further consideration of this application until the design study has been submitted to council, and I hope that the applicants, as major land owners'in this area Will play a major role with their neighbours and the community in the design study preparation. In my opinion, it is imperative that in redeveloping this area, careful consideration be given to how the pieces of a successful commercial area will best come into place. Other tourist destinations such as Cobourg, Port Hope, Port Credit, Port Dalhousie and Kempford Bay in Barrie have not happened overnight. Instead, each is a unique public / private joint venture. Some excellent initiatives have already occurred with the opening of the waterfront Bistro and improvements to that area of the waterfront. An application has been made for funding for a millenium square. The Front Road Park site has been acquired by the Town of Pickering. We understand that other waterfront landowners are investigating major new redevelopment of their properties. In order to keep up the momentum, and have the right development for Pickering's main waterfront area, the time is now to develop a comprehensive design and establish an implementation timetable for Pickering's unique Liverpool Road tourism' destination. RECEIVED /~U6 3 O 1999 TOWN OI~ PICKERING PLANNING DEPARTMENT Pickering Township Historical Society August 24, 1999 RE: Oflicitfl Phm Amendment Application 99-004/P Zoning f3v-law Antendment At)plication A 22/99 'llm Picketing t h~bour Compmy Ltd. Pm-t of Lot 23. Range 3, B.F.C. Town ot' l'ickering The Pickering Township t Iistorical Society has been a major contribntor to both the Waterfront 2001 ,mid the Millennial Trail processes. We have been strong ploponents of a comprehensive Trail system, trod have sought to enhance the waterfi'ont experience by prox idling the public with a multifaceted series of cultural benclunmks, it is on lhat busts that we wish to comment upon the applications before us. Our input has been supplied iii tine amticipation that, utility lmlds aside, our watcrfiont will evolve to encore-age greater public access. The recent Ofticiat I'lm~. \Vaterfrout 2001 mid the IXlillemfial Trail studies all reintbrce this exptession of the public will. The public wishes a destination. Public funds tu~d volumecr efforts have been expended on the expectation that the Ha'bom Compm~y hinds would be rehabilitated within certain pmmneters, and that the m'ea in general would sec a colmncrcial style o£ development iii keeping with its historical nature. Unlbmmately, the plmls befoie us this evmfing defy both the word m~d the spiN'i: of the public will. We, therefore, expect that these at>plications will go through a rigorous plmming process in order to shape fl~em to our vision, inasmuch as the coummnitv still rct,'fins some control. It must be noted that the applicants had opportunity to challenge tine Otticial Phm duiiug a lengthy mmlysis of the dratL This did not occur. We have Comlcil endorsement, tluough t/Ne O.P. mid the Mayor's Task Force, ora Detailed Rcvie~ of fids re'ea. The [labour Company has ,also endorsed the Watert¥out 2001 project. Bdbre we even consider ,toNy zoning changes to accommodate the applications before us tonight, we nccd to see that a Detailed Review is conducted. The degree of demonstrated public interest hi our wutcrfiont demands that any chm~ges to local lm~d use be conducted within a lm'ger vision. I trust that Cotmcil has the wisdom to decline m~y consideration of these applications until flmy cm~ be presented within the context of a publicly endolscd xision of growfl~. We o~dv have one chm~cc to get it right. Regards Tllon~ Molu' President, P.T.H.S. 842 Naroch Bh'd. Pickering Ontario LIV,: IS9 · (905) 839-122l · mohr@scar, utoronto.cn