Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 36-09 i 'REPORT TO PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT j KERI COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 36-09 Date: December 7, 2009 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & ,Development Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 08/003/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/08 S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R. & R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. 1251 & 1261 Bayly Street Parts 1, 5, 7, 14, 15 & 16, Plan 40R-25170 City of Pickering Recommendation: 1. That Report PD 36-09 of the Director, Planning & Development respecting Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 08/003/P and Amendment 21 to the Pickering Official Plan, be received; 2. (a) That Amendment 21 to the Pickering Official Plan initiated by S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R. & R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd., to permit a mixed use 25 storey building having a floor space index of 2.6, a density of 225 units per hectare, 237 condominium apartment dwelling units and a minimum of 410 square metres of commercial gross leasable floor area by amending the Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges Plan as set out in Exhibit "A" to Appendix I to Report PD 36-09 be adopted and forwarded to the Region of Durham for information; (b) That the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 21 to the Pickering Official Plan to permit a mixed use 25 storey building having a floor space index of 2.6, a density of 225 units per hectare, 237 condominium apartment dwelling units and a minimum of 410 square metres of commercial gross leasable floor area as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 36-09 be forwarded to Council for enactment; 3. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/08 submitted by S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R. & R. Bay Ridges (Plaza ll) Ltd., for lands being Parts 1, 5, 7, 14, 15 & 16, Plan 40R-25170, City of Pickering, to amend the zoning of the subject property to permit a mixed use 25 storey building having 237 ,condominium apartment dwelling.units and a minimum of 410 square metres of commercial gross leasable floor area as outlined in Report PD 36-09 be approved with an "(H)" Holding Category; Report PD 36-09 December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Page 2 4. That no further notice is required to change the by-law to reduce the required residential parking ratio from 1.25 spaces per unit to 1.15.spaces per unit and the commercial parking ratio from 4.5 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area to 3.00 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor . area, proposed subsequent to the holding of the public meeting, as it is within the provisions of the Planning Act; i 5. That the Draft By-law to amend Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit a mixed use 25 storey building having 237 condominium apartment dwelling units and a minimum of 410 square metres of commercial gross leasable floor area be forwarded to Council for enactment; and 6. Further, that the (Acting) City Clerk forward a copy of Report PD 36-09 to the Region of Durham for information. Executive Summary: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R. & R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. ("SR&R") have submitted applications to amend the City of Pickering Official Plan and the zoning by-law to implement the last phase of a multi-phase mixed use development known as `San Francisco by the Bay' proposed for the south side of Bayly Street, between St. Martins Drive and Pine Creek (see Attachment #1). The final. phase will contain a 25 storey apartment tower consisting of.237 dwelling units and a minimum of 410 square metres of ground floor commercial gross leasable floor area (glfa) (see Attachments #2 & #3). The proposed mixed use development is aligned with the principles of intensification and transit oriented development and has been assessed against the Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment, Development Guidelines. The proposed Official Plan amendment provides for appropriate minimum and maximum densities for an infill site, resulting in transit supportive intensification next to a transit spine. The design is considered compatible with the surrounding land uses. It is recommended that the implementing by-law contain an "(H)" holding provision to ensure that the City, Region of Durham and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority interests are addressed through the execution of appropriate agreements. The recommended implementing by-law is appropriate as it implements the Official Plan amendment, is in accordance with Provincial policy, and constitutes appropriate land use planning. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. Report PD 36-09 December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Page 3 03 Sustainability Implications: The applicant's proposal is aligned with many of the community, neighbourhood and site/building level sustainability principles and complies with the general intent of the Draft Sustainable Pickering Neighbourhood Guidelines. In compliance with Council Resolution 255/09, the proposal was scored against Guideline #2: the City of Pickering Draft Sustainable Development Guidelines. Resolution 255/09 requires all zoning amendments recommended to Council for approval, achieve a minimum rating of Level 1. To achieve Level 1, all required. elements of the Guidelines, plus a minimum of 19 points are required. Level 2 is a minimum of 41 points plus all the required elements. The proposal achieved Level 1 with a score of approximately 35 points in the optional areas including points for the use of native species and planting, intensification of lands within the existing built boundary, enhanced access to amenities and mixed use commercial concentration. Required elements include items such as implementing the objectives and targets of watershed and sub-watershed planning, conformance to the Provincial Policy Statement with respect to wise use and management of water, the minimization of construction related environmental impacts and the protection of linked open space. In addition, it is proposed that through the design and construction of the project, the general thrust and requirements of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) environmental development requirements will be complied with and implemented on a voluntary basis. The building and site will be designed to LEED Silver Standard but the developer does not propose to go through the certification process. 1.0 Background: 1.1 Introduction SR& R have submitted applications to amend the City of Pickering Official Plan and the zoning by-law to implement the last phase of a mixed use development known as `San Francisco by the Bay' located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive (see Attachment #1). The current applications propose a 237 residential unit, 25 storey mixed use building containing a minimum of 410 square metres of ground floor commercial glfa (see Attachments #2 & #3). The subject property, 3.375 net hectares, is comprised of two parcels of land, a larger parcel known as the Bay Ridges Plaza and a smaller parcel formerly known as the Square Boy Plaza. City Council on October 3, 2006 passed By-law 6705/06, which was subsequently approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), to permit the initial phase of a mixed use development of 472 dwelling units (120 townhouses and 352 apartment units) and a minimum of 2,000 square metres of ground related commercial floor area on the Bay Ridges Plaza parcel. The owner received approval from the Committee of Adjustment, which was subsequently approved by the OMB, to permit 25 additional dwelling units for a total of 497 dwelling units. Report PD 36-09 December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd; and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Page 4 04 A site plan agreement has been approved and registered for the 120 townhouse dwelling units and the mixed use building containing the 2 apartment towers (377 units). Construction of 110 townhouse units (of the 120 approved townhouse units) is nearing completion and the associated plan of common element condominium has been approved. The statistical information/development detail and comparison of the development phases are outlined in Attachment #4. The previously approved rezoning represented the maximum density limits of the existing Official Plan policies of up to 140 units per hectare (uph). The current proposal includes amendments to the Pickering Official Plan and Zoning By-law 2520 for the entire subject site to increase the permitted residential density to 225 uph and to increase the allowable floor space index (FSI) to 2.6 FSI to accommodate an additional 237 condominium apartment dwelling units as well as a minimum of an additional 410 square metres of glfa. This would allow the applicant's overall proposal having a total of 734 residential units and a minimum of 2,410 square metres of commercial glfa. The project's intensification will result in a density of 217 uph and an FSI of 2.26. The difference in the requested density and the proposed density is to provide flexibility to respond to detailed site plan negotiations and market forces. The chart below outlines the existing Official Plan and the proposed/requested densities. Current Official Plan Limit Proposed Requested Density 140 uph 217 uph 225 uph FSI 2.5 2.26 2.6 The creation of new municipal streets are not proposed, rather the private roads/laneways created in the first phase -of the development will, be extended. It is anticipated that the apartment building will be subject to a traditional condominium application in order to create the individual dwelling units. When this development is built out the apartment building component will have underground parking for the residents, visitors and commercial uses. Surface parking will be available for the majority of commercial uses and a limited number of residential visitors. The surrounding land uses are: North: Bayly Street, across Bayly Street is the CN rail line and Highway 401 South: Townhouses and apartment building West: St. Martins Drive, across St. Martins Drive are detached dwellings that front onto Tanzer Court East: Douglas Ravine/Pine Creek (open space lands) I Report PD 36-09 December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Page 5 05 The Official Plan amendment proposes to amend, by exception, the density provisions of Table 6: Mixed Use Areas: Densities and Floor Areas by Subcategories of the City of Pickering Official Plan permitting a minimum net residential density of 140 uph and a maximum net residential density of up to and including 225 uph and a maximum floor space index of up to and including 2.6. The rezoning application proposes to rezone the lands from 'C-2' General Commercial, and the residential and mixed use zones of Zoning By-law 2520, as. amended by.By-law 6705/06 to permit the proposed mixed use development generally as shown in Appendix_II, Draft Implementing Zoning By-law. Refinements are still required to the draft by-law. 2.0 Comments Received: 2.1 At the March 2, 2009 Public Information Meeting and from Written Public Submission on the Application Resident and association comments as well as comments from the Pickering Naturalists outlined concerns including traffic and access, parking, park space, commercial space, pedestrian safety, density, emergency evacuation, and potential bird strikes. (see Information Report No. 04-09, Attachment #5; Minutes of the Meeting, Attachment #6; Resident and Association comments, Attachments #7 to #10; and Pickering Naturalists comments, Attachment #11) 2.2 Agency Comments The following detailed comments from involved agencies were received in response to the circulation of the applications to amend the City of Pickering Official Plan and zoning by-law, and are included with this Report as Attachments #12 to #19: • The Region of Durham Planning Department commented that the Region supports the proposed Official Plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment applications provided that that the lands be zoned using the holding symbol "(H)" and removed by amendment to the by-law at such time as the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has acknowledged submission of a Record of Site Condition (RSC) and following execution of a Regional servicing agreement as part of the site plan application process. The Regional servicing agreement is to address the replacement of an existing 250 mm sanitary sewer with a new 375 mm sanitary sewer to cross Pine Creek to an existing manhole number 19-144 north of Radom Street. Also, it was noted that this application is exempt from Regional approval (see Attachment #12); Report PD 36-09 December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Page 6 6 • Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) had no objection to the approval of the Official Plan and zoning by-law amendment applications subject to the landscape concept being revised to be consistent with that approved for the initial approval by removing from Drawing L-1, a 700 mm armourstone retaining wall within the buffer (see Attachment #13); • Bell commented that an easement may be required to service the property and requested that Bell Canada be circulated any future site plan application proposed to implement the Official Plan and zoning by-law amendment applications (see Attachment #14); • GO Transit reviewed the Noise and Vibration Report submitted by the applicant and commented that the information presented in the report is correct and that GO Transit has no additional comments (see Attachment #15); No other agencies that provided comments has objection to the applications. Certain technical issues and requirements related to the proposed use of the site can be addressed during the site plan/condominium process, should this application be approved. 2.3 City Department Comments • City Development Control commented that the owner maybe required to enter into a development agreement with the City for any offsite works (see Attachment #16); • City Municipal Property & Engineering commented that: • A review of the storm requirements and the impact of the new tower on the site are required. A stormwater management report and a detailed landscape design are required to be submitted with the site plan application (see Attachments #17 & #18); • Cash-in-lieu instead of parkland dedication will be required. The existing play area is to be expanded to provide a play structure for pre-school aged children and is not to be considered as part of the parkland dedication. Details of the expanded play area and proposed structures are to be provided at the site plan approval stage. Alternatively, or in addition, provision for a children's play area in the roof top outdoor amenity area may also be.considered (see Attachment #19). Report PD 36-09 December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Page 7 07 3.0 Discussion: 3.1 Proposed Mixed Use Development is Compatible with Existing Neighbourhood The subject property contains 110 recently constructed townhouse units, a sales office, a primarily vacant 5,200 square metre commercial plaza (Bay Ridges Plaza) and a 522 square metre commercial plaza (Square Boy Plaza) containing commercial uses relocated from the Bayridges Plaza. Approved for the site in 2006 are 2 apartment buildings containing 235 and 142 units and a minimum of 2,000 square metres of commercial floor area. Beyond the immediate site, the neighbourhood is a mix of detached dwellings, semi-detached, townhouse dwellings and an 18 storey apartment building containing 179 units, known as the Bayshore Towers. To the east of the site is the Douglas Ravine and Pine Creek. Across the ravine is a Tim Horton's restaurant and drive-thru. The approval of the initial phase of the subject proposal is indicative of the change that has occurred in the neigbourhood. Development in the area such as Canoe Landing townhouses at Bayly Street/Begley Street, Captain's Walk and Frenchman's Bay Village on Liverpool Road South demonstrate the evolving nature of this part of the City. In addition, the site's proximity to the GO Station (approximately a five minute walk) makes it a suitable and desirable location for a mix of uses as proposed by the applicant. The commercial component of the development is expected to serve some of the day-to-day needs of the existing and future residents of the neighbourhood which had been served in the past by the two commercial plazas (Bay Ridges Plaza and the Square Boy Plaza) that had existed on the site. The proposed 25 storey apartment building, in addition to the 16 and 18 storey apartment buildings previously approved, will provide a noise buffer to the remainder of the site as well as to the area to the south, complete the framing of the street and help provide a focal point to the area. The proposed land uses are considered compatible with the surrounding area. 3.2 The Proposed Density/Number of Dwelling Units is Supportable The subject land is designated Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area in the Pickering Official Plan. Permissible uses within Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area includes, amongst others, a variety of residential uses including townhouses and apartment buildings, retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants. The Pickering Official Plan establishes a density range of over 30 and up to and including 140 dwelling units per hectare for development within a Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area. The initial approval considered this proposed development an appropriate location for intensification and indicated that this type of mixed use/higher density development near a transit corridor is supported by the Provincial Places to Grow Plan which came into effect in 2006. Report PD 36-09 December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Page 8 08 The Provincial Places to Grow Plan identifies various urban growth centres, of which Pickering is one of two urban growth centres in Durham Region. Municipalities are to delineate the boundaries of urban growth centres in their official plans. Urban growth centres are to accommodate a significant share of population and employment growth. The Growth Plan talks about higher densities in general, not only within Growth Centres. All decisions under the Planning Act must conform to the Growth Plan as well as municipal official plans must be brought into conformity with the Growth Plan. While the subject lands have not been identified within the boundaries of the Downtown Core (Pickering's urban growth centre) the subject site is adjacent Pickering's urban growth centre and is in close proximity to the Pickering GO Station, a higher order transit facility. The City is currently undertaking its conformity exercise to the Growth Plan. The. Growth Plan requires municipalities to identify areas of intensification as well as intensification targets that will by 2031 see a minimum of 40 percent of all annual residential development occur within the built up areas of the municipality and a minimum gross density of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare for the Downtown Pickering urban growth centre. It is expected that across the GTA maximum densities will increase in growth centres, and some nodes and corridors will also have higher densities. Presently, the minimum and maximum net residential density permitted by the City of Pickering Official Plan in the Downtown Core is over 80 and up to and including 180 dwellings per hectare. The subject site has been identified by staff as having significant potential for intensification. In order to achieve the targets of the Growth Plan it will be necessary for those sites with locational attributes to accommodate higher densities. The subject site has those attributes that accommodate higher densities such as being located within. walking distance of both higher order and local transit, on the edge of an existing community, on the edge of an urban growth centre, adjacent to open space and adjacent to an arterial road/rail/highway corridor. A maximum of 497 dwelling units are currently permitted on the site based on existing zoning. This application proposes an additional 237 apartment units for a total of 734 units for the entire site resulting in a net density of 217 units per hectare. Intensification of this site is desirable and supportable as it is consistent with provincial Places to Grow policies. Its unique locational attributes of being adjacent Pickering's urban growth centre, being within walking distance to the GO Station and served by regional transit reinforce the principles of pedestrian and transit friendly development. To ensure that the resulting development into the future remains consistent with provincial Places to Grow policies and Pickering's direction on intensification it is recommended that the proposed Official Plan amendment, which the Region has commented is exempt from Regional approval, increase the permitted minimum net residential density to 140 uph. J Report PD 36-09 December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Page 9 09 3.3 Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment, Development Guidelines Through the processing and approval of the initial phases of the subject development, City Council adopted the Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment, Development Guidelines. The objective of the guidelines is to articulate urban design principles for the redevelopment of the subject site. The guidelines for these lands were prepared within the context of Provincial policy, City of Pickering and Region of Durham Official Plans, as well as Transit Oriented Development and Sustainable Development principles. The principles of the guidelines are: • to create a higher intensity of development and to provide a mix of uses to create a vibrant development; . • to provide for a range of housing choices for residents; • identify, protect and enhance the public realm and open space features; • to promote the development of the site with sustainable development principles; • to provide retail commercial uses at a scale to serve the surrounding community; The application has been assessed against the Development Guidelines and indicates that the proposed building: • continues the strong street edge of buildings on the overall site; • contributes to the creation of an active streetscape by placing commercial retail along Bayly Street; • creates a distinct skyline and a pedestrian supportive urban form; • provides ample on-site and public realm landscaping; • does not cause undue shadow impacts on nearby residential neighbourhoods; and; • is designed to comply with the Pickering Sustainable Neighbourhood Guidelines; In the context of the urban design assessment, the proposal is reflective of the guidelines, addresses the guideline principles and is supportable. 3.4 Traffic and Driveway Access Conditions of approval for the initial phase of the development included the requirement that a westbound left turn lane on Bayly Street and traffic signals at the intersection of Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive be constructed coincidental with development. It is noted that the Region of Durham did not recommend the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive, as traffic warrants had not been met. However, at the requirement of the City, full signalization of the intersection was installed at the developer's expense coincidental with the construction of the townhouses. The signalization is in full operation. Report PD 36-09 December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Page 10 10 An updated traffic report submitted with these applications concludes that the proposed 734 units (120 townhouse units and 3 apartment buildings containing 614 units) and 2,410 square metres of commercial glfa will have only small impacts on the four major arterial road intersections identified and that the traffic anticipated to be generated by the development can be accommodated on the street system. The adjacent intersections identified are Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive, Bayly Street and Liverpool Road, Bayly Street and Whites Road and Liverpool Road and the 401 off ramp. The report concluded that additional traffic generated by the subject proposal will add less than one second of delay in the morning peak period and about three seconds in the evening peak, making no appreciable impact on traffic operations at the Bayly Street/Liverpool Road intersection which is currently functioning with delays. An addendum to the updated traffic report which is available for viewing at the Planning & Development Department indicates that GO Transit is proposing to increase the amount of parking available for GO Transit riders at the Pickering GO Station in the long term by approximately 1,200 spaces for a total of approximately 3,000 spaces. As a recent short term initiative, and potentially as part of this additional parking supply, a parking structure is to be erected within the Pickering Town Centre lands providing approximately 500 parking spaces for the use of GO patrons by way of the recently announced pedestrian bridge over Highway 401. Further, as part of an overall strategy to disperse traffic from the GO Station, Durham Transit busses are proposed to be relocated from the GO Station property to the north bridge landing at Pickering Parkway. The addendum confirms that the proposed 25 storey apartment building will have no appreciable impact on the Bayly Street/Liverpool Road intersection as noted above and also concludes that the additional traffic generated by the potential future GO Transit parking expansion will add approximately an additional minute delay for every driver using the Bayly Street/Liverpool Road intersection. Bayly Street is categorized as a Regional Type A arterial road and Liverpool Road, north of Bayly Street is categorized as a Regional Type B arterial road. Both roads and the intersection are under the jurisdiction of the Region of Durham. As development intensification proceeds in this general area, pressure on the Liverpool Road/Bayly Street intersection will increase. The timing of the proposed expansion of parking within the GO Station property has not been determined. As the Region has jurisdiction of this intersection, it will be incumbent on the Region to address intersection functional and design improvements as growth proceeds. At the March 2009 public meeting, the matter of an evacuation of the area due to an emergency at the Pickering nuclear power plant was raised. The subject site is approximately 3 kilometers from the plant. Recent emergency preparedness assessment by the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) based on 2006 census population figures indicates that it would take 3 hours and 50 minutes to 5 hours to evacuate the 3 kilometer area around the plant. Report PD 36-09 'December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Page 11 11 By 2025, it is projected it would take a maximum of 7 hours and 10 minutes to evacuate the 3 kilometer area. These estimated evacuation times are well within the objective of OPG to ensure evacuation within 24 hours. 3.5 Commercial One of the major concerns expressed by area residents respecting the initial development application in 2006 was the loss of retail floor space from the site, that results with redevelopment. To address this matter, the development was approved with the requirement that new replacement commercial floor area be introduced in the initial phase of the project, within the mixed use buildings adjacent to the St. Martins Drive/Bayly Street intersection. In addition, some of the important retail commercial services (such as a pharmacy) were relocated to the Square Boy Plaza at 1261 Bayly Street. It is still considered essential that permanent new replacement commercial floor space be introduced in the initial phase of the project, within the mixed use buildings. The requirement that a commercial component of a minimum of 2,000 square metres be included in the mixed use buildings of the initial phase of the development will continue to be required. This requirement will remain in the site plan/development agreement. This current proposal will add 410 square metres of commercial glfa for a total of 2,410 glfa. The proposed zoning by-law will require a minimum of 2,410 square metres of commercial glfa (see Appendix II). 3.6 `Parkland For the initial phase of the proposed development the cash-in-lieu of parkland calculation was approved based on five percent of the value of the land proposed to be developed and was the calculation entered into Section 5 of Schedule C to the Development Agreement for the initial phase signed by SR&R and registered against title to the lands on February 14, 2008. The value of the lands is determined the day prior to the issuance of a building permit. At the time of the initial application, staff considered the optional parkland provision of the Planning Act of up to one hectare for each 300 dwelling units proposed but determined not to pursue this alternative. This approach was accepted by Council: Cash-in-lieu of parkland for the initial phase was based on the land area of the initial proposal being the Bay Ridges Plaza parcel. The Square Boy Plaza parcel was not subject to the initial rezoning application. Building C, which is proposed by the current applications to increase the maximum permitted density on the overall site, occupies the Square Boy Plaza parcel as well as portions of the Bay Ridges Plaza parcel. I Report PD 36-09 December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Page 12 Staff recommend that the five percent calculation continue to be applied to the current applications which propose to increase the maximum density permitted by the Official Plan. Section 42 (7) of the Planning Act permits additional conveyance of land or cash-in-lieu of parkland where there is a change in the proposed development which increases the density of the development. It is proposed that for the current applications, a new appraisal be undertaken for the entire 3.375 hectare site (both the Bay Ridges Plaza and Square Boy Plaza parcels) to determine the value added to the entire parcel by the proposed increase in density. The parkland value is recommended to be based on increased value determined by the new appraisal. 3.7 Parking The applicant has proposed reduced parking ratios over the entire site exclusive of townhouses of 1.15 spaces per unit (1.0 resident spaces per unit plus 0.15 visitor spaces per unit) for the apartment units and 3.00 parking spaces per 100 square metres of glfa for the commercial component. These requested parking ratios are reductions from the ratios applied in the initial development approval of 1.25 spaces per unit (1.10 resident spaces per unit plus 0.15 visitor spaces per unit) for the apartment units and 4.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of glfa for the commercial uses.. In support of the reduced parking ratios, the applicant submitted a Parking Analysis prepared by the IBI Group dated November 2009 which is available in the Planning & Development Department for viewing. The parking analysis concluded that based on observed data on parking demand in other areas with similar characteristics including two Durham Region examples, a review of recent policy directions for urban growth centres and actual pre-sales information for the development, the rates approved for the initial phase of the development would result in a significant oversupply of parking on the site. The analysis states that an oversupply of residential and commercial parking undermines the achievement of policies set out in the Metrolinx Regional Plan and Provincial Growth Strategy. Although the analysis recommends a commercial parking ratio of 2.00 spaces per 100 square metres of glfa, the applicant has requested a requirement of 3.00 parking spaces per 100 square metres of glfa for the commercial component. The applicant has unbundled parking spaces from unit sales. This is where the payment for a residential unit and the payment for a parking space are separate, allowing the purchasers of units to decline the purchase and use of parking spaces. The parking analysis presents pre-sales data from September 25, 2009, which indicates a total of 150 dwelling units have been sold along with 145 parking spaces translating into a resident parking demand of 0.97 parking spaces per unit (not including visitor parking) which is slightly lower than the resident component of the parking requirement for the initial approval of 1.10 parking spaces per unit. Staff agree that reduced parking ratios for projects located in proximity to transit service, particularly higher order transit such as the GO station, should be considered. Report PD 36-09 December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd.. Page 13 The unbundling of parking spaces from unit sales, the close proximity of the proposed development to the GO Station and regional bus service along Bayly Street and Liverpool Road, no reduction in the visitor parking ratio as well as proposed provision of car share facilities in the development allows staff to support the requested reduction in the parking ratio for the resident component. This reduction results in an overall reduction of 62 resident spaces (based on a total of 614 apartment units) or a 9 percent reduction. Staff recommends a residential parking ratio of 1.15 spaces per unit for the site. The parking analysis indicates that commercial parking ratios in Pickering may be high. Consideration for reducing parking ratios particularly for mixed use developments where the increased residential densities will promote walk in commercial traffic is supported. A primary concern with parking ratio reductions is the possible overflow parking on neighbouring streets such as Tanzer Court, St. Martin's Drive and Random Street. A reduced parking ratio of 3.00 spaces per 100 square metres of glfa from 4.5 spaces per 100 square metres of glfa results in 36 fewer commercial parking spaces based on a 2,410 square metres of commercial glfa or a 33 percent reduction. This reduction in the commercial parking ratio is supportable considering the anticipated high level of walk-in traffic from-this higher density development, the sharing of resident visitor and commercial parking spaces, and potential on-street parking on Bayly Street. In order to ensure the efficient use and management of parking on-site for the overall apartment and commercial development as well as minimal impact on the surrounding streets, staff recommend that all 3 proposed apartment buildings be subject to the following be conditions. When the site plan agreement for the initial approval is amended to reflect the reduced parking ratios, the following conditions shall also be incorporated into the amended site plan agreement: • All underground residential visitor parking be located on the first level and fully accessible (i.e. not gated,. no buzzer, commercial parking signage) to be shared as commercial parking; • The applicant make best efforts to introduce car share programs on the site and incorporate car share spaces in the development; and • The applicant agrees, to the City's satisfaction, to engage and fund a consultant to pursue discussions with the Region of Durham regarding the design and implementation of on-street parking on the south side of Bayly Street generally adjacent to this development, and to fully fund the construction costs of implementing the design should it be approved by the Region; Report PD 36-09 December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Page 14 3.8 Site Plan Agreement will be required to address the Importance of Site Design A site plan agreement between the City and the owner of the lands will be required to ensure that all matters of interest to the City are protected and the design of the site achieves compliance with the Development Guidelines. Matters to be addressed include, but are not limited to, ensuring the site accommodates recycling/3 stream refuse handling, design considerations to address bird strikes, noise attenuation, stormwater management, pedestrian enhancements from the site to Liverpool Road (such as lighting, signalization timing and count down, sidewalk widening, materials), sustainable building designs, expansion of the existing play area and the opportunity to introduce some accessible units for the physically challenged. This required agreement, and several other development implementation matters, are incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for this application, and are found in Appendix III to this report. 3.9 Proposed Zoning By-law to have an "(H)" - Holding Provision to Address City and Agency Requirements The amending zoning by-law incorporates an "(H)" holding provision that will require the owner to satisfy certain conditions prior to the lifting of the holding provision. These conditions will include entering into a site plan agreement with the City to address matters listed-in Appendix III to this report. The draft zoning by-law contains performance standards that would permit development in accordance with the approval of the initial phase as well as recommendations contained in this report. This includes, among other matters, a minimum commercial/retail floor area of 2,410 square metres, a maximum height of 25 storeys for the proposed apartment building, and a minimum parking ratio of 1.15 spaces per apartment dwelling unit and a minimum commercial parking ratio of 3.0 spaces per 100 square metres of glfa. Refinements are still required to the attached draft by-law to ensure the delivery of a point tower apartment building rising from a lower platform base building. The draft implementing zoning by-law recommends that the subject property be rezoned to permit the proposed mixed use development containing a maximum of 759 dwelling units. While the applicant presently proposes a total of 734 units, the maximum unit count permitted by zoning will be based on the density provision of 225 uph over the entire site which for an area of 3.375 hectares translates to 759 units. I Report PD 36-09 December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Page 15 15 3.10 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Required The Region of Durham, commented on this initial approval that the sanitary sewer that services the subject land did not have the capacity for the number of proposed dwelling units. The required replacement of the sewer from the subject lands to Wharf Street at the applicant's expense to address capacity was completed in 2007 and 2008. The replacement of an existing 250 mm sanitary sewer with a new 375 mm sanitary sewer to cross Pine Creek to an existing manhole number 19-144 north of Radom Street is still required to be completed. As a condition of approval for this proposal, a clearance letter from the Region of Durham will be required advising that Regional matters including satisfactory arrangements for the sanitary sewer services to the subject lands have been satisfied. 3.11 Valleyland and Buffer Have Been Conveyed The adjacent Douglas Ravine valleyland and 10 metre buffer from the top-of-bank were conveyed to the City through the registration of the development agreement for the initial phase. There is no further valleyland or buffer area to be secured through the current proposal. 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant has been advised of the contents of this report and does not agree with staffs recommendations that the parkland dedication value be based on the increased value of the 3.375 hectare parcel as determined by a new appraisal and that the applicant contribute to pedestrian enhancements along the south side of Bayly Street from the site to Liverpool Road. APPENDICES: Appendix I: ' Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 21 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix II: Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Appendix III: Recommended Conditions of Approval for A 19/08 Report PD 36-09 December 7, 2009 Subject: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S.R.&R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Page 16 ' t! t 16 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Submitted Plan 3. Applicant's Submitted Elevation Plan 4. Information/development Detail Chart 5. Text of Information Report No. 04-09 6. Minutes from March 2, 2009 Statutory Public Information Meeting 7. Resident Comments - Mike Danischewsky 8. Resident Comments - Roger Wade 9. Resident Comments - G. McDonald 10. Resident Comments - Dan Shire 11. Comments from Steve LaForest, Pickering Naturalists 12. Agency Comments - Region of Durham Planning Department 13. Agency Comments - Toronto Region and Conservation Authority 14. Agency Comments - Bell 15. Agency Comments - GO Transit 16. City Comments - Development Control 17. City Comments - Municipal Property & Engineering, dated December 10, 2008 18. City Comments - Municipal Property & Engineering, dated November 5, 2009 19. City Comments - Municipal Property & Engineering, dated November 23, 2009 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Deborah Wylie, M &P, RPP Nei Carroll, PP Senior Planner - Policy Director, Planning & Development / h Lynd Taylor, MC , RPP Manager, Development Review DW:ld Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Thomas Qu' n, ROMR, _ MM III Chief Adminis rative Officer APPENDIX I TO Report PD 36-09 17 DRAFT BY-LAW TO ADOPT AMENDMENT 21 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN THE CORPORATION OF THEd. I1( OF PICKERING 8 BY-LAW N(D'%QAF V5 01V Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 21 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 08/003/P) WHEREAS pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering 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 21 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 21 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted; 2. That the (Acting) 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 day of 2009. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, (Acting) City Clerk Exhibit "A" to By-law 9 AMENDMENT 21 TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN 2 0 AMENDMENT 21 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: The purpose of this amendment is to permit, as an exception, a site specific increase to the minimum and maximum residential densities and maximum floor space index for the Mixed Use Areas - Mixed Corridors designation. This amendment will permit a mixed use development having a total of 734 dwelling units and a minimum of 2,410 square metres of commercial gross leasable floor area at a maximum density of 225 units per hectare and a maximum floor space index of 2.6. LOCATION: The subject lands are approximately 3.375 hectares. They are located on the south side of Bayly Street between St. Martins Drive and Pine Creek, in the City of Pickering. BASIS: The amendment has been determined to be appropriate because the subject site is a prime location for intensification due to its proximity to the City of Pickering's urban growth centre and higher order transit facilities as well as its location on an arterial road and on the edge of a neighbourhood. The amendment assists in implementing the objectives of the Provincial Growth Plan and conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement. ACTUAL The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: AMENDMENT: 1. Revising policy 11.5 - Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Policies, by deleting the period at the end of subsection (r) and replacing it with a semi-colon and the word "and", and adding a new subsection (s) immediately after subsection (r) as follows: 11.5 City Council shall, "(s) for lands on the south side of Bayly Street between St. Martins Drive and Pine Creek designated Mixed Use Areas - Mixed Corridors, despite Table 6 of Chapter Three, establish minimum and maximum net residential density of over 140 and up to and including 225 units per hectare and a maximum floor index of up to and including 2.6 FSI." IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan:, as amended; regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as. amended; regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. APPENDIX II TO Report PD 36-09 DRAFT IMPLEMENTING ZONING BY-LAW i 22 THE CORPORATION OF THE CIT1'Orl PICKERING 9 .O BY-LAWN i Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2520, as amended by By-law 6705/06, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of.Durham in Parts 1, 5, 7, 14, 15, & 16, Plan 40R-25170, in the City of Pickering (A 19/08) WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to amend the existing zoning of the subject lands to an "RH-MU-2" zone, in order to permit the development of a mixed use development consisting of an apartment building and commercial uses on the subject lands, being Parts 1, 5, 7, 14, 15, & 16, Plan 40R-25170,. in the City of Pickering; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 2520, as amended by By-law 6705/06, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. SCHEDULE. AMENDMENT to By-law 6705/06 Schedules I and II attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law and replace Schedules I and II of By-law number 6705/06. 2. AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shall only apply to those lands being Parts 1, 5, 7, 14, 15, & 16, Plan 40R-25170, in the City of Pickering, designated "RH-MU-2" on Schedule I attached hereto. 3. TEXT AMENDMENT to By-law 6705/06 (1) Section 4(2)(a)(i) BUILDING HEIGHT of By-law 6705/06 is hereby amended by deleting Section 4(2)(a)(i) BUILDING HEIGHT and replacing it with the following provisions: By-law No. Page 2 (a) BUILDING HEIGHT: Dtf/41 0 . i - I . 23 (i) For Multiple Dwelling Vertical uses: Part 1 Minimum 5 Storeys and 15 metres Maximum 18 Storeys and 60 metres Part 2 Minimum 3 Storeys and 10 metres Maximum 25 Storeys and 78 metres By-law to regulate the minimum height and location of the podiums and tower buildings to be added. (2) Section 4(2)(c)(i) PARKING REQUIREMENTS of By-law 6705/06 is hereby amended by deleting 4(2)(c)(i) PARKING REQUIREMENTS and replacing it with the following provisions: (c) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: (i) There shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 3.0 parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area for all permitted uses listed in Section 4(1) of this By-law, except for multiple dwelling-vertical, multiple dwelling-horizontal uses. Non-resident parking shall be provided at grade, in a below grade structure, or both; (3) Section 4(2)(c)(ii) PARKING REQUIREMENTS of By-law 6705/06 is hereby amended by deleting 4(2)(c)(ii) PARKING REQUIREMENTS and replacing it with the following provisions: (c) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: (ii) For multiple dwelling-vertical. uses, there shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 1.0 parking space per dwelling unit for residents, and 0.15 of a parking space per dwelling unit for visitors. Parking spaces for residents shall be provided in a below grade structure; By-law No. Page 3 24 (4) Section 4(2)(d)(ii) SPECIAL REGULATIONS of By-law 6705/06 is hereby amended by deleting 4(2)(d)(ii) SPECIAL REGULATIONS and replacing it with the following provisions: (d) SPECIAL REGULATIONS: (ii) the minimum aggregate gross leasable floor area for all non-residential uses shall be 2,410 square metres which can be built in two phases with the first phase having a minimum of 1,300 gross leasable floor area non-residential uses; (5) Section 8(1) GENERAL PROVISIONS ("RH/MU-2", "SA-LW", "SA-8", "MD-H6" Zones) of By-law 6705/06 is hereby amended by deleting 8(1) GENERAL PROVISIONS ("RH/MU-2", "SA-LW", "SA-8", "MD-H6" Zones) and replacing it with the following provisions: GENERAL PROVISIONS ("RH/MU-2", "SA-LW", "SA-8", ",MD-H6" Zones) (1) For residential uses, the lands designated "RH/MU-2", "SA-LW", "SA-8", "MD-H6" on Schedule I attached hereto, shall be developed at a density of over 140 units per net hectare and up to and including 225 units per hectare up to a maximum of 760 units. (6) "(H) RH-MU-2" ZONE (a) Uses Permitted ("(H) RH-MU-2") ZONE Until such time as the "(H)" Holding Provision is lifted, the lands shall not be used for any purpose other than any use permitted by the General Commercial Zone "C2" of Zoning By-law 2520, subject to the provisions of Section 11 of By-law 2520. (b) Removal of the "(H)" Holding Symbol The "(H)" Holding Symbol shall not be removed from any zone until such time as a Site Plan Agreement and/or a Development Agreement have been executed with the City of Pickering and registered that provides for: (a) Appropriate arrangements have been made to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering that all the requirements for the development of the mixed use have been complied with, including but not limited to, sharing of commercial parking spaces with visitor parking, best efforts to introduce a car share program and incorporation of car share spaces in the development, funding of the investigation of on-street parking along Bayly Street, pedestrian enhancements along Bayly Street, sustainable site and building design, parkland dedication, entering into a site plan agreement, environmental and engineering requirements, and all financial matters; and By-law No. Page 4 25 (b) Appropriate arrangements have been made to the satisfaction' of the Region of Durham for the provision of sanitary, water and transportation services and environmental and engineering requirements; and (c) Appropriate arrangements have been made to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the provision of environmental and engineering requirements. 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS No building, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved, or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 5. BY-LAW 2520 By-law 2520, as amended by By71aw 6705/06 is hereby amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions as it applies to the lands set out on Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2520 as amended by By-law 6705/06. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. BY-LAW read a first, second, and third time and finally passed this day of 12009. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, (Acting) City Clerk 26 HAG C N R' pFr 45.7m BA ,41.2m y~ 0,8m ~ RH-MU-2 3 E L A PLAN M16 NORTH PART OF BLOCKY Zj~10.Om 40R-3151 PART 2 TO 5 a 6 / w 4,6S-HL ~ > E a n E MD-H6 f J PLAN M16 NORTH PART OF BLOCK Y r-10.0m m 40R-3151 PART 2 TO 5 E N WAYFARER ~ 141.4m , . hF LAN E ry SA-8 N 1M.6m 22.1m z Q / L I RADOM STREET SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW -f Z O 5/ 0 6 AMENDED BY BY-LAW 6786/07 /V AMENDED BY BY-LAW /09 PASSEDTHIS 23rd DAY 017__J U LY 2007 MAYOR - DAVID RYAN CITY CLERK - DEBI A. BENTLEY i 27 N\GH',N P~ 5~ REED 4.Om L_ _ gP PART 2JS . \\0. m 3.0m ~A- I 4.0m RH-MU-2 PART 1 1 - =I /I / 4.0m 4.Om - - / 4.Om w 16S-HL > a 0 MD-H6 f - J ' - Q WAYFARER LANE SA-8 cn - z BUILD-TO-ZONE - BUILDING ENVELJPE cf) I RADOM STREET SCHEDULE D TO BY-LAW-93 705/06 AMENDED BY BY-LAW 6786/07 AMENDED BY BY-LAW /09 PASSED THIS 23 rd DAY OF JULY 2007 MAYOR - DAVI .RYA CITY CLERK - DEBI A. BENTLEY APPENDIX III TO Report PD 36-09 2.8 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A 19108 29 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A.19/08 to be included within the Proposed Zoning By-law "(H)" Holding Requirements 1. That the amending zoning by-law includes an "(H)" holding provision that requires matters.to be addressed to the City's satisfaction prior to the lifting of the "(H)" holding provision. Prior to the lifting of the "(H)" the owner shall execute and register a site plan agreement with the City of Pickering, satisfy the Region of Durham, financially and otherwise and satisfy the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, financially and otherwise. 2. That the owner enters into a site plan agreement with the City to reflect the comments of the report of the Director, Planning & Development Report PD. 36-09. The agreement shall ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited, to: (a) Provision of all underground residential visitor parking be located on the first level and fully accessible to be shared as commercial parking; (b) Agreeing to best efforts to introduce a car share program and incorporate car share spaces in the development; (c) Engaging and funding a consultant to pursue discussions with the Region of Durham regarding the design and implementation of on-street parking on the south side of Bayly Street generally adjacent to this development, and to fully fund the construction costs of implementing the design should it be approved by the Region. (d) Pedestrian enhancements such as lighting, signalization timing and count down, sidewalk widening, materials along Bayly Street to Liverpool Road; (e) Providing any required easements; (f) Parkland dedication value to be based on the increased value of the 3.375 hectares parcel as determined by a new appraisal; (g) Expansion of the existing play area to provide a play structure for pre-school aged children, alternatively, or in addition, provision for a children's play area in the roof top outdoor amenity area may also be considered; (h) Noise attenuation; (i) Satisfaction of the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act, Q) Construction management plan; (k) Stormwater drainage and management system; (1) Design of some units to meet accessibility requirements; (m) Design of the development for 3-stream refuse handling; and (n) Achieving the City of Pickering Sustainability Guidelines Level 1 and the LEED components as outlined in the report of the Director, Planning & Development Report PD 36-09. 1 30 3. That the site plan agreement include a clause that the owner shall provide to the City of Pickering a clearance letter from the Region of Durham that advises that all of the Regional matters, financial and otherwise, have been addressed including, but not limited to, satisfactory arrangements for the sanitary sewer services to the subject lands and satisfying all requirements of Regional delegated review responsibilities. 4. That the site plan agreement includes a clause that the.owner shall provide to the City of Pickering a clearance letter from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) that advises that all of TRCA matters have been addressed. 2 ATTACHMENT#_J._TO REPORT# PO 9 31 OPO ~ P~ O~ C> cT\ H\GNw PY 401 STREET BA SS REED gpYL~ S T PEACE POPRAD w P L THERAN PY` w jP~ZER o DOU AS CHURCH v V) z TATRA Q 0~ O SOUTH EAST SHORE /CKER/ MMUN/TY CENT LAWN AND p --q RA VI E HOWL IM COWL CLUB Q O GRENO AYSHO TOT LOT 'ADO L ST. MARTIN'S STREET ANGLICAN J z CHURCH Q O ;u w a O = V) J 0- --2- 0 PATMORE z DOUGLAS NE Q PARK O c rn Q ~F~`S D c~ a cpT ~ TWYN o a City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF BLOCK Y, PLAN M-16, BEING PTS. 1-7 40R-25170 4 07\ OWNER SR & R. BAY RIDGES LTD. DATE SEPT. 25, 2009 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. A 19/08 & OPA 08/003 SCALE 1:5000 CHECKED BY DW pTeranetr~Enlerprises Inc. antl ite euppliera. All rights Reservetl. Not a plan of e~rvey. PN-3 2005 MPAC and its suppliers. All right, Reserved. Not o plan of Survey. ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# PD 3 ~n - 32 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS SUBMITTED PLAN SR&R BAY RIDGES LIMITED. A 019/08 & OPA 08/003/ BAYLY STREET 8 - rnrrNC saw aaro ux ' vJ>DSYSY~F/5/wG aOS t Fivp=F.v)v [M - ~~.~owsm.o..wrgwcT~•r.ara ~ - r ! - ~~r 4 _ PH BUILDING W _ I RESIDENTIAL r CONDO. / ( oot 237 units JJy rm~ h N .r' BUIING- P-S 18 STOREY RES-AL COVpG~ - - - - - - - - - - / 2 103 udFE-89.80 L ( s PHASE 3 vY`. - HASE 4 1- - ow sG - I o / _M 1 r' 16 N- ip f 21 y.. i e ( v o J ' Y _ ro `O y t i „J 6 'k_ N THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING, PLANNING & DEWIOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERNCES OCTOBER 6, 2008. ATTACHMENT# 3 .--TO REPORT# PD34-02- 33 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS SUBMITTED ELEVATION PLAN SR&R BAY RIDGES LIMITED. A 019/08 & O PA 08/003/ J I 4 a - too - Vol. - ~ 00- _ puffin ~~j}y~ }~j W San Francisco By the Bay Proposed Residential Development Building C N/ rW IMP WAS FROMM BY r MY OF P PYAAWM & 09MMO wVvr DD%ffr AEw #*ORWWN d SUPPORT SVM= OCIOWR 6. 20M ATTACHMENT #__Y_T0 REPORT # PD 3b-09 34 Information/Development Detail Chart Development Details Initial Approval Current Proposal Townhouses 1 Apartment Tower` 2 Apartment Towers Commercial Commercial Total No. of Units Townhouses-120 Townhouses: 120 Apartments- 377 (235 + 142) Apartments-237 Apartments: 614 Project total: 734 Building Heights Townhouses-3 storeys 25 storeys Apartments- 16 & 18 storeys Commercial - Minimum Gross Floor Area 2,000 m2 410 m2 Project total: 2,410 m2 Comparison Chart - Parking for Commercial & Apartment Uses Initial Proposed Additional Total Approval Development Spaces (2006) Commercial 90 19 109 (2,000 m2 (410 m2 gifa) (2,410 m2 Commercial (at current zoning requirements gifa) gifa) of 4.5 spaces/m2 g1fa) Commercial (at recommended zoning 60 13 73 requirements' of 3.00 spaces/m2 g1fa) (2,000 m2 (410 m2 glfa) (2,410 m2 gifa) gifa) Residential 472 302 774 Residential (at current zoning requirement of (377 units) (237 units) (614 units) 1.25 spaces/unit) Residential (at recommended zoning 434 273 707 requirements of 1.15 spaces/unit) (377 units) (237 units) (614 units) ~ _ i ATTACHMENT# s`.-~TO REPORT# PD /O - 0.9 3 5 City O~ PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 04-09 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF March 2, 2009 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: City of Pickering Official Plan Amendment, OPA-08/003/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/08 S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S. R. & R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Part 1 Plan of Part of Block Y, Registered Plan No. M-16 Plan 40R-3151, and Plan M16 Part of Block Y, RP WR-414 Part 1 to 3 City of Pickering 1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject lands are located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive; - a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1); - the larger parcel is currently being developed for a townhouse development and mixed use buildings containing commercial floor space on the ground floor and two condominium apartment towers ('San Francisco by the Bay'); - the smaller parcel of land included in the application contains a commercial plaza that is occupied with five commercial units; - a temporary sales centre for the development is also located on the property; - the site's topography is relatively flat; - the construction of 110 townhouse dwelling units is nearing completion and a plan of common element condominium has been approved for the townhouse development; - access to the townhouse development is provided by a driveway off of St. Martins Drive and a future access from Bayly Street will be provided with the development of the mixed use portion of the project; - surrounding land uses are: north - across Bayly Street is the CN rail line and Highway 401; south - townhouses and apartment building; east - open space lands being the Douglas Ravine; west - on the opposite side of St. Martins Drive are detached dwelling lots that front onto Tanzer Court; ATTACHMENT# i TO Information Report No. 04-09 REPORT# PD.r3 6 - U 9 Page 2 3h 1.1 Background - City Council on October 3, 2006 passed By-law 6705/06, which was subsequently approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), to permit a mixed use development of 473 dwelling units (120 townhouses and 353 apartment units) and 2000 square metres of commercial floor space on the larger parcel of lands; - the owner received approval from the Committee of Adjustment which was subsequently approved by the OMB to permit 25 additional dwelling units on the larger parcel of lands for a total of 498 dwelling units; - a Site Plan Agreement has been approved and registered for the 120 townhouse dwelling units and the mixed use building containing the two apartment towers on the larger parcel of lands; - the owner has received final approval for the common element condominium plan for the townhouse portion of the site. 2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL - to permit development of a new mixed use 25 storey building located in the north-east corner of the combined property having a total of 237 condominium apartment dwelling units and 400 square metres of gross leasable floor space (see Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachments #2 to #3); - this would result in the overall site having 6 total of 734 residential units and 2,408 square metres of gross leasable floor space; - the applications propose to distribute the density over the entire land holdings; - the applications are to allow, as an exception for the subject lands only, an increase to the permitted density and the Floor Space Index (FSI), which is defined as the total floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the total area of the lot; - the requested amendment to the Official Plan is to permit a residential density of up to 225 units per hectare (uph) and up to a Floor Space Index (FSI) of 2.6 while the zoning by-law amendment is to permit the implementation of the proposed development; - overall, the project's intensification will result in an FSI of 2.26, and a density of 217 uph, however, the applicant has requested flexibility to respond to detailed site plan negotiations, market forces, and planning techniques, therefore the actual amendment requested for the Official Plan Amendment is to permit up to 2.6 FSI and up to 225 uph (see chart below for existing Official Plan designation and the proposed/requested); Current Official Plan Limit Proposed Requested Density 140 uph 217 uph 225 uph FSI 2.5 .2.26 2.6 - the proposed site plan does not propose the creation of any new municipal streets, rather the extension of private roads/laneways created in the first phase; - it is anticipated that the apartment building will be subject to a traditional condominium application in order to create the individual dwelling units; Information Report No. 04-09 ATTACHMENT# s .-TO Page 3 REPORT# PD 3 6 - 0 --m 37 the apartment building complex with the commercial component will have .underground parking for the residents and surface parking for commercial users; the following chart outlines the proposed site details (the bold lines indicate the result of adding proposed Building 'C' on the approved development): Details of Proposed Development Total Lot Area - 3.375 ha Building "C" apartment dwelling units - 237 Building "A" apartment dwelling units (previously approved) - 235 Building "B" apartment dwelling units(previously approved) - 142 Number of apartment units (Buildings A, B,& C) - 614 Townhouse dwelling units(previously approved) - 120 Total number of dwelling units - 737 Apartment Building 'A' height (previously approved) - 16 storeys Apartment Building 'B' height (previously approved) - 18 storeys Apartment Building `C' height - 25 storeys Building 'A' - Gross Leasable Area - 1,337 mZ Building 'B'- Gross Leasable Area - 662 m2 Building `C' - Gross Leasable Area - 408 mz Total Gross Leasable Area - 2,408 mz Townhouse parking required - 266 spaces Building 'A' parking required - 354 spaces Building `B' parking required - 207 spaces Building `C' parking required - 316 spaces Total parking required - 1,143 spaces Total parking provided - 1,148 spaces 3.0 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING 3.1 Durham Regional Official Plan - designates the subject lands as Living Areas; - areas designated as Living Areas are intended to be predominantly used for housing purposes, and may include limited office, retail and personal service uses; - in consideration of development applications in Living Areas the intent of the Plan is to achieve a compact urban form, including intensive residential, office, retail and service and mixed uses along arterial roads and in conjunction with present and potential transit facilities; - Bayly Street where it abuts the subject lands is designated as a Type A Arterial Road; - the subject lands are also designated Regional Corridor, - Regional Corridor shall be planned and developed as mixed use areas, which include residential, commercial and service areas with higher densities, supporting higher order transit services and featuring a higher degree of pedestrian oriented design; - the applications appears to comply with the policies and provisions of the Durham Region Official Plan; . Information Report No. 04-09 ATTACHMENTS E TO REPORT, PO 3 6 - 0 9 Page 4 3.2 Pickering Official Plan - the Pickering Official.Plan designates the subject lands as Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area; - permissible uses within Mixed Use Area -.Mixed Corridors Area include, amongst others, a variety of residential uses including townhouses and apartment buildings, retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants; - the Pickering Official Plan establishes a density range of over 30 and up to and including 140 dwelling uph for development within a Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area; - the applications will result in a density of 217 dwelling uph which has resulted in the application to amend the Official Plan to permit, as an exception for the subject property, an increased site density; - the subject lands are within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood of the Official Plan; - the subject lands are within a Detailed Review Area and the Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Development Guidelines have been adopted by City Council (see Section 3.3); - Schedule II of the Pickering Official Plan - Transportation System designates Bayly Street where it abuts the subject site as a Type A Arterial Road,- - Type A Arterial Roads are the highest order arterial road and are designed to carry large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speed; - Bayly Street is designated as a Transit Spine where a higher level of transit service is to be encouraged; - Schedule II of the Pickering Official Plan - Transportation System designates St. Martins Drive where it abuts the subject site as a Collector Road; - Collector.Roads are designed to provide access to individual properties, to local roads, and to -other collector and arterial roads; - the applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the applications; 3.3 Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Development Guidelines - the Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Development Guidelines were adopted by City Council on October 3, 2006; - the Guidelines establish guiding principles for the development of a residential / mixed use project; - the urban design objectives stated in the document are to: • create a higher intensity of development and to provide a mix of uses to create a vibrant urban community; • provide for a range of housing choices; • identify, protect and enhance the public realm and open space features; • promote development of the site based on sustainable development principles; • retain retail commercial uses at a scale that serves the surrounding community; ATTACHMENT# 5 -TO Information Report No. 04-09 REPORT# PD -3 6 - C1 9 Page 5 39 the applications will be assessed against the Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Development Guidelines during the further processing of the applications; 3.4 Zoning By-law 3036 - the lands are zoned 'C-2'- General Commercial for the lands associated with the existing commercial plaza at 1251 Bayly Street; - the balance of the lands associated with the "San Francisco by the Bay" project are zoned `RH-MU-2', `SA-LW', 'MD-H6' and 'SA-8' which are residential and mixed use zones in Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-laws 6705/06 and 6786/07 that permits the development; - the `C-2' General Commercial zone recognizes the existing commercial uses presently carried on the commercial plaza; - the applicant's proposed to amend the zoning by-law in. order to allow for the proposed third tower on the subject lands. 4.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION 4.1 Resident Comments - two resident comments have been received to date, both in opposition to the applications (see Attachments #4 to #5); - concerns expressed related to emergency measures, traffic, evacuation, parking, environmental and there are more appropriate locations in Pickering for high density development; 4.2 Agency Comments - the Region of Durham and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority have no objection to the applications subject to certain conditions; (see Attachments #6 to #7); - the following agencies or departments advised they have no objection to the applications: Enbridge Gas Distribution; Veridian Connections; Bell Canada (see Attachments #8 to #10); 4.3 Staff Comments in reviewing the applications to date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: • ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with, and sensitive to, existing surrounding development; • reviewing the sustairiability proposal for the development; • reviewing the compatibility of the proposed building height in relation to the surrounding land uses; • concluding arrangements respecting the provisions of appropriate stormwater management facilities to service this development; i Information Report No. 04-09 ATTACHMEN11 5 -TO Page 6 REPOIi r# P _.A 6, 4 • reviewing the preliminary site plan to ensure adequate site function; reviewing traffic impacts, both on the municipal streets and on-site traffic management to ensuring appropriate traffic movements; reviewing the building location on the subject property to ensure that the relationship of the proposed building to Bayly Street and the Douglas Ravine is reasonable; the Planning & Development Department will conclude its position on the applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. 5.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 5.1 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 of Durham has advised that this Official Plan amendment application is exempt from Regional approval; 5.1 General Procedurals 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 Councils decision regarding either the proposed official plan amendment application or zoning by-law amendment application, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk; if a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the City of Pickering in respect of the proposed official plan amendment and/or zoning by-law amendment, does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Pickering before the official plan amendment or the zoning by-law amendment is passed, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal; if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision of the proposed zoning by-law amendment application or official plan amendment application, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law or makes a decision for this proposal. I TO Information Report No. 04-09 ATTACHMEREPORTSNT# 3 6 5- - 0 9 Page 7 41 6.0 OTHER INFORMATION 6.1 Appendix No. I list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing report; 6.2 Information Received full scale copies of the applicant's submitted plan and reports are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department including: • Planning Justification Report; • Traffic Review Report; • Urban Design Report; • Noise Feasibility Study; 6.3 Company Principal - the owners of the subject lands are S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S. R. & R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd; - Stephen Warsh is a principal of S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S. R. & R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner - Development Review Manager, Development Review RP:ld Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development ATTACHMENT #.=TO Excerpts from Ctrs 04 REPDRT# PD 36 0 Planning & Development. Committee Meeting Minutes PICKE Monday, March 2, 2009 7:30 pm - Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Littley (1) DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST 1. Councillor McLean noted that in the past he had declared a conflict of interest . with respect to Director of Planning & Development, Report PD 47-08, S.R. & R Bay Ridges Ltd. He has since received a legal opinion indicating that he has no conflict of interest with respect to this issue. (1). PART `A' INFORMATION REPORTS City of Pickering Official Plan Amendment; OPA-08/003/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/08 S.R & R.. Bay Ridges Ltd. And S.R. &R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Part 1 Plan of Part of Block Y, Registered Plan No. M-16 Plan 40R-3151, And Plan M 16 Part of Block Y, RP WR-414 Part 1 to 3 City of Pickering A public information meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of informing the public with respect to the above noted application. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Development Review gave an outline of the requirements and notification process for a. Public Meeting under the.Planning Act. She informed the public that anyone. not wishing to speak tonight could also put their. comments in writing to the. Planning Department. She also made note of the sign in sheets out front for anyone wishing to be informed of future meetings. Ross.Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, provided an overview of the. property location, explaining the process, applicant's proposal and the City's Official Plan policies pertaining to this site, as outlined in Information Report No. 04-09, through the use of a powerpoint'presentation. He confirmed that the Bay Ridges Redevelopment Guidelines had been approved. He indicated. they had received two comments prior to the meeting as well as two written comments received today. The Conservation Authorities have no objection to. the development. He noted this application is exempt from Regional approval. He also explained the need-for the Official Plan Amendment and rezoning. Moiz Behar, a representative. for the applicant, appeared before the Committee in support of the application. Mr. Behar provided background information through the use of a PowerPoint presentation. He stated that the subject site functions poorly and needs revitalization. 1 _ C~ o ATTACHMENT#. To Excerpts from o 3iEPORT# PD Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes PICXE Monday, March 2, 2009 43 7:30 pm - Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Littley He noted the plaza was a 5 minute walk, and the proximity to the GO station was a major advantage. He stated this development is consistent with the direction of the Official Plan and the. landscape ideas and sustainability features are in keeping with the City of Pickering's Sustainable Development Guidelines. He further noted that this also complies with Pickering's Sustainable Neighbourhood Plan and transportation reviews were completed with no negative impacts. He indicated the benefits would revitalize the commercial area, and noted the existing tenants are welcome to relocate to the new development. He outlined the increased tax benefits and increase in building permits. Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Johnson That the rules of procedure be suspended in order to extend the 10 minute time limit for speaking on the matter. CARRIED Mr. Behar proceeded to outline the balance of his power point presentation. A question and answer period ensued. Written correspondence was received from Dan Shire, 22-1235 Radom Street, Pickering, in opposition to the subject proposed 25 storey building. Members of the Committee were provided with a copy of the correspondence in this regard. Written correspondence was received from Mike Danishchewsky, 1113 Tanzer Court, Pickering, in opposition to the subject proposed 25 storey building. Members of the Committee were provided with a copy of the correspondence in this regard. Doris Hopper-Riede, 204-1210 Radom Street, appeared before the Committee in. opposition to the subject application. She noted her concerns with traffic at the intersection of Liverpool and Bayly, stating that accidents occur far too frequently and this is the 8th most dangerous intersection in Pickering. She suggested the City contact the Region to provide a traffic report on this dangerous intersection and further noted Radom Street is not equipped to handle the increased traffic. Her second concern was with parkland. She noted the regulations with respect to parkland conveyance and questioned whether monies owing to the City had been settled. She stated there needs to be more park space as opposed to cash in lieu of parkland. In summary, she stated that the City should not approve a third tower at this time. 2 ATTACHMENT# TO Excerpts from C` co REPORT# PD 3&-Q Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, March 2, 2009 4 4 7:30 pm - Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Littley Hazel Daubeny, 807-210. Radom Street, appeared before the Committee in . opposition to the subject application. She stated she has been a resident of the area since 1964 and hopes the Committee takes a logical. approach to this application. She stated she concurred with the previous delegates concerns and questioned why the Committee would even consider another tower when the other two had not been started yet. She noted high-rises in Toronto are not selling and developers are walking away, therefore questioned why the City would take this risk at this time. She agreed with a park, stating this would be an asset to the whole community. She also noted the need for a grocery store south.of the 401 and stated that the decision should be deferred until the economy improves. John Blandford, 108-1210 Radom Street, appeared before the Committee, stating his concerns with respect to waste collection in all forms, retail as well as residential. He noted space would not be adequate for garbage trucks and emergency vehicles already had difficulty manoeuvring . He questioned whether there were any provisions for recycling, and if curbside pickup was not available, would there be any other arrangements for this. He also stated his concern for the safety of children in the area, insufficient parking, impacts on the Douglas Ravine and questioned who would be responsible for cleanup and vermin control of this area: Jocelyn Hammond, 1703-1210 Radom Street, appeared before the Committee. She stated she is a- 20 year resident of the area and noted the townhouses along Bayly and Liverpool were a nice improvement to the Pickering waterfront. She requested that the application for the third tower. be deferred, stating that this would be an overpopulated corner. She. noted room to grow on the other side of the GO station, which would be better for congestion, and was closer to the 401. She questioned the. environmental impact on Douglas Park as well as the ecological repercussions as being built on the cusp of the ravine would mean garbage will land in the ravine. She suggested this application be deferred until after the two towers had been built and at that point any traffic issues arising would be seen and it would allow. the City time to solicit the Federal and Provincial governments for additional funds for infrastructure. She read a letter from tenants in the Bayshore Towers noting the threat to the creek and the-fact that wildlife would be disappearing, further advising that they .also suggested deferral of this application. Paul Crawford, 867. Antonio Street, appeared before the Committee, requesting that consideration be given to the creation of jobs first. He suggested a citizens advisory committee be put in place for the purpose of cross table discussions. 3 ATTACHMENT# 6 TO Excerpts from City o REPORT# PD 36-02 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, March 2, 2009 7:30 pm - Council Chambers .45 Chair: Councillor Littley He would like to see Places to Grow legislation incorporated into this development, but noted.this had yet to be adopted. He noted we should produce more jobs, not more people, and this should be done overa long period of time. He also stated his willingness to sit on a Committee if formed. Marie John, 1646 McBrady Crescent, appeared before the Committee stating she is a first time homebuyer and that Bayshore Towers interested her. In researching the area she noted. that the townhouses are not fully built yet, but already there are traffic issues. She questioned where the visitors parking is, and noted how insufficient it was. She noted her interest in moving into Bayshore Towers, but if this application was approved, she would reconsider her decision to move there. She does not approve of this development and suggested it be delayed. James Graham, 849 Douglas Avenue, appeared before the Committee, noting the key issues he felt needed to be addressed. He noted his concerns with traffic in the areas of Radom Street, St. Martins Drive, Liverpool and Bayly, particularly, during peak GO train times, pedestrian safety, and transporation issues with children getting to school.- He further noted concerns with snow removal, emergency planning, and greenspace.. He also questioned where cars would go in the case of underground parking repairs being required. In summary, Mr. Graham noted that if the application were approved, it should be done in stages, with commercial first. Steve Laforest, Pickering Naturalists, 1133 Ritson Road North, Oshawa, appeared before the Committee, noting his concerns with planning issues, encroachments, increased littering; disruption of habitat, and the high density along Douglas ravine. He commented that it was unfortunate that a greater setback was not required, stating it would have .a major impact on the ravine, and that it was incompatible with Sustainable Pickering principals. He stated there would be a loss of greenspace as well as increased runoff. He noted this contravenes the guidelines and puts features such as flora and fawna at risk. He was concerned with birds colliding into the buildings. If this application is approved, there should be provisions in place to reduce the risk of death to birds, which should also be applied to the other"two buildings as well, including a procedure in place in which to monitor the building perimeter. Tim Dobson,.1505 Sturgeon Court, appeared before the Committee. He stated he had been a resident of Bay Ridges in 2007 and that his concerns related to the traffic issues. He questioned why the third tower had not been considered in the original submission to Council and whether the parkland payment had been resolved. 4 ATTACHMEN71 TO REPORT# PD 0`1 Excerpts from Cary o~ Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, March 2, 2009 7:30 pm - Council Chambers 4 Chair: Councillor Littley Frank Dempsey, 1152 Tanzer Court, appeared before the Committee, expressing concerns with population density. He informed the Committee that through his observations of the area, the population density is too high, and there was not enough space for people to walk their dogs. Kit Cross, 1507-1210 Radom Street, appeared before the Committee with respect to the Douglas ravine and the problem with greenspace. She noted there-would be a loss of animals in the ravine with the increase in population. She indicated the nature aspect was what made her choose this location.as a nice place to live and stated she would consider moving should this application. - be approved. Susan Passmore, 1235 Radom Street, appeared before the Committee in opposition to the third tower, noting the traffic issues. She also stated she had realized a decrease in her home value. Sharon Wilken, 877 Chapleau, appeared before the Committee, outlining her concerns with exhaust emissions as a result of traffic congestion. A question and answer period ensued. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Development Review stated that staff were aware of the issues and this would be part of their review process which would be addressed through a future report. 5 ATTACKIENT TO REPDR? # PD_ 3r-09 47 From: Mike Danischewsky [mailto:danischm@nflcanada.com] ( Ent: November 3, 200811:07 AM To: Wilcox, Debi Cc: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor Subject: City of Pickering - OPA-08/0031P Zoning Debi, I am emailing regarding my staunch opposition to City of Pickering Official Plan Amendment, OPA-08/003/P Zoning By- law Amendment Application A 19/08 (SR&R Bay Ridges Plaza 11). I understand that Pickering is a high growth area. However, the location of the new application is unacceptable. Adding 734 units to a location that will have one entrance onto a small side street, St. Martin's and I assume one off Bayly is irresponsible to the current neighbourhood. This new building will increase the # of units to approximately 2,000. Most of these residents will own a car. Quite simply, the infrastructure is not able to handle the traffic. We have seen this on my street, Tanzer Court, during the road closure of St. Martin's - a constant flow of traffic travelling at high rates of speed. Add a minimum of 1,000 cars daily once this development is complete and you have ruined a small neighbourhood. I'd like to. see the studies the City of Pickering OP conducted that determined this neighbourhood could manage this increased traffic without putting pedestrians, children and other motorists at risk. Please let me know if the proposed traffic light at St. Martins and Bayly was approved at this site. COP is building "downtown" by The Home Depot. Is this not the ideal location to put condominiums and other high density mixed use buildings? There is also prime real estate north of the 401 where Makimono and Tropix are, located (both of these restaurants have changed owners within the past year, are not in good locations and unfortunately may not survive) and the SW comer of the Pickering Town Centre (which is never full even at Christmas and I believe that section is for lease or sale). These, locations fit much better into a high density plan and are still within a five minute walk of a major rail station and. other amenities.. Scarborough built their "downtown". around the Scarborough Town Centre. Pickering is placing a third condo in a small area with the developers paying a fee so they don't have to include green space in their building. Where is the vision by the City planners? Build where the infrastructure is already in place to support it. You shouldn't put a square peg into a round hole no matter how pro-development you are. On this building site, Councillor Dickenson, respectfully, you are completely wrong to support it Over the next fewyears, COP will experience substantial growth. We need to attract business)o support this growth in order to alleviate.the tax burden from residents. We also' need to ensure building takes place where the current .infrastructure is in place to support it. Don't be grab-bagging just to obtain the tax windfall -'that's what Toronto. did with their waterfront and look how it turned out. I've copied Councillor O'Connell on this as her Ward will feel the overflow of Traffic along Bayly and at the Whites Rd 401 exit. Despite my objections, we all know what the end result will be. If enough people/council voice their opposition, the developer will amend the plan and the approved condo will have only 18-21 stories instead of 25 and Councillor Dickinson will state what a good job he did for the current residents of his ward while balancing the need for development in Pickering. Please. file this opposition in accordance to the Planning Act Application I received. Regards, Mike Danischewsky Coordinator, Events & Football Development NFL Canada 47 Colborne St, Suite 401 Toronto, ON M5E 108 (416) 322-6214 - ph (416) 322-6725 - fax ATTACHMENT# TO Col~nG 1 +e 5 HEPORT# PD 3 - chi- cv~n Mr L, 48 K_):1JCW&Der n O% Counc4"I QUESTIONS & COMMENTS RECEIVED From Roger Wade 1210 Radom St., #404 CITY OP PIC{<ERINC,a Pickering, ON L 1 W 2Z3 905-837-0475 NOV 2 1 2008 Regarding - San Francisco by the Bay Development COUNCILLORS' OFFICE 1. As a community we. are led to believe that any new development projects will provide a net benefit to us in the way of jobs and net revenues. Are you on Council certain that this development will provide future, long-term jobs? How many small businesses have failed in our shopping malls and plazas? How many "Casita" types of small business have closed at waterfront nautical village area? 2. Emergency Measures What is the response time between 7-9 am and 4-6 pm for bringing in Fire - Ambulance - Police? What will response time be when 1200-1500 more people live at San Francisco by the Bay? How many more Policemen - Paramedics - Firemen will need to be hired? Can our Fire Department service high rise buildings? The above emergency measure questions will all require additional taxpayer funding. 3. Emergency Evacuation (Nuclear) It is my understanding that the Provincial "Places to Grow" study stated that no development should take place within a 3 kilometer radius of nuclear and hazardous plants. Did our Planning Department approve the San Francisco by the Bay site knowing that it violates this Provincial recommendation? Adding 1200-1500 more people at Bayly-Liverpool and possibly that many more at the Art Thompson Arena site will add to emergency measures and emergency evacuation future problems. This Bayly-Liverpool intersection is now the 8th worst accident intersection in Durham Region. 4. Traffic Study Has a real study on Bayly from Whites Road, east and west and Liver c , orth-south - been conducted between 7-9 am and 4-6 pm on cars, busses, trucks? Has this study been conducted under rain, snow and ice conditions? Add another 1000 or more vehicles! CITY tit- , . ✓ I San Francisco by the Bay - 1 - Questions & Comments I ATTACHMENWTO REPORT# P6__-3_(0 49 5. Has San Francisco by the Bay considered the noise (401) factor on the north side? 6. Parking We are still an automobile society. Has Council and Planning studied the need for additional parking at the GO Station? It is full most days now. Tiered parking (above ground) costs are approximately $30,000 per car. Who would pay - Pickering or GO? Has San Francisco by the Bay planned for at least 1 car per unit plus parking for commercial visitors? Is this guaranteed? 7. Environmental The proposed 24-storey building has only a 10 metre setback from the Douglas Ravine (environmental lands). Is Council going to approve this illegal setback? 8. Has the Developer still planned for 30,000 square feet of retail commercial space? 9. Can Emergency and Waste Management vehicles easily access this site? 10. Is Pickering Council sincerely addressing for any and all development projects the social- economical and environmental needs on behalf of us, the taxpayers? 11. Does the City have a per capita cost for infrastructure services? Summary All of these questions mean that we, the taxpayers may be facing many future additional infrastructure costs. Personally, I do not believe the Developer has shown much respect to Pickering and its citizens - it has reneged on the parklands and the $500,000 that was to come back to Pickering. The Developer agreed to this initially and is now going back through the O.M.B. to get this money back. The Developer has changed the plan many times and it is not building what was proposed at the workshops. Thank you for your attention. San Francisco by the Bay -2- Questions & Comments ATG'ACHMENT# C Pym, Ross so REPORT# PD.=~. From: Rourke, Heather on behalf of Planning Web Email Sent: May 25, 2009 9:05 AM To: Pym, Ross Subject: FW: third tower Good morning, Ross, For your attention, as received through the Planning Web Email Heather Rourke Clerk; Planning & Development Planning & Development Department City of Pickering T: 905.420.4660 ext. 2022 TTY: 905.420.1739 Toll Free 1.866.683.2760 F: 905.420.7648 i )urke _cityofpickering.com www.cityofpickering, corn Please consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! www.sustainablepickering.com From: mr. t [mailto:gmcdonald0108@rogers.com] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 4:32 PM To: contactus@pesca.ca ' Subject: third tower To whom it may concern; As a 7 year resident of Douglas Ave, we would like to send this message of concern to those who have proposed the 3rd 25 storey high rise building. Currently the corner of Liverpool and Bayly is a dangerous corner for vehicular traffic and Idestrians alike. Public safety is already a major concern with the traffic flow at this corner especially when driving ..bound and'turning south on Liverpool Rd. as you cannot see oncoming traffic because of the hill in front of the Tim Hortons. Many times I have had cars turn in front of me while coming up the aforementioned hill. How much more dangerous will this situation become with hundreds of new cars in this small area? Is our already strained community school and health care centers prepared for the 1000's of new students and patients who will be using these facilities? Is our transit system prepared for the enormous amount of new riders? At certain times of the day there is standing room only on the GO trains. My husband who is an employee of GO Transit for 32 years sees the strain on the current system and says there is definitely no room for growth of this kind. Our transit system will surely become a commuter nightmare. Our neighbor is in her 70's and tells us that when she moved here in the 60's she was told by the politicians of the time -that there would never be any building higher than two stories in all of Pickering. One can only imagine the betrayal that these older residents already feel with the current high-rise on Radom Ave. And last but not least, what will become of the birds, deer, foxes, raccoons and other animals that currently depend on Douglas Ravine for their existence. The already confirmed 2 towers and townhomes are going to block the flow and flight patterns of these animals and birds. With the current high-rise and 2 more on the way, enough is enough! This tiny area already has more people and buildings than it can handle. Please stop the 3rd tower proposal NOW! 1 ATTACHMENT# /D TO REPORT# PD-2-&-b ~ 51 Wylie, Deborah From: Dan Shire [dan.shire@sympatico.ca] Sent: March 1, 2009 11:21 AM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; Wilcox, Debi; Pym, Ross Cc: Steve LaForest; kcalis@durhamregion.com; Littley, Bonnie, Councillor; dorishop@rogers.com; Whitaker, Chantal; contactus@pesca.ca Subject: comments re. proposed 3rd. condo tower at "San Francisco by the Bay" - OPA-08/003P plan amendment Attachments: Dan Shire - comments re OPA-08 003P v2.doc Attached please find my comments on the proposed plan amendment requesting a third condominium tower at the site of the former Bay Ridges Plaza. Unfortunately I will be working in Ottawa this week, and therefore unavailable to attend the meeting taking place Monday evening. However, I hope the planning committee and councillors will take some time to review and reflect on my comments. I'm a 20+ year resident of the area, and feel that I have a practical and unbiased understanding of the issues that this proposed third tower will bring to my neighbourhood. My comments relate to some environmental concerns with the development, as well as issues related to pedestrian safety, traffic congestion, and constituent trust in the planning process. Please keep me informed on further developments regarding this plan amendment and activities at this site. I like to keep an eye on this developer, and council, on issues related to Bay Ridges. thanks for your consideration Dan Shire 22 - 1235 Radom St. Pickering i 5 2 ATTACHMENT#~P-TO Dan Shire REPORT# PO 36-OQ 22-1235 Radom Street Pickering, Ontario L1W U3 dan.shire(a`ympatico.ca February 28, 2009 Debi Wilcox City Clerk City of Pickering dwilcoxgcityofpickering com Re. Written comments on Plan Amendment OPA-08/003P,(S.R. & R Bay Ridges Ltd. - aka "San Francisco by the Bay") This is a written submission for the March 2, 2009 meeting to discuss the proposed third condominium tower at this residential development site. My wife and I have lived in Bay Ridges for over 20 years. I am the vice-president of the Pickering Naturalists and of the Thickson's Woods Land Trust. I am a volunteer with the Toronto environmental organization - FLAP (Fatal Light Awareness Program). I am also a member of the Pickering Nuclear Community Advisory Council, representing the Pickering Naturalists. These comments-represent my personal opinions on this issue. When the original property redevelopment plans were announced, I was generally in agreement with the proposed development. The old Bay Ridges plaza had become shabby over the years, and although the loss of a large grocery store within easy walking distance for the residents was unfortunate, the plans at least called for some small retails shops and the possibility of a small convenience store. I'm also in favour of appropriate densification'in locations such as this, which are close to mass transit like the GO station. However, I am strongly opposed to the construction of an additional 25 story building which would introduce another 237 condominium units on that property. My concerns are related to the potential environmental impact, the increased density and traffic issues, and the appearance that developer commitments made to the citizens and municipal government in Pickering are not honoured. Page: 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT# -I/01 TO REPORT# PD 3~-oq 53 1. Environmental. This 25 story building will be built right up to the edge of the ravine. A tall building along a green space migratory corridor (Pine Creek, often called Douglas Creek) will lead to large numbers of birds colliding with the building, and the death of many of those songbirds throughout the year, and particularly during spring and fall migration cycles. Millions of migratory songbirds are killed each year in collisions with buildings such as condo towers and office towers along the north shore of Lake Ontario. Although downtown Toronto's building density account for most of this mortality, I have recovered dead and injured birds from the perimeter of Pickering buildings as low as the new OPG office buildings on Brock Road. Bird strikes are related to wasteful light pollution from buildings at night, and daytime strikes caused by unimaginative building design that uses a lot of reflective glass. The trees and property adjacent to Frenchman's Bay are an important migratory rest and feeding corridor for songbirds heading north in the spring, and south in the fall before crossing the lake. The ravine is full of songbirds for much of the year and the construction of a tall building with extensive glass surfaces right on the edge of the ravine will lead to high mortality rates. Songbird populations are in serious decline in Canada. Please refer to the attached material reproduced from a recent issue of National Geographic which illustrates the problem along the north shore of Lake Ontario. I've included 2 pages from the November 2008 issue at the end of my letter. This is not the sort of publicity Pickering wants to be part of in the future. In the event that this building is approved for construction, I request that the following 2 conditions be applied to the approval: a. The building must incorporate modern design structures to reduce the risk of death to migratory birds. These mitigating design approaches are easily incorporated into new buildings and significantly reduce the rate of bird kills and injury. Toronto has adopted these standards. Refer to htt,.p://www.toronto.ca/li htg sout/guidelines.htm . This is an opportunity for Council to demonstrate a serious commitment to the "Sustainable Pickering" initiative. The city can set a precedent here for construction of new office and residential towers that makes an important contribution to migratory bird survival. There will be more tall office and residential towers built in Pickering within a few years. The city cannot claim to have a sustainable environmental approach for the future if they allow private enterprise to repeat the worst mistakes that Toronto has made in this regard. Indeed, these building practices should be applied to the other 2 towers at the site as well, given their proximity to the Bay and Pine Creek. b. Permit monitoring of the building perimeter (publicly accessed open space only) for the first year after construction to determine the impact of the 25 story structure adjacent to the north shore of Lake Ontario and the Pine Creek migratory corridor. This data will be useful in determining the impact of further Page: 2 of 7 ATTACHMENT# /b TO 54 REPORT# PD -0~ development of tall buildings (residential or commercial) in the Durham region. FLAP volunteers collect birds which are injured or killed in building strikes throughout the GTA under permit from the Canadian Wildlife Service; we are federally authorized to possess the birds for salvage, study or rehabilitation, and we contribute to leading-practice North American research related to the decline of bird populations caused by building and tower collisions. 2. Pedestrian safety at Liverpool and Bayly Liverpool Road and Bayly Street is a very dangerous place for pedestrians. Drivers going through that intersection routinely do U-turns, illegal turns from and into the wrong lanes, fail to stop on red lights when turning, and fail to yield to pedestrians who have the crossing signal. I don't recall ever seeing Durham police proactively enforcing traffic regulations at this intersection, though it is not unusual to see them there after the fact at a collision. I have commuted on the GO train to my IBM downtown offices since 1998. I nearly always walk to the station from my house on Radom Street (it's just 10 minutes). I'm in agreement that many residents of San Francisco by the Bay will take the GO train, and I even believe that some of them may join me on my walk to the station. I think that having more pedestrians using that intersection for the morning and evening rush hours will help improve my individual chances of avoiding injury since there will be some added safety in numbers. I also believe that with more pedestrians using this intersection, the odds of serious injury or death to neighbourhood residents will increase. I recommend: a. The city and region conduct a professional study of pedestrian safety and traffic behaviour at the intersection. This should be done in the fall or winter, since the more dangerous time of year for pedestrians is when the afternoon rush hour comes after sunset. I challenge councillors and staff from the city government to spend 30 minutes in the evening rush hour walking back and forth across that intersection, down across Tatra Drive and back again - you will have a near miss with nearly every traffic signal change. b. The city and region should take some tangible immediate steps to improve pedestrian safety. These steps could include prominent signs reminding drivers to yield to pedestrians, a longer walk signal on the east side of the lights, better lighting, a red light camera, and ideally police enforcement of the traffic laws at the intersection. Page: 3 of 7 ATTACHMENU, ~b TO REPORT# PD (o -a ~ 55 3. Traffic congestion and evacuation Parking - I'm sceptical that there will be enough parking onsite to accommodate residents and visitors. When I took a walk through the occupied townhouse area today, there were a dozen cars on the internal parking spots or parked on the access roads, in addition to those in people's driveways and garages. I simply do not believe claims by the developer or the city who state that these households will not have more cars than the current plan calls for. A sensible rule of thumb says if a household has two working members, they will usually have 2 cars. How many members of Pickering council live in a household with only one vehicle? Once the site is fully occupied (regardless of the number of condo towers) I request that the city conduct an unbiased survey of all residents of the property to determine the real number of vehicles associated with the a development like this. The reality should guide your future discussions. Traffic - Bayly Street in the area of Liverpool is not up to the standards we would expect of a Regional road. The elevation changes in the road, the sweeping curves and the poor sightlines heading east or west through the intersection contribute to making this area one of the more risky areas to drive through in Durham Region. Last year when the hydro poles on the north side of Bayly (at the dip in the road) snapped it meant the road was closed in front of the construction site for much of the day. Traffic on St. Martin's, Radom and Liverpool was in chaos for the day. If there had been an emergency while this street was closed by the utility company, I'm sure response times would have been unacceptable. You will see drivers doing U-turns on Bayly to head west, rather than using the lights at St. Martins. There will be more accidents that cause closure on Bayly. Has the city or region done a realistic and current traffic study of the impact of an additional 25-story residential building, or the total of 734 new residences, on the emergency response teams in the city or the evacuation plan? Commuters and the GO station - Some residents of San Francisco by the Bay will likely walk to the GO. But, many will still drive to park at the GO station, given the plans to expand parking at the station. This will contribute to more traffic congestion, especially in the afternoon and evening rush hours. GO needs to develop a realistic traffic plan with the region on how to handle the additional vehicles. Page: 4 of 7 ATTACHMENT#-L-= 56 :A T# - 4. What level of trust should taxpayers place in their civic officials and planning department? The original plans for the property development were ambitious but in my opinion appear to have met the test of reasonableness in regard to the strategic planning guidelines (density, proximity to public transit, infrastructure, etc.). I certainly do not oppose the development of condominiums in Pickering, whether as town homes or as towers, provided they're appropriate to the neighbourhood. I have lived in a condominium for more than 20 years - - - I'm not a NIMBY. I believe that the developments need to meet acceptable planning standards and neighbourhood expectations, especially in regards to density. There is a perception among many Pickering citizens that developers can engage in a process of `bait and switch' with the city. The community was prepared to accept nearly 500 new households at the old plaza location, but this proposed new tower will increase the number of units (and people and cars and traffic) by nearly 50% (237 additional households). I see 2 concrete examples of developer backtracking and the likelihood of 1 other. 1. Green space originally proposed for the site has been eliminated. The developers clearly had no serious intention of delivering on this commitment from the'outset. They should be held accountable in terms of the site plan, and financially. 2. Two towers have become three, with an increase in households of nearly 50%. My perspective on the impact of this is outlined in the letter above. 3. Retail space in the buildings along,St. Martin's was to provide some useful and convenient stores and services within walking distance. Can we believe the statements of the property developer, the city's planning department, and the municipal politicians that there will be retail shopping space along St. Martin's to replace some of the shopping and services that were formerly in the plaza? History indicates it's unlikely the promised outcome will be delivered. At what point does an approved development project stay within the bounds that were originally proposed or negotiated? Are you concerned about the justified cynicism of your constituents? Why should your constituents have faith in the solutions and planning decisions negotiated between the city and property developers when we routinely see changes that are unacceptable to the majority of the neighbours affected by these projects? What principles will you demonstrate when you vote on. this proposed amendment? Sincerely, Dan Shire. Page: 5 of 7 ATTACHMENTT# ~a TO :iEPORT# PD~ 57 BRIGHT MAZE Artificial' light from buildings confu s and traps birds, with dewily resufts. Avian victims (right) collected over three months in Toronto (below) and displayed for a school group at the Royal Ontario Museum total over 9,i birds of 89 spect . The Fatal' Light Awareness Program (FLAP) estimates that in North Arne ,ca at least 100 million birds, mostly low-flying songbirds, die each year in collisions with man-made structures. Glass windows-baffling to girds both day and night-are the biggest contact killers; while disoriented birds may simply exhaust themselves taring to exit the city maze. Still, about hall the girds found by FLAP volunteers survive to be raleawd. ~r ; ~ t '9 ii fi'' 118 ATION:.a9. GEOGezaiPacrc • xoVOUa►Ea znas Some buildings in the Toronto area have reported hundreds of bird strikes (at up to 50% mortality) in a single day (e.g. Consilium Place near McCowan and the 401 in Scarborough). Reprinted from National Geographic Magazine. November 2008. Page: 6 of 7 j ATTACHMENT#~ LO TO 5 IEPORT# PD --d~ f f ' 1 M too- s ~ t ate , r F Cc L A U x z. 10 o - -AP to T o t , ~ r Cj yi t I~ ~ U j ~ bA rv o 44 ;ATTACHMENT# -TO REPORT# PD. 36 _h q 59 Steve LaForest, President Pickering Naturalists P.O. Box 304 Pickering, ON L IV 2R6 Presentation to Pickering Council March 2, 2009 Re: Proposed 25-Storey 3rd Condo Tower at Douglas Ravine, Bay Ridges comments concerning Plan Amendment OPA-08/003P (S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - aka "San Francisco by the Bay") I would like to state at the outset that the Pickering Naturalists are NOT to higher density development on suitable sites. We have no problem in locations where environmental concerns can be addressed in a reasonable fashion, and where the required infrastructure exists. Unfortunately, the proposed 25-storey tower perched atop Douglas Ravine within less than one kilometre of a sensitive wetland does NOT meet these criteria. This development at this site is clearly inappropriate. The fact that this development encroaches to within a mere 10 metres of the top of bank is of particular concern. It has been our experience that high population densities immediately adjacent to natural areas inevitably lead to increased littering, soil compaction, sedimentation, habitat degradation, and eventual loss of species diversity. The proposed development will lead to a very high density, with 734 units on the site of the former IGA plaza. The developer has requested a density of 225 units per hectare, an increase of 85 units per hectare (or 60 above the existing Official Plan limit. This proposed third tower is much closer to the sensitive Douglas ravine itself than the rest of the development on the site of the former IGA plaza. We find it unacceptable that neither Pickering planning staff nor TRCA have required a greater setback from the top of bank here. Page 1 of 7 r . ATTACHMENT 6 0 REPORT# PD 3 _0 It is very unfortunate that the City is forging ahead with extensive new development here, in advance of completion of a Stormwater Management Plan. This proposed development will occur within the watershed of Frenchman's Bay, indeed within 1 km of the provincially significant and environmentally sensitive wetland at the north end of the bay. The Stormwater Management Plan was declared a high priority in the Mayor's Task Force Report on the Waterfront in 2001, a full 9 years ago! The proposed development is in conflict with the stated goals of the City and TRCA, with respect to Frenchman's Bay. It is also in conflict with the ongoing Frenchman's Bay Harbour Entrance Environmental Assessment (EA) process. The regional context for this EA encompasses all of the bay and the creek valleys which feed directly into it. Douglas Ravine is within ,these boundaries, and the development under consideration will have a major impact on the ravine, as well as downstream impacts on the bay. Construction of a 25-storey tower here is also incompatible with the stated goals of Sustainable Pickering. Such a high density in this location, as outlined above, is contrary to the objective of sustainable development. The loss of green space here is also NOT sustainable. The original proposal for the townhouse units and first 2 condo towers, as presented to residents in workshops, called for an area of green space. This green space has been lost as a result of subsequent negotiations. In addition to negative impacts on local residents, loss of green space will result in increased runoff, further degrading water quality in the bay. Similarly, the proposed development contravenes the Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Development Guidelines. "The design objectives cited in the guidelines are to identify, protect and enhance the public realm and open space features." Rather than protecting and enhancing the open space feature within Douglas ravine, the proposed tower puts these features at risk. The development also reduces the amount of existing open space, through the loss of the green space as described above. Further, the tower proposal does not "promote the development of the site based on sustainable development principles", as required. Sensitive species of wildlife in the Douglas Ravine include Eastern Milk Snake, Snapping Turtle, and Northern Mockingbird. The Milk Snake is Page 2 of 7 ATTACHMENT#-L-TO !EPORT# PD_J (0-261 designated a species of special concern by COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) and by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Snapping Turtle is also considered a species of special concern by COSEWIC. This data on sensitive reptiles was provided by Tom Mason, a renowned expert on reptiles and the curator of Invertebrates and Birds at the Toronto Zoo. Mockingbird has been reported nesting near the west bank of the ravine, close to the site of the proposed third tower. The mockingbird is a Carolinian species considered an "uncommon and localized breeder in the Greater Toronto area," according to the scientific journal "Ontario Birds". Other significant bird species seen in the ravine include Black-crowned Night-Heron and Northern Shrike. Both White-tailed Deer and Red Fox have been sighted in the ravine. Doug Lockrey, award-winning local naturalist and former president of the Pickering Naturalists, has identified 80 species of flowering plants in the ravine. He has also found some noteworthy plant species there. This 25-storey building will be built right up to the edge of the ravine. A tall building along a green space migratory corridor (Pine Creek, often called Douglas Creek) will lead to large numbers of birds colliding with the building, and the death of those songbirds throughout the year, and particularly during spring and fall migration cycles. Millions of migratory songbirds are killed each year in collisions with buildings such as condo towers and office towers along the north shore of Lake Ontario. Bird strikes are related to wasteful light pollution from buildings at night, and daytime strikes caused by unimaginative building design that uses a lot of reflective glass. The trees and property adjacent to Frenchman's Bay are an important migratory rest and feeding corridor for songbirds heading north in the spring, and south in the fall before crossing the lake. The ravine is full of songbirds for much of the year and the construction of a tall building with extensive glass surfaces right on the edge of the ravine will lead to high mortality rates. Songbird populations are in serious decline in Canada. Page 3 of 7 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# PD - 62 In the event that this building is approved for construction, we request that the following. two conditions be applied to the approval: a. The building must incorporate modern design structures to reduce the risk of death to migratory birds. These mitigating design approaches are easily incorporated into new buildings and significantly reduce the rate of bird kills and injury. Toronto has adopted these standards. Refer to http://www.toronto.ca/li htg sout/guidelines.htm . This is an opportunity for Council to demonstrate a serious commitment to the "Sustainable Pickering" initiative. The city can set a precedent here for construction of new office and residential towers that makes an important contribution to migratory bird survival. There will be more tall office and residential towers built-in Pickering within a few years. The city cannot claim to have a sustainable environmental approach for the future if they allow private enterprise to repeat the worst mistakes that Toronto has made in this regard. Indeed, these building practices should be applied to the other 2 towers at the site as well, given their proximity to the Bay & Pine Creek. b. Permit monitoring of the building perimeter (publicly accessed open space only) for the first year after construction to determine the impact of the 25 story structure adjacent to the north shore of Lake Ontario and the Pine Creek migratory corridor. This data will be useful in determining the impact of further development of tall buildings (residential or commercial) in Durham region. FLAP volunteers collect birds which are injured or killed in building strikes throughout the GTA under permit from the Canadian Wildlife Service; we are federally authorized to possess the birds for salvage, study or rehabilitation, and we contribute to leading-practice North American research related to the decline of bird populations caused by building and tower, collisions. Page 4 of 7 ATTACHMENT#-L-TO REPORT# PD 3(a 63 The segment of this submission concerning bird kills was researched and written by Dan Shire, vice-president 'of Pickering Naturalists and an active volunteer with FLAP (Fatal Light Awareness Program). To sum up, the Pickering Naturalists have many concerns regarding the proposed development, including both environmental issues and the lack of suitable infrastructure to support the development. We look forward to seeing these concerns thoroughly addressed by the City. Steve LaForest, Pickering Naturalists Page 5 of 7 h ATTACHMENT# l~ TO 6 4 REPORT# PD- BRIGHT MAZE Artificiat light from buildings confuses and traps birds, with deadly results. Avian victims (right) collected over three months in Toronto (below) and displayed for a school group at the Royal Ontario Museums total over f birds of 89 specles. The Fatal Light Awarene Program (RAP) estimates that in North America at least 100 million birds, mostly low-flying songbirds, die each year in oollisions with man-made structures. Glass windows-bafffing to birds both day and night-are the biggest contact Millers, while disoriented Birds may s1r.Vly exhaust themselves trying to exit the city maze. Still, about halt the birds found by FLAP volunteers survive to be released. i iI ' art P'w±"" I i sF ! 11.8 XAT1taNAL GEOGRAP111C NOVEdYrAER 1308 Some buildings in the Toronto area have reported hundreds of bird strikes (at up to 50% mortality) in a single day (e.g. Consilium Place near McCowan and the 401 in Scarborough). Reprinted from National Geographic Magazine. November 2008. Page 6 of 7 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# PD 3 65 a 01 Z O W W f ~ W I J Z 06 1U ~ O ~ F I ~ v ~U z os bb o z ,TTACHMENT#_-~ 6 6 IEPORT# PD _36-02 January 12, 2009 Ross.Pym, MCIP, RPP - Planning and Development Department • City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1 V 6K7 The Regional Municipality Mr. Pym: of Durham Planning Department Re: Regional Comments fora City of Pickering Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Bylaw Amendment Submitted by S.R. 605 ROSSLAND ROAD E & R. Bay Ridges.(Plaza 11) Limited, File No.: OPA 08/003/P.and FLOOR PO BOX 623 ZBA Al 9/08 P WHITBY ON L1 N 6A3' CANADA ` 905-668-7711 Fax: 905-666-6208 We have reviewed the above=noted applications to amend the. City. of -mail: pla""'ng@ Pickering official plan and zoning by-law. The following comments with _~gion.d.urham.on.ca respect to the Regional official plan, Provincial .policy, delegated review www.region.durham.on.ca responsibilities and Regional services are offered. A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning The purpose of the official plan amendment application is to increase the permitted density and floor space index to permit a mixed use twenty-five storey building located on the south side of Boyly Street west of Liverpool Road. The proposed building will consist of 237 condominium apartment dwellings and 400 square metres of gross leasable floor space for.retail commercial and limited professional office uses. The purpose of the zoning by-law amendment application is to permit the implementation of the: proposed development. An approved,S.R. and R. Bay Ridges Limited development (San Francisco by the Bay) is adjacent to the subject property and includes a condominium townhouse complex and two mixed-use, retail and residential, condominium towers. Regional Official Plan - The subject lands are designated "Regional Corridor" and, are adjacent to Bayly Street, a Type "A" arterial road and "Transit Spine" in the Regional Official Plan. The subject, lands. are also in the vicinity of a "Transportation Hub:" "Regional Corridors" are to be developed as mixed-use areas, which include residential, commercial and service areas with hi C E D "service Excellence t' for ourComr&nities" ® JAIV 1 J 2Q1Gi9 100% Post Consumer CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT# ..._TO REPORT# PD 36-bg 67 supporting higher-order transit services and featuring a high degree of .pedestrian oriented design. Type "A" arterial roads permit large scale mixed-use, high density development with shared _or.combined access. . Development, adjacent to "Transit Spines" and "Transportation hubs"should be high density with buildings oriented toward the street.to reduce walking distances to transit facilities; support drop-off facilities, bus bays, bus loops, bus shelters, walkways, tails and other pedestrian and cycling facilities as wellas limited surface parking. Provincial Policy and Delegation Review Responsibilities Provincial. Policy Statement The Provincial. Policy Statement (PPS) indicates that one of the factors.to sustain healthy, livable and safe communities is accommodating for a range and mix of residential, employment (including commercial), recreational and open space uses to meet long-term needs. The PPS supports density.for new housing which efficiently uses land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities and supports the use of alternative transportation modes and public transit. The proposal is consistent with the PPS. Growth Plan The subject lands are within the built boundaryof the Growth Plan. The Growth Plan encourages intensification in the built-up area. Intensification areas should achieve higher densities than.the_,surrounding areas and be planned. and designed to provide a diverse and compatible mix of land uses to support vibrant, neighborhoods. This development would -facilitate the intensification targets set in the Growth Plan policies. The proposed amendment conforms to the Growth Plan. Environmental Protection Under the Environmental Protection Act.a Record of Site Condition .(RSC) is required to be filed with the Ministry, of the Environment. (MOE) for a change in property use from. commercial to residential. Acknowledgement that an RSC was filed electronically in the MOE Environmental Site Registry should be submitted to this department for review. Noise A Noise Feasibility Study, prepared by HGC Engineering, has been submitted in support of the development. The study provides calculations and recommendations that would appear to meet the requirements of the Region and the Guidelines of the.Ministry of.th,e Environment. ATTACHMFNT# IZ REPORT# PD 3(o-D 6.8 The study recommends a"2:4 metre noise barrier on the fourth floor outdoor amenity.area, central air conditioning systems in all residential units, specific design and material requirements for widows and building faoades and warning clauses. An agreement between the City of Pickering and the applicant should contain the necessary provisions to ensure the implementation of the noise attenuation measures and warning clauses as recommended in the report. Natural Heritage . The subject property is within the vicinity of a creek tributary, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regulation limit. Comments from the conservation authority: should be obtained to protect the watercourse and` surrounding natural environment from adverse impacts of development: Regional Services The applications have been reviewed by the Regional Works Department and. Durham RegionTransit. Detailed engineering drawings should be submitted-to the Works Department for review and approval through-the subsequent site plan application process. Sanitary Sewer Services and Municipal Water Supply Previous comments offered by the Regional Works Department on the adjacent San Francisco by the Bay development indicated that the area downstream of the property has a history. of basement flooding and that a replacement sanitary sewer would be required through development of the subject property. An existing 250 mm sanitary sewer is required.to be replaced from the new 375 mm sanitary sewer and cross Pine Creek to existing. manhole number 19-144 north of Radom Street: Water supply is available to. the subject property from an existing 300 mm watermain. on Bayly Street: Site Access Access is to be provided fronthe adjacent San Francisco by the Bay development. Additional access to Bayly.Street will not. be.permitted.. A centre raised median on Bayly Street will be required. ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# PD 3(o D 69 Transit Multiple transit routes currently provide service. all around the subject properly on Bayly Street, Liverpool Road and St Martins Drive. Durham Region Transit has indicated that the proposal does not present any significant transit impacts. Conclusion . Based on the foregoing, we support the proposed official. plan amendment and zoning by=law amendment applications provided that the requirements for a record of site.condition and Regional services are addressed: Lands should be zoned using the holding symbol "h" and removed by . amendment to the by-law at such time as the. Ministry of Environment has acknowledged submission of an RSC and following execution of a Regional servicing agreement.as part of the site plan application process. In accordance with Regional By-law 11-2000 this application is exempt from Regional Approval. Please advise the Commissioner of. Planning of your Council's decision. If Council adopts the amendment, please forward a record 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 contact Dwayne Campbell, Project Planner in this Department should you have any questions or :require additional information regarding this matter. Kai Yew, CIP, RPP Manager Current Planning Copy*. Regional Works Department Pete Castellan Durham Region Transit - Phil Meagher ATTACHMENT# ± To TORONTO AND REGION ~Y` gEP©RT# PD D onservation 7 0 for The Living City October 21, 2008 CFN 41023.04 VIA E-MAIL AND MAIL RECEIVED Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Planning and Development Department 2 4 7008 City of Pickering Ci?T C? RG~~ Pickering Civic Complex PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT One The Esplanade DEPARTMENT Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Re: Official Plan Amendment Application No. OPA-08/003/P Zoning By-Law Amendment Application No. A 19/08 1216 -1261 Bayly Street (Bay Ridges Plaza) City of Pickering S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Limited and S. R. & R. Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Limited Dear Mr. Pym: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced applications received October 15, 2008 in support of Phase II of the San Francisco by the Bay project. We have reviewed the following documents: • Planning Justification Report, prepared by Commercial Focus Advisory Services Inc., dated August 13, 2008 • Drawing Nos. RZ-00 to 09, prepared by Kirkor Architects, Submission No. 1, dated July 22, 2008; • Drawing No. SG-2, Site Grading Plan Building "C", prepared by Sernas Associates, dated October 2006; • Drawing No. L:1, Preliminary Landscape Design, prepared by James McWilliam Landscape Architect, dated May 2008. We offer the following comments: TRCA Permit Requirements The subject property is partially within a TRCA Regulated Area. In accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses), a permit is required from the TRCA prior to any of the following works taking place: i . straightening, changing, diverting or interfering In anyway with the existing change! of a river, creek, stream or watercourse, or for changing or interfering in any way with a wetland; 2. development, if in the opinion of the authority, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development. Development is defined as: 1. the construction, reconstruction, erection or placing of a building or structure of any kind; 2. any change to a building or structure that would have the effect of altering the use or potential. use of the building or structure, increasing the size of the building or structure or increasing the number of dwelling units in the building or structure; 3. site grading; 4. the temporary or permanent placing, dumping or removal of any material, originating on the site or elsewhere. The applicant should contact TRCA staff to obtain permit approval prior to the issuance of any municipal grading or building permits. FAHOMETUBL10DEVELOPMENT SERVICE M PEOQNTLRFfpoi(; ~)~b6 - 1261 BAYLY_1.DOC 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.mca r ATTACHMENT#~TO REPORT# PD 6 0 71 Ross Pym - 2 - October 21, 2008 Identification of Development Limits The development limits adjacent to the valley have been identified through the review and approval of the OPA, ZBA and Site Plan applications for Phase 1. The limit of development is 10 metres from the top of bank and we understand that this 10 metre buffer along with the remainder of the valley lands has been or will be shortly conveyed to the City of Pickering and has been rezoned to an open space category. The proposal for Phase II appears generally consistent with the approved development limits. However, there is a discrepancy on the drawings as a 700 mm armourstone retaining wall within the buffer is illustrated on Drawing L-1. This wall should be removed from the plans and the landscape plan should be consistent with Drawing No. SG-2, Grading Plan and the previously approved Drawing No. L-1, Landscape Overall Plan, prepared by James McWilliam Landscape Architect, dated July 2007, Revision No. 4, revised July 31, 2007. Stormwater Management The Planning Justification Report states that the formerly approved stormwater management scheme accommodates the development of Phase II. The applicant should submit a detailed SWM Report confirming the best management practices to be incorporated into Phase II to meet the requirements of the approved SWM scheme. We defer review to the City of Pickering unless input is requested. Sewer Servicing Per our comments on Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2008-03 for Phase I, the applicant should apply for and obtain a permit under O. Reg. 166/06 for the sanitary sewer crossing of the Pine Creek south of Radom Street, west of Douglas Avenue in Douglas Park, if required by the City of Pickering and/or Region of Durham. Ravine Stewardship Plan A Ravine Stewardship Plan for the valley slopes, to TRCA satisfaction, is required as part of Phase 1. Recommendation In light of the above, we have no objection to the approval of the Official Plan and Zoning Amendment subject to the landscaping concept being revised to be consistent with that approved for Phase 1. We trust this is satisfactory. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ;~7 Leven H. Heuchert, MCIP, RPP, MRTPI Manager, Development Planning and Regulation Planning and Development Extension 5311 cc: Steven M. Warsh, Partner, S & R Development Group Limited (by e-mail) Stephen I. Fagyas, Commercial Focus Advisory Services Inc. (by e-mail) F:\HOME\PUBLIC\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\DURHAM REGION\PICKERING\1216 - 1261 BAYLY 1.DOC ATTACHMENT#~TO 72 REPORT# PD~ -Oq , Development & Municipal Services Control Centre Floor 5, 100 Borough Drive Scarborough, Ontario M1P 4W2 Tel: 416-296-6291 Toll-Free: 1-800-748-6284 Fax: 416-296=0520 October 22, 2008 Town of Pickering =s Planning Department rt p 1 The Esplande Pickering, Ontario O CT 2 4 2008 L1V 6K7 CT OF PICKERING Attention: Ross Pym PL4NNDEPARTI ENTPll~Ei!!7 Dear Sir/Madam: RE: Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment Application Location: NE corner Bayl st. and. St. Martin Dr. Your File No: OPA-08/003P, A 19/08 Bell File No: 43600 Thank you for your letter of October 6, 2008 requesting comments on the above- referenced application(s). A detailed review of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment application has been completed and an easement may be required to service the subject property, depending on a review of more detailed applications under the Planning Act. Please be advised that Bell Canada requests to be circulated on any future draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium, site plan, or any other development application, that is proposed to implement the subject official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment application. Through these processes, Bell Canada will provide a more detailed review and comments with respect to any requirements Bell Canada may have to service the subject property. Should you have any questions please contact Janice M. McConkey at 416-296-6430. Yours truly / John La Chapelle, MCIP, RPP °Manager - Development & 'Municipal Services, Ontario t AIL " Vancouver 22010 ~C.7Cy' PREMIER NATIONAL PARTNER ATTACHMENT 10REPORT# PD 7 3 Wylie, Deborah From: Adam Snow [Adam.Snow@gotransit.com] Sent: October 28, 2008 1:55 PM To: Pym, Ross Subject: RE: Proposed Residential Development (S.R.& R. Bay Ridges - San Francisco By The Bay) - GO Transit Comments Thanks Ross. The GO Transit information presented in the report is correct. Beyond this matter I have no additional comments at this time. Adam From: Pym, Ross [mailto:rpym@cityofpickering.com] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 3:25 PM To: Adam Snow Subject: RE: Proposed Residential Development (S.R.& R. Bay Ridges - San Francisco By The Bay) - GO Transit Comments Adam, As requested attached is a copy of the Noise and Vibration Report. If you require anything else, let me know. Thanks Ross Pym Principal Planner - Development Review Planning & Development Department City of Pickering T: 905.420.4660 ext. 2034 Toll Free: 1.866.683.2760 F: 905.420.7648 rpym(cD_cityofpickering.com www.citvofpickering.com Consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print www.sustainablepickering.com From: Adam Snow [mailto: Adam. Snow@gotransit.com] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 2:11 PM To: Pym, Ross Cc: Jeff Bateman Subject: Proposed Residential Development (S.R.& R. Bay Ridges - San Francisco By The Bay) - GO Transit Comments Hello Ross - I am in, receipt of the Planning Act Application notice regarding the above-noted project. Based on the figure attached to the circulation, the development will not be located immediately adjacent to the rail corridor (Bayly Street runs adjacent to the corridor at this location), but will be in close proximity. The notice indicates that a Noise Feasibility Study has been submitted - I would like to request a copy of this document for review. Beyond this matter I have no additional comments at this time. Best regards, Adam 1. !ATTACHMENT#._ f -TO REPORT# PD "09 74 &2k .PICKERI, MEMO To Ross Pym February 11, 2009 Principal Planner - Development Review From: Robert Starr Supervisor-, Development Control Copy: Coordinator, Development Approvals Subject: City of Pickering Official Plan Amendment OPA-08/003/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A19/08 S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. And S.R. &R. Bay Ridges (Plaza) Ltd. Part 1 Plan of Part of Block Y, Registed Plan No. M-16 Plan .40R-3151, and Plan M16 Part of Block Y, RP WR-414 Part 1 to 3 City of Pickering ' We have reviewed the documents submitted in support of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Application and provide the following comments: 1. Owner maybe required to enter into a Development Agreement with the City for any offsite works. City 0 4TTACHMENU E -TO REPORT# PD 75 ICI PICKERING MEMO To: Ross Pym December 10, 2008 Principal. Planner - Development Review From: Site Plan Review Committee Copy: Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Subject: City of Pickering Official Plan Amendment, OPA=08/03/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/08 S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S. R. & R. Bay Ridges (Plaza) Limited City of Pickering 0-4040 The Municipal Property & Engineering Division are in receipt of the above official plan amendment for the above application. This division provides the following comments: 1. Marilee to review storm requirements and the. impact of the new tower on site. 2. Preliminary landscape design appears to be acceptable - submit detailed design with Site Plan Application. - During detailed design consider replacement of hi riverstone with unit pavers or set riverstone on a mortar bed to minimize weed growth and migration of rocks from area. DS:nw RECEIVED DEC 1 2008 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT TO City v¢1 7 6 ATTACHMENT ifi REPORT# PD PICKERING MEMO To: Deborah Wylie November 5, 2009 Senior Planner - Policiy From: Marilee Gadzovski Stormwater & Environmental Engineer Copy: Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Manager, Development Control Subject: Rezoning Application A19/08 SR&R City of Pickering File: 0-4100 The Stormwater Management Report for the above-noted rezoning application may be submitted at the Site Plan stage. ATTACHMENT # TO City REPORT # PD o~ 7 7 ICI I I PICKERING MEMO To: Deborah Wylie November 23, 2009 Senior Planner - Policy From: Arnold Mostert Coordinator, Landscape & Parks Development Copy: Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Subject: City of Pickering Official Plan Amendment, OPA-08/03/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/08 S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. and S. R. & R. Bay Ridges (Plaza) Limited City of Pickering- 0-4040 Further to our discussions, we provide the following comments 1. MP&E will accept cash-in-lieu instead of Parkland Dedication for the above noted development. 2. The existing play area is to be expanded to provide a play structure for pre-school aged children. The playground safety surfacing and structures are to be accessible and meet all CSA standards. Provide details of the play area and proposed structures at the site plan approval stage. This play area will not be considered as part of the Parkland Dedication. Consider providing space for a children's play area in the roof top outdoor amenity area as well. AM:am.