Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 1, 2010 (Joint) Joint Planning & Development & Executive Committee Agenda Monday, March 1, 2010 PICKERING Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor O'Connell 1. DELEGATIONS Gerry Arnott Re: Road Work on Glenanna Road PART "A" PAGES PLANNING INFORMATION MEETING i Information Report No. 01-10 SUBJECT; Zoning By-law Amendment - A 21/09 1-8 Gazarek Realty Holdings Ltd. (Fieldgate Commercial Properties Ltd.) 1800 Kingston Road (Part 1, 40R-3466, Parts 2-5 40R-5805 and Part 1 40R-11779) City of Pickering Information Report No. 02-10 Zoning By-law Amendment -A 19/09 9-17 Commercial Focus Advisory Services 2055 Brock Road (Part of Lot 18, Concession 2) City of Pickering Information Report No. 03-10 Zoning By-law Amendment Application - A 20/09 18 - 26 M. Gonsalves 531 Rougemount Drive (Part of Lot 44, Plan 350) City of Pickering Accessible For information related to accessibility requirements please contact PICKER, Linda Roberts IN~ Phone: 905.420.4660 extension 2928 TTY: 905.420.1739 Email: Irobertse.citvofpickerina.com Joint Planning & Development & Executive Committee Agenda Monday, March 1, 2010 PICKERIN Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor O'Connell PART "B" PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORTS 1. Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 06-10 27 - 121 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2/08 W. & N. Trapper and B. Trapper 491 Rosebank Road and 546 Gillmoss Road (Part of Blocks K, L and M, Plan 418) City of Pickering RECOMMENDATION 1. That Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 submitted by Land Pro Engineering, on behalf of W. & N. Trapper and B. Trapper to permit a residential plan of subdivision on lands being Part of Blocks K, L and M, Plan 418 as shown on Attachment #4, to Report PD 06-10, be endorsed; 2. That the proposed conditions of draft plan approval to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 06-10, be endorsed; 3. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2/08 submitted by Land Pro Engineering, to amend the zoning on lands being Part of Blocks K, Land M, Plan 418 to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 as outlined in Appendix II to Report PD 06-10 be endorsed; 4. That an exception to the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines - Precinct 3, to allow for minimum lot frontages of 11.0 metres for single detached dwellings to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02, be endorsed as set out on Appendix III and; 5. That an Informational Revision be processed to the City of Pickering Official Plan Rosebank Neighbourhood Map (Map 11, Edition 5) to add a street connection from Gillmoss Road to Cowan Circle as shown on Appendix IV. (II) OTHER BUSINESS (III) ADJOURNMENT Cary Information Report Report Number: 01-10 For Public Information Meeting of PICKERING Date: March 1, 2010 01 In Accordance with the Public Meeting Requirements of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter PA 3 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment - A 21/09 Gazarek Realty Holdings Ltd. (Fieldgate Commercial Properties Ltd.) 1800 Kingston Road (Part 1 40R-3466, Parts 2-5 40R-5805 and Part 1 40R-11779) City of Pickering 1.0 Property Location and Description - the subject lands are located on the north side of Kingston Road east of Brock Road and are approximately 2.6 hectares in area (see Location Map - Attachment #1); - a former vehicle dealership with showroom, offices and repair facilities (now vacant) occupies the eastern portion of the site; - the western portion of the site is undeveloped, but was used as a secondary parking area for the vehicle dealership; - the surrounding land uses include: north - Finch Avenue, large-lot detached houses and townhouses; south - Kingston Road and a one storey shopping centre and townhouses along Bainbridge Drive; west - Canada Post and Durham Regional Police, Finch Avenue and townhouses (under construction); east - Kingston Road and townhouses. 2.0 Applicant's Proposal the applicant has requested to amend the zoning by-law to permit retail. and service commercial uses including a pharmacy, financial institutions, medical and other professional offices as well as complementary retail and service commercial uses (see Applicant's Submitted Plan - Attachment #2); the applicant is not requesting permission to enlarge or to build additional or new structures on the'subject lands; the proposed uses will occur in the existing building; - the automobile sales and servicing function of the site has been discontinued; the use of potentially noxious materials required for the servicing of vehicles has ceased and these materials will be removed from the site; surface parking (for the eastern, paved section of the site) exists for 266 cars. Information Report No. 01-10 Page 2 0 Official Plan and Zoning 3.1 Provincial Growth Plan - Places to Grow (the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe) requires intensification of land uses within municipalities' built boundaries; - the required review of the Pickering Official Plan (to bring it into conformity with Places to Grow) may result in changes to the boundaries, designations, prescribed densities, and other policies pertaining to the subject and other adjacent properties; 3.2 Durham Regional Official Plan - the Regional Plan designates the subject property "Urban System - Regional Corridor"; - "Urban System - Regional Corridor" areas are to be planned and developed as mixed-use areas, including residential, commercial and service areas with higher densities; - the proposal appears to comply with the Durham Regional Official Plan; 3.3 Pickering Official Plan the City of Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property "Mixed-Use Area -Mixed Corridor" (Village East Neighbourhood); the City is undertaking a review of the Kingston Road Corridor as part of the work required to bring the Pickering Official Plan into conformity with the Provincial Growth Plan and specific policy amendments relating to land use, site development and built form will be considered through this process; - the current Mixed Corridor designation is intended primarily for residential, retail, community, cultural and recreational uses at a scale serving the community; the subject lands are located within a "Flood Plain Special Policy Area". The Pickering Official Plan allows lands within "Flood Plain Special Policy Areas" to be developed where water velocity or depth during certain flood conditions would not create unacceptable hazard to life or property, when restricted to uses that are not considered highly vulnerable, and where the development would not result in potential environmental impacts and when provided with appropriate flood protection measures; - the proposal complies with the Pickering Official Plan; 3.4 Kingston Road Corridor Urban Design and Development Guidelines - these guidelines establish a general design framework that supports the long-term vision for the Kingston Road Corridor, and must be considered when evaluating development proposals fronting Kingston Road; - the subject property falls within the Brock Road Corridor Precinct which is to be established as the eastern entrance to Pickering, from Kingston Road and Highway 401; Information Report No. 01-10 Page 3 03 - the precinct is expected to generally remain an auto-oriented corridor with auto-dependant land uses, but with strengthened pedestrian connections at significant intersections; 3.5 Zoning By-law 3036 - the subject property is currently zoned "CAY - Commercial . AutomotiveNehicle Sales and Rental Establishment; - an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to allow any other use on the site; - the applicant has requested an appropriate zone that would permit the proposed retail/commercial uses. 4.0 Results of Circulation 4.1 Resident Comments none received in response to the circulation to date; 4.2 Agency Comments Toronto Region and Conservation Authority • accepts the findings and conclusions of the Letter Report describing the . flood susceptibility and potential flood-proofing measures for the subject lands and will provide detailed comments as part of their formal response to the rezoning application; 4.3 City Department Comments - Development Control • no concern with the application provided that no site changes with respect to grading, drainage or site servicing are proposed; 4.4 Staff Comments the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement specifies that "(a) Special Policy Area is not intended to allow for new or intensified development and site alteration, if a community has feasible opportunities for development outside the flood plain." (The Planning Act classifies a change in zoning land use category as new development); staff note that the proposed rezoning does not involve any changes to the site or building form and removes the automotive uses from the subject lands, thereby reducing the chance potential contamination of the Duffins Creek through a flooding event. The TRCA, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) are aware of staffs position that the proposed rezoning be considered as an interim use until such time as the City completes its conformity exercise including the work necessary to update its Special Policy Areas to align with the most recent TRCA flood plain mapping and MNR and MMHA policies.; Information Report No. 01-10 Page 4 04 - in reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: • whether a road widening may be required for Kingston Road; • the site currently has an over-supply of parking. Staff are evaluating whether there is merit in proposing the removal of some of the impervious parking to allow for larger landscape areas even though the proposal is for an interim use; • ensuring that the proposed uses are viable for the location compatible with and sensitive to existing surrounding development, including traffic, noise, level of activity, scale and intensity of the uses; • resident and neighbouring owner concerns; • agency comments with respect to the uses that could be considered high risk for inclusion within the flood plain; • in consideration of the interim nature of the zoning amendment application a sustainability report was not required. Staff will, however, evaluate and report back on the sustainable aspects of the application. 5.0 Procedural Information - written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; - oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; - all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; - if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal- - if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk. 6.0 Other Information 6.1 Appendix No. I - list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have comments on the applications at the time of writing report; 6.2 Information Received copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department: Conclusions summarized here are for information purposes only. Further review and staff/agency comments are still required; Information Report No. 01-10 Page 5 05 - Planning Justification Letter (comments required from City and Region) • concludes that the reuse of the existing building and site is a sustainable approach to development of the land and that the proposed uses are more appropriate to the neighbourhood than the former vehicle sales and rental establishment; - Limited Phase II Geo-Environmental Subsurface Investigation, 2003 (comments required from City Engineering) • concludes that subsurface conditions on the site meet Ministry of the Environment guidelines for commercial uses; - Proposed/Existing Site Plan; (comments required from City and Region Engineering); - Proposed Elevations; 6.3 Company Principal - the owner of the subject property is Gazarek Realty Holdings Ltd.; - Fieldgate Commercial Properties Ltd. (Matthew West) is the applicant. Isa Jam , MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, PP Planner Manager, Policy IJ:jf Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development Appendix No. I to 0 6 Information Report No. 01-10 Commenting Residents and Landowners (1) none received to date Commenting Agencies (1) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Commenting City Departments (1) Development Control ATTACHMENTOJ-~ T 0/ Q ISLAMIC m ,Z, CENTRE j 1 Q Q 1 N a O 1 1 ~ Y RE U O NITY PARK ~ m DUFFiNS CRESCENT 0 LK m J m FINCH AVENUE FINCH AVENUE . ROAD Q O 0 O W 0 S OPERTTY o W r > 0 0 0 S~CN qn ~~NC o o W O m 2 Lr m Z Of m DRIVE BAINBRIDGE 0 ~ J Z W W U COURT of w 1RCLE o DENMAR v Z PARK > c v o EECHLAW Y v DRIVE o PARK D m w City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CON 1, PT LOT 18, RP 40R-3466 PART 1 AND RP, 40R-5805 PART 2 TO 5 OWNER GAZAREK REALTY HOLDINGS LTD. DATE JAN. 22, 2010 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. A 21/09 SCALE 1:5000 CHECKED BY RP N urea: oTe roost Entarpriaea Ins, and ita suppliers. All rights Reserved. Nol o plan of -e,.. PN-9 2009 MPAC antl ita supPliera. All ri hta Rese d. Not o plan of Surve . ATT IHAENT -LTQ INFORMA71 ION REPORT oj -/0 ZWVo 8 k'k ~yHH O pQ 4 1 ~.QO 4 Z It 11 L L _ L J s s cz i y y~+ T E a~i N a - 11 11. ..1_~ 1 1-1-1.1-1J. _..L.. i N E cz O ~ U C O cz E O C U I, O P° R c~ o Information Report Report Number: 02-10 For Public Information Meeting of PICKERING Date: March 1, 2010 09 In Accordance with the Public Meeting Requirements of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter PA 3 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment - A 19/09 Commercial Focus Advisory Services 2055 Brock Road (Part of Lot 18, Concession 2) City of Pickering 1.0 Property Location and Description - the subject lands are located on the east side of Brock Road directly north of Duffins Creek (north of Finch Avenue) and are approximately 5.2 hectares in area (see Location Map - Attachment #1); - one vacant, detached, one storey brick dwelling currently occupies the site. The structure is proposed to be demolished in the course of the development of the site; - the surrounding land uses are: north - Pickering Islamic Centre and agricultural land; south - West Duffins Creek and large lot detached residences on the north side of Finch Avenue; west - Brock Road, two storey detached houses on a local road parallel to and facing Brock Road, and Brock Ridge.Community Park; east - East Duffins Creek and valleylands. 2.0 Applicant's Proposal - the applicant has requested to amend the zoning by-law to permit a three storey commercial building and a 13 unit, three storey live/work townhouse building as a first phase of the development on the lands (see Applicant's Submitted Plan - Attachment #2); - the proposed commercial building is to be located adjacent and parallel to Brock Road, while the live/work units are to be located to the interior of the site; - the density of the residential component and the coverage (floor space index) for the proposed commercial building cannot be determined until ownership tenure and future ownership parcels are established; - surface parking for 106 cars plus 13 individual garage spaces have been proposed; - access to the site would be from a new collector road (currently privately owned); Information Report No. 02-10 Page 2 10 - the current proposal for the second phase of development includes a four storey apartment building and three townhouse structures located to the east of the Phase 1 lands; - the subject rezoning application applies only to the first phase of the proposed development. 3.0 Official Plan and Zoning 3.1 Provincial Growth Plan - Places to Grow (the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe) requires intensification of land uses within municipalities' built boundaries; the required review of the Pickering Official Plan (to bring it into conformity with Places to Grow) may result in changes to the prescribed densities, and other policies pertaining to the subject and other adjacent properties; 3.2 Durham Regional Official-Plan - the Regional Plan designates the subject property "Urban System - Regional Corridor and Major Open Space Area"; - "Regional Corridors" are to be planned and developed as mixed-use areas, including residential, commercial and service areas with higher densities; - the predominant use of lands designated in the "Major Open Space Areas" is to be conservation and agricultural uses; - the proposal appears to comply with the Durham Regional Official Plan; 3.3 Pickering Official Plan - the City of Pickering Official Plan designates the northwest portion of the subject properties as "Urban Residential Area - Medium Density" (Brock Ridge Neighbourhood). The eastern and southern portions of the subject lands are designated as "Natural Area", - "Urban Residential Area - Medium Density" (Brock Ridge Neighbourhood) areas are intended for residential uses, home occupations, limited offices serving the area, and limited retailing of goods and services serving the area; community, cultural and recreational uses; and compatible employment and special purpose commercial uses serving the area; - medium density permits development over 30 units and up to 80 units per net hectare; - the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood Plan designates a new collector road in the location as shown on the proposed site plan for this application; - a floor space index for commercial uses in a residential designation is not identified; - the proposal will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the application; Information Report No. 02-10 Page 3 11 3.4 Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines - the Compendium Document to the Pickering Official Plan contains development guidelines affecting the lands. Through the rezoning and site plan approval process the proposal will be reviewed to ensure overall conformity with the principles contained within the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines; - the guidelines envision multi-unit, multi-floor buildings for the site. The northwest corner of the subject site is intended to establish a strong building presence along Brock Road, recommending the construction of buildings of between four and eight storeys, and to frame the entry point into the precinct at this location; - a potential location for a storm water management pond is identified at the east side of the subject lands; 3.4 Zoning By-law 3036 - the subject property is currently zoned "G" - Greenbelt; the existing zoning is intended for parks and park-related activities and facilities, forestry, reforestation, conservation activities and agricultural uses; detailed site review concluded that a portion of the subject lands would be appropriate for development as a part of the comprehensively planned Duffins Precinct; an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to allow the development of the proposed development; - the applicant has requested an appropriate zone that would permit the proposed development. 4.0 Results of Circulation 4.1 Resident Comments - none received in response to the circulation to date; 4.2 Agency Comments none received to date; 4.3 City Department Comments Development Control • comments will be provided after an up-to-date Duffins Precinct, Southern Lands, Environmental Servicing Plan has been submitted for review; 4.4 Staff Comments an Environmental Master Servicing Plan Phase II Report for Duffins Precinct was prepared in 1999. The report did not receive approval from the TRCA, and is now considered out of date due to subsequent policy changes and the final determination of the full extent of the East Duffins Creek valleylands; Information Report No. 02-10 Page 4 12 City and TRCA staff have identified the need for an updated Environmental Servicing Plan (ESP) for Duffins Precinct. The Terms of Reference for the ESP report for the southern lands of Duffins Precinct is currently being reviewed. Rezoning of any lands within the precinct is considered premature until the ESP has been endorsed by both the City and the TRCA; in reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: • whether the new ESP will necessitate the provision of a stormwater pond on the site and/or the potential need for increased stormwater retention within the Phase 1 area of the subject lands; • the determination of required ownership parcels and tenure; • determination of the timing of the conveyance and payment for the required collector road and services; • whether cost sharing agreements are required for the new ESP, provision of the stormwater management facilities, and construction of services and the collector road; • whether the proposed width of the live/work units is adequate for the proper functioning of the commercial component of live/work units; • whether a road widening is required for Brock Road; • the Pickering Islamic Centre is currently experiencing difficulties as a result of insufficient on-site.parking spaces that may require special consideration when considering the function and adequacy the parking volumes and layout for the proposed development; • determination that the resultant mix of uses permitted on the subject property is compatible, viable and sensitive to existing surrounding development, including traffic, noise, level of activity, scale and intensity of the uses, and provides appropriate buffering and protection of the East and West Duffins Creeks and valleylands, while not negatively impacting on abutting properties, or traffic conditions; • identification of coordination issues with the design and construction of the Phase 2 lands; • the identification of site plan/design concerns including the layout, fire access, parking volumes and areas, ingress/egress, pedestrian accessibility, traffic generation and patterns, amenity spaces; and landscaped areas and features; and • consideration of resident and neighbouring owner concerns; and. • evaluation of the application in terms of its level of sustainable development components. Information Report No. 02-10 Page 5 13 5.0 Procedural Information - written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; - oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; - all comments received.will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; - if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; - if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk. 6.0 Other Information 6.1 Appendix No..I list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have comments on the applications at the time of writing report; 6.2 Information Received - copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department: Conclusions summarized here are for information purposes only. Further review and staff/agency comments are still required; - Planning Justification Report including Sustainable Development review (comments required from City and Region staff) • concludes that the proposal satisfies the intent of the Provincial and City planning policies and represents good planning. It also outlines the provision of a variety of small-scale sustainability initiatives. Staff may recommend additional initiatives through the course of more detailed review; - Environmental Report (comments required from TRCA, City and Region Engineering) • confirms that the proposed development has addressed the immediate natural heritage issues associated with the subject properties and . Environmentally Significant Areas and that impacts from the proposed development are nominal and can be readily mitigated through standard measures; Traffic Study (comments required from City and Region Engineering) • concludes that the access as located within the proposed development is acceptable and that small delays will be experienced by left turning outbound traffic but that northbound and southbound through traffic on Brock Road will be unaffected. Potential impacts on upstream and downstream signalized intersections will be negligible; Information Report No. 02-10 Page 6 Stages 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment (comments required from City and Region staff) • confirms that although no archaeological remains were found in the Phase 1 area of the subject properties, this phase area falls within a 50 metre buffer zone around an area in which a number of archaeological fragments were found and is considered to have high cultural heritage value. Monitoring by a licensed archaeologist is recommended for areas requiring grading or excavation that may extend below the limits of the existing filled area on the site. A Stage 3 excavation of one=metre test units is recommended for lands located within Phase 2; - Functional Servicing Report (comments required from City and Region Engineering) • finds that the existing Brock Road sanitary sewer and watermain are available to service the site. Stormwater management for the site will include quantity and quality controls through the construction of a storm sewer that will discharge to the West Duffins Creek, on-site detention, the use of an oil/grit separator and an infiltration strategy; - Preliminary Site Plan; (comments required from City and Region Engineering); - Preliminary Elevations; (comments required from City and Region Engineering); 6.3 Company Principal the owner of the subject property is 2143087 Ontario Ltd. (Palwinder Singh Verraich); Commercial Focus Advisory Services (Stephen Fagyas) is the applicant. Isa J 'Z S, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, PP Plann I Manager, Policy IJ:Id Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development Appendix No. I to Information Report No. 02-10 Commenting Residents and Landowners (1) none received to date Commenting Agencies (1) none received to date Commenting City Departments (1) Development Control i r i ATTACHMENT #--LTo 6 1147OR~1 ATION REi~OHT#2Z.9_ . kS ROAD O r L3 Y 1 Z ~ w (n ; > w _ of of p PICKERING l , ° a ISLAMIC w z w CENTRE m J = Q ; N ; ATOM SUBJECT PROPERTY ,i - R BROCK RIDGE COMMUNITY PARK DUF~INS CRESCENT ° M w J m FINCH AVENUE FINCH AVENUE DURHAM ROA REGIONAL TTM< POLICE ° 2 th 0 DIVISION ry, w ° ' w ° w J > f- O N w o O cf) 0 \\NG5 0 ° w o co ° m z co y DR O BAINBRIDGE O ~N M ° z City of.Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOT 18, CONCESSION 2 1007\ OWNER 2143087 ONTARIO INC. DATE DEC. 23, 2009 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. A 19/09 SCALE 1:5000 CHECKED BY IJ N coTeronel aEnter IncOntl it. liars. All i hta Reaervetl. Not a Plon at erv .,ey. - ' PN-13 e 2005 MPAC ontl ~la ,;p Pliers. All rights Reaervetl. Not o Plan o/ Survey. 14 RE PO i-wo 02-- 17 - ~W4W O 2 022 R 3 C ' Q N W ~ Q a E U _ CL a U p! U) U) U CL Q o Q ~ ~ o O U Q a a L `O AA Ll1 f R 47Q vv vv v vv v vo 00 o ~WZ E W Q m J S Q ~S U C c O a o U ° E o 11:~ ZEr ~ ~ cn ITU s 0 co ° Lull. g i k am adoa Nooae C`tq Information Report Report Number: 03-10 PTCKERhTG For Public Information Meeting of 1 1V Date: March 1, 2010 18 In Accordance with the Public Meeting Requirements of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter PA 3 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/09 M. Gonsalves 531 Rougemount Drive (Part of Lot 44, Plan 350) City of Pickering 1.0 Property Location and Description - the subject property is located on the east side of Rougemount Drive, north of the intersection of Rougemount Drive and Pine Ridge Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1); - the subject property is currently zoned "R3" - Third.Density Residential Zone, which allows for a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; - the subject property has an area of approximately 0.25 hectare, a lot frontage of 30.48 metres and currently supports a detached dwelling with an attached garage; - the land uses surrounding the subject property are detached residential with various lot frontages. 2.0 Applicant's Proposal - the applicant has requested to amend the existing zoning from "R3" - Third Density Residential Zone (minimum lot frontage 18.0 metres) to "R4" - Fourth Density Residential Zone to allow for the creation of two lots with a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres, and to allow for the future development of two new detached dwellings (see Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachment #2); - the existing detach dwelling will be demolished to allow for the future development; - the applicant has not submitted a land severance application to the Durham Region Land Division Committee. 3.0 Official Plan and Zoning 3.1 Durham Regional Official Plan the Durham Regional. Official Plan designates the subject property as "Urban Areas - Living Area"; lands in this designation shall be used predominantly for housing purposes; - in the General Policies for "Urban Areas - Living Areas", the Plan indicates that the areas shall be comprised of communities; each community shall Information Report No. 03-10 Page 2 19 incorporate the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure to provide living accommodations that address various socioeconomic factors; the proposal appears to conform to the Durham Region Official Plan; 3.2 Pickering Official Plan - the City of Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property as "Urban Residential - Low Density Area" within the Rosebank Neighbourhood; lands with this designation are intended primarily for housing; - policies for the'Rosebank Neighbourhood restrict lands west of Rosebank Road to the development and infilling of single detached dwellings having a net residential density of 17 units per net hectare (the net residential density proposed by applicant is approximately 8 units per net hectare); - to protect and enhance the character of established neighbourhoods, the Official Plan identifies that such matters as building height, yard setback, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking provisions and traffic implications should be considered; - the proposal appears to conform with the policies of the Official Plan; 3.3 Compendium Document to the Official Plan (Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines) - the subject property is.situated within Design Precinct No. 1 of the "Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines"; - residential development shall be limited to the provision of single detached dwelling only; - new lots created in this precinct area shall have a minimum lot frontage of approximately 15.0 metres and minimum lot depths ranging between approximately 33 metres and 60 metres unless the character of the area is such that a smaller lot frontage or smaller lot depth is desirable, the application proposes lots with 15.2 metres frontage and 82 metres depth; 3.4 Zoning By-law 2511 - the subject property is zoned "R3" - Third Density Residential Zone; - the "R3" zoning permits a detached dwelling on a residential lot with a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres and a minimum lot area of 550 square metres; - an amendment to the existing zoning by-law is required to allow for a land severance resulting with the creation of two lots with a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres. Information Report No. 03-10 Page 3 20 4.0 Results of Circulation 4.1 Resident Comments as of the writing of this Report, one comment has been received; a neighbouring resident had concern with the change of zoning resulting to an increase in density from the current low density zoning; 4.2 Agency Comments Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • no objections as the subject property is not within a TRCA "Regulated Area" or within any other areas of TRCA intent; 4.3 City Department Comments Development Control • no comments or concerns; 4.4 Staff Comments. in reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: • while the density of the proposed development and proposed lot frontages and depths meet the minimum requirements stated in the policies of Pickering Official Plan and the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines, staff will evaluate whether the proposed 15.0 metre lot frontages and resultant development will maintain the character of the neighbourhood; • in examining whether the proposed development will maintain the character of the area, staff will undertake a review of the range of existing lot frontages, setbacks and defining characteristics in the Rosebank Neighbourhood to identify the appropriateness of the proposed future development of two new detached dwellings; • staff will evaluate whether the proposed development and land severances will result in a precedent for the neighbouring properties of similar frontages and depths, and whether the cumulative effect of additional severances would significantly alter the character of the area; • the applicant is requesting the "R4" zoning standards; however, the "R4" zone is an older category of zoning and it does not have the same level control as current by-laws for newer residential areas; staff will evaluate the adequacy of the "R4'; zoning in determining whether additional zoning controls are required (such as but not limited to restricting garage projections or restricting building height) to ensure that development is compatible and in character with the surrounding area; • currently the driveway and rear yard are bordered with mature trees planted as landscaping; staff will examine the placement of the new detached dwellings and the opportunities of preserving and retaining existing trees. Information Report No. 03-10 Page 4 21 5.0 Procedural Information - written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; - oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; - all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; - if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; - if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk. 6.0 Other Information 6.1 Appendix No. list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing report; I 6.2 Information Received - copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department: Conclusions summarized here are for information purposes only. Further review and staff/agency comment are still required; - Planning Justification Letter (comments required from City and Region) • applicant is seeking to conform with the existing character of the current neighbourhood; - Sustainable Development Report (comments required from City and Region) • applicant indicates that any future proposed development to be built on the subject property will use new building materials that are more energy efficient than the current dwelling on the property and that mature trees will be preserved and/or replaced with new trees if removal is necessary due to the proposed development. Information Report No. 03-10 Page 5 22 6.3 Company Principal the applicant advises that the owner of the subject property is Michelle Gonsalves Mila Yeung Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Policy MY:ld Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development' Appendix No. I to Information Report No. 03=10 23 Commenting Residents and Landowners (1) Michael and Sheila Wallace Commenting Agencies (1) Toronto Region Conservation Authority Commenting City Departments (1) Development Control ATTACHMr- NT#----L- To 24 ¢ 0 cff X01 0 O Of N\GN~P~ FRONRTIER z a U I IT TOYNEVALE ROAD TOYNEVALE ROA o w o ~ rr j o ~ ~ z w O w ~ U N w w o R OS PU Z t->--ou Of CRT w z w ME Qf U W DRIVE a U J Z a ~ p0 0 L~j O = w C7 ¢ u CO 7 O z K ~ Q X90 MAITLAND DRIVE 0 ECT z RTY - -----J _ - ¢ Lr) P co % COW O° GILLMO 40 ®i~i40 ~ Y RoA j a j o 1 1 City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PLAN 350, PART LOT 44 OWNER M. GONSALVES DATE DEC. 21, 2009 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. A 20/09 SCALE 1:5000 CHECKED BY RP N oT alrcEnterpriaaa Inc. and its supplier,. All rights 11--d. Not p plan o/ a. rvaY. PN_2 c 2005 MPAC and Its su pliers. All rl hta Reaervetl. Not o plan o! Surve . AT"WIHIMFNT 2C~i~'1'0d [q) INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS SUBMITTED PLAN - 2 5 M. GONSLAVES A 20/09 W . D o W U 82.2m v 3 L4 PROPOSED SEVERANCE LINE p - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41 - cn 3 cr~ 3 . 3 'po v~ iZ- 'x MS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CRY OF P/CKFA/NC, PLANNLNC & DEVELOPMENT DEPARWEN7, INFORMA7701V & SUPPORT SERVICES, DECEMBER 27, 2009 ATTACH%I HT# 3 Ta 2 Ifrt~1A "f.x3k r~a e cls~'rt~.~ rer{.1f~~!+ Yeun , Mila From: Roberts, Linda Sent: February-11-10 3:07 PM FEB 2010 To: Yeung, Mila Subject: FW: zoning bylaw amendment application A 20/09 CITY OF PICKERING pUgNN106 AA'f GHT VELOPMENT Forwarding for your information. From: Shields, Debbie Sent: February 11, 2010 2:20 PM To: Roberts, Linda Subject: FW: zoning bylaw amendment application A 20/09 Please circulate to Planning. From: mwa I lace. prod uctions@sym patico.ca [mailto:mwallace.productions@sympatico.ca] Sent: February 11, 2010 10:45 AM To: Shields, Debbie Subject: zoning bylaw amendment application A 20/09 Please do not allow a change to the current zoning.We have resided for 37 years on the adjoining property and appreciate very much the low density of this zoning. Yours sincerely, Michael and Sheila Wallace 527 Rougemount Drive Pickering On L1W 2C1 1 City 0~ Report to Planning & Development ipICKERING Committee Report Number: PD 06-10 Date: March 1, 2010 27 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2/08 W. & N. Trapper and B. Trapper 491 Rosebank Road and 546 Gillmoss Road (Part of Blocks K, L and M, Plan 418) City of Pickering Recommendation: 1. That Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 submitted by Land Pro Engineering, on behalf of W. & N. Trapper and B. Trapper to permit a residential plan of subdivision on lands being Part of Blocks K, L and M, Plan 418 as shown on Attachment #4, to Report PD 06-10, be endorsed; 2. That the proposed conditions of draft plan approval to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 06-10, be endorsed; 3. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2/08 submitted by Land Pro Engineering, to amend the zoning on lands being Part of Blocks K, L and M, Plan 418 to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 as outlined in Appendix II to Report PD 06-10 be endorsed; 4. That an exception to the Roseb.ank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines - Precinct 3, to allow for minimum lot frontages of 11.0 metres for single detached dwellings to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02, be endorsed as set out on Appendix III and; 5. That an Informational Revision be processed to the City of Pickering Official Plan Rosebank Neighbourhood Map (Map 11, Edition 5) to add a street connection from Gillmoss Road to Cowan Circle as shown on Appendix IV. Executive Summary: The applicant's initial proposal was to amend the existing "R3" zoning to allow for the creation of 40 detached dwellings with lot frontages ranging from 11.0 metres to approximately 14.0 metres. The proposal also completed the road connection of Cowan Circle and created a permanent cul-de-sac extending south from Cowan Circle (see Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachment #2). Report PD 06710 March 1, 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 28 Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 2 After receiving agency and public comments and attending two resident meetings, the applicant amended the proposal by: reducing the number of lots for detached dwellings from 40 to 34; increasing frontages for lots close to Rosebank Road; creating a temporary cul-de-sac extending south from Cowan Circle, (with the opportunity for a future connection to Gillmoss Road); and adding a neighbourhood tot lot/parkette behind lots 6 to 8 (see Location Map and Applicant's Final Plan, Attachments 1 &.4). Staff have evaluated the Applicant's Final Plan and considered resident and agency comments. Staff supports the Applicant's Final Plan with the deletion of the tot lot and the securement of a block for the future extension/connection of Gillmoss Road (see Staff Recommended Plan, Attachment #5). Development of the lands as proposed represents an infill situation and provides for the completion of the internal road network which meets the intent of the Rosebank Neighbourhood Plan. A revision to the Rosebank Neighbourhood Map is required to reflect a connection of a new street with Cowan Circle. The Staff Recommended Plan addresses proper road and pedestrian connections and provides a lotting pattern and lot frontages that allows for the development of a housing form that is in character with the existing neighbourhood, and in compliance with the City's Official Plan Policies. It is recommended that the Staff Recommended Plan be endorsed by Council, and that an exemption to the Rosebank Development Design Guidelines, to permit 11.0 metre lot frontages for single detached dwellings within the boundaries of the draft plan of subdivision, be approved. The City's requirements respecting development of'the subject property will be addressed through conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval and site-specific zoning provisions. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed recommendation. Sustainability Implications: Staff's review of the plan of subdivision is that it does not achieve Level 1 of the City's Sustainable Development Guidelines. However, due to the infill nature of the project and the need to respect the character of the existing neighbourhood there is limited opportunity to achieve Level 1. The proposal does offer sustainable elements in that it significantly increases the density of existing underdeveloped large lots, and further implements the general intent of the tertiary road structure identified for this area in the Rosebank Neighbourhood Plan. The proposed development will take advantage of existing infrastructure within the City's urban area and will provide improved road and sidewalk connectivity, access points for emergency response vehicles and access to public transit. Report PD 06-10 March 1, 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 3 9 Further opportunities exist for the builder to consider sustainable options during the building permit process. The applicant may not necessarily be the builder. Background: 1.0 Introduction In spring 2007 the applicant pre-consulted with the City and the Region of Durham Planning Departments to discuss future redevelopment opportunities for 491 Rosebank Road and 546 Gillmoss Road. City Staff advised that the Official Plan designates the properties as "Urban Residential - Low Density Area" which allows a maximum density of 30 units per net hectare, and that the existing zoning permits single detached dwellings on lots with a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres. The applicant was also advised of the Rosebank Neighbourhood Official Plan policies and the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. The applicant submitted a rezoning and draft plan of subdivision application on December 12, 2007 to permit the development of 40 single detached dwelling units on lots with frontages ranging from 11.0 metres to approximately 14.0 metres. After considering Staff, resident and agency comments received as a result of the circulation of the applications, the statutory public information meeting and two neighbourhood resident working group meetings, the applicant revised the submitted draft plan to propose the development of 34 single detached dwelling units on lots with frontages ranging from 11.0 metres to approximately 14.0 metres. Staff comments contained in this report pertains to the applicant's final revised plan and address issues respecting: neighbourhood character compatibility, future road connections, tree preservation, traffic, sewer capacity, noise attenuation, and other matters raised through the consideration of the applications. 2.0 Comments Received 2.1 Prior to the Information Meeting (see Information Report, Attachment #8) On February 20, 2008, Planning staff was invited to a Neighbourhood Resident's Meeting with the South Rosebank Working Group. Area residents and other interest groups expressed concerns pertaining to: the environment (i.e. the status of existing plant and animal species within the area), the Rosebank Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station (SSPS) upgrade, increased traffic, size of lot frontages and resulting built form, access of construction vehicles, timing of construction, sustainable design and sufficiency of electrical service. Report PD 06-10 March 1, 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 30 Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 4 2.2 At the March 3, 2008 Information Meeting (see Meeting Minutes, Attachment #9) Land Pro Engineering presented a revised plan consisting of 36 lots (reduced from the original 40 lots) with a proposed tot lot in the northeast sector of the plan (see Applicant's Revised Plan, Attachment #3). Further, to address Canadian National Railway (CN Rail) requirements restricting residential development within 30 metres of a railway right-of-way, a revision to the road pattern was also proposed. Several area residents (including members from the South Rosebank Working Group) spoke at the Information Meeting and raised questions/concerns pertaining to: lack of consistency with the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines and neighbourhood character; impact on the environment, services, schools and traffic caused by proposed development; status of the Rosebank SSPS upgrade; and proposed road patterns. 2.3 Following the Information Meeting (see Attachment #10) One comment was received from the public following the Information Meeting: Doreen Brown (475 Oakwood Drive) - does not support applicant's proposal to amend the zoning by-law and draft plan of subdivision; - proposed lot frontages are not acceptable; - concerned with increased traffic with proposed subdivision and "The Milton Road Subdivision" (on the west side of Rosebank Road) and safety of school children during rush hours; - concerned with: the status of the Rosebank SSPS; sufficiency of hydro; and protection of environmental features. 2.4 South Rosebank Working Group Meeting (January 19, 2010) - a resident meeting was held on January 19, 2010 with the City and Regional Ward Councillors, Planning staff and the applicant to discuss the Planning & Development's position on the application prior to the applications being considered by Planning & Development Committee; - area residents voiced concern regarding: o proposed lot frontages along Cowan Circle; o loss of animal habitat and increased train noise from CN Rail with the removal of existing vegetation; o increased traffic; o future development to be coordinated with the completion of the rebuilt Rosebank Sanitary Sewer Pumping Station; Report PD 06-10 March 1, 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 5 3 the Ward 1 Regional Councilor organized a site walk with area residents, TRCA and City staff on February 2, 2010 to discuss the protection/preservation of existing trees within the subdivision boundaries and the opportunity to extend a noise attenuation fence along the full-length of the plan's eastern boundary, adjacent to the CN Rail right-of-way; - residents requested City staff to consider both additional tree preservation and noise attenuation fencing prior to the registration of the plan of submission or building permit submission. 2.5 City Department and Agency Comments (see Information Report, Attachment #8) Region of Durham Planning & Works (Letters and Emails Dated March 12, 2008, April 28, 2008, May 21, 2008, June 20, 2008, and January 29, 2009) (see Attachments #11 to #15) March 21, 2008 - property is predominantly designated "Living Area", in the Regional Official Plan, which shall be used predominately for housing purposes; - the eastern portion of the property is designated as a Key Natural Heritage Feature (KNHF); - an Environmental Impact Study is required to determine boundaries of the KNHF and its minimum vegetation protection zone (March 12, 2008); - an acoustic report is required to address noise attenuation measures from the CN Rail; - due to the site's close proximity to the Rouge River and Petticoat Creek, an archaeological assessment should also be submitted and would be included as a condition of draft approval. April 28, 2008 - Municipal Water Supply and Sanitary Sewers can be provided to the proposed residential subdivision; - sanitary sewers within the proposed subdivision will discharge to the Rosebank Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station (SSPS) on Rodd Avenue; - a Class Environmental Assessment is currently being conducted by the Region of Durham for upgrades at the pumping station and forcemain; - the existing facility occasionally experiences failures due to age and poor condition of mechanical, electrical and structural components; - the Region of Durham plans to replace the Rosebank SSPS in 2009-2010, pending Regional Council approval for budget funding; the Region would prefer to coordinate the proposed building permit approvals of the development with the City of Pickering, to closely match the completion of the upgraded Rosebank SSPS and minimize sewage flow and risk of failures (April 28, 2008). Report PD 06-10 March 1, 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 6 32 Other Comments no objection to draft approval of this plan (January 29, 2009); - Conditions of Draft Plan requested; ' - the Region has no comments on the Traffic Impact Study; - the Region finds the Noise Control Feasibility Study acceptable (June 20, 2008); - the applicant and TRCA have reached an agreement regarding the provision . of off-site compensation to mitigate the loss of the ecological function associated with the wooded area; the Region has received confirmation from the Ministry of Culture that the Stage 1, 2 and 3 Archaeological Assessment revealed no concerns for impacts to archaeological resources. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Letters Dated February 4, 2008, December 18, 2008 and January 28, 2009) (see Attachments #16 to #18) February 4, 2008 - property is located within an area defined as natural cover in TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System; - an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required to determine impacts to the immediate and surrounding area with respect to woodlot form and function and possible improvements to the proposed affected area; - a detailed Stormwater Management report is required to determine how the site will tie into the existing or proposed servicing; - a Water Balance Analysis is required to determine how rainfall should be detained on-site and either infiltrated or reused. December 18, 2008 - following review of the EIS submitted by the applicant, TRCA staff recommend that as much of the natural cover on the subject site be maintained and improved; - where natural cover is to be removed to accommodate development, off-site compensation should be provided for this loss in the form of the establishment of commensurate natural cover. January 28, 2009 - no objection to draft approval of this plan; Conditions of Draft Plan requested; the owner has reached an agreement with TRCA to provide $17,500 for off-site woodland compensation to mitigate the ecological impacts associated with the removal of the natural vegetation that exists on the subject lands by providing replacement plantings of trees and shrubs on publicly owned lands nearby. Report PD 06-10 March 1, 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 7 33 Development Control and Engineering Services Division Memos and Emails dated June 9, 2008, June 10, 2008, September 24, 2008, December 18, 2009, and January 19, 2010 (see Attachments #19 to #22). Manager, Development Control & Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works (see Attachment #19) traffic study is acceptable. Manager, Development Control (see Attachment #20) no comments on The Scoped Environmental Impact Study. Division Head, Engineering Services (see Attachment #21) - proposed neighbourhood tot lot (Block 40) is unsuitable within this subdivision and recommends cash-in-lieu for parkland dedication; - further recommends that a park enhancement plan be prepared for the two neighbourhood parks, and funding be considered in the 2011 budget. Manager, Development Control (see Attachment #22) - a through connection of Gillmoss Road appears unreasonable at this time due to extensive grading and disruption to adjacent properties. Canadian National Railway (see Attachment #23) - noise feasibility study is satisfactory; - a minor setback reduction from the 30 metre requirement for residential buildings may be considered if the railway is at cut and is of sufficient depth at this location; - requested a copy of conditions of draft approval. Canada Post (see Attachment #24) - no objection; - subdivision will receive. extension of door to door mail delivery service. Durham Catholic District School Board (see Attachment #25) - no objection; - students generated from this development will attend Our Lady of the Bay Catholic Elementary School (795 Eyer Drive Pickering, Ontario). Durham District School Board (see Attachment #26) - no objection; - approximately 20 elementary pupils could be generated by this application; - pupils generated by the above noted plan be accommodated within an existing school facility. Report PD 06-10 March 1, 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 34 Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 8 Veridian Connection (see Attachment #27) - no objection; - conditions of draft plan approval required. The following expressed no objection to the subject draft plan of subdivision and zoning amendment application: • Bell Canada - conditions of draft approval requested; • Enbridge Gas; Hydro One; Ministry of Culture. 3.0 Discussion: 3.1 Minimum Lot frontages of 11.0 metres for Single Detached Dwellings in this Neighbourhood are Compatible with the Community and the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines The Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines are Council adopted guidelines provides guidance on neighbourhood development and acts as a bridge between Official Plan policy and implementing Zoning By-laws. The design guidelines address matters such as: lot frontage; lot depth; scale and intensity of use; community design requirements and any other matter Council deems necessary. The design guidelines are part of the Pickering-Official Plan Compendium Document (see Attachment #28). The proposed draft plan is situated within Precinct 3 of The Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. Any new lot created for the purpose of either a single or semi-detached dwelling within this precinct requires a minimum lot frontage of approximately 15.0 or 10.5 metres respectively. The applicant's proposed plan consists of single detached dwellings with lot frontages ranging from a minimum of 11.0 to 13.0 metres. The inclusion of the word approximately in the Development Guidelines provides for the consideration of minor deviations from the standards expressed in the guideline, provided the character of the neighbourhood is maintained. Neighbourhood character is a combination of the distinct features that exist in the community, such as lot frontage, yard widths and building heights. The applicant has agreed to side yard widths of 1.2 metres and 0.6 metres (for lots with frontages less than or equal to 12.0 metres) and 1.2 metres on both sides (for lots with frontages greater than 12.0 metres), and a maximum building height of 12.0 metres. When these provisions are taken together, the resultant development is a built form compatible with the exiting neighbourhood (see Sketch of Streetscape Example & Lot Comparison Plan, Attachments # 6 & #7). Report PD 06-10 March 1, 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 9 35 There is no need for rigid uniformity in lot frontage to achieve a compatible character, especially when the existing semi-detached dwellings (north of the proposed plan of subdivision) along Cowan Circle are linked below grade resulting in the built form appearing as single detached dwellings on lots with 10.5 metre frontage. The guidelines state "approximately" 15.0 metres. The resultant streetscape based on the staff recommended lotting pattern, frontage and zoning provisions will not depart fundamentally from the traditional streetscape of the area. Residents expressed concern regarding the applicant's proposed lot frontages of 11.0 metres along Cowan Circle. To provide a better transition with larger-sized lots closer to Rosebank Road, the applicant increased lot frontages to 13.0 metres for the first five lots in the subdivision plan on the south side of Cowan Circle. The remaining lots on the south side of the street are proposed to provide a minimum 12.0 metre frontage (see Applicant's Final Plan, Attachment #4). It is recommended that an exception to the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines be approved to permit lots for detached dwellings with minimum 11.0 metre frontage in Precinct 3, within the boundaries of this draft plan (see Appendix III). Further, the draft implementing zoning by-law contains development requirements to address lot frontage, side yards, building height and other building location requirements similar to provisions within recent development in the neighbourhood and provides for development compatible with the area (see Appendix II). 3.2 Street "A" Road Extension and Temporary Turning Circle to be Named Gillmoss Road and will provide future Lot Frontage for abutting property owners to the South The road pattern identified in Rosebank Neighbourhood Plan proposes the completion of Cowan Circle and the connection of Gillmoss Road to Dunn Crescent. As part of this subdivision, the applicant is proposing to complete the connection of Cowan Circle, and provide another road extension (labeled as Street "A", see Applicant's Final Plan, Attachment #4) with a temporary turning circle to provide for a future connection with Gillmoss Road. The configuration of Street A provides future opportunity to connect Gillmoss Road to Rosebank Road. Staff explored the opportunity to provide this connection with the development of this draft plan. However, due to required extensive grading and disruption to abutting properties is not feasible or practical at this time. Gillmoss Road will connect over time as development applications are received for 527, 529 and 544 Gillmoss Road. To ensure the Gillmoss Road right-of-way is protected, staff recommend that Block 37 be dedicated to the City future road allowance, as shown on the Staff Recommended Plan (see Attachment #5). Report PD 06-1.0 March 1, 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 3 6 Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 10 3.3 The provision of a Tot Lot within the Development is not supported In response to resident comments, the applicant revised the draft plan to provide a neighbourhood tot lot in the northeast sector of the subdivision behind lots 6 to 8 and adjacent to the CN Rail lands (see Applicant's Final Plan, Attachment #4). Engineering Services do not support the introduction of a neighbourhood tot lot as part of this draft plan of subdivision, and the Planning & Development Department concurs with this position. Currently, there are two neighbourhood parks within walking distance of this area (Rick Hull Park and South Rosebank Park). The proposed tot lot is also situated in an area that is unsafe, has poor visibility and is uninviting to area residents. Staffs recommendation not to pursue a tot lot in this draft plan was supported by the South Rosebank Working Group and the applicant at the January 19, 2010 meeting. The City will therefore require cash-in-lieu from the developer as parkland dedication. With the introduction of this draft plan and the Milton Road draft plan there will be a need to upgrade,the two existing parks in this neighbourhood. Staff will be preparing an enhancement plan for these parks in 2010 and will be including provisions to implement these enhancements in the Operations & Emergency Services Department's 2011 budget submission for Council's consideration. 3.4 A Compensation Agreement with the Owner and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regarding the provision of Off-Site Woodland Enhancement has been reached The Region of Durham (in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources) identified that a portion of the subject lands are designated "Key Natural Heritage Feature (KNHF)". As part of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), development or site alteration is not permitted in significant woodlands, unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions (see Attachment #9). In order to determine the exact boundaries of the KNHF and its minimum vegetation protection zone, the applicant submitted an Environmental Impact Study. Representatives from the Region, TRCA and the City met.with the applicant, owner and the applicant's Ecologist from Beacon Environmental on multiple occasions to discuss the integrity of the existing woodland on the subject properties. As part of the Environmental Impact Study Report, Beacon Environmental found the following: • the site is of poor quality; • the site does not present a well mixed layered canopy; Report PD 06-10 March 1, 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 11 37 • much of the floral species on the property are non-native and invasive suggesting high levels of disturbance and low ecological function; • the area of the subject lands (cultural meadow) is not large enough to support significant wildlife habitat for migratory birds; • the function of the woodlot would not meet the test of "significance" postulated by the PPS; • Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) is not present on the subject property. TRCA is satisfied that the proposed residential development will not impact any existing or abutting natural features or their ecological functions. Despite its acceptance of the EIS, TRCA still expressed concern with the loss of existing woodland within the draft plan boundaries. To address this concern, the owner, TRCA and City staff entered into discussions respecting financial compensation for the loss of trees. Funds will be used to provide off-site woodland compensation on publicly owned lands held by either TRCA or the City of Pickering (see Attachment #18). City staff is requesting for off-site woodland compensation to be provided for Rick Hull Park and/or South Rosebank Park. These trees will be planted in areas that will not be disturbed and will have an opportunity,to regenerate. A copy of a letter submitted by Beacon Environmental sent to TRCA explaining a summary of their findings of the Scoped Environmental Impact Statement is provided on Attachment #29. 3.5 Traffic in the Neighbourhood will not be impacted by the Proposed Development, (Cowan Circle will be Connected and Gillmoss Road Extended) A traffic impact study was prepared for the proposed development by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Group (MMM). The study also took into consideration the plan of subdivision proposed in the area of Milton Road, west of Rosebank Road (SP-2007-01). Amongst other matters, the consultant concluded that the existing intersections at Rosebank Road/Toynevale, Rosebank Road/Cowan Circle North, Rosebank Road/Cowan Circle South and Rosebank Road/Gillmoss Road, are operating at an acceptable Level of Service under the Horizon 2013 background conditions. The consultant also concluded that, given the excess capacity at the existing study intersections, additional road network improvements are not required (see extract from the Traffic Impact Study, Attachment #30). The report was reviewed by the City's Engineering Services Division and the Planning & Development Department's Development Control Section which both concur with the consultant's conclusions and recommendations. Staff will also ensure that the construction of Cowan Circle and Gillmoss Road take place in accordance with City standards. Report PD 06-10 March 1, 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 38 Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 12 3.6 Zoning By-law to Address Amount of front yard parking It is recommended that a 55 percent maximum driveway width provision be included in the implementing zoning by-law to restrict the amount of front yard that can be paved on a property. This provision will allow lots with 11.0 metre frontage a maximum driveway width of 6.0 metres which can accommodate a double car garage. This provision also promotes additional area for landscaping, assisting with sustainable development. Additional temporary on-street parking will also be available on the east side of Street "A" (Gillmoss Road) opposite the CN Rail. 3.7 Municipal Water and Sanitary Services can be provided Both water supply and sanitary sewers can be provided to the site. The receiving sanitary sewers for this development will discharge to the Rosebank Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station (SSPS) on Rodd Avenue. This is the same facility that will receive discharge from the approved draft plan of subdivision on Milton Road, west of Rosebank (SP 2007-01 Rosebank Properties Inc.). At the City's request, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) added a holding provision (H) to the zoning by-law for the lands which prevents development until: a) the date that The Regional Municipality of Durham advises that the Rosebank Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station has been rebuilt, such as that the dwelling units within the subject lands will utilize the rebuilt infrastructure, or; b) July 1, 2010. The intent of the holding provision is to ensure that sufficient time is given to rebuild the Rosebank SSPS prior to final building occupancy. The Region of Durham has advised that the final design stage for the Rosebank SSPS is nearly complete and the project is to be tendered February 2010. It is anticipated that the construction of the pumping station will commence in spring of 2010 and that the facility will be in operation by spring 2011. .As water and sanitary services are available for this subdivision, and as the Rosebank SSPS is anticipated to commence construction in the near future, an "H" - Holding provision for this draft plan is not recommended. Report PD 06-10 March 1, 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 1'3 39 3.8 Construction Management Plan will be Required As part of a subdivision agreement, the owner will be required to provide the City with a Construction Management Plan. It provides details such as: respecting the location of construction vehicle entrance(s), construction route, hours of operation, and the prevention/control of dust and mud. City staff will review and comment on the route selected for construction vehicles through the Rosebank Neighbourhood. This matter (amongst others) will be approved to the satisfaction of City staff prior to a developer receiving building permits for lots within the plan boundaries. 3.9 The CN Rail Noise Control and Vibration Measurement Study is acceptable A Noise Control Feasibility Study and a Railway Vibration Measurement Study were provided by the applicant. These studies were conducted by SS Wilson Associates to address potential noise and vibration levels from the existing abutting CN Rail right-of-way to the east. A Railway Vibration Measurement Study measures the vibration levels associated with a moving train and advise on the significance of the impact with respect to acceptable criteria. The vibration study concluded that vibration isolation measures in the form of perimeter isolation material around the foundations and below grade walls to new dwellings should be provided for Lots 6 to 8 and 12 to 18. A Noise Control Feasibility Study ensures that each lot is assured an amenity area (also known as an Outdoor Living Area) no less than 55 decibels (d BA) where.external noise (i.e. rail and substantial vehicular traffic) is minimized to a safe level for all inhabitants and is protected accordingly, usually by acoustical fencing. The noise study concluded that a 4.5 metre noise fence and berm combination and a 4.0 metre east-west return sound barrier are required in the rear of Lots 6, 7 and 8, whereas a 2.0 metre noise fence is also required in the rear of Lot 12 (see Attachment #31). CN Rail, the Region and City staff reviewed both studies and did not have any objections to their findings respecting the need for noise attenuation. However, a 4.0 metre noise attenuation fence, along the flankage of Lot 8 is not acceptable. Staff will review alternative noise attenuation designs during the review of engineering drawings, when final grades are known. It is anticipated that an alternative attenuation design will be achievable. Should achievement of an alternative solution involve reorientation of the lots, lot yield may be impacted. As a noise attenuation fence is not required along Street "A" immediately adjacent to CN line, a 1.8 metre chain link fence is recommended along with coniferous plantings across the base of the fence within the boulevard, to the City's satisfaction. Report PD 06-10 March 1, 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 4 O Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 14 3.10 Future Development Blocks Blocks 35 and 36 of the Staff Recommended Plan will provide for the future creation of two additional lots fronting Cowan Circle with minimum frontages of 13.0 metres. Once these lots are created, the built form will resemble the abutting easterly lots on the south side of Cowan Circle. The development of these blocks will be dependent on the redevelopment of the vacant property south of proposed Blocks 35 and 36 (legally described as Block 7, Plan 40M-1667). Blocks 37 and 43 at the turning circle terminus of Street "A" should not remain in the applicant's ownership (see Attachment #4). The applicant has agreed to dedicate Block 37 to the City and to merge Block 43 with Lot 9 to ensure it is in private ownership (see Staff Recommended Plan, Attachment #5). 3.11 By-law to Implement the Staff Recommended Plan The attached by-law schedule included as Appendix II to this Report, implements the Staff Recommended Plan. 4.0 Applicant's Comments The owner is aware of the contents of this Report. Appendices: Appendix I Recommended Conditions of Draft Approval Appendix II Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Requirements and Schedule Appendix III Exception to Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines Appendix IV Revision to Rosebank Neighbourhood Map - Proposed Street Connection Report PD 06-10 March 1, 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 15 41 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Submitted Plan 3. Applicant's Revised Plan 4. Applicant's Final Plan 5. Staff Recommended Plan 6. Streetscape Example 7. Lot Comparison Plan 8. Information Report 9. Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes 10. Comments - Doreen Brown 11. Durham Region Comments (March 12, 2008) 12. Durham Region Comments (April 28, 2008) 13. Durham Region Comments (May 21, 2008) 14. Durham Region Comments - Email (June 20, 2008) 15. Durham Region Comments (January 29, 2009) 16. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Comments (February 4, 2008) 17. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Comments (December 18, 2008) 18. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Comments (January 28, 2009) 19. Development Control and Engineering Services Division Comments (June 9, 2008 and June 10, 2008) .20. Development Control Comments (September 24, 2008) 21. Engineering Services Division Comments (December 18, 2009) 22. Development Control Comments (January 19, 2010) 23. Canadian National Railway (July 4, 2008) 24. Canada Post 25. Durham Catholic District School Board 26. Durham District School Board 27. Veridian Connections 28. Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines 29. Summary of Findings - Scoped Environmental Impact Statement (Beacon Environmental) 30. Summary of Findings - Traffic Impact Study (Marshall Macklin Monaghan (MMM) Group) 31. Proposed Noise Attenuation Fencing Report PD 06-10 March 2010 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 42 Zoning Amendment Application A 2/08 Page 16 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Zia hley Yearwo d Neil Carr RPP lanner l f' Director, PI ng & Development Ross Pym, MCIP, P (Acting) Manager, Development Review AY:LT:jf:ld Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Ci u it It i~ T s J. Q /inn, R., hief Ad strative Offi Appendix I to Report PD.06-10 43 Draft Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2/08 44 e rs.;.:r'. c~ The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering District Planning Area, Region of Durham in Part of Blocks K, L and M, Plan 418, in the City of Pickering (SP 2008-02 & A 02/08). Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to permit the development of lots for detached dwellings on the subject lands, being Part of Blocks K, L and M, Plan 418, in the City of Pickering; And whereas an amendment to By-law 2511, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule I Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Part of Blocks K, L and M, Plan 418, in the City of Pickering, designated "S4-9" on Schedule I attached hereto. 3. 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. 4. Definitions In this By-law, (1) (a) "Dwelling" shall mean a building or part of a building containing one or more dwelling units, but does not include a mobile home or trailer; By-law No. xxxx/10 r ` f Page 2 45 (b) "Dwelling Unit" shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a single, independent, and separate housekeeping unit containing a separate kitchen and sanitary facilities; (c) "Dwelling, Single or Single Dwelling" shall mean a single dwelling containing one dwelling unit and uses accessory hereto; (d) "Dwelling, Detached or Detached Dwelling" shall mean a single dwelling which is freestanding, separate, and detached from other main buildings or structures; (2) (a) "Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the area of the floor surface contained within the outside walls of a storey or part of a storey; (b) "Gross Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys of a building or structure, or part thereof as the case may be, other than a private garage, an attic, or a cellar; (3) (a) "Lot" shall mean an area of land fronting on a street which is used or intended to be used as the site of a building, or group of buildings, as the case may be, together with any accessory buildings or structures, or a public park or open space area, regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the whole of a lot or block on a registered plan. of subdivision; (b) "Lot Frontage" shall mean the width of a lot between the side lot lines measured along a line parallel to and 7.5 metres distant from the front lot line; (4) "Private Garage" shall mean an enclosed or partially enclosed structure for the storage of one or more vehicles, in which structure no business or service is conducted for profit or otherwise; (5) (a) "Yard" shall mean an area of land which is appurtenant to and located on the same lot as a building or structure and is open, uncovered, and unoccupied above ground except for such accessory buildings, structures, or other uses as are specifically permitted thereon; (b) "Front Yard" shall mean a yard extending across the full width of a lot between the front lot line of the lot and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (c) "Front Yard Depth" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a front yard of a lot between the front lot line and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; -7, F R_ 3 ` " , Page By-law No. xxxx/10 46 (d) "Rear Yard" shall mean a yard extending across the full width of a lot between the rear lot line of the lot, or where there is no rear lot line, the junction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (e) "Rear Yard Depth" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a rear yard of a lot between the rear lot line of the lot, or where there is no rear lot line, the junction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (f) "Side Yard" shall mean a yard of a lot extending from the front yard to the rear yard, and from the side lot line to the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (g) "Side Yard Width" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a side yard of a lot between the side lot line and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (h) "Flankage Side Yard" shall mean a side yard immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street; (i) "Flankage Side Yard Width" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a flankage side yard of a lot between the lot line adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; Q) "Interior Side Yard" shall mean a side yard other than a flankage side yard. 5. Provisions 1 a Uses Permitted S4-9 Zone No person shall within the lands designated "S4-9" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (i) detached dwelling residential use (b) Zone Requirements ("S4-9" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "S4-9" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building except in accordance with the following provisions: I By-law No. xxxx/10 Page 4 - 47 (i) Lot Area (minimum): 325 square metres (ii) Lot Frontage (minimum): 11.0 metres (iii) Front Yard Depth (minimum): 6.0 metres A despite Section 5.8(b) of By-law 2511 as amended, uncovered and covered platforms/porches attached to a main dwelling may provide a front yard depth of 4.5 metres. (iv) Interior Side Yard Width (minimum): A for lot frontages greater than 12.0 metres: (1) 1.2 metres on both sides; B for lot frontages less than or equal to 12.0 metres: (1) 1 .2 metres one side, 0.6 metre on the other; (v) Flankage Side Yard Width (minimum): 2:7 metres (vi) Rear Yard Depth (minimum): A for lot depths less than or equal to 40.0 metres: 7.5 metres B for lot depths greater than 40.0 metres: 10.0 metres C where the rear yard abuts a CN Rail right-of-way 30.0 metres (vii) Building Height (maximum): 12.0 metres (viii) Dwelling Unit Requirements: maximum one dwelling unit per lot and minimum gross floor area residential of 100 square metres. (ix) Parking Requirements: A minimum one private garage per lot attached to the main building; any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from the front lot line, and not less than 6.0 metres from any side lot line immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street; r ~ By-law No. xxxx/10 Page 5 48 B maximum projection of the garage front entrance from the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit shall not exceed 2.5 metres in length, whether or not such garage has a second storey, except where a covered and unenclosed porch or veranda extends a minimum of 1.8 metres from the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit, in which case no part of any attached private garage shall extend more than 3.0 metres beyond the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit; C a driveway width shall not occupy more than 55 percent of the front yard width. (x) Special Requlations: A rear yard uncovered steps and platforms less than or equal to 1.0 metre above grade may project a maximum of 2.5 metres; B rear yard uncovered steps and platforms exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and less than or equal to 6.0 metres in width may project a maximum of 1.5 metres. 6. By-law By-law 2511, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2511, as amended. 7. Effective Date This By-law shall take effect from the day of passing hereof subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, if required. BY-LAW read a first, second, and third time and finally passed this day of , 2010. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk 4 9 I w I I MOORELANDS CRES. \ I / I I 1 I I I I \ I I t I 1 I I I \ \ Q \ 1 / I I I I I I I \ j-----'- I I I I I I I I \ \ y ~ 1 \ \ ~ / I I 1 I I I \ \ I I \ \ 1 / 1 I I I I \ \ I U \ \ __J___r__lr___Il _Ti__r__I1_,__ 1 I I I I I I I I I ~ 15z.3m , . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 'I I I I -I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 3 1 I I I I I I I I I COWAN CIRCLE 0 I 9a.6m 1 Y 1 1 Q 11 l J m m S4- w 1 1~ / 0 3e.sm PART OF BLOCK!" K, L, AND M, PLAN 418 4 / J za.am I 1 % , I / Q- I I 1 / r , 1 I 1 ~ / u L 13 3j1 3 / r ' r r GILLMOSS , r 6].Sm / ROAD l___________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / \ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW ~4 PASSED THIS DAY OF +2 0.10 5 0 Appendix II to Report Number PD 06-10 Recommended Conditions of Draft Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Recommended Conditions of Approval for 51 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 1.0 General Conditions: 1.1 That this recommendation apply to the Staff Recommended Plan, on lands being Part of Blocks K, L and M, Plan 418, City of Pickering, as identified on Attachment #5 in Report PD 06-10 to permit the development of 34 detached residential lots, two blocks for the creation of two future residential lots (Blocks 35 and 36), temporary turning circle blocks, 0.3 metre reserve blocks, the extension and connection of an existing municipal road (Cowan Circle) and the creation of one new temporary cul-de-sac to connect with Gillmoss Road on the subject lands. 2.0 Prior to the Registration of the Plan: 2.1 That the owners submit a Draft 40M-Plan based on comments contained in Report PD 06-10 to be approved by the City's Planning & Development Department; 2.2 That the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2/08 become final and binding; 2.3 That the owner enters into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: 2.3.1 Storm Drainage (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting a stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision and any provisions regarding easements; (b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department for contributions for stormwater management maintenance fee; 2.3.2 Grading Control and Soils (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting submission and approval of a grading and control plan; (b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis; 2.3.3 Road Allowances (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting construction of roads with curbs, sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs; Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Page 2 52 (b) satisfaction of the Director, an agreement with the City to extend and construct a boulevard, road and sidewalk and boulevard on the north and west sides of Cowan Circle and to construct a boulevard, road and sidewalk on the north and west sides of Gillmoss Road to the limits of the temporary turning circle; (c) street extension shall be named Cowan Circle, Street "A" shall be named Gillmoss Road and signage to be provided to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering; 2.3.4 Construction/Installation of City Works & Services (a) satisfaction of the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City; (b) satisfaction of the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar services; (c) that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the responsibility of the subdivider; 2.3.5 Dedications/Transfers/Conveyances (a) that the owner convey to the City, at no costs: (i) any easements as required; and, (ii) any reserves as required by the City; (iii) 20 metre municipal right-of-way (Cowan Circle); (iv) 18 metre municipal right-of-way (Gillmoss Road); (v) Block 37 for a future road allowance (Gillmoss Road); (vi) Blocks 38 & 39 for a temporary turning circle; (vii) Block 40 for the extension of a municipal boulevard; (b) that the subdivider convey any easement to any utility to facilitate the installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City and the utility; (c) that the owner arrange at no costs to the City any easements required on third party lands for servicing and such easements shall be in a location as determined by the City and/or the Region and are to be granted upon request at any time after the draft approval; 2.3.6 Construction Management Plan (a) that the owner make satisfactory arrangements with the City respecting a construction management plan, such Plan to contain, among other things: Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Page 3 53 (i) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these controls; (ii) addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building materials during servicing and house construction, and' ensuring that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on either existing streets or the proposed public street; (iii) insurance that the City's Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law; (.iv) the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to the site; (v) type and timing of construction fencing; (vi) location of construction trailers; (vii) details of the temporary construction access; 2.3.7 Development Charges (a) satisfaction of the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act; 2.3.8 Coordinated Development (a) satisfaction of the City with respect to arrangements necessary to provide for coordination of services and roads with adjacent lands and any phasing of development that may be required; 2.3.9 Fencing (a) satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of temporary fencing around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior to the commencement of any works; (b) existing boundary fencing to remain and be maintained during construction; (c) the owner agrees to submit a Landscape Fencing Plan to the satisfaction of the City; (d) the owner agrees to construct a 1.8 metre high chain-link fence situated on the property line between Gillmoss Road (Street "A") and western limits of The Canadian National Railway right-of-way and provide boulevard tree planting adjacent to the chain-link fence, to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department;. 2.3.10 Street Tree Planting (a) the submission of a street tree planting plan to the satisfaction of the City; Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Page 4 5 (b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development, the Owner shall plant one tree per lot. If it is determined that the planting of a tree is not possible for each proposed lot, the Owner will be required to pay either cash-in-lieu.for the remaining trees or plant the remaining trees in a location within the Plan boundaries; 2.3.11 Tree Preservation (a) the owner is required to submit a tree preservation plan to the satisfaction of the City which will illustrate the protection. of trees and other natural features where appropriate prior to the approval of a preliminary grading plan; 2.3.12 Architectural Control (a) the architectural design objectives for the development must address (but not limit itself to): building envelopes, building & sustainable designs, siting, streetscape design, front elevations, porches as well as garage locations, massing, width, and projection from the main dwelling; (b) that specific architectural building design be applied to Lots 5, 8, 12 and 20 to address siting, front and flankage elevations, massing landscaping, porches, garages widths, location and projection; (c) that the owner ensure that engineering plans are coordinated with the streetscape/architectural control guidelines and further that the engineering plans coordinate the driveway, street hardware and street trees to ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimized and all objectives of the streetscape/architectural control guidelines can be achieved; (d) that the owner satisfy the City respecting the provision of appropriate aesthetic details and design of all boundary fencing and noise attenuation fencing; 2.3.13 Noise Attenuation (a) that the owner satisfy the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment regarding the approval of a noise study recommending noise control features to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham, and the City of Pickering that addresses rail, road and any abutting industrial noises; 2.3.14 Engineering Drawings (a) that the owner satisfy the City respecting the submission of appropriate engineering drawings that detail, among other things, City services, roads, storm sewers, sidewalks, lot grading, streetlights, fencing and tree planting, and financially-secure such works; Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Page 5 5 (b) that the engineering plans be coordinated with the architectural design objectives; (c) that the subdivider revise the draft plan, as necessary to the satisfaction of the City to accommodate any unforeseen technical engineering issues which arise during the review of the final engineering drawings. Required revisions may include reducing the number of residential building lots or reconfiguring the roads or lots to the City's satisfaction; 2.3.15 Other Approval Agencies (a) that the subdivider satisfy all the requirements of the Region of Durham; (b) that the subdivider satisfy all the requirements of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; (c) that any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham or the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the development of this plan be obtained by the subdivider, and upon request written confirmation be provided to the City of Pickering as verification of these approvals; 2.3.16 Parkland Dedication (a) the owner shall pay the City cash-in-lieu to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act, (b) that any funds collected for parkland dedication and off-site woodland compensation received from this development be directed to either Rick Hull Park and/or Rosebank South Park; 2.3.17 Phasing (a) that if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration, the subdivider will be required to submit a plan showing the proposed phasing, all to the satisfaction of the City. 56 Appendix III to Report Number PD 06-10 Amendment No. 5 to the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines Amendment No. 5 to the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines 57 Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to permit, as an exception to the 15.0 metre minimum frontage requirement for new lots for single detached dwellings within Design Precinct 3, minimum frontages of 11.0 metres for new lots for single detached dwellings within the proposed subdivision plan boundaries established by subdivision file SP-2008-02. Location: The subject lands are approximately 2.7 hectares in area and are located along the southerly terminus of Cowan Circle, east of Rosebank Road. The lands fall within Part of Blocks K, L and M, Plan 418. Basis: The amendment has been determined to be appropriate because it will establish a built form which is in character with the immediate neighbourhood. Actual Amendment: The City of Pickering Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines are hereby amended by: 1. Adding a second paragraph to section A1.1.3, Design Precinct No. 3, as follows: "Despite the minimum frontage requirements for new lots for single detached dwellings within Design Precinct 3, lots for single detached dwellings within the subdivision connecting Cowan Circle and Gillmoss Road (subdivision file SP-2008-02) are permitted a minimum frontage of 11.0 metres." Cross Reference: Informational Revision to the Official Plan Compendium Document (Related Files: S-P-2008-02 & A 02/08) (Applicant: Land Pro Engineering) (Date: February 12, 2010) . . . Exhibit 'A' to Appendix III 58 To Report PD 06-10 Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines The following Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines were adopted by Pickering Council on January 22, 1979, and amended four times: No. I on February 4, 1985; No. 2 on October 15, 1991; No. 3 on May 4, 1992; and No. 4 on October 19, 1992. Section A1.1 As indicated on the map, the Neighbourhood comprises three design precincts. The following provides detailed guidelines for each of these precincts. A1.1.1 Design Precinct No. 1 Within Precinct No. 1 , residential development shall be limited to the provision of single detached dwellings only. All new lots created in this precinct shall have minimum lot frontages of approximately 15.0 metres and minimum lot depths ranging between approximately 33 metres and 60 metres, unless the character of the area is such that a smaller lot frontage or smaller lot depth is desirable. A1.1.2 Design Precinct No. 2 Within Precinct No. 2, residential development shall be limited to the provision of single detached dwellings only. All new lots created in this precinct shall have minimum lot frontages of approximately 15.0 metres and minimum lot depths ranging between approximately 30 metres and 36 metres. i A1.1.3 Design Precinct No. 3 I Within Precinct No. 3, residential development shall be limited to the provisions of single detached and semi-detached dwellings. All new lots created in this precinct for semi-detached dwellings shall have minimum lot frontages of approximately 10.5 metres and minimum lot depths of approximately 30 metres. New lots for single detached dwellings shall have the same minimum lot dimensions as new lots in Precinct No. 2. Despite the minimum frontage requirements for single detached Proposed dwellings within Design Precinct No. 3, new lots for single detached Exception dwellings within the subdivision connecting Cowan Circle and Gillmoss Road (subdivision file SP-2008-02) are permitted a minimum frontage of 11.0 metres. Appendix IV to Report Number PQ 06-10 9 Informational Revision No. 17 to the Pickering Official Plan 6 0 Informational Revision No. 17 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to illustrate a proposed new road connection between Cowan Circle and Gillmoss Road to implement the development of a plan of subdivision (file number SP-2008-02). Location: The subject lands are approximately 2.7 hectares in area and are located along the southeast portion of Cowan Circle, east of Rosebank Road. The lands fall within Part of Blocks K, L and M, Plan 418. Basis: The amendment has been determined to be appropriate because it will keep the Pickering Official Plan up-to-date with Council's approvals of development applications in the Rosebank Neighbourhood. Actual Amendment: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby revised as shown on the attached Exhibit and listed as below: 1. On Map 11, Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank: - Add a "New Road Connection (Proposed)" extending . from Cowan Circle running west of the Canadian National Railway right-of-way connecting into Gillmoss Road (see Exhibit A); Cross Reference: Informational Revision (Related Files: SP-2008-02 8 A 02/08) (Applicant: Land Pro Engineering) (Date: February 12, 2010) i Exhibit 'A' to Appendix IV MAP 11 Report Number PD 06-10 NEIGHBOURHOOD 1: ROSEBANK 61 GWENDOLYN ROUGE STREET T UN N Z F D 2 A DRIVE X ~ R U PARK a o C L F RIV 2 O ¢ ROUGE S T~ n VALLE 00 COURT S pOf /ZZ p A~* CAI 4 P yi f o I A.A°ic Y`TOE5 z27 - KIHCSTO N C / Z w"A A EL z (Z O EN GR~IfE R Z °VRT uPTO 16 COURT OKIAHOM ABINGO O '.olell ` HhS°1. p COUR CduRT~ f / .s U STONEBRIDGE N Vw ~:_J a no ~ &F~ 8 D o uYT NQ LAN .6 n / a COURT u G w2 a. O / DowNUN ROUG E ENGEL C O f DRhf o~ ~I i rc c a 111,90 IRCE C w ° .N O fk LOUR CALLAHAN A S y ROVV" K CpO F Z STREET W w c RMELLO A y~ FOSTE COURT N ab / 1 U F ~1V W ' ~ W Q HOU 0~~~~....IIII ~ ; ~RRIAN VICTOM'NE OVRTNN ' I C BROADGRE O COw.orv HO ROUGE PARK ` ° a 4 AREA p y ; 7-~G•a c H 2 DRIIE ~ Do- ° y// ~ •••••dp PETTICOAT CREEK P NO I, / ,TAI/111T•••••• ? I A CONSERVATION AR,yY•• H UL RODD AVENUE O A! ` VISTA LAKE ONTARIO I N LEGEND SYMBOLS NEIGHBOURHOOD NEW ROAD CONNECTIONS (PROPOSED) BOUNDARY PARK PUBLIC ELEMENTARY DETAILED REVIEW AREA 06 SCHOOL O PROPOSED PARK LANDS FOR WHICH COUNCIL HAS P ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ~ SEPARATE ELEMENTARY PLACE (REFER TO COMPENDIUM DOCUMENT) u SCHOOL OF WORSHIP © COMMUNITY CENTRE ❑F FIREHALL © LIBRARY SC SENIOR CENTRE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING do DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JUNE. 2008 QFTnIS FORMS PART OF EDITION c OF THE PICKRING YYII FICUL - AND MUST REREAD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NOTE: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OTHER SCHEDULES AND THE TEAT APPEAR ON SCHEDULE I PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN EDITION 5: Chapter Eleven Urban Neighbourhoods 145 ATTACHMENT ! 6 2 REPORT;i` PD D ~ - f ~ 9 0 E-1 I I I 11-i- TOYNEVALE ROAD Z RICK w U V HULL U ROSE-BANK PUBLIC HOOL c~FFir o SC w z MEMORIAL PAR ct w K N w af a _ CIRCLE o a 0 O P G~~ w A T 0 Y CO RT DUNMO U MAITLAND DRIVE o z T 0 T g ~ w V) w O U Z 3 S N Y o0 RT z • Q M w N O MIL 0 ROAD NOT TRAVELLED COWAN CIRCLE PETTICOA T CREEK o GILLMOSS CONSERVATION AREA Y ROAD SUBJECT o LANDS T:~~flTH L DRIVE o ao 2. 0 U lP O City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF BLOCK L, M ROW, PLAN 418 07\ OWNER W. & B TRAPPER DATE JAN. 16, 2008 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. SP-2008-02 & A02/08 SCALE 1:5000 CHECKED BY AY N bald Teranet oEnterpri-s Inc. and it, uppliera. All rlQhte Reaerved. Nol o plan of a„rvaY. PN-1 2005 MPAC and it. eu lien. All rI hte Reaerved. Not a plan of Surve . ATTACHMENT#-2--TO IFPORT# PO -O-L- io INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S INITIAL SUBMITTED PLAN(JANUARY 2008) 63 W. & B. TRAPPER SP-2008-02 & A 002/08 w J HOUSTON COU U MOORELANDS CRESCENT p C E STING RE DENTIAL IJ p Ev 6 B 64.25 E [STING p R SIDENTI L 1 0 2 3 4 5 r, N 7 B vi 59.85 0 o p B o B° B p C o C N 8 55.45 B `j 12.0 12. 12.0 13.0 0.13 COWAN CIRCLE COWAN CIRCLE W. 0 O 51.05 B p . 10 46.65 1.0 11.0 11.011.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11. 11.0 11. 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 11.3 91 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33. 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 ^ 11 B 41 oa:I m m 12 a O HAIR N B mesa A A A AP Ap A A A A B` B M B B C 38.6 44.77 13 8 a o N CO o B mid C 25 38.! 14 = EXI TING me's:S 40.13 ~ B ~j Q RES DENTIAL 71 zs,„ C 24 ti ~ 15 ~ 35.87 9~. B Y g C 23 ^i 93 16 B Z 13 ED 28.90 39. l5 N ANDS OKN BY Mr. 1M LD.M TRAPPER k 01 ^ 10 0 MA. NADENE MAPPER. BOi NOT DEVELOPED 22 1 7 B - 0_ AT TNis TIME C Jq 58 O 36 A 9.4 9.4 - 18 21 C GILLMOSS RO C 20 19 C C ` BLOCK 43 EXI TING 5 eg 0.'.o RE 'DENTIAL O Y Q f A= 11 metre 10 lots A= 11 metre 10 lots B= 12 metre 19 lots 007\ C= 13 metre 11 lots Total 40 lots N FULL SCALE COPIES OF THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR ✓✓EWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, JANUARY 17, 2008. INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S ATTACHMENT# 6 4 REVISED SUBMITTED REPORT# PD PLAN (MARCH 2008) W. & B. TRAPPER SP-2008-02 & A 002/08 REGISTERED ~ PLAN M - 1169 a U a i - HOUSTON COU PART R - - MOOREIANDS CRESCQfi T -T TT PART 11 / P6ix PART 5 LOT 14 Tn, LOT\ 21 I 1 I PuN a0" e2M \ RECISTED LAN I I I40M ~`NG ` LOT 15 LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 11 18 LOT 19 LOT 20 ani<m '1=6 a , L I \ RE§(DEN7IAL KLAN I AORI qp ]725 I ggl PMT 1 I PART J PMT 5 PART 7 PART 0 \ PART 10\ JJ PART it LORI-i~°eE I PART 1 I PART 2 PMt J\ PART . e _ L07 63 LOT 64 It K - 10000 91 . REGISTF.jiED E~LNG PLAN' I I I 40M I - 11696 I B B i B C ~ CL CK ~I s C ~OVCTtC y I PUN Ox 357 I xa P/ennL1 .G -!C}T[~V ~0~0I\A1 B R DEN 11 L PART 1 I PART I PMT J I PMT 1 PART 5 I PART 0 1 2 3. 4 5 K I [21 D PLAN 418 i C (B = 40) xm~ u1°R _ IxsJJ LOT 1 I LOT 2 I LOT 3 I LOT 4 I LOTI 5 I LOT 6 I LOT 17 aa~ i~ I I I I r 1 r I I I I tto 100 teL fa0 1Pt0 \IVT~/'~~-VII CLGl~.TL itirPe" .w-s4 dsT x° o ! T)-.-.(etY6 bPbF-Lii~nT+b. 0'~e's - eet \ A_T 72. 11%. i°SR R OCK 1 I m A IiJI Iw 11A n-0 11A Tw tw H10 1. PA i I.' wtAN 11.0 11A Ito mo I. C O % 36 [35 34 33 32 31 29 ~8 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 1511dd G 8 .w. L12jfl 8 C K y . PLAN 40M.-.067A A A B& KA A A' A A_~ A A -A A A A A S 17 F DENIAL 9" , c P. L 6- 92 75.11 BLOCK 7 j' s„ Ir KY j 11X -1 - -7 r '=x- © REGISTERED B i I B BP 15 I H Tte / n~ ® t,f P.Ax 1 2 11 S 10 P 14 It j PAR ~q0 StY ae 1. J077 ~ 5 i i 11 13 A 1 _,.72 r- _ 12 A jr - -T I - ° QSS RO "P fit. Mrs I _er-y,n, ws. x w.fe „ - r30.6 _ m _ Ny3Le _ o' N73' N7Xf20-E 01.50 L 0 T 6 0 ° x x R. m BLOgC 30 DO NC ..r.A _ .T.. l11-39 0 110sD R DENTIAL P.,R :.JII - 0:.e arnoRmrr A1x. :..,I _ „BLOCK y RE 0I S T E R ED - PLAN 41a Lot Frontages A= 11 metre 23 Lots B= 12 metre 8 Lots C= 13 metre 5 Lots Total 36 Lots /V FULL SCALE COPIES OF THE APPLICANT'S SUBM/TTEO PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR OEW/NG AT THE CITY OF PICKER/NC PLANNING S OEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PROOUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, 200S. INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S FINAL ATTACHMENT#~TO SUBMITTED PLAN (OCTOBER, 2009) iIEPORT# PD W. & B. TRAPPER 65 SP-2008-02 & A 002/08 'O REGISTERED PLAN N - 1189 U ~ m HOUSTON COU MOORE[ANDS CRESCENT E STING LOT 6 LOT D 14 JLOT uJFwp J REDS ED LAN KLO - RE DENTIAL LOi 15 LOT I6 LOi 17 LOL I6 LOT 19 LOT ] LOCK 1LOi 6l LOT 6A BLOCN K REGIS ED PLAN AOM d C C C JOLOT E [STING B L O C K R SIDENTI L .T ocK .o REGISTERED PLAN A1B C ID Lp1~55ENED LOT I LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 0 8 v.p C PARKETTE (BLOCK 40) C AN CIRCLE W. BL K 1 u BLOCK LOT 1 IiO.Ja e R 34 33 32 31 30 2 28 Ldc~ 2~ 25a 24 23 22 21 20 p.w A x 9 0C LOT z me3:K REGISTERED PUN 4W - 16 )D~.t C C C C B u £B B B B 18x~ A J Q BLOCK L m LOT 3 EXI TING RES DENTIAL A oR~ Gj mid ss o.9x 169 A n.u LOT A BLOCK ] T G REGISTERED B - B e B pL % N 15 A 1 AM.- A LOT 5 3 $ A 3 9 10 14 A A '6 C 8 BOCK 43 - 11 13 A LOT 6 P:=1 O 8 BLOCN 9 ~ 12 A S RED 'SoF N7 I nxJ♦ 'F r BOCK 37ni _Z.1 i.Oiian 41 et.s6 OCK 42 BLOCK 38~ n a.unu B L O C K M M pn'a rtrw+. nw,-c o.oe BLOCK 39 R E G 1 5 T E R E D P L A N ♦ 1 6 EXISTING ^K on ru rtw... nwa uaJ RESIDENTIAL Lot Frontages A= 11 metre 9 Lots B= 12 metre 15 Lots C= 13 metre 10 Lots Total 34 Lots N FULL SCALE COPIES OF THE APPLICANT'S SUBM/TTEO PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, NOVEMBER 20, 2009. 6 6 STAFF RECOMMENDED ATTACHMENT# TO PLAN FOR (JANUARY, 2010) REPORT# PD W. & B. TRAPPER SP-2008-02 & A 002/08 1O i REGISTERED J F PLAN u - 1189 U s HOUSTON COU .Mr. e MOOREL.ANDS CRESCENT ° . 0 LOT 6 LOT 14 b•. LOT 21 ~S °Y - .xss RECIS ED LAN sou - 116 - E STING RE DEN TIAL LOT 15 LOT 16 L01 IJ LOT IB LOT 19 LOT 20 43 n` n _ LOT ] u r r 'r ura T11 LOCCKK IN w, .urf ..mr >NC ur. ~g eLOi fi3 LOi' 6e, .rr BLOCK- ~K. oeao REGIST ED PLAN 40M - 1696 B S B F B x C Y C 6 C E (STING " - n 4 C e L o c K R SIDEN TI L 1 2 3 4 5 REGISTERED PLAN 418 C LOT I LOT 2 LOT } LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT ] < 0 8 NC J _ COWAN CIRCLE c AN CIRCLE W. 5 ° BOCK 40 LoT 1 n~ B 34 33 32 31 30 9 28' 24 23 22 21 A BLOCK -6mr U R o A 2 LOT 2 mlS:tl Q REGISTERED PLAN 40M - 16 4 C; C` C` C C` B sB B B_ B B B B A B 18 A _ J O nY 8L0 C~K L m o CC z d, 17 A a i~ LOT S EXI TING xa s Z UA I~ e y RES DENTIAL 0 Lj Z miss Q s 9.92 m LOT 4 27.11 L U) t L O C K ] REGISTERED B e B B P O 15 A 4 6 e r... wni -our R x of L N 1 y x x LOT 5 : c 9 10 14 A .C m Q - 11 13 A L7 T' n a H t 8 BLr~K .rt ° 8 12 A ^ GII I MOSS ROAD m,.m....,,.,°..,........,,. 4,.M ,I ,.m r~ Nis•.e 6a•E 6%so' " N]JY 6].9I m ve'wt B aTS6 OCK 41 N L O T 6 0 BLOCK 37 EO ro m[ on B L 0 C K M M ~n rw rE[-v+... n/.-o uac - BLOCK 39 R E L S i E R E D PLAN 4 1 8 EXISTING ^<an row rt,.--. rv..w~ RESIDENTIAL Lot Frontages A= 11 metre 10 Lots B= 12 metre 14 Lots C= 13 metre 10 Lots Total 34 Lots N FULL SCALE COPIES OF THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE C/TY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, JANUARY B. 2010. ATTACHMENT# ~.-TO REPORT# PD. D--- 67 E N E E E w O o z a E E O O N N `V > m W E .n E N W E o ~ f _J w u? o E n N L1 Z O O E w i{ uj > x N M W N W E E O ip W'~ E o N n E Q z o U o 0 ow > U E Cf) mW E W o W W o E NN N 1 I~I^ N V/ E W Q N N m w E of E o E N E w E N Z O 0 0 ~w E E N Z O 0 M w p n N i ATTACHMENT#----TO REPORT# PD O C° " / ~ 68 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS FINAL SUBMITTED PLAN FOR LOT COMPARISON SP-2008-02 & A 002/08 W J . U T HOUSTON COU MOORELANDS CRESCENT - ar € e I~ p w,e L L E ~ -7 - E STING ¢ RE DENTIAL a x x °s E ISTING a R SIDENTI L M. •u '•r ¢ - VMi 6 BLOC% W 2 4 (5' ~~ie .seam PARKETTE o _ ®6 I (BLOCK 40) J COWAN CIRCLE c AN CIRCLE W. 1 1.1 P. 'T I 11 r' '1' 11 T' I T -34.33 32'0 31 30 q'2r "0' 26 25 24 .23 22 21 20 ® R J 0 18 Of s~ EXI TING yb a- ~ .s x i 17 ® c Y RES DEN TIAL axt2~ _ ~j 12 Z misf.`u i 16•+ m ! N n.u ao w !i N O 15 (Y 3 EE l x x 9 10 14 ® . $ BOCK 43 11 13 . - - xmm.. i ® 8 • ^ - s 12 ® LEGEND Gil MOSS ROAD I•~.o-..c - -r.-m.m, Hire pt BOUNDARY OF SUBDIVISION d ^ >r~ m - - EXISTING 15m LOT x BLOCK 337 8LL0CK41 m.M G f 6 a . 'A 8 C42 , ,.,e,., .~M`: °.5... ~ BL66P 3U' EXISTING 10.5m LOT BLOCK 39 PROPOSED Q. LOT EXISTING I RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED 12m LOT ® PROPOSED 11m LOT I ' ^ ,V FULL SCALE COP/£S OF THE APPLICANr'S SUBM/TTED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR WRING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING PUNNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. 7H15 MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PUNNING & OEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT 5ERV7CE5, a4NUARY 12, 2010. ATTACHMENT TO REPORT# PD -0 69 City o~ PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 07-08 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF March 3, 2008 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2008-02 Zoning Amendment Application A 02/08 W. & N. Trapper and B. Trapper 491 Rosebank Road & 546 Gillmoss Road (Part of Block K, L, and M Right-of-Way, Plan 418) City of Pickering 1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION - the subject properties are located east of Rosebank Road, west of the Canadian National Railway right-of-way and south and east of Cowan Circle (see Location Map, Attachment #1); - the subject properties are currently zoned 'R3' - Third Density Residential Zone, which allows for a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; - the subject properties consist of a combined total lot area of approximately 2.7 hectares; - the subject properties each currently support one detached dwelling, as well as a number of accessory buildings on both lots. 2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL - the applicant is proposing to amend the existing 'R3' zoning to allow for the creation of 40 detached dwellings on lots with frontages ranging from 11.0 to 13.0 metres; - the applicant is proposing to complete the road connection of Cowan Circle and create a cul-de-sac extending south from the proposed road connection (see Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachment #2); - the proposal includes the demolition of the dwelling at 546 Gillmoss Road, and the retention of the existing dwelling at 491 Rosebank Road; ATTACHMENT#.. 1-TO Information Report No. 07-08 REPORT# PD 0 b - / d Page 2 - the following chart outlines the development statistics for the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision; Total Area.(excluding the retained lot at 491 Rosebank Road) 2.687 ha Proposed 20 metre Road Allowance 0.250 ha Proposed 18 metre Road Allowance 0.200 ha Proposed 11 metre Detached Lots (Lots 31 - 40) 0.509 ha Proposed 12 metre Detached Lots (Lots 1 - 3, 6 - 17, 27 - 29) 1.009 ha Proposed 13 metre Detached Lots (Lots 4, 5, 18 - 26) 0.658 ha Proposed Future Development Blocks (with adjacent lands) 0.061 ha Net Residential Density (dwellings per net hectare) 18.38 3.0 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING 3.1 Durham Regional Official Plan - the Regional Plan designates the subject properties Urban Areas - Living Areas, which shall be used predominantly for housing purposes; - the proposal appears to comply with the intent of the Durham Regional Official Plan; 3.2 Pickering Official Plan - the City of Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property Urban Residential - Low Density Area within the Rosebank Neighbourhood; - these areas are intended primarily for residential purposes having a net residential density up to and including 30 dwellings per net hectare (the applicant is proposing a net residential density of approximately 18 dwellings" per net hectare); areas east of Rosebank Road and west of the CN Rail Line, permit a maximum of approximately 50 percent of the lots proposed for residential development to be used for semi-detached dwellings and require the remaining lots proposed to be used for detached dwellings (the applicant is proposing detached lots - see Attachment #3); - the City of Pickering identifies Rosebank Road as a Collector Road which generally provides access to individual properties, local roads, other collector roads and to Type C arterial roads; carrying greater volumes of traffic than local roads, including automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles and transit; and generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 20 to 22 metres; the City of Pickering identifies both Cowan Circle and Gillmoss Road as Local Roads which generally provide access to individual properties, other local roads and collector roads, which carry local traffic and generally have a right-of-way of up to 20.0 metres; - the subject application will be further reviewed to determine if it complies with the intent of the City's Official Plan; ATTACHMENT Information Report No. 07-08 REPORT# PD O b - ~d Page 3 71 3.3 Compendium Document to the Official Plan the subject properties are situated within Design Precinct No. 3 of the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines; - the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines limit development in this area of the neighbourhood to detached and semi-detached dwellings; - new lots created within this precinct for detached dwellings shall have the same minimum lot dimensions as new lots in Precinct No. 2 (which are minimum lot frontages of approximately 15.0 metres and minimum lot depths ranging between approximately 30.0 metres and 36.0 metres) (see Attachment #4); - the applicant is proposing detached lots ranging from 11.0 to 13.0 metres, which does not appear to comply with the provisions set out under the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines; 3.4 Zoning By-law 2511 - the subject properties are currently zoned 'R3' - Third Density Residential Zone, which requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres and a minimum lot area of 550 square metres; - the applicant requests to amend the existing zoning to permit detached lots with frontages ranging from 11.0 to 13.0 metres which appears to be similar to the existing character of Cowan Circle; - an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to allow for the lots on the subject properties to be properly subdivided in order to meet the lot area and lot frontage requirements as proposed by the applicant. 4.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION 4.1 Resident Comments - none received to date; 4.2 Agency Comments Toronto and Region - comments are deferred until staff has Conservation Authority reviewed the following information: a Storm Water Management Report; an Environmental Impact Statement; a Water Balance Analysis; (see Attachment #5); The Durham District School - no objections (see Attachment #6); Board Durham Catholic District - no objections (unofficial comments - see School Board Attachment #7); ATTACHMENT -E----TO Information Report No. 07-08 REPORT# PID Page 4 72, Veridian Connections - no objections; Bell - no objections, however in the event this application is approved, Bell requests a number of conditions to be included as part of the Registered Plan of Subdivision; Enbridge Gas Distribution - no objections; Inc. Hydro One - no objections; Canada Post - no objections; 4.3 Staff Comments in reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: - to ensure that the proposed development complies with the policies and development guidelines outlined in the City of Pickering Official Plan and Compendium Document respectfully, specifically with emphasis on lot frontage; - impact of the proposed lotting on future development opportunities south of the existing properties; - to ensure that the proposed lots have a proper separation from the existing CN Railway right-of-way; - to ensure that the dwelling at 491 Rosebank Road is not land-locked and/or has sufficient lot frontage and yard setbacks (see Attachment #2); - determine if 491 Rosebank Road will require an amendment to the existing zoning; - review the impact of development on the dwelling at 544 Gillmoss Road; - to ensure that the proposed extension of Cowan Circle satisfies the City's Municipal Property & Engineering Division standards relating to items such as but not limited to road design and grading; - a tree preservation plan is required; - to review the applications in terms of their level of sustainable development components; - this application will be reviewed in conjunction with Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01 and Zoning By-law Amendment application A 13/07 with respect to the proposed development west of Rosebank Road in the vicinity of Milton Road; as a result of comments made at the February 4, 2008 Public Information Meeting for the Milton Road application, a Traffic Impact Study will be required to address both the Milton Road application and this application. ATTACHMENT#_L-TO Information Report No. 07-08 REPORT# PD- /16 /Q Page 5 73 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,. and comments received from the February 20, 2008 resident meeting. 5.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION - written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; - oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; - all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; - if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; - if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk; - if a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the Regional Municipality of Durham in respect of the proposed plan of subdivision does not make oral submission at the public meeting, or make written submissions to the Regional Municipality of Durham before . the proposed plan of subdivision is approved or refused, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss the appeal. 6.0 OTHER INFORMATION 6.1 Appendix No. - 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 are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planni.ng & Development Department: - Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment; - Soils Investigation Report; - Stages 1, 2 & 3 Archaeological Study; - Feasibility Study for Municipal Servicing; - Tree Inventory Plan; ATTACHMENT- g-TO Information Report No. 07-08 REpORT# P11 .6-4Page 6 i 74 6.3 Company Principal - the owners of the subject property at 491 Rosebank Road are William and Nadene Trapper whereas the owner of the subject property at 546 Gillmoss Road is Babette Trapper; - the applicant is Vijay Gupta c/o Land Pro Engineering. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Ashley Yearwood Lynda Taylor Planner I Manager, Development Review AY:ld Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development V ATTACHMENT#_2~TO REPORT# PDD Excerpts from City o¢~ Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes 75 Monday, March 3, 2008 7:30 Pm - Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean (1) PART `A' - PLANNING INFORMATION MEETING 2. Information Report 07-08 Draft Plan of Subdvision SP-2008-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/08 W. & N. Trapper and B. Trapper 491 Rosebank Road & 546 Gillmoss Road (Part of Block K, L and M Right-of-Way, Plan 418) City of Pickering A public information meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of informing the public with respect to an application submitted by W. & N. Trapper and B. Trapper for property municipally known as 491 Rosebank Road & 546 Gillmoss Road. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Development Review gave an outline of the requirements for a Statutory Meeting under the Planning Act. She also noted that if a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City before a by-law is passed, that person or public body are not entitled to appeal the decision of City Council to the Ontario Municipal Board, and may not be entitled to be added as a party to the hearing unless, in the opinion of the .Board, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Ashley Yearwood, Planner I, gave an overview of zoning amendment application A 02/08. Gary Templeton a representative for the applicant appeared before the Committee and noted that a new plan had been submitted to the City due to comments and requirements from CN rail. He stated that CN required setbacks of 20 metres from the.railroad tracks so they took another look at the plan. The new plan has changed the road pattern, which reduced the number of units from 40 to 36 and also created a parkette. City Planning staff noted that they did not know this was a formal submission and have not had an opportunity to discuss it with the developer or review the plan thoroughly. Mr. Carroll, Director, Planning & Development stated that he felt the Public Meeting should continue so that public comments could be heard and the new plan could be dealt with later. 1 ATTACHMENT#TO 7 6 REPORT# PD d tom/ D Excerpts from Cyr 04 _ Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, March 3, 2008 7:30 pm - Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean Liz Shumovich, 457 Rosebank Road, appeared before the Committee and gave a brief history of the Rosebank Neighbourhood. She commented on the creation of the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines which. were created and adopted by Council. She noted that the guidelines clearly state that all new development.is to be compatible with the character of the existing area. She noted that the guidelines stated that lots shall have a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres and minimum lot.depths between.30 and 36 metres.. Semi-detached lots shall have a minimum lot frontage of 10.5 metres and minimum lot depth of 30 metres. She stated that this proposal had no regard for these requirements and she felt that the plan was packing people on top of one another. She noted that they were also concerned with the increase in traffic the development would cause and stated that a Traffic Study was imperative. Ms. Shumovich noted .environmental issues regarding the removal of trees and stated that the trees were noise buffers for.the railroad. She noted that over the course of 24 hours 93 GO trains plus CNR freight and passenger trains went by. Ms. Shumovich stated that with the removal of trees there could be an increase in run off and drainage problems. She also noted servicing concerns in regards to hydro and sewage capacities and stated that she felt the area was already at capacity because they were already experiencing hydro interruptions . Ms. Shumovich noted that, the Community felt that the development would have a negative impact on the area. She stated that the residents of the Rosebank Neighbourhood expect the City to be accountable and deliver a plan that reflects the character of the neighbourhood and the wishes of the residents. Maurice Brenner, 711 Sunbird . Trail, appeared before the Committee representing the Rosebank Neighbourhood. He gave an overview of where the . Community was at with the creation of the Community Working Group and stated that there was approximately 15 - 20 residents involved. He noted that the Working Group had been broken down into subgroups and each sub group had been assigned an area of concern. Mr: Brenner stated some of the concerns included the impact the development would have on traffic, schools, services and the environment. He noted that the Rosebank Community was at capacity in regards to schools, services and traffic congestion.. He also stated that the Region of Durham's report on the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for Rosebank Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station and Forcemain Crossing of Petticoat Creek did not shine a very good light on future development: He stated that until the upgrades were completed to the pumping station and the forcemain crossing no further development should,be started. He noted that the Region's report stated that additional development would place further strains on the pumping station and forcemain crossing and they could not handle it at this time. 2 ATTACHMENT# 113 REPORT# PO 06-10 Excerpts from 7 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, March 3, 2008 7:30 pm - Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean Liz Shumovich, 457 Rosebank Road, appeared before the Committee and gave a brief history of the Rosebank Neighbourhood. She commented.on the creation of the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines which were created and adopted by Council She noted that the guidelines clearly state that all new development'is to be compatible with the character of the existing area. She noted that the guideli'nes stated that lots shall have a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres and minimum lot depths between 30 and 36 metres. Semi-detached lots shall have a minimum lot frontage of 10.5 metres and minimum lot depth of 30 metres. She stated that this proposal had no regard for these requirements and she felt that the plan was packing people on top of one another. She noted that they were also concerned with the increase in traffic the development would cause and stated thata Traffic Study was imperative. Ms. Shumovich noted ..environmental issues regarding the removal of trees and stated that the trees were noise buffers for the railroad. She noted that over the course of 24 hours 93 GO trains plus CNR freight and passenger trains went by. Ms. Shumovich stated that with the removal of trees there could be an increase in run off and drainage problems.. She also noted servicing concerns in regards to hydro and sewage capacities and stated that she felt the area was already at capacity because they were already experiencing hydro interruptions Ms. Shumovich noted that the Community felt that the development would have a negative impact on the area. . She stated that the residents of the Rosebank Neighbourhood expect the City to be accountable and deliver a plan that reflects the character of the neighbourhood and the wishes of the residents. Maurice Brenner, 711 Sunbird Trail, appeared before the Committee representing the Rosebank Neighbourhood: He gave an overview of where the Community was at with the creation of the Community Working Group and stated that there was approximately 15 - 20 residents involved. He noted that the Working Group had been. broken down into sub groups and each sub group had been assigned an area of con ern.. Mr. Brenner stated some of the concerns included the impact the develop)ent would have on traffic, schools, services and the environment. He noted that the Rosebank Community was at capacity in regards to schools, services and traffic congestion. He also stated that the Region of Durham's report on the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for Rosebank Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station and Forcemain Crossing of Petticoat Creek did not shine a very good light on future development. He stated that until the upgrades were completed to the pumping station and the forcemain crossing no further development should be started. He noted that the Region's report stated that additional development would place. further strains on the pumping station and forcemain crossing and they could not handle it at this time. 3 ATTACHMENT#--i_____TO 8 REPORT# PD. 06 _ !p Excerpts from Planning & Development Committee _3 = Meeting Minutes MO<E Monday, March 3,.2008 7:30 pm - Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean Mr. Brenner stated that Council should table all development in this area until the pumping station and the forcemain had been updated. Stephen Soon a representative for Arthur Creighton, owner of 527 Gillmost Road, appeared before the Committee to note his clients concerns with the road pattern and how it would land lock his clients property. Mr. Soon stated that his client would only have access to his property through a 12 foot dirt right of way. Mr. 'Soon stated that the new road pattern submitted with the road abutting the railroad tracks would be better for his client. John McArthur, 545 Dahlia Crescent, appeared before the Committee as the representative of the Services Sub Committee for the Rosebank Community. Mr. McArthur noted their concerns with the pumping station age and the fact that it is at capacity. He stated that the Service Sub Committee had gone through the Region's Municipal Class Environmental Assessment report which states "The pumping station has reached a point that space is no longer available on the site to perform necessary improvements and upgrades, and there are insufficient buffers for compliance with the current engineering standards and health and safety regulations" The same report states that "the forcemain crossing capacity was evaluated and found to be insufficient to accommodate any future .design flows at the acceptable velocity". Mr. McArthur requested that Council not consider any new housing proposals until the issues with the. pumping station and the forcemain crossing are fixed. Mr. McArthur also noted resident concerns with the increase of regular brown outs and blackouts in. the Rosebank Community and questioned whether power services were at capacity also. He questioned whether before this development is considered that camparisons between the Rosebank Community and other communities in Pickering could be looked at in regards to the number of power outages and average length of time it takes to return to service, the age of transformers and present overhead wiring conditions and projected life spans. Kate Cherrett, 518 Rosebank Road, appeared before the Committee as the representative of the Neighbourhood Sub Committee for the Rosebank Community. Ms Cherrett stated that their sub committee would be looking at the proposed Milton Road and Cowan Circle developments and how they would affect the entire atmosphere of the Rosebank neighbourhood. She stated that the residents strongly believe the lot sizes need to remain as defined in the existing Rosebank Neighbourhood Guidelines. She noted that the residents wanted assurance that new residential development blends with the existing neighbourhoods. She also noted that there were concerns with water run off in the area and some areas are subject to seasonal flooding. 4 1 ATTACHMENT# 'L-To REPORT# PD Excerpts.from City Planning & Development Committee 79 Meeting Minutes PICKE Monday, March 3, 2008 7:30 pm - Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean She stated that resident concerns are that too many additional homes on smaller lot sizes will re-route existing underground water courses and cause new problems or increase existing ones. Ms. Cherrett also noted concerns in regards to increased property taxes due to additional development which will require upgraded services. . Pam Spence, 705 Foster Court, appeared before the Committee as the representative of the `Cowan Circle Sub Committee which will be reviewing issues associated with the Cowan Circle development. She stated that many of the lots being proposed for new development fail to adhere to existing lot frontages of abutting homes set out in the Precinct 3 design guidelines. She noted that it is important to have a comprehensive plan for the whole community for the future. She stated.that the Community did not have a stable infrastructure to. support new development and stated that the Cowan Circle and the Milton applications were both premature at this time. Geraldine Goudie, 572 Rougemount Drive, appeared before the Committee and also noted her concerns with the stability of the pumping station. 5 t ATTACHMENT# ro TO _ REPORT# PD FON183>101d S(INV ON NNVad,~A3a O =10 A130 IZ0~~VW 475 Oakwood Drive, Pickering, L 1 W 2M8, Ontario. 7`h March 2008. Re: Draft Plan Subdivision Application SP-2008-02 Zoning Amendment Application A 02/08 W. & N. Trapper and B. Trapper 391 Rosebank and 546 Gillmoss Road (Part Block K, L, and M Right of Way, Plan 418) City of Pickering. I am writing to have it on record that I strongly OPPOSE the application to the zoning amendment in Design Precinct No.3 (Cowan Circle). The proposed lot frontages are not acceptable. Another important issue is the volume of traffic the proposed development Precinct No3 in conjunction with proposed development Precinct No. I will generate in the neighbourhood. Most families have two vehicles, others three or more, add to this the number of cars when family and friends visit. This will have a major impact on the community that has only two roads leading to the highway. Looking to the future, should development take place beyond the temporary turning circles to the north and south of Milton Road in Design Precinct No. 1, how many more vehicles will impact the neighbourhood??? The volume of traffic on Toynevale Road and Granite Court is already an issue for the residents of the neighbourhood. This in turn brings up the safety concern for the children at Rosebank Public School during rush hours. I sincerely hope the above mentioned concerns along with the pumping station (already at capacity) the hydro situation, loss of trees, wild life, the list goes on, will be given serious thought before any decisions are made. tATTACHMENT#-1-6-TO ICPDRT# PD 81 The residents who live in this area take pride in their community and it is imperative the zoning amendment application does NOT pass. I wish to receive copies of all comments and decisions and future meetings on this matter. Yours sincerely, 1 Doreen Brown. S 2 ATTACHMENT# TO WOW PD Q (2- ` IQ C E V March 12, 2008 Ashley Yearwood iDl t, Y OF h1CKERINC _ Planner 1 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTii9ENT Planning & Development Department` City of. Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 The Regional Municipality of purham. Dear Ms. Yearwood: Planning Department Re: Regional: Review of an Application for Plan of Subdivision 4TH 605 FLOOR OSSLAND ROAD E' File No.: S-F-2008-02 . . PO BOX 623. Cross Ref: A 02/08 WHITBY ON L1N 6A3 CANADA Applicant: Vijay Gupta 05-66&7711 Location: Lot 30, B. F.. Concession ,-ax: 905-666-620e Municipality: City of Pickering &mail: planning . region.durnam:on.ca This application has been reviewed by the Region and the following comments www.region.durham.on.ca are offered:. A.L. Georgieff, MCIR RPP The application proposes.the development of 40 unit plan of subdivision, commissioner of 1?Ianning comprised of single detached units. Durham Regional Official Plan The subject property is -predominantly designated "Living. Area" in the Durham Regional Official Plan.` Lands within this designation are to be used . predominantly:for housing. purposes. The eastern portion of the subject property is designated a Key Natural Heritage Feature on Schedule 'B', Map, `B1d' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). Section 23,14 of the ROP states-that development and site alteration is not permitted in key natural heritage and/or key hydrologic features, including' any assoc►ated vegetation protection zone. Consistent .with Regional policies, an Environmental lmpactStudy is required to determine the exact boundaries of the Key Natural Heritage Feature and its minimum' vegetation protection zone: Provincial Interests.and Delegated Review Res onsibilites This application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial plan review responsibilities. • Both the. Provincial Policy Statement(PPS) and Provincial Growth Plan encourage the intensification of built-up areas, .in locations that are appropriate and consider the existing building stock: Both documents also recognize the importance of protecting natural features for the long term. The PPS does not permit development or site alteration in significant ' sernce Excellence fors 6ui=mahities 100% Post Consumer ATTACHMENT# - TO Rage 2 of 2 REPORT# PI) Ddb 83, .woodlands, unless it has been..demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd dated June; 2007; was submitted in support of the application: The report stated that there are no specific environmental .hazards at or near the subject site and that no further environmental investigation is required. Information regarding the stormwater management was included in the Feasibility Study for Municipal Servicing submitted with the. application. Any possible.issues concerning stormwater.management are to be addressed to - the satisfaction of the Conservation Authority: The subject site is adjacent to the Canadian National Railway Line. As such, the application should be circulated to CNR to identify any concerns they.might have. An acoustic report will need to be submitted to both the CNR and. the Region detailing the noise attenuation measu res. necessary. to provide acceptable sounds levels for. both indoor and outdoor living areas for the affected lots: • Due to the subject site's proximity to the Rouge River.and. Petticoat Creek, the archaeological assessment should. be submitted to the Ministry of . Culture for their review. This requirement will be included as a condition of draft approval There are no further provincial interests or delegated. review responsibilities applicable to this application. Mu.nicipal'Services and Transportation Our, comments with respect to water. supply, sanitary sewer services, and . transportation will be provided to the City of Pickering as soon as these issues have been properly addressed. Please call Lori Riviere, Project Planner, at 905-66$-41.13 extension 2572 if you have any questions: Yours truly, ..Richard Szarek Project Planner c.c.: Pete Castellan, Regional Works Department Vijay Gupta, Land-Pro Engineering . R:\LAR\Su bdivisions\Pickering\S-P-2008-02.doc 4 ATTACHMENT# / ~ TD REPORT# PD d h - / D - - - - Speclalmymptcr. April 28th, 2008. Ashley Yearwood ECEIV~ Planner.1 Planning & Development. Department OR 2 9 2008. City of Pickering One The Esplanade CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT The Regional Pickering, ON L1 V 6K7. DEPARTMENT Municipality of Durham . Planning Department Dear Mr. Yearwood .605 ROSSLAND ROAD E ..aTH FLOOR Re: Regional Review of an Application for Plan of Subdivision PO BOX 62s WHITBY ON L1 N 6A3 Fite No.:. S-P-2008702 CANADA Cross Ref: A 02/08 `1057668-7711 Applicant:. Vijay Gupta rax 905-666-6208 E-mail: planning@ Location: Lot 30, B.F., Concession region.durham.on,ca Municipality: City of Pickering www: reg ion. d u rh arn. on. ca Further to the Region's letter of March 12, 2008 on the above-noted A.L. io eff, Pa nin application, the following comments related to municipal water supply Commissioner of f Pllanning and sanitary sewer are offered. Municipal Water Supply can. be provided by the extension of a. Zone 1 watermain on Cowan Circle. A minimum 6 metre wide easement will be required for the looping of a 200 mm watermain from Street 'A' to Gilmoss Drive. The static water pressure from the zone l system is approximately 490 kpa (70 psi). Municipal sanitarysewers can be provided by the extension of sanitary sewers from Cowan Circle as identified in the submitted Servicing Feasibility Study. Foundation drains from houses will not be permitted to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The receiving sanitary sewers for this development discharges to the Rosebank Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station (SSPS) on Rodd Avenue. The Region of Durham is currently concluding a Class Environmental :Assessment for upgrades at the pumping station and forcemain. This facility occasionally experiences failures due to age and poor condition of mechanical, electrical and structural components. The Region of Durham is planning.replacement of the Rosebank SSPS. in 2009-2010 pending Regional Council approval for budget funding. Although providing capacity for the proposed development application at the existing Rosebank SSPS is not a concern, the Region of Durham would prefer to co-ordinate the proposed building permit approvals of the "Servree EXCe((ence, fo•~oi Cori) nwnities" 100% Post Consumer ATTACHMENT# L _To ' Page 2 of 2 REPORT# PO 66 -/Q 85 development, with the City of Pickering, to closely match the completion of the upgraded Rosebank SSPS and minimize sewage. flow and risk of failures As-noted in our March 121 2008 letter, additional studies are required in support of this application. As such, the Region is currently not in the position to provide conditions of draft approval. Please contact the undersigned, at 905-668-41.13.extension 2572 if you have any questions. Yours truly; n Lori ftiviere, MES,-MCIP, RPP Project Planner c. c.: Pete Castelian, Regional. Works Department Vijay Gupta, Land-Pro, Engineering R:\LAR\SubdivisionslPickering\S-P-2008 02.doc ATTADHMENT# ~3 TO.. 8 6 REPORT# PD -J~- t1VFD May 21, FIEC. ~~,~v ~ 2 200$ PiCKERING k lA Mr. Ashley Yearwood KAN NG & RtMENTPnnEr► 1011 DEPARTMEN Planner.l Planning & Development Department City of Pickering The Regional One The Esplanade " Municipality of Durham Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Planning Department .605 ROSSLAND ROAD EDear Mr. Yearwood: 4'" FLOOR PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON L1,N 6A3 CANADA Re: Regional Review of an Application for Plan of Subdivision o5-ssa-771 1 Traffic Impact Study ax: 905-666-6208 E-mail: planning@ File. No.: S-P-2007-01. and S-P 2008-02 region.durham.on:ca Cross Ref: A 13/07 and A 02/08 :durham.on.ca Applicant: . Rosebank Properties Inc and. Vijay :Gupta wvegion Municipality: City of Pickering A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning The.Region of Durham Works Department reviewed the Traffic Impact Study prepared by MMM Group in support of the above-noted applications and has no comments on the document:. Yours truly, Lori "Riviere, MES, MCIP,.RPP Project Planner R:\LAR\Subdivisi6ns\Pickering\S-P-2008-02 & 2007-01-traffic.doc $ervic~r7Excellence for our Communities 100% Post Consumer AT'T'ACHMENT#-LL-TO REPOW PD Yearwood, Ashley 87 From: Lori Riviere [Lori.Riviere@region. durham.on.ca] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:02 AM To: Yearwood, Ashley Subject: S-P-2008-02 Noise report Hi Ashley, The Noise Report for the above noted study has been reviewed by the appropriate Regional staff, and no concerns with the report'were identified. Please ensure that the report is circulated to CN Rail to ensure.that any of their possible concerns are addressed. Thanks, Lori Lori Riviere, IVIES, MCIP,- RPP Project Planner Plan Implementation ^'anning Department, Region of Durham .i5 Rossland Road East, P.O. Box 623 Whitby, ON UN 6A3 Ph: 905-668-4113 x 2572 Fax: 905-666-6208 lori.riviere@region.durharn.on.ca Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless necessary! i I a $ ATTACHMENT# REPORT# PD /D ; E January29, 2009 .-j 4;1 CITY- , `3KKR! a . s~,9 G Mr. Ashley Yearwood PLANNI;iPt-G , & DEV~,E; CPPJENT Planner 1I~t~~ ENr • Planning & Development Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade the Regional Pickering, ON. L1 V 6K7 Municipality of Durham Planning Department Dear Mr. Yearwood: 605 LOSSLANa ROAD E 4'" FLOOR Re: Regional Review of an Application for,Plan of Subdivision PO BOX 623 File No.: S=P-2008-02 WHITBY ON L1.N 6A3 CANADA Cross Ref: A02108 10.5-668-7711 . Applicant: Vijay Gupta =ax: 905-666-6208 Location:: Lot 30, B.F. Concession E-mail: planning@ region.durham.on.ca Municipality: City of Pickering www. region. durham.oh.ca A.L.Georgieff, MCIP RPP This application proposes the development of 36 unit plan of subdivision, Commissioner. of Planning comPrised of single detached units. This application has been reviewed by the Region and -previous comments have been provided to the City in letters dated March 12, 2008, April 28th, 2008 and May 21St, 2008: Regional comments regarding. servicing for the proposed plan of . Subdivision were provided in the April 28th letter and are still *applicable to the revised application. The Region;of Durham is planning the replacement of the Rosebank Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station (pending Council approval for budget funding), and would prefer to coordinate the proposed building permit approvals of the development with the City to closely match the completion of the upgrades. As noted in the Region's previous correspondence, the proposed development would result in the loss of a wooded area and its associated ecological functions. As requested, a Scoped Environmental. Impact Study (Beacon Environmental, September 2008). was prepared. It is our understanding that the applicant and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority have reached an agreement regarding the provision of off-site compensation to mitigate the loss of the ecological functions associated with the wooded area.. A Noise Control Feasibility Study (S.S. Wilson Associates, August 25, 2008) was prepared for the proposed development. The study identifies noise mitigation measures for those lots within proximity to the railway line. The study is acceptable to the Region "Service Exceitence f&,6i r Comrn"UnitieS" 100% Post Consumer ATTACHMENT#TO Page 2 of 2. REPORT# PO. O L -1 89 A Stage 1, 2 and. 3 Archaeological'Assessment was prepared for the subject lands The Region has received confirmation from-the Ministry of Culture.that this study.was reviewed by the Ministryand, that. there are no concerns for impacts to archaeological resources: Please contact the undersigned, at 905-668-4113.extension 2572 if you have any questions. I Yours truly, Lori.Riviere-Doersam, MES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Actin C.c.: Pete Castellan Regions[ Works Department , . Vijay Gupta; Land-Pro Engineering R:\LAR\Subdivisions\Pickedng\S-P-2008-02\S-P-2008-02-draft approval.doc. I ~5 - 9 O ATTACHMENT#__-TO REPORT#.PD Ob "lo. Attachment to letter dated January 29; 2009 To: Plan of. Subdivision S-P-2008-02 Vijay Gupta City of Pickering DRAFT CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVAL 1. The.Owner shall prepare the final plan on the basis of the approved draft plan of subdivision, prepared by Land-Pro Engineering Ltd., identified as project number 2007-003, dated March 2007, which illustrates 36 single family residential lots, 1 park block, 3 future development' blocks and roadways The Owner'shall.name.road ;allowances included in this draft plan, to the .satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Durham and.the City of Pickering. 3.. The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposedphasing to the Region and the City of Pickering for review and approval if this'subdivision is to be' developed. by more than one registration: 4. The Owner shalt grant to the Region; any .ease.ments required. to: provide Regional services for this development and these -easements shall be. in locations and of such widths as determined by the Region. 5.. The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and' water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, :the limits of this plan that are required to service this Plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension:of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the. plan which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities, are to be designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to:be made to. the satisfaction of the Regional' Municipality of Durham; and are to be completed prior to final - approval_of this plan. 6. Prior to entering into a subdivision agreement,. the Regional Municipality of Durham shall be satisfied that adequate water. pollution control plant.and water supply plant capacities are available to the proposed subdivision: 7. The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Regional. Municipality of Durham. This shall include,.among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the.Owner and.the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water:. supply, roads and other services. i ATTACHMEw-LL_-To • )C6h96FV.i "Y~ AEPORT# PD O~ - /0 tion I 91 RE.CEVED for The Living City 1 , 0 7 2008 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT February 4, 2008 DEPARTMENT CFN BY FAX AND MAIL Ashley Yearwood Planner I City of Pickering One the Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Yearwood: RE: Preliminary Comments Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 ' Zoning By-law Amendment A02/08 W & N Trapper and B. Trapper Part of Block K, L and M, Right of Way, Plan 418 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff is in receipt of an application for a proposed subdivision. We offer the following comments: Background The subject property is located at Rosebank Road and Gillmoss Road, south of Kingston Road, in the City of Pickering. The applicant is seeking permission to build a 40 unit low density subdivision. The subject property is not located within an Ontario Regulation 166/06 Regulated Area. However, this property is located within an area defined as natural cover in TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System. Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy TRCA has identified the need to improve both the quality and quantity of terrestrial habitat. TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy sets measurable targets for attaining a healthier natural system by creating an expanded and targeted land base. It includes strategic direction for stewardship and securement of the land base, a land policy framework to help achieve the target system, and other implementation mechanisms. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required in order to satisfy TRCA,of the impacts to the immediate and surrounding area with respect to woodlot form and function and possible improvements to the proposed affected area. Stormwa ter Management The applicant has not provided any discussion of how the site will tie into existing or proposed servicing, or how the design will meet SWM quality or quantity requirements. We request that the applicant provide a detailed Stormwater Management report that meets the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment's Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003. f:\home\public\development services\durham regtUmpk~rint7f~Bs~~d~f~~~lrrn5s~~~oc 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661=6898 www.trca.on.ca ATTACHMENT#.=TO <IEPORT# PD bG - is 92 Mr. Yearwood -2- February 4, 2008 Water Balance At a minimum, the first 5 mm of every rainfall event should be detained on-site and either infiltrated or reused. This water can either be infiltrated or stored in cisterns and reused for irrigation. Design appropriate measures provide supporting calculations and show them on the site servicing plan. For additional details regarding TRCA's water balance requirements, the applicant is invited to contact Tom Dole, Water Resource Analyst, at extension 5659. Recommendations In light of the above, TRCA staff defers comments of the draft plan of subdivision application until such time that staff has reviewed the following information: 1. A Storm Water Management report 2. An Environmental Impact Statement 3. A Water Balance Analysis We trust that this is of assistance. Please contact me should you have any further questions. Yours Truly, Shannon McNeill BA, BURPI Planner Planning and Development Extension 5744 CJ/sm 47 Cc: Vijay Gupta, Land-Pro Engineering (Fax 905-625-1985) Steve Neuchert, TRCA fAhome\public\development services\durham region\pickering\rosebank-gillmoss_1.doc ATTACHMENT#_._._.--TO IEPORT# 93 TORONTO AND. REGION'Y~ onservat~on ifor The Living City December 18, 2008 CFN 40466 VIA MAIL AND EMAIL (M earwood@city.gickering.on.ca) Mr. Ashley Yearwood City of Pickering Pickering Civic Centre One The Esplanade Pickering ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Yearwood: Re: TRCA Comments: Scoped Environmental Impact Study Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Zoning By-law Amendment A02/08 Part of Block K, L and M, Right of Way, Plan 418 Staff at the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) have now had an opportunity to review the following document:. • Scoped Environmental Impact Study, September 2008, prepared by Beacon Environmental. Based upon our review, we offer the following comments for action by the applicant: Migratory Birds and Significant Wildlife Habitat 1. The Environmental Impact Study (EIS) evaluates the applicability of various planning policies, including the Provincial Policy Statement. In the evaluation of Significant Wildlife Habitat, 'Animal Movement Corridors,' the landscape connectivity of the property from a terrestrial movement perspective is assessed. It is concluded that the subject lands do not provide connectivity.' This section, however, does not examine the potential for these lands to serve as Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) as it pertains to the movement of migratory birds. Regarding the potential for the presence of SWH for migratory birds, we note that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources' Natural Heritage Reference Manual, June 1999 indicates that woodlands, close to the Great Lakes are particularly important as wildlife movement corridors (p. 29). This is particularly important for the subject lands given the proximity to Lake Ontario. The Region of Peel and Town of Caledon have commissioned a study, currently in draft form, which seeks to establish criteria and thresholds for SWH (Peel - Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study DRAFT Report for Public Comments, October 2008). This study addresses SWH for migratory birds using the principles of stopover ecology and recommends that all `natural areas' within 2 kilometers of Lake Ontario or within 500 metres of river valleys within 5 kilometers of Lake Ontario be identified as SWH (p. 122). In this instance, 'natural areas' are defined F:\Home\Public\Development ServicesOurham Region\Pickering\Rosebank-Gillmoss_3.wpd Member of Conservation Ontario 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1$4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca,on.ca s~j{ i ' ATTACHMENT# 7 9 4 REPORT# PD 06-12 Mr. Ashley Yearwood -2- December 18, 2008 as all terrestrial and wetland communities as defined under the Ecological Land Classification system, as well as cultural woodlands). It is concluded in the EIS that there are no constraints to the complete removal of the natural areas on the subject property except for timing removals in compliance with the Migratory Birds Act (Canada). Furthermore, no mitigation or compensation for the loss of,the features is proposed. It is our opinion that, based on the information provided above, there are ecological constraints on the subject lands, namely the importance of maintaining the natural cover for the functions it serves as 'stopover' areas for migratory birds. Further, it is stated in the .EIS that, as far as migratory birds are concerned, the Petticoat and Rouge valleys would provide superior habitat, and as such, there is no need to protect the natural cover on the subject property. Unfortunately, these valley features alone cannot provide all of the ecological function for the area, to the exclusion of all other natural cover. In other words, while the site may not provide the quality of habitat provided by the valley features, the quantity of natural cover should be maintained, given its proximity to the shoreline. Recommendation Based upon our review of the EIS, TRCA staff recommend that as much of the natural cover on this site be maintained and improved. For areas where natural cover is to be removed to accommodate development, off-site compensation should be provided for this loss in the form of the establishment of commensurate natural cover (afforestation/reforestation of an appropriate land base in the Petticoat Creek watershed, within 2km of the Lake Ontario shoreline). Given the recommendation above, and in order to move forward, we further recommend that a meeting be convened with the Owner, Owner's representatives, City staff and TRCA staff in order to discuss this matter further. Please contact the undersigned, should you have any questions or concerns. Yours truly, w Chris Jones, B.U. I. Senior Planner Planning and Development, Extension 5718 cc: Anjali Kanre, Beacon Environmental (akarve@beaconenviro.com) Brian Henshaw, Beacon Environmental (bhenshaw@beaconenviro.com) Lori Riviere-Doersam; Region of Durham (Lori.Riviere-Doersam@region.durham.on.ca) Steve Heuchert, TRCA (sheuchert@trca.on.ca) Larry Field, TRCA (Ifield@trca.on.ca) Lisa Roberti, TRCA (Iroberti@trca.on.ca) FAHome\Public\Development Services\Durham Region\Pickering\Rosebank-Gillmoss_3.wpd ATTACHMENT# $ TO REPORT# PD /2 - ~0 95 TORONTO AND REGION )Conservat ~ on for The Living City January 28, 2009 CFN 40466 VIA MAIL AND EMAIL (Itaylor@citypickering.on.ca) Mr. Ashley Yearwood City of Pickering Pickering Civic Centre One The Esplanade Pickering ON L1V 6K7 Dear Ashley: Re: TRCA Conditions to Draft Plan Approval Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Part of Block K, L and M, Right of Way, Plan 418 City of Pickering (Land-Pro Engineering) We wish to advise that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff have come to an agreement with the Owner of the lands subject to the application captioned above with respect to the provision of off-site woodland compensation. The agreement between the owner and ourselves was reached during a meeting at the City of Pickering municipal offices on January 21, 2009 attended by the Owner, the Owner's Representatives, City of Pickering Staff and TRCA Staff. The owner has documented this agreement in a letter to TRCA dated January 22, 2009 prepared by Beacon Environmental. The owner has agreed to provide $17,500 towards off-site woodland compensation.. The purpose of the off-site woodland cdmpensation is to mitigate the ecological impacts associated with the removal of the natural vegetation that exists on the subject lands by proving replacement plantings of trees and shrubs on publicly owned lands nearby. These replacement plantings should, over time, re-establish natural cover commensurate with the ecological value of the natural cover lost through the development of subject lands. Now that this issue has been resolved to our satisfaction, we wish to provide implementing conditions to draft plan approval herein. .Conditions to Draft Plan Approval The following proposed conditions to draft plan approval relate to revised draft plan of subdivision, Drawing Number DP-1, Project Number 2007-003, prepared by Land-Pro Engineering Consultants Inc., received by TRCA on January 21, 2008: 1. That prior to any grading, development, pre-servicing or site alteration, or registration of this plan or any phase thereof, the Owner submit for the review and approval of the TRCA: a. A detailed engineering report and plans that provide for the maintenance of pre- development groundwater infiltration post-development (water balance) and stormwater quality treatment. The report and plans must examine ways of providing water quality treatment with at-source controls to achieve a treatment train for water FAHome\Public\Development Services\Durham.Region\Pickering\Rosebank-Gillmoss_4.wpd Member of Conservation Ontario m*'a~ 5 Shoreham Drive; Downsview, Ontario W N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca ATTACHMENT#=_TO REPORT# PD-12 _~n - 96 Mr. Ashley Yearwood -2- January 28, 2009 quality control; b. An erosion and sediment control plan; C. Overall grading plans for the subject lands. 2. That prior to Final Approval of the draft plan, or any phase thereof, the Owner provide an amount of $17,500 to TRCA or the City of Pickering for the purposes of off-site planting of native, self-sustaining vegetation. Such planting shall be on publicly owned lands held by either the City of Pickering or the TRCA. 3. That the owner agree in the Subdivision Agreement, in wording acceptable to the TRCA: a. To carry out, or cause to be carried out, to the satisfaction of the TRCA, the recommendations and provisions of the reports and plans referenced in Condition 1; b. To agree to, and implement, the requirements of the TRCA's conditions in wording acceptable to the TRCA; C. To design and implement on-site erosion and sediment control; d. To provide an amount of $17,500 to TRCA for the purposes of off-site planting of native, self-sustaining vegetation. We request that the Notice of Decision, copy of the Conditions to Draft Approval, the executed Subdivision Agreement, and the implementing Zoning By-law(s) be.provided to the TRCA when available in order to expedite the clearance of the conditions of draft plan approval. The owner will be required to pay a TRCA clearance fee prior to issuance of any TRCA clearance letters. We trust that this is of assistance. Please contact the undersigned for questions or clarification. Yours truly, Chris Jones, R.Pl. Senior Planner, Planning and Development, Extension 5718 cc: Vijay Gupta, Land-Pro Engineering (Via FAX 905-625-1985) Brian Henshaw, Beacon Environmental (bhenshaw@beaconenviro.com) Anjali Karve, Beacon Environmental (akarve@beaconenviro.com) Lori Riviere-Doersam, Region of Durham (Lori.Riviere-Doersam@region.durham.on.ca) Steve Heuchert, TRCA (sheuchert@trca.on.ca) Lisa Roberti, TRCA (Iroberti@trca.on.ca) Larry Field, TRCA (Ifield@trca.on.ca) R\Home\Public0evelopment ServicesTurham Region\Pickering\Rosebank-Gillmoss_4.wpd City o~ ATTACHMENT#. 9 REPORT# PD n 1 7 I' I I PICKERIXC MEMO.. To:. Ashley Yearwood June 9, 2008 Planner. l From: Robert Starr Supervisor, Development Control Copy: Development Control Inspector Subject: Draft Plan Applications SP-2007-01 & SP-2008-02 Traffic Impact Study Rosebank Neighbourhood City of Pickering We have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study for the Rosebank.Neighbourhood completed by MMM Group and have no concerns at this time. J'/Document_s(Develooment ControVBOBSTARR/memos/eoolicationNdraft olanRreooer SP-200"2 . __,PECEVED I . , 9 gL~~ ATTACHMENT#. I REPORT# PO - JUN 1 0 2008 PICKERING PLANNING DICKERING MEMO & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMFNT To: Ashley Yearwood June 10, 2008 Planner From: Kashif Shaikh, M.Eng. Coordinator, Transportation Engineering Copy: Division Head, MP&E Subject: Traffic Impact Study Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works Rosebank South Coordinator, Traffic Operations Neighbourhood SP-2007-01 & SP-2008=02 Please be advised that the Municipal Property & Engineering Division have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study prepared by the MMM Group, dated May 2008. The comments areas follows:- Based on the conclusions illustrated on Page 11, the traffic volumes generated by the proposed, development would not significantly impact the surrounding road/street network. Construction of Milton Road and Cowan Circle should take place in- accordance with City of Pickering standards and the City of Pickering will be permitted to make any corrections and interpretations as deemed necessary. i ATTACHMENT# l d Tp C`q 00 REPORT# PD O' i o 99 ICI I - PICKERING MEMO To: Ashley Yearwood September 24, 2008 Planner From: Robert Starr Supervisor, Development Control Copy: N/A Subject: Pickering Shores at Rosebank Scoped Environmental Impact Study Revised Noise Control Feasibility Study A002/08 & SP-2008-02 We have reviewed the Scoped Environmental Impact Study for the above mentioned site, prepared by Beacon Environmental, dated September 2008 and have no comments. We have reviewed the Revised Noise Control Feasibility Study for the above mentioned site, prepared by S.S. Wilson Associates, dated August 25, 2008 and our comments are as follows: 1. The 4.Om high sound barrier for lots 6. 7. 8, 18 & 19 is not acceptable in the locations as indicated. The report should review a sound barrier along the east side of Street 'A' adjacent to the CNR line. A noise fence in combination with a berm may provide sufficient protection as well as providing a safety barrier between the residential and railroad lands. 2. Another option may be to turn. lots 18, 19 and 20 so that they face the tracks? This may help to eliminate noise barrier in this area. J:00cumentstDevelopment ContmPBOBSTARR4nemoslapplicationsWmft plan\Trapper SP-2008-02 - Noise Report 8 EIS.ooc ATTACHMENU-2)._TO Ci&j o~ IEPDRT>,f PD n l - /L? 100 - PICKERING MEMO To: Ashley Yearwood December 18, 2009 From: Darrell Selsky Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works Copy: Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP2008-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A002/08 W & N Trapper & B. Trapper Part of Block K, L, and M Right of Way, Plan 418 City of Pickering File:O-4020 The Municipal Property & Engineering Division are in receipt of the above noted sited plan for the above application. This division provides the following comments. General Comments 1.'. Provide M.O.E.-Reports of high sound barriers. 2. Provide Storm Sewer Plan and Grading Plan 3. Road Connectively road should be connected to Gillmoss Road as. a crescent. The proposed road geometry should match the existing portion of Cowan Circle which is a 20m R.O.W. with an 8.5m road (City Standard P-700). Landscape Comments 1. Provide tree preservation plan complete with hoarding location and details:' 2. Provide street tree planting plan. Species to be from list of preferred street trees. By-law no 6831/08. 3. Parkette Block 40 - the proposed location is unsuitable for a children's tot lot, therefore we recommend asking for cash-in-lieu. DS:nw ATTACHMENT # 2 i TO REPORT # PD 101 Yearwood, Ashley From: Selsky, Darrell Sent: February 12, 2010 9:26 AM To: Yearwood, Ashley; Holborn, Richard; Mostert, Arnold Subject: Gupta Ashley, further to this Department's Dec 18, 2009 memo, we advise that with the introduction of this draft plan and the Milton Road draft plan there will be a need to upgrade the two existing parks in this neighbourhood. Staff will be preparing an enhancement plan for these parks in 2010 and will be including provisions to implement these enhancements in the Department's 2011 budget submission for Council's consideration. Darrell B. Selsky Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works Engineering Services Division Operations & Emergency Services Department City of Pickering Tel: 905.420.4630 ext.2149 Fax: 905.420.4650 TTY: 905.420.1739 Toll Free: 1.866.683.2760 email: dselsky(D-cityofpickerimcom www.cityofpickering.com APlease consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! www.sustainablepickering.com i ATTACHMENT -22 1 2 1F.PORT?# PD 4 6 /o Yearwoo , Ashley From: Starr, Robert Sent: January 19, 2010 9:23 AM To: Yearwood, Ashley Subject: RE: Request for Written Comments - Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision for Cowan Circle/Gillmoss Road, east of Rosebank Road Ashley, Just 'to confirm that it appears impractical to connect Gilmoss to the draft plan at this time. There would be extensive grading and disruption to adjacent properties that are outside the limits of the road. Robert Starr Manager, Development Control City of Pickering Planning & Development Department T 1905.420.4660. ext. 2072 i-Y. 905.420.1739 Toll Free 1.866.683.2760 F: 905.420.7648 rstarrCaD,cityofpickering'.com www.cityofpickering.com Please consider your environmental responsibility -think before you print! www.sustainablepickering.com From: Yearwood, Ashley Sent: January-06-10 1:15 PM To: Starr, Robert; Holborn, Richard; Holmes, Brian Cc: Taylor, Lynda ibject: RE: Request for Written Comments - Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision for Cowan Circle/Gillmoss Road, east ur'Rosebank Road Importance: High Good afternoon to all, This email is a friendly reminder. If there is anything you require from me, please advise. Thank you. Yours truly, Ashley Yearwood Planner Planning & Development Department i ATTACHMENT#-g2~TO REPORT# PD!t? 03 Yearwood, Ashley From: NICK.COLEMAN@cn:ca Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 11:42 AM To: Yearwood, Ashley Subject: Pickering Shores A 02/08 & SP 2008-02-Noise Feasibility Study Attachments: PML.pdf Ashley, CN has reviewed the subject noise feasibility study prepared by S.S. Wilson Associates for the proposed development, and finds it satisfactory. We note that among its recommendations, a detailed noise control study will be forthcoming once final grading plans have been completed, prior to issuance of building permits the Builder's plans will be reviewed by the acoustic consultant for . conformance with the noise control measures of the detailed. study, and prior to final inspection and occupancy, the acoustic consultant shall certify compliance with the recommendations of the detailed study. CN anticipates a future opportunity to review a vibration report once it is available. '1raft Conditions of development approval, should include the attached CN requirements for a principal main line. Regards, Nick - - Nick Coleman, B.Sc. Manager, Community Planning & Development CN Business Development & Real Estate 1 Administration Road Concord, ON L4K 1 B9 T. 905-760-5007, F. 905-760-5010 nick:coleman(abcn.ca - - - - - 1 i Fax sent by 4167559888 82/86/88 12:16 Pg: 1/1 ATTACHMENT#-ZY-TO 04 REPORT# PD-a6.:- io CAIJADA r r~OSTES, Delivery Planning PH (416) 285-5385 1860 Midland Ave FX (416) 755-9800 ' • CANADA Scarborough On M1 P 5A1 Februami 6, 2008 .C City of ickering 6 2008 Plannin 3, & Development Department 1 The A-g planade ~ 7'a' PiCKERING Picke On L1 V 6K7 DEVELOPMENT r:vRTMENT Attention: Ashley Yearwood RE: D ail Plan of Subdivision S-P-2008-02 Zoning by-law Amendment Application A02/08 & N Trapper and B. Trapper Pi irt of Block K, L and M Right of Way, Plan 418 C ty of Pickering This pli in of subdivision will receive extension of door to'door mail delivery service. Please ave owner contact me to discuss. Sincere y, Debbie Greenwood Delive Planner-GTA Canada Post ATTACHMENTA REPORT# PD h - /a ~~oV~o ~P 77 yo Durham Catholic District School Board o 105 RECEIVED January 28, 2008 I" EB 00 4 2008 • CITY OF PICKE RING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Pickering Planning & Development Department ° One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1 V 6K7 Attention: Ashley Yearwood RE: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2008-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/08 W & N Trapper and.B. Trapper Part of Block K, L and M Right of Way, Plan 418 City of Pickering Please be advised that the above noted application will be included in the regular Board Meeting of Tuesday, February 11, 2008. Official comments will be forthcoming after that meeting, however, unofficial comments are "no objection". Should you have any questions or concerns please contact me at 905-576-6707 x 2211. Best regards, • Anne Dobos Assistant Planner 650 Rossland Road West, Oshawa, Ontario L1J X4 Tel 905 576-6150 Toll Free 1 877 482-0722 www.dcdsb.ca Paul Pulla B. Sc., B. Ed., MSc. Ed. Director of Education / Secretary / Treasurer ` C ATTACNMENT# TO ~o~~G DISTR/rsc 106 REPORT# PD - /o P , Durham Catholic District School Board 4 .10 February 12, 2008 00 e y City of Pickering z' r Planning & Development Department r " • One The Esplanade ` s - Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 _ f 14 r , Tr1n:..: ~ ~ FLAN °t _r.. : ~ t 7 'ir-7`3 Attention: Ashley Yearwood RE: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2008-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/08 W & N Trapper and B. Trapper Part of Block K, L and M Right of Way, Plan 418 City of Pickering Please be advised that at the regular Board Meeting of Monday, February 11, 2008, the following motion was approved:. "THAT the Durham Catholic District School Board indicate in its comments' to the City of Pickering that the Board has no objection to Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2008-02 or Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/08." • The students generated from this development will attend Our Lady of the Bay Catholic Elementary School located at 795 Eyer Drive in Pickering. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me. Sincerely yours, • Gerry O' el Manager Planning a Admissions AD 650 Rossland Road West, Oshawa, Ontario LiJ 7C4 Tel 905 576-6150 Toll Free 1 877 482-0722, www.dcdsb.ca Paul Pulla B. Sc., S. Ed., MSc. Ed. Director of Education / Secretary / Treasurer f , ATTA MENT# i TO gEPORT# PD January 25, 2008 1 0 7 The The City of Pickering Planning Dept.,' Pickering Civic Centre DURHAM One The Esplanade x Pickering, ON DISTRICT Llv 6x7 SCHOOL BOARD Attention: Ms. Ashley Yearwood Facilities Services Dear Ms. Yearwood, 400 Taunton Road East Whitby, Ontario RE Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008702 LlR ) 6 666-5500 ~e: (9 (9055) Tele~"^ Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/08 1-800-265-3968 W. & N. Trapper and B. Trapper ` Fax: (905) 666-6439 Part of Block K, L and M Right of Way Plan 418 (Cowan Circle) City of Pickering Staff has reviewed the'-info ion ton "the above rioted application and has the following comments... 1. Approximately 20 elementary pupils could be generated by the ell above noted application. ` 2. It is intended that any pupils generated by the above noted plan be accommodated within an existing school facility. v 3. Under the mandate of the Durham District School Board, staff has no objections. Yours truly, aj Christine Nancekivell, Planner I PROPLANDATA I PLNCWB I SP2008-02. DOC FEB-25-2008 MON 03 28 PM VERIDIAN FAX NO. *9056190210 F. 02 1~e.~ ask . ATTACHMENT-27-_-TO ' 108 REPORT# PD Q6-10 /0=32 , VERIDLkN G 0 N N E C 7 1 0 N 5 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW PROJECT NAME: W & N Trappet 1St B. Trapper - Draft Plan of Subdivision - Pickering Shares at Rosebank ADDRESS/PLAN: 491 Rosebank Road & 546 Gillsnoss Road MUNICIPALITY: Pickering REF NO,: SP-2008-02 & A02/08 SUBMISSION DATE: January 29, 2008 The following is an overview of the general requirements the Applicant is Ukely to meet in_otdcr. to obtain a complete electrical power supply system to this site anti %x idiin the site where subdivision in some form is involved, The comments below are based on preliminary information only and are subject to revision.. In all cases Veridian's standard Conditions of Service document sets out the requirements, ter=ns and conditions for the provision of electric service.. This review does not constitute an Offer to Connect, 1. Electric service is currently available on the road allowance(s) directly adjacent to this property. Servicing will be f*om Cowan Circle and Roscbanik Road. 2. Individual metering for each unit is required, 3. A high voltage direct buried ducted loop talderground cable system is required from supply point(s) at Cowan Circle and Itosebank l:toad to a transformer location(s) on the property, allat the Applicant's cost. 4, The Applicant must make direct application to Veridian for electrical servicing as soon as possible, A written, faxed or email request will permit Veridian to begin the work necessary to identify specific requirements and arrangements and related work for this project, and to make an Offer to Connect. The applicant is cautioned that tenders, contracts, or work they may initiate prior to obtaining an Offer to Connect from Veridian may create conflicts with the route of and details of the electrical servicing set out in the Offer to Connect for which Veridian can bear no responsibility, 5. A Servicing Agreement must be signed with Veridian in ordcr to obtain servicing for this site, 6. the electrical installation(s) from the public road allowance up to the service entrance and all metering arrangements must comply with Veridian's requirements and specifications and may also be subject to the requirements of the Mcctrical Safety Authority. 7. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the Municipality may require the Applicant to provide evidence of having obtained and accepted an Offer to Connect, 8. Whcre cranes or material handling equipment or workers must work in pro)dmicy to existing overhead wirc5, where there is risk of contact or corning within the limits of approach, the Applicant shall pay all costs for the temporary relocation, burial, or other protection of the wires, or whatever other action is deemed necessary by Veridian to provide for worker safetyand the security of the electrical system. F_EB_-25-2008 MON 03;29 PM VERIDIAN FAX NO. 9056190210 P. 03 ATTACHMENT# 2-7 TO 1EPORT# PD OCR /d 109 9. Landscaping, specifically trces ,mod/or shrubs, should be located/relocated avrdy from Veridian's transformer to avoid interference with equipment: access: 10. Veridian will not aaend scheduled City of Pickering DA1ZT Mceting for this Development, 11. Veridinn hAR no objection to the proposed development. Please direct dic Applicant to contact Veridian as soon as servicing is Contemplated. Municipality, please forward a copy of first submission civil design to Veridian. Please note that an Offer to Connect must be completed at leant sins (6) months prior to the required electrical servicing dare. Technical Representative: Fred Raininger, C.E.T. 'Telephone: Ext. 3255 PP/df p'-,\dirL,-II\Nvelopm.Ir Applicifion RLvicw.\PickLring\20f)9\WN'emppcr U Tngxr - p,eLedng ghnres of Romdmnk - 491 Tko d-ik Ro;id IL i4b Gillrroo Koud-2nd ~ulay ssion Jue ! Form #F-C0002 Page 2 of 2 Rcv. Date ~ OcKobcr 3, 20Q7 Vcridian Connections Development Application lZe'vicw C-tl"c ATTACHMENT# Z TO ~TEPORT# PD 0 6 /11> 1TO f~ Rosebank Neighbourhood: Section Al Reseba-fit- N eig bbouMood EVELOPMENT -GUIDELINES D STREET. DRIVE ti 9 ¢ .W / DRIVE ROUGE HILL - - / o - S ALLEY - o ¢ COURT 40 ,I < BRO~DGE LANE J Z AVENUE I 00 O . qf• Q HAMPTON O COURT. - OKLAHOl" CRT. F. y•O -3/GALLANT 7.. ? STONEBRIOGE.~ p - COURT W < ENCEL-O U Cgef- q W - - C CALLANIw y: ~q G ROUGE. ° F srRtLO p~ : - a y C In L L, gl PARK D n / 3 BRIANN VICTOR TON _ ROADOREEN . • - AREA N CO ROUGE ' . PARK R /CREW AREA - .yA c /D N / - / PETTICOAT ' CREEK. CONSERVATION AREA , O 'POGO` AvEMUe a O vLSTA LAKE ONTARIO ' LEGEND . MDESIGN PRECINCT No. 1 JMDESfGN PRECINCT -No. 2 DESIGN PRECINCT No. 3 28 ' ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# PD Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines The following Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines were adopted by Pickering . Council on January 22,109, and amended four times: No.1 on February 4; 1985; No. 2 on October 15, 1991; No. 3 on May 4,1992; and No. 4 on. October 19, 1992. Section Al.l As indicated on the map, the Neighbourhood comprises three design precincts. The following provides detailed guidelines for each of these precincts. A1.1.1 Design Precinct No. l Within Precinct No. 1, residential development shall be limited to the provision of single detached dwellings only. All new lots created. in this precinct shall have minimum lot frontages of approximately 15 metres and minimum lot depths ranging between approximately 33 metres a,nd 60 metres, unless the character of the area is such that a smaller lot frontage or smaller lot depth is desirable: A1.1.2 Design Precinct No. 2 Within Precinct No. 2, residential development shall be.limited to the provision of single detached dwellings only. All new lots created in this precinct shall have minimum lot frontages of approximately 15 metres and minimum lot depths ranging between approximately 30 metres and 36 metres. A1.1.3 Design Precinct No. 3 Within Precinct No. 3, residential development shall be limited to the provisions of single detached and semi.-detached dwellings. All new lots created in this precinct for semi- detached dwellings shall have minimum lot frontages of approximately 10.5 metres and minimum lot depths of approximately 30 metres.. New,lots for single detached dwellings shall have the same minimum lot dimensions as new lots in Precinct No. 2. i ATTACHMENT# 2-q TO REPORT# PO y 112 RECEIVED SEP 12 2008 ° CITY OF PICKERING i PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I Scoped-Environm-ental Impact Study Pickering Shores at Rosebank City of Pickering Prepared For: Vee An Management Inc. Prepared By. Beacon Environmental Date: Project: September 2008 208042 144 Main St. North, Suite 206, Markham, Ontario, Canada L 3 P 5T3 Tel: (905) 201 7622 Fax: (905) 201 0639 ATTACHMENT#2 --T REPORT# PD IQ 13 BEACON GUIDING SOLUTIONS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTAL January 22, 2008 BEL 208042 Mr. Chris Jones Senior Planner Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, ON M3N 1 S4 Re: TRCA Comments: Scoped EIS Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-02 Zoning By-law Amendment A02/08 Dear Mr. Jones: Beacon Environmental prepared an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) dated September 2008 for the above noted application. We thank the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for their review comments which were sent to the City of Pickering in a letter dated December 18, 2008. We are pleased to respond in this letter to the TRCA's comments that relate to natural heritage. Summary of TRCA Comments • In the evaluation of Significant Wildlife Habitat, 'Animal Movement Corridors' (as pertaining to the Provincial Policy Statement), the EIS does not examine the potential for the subject lands to serve as Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) as it pertains to the movement of migratory birds, • The OMNR's Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR1999) indicates that woodlands close to the Great Lakes are particularly important as wildlife movement corridors. This is particularly important for the subject lands given the proximity to the Lake Ontario. • The Region of Peel and Town of Caledon have commissioned a study which addresses SWH for migratory birds using the principles of stopover ecology and recommends that all natural areas within 2 km of Lake Ontario or within 500 m of river valleys within 5 k of Lake Ontario as SWH. In this instance, natural areas are defined as all terrestrial and wetlands communities as defined under the Ecological Land Classification system, as well as cultural woodlands. • No mitigation or compensation for the loss of the features is proposed in the EIS. However, he TRCA notes that there are ecological constraints on the subject lands, namely the importance of maintaining the natural cover for the functions it serves as 'stopover' areas for migratory birds. 144 Main St. North, Suite 206, Markham, Ontario, Canada L 3 P 5T3 Tel: (905) 201 7622 Fax: (905) 201 0639 ATTACHMENT#-1-1-TO REPORT# PD 06-10 114 January 22, 2008 4-i BEACON • Further, it is stated in the EIS that, as far as migratory birds are concerned, the Petticoat and Rough River valleys would provide superior habitat, and as such, there is no need to protect the natural cover on the subject property. Unfortunately, these valleys features alone cannot provide all of the ecological function for the area, to the exclusion of all other natural cover. In other words, while this site may not provide the quality of habitat provided. by the valley features, the quantity of natural cover should be maintained, given its proximity to the shoreline. Beacon Response We agree that the wooded area on the subject property provides habitat for migratory birds due to its proximity to Lake Ontario. This has been referred to in Section 4.3.3 of the EIS. However, we do not agree that this woodlot satisfies criteria to be termed significant in terms of the Provincial Policy Statement. The OMNR Natural Heritage Reference Manual does not provide criteria or examples for the evaluation of stopover areas for migratory birds as Significant Wildlife Habitat. The OMNR Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Manual (OMNR 2000) was referred to for guidance. Page 71 of this document, under Section 8.3.7. - Landbird Migratory Stopover Areas, states that: "Many significant landbird stopover sites are located within 2 to 10 km of Great Lake shorelines because migrating birds follow these shorelines moving to narrow crossing points to continue their migration. The Niagara Escarpment forms a natural corridor for migrating birds from Niagara Falls to the Bruce Peninsula and onto Manitoulin Island and northern Ontario. Sites with a high diversity of habitat types are best. Sites that consistently support high numbers of birds, as well as a high diversity of species, including rare species, should be considered significant. Many of these sites will have a long history of use. There is no evidence that the poor quality and small extent of vegetation communities on the subject property would support this level of use by migrant birds. The subject property does not compare to the concept of "narrow crossing points" or the Niagara Escarpment. In southern Ontario, migrant birds occur in all habitats with physical structure during the spring and fall, including the local urban yards. However, the use of these habitats by birds does not indicate that they automatically represent Significant Wildlife Habitat in the context of the PPS. Additionally, Table 10.5 (Page 121 of the OMNR Technical Manual) provides an overview of where seasonal concentration areas are most likely to be found. The table is reproduced as follows. Page 2 ATTACHMENT# 2~T0 REPORT# PD a.~ 1 15 I31 AC ON January 22, 2008 Type of Seasonal Primary Location of Habitat Notes/Key Requirements Concentration Landbird migratory Open water shorelines with adjacent Great Lakes shorelines and stopover area mature forests, oldfields and adjacent lands within 5 km grasslands (especially Lake Erie & Forest cover along watercourses, Lake Ontario) are very forested ravines important The subject property does not provide primary habitat for migratory landbirds based on the specifications provided in the above table. The draft Peel - Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study referred to by TRCA states that: "Preferred sites are generally characterized by a dominance of native trees and shrubs, as well as a more mixed layered canopy (i.e., tall trees, mid-level trees and shrubs, and a thick understory). Greater concentrations and more species of migrants are typically recorded in these habitats and also tend to spend more time in them."- Page 121 The subject property does not present a well mixed layered canopy and much of the floral species on the subject property are non-native and invasive, suggesting high levels of disturbance and low ecological function (as discussed in Section 4.1 of the EIS). In our opinion, the vegetation community on the subject property does not match the description above and is unlikely to be 'well used' by migratory birds when compared with other local features such as the Petticoat Creek and Rouge River valleys. Further, the Peel-Caledon draft study recommends that: "all 'natural areas' be identified as SWH within: a. 2 km of Lake Ontario, b. river and creek valleys within 5 km of Lake Ontario, and c. 500 m of river valleys within 5 km of Lake Ontario. 'Natural areas' include all terrestrial and wetland communities as defined under the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system (Lee et al. 1998), as well as cultural woodlands. Successional communities (i.e., cultural savannahs, cultural thickets and cultural meadows) should also be identified as SWH if they are: a. at least 5 ha in size and immediately on the /akeshore, or b. at least 10 ha in size and within any of the zones (a, b, c) identified above." Page 3 6 ATTACHMENT#~To REPORT# PD 0 6 - IQ B ACC January 22, 2008 ..r i•trk~dZ ::°~E. These criteria do not appear to differentiate between habitats that might provide marginal function from those that provide significant function consistent with the direction of OMNR and the intent of the PPS. In addition, the cultural meadow (successional community) occurring on the subject property is 0.28 ha in area and therefore is not significant wildlife habitat for migratory birds based on area. In addition, we do not agree that cultural m eadows provide important habitat for large numbers of migrant birds. The recommended criteria provided in the Peel-Caledon study are expert based. The document does not provide evidence supported by scientific literature for the evaluation of what is deemed `significant habitat' for migratory landbirds. Finally, the designation of Significant Wildlife Habitat is the responsibility of the planning authority. This process requires an appreciation for the range of resources within a planning jurisdiction such that significant features can be differentiated from non-significant features, and protected as designated SWH within the Official Plan. Even if this were undertaken, which it has not been in this case, development would not be prohibited, but rather would be subject to an EIS. For these reasons we take the position that while migrant birds will use the subject property, as well as other yards, gardens and street trees in the area, this function would not meet the test of "significance" postulated by the PPS and that Significant Wildlife Habitat is not present on the subject property. . Resolution The above issue was discussed at a meeting held at the City of Pickering office with staff from the TRCA, City of Pickering, Region of Durham, Beacon Environmental and LandPro Engineering on January 21, 2009. A compensatory arrangement was reached, notwithstanding the unresolved question re garding SWH. The TRCA requested compensation for the loss of trees from the deciduous forest on the subject property due to the proposed development. Based on the area of this forest, a monetary value was assessed. The proponent has agreed to pay the City of Pickering a total sum of $1.7,500 as compensation for the loss of trees on the subject property that will be used to fund restoration works to be undertaken by the TRCA. We understand that this will be implemented through a condition of draft plan approval. Page 4 ATTACHMENT#®TO 1 17 REPORT# PD Ok /O BEACON January 22, 2008 Yours truly, Beacon Environmental Brian Henshaw Principal, Ecologist cc: Lori Riviere (Regional Municipality of Durham) Ashley Yearwood, Lynda Taylor (City of Pickering) Lisa Roberti (TRCA) Vijay Gupta (LandPro Engineering) Page 5 ATTACHMENT# 3~T0 REPORT# PD d 118 I y' ,y ;t I' MMM Group Limited z~',_ n nom. c,6~l~ Traffic Impact Study Rosebank South Neighbourhood Pickering Prepared For: Rosebank Properties Inc. and Land-Pro Engineering Consultants Inc. CI ON MUM T DES TRANSF RTA iON AA MMM GROUP, Buii_DiNGs May 2008 16-08060 INFRASTRUCTURE ATTACHMENT#eT0 Traffic Impact Study REPORT# PD Page 11 Rosebank South Neighbourhood, Pickering 9 May 2008 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 `w 5.1 Conclusions Based on this report, the following conclusions have been drawn: • The current Rosebank Properties Inc. development was assumed to include approximately 30 single detached units. Full build-out of the Milton Road area includes an additional 30 potential units; • The Pickering Shores at Rosebank development has two potential plans, one includes approximately 40 single detached units and the other 36. The slight reduction in units is a result of the Canadian National Railway requirements. Under full build-out of the Pickering Shores at Rosebank development, there are approximately 65 single detached units. For the purpose of this study, 75 units were assumed to ensure a conservatively high estimate in terms of traffic; • Traffic operations have been assessed at two horizons including: existing conditions and Horizon 2013 (expected full build-out); . _ • The existing intersections at Rosebank Road and Toynevale Road, Rosebank Road and Cowan Circle North, Rosebank Road and Cowan Circle South, and Rosebank Road and Gillmoss Road are operating at an acceptable Level of Service; • Future background traffic was developed based on an annual growth rate of one-percent per annum; • There are no planned road network improvements for the study area; • The examined intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable Levels of Service under Horizon 2013 background conditions; • The trip generation rates for the development were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (7`h Edition); • The distribution of trips within the study area was determined based on historical traffic flow data; Future site trips were assigned to the future road network based on historical traffic now data; • The examined intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable Levels of Service under Horizon 2013 total future conditions. MMM GROUP 1 2 0 ATTACHMENT# 3O TO Traffic Impact Study REPORT# PD 06-10 Page 12 Rosebank South Neighbourhood, Pickering May 2008 5.2 Recommendations The following actions are recommended: 1. Milton Road should be constructed as a two lane road connecting Oakwood Drive and Rosebank Road 2. Milton Road should be stop controlled at its intersections with Rosebank Road and Oakwood Drive 3. Cowan Circle should be completed as a two lane local road. No changes are required at its existing intersections with Rosebank Road. 4. Both site plans for the Pickering Shores at Rosebank development were considered. No road network improvements are expected to be required to support either scenario. Given the minimal volumes on Gilmoss Road, no improvements are required should a connection to the proposed development be-provided. 5. Even with the full build-out of the Milton Road area no road network improvements are expected to be required in order to accommodate the proposed developments. Given the excess capacity at the existing study area intersections, minor changes in terms of adding unit's or converting single units to semi-detached units are not expected to require additional road network improvements. 6. The recommended future road network is shown in Figure 5.1. MMM GROUP ATTACHMENTi 3- pEPOu # pul-aha 121 I LUCK 114 PMT I Pry{T 0 PAR l R" PART 4 o a~ 1-00~ f LOT 63 LOT ` \ 84 N B °o C C I NNW BE g s i 4 70L"a 9L0CK 3620 3 4 5 7 YQ °FBE C ifl LOT 7 X35 4.5m Sound Barrier 8 C (Wall + Berm) 12 l 9.76 I } 4.Om Sound Barrier 20 A 4 23 2 21 39.E o c 19 A p B B~ B 1 B 17 q ~ h+ 48.97 / o 16sa11 A0241 V u 4040 / s Pl. %N aJ A 48 a x f 12.3E I ri n 14 A } 11 13 A .w I $ 12 ,~.W 3 Lam 2.Om High Sound Barrier 41 at-58 FIGURE 3 SCHEMATIC SOUND BARRIER ALIGNMENTS SS Wilson Associates Consulting Engineers