HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 20, 2016
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact Linda Roberts
Phone: 905.420.4660 extension 2928 TTY: 905.420.1739 Email: lroberts@pickering.ca
Planning & Development
Committee Agenda
Monday, June 20, 2016
Council Chambers
7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor McLean
Anything highlighted denotes an attachment or link. By clicking the links on the agenda page, you can jump directly to that section of the
agenda. To manoeuver back to the agenda page use the Ctrl +
Home keys simultaneously, or use the “bookmark” icon to the left of
your screen to navigate from one report to the next.
2
Information Report No. 08-16 Page 2
Surrounding land uses include:
north: across Whitevale Road are additional lands owned by the applicant
that have received draft approval of the Plan of Subdivision
SP-2009-01 and rezoned to implement the draft plan and are
currently used for agricultural activities and open space
east, lands owned by the Province that are designated Seaton Natural
west and Heritage System
south:
3. Applicant's Proposal
The subject lands have received draft approval of the plan of subdivision and
rezoned to implement the draft plan. The draft plan of subdivision and zoning
were approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in December 2013 and the
zoning By-law for Seaton was confirmed by the Province through an Order in
Council in March 2014.
Since the approval of the draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law, the Region
of Durham has completed the Central Pickering Development Plan Class
Environmental Assessment for Regional Services. This resulted in the need to
revise the approved draft plan of subdivision to accommodate a relocation of the
Regional reservoir block and to address technical design matters for Whites Road
and Whitevale Road By-pass. The requested zoning by-law amendment
proposed adjustments to the zone boundaries to reflect the revisions to the draft
plan of subdivision (see Submitted Concept Plan, Attachment #2).
The majority of the draft plan of subdivision and zoning remains unchanged as
the revisions mostly affect the northeast quadrant of the approved draft plan. As
a result of the recommendations of the Class EA for Regional Services, the lands
for the Regional reservoir are shifted east, which resulted in the relocation of the
school and park blocks along with some residential lots. Majority of slip~lanes ·
have been removed along Whitevale Road By-pass and along the west side of
Sideline 26 (Whites Road extension) certain local road intersections have been
eliminated. These changes result in modifications to the lotting fabric of the
approved draft plan of subdivision.
The other modification is a reduction in the number of dwelling units in the land
designated Community Node. The approved draft plan has a density of 250 units
per hectare for the Community Node and the revised draft plan provides a density
of 67 units per hectare. Community Node Designations have a density range of
over 80 and up to 140 dwellings per hectare. Refer to Attachment #3 for a
comparison of the details of the original draft plan of subdivision and the revised
draft plan.
Information Report No. 08-16 Page 3
4. Policy Framework
4.1 Central Pickering Development Plan
The Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) sets out the principles and
goals that outline the general development vision for the overall Seaton Urban
Area, including the integration of new sustainable urban development while
ensuring the protection, maintenance and enhancement of the natural heritage
system. The objectives and policies of the CPDP are designed to achieve the
vision of Seaton. The subject applications conform to the intent of the CPDP.
4.2 Regional Official Plan
The Seaton community falls under 'Special Policy Area A (Pickering)', in the
Durham Regional Official Plan. These lands shall be developed in accordance
with the CPDP and implementing Neighbourhood Plans. The design, structure
and uses proposed in the subject applications are consistent with those permitted
in the CPDP and the Neighbourhood Plans. The applications comply with the
Durham Regional Official Plan.
4.3 Pickering Official Plan
The subject lands are within the Seaton Urban Area Boundary in the Pickering
Official Plan. The Official Plan contains policies governing various land use
designations, such as Residential Areas, Mixed Use Areas, and Open Space
System, all of which are located in the subject lands. The Official Plan
establishes various polices for such matters as density, intensity of land use and
sustainability. Official Plan Amendment 22 further defines the land use
designations as well as establishes polices for such matters as the Seaton
Natural Heritage System, cultural heritage, sustainable development, servicing,
and urban design. The applications will be assessed against the policies and
provisions of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the
applications.
4.4 Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines
The Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines address the urban design
guidelines contained within the CPDP and expands upon the key design
elements:
• the Guidelines set out minimum standards and benchmarks for plans of
subdivision and site plans, and list the range of matters that are to be
addressed in the development of the lands
• the Guidelines provide direction on the design of the public realm, built
form and green infrastructure and buildings
The applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the
Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines during the further processing of the
applications.
3
4
Information Report No. 08-16 Page 4
4.5 Zoning By-law 7364/14
Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 was approved by the OMB and confirmed by the
Province in 2013 and 2014, respectfully. This by-law implemented the City's
Official Plan Amendment 22, which brought the Official Plan in conformity with
the Central Pickering Development Plan. This by-law also implemented the draft
plans of subdivisions, including the subject Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-02
that the OMB approved in December 2013.
A zoning by-law amendment is required to implement the proposed red-line
revisions to the approved draft plan of subdivision. The applicant is only
proposing amendments to the zoning schedules modifying certain zoning
boundaries. No changes are proposed to the zoning categories or performance
standards. The proposed rezoning is only for lands in the draft plan located north
of the Whitevale Road By-pass. Zoning for the remaining lands within the draft
plan remain unchanged.
5. Comments Received
5.1 Written Comments from the Public
As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received
from the public.
5.2 Agency Comments
Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority
Durham Catholic District
School Board
5.3 City Department Comments
Engineering & Public Works
• no objection to the amendment to the zoning
by-law or revision to the draft approved plan
of subdivision
• no objection and requests similar draft plan
conditions of approval related to the
acquisition of the proposed school block for
an elementary school
Engineering & Public Works note the revisions to the draft plan no longer mirror
the specific location of uses in the Neighbourhood Plans of the Official Plan. The
introduction of detached dwelling lots fronting on to Whitevale Road east of
Sideline 26 was not contemplated in the Neighbourhood Plan.
Information Report No. 08-16
6. Planning & Design Section Comments
The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and
consideration:
Page 5
~~~ ensuring the applications will implement the City's Official Plan and the
Seaton Neighbourhood policies
s ensuring the proposal is consistent with the City's urban design goals and
objectives in the Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines
e ensuring that the proposed development contains appropriate sustainable
development components
• ensuring the Community Node lands provide appropriate density
• ensuring the proposed lots along Whitevale Road are appropriately sized to
accommodate appropriate building setback and massing
• ensuring that required technical submissions and reports meet City standards
The City Development Department will conclude its position on the applications
after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments,
agencies and public.
7. Information Received
Full scale copies ofthe plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at
the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department:
• Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision, dated January 13, 2015
8. Procedurallnformation
8.1 General
• written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City
Development Department
<~~ oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting
• all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report,
which will be prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent
meeting of Council or a Committee of Council
• any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal
Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts
any by-law for this proposal
• any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision
regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk
8.2 Ontario Municipal Board is the Approval Authority for this Revision to the
Draft Plan of Subdivision
As the subject draft plan of subdivision was approved by the OMB, the Board is
also the approval authority for the requested revision. If Council supports the
requested revision it is anticipated that the owner and staff will approach the
OMB to approve the requested revision.
The City of Pickering is the approval authority for the amendment to the zoning
by-law.
5
6
Information Report No. 08-16 Page 6
9. Owner/Applicant Information
The owners of the property are Hunley Homes Ltd, 1350557 Ontario Limited,
Affiliated Realty Corporation Limited and Chestermere Investments Limited and
is represented by KLM Planning Partners Inc.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Submitted Plan
3. Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-02, Proposed Development Detail
Prepared By:
&£P,PLE
Principal Planner-Strategic Initiatives
RP:Id
Attachments
Date of Report: June 3, 2016
Copy: Director, City Development
Approved/Endorsed By:
~~~0---
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Attachment# 3 to
. lnforma'dor1 ~1enmi# CB-i fo
Details of the Draft Plan
Original Approved Revised Draft
Draft Plan Plan
Total Area of Draft Plan 83.6 hectares 83.6 hectares
3 Elementary School Blocks 7.32 hectares 7.35 hectares
2 Park Blocks 3.1 0 hectares 2.80 hectares
3 Village Green Blocks 1 .24 hectares 1 .24 hectares
Reservoir Block 2.12 hectares 1 .34 hectares
Stormwater Management Facilities Blocks 2.54 hectares 2.54 hectares
Open Space Blocks 0.19 hectares 0.16 hectares
Buffer Blocks 0.33 hectares NA
Road Widening Blocks 0.62 hectares 0.65 hectares
Roads 21.49 hectares 21 .82 hectares
Residential Units
Detached Dwellings 13.7 meter frontage 55 47
Detached Dwellings 12.8 meter frontage 46 91
Detached Dwellings 11.6 meter frontage 112 115
Semi Detached Dwellings 18.0 meter frontage 178 134
StreetT own house 7.5 meter frontage 333 344
Street Townhouse 6.0 meter frontage 403 324
Street Townhouse 4.0 meter frontage 110 224
Stacked townhouses 76 76
Gateway Blocks 142 144
Commercial I High Density Blocks 3129 837
Total Dwelling Units 4585 2336
1 0
1 2
Information Report No. 09-16 Page 2
3. Applicant's Proposal
The applicant is proposing a common element condominium development
consisting of 14 detached dwellings, and 57 townhouse units accessed from an
internal private road (see Submitted Concept Plan, Attachment #2). All buildings
are proposed to be three storeys in height (approximately 9.4 metres in height)
with flat roofs (see Submitted Conceptual Elevations, Attachments #3, #4 and #5).
Vehicular access to the development is from Liverpool Road, which will be
aligned with Ilona Park Drive. Resident parking is provided at a ratio of two
parking spaces per dwelling unit (one parking space within a private garage and
one space on the driveway). Visitor parking is provided at a rate of 0.25 spaces
per unit for a total of 18 parking spaces.
The concept plan illustrates 14 detached dwellings backing onto existing
detached dwellings along Foxglove Avenue and Commerce Street. Also
proposed are 8 blocks consisting of 42 townhouses with parking at the front of
the units fronting onto the internal private road, and 2 blocks consisting of 15 rear
lane townhouses fronting Liverpool Road with parking at the rear of the dwelling
units. The proposed minimum lot frontage and unit sizes are as follows:
Lot Frontage Unit Sizes
(minimum) (range)
Detached 9.4 metres 203 -226 square metres dwellings
Townhouses 6.0 metres 177 -200 square metres
A 4.5 metre wide landscape buffer area is proposed along the eastern property
line to maintain privacy for the rear yards of the adjacent residential lots fronting
Hewson Drive. The concept plan also illustrates internal sidewalks providing
pedestrian connections to Liverpool Road, Foxglove Avenue, and the
Frenchman's Bay Ratepayers Memorial Park.
The applicant has also submitted a draft plan of condominium application to
create tenure of the parcels in the development. The common element features
include, but are not limited to, the internal private road, sidewalks, visitor parking
areas, walkway to Foxglove Avenue, community mailboxes, and the water meter
room (see Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium, .Attachment #6). As the
subject lands are part of a registered Plan of Subdivision, the applicant proposes
to create the privately-owned parcels and the parcels for the common elements
of the development through a process called "lifting part lot control".
The development will also be subject to site plan approval.
Information Report No. 09-16 Page 3
4. Policy Framework
4.1 Regional Official Plan
The Regional Official Plan (ROP) designates the subject lands as "Living Areas".
The "Living Areas" designation shall be used predominately for housing
purposes. The plan also states that lands within the Living Areas designation
shall be developed in a compact form through higher densities and by
intensifying and redeveloping existing areas. The applicant's proposal conforms
to the policies and provisions of the ROP.
4.2 Pickering Official Plan
4.2.1 General Policies
The subject lands are within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood and are designated
"Urban Residential-Low Density Areas", which provides for housing and related
uses. This designation permits a maximum net residential density of up to and
including 30 units per net hectare, which would permit a maximum of 57 residential
units on the subject lands.
The Official Plan states that in establishing performance standards, regard shall
be had to protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods
by considering matters such as building height, yard setbacks, lot coverage,
access to sunlight, parking provisions and traffic implications.
4.2.2 Bonus Zoning
In 2014, Official Plan Amendment 23 (OPA 23) was approved by City Council,
but was subsequently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). This
amendment revised existing policies and introduced new policies to implement
changes to the Planning Act providing area municipalities with additional
planning and development control tools to use in the land use planning process.
The Bonus Zoning provisions of the Pickering Official Plan were amended by
OPA 23 but are not being contested at the OMB. A settlement hearing has been
scheduled for July 7, 2016 to address OPA 23 appeals.
OPA 23 amended the existing Bonus Zoning provisions to include consideration
of a bonus to increase the height of a building, in addition to the consideration of
a bonus to increase the density of a development. Further, OPA 23 expanded
the criteria for assessing the eligibility of a project for a density or height bonus.
The amended Bonus Zoning policies permit City Council to pass by-laws that
grant an increase in height of a building or an increase in density not exceeding
25 percent of the density permitted by the Official Plan providing:
• the density or height bonus is given only in return for the provision of specific
services, facilities or matters as specified in the by-law, such as but not limited
to, additional open space or community facilities, assisted or special needs
13
14
Information Report No. 09-16
housing, the preservation of heritage buildings or structures, or the
preservation of natural heritage features and functions
Page 4
• when considering an increase in density or height, and allowing the provision
of benefits off-site, the positive impacts of the exchange should benefit the
social/cultural, environmental and economic health of surrounding areas
experiencing the increased height and/or density
• the effects of the density or height bonus have been reviewed and determined
by Council to be in conformity with the general intent of the Official Plan, by
considering matters such as:
• the suitability of the site for the proposed increase in density and/or height
in terms of parking, landscaping, and other site-specific requirements
• the compatibility of any increase in density and/or height with the
character of the surrounding neighbourhood; and
• as a condition of granting a density or height bonus, the City requires the
benefiting landowner(s) to enter into one or more agreements, registered
against the title of the lands, dealing with the provision and timing of specific
facilities, services or matters to be provided in return for the bonus
The applicant is proposing 71 units (or 37.3 units per net hectare), which is a
24.3 percent increase over the permitted maximum density of 30 units per net
hectare. In return for the increased density, the applicant is proposing rebuilding
and enhancing the adjacent Frenchman's Bay Ratepayers Memorial Park,
including a new soccer pitch and associated parking area, play structures, water
play feature and landscaping (see Submitted Conceptual Park Redevelopment
Plan, Attachment #7).
Details of the applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of
the Official Plan, including the Bonus Zoning provisions as amended by OPA 23
during the further processing of the applications.
4.3 Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines
While the subject lands are not within the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node, the
Guidelines have identified two 'Design Precincts' within close proximity of the
subject site being the Liverpool Road and Commerce Street intersection and
Liverpool Road between Krosno Boulevard and Commerce Street. The
Guidelines outline that the Liverpool Road and Commerce Street intersection is a
third "gateway" intended to act as an entrance to the "Nautical Village", where ·
streetscape enhancements include nautically themed markers, pedestrian scale
street lights, and pedestrian level way-finding signs. Streetscape improvements
on Liverpool Road between Krosno Boulevard and Commerce Street envisioned
by the Guidelines consist of wider sidewalks, banners, hanging flower baskets,
tree planting, and traffic calming measures.
Information Report No. 09-16 Page 5
4.4 Zoning By-law 2511
The subject lands are currently zoned "R4"-One-Family Detached Dwelling
Fourth Density Zone within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, which only permits
lots for detached dwellings with a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres.
The applicant has requested that the subject lands be rezoned to an appropriate
residential zone category with site specific performance standards to permit the
proposal.
5. Comments Received
5.1 Residents Comments
An Open House meeting was held on May 17,2016 at the East Shore
Community Centre to allow area residents to learn more about the proposal, as
well as review and comment on the plans that the applicant has submitted.
Approximately 22 households were represented at the meeting. The following is
a summary of written comments received to date, and key concerns and
comments identified by area residents at the Open House meeting:
• commented that the proposal is too dense for the surrounding neighbourhood
and that the proposed three-storey dwelling units are not compatible with the
abutting single-storey detached dwellings
• concerned about privacy for the abutting residents as a result of the proposed
three-storey units and second-storey balconies in the rear yard
• requested that balconies in the rear yard not be permitted
• commented that the proposed contemporary architectural design of the
proposed dwelling units is not in keeping with the nautical theme along
Liverpool Road
• concerned that the proposal will result in increased traffic and will further
aggravate the existing traffic congestion on Liverpool Road
• requested that the submitted transportation brief be revised to consider traffic
generated from summertime activities at the waterfront
• concerned that two parking spaces per dwelling unit is insufficient for the size
of the proposed dwelling units
• concerned that the proposed number of visitor parking spaces is insufficient
to support the development and visitor parking will spill over to adjacent roads
• concerned that the pedestrian walkway to Foxglove Avenue will facilitate
parking to spill over onto Foxglove Avenue
• requested that existing retaining walls and fences should be maintained and
existing residents should not be responsible for the cost of new privacy
fences or retaining walls
• requested that internal private street lighting and lighting on units should be
controlled to reduce light pollution and impact on migratory birds
• concerned that the proposed new play features in the Frenchman's Bay
Ratepayers Memorial Park will increase the City's maintenance cost, resulting
in increased taxes for residents
15
1 6
Information Report No. 09-16 Page 6
8 stated that they do not support the new parking area in the refurbished park
as it will replace an existing basketball court
• concerned the new parking lot in the park will be used for resident and visitor
parking for the new development
8 requested that a notice be placed in the local newspaper regarding future
meetings
• requested that prior to issuing site plan approval, an open house meeting be
held to allow area residents to review detailed plans
• requested that the City consider installing all-way stop signs at the
intersection of Liverpoool Road and Commerce Street
• indicated that the existing site is an eyesore and should be adequately
maintained until construction is completed
• requested that the City explore options to reduce the proposed retaining wall
along the south property line abutting the park
• requested that the Foxglove Avenue walkway be closed and regraded at the
developer's cost, and the lands conveyed to the abutting two property owners
• consider providing a north/south pedestrian connection through the
development linking the existing Foxglove Avenue walkway to the park
• requested that the visitors' parking area at the southwest corner of the
property be screened by fencing and/or landscaping
• requested that additional community engagement meetings be held to
discuss the future programming of the park to meet the needs of the
community
• consider reorienting the townhouse units abutting the park to 'face' the park
• consider live/work units with on-street parking along Liverpool Road
5.2 Agency Comments
Durham District School Board
Durham Catholic District
School Board
• no objection to the development proposal
• approximately 27 elementary students
could be generated from the proposed
development
• the proposed development is within the
boundary area of Sir John A. Macdonald
Public School and Pine Ridge Secondary
School
• no objection to the development proposal
• approximately 11 elementary students
could be generated from the proposed
development
• the proposed development is within the
boundary area of Father Fenlon Catholic
Elementary School and St. Mary Catholic
Secondary School
Information Report No. 09-16 Page 7
5.3 City Department Comments
As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received
from Engineering & Public Works Department
6. Planning & Design Section Comments
The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and
consideration:
• ensuring the proposal is in conformity with the City's Official Plan
• assessing the appropriateness and benefit to the surrounding area of the
proposed park redevelopment
• assessing the suitability of the site for the proposed increase in density
(Bonus Zoning) to ensure the proposal is compatible with the existing
surrounding community
• evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed site layout considering
such matters as: building setbacks; building heights and massing;
compatibility with existing residential; location of visitor parking; and other
urban design elements
• ensuring that appropriate landscape buffers and privacy fencing to
adjacent landowners is provided
~~ exploring options to reduce the height of the proposed retaining wall along
the south property line abutting the parking to facility an accessible
pedestrian connection between the development and the park, and
minimize the impact of the retaining wall abutting the existing residents
fronting Commerce Street
• ensuring that adequate resident and visitor parking is provided to support
this development and not impact the adjacent neighbourhood
• ensuring that the required technical submissions and reports meet City
standards
The City Development Department will conclude its position on the applications
after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments,
agencies and public.
7. Information Received
Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at
the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department, and are also
available on the City's website at pickering.ca/devapp:
• Planning Justification Report prepared by KLM Planning Partners Inc., dated
March 2016
• Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment prepared by ASI Archaeological &
Cultural Heritage Services, dated November 25, 2015
• Functional Servicing Report prepared by Stantec, dated January 25, 2016
1 7
18
Information Report No. 09-16 Page 8
11 Phase One and Two Environmental Site Assessment prepared by CCI Group,
dated February 29, 2016
11 Stormwater Management Report prepared by Stantec, dated January 14, 2016
11 Noise Feasibility Study prepared by HGC Engineering, dated November 18, 2015
11 Transportation Brief prepared by Stantec, dated November 30, 2015
8. Procedural Information
8.1 General
• written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City
Development Department
• oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting
• all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report,
which will be prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent
meeting of Council or a Committee of Council
• any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal
Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts
any by-lpW for this proposal or makes a decision on the draft plan of
condominium
• any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision
regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk
9. Owner/Applicant Information
The owner of the property is Madison Liverpool Limited (Christian Lamanna,
Manager) and is represented by Billy Tung, KLM Planning Partners Inc.
Attachments
1 . Location Map
2. Submitted Concept Plan
3. Submitted Conceptual Elevation-Single Detached Dwelling Fronting on Internal
Private Road
4. Submitted Conceptual Elevation-Rear Lane Townhouses Fronting Liverpool
Road
5. Submitted Conceptual Elevation-Townhouses Fronting Internal Private Road
6. Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium
7. Submitted Conceptual Park Redevelopment Plan
28
Report PLN 07-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: 816 Kingston Road (Pickering) Limited (A 01/16) Page2
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
proposed development.
1. Background
1.1 Property Description
The lands subject to this rezoning application are located on the north side of
Kingston Road, east of Whites Road, and directly opposite the Whites Road-
Highway 401 on/off ramp (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The lands to be
rezoned have an area of approximately 1 hectare with approximately 166 metres
of frontage along Kingston Road. The site is currently under construction,
Surrounding land uses include:
north: vacant lands owned by the applicant zoned for future townhouse
development, and on the north side of Sheppard Avenue existing
detached dwellings
east: an existing detached dwelling fronting Kingston Road, and further east a
tributary of the Amberlea Creek
south: a place of worship, Whites Road Highway 401 on/off ramp, and a vehicle
sales and service establishment
west: commercial developments with various uses such as restaurants,
drive-through facilities, personal service uses, and day care
In December 2015, Site Plan Approval was issued to permit a commercial
development consisting of three buildings with a total gross floor area of
3,616 square metres (see Approved Site Plan, Attachment #2). Building A,
located on the southwest corner of this site is a two-storey multi-unit building.
Building B, located at the rear of the development, is a single-storey multi-unit
building. Building C, located at the southeast corner of the site, is a stand-alone
commercial building to be occupied by Shoeless Joe's Restaurant. Buildings B
and Care presently under construction:
1.2 Applicant's Proposal
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing site-specific zoning
by-law to permit the following:
• one drive-through facility associated with a restaurant use
• an increase in the maximum combined gross leasable floor area (GLFA) for
restaurant uses from 1,000 square metres to 1,220 square metres to allow
restaurant uses to be located on the entire ground floor of Building A and to
recognize the restaurant use in Building C
• a reduction of the minimum number of required parking spaces from
148 spaces to 144 spaces
Report PLN 07-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: 816 Kingston Road (Pickering) Limited (A 01/16) Page 3
Based on comments from the City and the Region, the applicant has submitted a
revised site plan incorporating the Region's requirement for a 2.0 metre road
widening along the entire Kingston Road frontage, and relocating the order board
and pick-up windows to ensure that the drive-through facility complies with the
minimum vehicular stacking requirements as outlined in the Northeast Quadrant
Development Guidelines (see Revised Submitted Site Plan and Submitted
Elevations-Building A, Attachments #3 and #4).
2. Comments Received
2.1 At the March 7, 2016 Public Information Meeting
At the Public Information meeting, one area resident expressed concerns
regarding the impact of the proposed development on surrounding residential
properties. The specific concerns include noise associated with a drive-through
facility, hours of operation, odour, traffic flow, truck deliveries, disposal of
food/grease waste, security cameras, loitering and lighting.
2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments
Ministry of
Transportation
(MTO)
Region of Durham
• a revised MTO Building & Land Use Permit will be
required at the site plan stage for Building A
• the subject property is designated "Living Areas" with
the "Regional Corridor" overlay in the Regional Official
Plan
• Regional Corridors are to be planned and developed
as mixed-use areas, which include residential,
commercial, and service area with higher densities
• the proposal to add a drive-through facility conforms to
the Regional Official Plan as the overall development
proposes a mix of uses within the urban area along a
Regional Corridor
• the 2.0 metre wide road widening across the
Kingston Road is acceptable to Regional staff
• technical, engineering, and landscaping matters will
be addressed through site plan approval
Engineering & Public ~~~ no objections to the proposed zoning by-law
Works Department amendment application
• all technical matters will be addressed through the
site plan approval process
29
30
Report PLN 07-16 .June 20, 2016
Subject: 816 Kingston Road (Pickering) Limited (A 01/16) Page 4
3. Planning Analysis
3.1 The proposal to add a drive-through facility complies with the City's Official
Plan and the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines
The subject property is designated as "Mixed Use Areas-Mixed Corridor" within
the Woodlands Neighbourhood. This designation is intended primarily for
residential, retail, community, cultural and recreational uses at a scale serving
the community with a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 2.5. The proposed
development has an FSI of 0.32. The applicant's request to permit a
drive-through facility complies with the policies and provisions of the Official Plan.
The Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines provide specific standards for
drive-through facilities to ensure that these facilities are appropriately designed,
achieves City's urban design objectives ~nd fits well within the proposed
development.
The applicant has submitted a revised conceptual site plan illustrating a
minimum of 8 automobile stacking spaces before the order board and a minimum
of 4 automobile stacking spaces between the order board and the pick-up
window. The drive-through facility is proposed to be located along the north and
west sides of Building A, with the drive-through lane exiting through the centre of
the ground floor of the building.
The proposed location and design of the drive-through facility will still allow for a
high quality urban streetscape with buildings sited closed to Kingston Road
without impacting internal site design and vehicular circulation. The proposed
drive-through facility complies with the design and vehicular stacking
requirements as outlined in the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines.
3.2 Sufficient parking supply is proposed on-site to support the permitted uses
Parking for this development is required to be provided at a minimum rate of
4.5 parking spaces for every 100 square metres of GLFA. Based on this parking
ratio, a total of 148 spaces are required to be provided on the property, whereas
144 spaces are illustrated on the revised site plan, a shortage of 4 spaces.
The applicant has advised that the demand for parking will be reduced due to the
ability to share parking between different businesses on the property since the
anticipated parking use for the office space planned for the second floor of
Building A will be during weekday daytime hours, whereas peak hours for the
proposed restaurant use will be in the evenings and weekends when the offices
are typically closed. Additionally, the site is located adjacent to existing public
transit and the future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services along Kingston Road,
further reducing the demand for on-site parking. City staff are satisfied that the
proposed parking supply is sufficient to accommodate the parking requirements
for this commercial development.
Report PLN 07-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: 816 Kingston Road (Pickering) Limited (A 01/16) Page 5
3.3 The increase in the gross leasable floor area for restaurant uses will still
allow for a variety of uses within this development
The applicant is requesting to increase the maximum combined GLFA for
restaurant uses from 1,000 square metres to 1,220 square metres to allow
restaurant uses to be located on the entire ground floor of Building A and to
recognize the restaurant use in Building C.
The intent of limiting the maximum combined GLFA for all restaurant uses within
this development was to ensure a variety of uses are provided within this
development and sufficient parking is available on-site to accommodate all uses.
The request to increase the total GLFA for restaurant uses within this
development would represent approximately 37 percent of the entire
development, while still allow approximately 2,068 square metres of GLFA for a
variety of other uses including personal service, medical and professional offices,
and retail. Staff are satisfied that the request to increase the maximum combined
GLFA for restaurant uses will still allow for a variety of uses to be accommodated
within the development to service the community.
3.4 The City's urban design objectives along Kingston Road can be achieved
The Region's Long Term Transit Strategy (L TTS) and Highway 2 Transit
Property Measures Class EA identified a road widening conveyance of
approximately 2.0 metres across the Kingston Road frontage of the subject
property. The revised site plan provides for the 2.0 metre road widening along
the frontage of Kingston Road, which will be dedicated to the Region at the site
plan approval stage.
As a result of the Region's request for a road widening, the required building
setbacks and landscape buffer width a:long Kingston Road have been reduced.
Building A and Building C will be setback 1.25 metres and 0.9 of a metre,
respectively from Kingston Road. The landscape buffer width has also been
reduced from 3.0 metres to 0.9 of a metre along majority of Kingston Road,
except in some instances the landscape buffer has been reduced to zero metres.
In June 2015, the Committee of Adjustment approved a minor variance to reduce
the minimum building setback from Kingston Road for Building C from 3.0 metres
to 0.9 of a metre. The applicant has advised that the buildings fagades fronting
Kingston Road will be enhanced with additional glazing, principle entrances and
architectural articulations to create an attractive and active streetscape along
Kingston Road. Through the site plan approval process, staff will continue to
work with Regional staff and the applicant to enhance opportunities for
landscaping between the regional boulevard and the applicant's property.
Staff are satisfied that the reduced building setbacks and landscape buffer width
along Kingston Road will continue to achieve the City's urban design objectives
along Kingston Road.
31
32
Report PLN 07-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: 816 Kingston Road (Pickering) Limited (A 01/16) Page 6
3.5 The applicant has provided additional information to address concerns
raised by area resident
In response to the various concerns identified by an area resident to the north,
the applicant has provided additional information in support of the rezoning
application. The applicant has advised that Starbuck's is tentatively confirmed to
operate the drive-through facility, which will be in use between 6:00am and
10:00 pm. All bu'ildings will have its own internal waste collection area. Security
cameras and pedestrian lighting will be installed to mitigate any potential crime
activities. The existing site plan agreement includes provisions requiring all
restaurant tenants to install a mechanical exhaust ecologizer odour control unit to
mitigate potential cooking odours.
The applicant has submitted a noise analysis to include a drive-through facility.
HGC Engineering concluded that sound levels from rooftop mechanical
equipment, idling vehicles in the drive-through queue and speaker-board will be
within the Ministry of Environment criteria due to the significant background traffic
sound levels from Highway 401 and Kingston Road. Further, the consultant
indicates that the proposed noise attenuation fence along the north property,
previously approved under the existing site plan, is sufficient for noise attenuation
from road traffic noise for the properties to the north.
3.6 Technical matters will be addressed during the Site Plan Review process
3.7
Detailed design and technical matters will be addressed through the site plan
approval process. Matters to be addressed through the site plan review process,
include, but are not limited to:
• the dedication of road widening along the frontage of Kingston Road to the
Region of Durham
• MTO Building and Land Use Permit for Building A
• landscaping details between the Kingston Road and Buildings A and C
• review of building elevations, details of materials and exterior lighting
• signage of new commercial development
• any other City and agency requirements
Staff support the final proposal and recommend that a zoning by-law be
finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment ·
The applicant's request to permit one drive-through facility associated with a
restaurant use, increase the GLFA for restaurant uses, and marginally reduce the
required number of parking spaces, complies with policies of the Pickering
Official Plan and Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, will have
minimum impact on internal site design and vehicular circulation, and will
complement the existing uses permitted on the subject lands. Staff supports the
application and recommends that the site specific zoning provision containing the
standards attached·as Appendix I to this report be finalized and be brought
before Council for enactment.
34 .
Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/16
Additional Permitted Use
1. Drive-through facility
Building Restrictions
Appendix I to
Report PLN 07-16
2. Reduce the minimum building setback to Kingston Road property line from 3.0
metres to 0.9 of a metre
3. Reduce the minimum length of the built-to-zone adjacent to Kingston Road to be
occupied by buildings from 58.0 metres to 46.0 metres
Minimum and Maximum Floor Areas
4. Maximum gross leasable floor area of 1 ,220 square metres for all restaurant
uses
Minimum Parking Requirements
5. A minimum of 144 parking spaces
6. Exempt the minimum setback requirement for a parking area abutting a road
allowance (Kingston Road)
Drive-through Requirements
7. A maximum of one drive-through is permitted
8. A drive-through queuing lane shall not be located between the building and any
street (Kingston Road)
9. A drive-through queuing lane shall be setback a minimum of 15.0 metres from a
residential zone
10. Minimum of 8 vehicle queuing spaces before the order board and 4 vehicles
queuing spaces between the order board and pick..:up window
Notes:
Recommended zoning provisions 2 and 3 noted above reflect Committee of Adjustment
decision on Minor Variance application PICA 73/15
40
Report PLN 08-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: Consultant Selection for Urban Design Review Services Page 2
Financial Implications: There are no financial impacts to the City as a result of
retaining the services of the consultant for the Urban Design Review Services Program.
The Pickering Official Plan and the User Fee By-law include provisions requiring an
applicant to be responsible for the cost of the City peer reviewing studies and drawings,
including site plan and architectural drawings.
The 2016 budget for the Planning & Design section of the City Development identifies
an expenditure line item for Urban Design Review Services in the amount of $80,000.00
(Account Code 2611.2392.0003) and a corresponding revenue line item (Account Code
2611.9990.0000) funded by developers, also in the amount of $80,000.00.
1. Background
In March 2014, Council approved the implementation of an Urban Design Review
Services Program to establish new and higher standards for urban design and
architecture in the City. John G. Williams Limited, Architect ("John G. Williams")
was retained to undertake Urban Design Review Services for the past two years
to review all significant new development and redevelopment of existing
properties and building that are prominently visible from a public street or highway.
The Urban Design Review Services Program has been successful in raising the
standard of architecture and urban design on most development projects. The
consultant has provided valuable comments and advice regarding the design and
layout of site plans, and enhancing the exterior appearance of new development
through the review of material selection and utilizing current architectural trends.
Since the implementation of the Urban Design Review Services Program, the
City has not received any objections or concerns related to the additional cost
incurred by the applicants. Some applicants have also provided positive
feedback and comments that this service has significantly improved the overall
finish and quality of their project.
The existing purchase order issued to John G. Williams to provide Urban Design
Review Services will expire on June 30, 2016. To help achieve and uphold new
and higher standards for planning, architecture and urban design, the City would
strongly benefit from the continued services of a qualified Urban Design
Consultant to provide objective and professional advice on architecture and
urban design.
2. Discussion
2.1 A Request for Proposal (RFP) for Urban Review Services was issued
On February 18, 2016 the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Urban
Design Review Services. The RFP was an open proposal call. A number of
consulting firms were forwarded a copy of the RFP based on their experience
with similar projects in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). In addition, a notice of
the RFP was placed on the City's website. The RFP closed on March 15, 2016.
Report PLN 08-16 June 20,2016
Subject: Consultant Selection for Urban Design Review Services Page 3
Three proposal were received from the following multi-disciplinary consulting
teams:
• MMM Group
• SGL Planning & Design
• John G. Williams Limited, Architects
2.2 John G. Williams Limited, Architect is recommended
On April 19, 2016, an Evaluation Committee consisting of.the Chief Planner, the
Manager, Development Review & Urban Design, and the Senior Planner-Site
Planning reViewed the proposals against various criteria, as outlined in the RFP.
Although the Evaluation Committee was impressed by the quality of all three
proposals, the team that received the highest score and best met the City's
needs in providing Urban Design Review Services, was John G. Williams
Limited, Architect.
· John G. Williams Limited, Architect is multi-disciplinary firm specializing in
planning, urban design and architectural design control. This firm is one of the
few that is active as an Urban Design/Control Architect Consultant in many
municipalities within theGTA, including Brampton, Markham, Mississauga,
Hamilton, Oakville, Richmond Hill, Vaughan and Whitby. They have extensive
experience reviewing a variety of built forms including mixed use developments,
medium and high density residential projects, as well as commercial and
industrial buildings. The firm employs a solution oriented approach to
development projects and will work collaboratively with planning staff to continue
to raise the level of planning, urban design and architecture within the City while
balancing the City's goals against the applicant's requirements.
2.3 Urban Design Review Services Program
The primary goal of the Urban Design Review Services Program is to establish
new and higher standards for urban design and architecture in the City. To help
achieve this goal, the Urban Design Consultant will be engaged in the review of
all significant new development and redevelopment of existing properties and
buildings that are prominently visible from a public street or highway, as well as
any other proposals requested by the Site Plan Committee. Certain minor ·
projects or additions to existing buildings not visible from the street would
generally be exempted.
For most proposals, a maximum three week review period will be given to the
Urban Design Consultant to provide comments to City Development staff. The
Urban Design Consultant will review the proposal and provide their comments
and suggested changes with respect to, but not limited to, overall site layout, the
pedestrian realm, building placement and massing, architectural design, and
building material and colour. The Urban Design Consultant may also attend
meetings with the applicants and municipal staff to further discuss their
comments, as well as work with the applicants to resolve any concerns or issues
with their suggested changes.
41
42
Report PLN 08-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: Consultant Selection for Urban Design Review Services Page 4
The Urban Design Consultant may also attend Site Plan Committee meetings to
provide advice with respect to architecture and urban design pertaining to a
specific application or project.
There will be no financial impact to the City as a result of retaining the services of
an Urban Design Consultant. The City's Official Plan and the User Fee By-law
require applicants to be responsible for the peer review cost of studies and
drawings, including site plan and architectural drawings. The Urban Design
Consultant will bill the City for the services, at the hourly rate noted in their
proposal, and in turn, the City will bill the development proponent. Therefore,
although the City retains the service of the Urban Design Consultant, the City is
reimbursed by the developer for the cost of the service. The 2016 budget for the
City Development Department-Planning & Design section, identifies expenditure
and revenue line items each in the amount of $80,000.00 in order to implement
the Urban Design Review Services Program.
All applicants are made aware of the Urban Design Review Services Program at
the pre-consultation stage. Prior to engaging the. Urban Design Review
Consultant, a cost estimated is provide to the applicant and a written consent is
obtain from the applicant acknowledging that they agree to reimburse the City. of
Pickering the full cost of undertaking peer review of any studies or drawings
submitted in support of the application.
For most development proposals, the additional cost incurred by an applicant as
result of the City retaining the services of the Urban Design Consultant will be in
the range of approximately $2,500.00 to $4,000.00. For larger scale and more
complex projects, the cost could be approximately $5,000.00 to $10,000.00.
Staff are sensitive to the additional cost incurred by the applicant and will work
with the Urban Design Consultant to minimize the costs of the Urban Design
Review Services were possible. Staff have not received any concerns or
objections to the additional cost incurred by an applicant.
3. Conclusion
Staff recommend that Council approve retaining the services of John G. Williams
Limited Architect, to undertake the Urban Design Review Services in accordance
with their proposal.
Report PLN 1 0-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area Page 2
Executive Summary: The City issued a Request for Proposal to retain a qualified
heritage consultant to undertake Cultural Heritage Property Evaluations for ten built
heritage resources located in the Seaton Urban Area identified in Pickering Official Plan
Amendment 22 with a "Heritage Lot" notation (see Location Map, Attachment #1 ). The
properties are currently owned by the Province of Ontario and managed by the
Infrastructure Ontario and Lands Corporation, with the exception of the property located
at 3285 Sidel_ine 20, which is privately owned.
The property located at 615 Whitevale Road, was included in one of Infrastructure
Ontario Class B Environmental Assessments for demolition. The heritage evaluation for
the property was completed first and reported on at the September 2015 meeting of
Council. At that meeting, Council endorsed the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee
recommendations opposing demolition and recommending designation of 615 Whitevale
Road under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act.
The City's heritage consultant concludes that the remaining nine properties meet the
criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06.
Staff recognize individual property designation by municipalities do not apply to a
property that is Provincially-owned.
However, given the significance of the buildings and that the properties meet the criteria
for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06, staff in
consultation with the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, recommend to Council
.individual designations under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Additionally, given the significant of the former Whitevale school property at
3215 Whitevale Road, it is recommended that staff be authorized to: investigate the
use of the property for a municipal purpose; enter into discussions with Infrastructure
Ontario and the current tenant regarding the future ownership and use of the many
artifacts associated to the former school; and report back to Council on these matters.
Financial Implications: The cost to undertake the heritage assessments is
approximately $21,970.00 (plus HST) and was funded through the Seaton Development
Application Revenue reserve.
1. Background
1.1 The City's Heritage Consultant has evaluated ten "Heritage lot" properties
located in Seaton for their heritage significance ·
The City issued a Request for Proposal to retain a qualified heritage consultant
and retained Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting, in partnership with Amy Barnes
Consulting and Chris Uchiyama Heritage, to undertake Cultural Heritage
Evaluations for ten built heritage resources in the Seaton Urban Area located at:
615 Whitevale, 3250 Sideline 28, 3215 Sideline 28, 750 Whitevale Road,
940 Whitevale Road, 3185 Sideline 26, 1125 Whitevale Road, 1200 Whitevale
Road, 1390 Whitevale Road and 3285 Sideline 20. The properties are identified
in the City's Official Plan Amendment for Seaton with a "Heritage Lot" notation
(see Location Map, Attachment #1 ).
45
Report PLN 10-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area Page4
Consultant's Analysis and Recommendation
The property at 3250 Sideline 28, also known as the William Turner House, is
located east of the Hamlet of Whitevale on the west side of Sideline 28, north
of Whitevale Road.
The key built resource on the property is a one-an-a-half frame farmhouse built
in Ontario Cottage Style between 1851 and 1861, with a two-storey frame
addition extending from the westside (circa 1880s). The farmhouse was built
by William Turner, an important early settler and farmer. The property is
associated with early settlement and agricultural history of the Whitevale area.
The property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or .
interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and it is recommended that the City
consider individual designation under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario
Heritage Act when the property passes out of Crown ownership. While the .
property remains in Crown ownership, it is recommended that the City consider
updating the property listing on the Heritage Register to include the statement
of significance. Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request that the
Province manage the property in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines
for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
HPAC Recommends to Council
At the November 5, 2015 HPAC meeting, the Committee recommended:
That Council designate 3250 Sideline 28 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage
Act; and ·
That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the
Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
Staff Analysis
Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the
criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario
Regulation 9/06 and that Council consider individual designation of the
property under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Staff Recommends to Council
That Council designate 3250 Sideline 28 under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act; and ·
That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the
Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
47
Report PLN 1 0-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area P!3ge 6
It is also fecommended that the municipality enter into discussions with current
tenant/owner to determine the ownership and intended future use of many
fixtures and fittings related to the use as a school and develop a plan for the
acquisition by Pickering Museum Village.
Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request that the Province
manage the property in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for
Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
HPAC Recommends to Council
The HPAC recommends that the building be repurposed as a cultural space
once the building is vacated., given that the property is directly associated with
the early history of public education in the community of Whitevale and is a
rare example of a pre-Confederation one-room schoolhouse. In addition,
HPAC recommends that any artifacts remain in the building rather than
donating to the Pickering Museum Village. The Committee recommends that
staff enter into discussions with 10 to request the property be donated to the
City of Pickering. ·
Therefore HPAC recommends to Council:
That Council designate 3215 Sideline 28 under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act; and
That staff enter into discussions with 10 to request the property be donated to
the City of Pickering to be repurposed as a cultural space;
That staff enter into discussions with the current tenant/owner to determine the
ownership and intended future use of many artifacts related to the use as a
school; and
That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the
Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
Staff Analysis
Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the
criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario
Regulation 9/06 and that Council consider individual designation of the
property under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Staff will investigate the feasibility of HPAC's recommendation to repurpose the
building as a City cultural space. Furthermore, staff will enter into discussions
with Infrastructure Ontario and the current tenant regarding the future
ownership and use of the many artifacts associated to the former school and to
report back to Council on these matters.
Staff Recommends to Council
That Council designate 3215 Sideline 28 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage
Act;
49
Report PLN 1 0-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area Page 8
The property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or
interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and it is recommended that the City
consider individual designation under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario
Heritage Act when the property passes ou.t of Crown ownership. While the
property remains in Crown ownership, it is recommended that the City consider
updating the property listing. on the Heritage Register. Furthermore, it is
recommended that the City request that the Province manage the property in
compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial
Heritage Properties.
HPAC Recommends to Council
That Council designate 750Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act; and
That a reference plan be prepared that illustrates the appropriate size of the
heritage lot including the stone house; and
That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the
Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
Staff Analysis
Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the
criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario
Regulation 9/06 and that the City consider individual designation of the
property under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Given that the size of the property is 3.2 hectares (7.92 acres) in area, it is
recommended that a reference plan be prepared to create an appropriate size
and configuration to retain the heritage context of the stone house.
Staff Recommends to Council
That Council designate 750 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act; and
That a.reference plan be prepared that illustrates the appropriate size and
configuration to retain the heritage context of the stone house; and
That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the
Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
51
54
Report PLN 10-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area Page 11
Consultant's Analysis and Recommendation
The property at 3185 Sideline 26, also known as Pennybank or the Hugh Pugh
House, is located east of the Hamlet of Whitevale, on the east side of
Sideline 26 and south of Whitevale Road.
The key built resource on the property is a one-and-a-half-storey, dichromatic
brick house with a one-and-a-half-storey stone tail at the rear. The stone tail
was constructed circa 1855. The design and detailing of the brick house
suggests that it was added in the 1880s. The house is a representative
example of the Ontario farmhouse, an L-shaped variant of the Ontario cottage
type which was popular in the 1870s and 1880s. The house incorporates
features of the late-19th century ltalianate and Queen Ann styles. The stone tail
is a representative of characteristic of mid-19th century.
The property is directly associated with the agricultural history of the
community. The Pugh family owned and operated their farm Pennybank, of
which the farmhouse is the only remnant on the parcel, for more than
130 years.
The property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or
interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and it is recommende·d that the City
consider individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act
when the property passes out of Crown ownership. While the property remains
in Crown ownership, it is recommended that the City consider updating the
property listing on the Heritage Register. Furthermore, it is recommended that
the City request that the Province manage the property in compliance with the
Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
HPAC Recommends to Council
That Council designate 3185 Sideline 26 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage
Act; and
That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the
Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
Staff Analysis
Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the
criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario
Regulation 9/06 and that Council consider individual designation of the
property under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Staff Recommends to Council
That Council designate 3185 Sideline 26 under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act; and
That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the
Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
Report PLN 10-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area Page 14
The key built resource on the property is a one-and-a-half-storey, T-shaped,
brick house with a one:-storey kitchen tail at the rear. The west wing was built
between 1873 and 1877 by owner William Brignal. The east wing was likely
added in the early 1880s by late owner John Tool. The kitchen wing at the rear
was likely added in the early 20th century by the Carter family.
The farmhouse is likely the most elegant and skillfully executed of the Ontario
Cottage style in the Whitevale area. It is one of several examples of
dichromatic brick houses built in and around Whitevale during the 1870s which
together illustrate the short period of industrial and agricultural prosperity
enjoyed by the c~mmunity.
The property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or
interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and it is recommended that the City
consider individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act
when the property passes out of Crown ownership. While the property remains
in Crown ownership, it is recommended that the City consider updating the
property listing on the Heritage Register. Furthermore, it is recommended that
the City request that the Province manage the property in compliance witH the ·
Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
HPAC Recommends to Council
That Council designate 1200 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act; and
That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the
Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
Staff Analysis
Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the
criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario
Regulation 9/06 and that Council consider individual designation of the
property under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Staff Recommends to Council
That Council designate 1200 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act; and
That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the
Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Prope·rties.
57
Report PLN 10-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton. Urban Area Page 16
HPAC Recommends to Council
That Council designate 1390 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act; and
That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the
Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
Staff Analysis
Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the
criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario
Regulation 9/06 and that Council consider individual designation of the
property under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Staff Recommends to Council
That Council designate 1390 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act; and
That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the
Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.
59
Report PLN 10-16 June 20, 2016
SHbject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area Page 18
A large wooden barn (English barn) is located north of the house and is
historically associated with the Hastings farmstead. The barn follows
construction conventions for mid-to-late 19th century agricultural buildings and
retains its 19th century shape and proportions. However, elements have been
replaced and repaired over time.
The property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or
interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and it is recommended that the City
consider individual designation under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario
Heritage Act.
This property is privately owned by Francis and Jennifer Dempsey. There is
currently a 99 year lease to the Province on part of the lands, as shown above
as Part 1 on the Registered Plan 40R-1 0518. The fieldstone tail of the house
is situated within Part 2 and the portion of the English barn is situated in Part 1.
It is recommended that any individual designation include the property's legal
description.
It is further recommended that the notice for designation is also provided to the
Province of Ontario due to the Circumstances of the 99 year lease to the
Province for Part 1.
HPAC Recommends to Council
That Council designate 3285 Sideline 20 (described legally as Parts 1 and 2 on
Registered Plan 40R-1 0518) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Staff Analysis
Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the
criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario
Regulation 9/06 and that Council consider individual designation of the
property under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Staff Recommends Council
That Council designate 3285 Sideline 20 (described legally as Parts 1 and 2 on
Registered Plan 40R-1 0518) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Actand
notice of designation is provided to the Province of Ontario.
2.1 Heritage Designation of Provincial Land
Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act allows municipalities to designate properties,
although the designation would not be binding to the Province. Accordingly,
should Council pass a Designation By-law for any or all of these properties, the
..
. Province would not be obligated te comply with the By-law. However, if a
property is sold, the private property owner would be obligated to comply with the
Designation By-law.
61
62
Report PLN 10-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area Page 19
The City's heritage consultant advises that while the properties remain in Crown
ownership, the municipality consider updating the property listing on Pickering's
Heritage Register. If the properties pass out of Crown ownership, the
municipality consider individual designation of the property under Section 29 of
the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff recognize that Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act
(individual property designation by municipalities) does not apply to a property
that is owned by the Provincial government. However, due to the significance of
the buildings and given that the properties meet the criteria for determining
cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 staff recommend
Council designate the properties.
3.0 Conclusions
The properties are located in the Seaton Urban Area, and are subject to the
policies of the City's Official Plan Amendment for Seaton. Key objectives of
these documents are to restore, rehabilitate, protect and conserve significant
cultural heritage resources and integrate them into the new neighbourhoods.
The heritage assessments undertaken by the City have concluded that all the
properties meet the criteria for designation. These properties are valuable assets
to the community and should be continued to be used and incorporated in the
new Seaton neighbourhoods.
Attachment
1. Location Map
66
Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 2
The introduction of a commercial development in the mixed use corridor will help
achieve the goal of a diversified, transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly neighbourhood.
The zoning by-law amendment application, excluding the single-storey commercial
building with a drive-through facility, is recommended for approval.
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
proposed development.
1. Background
1.1 Property Description
The subject lands are located on the west side of Brock Road, north of the Hydro
Corridor in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1 ).
The subject lands comprise two properties, which have a combined area of
approximately 3.2 hectares, with approximately 180 metres of frontage along
Brock Road. The applicant is proposing to lease approximately 0.8 of a hectare
of land within the hydro corridor immediately to the south to provide some of the
required parking spaces to support the proposal. The owner has received
approval from Infrastructure Ontario to permit parking within the hydro corridor
lands.
Surrounding land uses include:
north -vacant lands owned by the City of Pickering, which are designated as
"Mixed Use Areas -Mixed Corridors" within the City's Official Plan and
a "Type C Arterial Road" (Valley Farm Road extension)
south -a Hydro Corridor and further south is Third Concession Road
east -across Brock Road are lands owned by Pistritto's Farms and
Greenhouses, which are designated as "Mixed Use Areas -Mixed
Corridors" within the City's Official Plan ·
west -vacant lands owned by Stonepay, which are designated as "Urban
Residential Areas -Medium Density Areas" within the City's Official
Plan; a portion of these lands are to be developed as a stormwater
management pond
1.2 Applicant's Proposal
The applicant proposes to develop the subject lands for a retail/commercial
centre with a broad range of uses, including but not limited to, commercial
fitness/recreational centre, day care centre, financial institution, medical office,
office, personal service shop, restaurant, retail store and supermarket.
High density residential uses are anticipated to be part of phase 2 of the
redevelopment of the subject lands, which could include two 20-storey residential
apartment buildings.
Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 3
The concept plan illustrates a full-movement access to the site from the extension
of Valley Farm Road and a right-in/r-ight-out access to the site from Brock Road,
south of the future signalized Valley Farm Road and Brock Road intersection. To
accommodate the proposed access from Brock Road, a southbound right-turn
lane is proposed within the regional boulevard. The applicant also proposes the
construction of Valley Farm Road from the intersection of Brock Road and Valley
Farm Road to the west limits of the subject property.
In response to comments from the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA), the applicant submitted a revised concept plan (see Original
Submitted Concept Plan and Revised Submitted Concept Plan, Attachments #2
and #3). Specifically, the key changes to the proposal include:
• a reduction in the number of single storey buildings from 5 buildings to 1
building
• an increase in the total gross floor area from 13,786 square metres to
14,025 square metres
• a reduction in the amount of paved parking area within the hydro corridor
from 1.2 hectares to 0.8 of a hectare
• a reduction in the total number of parking spaces being provided on the.
subject lands and within the hydro corridor from 686 parking spaces to
560 parking spaces
2. Comments Received
2.1 Public comments from the September 14,2015 Statutory Public Information
Meeting and in written submission
At the September 14, 2015 Statutory Public Information Meeting, two residents
attended the meeting to learn more about the proposal and one resident
submitted written comments in advance of the meeting.
The concerns identified are as follows:
• ensure that the design of the commercial development will not be just another
big box development
• ensure that the widening and construction of Brock Road will be completed
prior to the construction of the proposed retail/commercial centre
2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments
2.2.1 Region of Durham
e subject lands are designated "Living Areas" within the "Regional Corridor"
overlay in the Regional Official Plan
• expressed concern with the low intensity development proposed for Phase 1,
along a Regional Corridor; however recognizing the long-term intensification
proposed in Phase 2, which includes two 20-storey residential buildings and
the potential for other higher density uses along Brock Road, the proposal is
in keeping with the Regional Official Plan and is exempt from Regional
approval 67
68
Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 4
• the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted for the subject
lands indicated that the site meets the standards for both commercial and
residential property uses and no further environmental work is required
• the submitted Reliance Letter and Certificate of Insurance are satisfactory to
the Region
• a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, dated June 2015, indicated that no
archaeological resources were identified on the subject lands; the report has
been sent to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
• Regional Works is generally satisfied that the traffic generated by the
proposed development can be accommodated with the improved road
system that has been planned for the area
• Regional Works has identified various technical matters that will need to be
further addressed including: the relocation of the proposed right-in/right-out
access further south on Brock .Road; the design of the southbound right turn·
lane; signal warrant calculations to determine the timing for the signalization
of the Brock RoadNalley Farm Road intersection; and location and
infrastructure required for transit stops along Brock Road
• the proposed development is within the Duffin Heights sanitary sewer
pumping station drainage area; the estimated design flow falls within the ·
allowable range for the property
• Regional municipal services will be installed by the applicant upon execution
of a servicing agreement between the applicant and the Region
2.2.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
• advises that all parking to support the development should be located on the
subject lands to maintain a wildlife corridor within the hydro lands
• any proposed low impact development measures must address the infiltration
targets in addition to the 5mm target for on-site retention
2.2.3 City of Pickering Engineering & Public Works
• the applicant will be required to enter into a development agreement with the
City for all off-site works, including the construction of Valley Farm Road from
the intersection of Brock Road to the west limit of the property; the City will
cost share a portion of the works associated with the oversizing of the road
from a local road to an arterial road
• the southbound right-turn lane has significantly reduced the width of the
boulevard on the west side of Brock Road; this must be further reviewed to
ensure that there is sufficient space for the installation of all required
infrastructure and boulevard trees
• the proposed functional design for stormwater management on the site is not
acceptable to the City; new modelling will be required through the Site Plan
Approval process
• compensation for loss of tree canopy will required
• detail drawings regarding landscaping, stormwater management and grading
will be reviewed through the site plan approval process
Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 5
3. Planning Analysis
3.1 Proposed Official Plan Amendment to allow a single-storey building with an
associated drive-through facility be refused
The applicant's original Official Plan Amendment request was to allow five
single-storey buildings and a drive-through facility. Through discussions with City
staff, the applicant has consolidated a number of buildings reducing the number
of single-storey buildings to one. The applicant has combined Buildings B, C and
D into a single 3-storey building. Buildings E and E1 have been combined into a
single 2-storey building. Building F remains as a single-storey building with an
associated drive-through facility. The revised concept plan still requires an
Official Plan Amendment to permit the single-storey building with an associated
drive-through facility.
The subject lands are designated as "Mixed Use Areas-Mixed Corridors" in the
Official Plan. Lands within this designation are to be designed and developed in
a manner that is consistent with the Official Plan, Duffin Heights Neighourhood
policies and the development guidelines for the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood.
The Neighbourhood Policies state that, despite Mixed Use Areas having the
widest variety of use and highest levels of activities in the City, drive-through
facilities, either stand-alone or in combination with other uses, are not permitted.
The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies also require all buildings to be
multi-storey.
The vision for the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood is to achieve a sustainable
neighbourhood that is pedestrian-focused, transit-oriented, compact and
emphasizes high quality design. The neighbourhood was to be designed with
the pedestrian in mind by providing appropriate facilities, scale, form and detail to
promote walking and social interaction. The intent of the neighbourhood policy
was to prohibit drive-through facilities, which by function caters to automobiles
rather than pedestrians.
It is staff's opinion that a single-storey building with an associated drive-through
facility is not in keeping with the vision for the Duffin Height's neighbourhood.
3.2 The proposed retail/commercial centre will provide a needed service for the
residents in Duffin Heights
The "Mixed Use Area-Mixed Corridors" designation is intended primarily for
residential, retail, community, cultural and recreational uses at a scale serving
the community. The designation provides for a maximum floor space index (FSI)
of 2.5. The applicant's revised proposal has a FSI of 0.4.
Staff are supportive of the proposed retail/commercial centre, except for the
drive-through facility, as this development will provide for broad range of
commercial uses, including but not limited to, commercial fitness/recreational
centre, day care centre, financial institution, medical office, office, personal
service shop, restaurant, retail store and supermarket, servicing the Duffin
Heights neighbourhood. This development will also further diversify the mix of
uses provided within the Mixed Use Corridor to support the community.
69
70
Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 6
3.3 The proposal is consistent with the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies
and urban design objectives of the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood.
Development Guidelines
The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies for lands within the Mixed Corridors
designation require new developments to provide a strong and identifiable urban
image by establishing buildings closer to the street, providing safe and convenient
pedestrian access, and requiring all buildings to be multi-storey. The Duffin
Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines envision higher density,
multi-storey and mixed use buildings with a high level of architectural quality
along this portion of the Brock Road Corridor.
The intersection of Brock Road and Valley Farm Road is identified as a Focal
Point on the Tertiary Plan within the Council-adopted Duffin Heights
Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. The Guidelines state that development
at focal points shall contribute to the prominence of the intersection through the
use of appropriate building heights, massing, architectural features and
landscaping.
The revised concept plan illustrates a 3-storey commercial building with 4-storey
massing, at the southwest corner of Brock Road and Valley Farm Road stepping
down to one storey with 2-storey massing, away from the intersection. This
building appropriately frames the intersection creating a gateway into the
community from the south and provides a prominent landmark addressing the
intersection of Brock Road and Valley Farm Road. The revised concept plan
also illustrates a 2-storey building with 3-storey massing, fronting Brock Road
immediately south of the proposed vehicular access from Brock Road, and a
2-storey building with 3-storey massing, located internal to the site. The proposed
built form, excluding the single-storey building, is consistent with the Duffin
Heights Neighbourhood Policies and design objectives of the Duffin Heights
Neighbourhood Development Guidelines.
The design guidelines also require that primary frontages of buildings fronting
Brock Road provide pedestrian access directly to the sidewalk and a multi-use
trail along Brock Road. Also, non-residential floors fac;ades are encouraged to
be at least 33 percent transparent on all the floors, and must be at least
60 percent transparent on the ground floor to encourage pedestrian interaction
with retail and commercial activities.
The applicant has advised that locating primary entrance doors along the Valley
Farm Road and Brock Road frontages may be problematic for certain tenants.
Through the Site Plan Approval process, staff will work with the applicant to
locate primary entrance doors to some of the commercial uses oriented to the .
Brock Road and Valley Farm frontages. Staff will continue to work with the
applicant to articulate large walls along Brock Road and Valley Farm Road to
enhance the architectural details and features of the proposed buildings.
Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 7
3.4 Proposed vehicular access from Brock Road to be relocated further south
resulting in potential change~ to the site layout
The applicant is proposing a full-movement access to the site from the extension of
Valley Farm Road and a right-in/right-out access from Brock Road, approximately
130 metres south of the future signalized intersection of Brock Road and Valley
Farm Road. A southbound right-turn lane is also proposed within the Regional
boulevard to accommodate the access Brock Road.
The Region has indicated that the location of the proposed right-in/right-out
access from Brock Road does not comply with the minimum 200 metre spacing
requirement from the Valley Farm Road and Brock Road intersection, and
recommends that the entrance be relocated to the southerly limit of the site or
onto the adjacent Hydro corridor.
The applicant is aware of the Region's concerns and has indicated that they are
not supportive of the Region's request to relocate the Brock Road access further
south. Relocating the vehicular access further south would impact the design of
the overall site and the location of the proposed commercial buildings along
Brock Road. Through the site plan approval process the applicant will work with
Regional staff to demonstrate that the location of the proposed access off of
Brock Road, as illustrated on the applicant's revised concept plan, would not
have any operational impact on Brock Road.
3.5 The reduced parking area in the hydro corridor will protect for the wildlife
corridor to the south of the property
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) requested that all
parking to support the development be located on the subje~t lands in order to
maintain an unobstructed wildlife corridor through the hydro corridor.
The Development Guidelines for the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood encourage
that lands within the Hydro corridor be utilized for parking areas to serve abutting
development. To address TRCA's concerns, the applicant has reduced the
amount of parking within the Hydro corridor from 1.2 hectares to 0.8 of a hectare.
Staff is supportive that the reduced area within the Hydro corridor will continue to
provide an appropriate amount of parking to support the development, while
maintaining an appropriate corridor width for wildlife to the south.
3.6 Sufficient parking is available to support the development
The general provisions from By-law 3037 require parking for the proposed
commercial development to be provided at a rate of 5.9 spaces per 100 square
metres of gross leasable floor area (GLFA) for commercial uses and 5.4 spaces
per 100 square metres of GLFA for office uses.
71
72
Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 8
The applicant has submitted a Parking Justification Report, prepared by GHD Inc.,
dated May 15, 2015, in support of the proposed development. The consultant
has indicated that the lands at the northeast corner of Brock Road and William
Jackson Drive and the northwest corner of Brock Road and Dersan Street were
recently rezoned to facilitate commercial development. The site-specific by-laws
for these sites included a reduced parking standard of 4.0 parking spaces per
100 square metres of GLFA for commercial uses.
The consultants have also indicated that other municipalities, such as the Town
of Whitby, have implemented a reduced parking rate for commercial development
above the first storey, in order to encourage multi-storey development. The
Town of Whitby utilizes a parking requirement of 2.0 parking spaces per
100 square metres of gross floor area for office and retail uses above the first
storey. Based on the comparable zoning by-laws, the applicant is proposing the
following parking standards for the retail/commercial centre:
• 4.0 parking spaces per 100 square metres of ground floor commercial
• 2.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of commercial above the
ground floor
Staff are supportive of the proposed reduced parking rate of 2.5 parking spaces
per 100 square metres for office and commercial uses above the first floor to
encourage multi-storey buildings. Staff are recommending a parking standard of
4.5 parking spaces per 1 00 square metres for commercial/retail/personal service
uses on the ground floor, which is in keeping with the recently approved zoning
by-law for the Seaton community and other commercial developments recently
approved in the City.
Based on the above-noted parking ratios, a total of 546 parking spaces are
required to be provided to support the proposed development, whereas the
applicant is proposing a total of 560 parking spaces on the subject lands and
within the abutting hydro corridor. Staff are satisfied that sufficient parking will be
provided to accommodate the parking demands of the retail/commercial centre.
3.7 All Technical Matters will be addressed through the Site Plan Approval
Process
A Site Plan application will be required for the development. Detailed design
issues and outstanding technical matters to be dealt with through the site plan
approval process, include:
• review of building massing and fa<;ade treatments
• site access, particularly the location of the proposed access from Brock Road
• lighting
• landscaping within the site and along Brock Road and Valley Farm Road
• pedestrian circulation and connections within the site and connections to
Brock Road and Valley Farm Road
• drainage and grading
Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 9
• . site servicing
• cash-in-lieu of parkland
• tree compensation
• revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Plan
• construction Management Plan
• detail design of Valley Farm Road
. In addition to the above-noted matters, an updated traffic impact study will be
required through the Site Plan Approval process. This study will also review
existing and projected traffic volumes at the Valley Farm Road and Brock Road
intersection to determine whether this intersection warrants signalization.
No further reports are anticipated to be brought before Council if th.e rezoning
application is approved.
3.8 The Zoning By-law will be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment
Staff supports the rezoning application, excluding the single-storey commercial
building with a drive-through facility, and recommends that a site specific
implementing by-law, containing the standards attached as Appendix I to this
Report be finalized and brought before Council for enactment.
Appendix
Appendix I Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment
Application A 6/15
Attachments
1 . Location Map
2. Original Concept Plan
3. Revised Concept Plan
73
Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions
Appendix I to
Report PLN 11-16
for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/15
75
76
Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/15
That the implementing zoning by-law permit a retail/commercial development in
accordance witl:l the following provisions:
Permitted and Prohibited Uses
1. Permitted uses include a bake shop, cafe, commercial fitness/recreational centre,
commercial school, convenience store, day care centre, dry cleaning distribution
centre, financial institution, medical office, office, personal service establishment,
restaurant, retail store, supermarket, veterinary clinic and residential apartment
buildings.
2. Prohibited uses include drive-through facilities.
Building Restrictions
3. All buildings and structures shall be located entirely within a building envelope with
the following setbacks:
a. 3.0 metres from north, east and south lot lines
b. 8.0 metres from the west lot line
4. A 3.0 metre wide build-to-zone adjacent to Brock Road and Valley Farm Road.
5. No building or portion of a building or structure shall be erected within the building
envelope, unless a minimum of 40 percent of the entire length of the build-to-zone
is occupied by a continuous portion of the exterior wall of a building.
6. A minimum 60 percent of all non-residential ground floor fa<;ades, and a minimum
33 percent of all non-residential floor fa<;ades above the ground floor, of each
building face along Brock Road and Valley Farm Road shall be constructed of
unencumbered transparent materials.
7.. Minimum first floor height of 4.5 metres.
8. Minimum of 2 functional storeys required for all buildings; however, 3 functional ·
storeys are required for the building at the northeast corner of the site.
9. Minimum building height:
a. 9.0 metres
b. 11.5 metres at the northeast corner of the subject lands
10. Garbage to be contained within a fully enclosed structure attached or
integrated into the buildings.
Landscaped Area
11. A minimum landscaped buffer width of 4.5 metres along the west lot line.
Minimum and Maximum Floor Areas
12. Minimum gross leasable floor area of 14,000 square metres.
13. Minimum gross leasable floor area of 4,000 square metres above the
ground floor.
Parking Requirements
14. Minimum 4.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor
area for commercial uses.
15. Minimum 2.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor
area for office and commercial uses above the ground floor.
16. A maximum of 160 parking spaces are permitted to be provided on the
adjacent Hydro Corridor lands.
77