Planning & Development Committee Meeting · In July 2017, Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., submitted a revised proposal for the all of the developable lands. 4. Applicant's Proposal

Planning & Development Committee Agenda

Monday, March 5, 2018 Council Chambers

7:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean

For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 [email protected]

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.

mailto:[email protected]

--Cl~6f-.

PJCKER1NG Planning & Development

Committee Agenda Monday, March 5, 2018

Council Chambers- 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Mclean

(I) Part 'A' Information Reports Pages

Subject: lnfprmation Report No. 03-18 1-12 Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/16(R) Revised Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2016-04(R) Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, now Parts 1 to 12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road)

(II) Part '8' Planning & Development Reports

1. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 04-18 13-19 Request to Establish a Stormwater Management Pond in the City of Pickering to accommodate Stormwater from Lands in the Town ofWhitchurch-Stouffville Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA17.001 117311bTH Line Development Limited (Fieldgate Developments) Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

Recommendation

1. That Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA 17.001 submitted by Malone Given Parsons and Fieldgate Developments for lands in the southeast quadrant of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville to facilitate the development of 738 dwelling units, be received for information and comment;

For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 [email protected]

lroberts

Highlight

lroberts

Highlight

--C.~6f-

P1CKER1NG Planning & Development

Committee·Agenda Monday, March 5, 2018

Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Mclean

2. That Pickering Council endorse in principle the proposal for Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 to establish a stormwater management pond within the geographic boundaries of the City of Pickering for a subdivision in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, subject to an appropriate agreement between the Owner of the subdivision lands, the Town of WhitchurchStouffville, and the City of Pickering;

3. That the City of Pickering advise the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville that it has no objection to the approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)..: 17.001, subject to the imposition of the following condition of draft · approval:

"That prior to registration of .any part of the plan tributary to a stormwater facility in the City of Pickering, the Owner of lands subject to Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 and the Town ofWhitchurch-Stouffville enter into an agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering respecting various matters including:

a) that the Owner and the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville indemnify the City of Pickering with respect to any liability arising from any aspect of locating the stormwater management pond in Pickering;

b) that the Town ofWhitchurch-Stouffville assume the stormwater pond regardless of whether it owns the lands; and

c) that the Owner provide appropriate financial compensation to the City of Pickering, including if required, any external legal fees;"

4. That the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, and the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to negotiate the agreement and bring it back for Council's approval;

5. That the Owner of Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA 17.001 and the Town of WhitchurchStouffville be advised that they are obliged to ensure that the installation of the stormwater management pond complies with all relevant planning and development approvals including the Federal equivalents of satisfactory completion of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and Phase 2 if required, and cultural and heritage resource inventories and impact assessments and mitigation if required; and

--Gi~o~-

PlCKERJNG Planning & Development


Council Chambers- 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Mclean

· 6. That a copy of Report PLN 04-18 of the Director, City Development & CBO be forwarded to the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, 11731 1oth Line Developments Limited, Transport Canada, and the Rouge National Urban Park.

2. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 06-18 20-40 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/17

3.

4.

City Initiated Amendment to Zoning By-law 2511: Maximum Building Height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones

Recommendation

That City initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/17 to add maximum building height provisions for lands zoned "R3" and "R4" within Zoning By-law 2511, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 06-18, be endorsed; and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward the implementing Zoning By-law Amendment to Council for enactment.

Director, City Development& CBO, Report PLN 05-18 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2017 -03 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26, Plan 350

Recommendation

41-61

That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2017-03, submitted by Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. on lands being Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26, Plan 350, to establish a residential plan of subdivision consisting of 7 lots for detached dwellings as shown on Attachment #3 to Report PLN 05-18 and the implementing conditions of approval as set out in Appendix I, be endorsed.

Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 07-18 Future Reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway 1331301 Ontario Inc. In Trust 1450 Pickering Parkway

Recommendation

62-74.

lroberts

Highlight

lroberts

Highlight

lroberts

Highlight

--C~~(Jf-

PJCKER1NG Planning & Development


Council Chambers - 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Mclean

1. That City of Pickering Council supports a future reduction in the Pickering Parkway right-of-way width to a minimum of 22.0 metres to accommodate a maximum 7.0 metre widening of Highway 401 into the City's right-ofway, should the Ministry of Transportation widen Highway 401 in the future and that the City accepts responsibility for the future reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway and associated impacts; and

2. That the Site Plan Control Agreement for Site Plan ApplicationS 07/17 contain provisions obligating the landowner to convey the required 2.0 metre road widening along the entire frontage of Pickering Parkway to the City, at no cost to the City, in the event that Highway 401 is widened; and

3. That a copy of this Report PLN 07-18 and Council's resolution on the matter be forwarded to appropriate staff at the Ministry of Transportation and 1331301 Ontario Inc.

(Ill) Other Business

(IV) Adjournment

From:

Information Report to Planning & Development Committee

Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner

Report Number: 03-18 Date: March 5, 2018

Subject: Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/16(R) Revised Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2016-04(R) Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, now Parts 1 to 12, 40R~28897 (2055 Brock Road)

1. Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information (egarding revised applications for Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Condominium, submitted by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., to permit a residential.condominium development. This report co'ntains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies, and identifies matters raised to date ..

This report is intenqed to assist members of the public and other interested stakehorders to understand the proposal. Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the revised applications, ask questions of clarification and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision is to be made ·at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal.

2. Property Location and Description

The subject lands are located on the east side of Brock Road, south of Usman Road and north of Finch Avenue within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands have a total area of approximately 5.2 hectares and consist of a developable portion having an area of approximately 1.3 hectares and valleylands having an area of approximately 3.9 hectares (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2).

The surrounding land uses include:

north the Pickering Islamic Centre; and a residential subdivision consisting of detached and townhouse dwellings, and a Village Green which are presently under construction

east East Duffins Creek and associated valleylands, and the TransCanada Trail network

1

2

Information Report No. 03-18 Page 2

south West Duffins Creek and associated valleylands, and further south are large lots containing detached dwellings fronting onto the north side of

west

3. Background

Finch Avenue

across Brock Road, are detached residential dwellings and the Brock Ridge Community Park

In 2010 Council approved a site specific rezoning application, submitted by 2143087 Ontario Ltd. (Palwinder),· subject to an "(H)" Holding provision to facilitate the development of the westerly portion of the developable lands, referred to as 'Phase 1 Lands', for a mixed use development consisting of a 3-storey office building with ground floor retail and 12 live-work townhouse units. The valleylands associated with the Duffins Creek were rezoned from a Greenbelt Zone "G" to an Open Space- Hazard Lands Zone "OS-HL" and were to be conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA).

Subsequently, the subject lands were sold to Fortress Munir 2013 Ltd. In 2016 a site plan agreement between the City and the new landowner was executed, the "(H)" Holding Symbol was removed and building permit applications were submitted for the Phase 1 Lands. However, the building permit applications were later abandoned by Fortress Munir 2013 Ltd.

Also in 2016, Fortress Munir 2013 Ltd. submitted applications for zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of condominium to facilitate the development of the rear developable portion ('Phase 2 Lands') of the subject lands for a common element condominium consisting of 25 townhouse units fronting onto an internal private road. Following the statutory public information meeting, held on November 14, 2016, the subject lands were acquired by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., and the processing of the applications for the Phase 2 Lands was put on hold. In July 2017, Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., submitted a revised proposal for the all of the developable lands.

4. Applicant's Proposal

The applicant proposes a 59 unit residential condominium on the developable portion of the subject lands. The concept plan illustrates 7 townhouse blocks consisting of 39 townhouse units with parking at the front of the units fronting onto an internal private road, and 20 rear lane townhouse units (11 units front onto Brock Road and 9 units front onto Usman Road) with parking at the rear of the dwelling units. All buildings are proposed to be 3 storeys in height, approximately 9.0 metres. The townhouse block proposed on the easterly portion of the site is proposed to have walkout basements and a 4-storey rear building elevation, approximately 10.0 metres. Two vehicular accesses to the development will be provided from the Usman Road (see Submitted Conceptual Plan, Attachment #3, and Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations, Front and Rear, Attachments #4 and #5).

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 in three areas within the development for a total of 16 parking spaces. The concept plan also includes a community mailbox area, a water meter room, a transformer, and a pedestrian walkway connection to Brock Road.


Th~ applicant has also submitted a revised Draft Plan of Condominium Application changing the condominium tenure from a common element condominium to a standard condominium. In accordance with Council Policy and Delegation By-law 7306/13, the Director, City Development has the authority to grant draft plan approval for plans of · condominium. Therefore, no further approvals are required from City Council.

The Draft Plan of Subdivision Application submitted by Fortress Munir 2013 Ltd. for this proposal to facilitate a common element condominium has· been closed as it is no longer required for the revised condominium proposal.

The development will be subject to site plan approval.

5. Policy Framework

5.1 Pickering Official Plan

The subject lands are within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood and are designated "Urban Residential Areas- Medium Density". This designation is intended primarily for residential uses and permits a maximum net residential density of over 30 and up to and including 80 units per net hectare. The permitted maximum floor space index (F81) is up to and including 2.5 FSI. The proposal will result in a net residential density of 45 units per net hectare, which falls within the permitted density range of the Urban Residential Areas -Medium Density.

The Brock Ridge Neighbourhood policies encourage a variety of housing forms. The policies also state that in the review of development applications situated north of the West Duffins Creek, east of Brock Road, City Council shall acknowledge the landowners' interest in maximizing the developable area of the property. Through the processing of the previous development applications the precise limits of development have been determined in consultation with the previous landowners, the City, and TRCA.

5.2 Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines

The Duffins Preci'nct Development Guidelines provide direction for detailed land use, transportation network, community design obj~ctives and servicing arrangements for the Precinct. The design objectives indicate that development in the Precinct must provide:

• a range of housing types including detached, semi-detached, town homes, and multi-unit dwellings

• streetscape and architectural designs that are aesthetically pleasing, diverse,· encourages social interaction within a neighbourhood, and supports safe environments

• development that embraces the natural environment '·

The Precinct is divided into five Development Areas with the intent' to establish development of a varied scale throughout the Precinct. The subject property is delineated as Development Area 5 on the Tertiary Plan. Area 5 is intended to accommodate· multi-unit, multi-floor buildings. Building heights permitted in Area 5 ranges from a minimum of 4 storeys to a maximum of 8 storeys. Variations to minimum and maximum building heights may be considered if it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the guidelines will be achieved.

3

4

Information Report No. 03-18 Page4

Detailed floodplain mapping by TRCA subsequent to Council's adoption of the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood Plim and the Duffins Precinct' Development Guidelines has resulted in realignment of the "top of bank" or development limit for the East Duffins Creek Valley closer to Brock Road in certain areas. This realignment of the development limits, among other matters, affects the proposed road pattern in the Precinct and the access to the lands subject of this report. The Duffins Precinct Tertiary Plan also shows future School and Park sites. The Durham District School Board and the Durham Catholic District School Board have indicated that the future School site is not needed. The location of the future Park site has been shifted to the residential sUbdivision presently under construction to the north of the subject lands. The Neighbourhood Plan and the Development Guidelines require amendment to reflect these changes.

The applicant's proposal will be reviewed in detail to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood policies and the relevant Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines.

5.3 Duffins Precinct Environmental Servicing Plan

In 2013, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update, Final Report (ESP Update) dated November 2012, prepared by Sernas Associates (now GHD}. The ESP Update recommends detailed technical strategies to address water resource issues including the protection of wetland features, hydrogeology and water balance, erosion sensitivity, aquatic habitat and headwater conditions, stormwater management strategies, phasing of stormwater facilities, and required monitoring. The applicant's proposal will be reviewed in detail to ensure compliance with the technical requirements and recommendations of the ESP Update.

5.4 Zoning By-law 3036

The subject lands are zoned, "RH/MU-3"- Multi Residential/Mixed Use, "OS-HL"- Open Space Hazard Lands, and "G"- Greenbelt Conservation, within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. Mixed commercial, office, and multiple residential uses are permitted within the "RH/MU-3" Zone. The "OS-HL" and "G" Zones restrict the use to recreational uses, preservation and conservation activities, and/or buildings or structures designed to be used for flood and erosion control, resource management, pedestrian trail, and parks and recreation purposes.

The applicant has requested that the developable portion of the subject lands be rezoned to an appropriate residential zone category in order to facilitate the proposal. As part of this rezoning lands zoned "G" will be rezoned to "OS-HL" to ensure that all of the valleylands that are to be conveyed are in an appropriate open space category.


6. Comments Received

6.1 Public Comments

Davies Howe LLP, on behalf of Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation, the developer of the adjacent lands to the north, submitted comments requesting that the City impose a condition of development approval requiring Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. to enter into the cost sharing agreement for the Duffins South Community or otherwise reimburse Kindwin for its proportionate share of development related costs including the installation of below ground services, stormwater drainage infrastructure, road ·works, related land dedications and associated soft costs that directly benefit the Brock Road Duffins . Forest Inc. lands.

6.2 Agency Comments

Region of Durham

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Durham District School Board

Durham Catholic District School Board

• as of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received

• as of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received

• no objection to the development proposal • approximately 30 elementary students could be

generated from the proposed development • the proposed development is within the boundary

areas of Lincoln Avenue Public School and Pickering· High School; both schools are located in Ajax

• no objection to the development proposal • students generated from the proposed development

will attend St. Wilfrid Catholic Elementary School and St. Mary Catholic Secondary School

6.3 City Departments Comments

As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received.

7. Planning & Design Section Comments

The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration:

• ensuring conformity with the City's Official Plan and Neighbourhood policies, Development Guidelines, and the Environmental Servicing Plan (ESP) Update ·

• ensuring that the limit of development, building setbacks and other technical requirements are to the satisfaction of TRCA

• evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed site layout • evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed 3 and 4-storey building heights against

the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines requirement of a minimum of 4 storeys to a maximum of 8 storeys.

5

6.


• reflecting the entirety of the valleylands to be conveyed in an "OS-HL"- Open Space Hazard Lands Zone

• ensuring that adequate resident and visitor parking is provided to support this development · ·

• ensuring the landowner pays its proportionate share of the development related costs • 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.

8. Information Received

Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for online viewing at pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the office of the City of Pickering, City-Development Department:

• Building Elevations, Perspective View and Floor Plans prepared by Kahn Partnership Architects Inc., dated 26 April2016

• Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by YCA Engineering Limited, dated December 2014 (revised October 2017)

• Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated November 27, 2014 (revision of report dated September 3, 2014)

• Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated December 18, 2014 ·

• Functional Service and Stormwater Management Implementation Report, prepared by Burnside, dated June 2016 (revised June 2017)

• Geotechnical Investigation- Preliminary Assessment prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated June 8, 2016 and Letter of Reliance for a Geotechnical Investigation Report prepar~d by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated September 5, 2017

• Grading Plan prepared by Burnside dated June 3, 2016 • Landscape Master Plan, prepared by Marton Smith Landscape Architects, dated

May 29, 2017 • Planning Justification Report, prepared by MHBC, dated July 2017 • Servicing Plan, prepared by Burnside, dated June 3, 2016 • Site Plan, prepared by Kahn Partnership Architects Inc., dated May 06, 2017 • Soil Investigation- Final, prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated July 2016 • ·Stages 1 and 2 Archaeological Report, prepared by A.M. Archaeological Associates,

dated July 8, 2009 (revised February 2011) • Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment and 4 Archaeological Mitigation Reports, prepared

by Archaeological & Cultural Heritage Services, dated October 4, 2016 and April 20, 2017 (respectively) ·

• Transportation Considerations, prepared by BA Group, dated June 8, 2017


9. Procedural Information

9.1 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 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 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

10. Owner/Applicant Information

· The owner of the property is Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. and is represented by Dana Anderson, MacNaughton Hemson Britton Clarkson ·Planning . ·

Attachments

1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Concept Plan 4. Submitted Conceptual Front Building Elevation 5. . Submitted Conceptual Rear Building Elevations

Prepared By:

Deborah W_ ie, MCIP, RPP Princip I Planner, Development Review

Nilesh . urtit CIP, RPP . Manager, Development Review & Urban Design

DW:Id

Date of Report: February 14, 2018

Approved/Endorsed By:

(1~~~ Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner

7

\ I

) \

I

7-,r-r--rM::.rAJ;;,;:O;.:.,;R OAKS ROAD

~\

-Cdt;4'P1CKER1NG

City Development Department

Location Map

VALLEY LANDS TO BE CONVEYED

TO.TRCA

File: CP-2016-04 R) &A 11/16 R Applicant:Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc.

I

Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Parts 1-12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) Date: Feb. 12, 2018

Ur~~~o::so;~~~:d~; :r ~~yje~tj ~~e~:e~~~~(;f~ar::a~~~~:pe:~:rt:~~~~~=cH~~~~·~r::s ~~!~~~/laMa! Kesow:es. SCALE: 1 :5, QQO I ~ Teranel Enterprises loo. and !ts &upp!f.!ts all rights reseNed.;@ Mun!dpal Property Asses&men!Corp-oration ard its supp[ero; al rlgtts reseMd.; THIS IS tlOT A PlAtl OF SURVEY.


_.. 0

--USMAN ROAD EXISTI NG RESIDENTIAL

I

I

I -- ---,....-. \ .

ol - ' ! 1 r ~ ,I "-'" '' ~ r j:.J'!, . ·-~ ~~

I

/-~~ ·t--___;;c__:j/ .... 1 {:J- J'!. l -~---~""~.-~·-·:•

I

, l ~~\', ~

' ~~ n\-

- .,. , -" •'llo'. ' -- .

-O~()~

p](KER1NG

,.,.

Submitted Concept Plan FILE No: CP-2016-04 (R) and A 11/16 (R) APPLICANT: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc.

1 I I 11-.. - .

-·- -~ .. .._,;r- - ... --J

• • N

(!)

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Par:ts 1-12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) City Development

Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Dec. 22, 201 7

~~ l...Y f "n'11

~ S; -··· ~-·.4'

~: ~r _;:; l~t.: ::, I " . ....~ \.)..j ~-1"

;S;j"-ll ;1·-- ;;;-

1&,-1..,\__

~\l)

Blocks A, B, C & D

-~ofPlCKERlNG


Submitted Conceptual Front Building Elevation FILE No: CP-2016-04 (R) and A 11/16 (R) APPLICANT: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Parts 1-12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road)

FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING I DATE: Feb. 15, 2018 CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. .

•ld:o ~ :::: m

,:i g. :~ 3 : ;. (l)

. ' :::l' .. ,.....

:ft: 0

Blocks A, C & D

Block B

-0~4-PlCKERlNG


Submitted Conceptual Rear Building Elevations FILE No: CP-2016-04 (R) and A 11/16 (R) APPLICANT: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Parts 1-12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road)

FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb. 15, 2018

j\:XJ

--c~~~ (JI-PlCKER1NG

Report to Planning & Development Committee

Report Number: PLN 04-18 Date: March 5, 2018

From:

Subject:

Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO

Request to Establish a Stormwater Management Pond in the City of Pickering to accommodate Stormwater from Lands in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA17.001 11731 10th Line Developments Limited (Fieldgate Developments) Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville City of Pickering File: A-2400-007

Recommendations:

1. That Draft Plan ofSubdivision 19T(W)-17.001 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA 17.001 submitted by Malone Given Parsons and Fieldgate Developments for lands in the southeast quadrant of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville to facilitate the development of 738 dwelling units, be received for information and comment;

2. That Pickering Council endorse in principle the proposal for Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 to establish a stormwater management pond within the geographic boundaries of the City of Pickering for a subdivision in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, subject to an appropriate agreement between the Owner of the subdivision lands, the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, and the City of Pickering;

3. That the City of Pickering advise the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville that it has no objection to the approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001, subject to the imposition of the following condition of draft approval:

"That prior to registration of any part of the plan tributary to a stormwater facility in the City of Pickering, the Owner of lands subject to Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 and the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville enter into an agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering respecting various matters including:

a. that the Owner and the Town of Whitchurch~Stouffville indemnify the City of Pickering with respect to any liability arising from any aspect of locating the stormwater management pond in Pickering;

b. that the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville assume the stormwater pond regardless of whether it owns the lands; and

c .. that the Owner provide appropriate financial compensation to the City of Pickering, including if required, any external legal fees;"

4. That the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, and the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to negotiate the agreement and bring it back for Council's approval;

13

Report PLN 04-18 March 5, 2018

Subject: Stormwater Pond in Pickering to Serve Whitchurch-Stouffville Page 2

5. That the Owner of Draft Plan of Subdivision' 19T(W)-17.001 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA 17.001 and the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville be advised that they are obliged to ensure that the installation of the stormwater management pond complies with all relevant planning and development approvals including the Federal equivalents of satisfactory completion of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and Phase 2 if required, and cultural and heritage resource inventories and impact assessments and mitigation if required; and

6. That a copy of Report PLN 04-18 of the Director, City Development & CBO be forwarded to the Town ofWhitchurch-Stouffville, 11731101h Line Developments Limited, Transport Canada, and the Rouge National Urban Park.

Executive Summary: The City received a request for comments on applications for a proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment for lands located in the southeast corner of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, adjacent to the City of Pickering (see Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Location Map, Attachment #1). The proposal is for 738 dwelling units.

An unusual aspect of this proposal is the request to build the stormwater management pond for the proposed subdivision, on lands located within the City of Pickering (see Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Map Showing Location of Proposed Stormwater Pond in Pickering, Attachment #2). The pond in Pickering would be along the same watercourse that the subdivision drains to but meanders across the York-Durham boundary (York Regional Road 30). It is also understood that it may allow decommissioning of an existing stormwater pond directly north of the proposed subdivision with that stormwater redirected to the new facility in Pickering. The new pond would be approximately 4 hectares in size, and is proposed on lands currently owned by Public Works Canada (as part of Transport Canada's holdings), that are earmarked to be transferred to the Rouge National Urban Park. The location of the pond in Pickering would allow the development to accommodate approximately 50 to 80 additional lots.

Senior staff from the City and the Town met along with representatives for the Owner and concluded there was merit and agreement in principle to pursue the stormwater pond location in Pickering, providing the critical matters have been adequately addressed, including indemnification for the City with respect to liability, the Town's assumption of the pond regardless of who owns the land, and appropriate compensation to the City.

Accordingly, this Report recommends that Council: endorse locating the stormwater management pond in Pickering; authorize staff to negotiate an appropriate agreement between the City with the Owner of the subdivision lands and the Town, and bring the agreement back to City Council for approval; and request the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville to impose a condition of draft approval on the subdivision to address the requirement for the agreement to be registered on title to the subdivision lands prior to the registration any lands within of the Plan draining to the stormwater facility in Pickering.

Financial Implications: The exact amount of compensation is subject to negotiation of the agreement between the parties. ·

14



Discussion:

1.0 The City received circulation of applications from the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

On April 11, 2017, the City received a circulation notice and request for comments from the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville regarding proposed applications Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001 and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 17.001 (see Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Location Map, Attachment #1 ). The applications were submittE3d to Whitchurch-Stouffville, by Malone Given Parsons and Fieldgate Developments on behalf of the property Owner 11731 1oth Line Developments Limited.

The applications were submitted to facilitate the development of 665 detached dwellings, 56 townhouses, 16 live-work townhomes, and the protection of an existing heritage home on lot (for a total of 738 dwelling units).

The lands subject of the applications have an area of36.9 hectares, and are located in the southeast corner of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. The south boundary of the development abuts the City of Markham. The east boundary of the development abuts York-Durham Town line Road (York Regional Road 30) with the City of Pickering to the east of Town line Road.·

2.0 An uncommon stormwater management strategy is proposed

·Local municipalities have jurisdiction for stormwater management and the local storm sewer system. Once constructed and functioning properly, stormwater ponds are usually assumed by, and conveyed to, the local municipality so they can operate and maintain the pond. However, the applications from 11730 1oth Line Developments Limited propose thatthe stormwater management pond to handle the stormwater from the eastern portion of the site be located on lands physically located with the City of Pickering (see Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Map Showing Location of Proposed Stormwater Pond in Pickering, Attachment #2). This location is within the drainage shed of the watercourse the eastern portion of the subdivision is tributary to. A similar arrangement was entered into by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and the City of Markham to enable optimization of another subdivision to the west of the subject lands.

Additionally, we understand there has been dialogue on abandoning the storm pond which abuts the subdivision to the north from the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, and rehabilitate the land for park purposes. The stormwater that was treated in the northerly pond would flow through the new subdivision to the new pond in Pickering.

On May 17, 2017, staff provided preliminary comments to the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville on the applications. The comments identified a number of planning matters to be addressed to justify the location of the stormwater pond in Pickering, and acknowledged a number of practical matters that would need to be addressed should the pond location in Pickering proceed.

15

Report PLN 04-18

Subject: Stormwater Pond in Pickering to Serve Whitchurch-Stouffville

March 5,2018

Page4

Initially, the proposed pond location was on privately-owned lands east of the subdivision. This location has challenges including compliance with zoning, the Pickering Official Plan, and the Greenbelt/Oak Ridges Moraine Plans. Subsequently, another site was identified nearby on lands currently owned by the Public Works Canada for which the Memorandum of Agreement with Parks Canada et al., accommodates certain permitted infrastructure uses. This property is part of the Transport Canada assembly that is being conveyed to the Rouge National Urban Park. This is now the preferred location for the pond in Pickering.

As a result of discussions between senior staff from the municipalities and the developer, it was concluded that there is merit and agreement in principle to pursue the stormwater pond location in Pickering .

. 3.0 Council's concurrence and agreement between the parties will be required

The City of Pickering has no interest in assuming the long term operation and maintenance responsibility for a stormwater pond that is handlingstormwater from an adjoining municipality. The pond will need to be assumed by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville regardless of who owris the land (Public Works Canada or Parks Canada).

Accordingly, should Council concur there is merit is allowing the pursuit of a stormwater pond in Pickering, an agreement between 11730 101h Line Developments Limited, the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and the City must be entered into indemnifying the City from any liability arising from any aspect of locating the stormwater management pond in Pickering. The agreement should also require the Town to assume the pond.

By locating the stormwater pond in Pickering (and not in the subdivision), there is greater ability to accommodate growth within the Stouffville's urban boundary. The City should receive some financial compensation for agreeing to locate the pond in Pickering. Therefore, the agreement mentioned above should also include a clause that the Owner provide financial compensation in an amount satisfactory to the City of Pickering, including if required, external legal fees.

Staff recommends that Council advise the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and the Owner of the subdivision lands that Pickering Council concurs there is merit in allowing the. developer to pursue a stormwater pond in Pickering. It is recommended that Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, and the Director, Finance & Treasurer to negotiate the agreement and bring it back to Council for approval.

4.0 The City needs to impose a condition on Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T(W)-17.001

1 6

Staff has no other concerns or comments respecting the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment. However, to secure the agreement mentioned above, the City needs to impose a condition of draft approval for application 19T(W)-17.001.



Staff recommends that Council advise the Town that it has no objection to the draft approval of the plan of subdivision subject to the inclusion of a condition of draft approval requiring the above-noted agreement to be finalized to the satisfaction of the City and registered on title to the Owner of the subdivision lands.

Staff also recommends that Council advise the Owner of the subdivision lands and the Town . that they are obliged to ensure that the installation of stormwater pond complies with all

relevant planning and development approvals, given its proposed location on Federally-owned lands earmarked to be transferred to the Rouge National Urban Park. It is understood that the City of Pickering, as a party to the Memorandum of Agreement with Parks Canada et al.,

. .(wh.ich sets out various matters including the permitted iQfra~tructure uses in the Park), may need to be the applicantfor the infrastructure request. ·

Lastly, staff recomrnends that a copy of this Report and Council's resolution on the matter be forwardedto the Town ofWhitchurch-Stouffville, 11731 101h Line Developments Limited, Transport Canada and the Rouge National Urban Park.

Attachments:

1. Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Location Map 2. Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Map Showing Location of Proposed Stormwater Pond in

Pickering

Prepared By:

·f~~ f:v---- . Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner

CR:Id

Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council


:)A.~· Kyle Bentley, P.Eng. Director, City Development & CBO

u &J_,4,2£>/13 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer

17

ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT# fLN 04..,.16_

· T Q. w· n Q f W h. i t. Q. b l;tf· Q h .. S t. o u_ f f v· i II e Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision · and Zoning By-fqw Amendment

11731 Tenth Line Lot 32, Concession 1 0 File Nos. 19T(W)-17.001 &. ZBA 16.017

18

Region of

0 ... 7.0 .. 1~40~===2~8·0----·42~

Prod.uced By: Developinenl SE!IVices, 2017 ®Copyright, Town of Whlfchurch-Stoulfvllle ®Copyright, The Regional Munlclpa(lly' of York

AGR!CUL TURAL

__. (0

Geographic Township of INhllc:hurch Now in The

Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Regional Municipality_ of York

fiDt

sn 100 150 200m

'""""""'"""!!!!!!'!!'Iii=~!!'!"!

Prepued by:

• MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 140Ronfrow0rtvo,Sulto201 Morkham,Ontario.l3R6B3 Tol:{905)513-0170 . · v.ww.mgp.c:!

D;,lo: Feb9,2018

ProjectNo:1S.2555

NTS

:::0)> rr'-f \:'-f 0):> :on -l:z: ,..,:;,;:

m z -f

d~~ " 2 -,

:~ I-f

~0

I

~~Cdyof-

PJCKERJNG Report to

Planning & Development Committee

From:

Subject:



Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/17 City Initiated Amendment to Zoning By-law 2511: Maximum Building Height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones

Recommendation:

1. That City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/17 to add maximum building height provisions for lands zoned "R3" and "R4" within Zoning By-law 2511, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 06-18, be endorsed; and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward the implementing Zoning By-law Amendment to Council for enactment.

Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to seek final Council approval of the City initiated amendment to Zoning By-law 2511, as set out in Appendix I, to add a maximum building height of 9.0 metres for all lands zoned "R3" and "R4" that are not subject to a site specific by-law;

. and to add a site specific exception allowing a maximum building height of 9.5 metres for lands ·within Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2017-03.

Through focus group discussions with the community, maximum building height was identified as one of the key criteria in ensuring compatibility of new infill and replacement housing in established neighbourhoods. Homes in the Rosebank, West Shore and Bay Ridges Neighbourhoods were built over a range of years. However, most were built between the 1970s and 1990s. These neighbourhoods have been experiencing a shift over the last several years as a result of new larger and taller homes built through infill and replacement housing. Consequently, local residents have starting raising concerns that these new homes are not compatible with the predominant character of these neighbourhoods.

Zoning By-law 2511 currently does not regulate maximum building height for parts of the established neighbourhoods of Rosebank, West Shore and Bay Ridges: The draft implementing Zoning By-law Amendment, set out in Appendix I, provides an interim measure until further policy, zoning and other tools are developed through the lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study to address transition between existing older housing stock and new contemporary housing development.

Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this report.

20


Subject: City Initiated Amendment to Zoning By-law 2511: Page 2 Maximum Building Height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones

Discussion:

1. Background

1.1 Property Description

The subject lands are zoned "R3"- Residential Third Density Zone and "R4"- Residential Fourth Density Zone within the Rosebank, West Shore and Bay Ridges Neighbourhoods, as identified in Attachments #1, #2 and #3 respectively. The Rosebank, West Shore and Bay Ridges Neighbourhoods are located within the South Pickering Urban Area.

1.2 Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Amendment

Draft amendments to Zoning By-law 2511, as set out in Appendix I, add a maximum building height of 9.0 metres to the "R3"and "R4" Zones; and add a site specific exception to the "R4" Zone allowing a maximum building height of 9.5 metres for lands within the

· Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2017-03. All other properties within the "R3" and "R4" Zones that have a site specific by-law regulating maximum building height will continue to have that provision regulated by their site specific by-law.

2. Public Consultation and Comments

2.1 October 30, 2017 Open House and November 6, 2017 Public Meeting

Notice of an Open House and Public Meeting was placed on the City's website and on the Community Page of the News Advertiser in the October 11, 2017 and October 18, 2017 editions. Notice was also mailed to all interested parties that attended the September 5, 2017 meeting of the Planning & Development Committee when Report PLN 15-17 on "lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods" was considered.

The Open House meeting was held on Monday, October 30, 2017 to inform area residents and the public about the proposed amendments to Zoning By-law 2511 and receive feedback: Approximately 25 people attended the Open House.

On November 6, 2017, approximately 50 people attended the Statutory Public Information Meeting, at which 1 0 residents spoke or made a presentation regarding the proposed amendments to Zoning By-law 2511.

2.2 Written Submissions

Sixteen written submissions were also.received. Attachment #4 outlines the. written submissions and staff's response.

2.3 Summary of Public Comments

The following is a summary of the key comments provided at the Open House, Public Meeting and through written submissions.

21

22



2;3.1 Maximum Height

Support for setting a 9.0 metre maximum building height:

Most of the comments support a 9.0 metre maximum building height. Comments cited concern over shadowing caused by larger, taller homes on adjacent existing homes and the negative impact that these larger homes could have on the existing character of established low-rise neighbourhoods. Comments were also made that the 9.0 metre maximum building height should be applied beyond the "R3" and "R4" Zones, including applying the standard to semi-detached and linked dwellings and replacing the 10.5 metre maximum building height in Zoning By-law 2520 with 9.0 metres so that it is in keeping with most of the existing homes in the area. There were also some comments that the method for measuring height should be reviewed.

Many people noted that implementing a 9.0 metre maximum building height is a good start and that they are eager to have the City undertake the lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study so that other matters related to compatibility can be comprehensively addressed.

Requests to consider a 10.5 metre maximum building height:

Some people noted that a 10.5 metre maximum building height is more appropriate to accommodate the type of housing product that consumers want, specifically homes with 2.7 and 3.0 metre (9 and 10 foot) ceilings. It was also noted that a 9.0 metre maximum building height may restrict certain architectural styles and the achievement of various roof types. There was some concern that establishing a maximum building height of 9.0 metres would decrease property values and that it would be more appropriate to establish a 10.5 metre maximum building height until the lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study is complete.

2.3.2 Compatibility and Character

Several comments made regarding other matters impacting neighbourhood character are outside the scope of this Zoning By-law Amendment and will be addressed through the lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. These comments include: concern regarding how building height is measured; concern that grading of new lots result in an established grade that is higher than that of adjacent properties; support for the preservation of existing trees; and lack of support for reducing setbacks.

2.3.3 Other Matters

Other key comments made that are outside the scope of this Zoning By-law Amendment include: a request to Council to consider Durham Region's Age-Friendly Community Plan; concern that the development of larger homes affects housing affordability and property values; a request to consider not having basements in areas prone to flooding; and concern with the high density proposal on Wharf Street and the future development at the base of Liverpool Road.



3 City Departments and Agency Comments

3.1 City of Pickering Engineering Services Department

Engineering Services had no objection to the proposed amendment. Lot grading plans in support of building permits and planning, applications are reviewed by the Water Resources & Development Services Division to ensure the Development Control Design Standards and the Stormwater Management Design Guidelines are met.

3.2 Region of Durham

The Region of Durham noted that applicable designations in the Regional Official Plan for the subject lands include "Living Areas", "Waterfront Areas", and "Waterfront PlacesFrenchman's Bay". They also noted that the proposed amendment appears to conform to the Regional Official Plan.

3.3 Enbridge Gas

Enbridge Gas had no objection to the proposed amendment.

3.4 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) ·

The TRCA had no comments or concerns with the proposed amendment.

· 4. Planning Analysis

4.1 Proposal Conforms to Pickering Official Plan

The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Urban Residential Areas- Low Density Areas" within the Rosebank, West Shore, and Bay Ridges Neighbourhoods. Lands within this designation are intended primarily for housing. Official Plan policies with regard to community design encourage developments that are designed to fit their contexts by considering matters such as massing, height, and·scale. Also, specific policies for the Rosebank Neighbourhood encourage new development to be compatible with the character of existing development. The uses permitted. in the "R3" and "R4" Zones of By-law 2511 are limited to detached dwellings. The draft implementing Zoning By-law Amendment conforms to the policies of the Pickering Official Plan.

4.2 The Need to Implement a Zoning By-law Amendment

Over the past several decades, the size and height of houses have increased due to changes in building construction techniques, engineering practicE?s for lot grading, market trends and consumer preferences for higher interior ceiling heights. Image 1 illustrates this general trend. This has resulted in situations, experienced by many municipalities, where the height and scale of new homes in mature, established low-rise neighbourhoods can be considerably taller than adjacent existing homes.

23

24


Subject: City Initiated Amendment to Zoning By-law 2511: Maximum Building Height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones

Page 5

Image 1: Trend in Changes to Building Heights (Source: City of Edmonton)

PRE 1970 1970.2000 2000 ·PRESENT

8'-1" to 9'-1" for Upper Floors

9'-1" to 10'-1" for Main Floor Height

Comments provided at the Open House and Public Meeting as well as written submissions strongly identify building height as a chief concern with respect to the impact larger homes have on the character of a neighbourhood.

Zoning By-law 2511 currently does not regulate maximum building height for parts of the established neighbourhoods of Rosebank, West Shore and Bay Ridges. The introduction of a maximum building height provision is an import;:mt step as an interim measure to address this deficiency in Zoning By-law 2511 and to address resident concerns.

Maximum building height provisions, among other matters, will be further reviewed through the lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study which will examine neighbourhoods in the South Pickering Urban Area.

Many noted at the Open House and Public Meeting that they are anxious for the City to undertake the lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study to address the impacts new housing has on the character of established neighbourhoods, and agree that adding an interim maximum building height provision is a step in the right direction.

4.2.1 Proposing a Maximum Building Height

Staff considered all of the comments expressed through the Open House, Public Meeting and written submissions, as well as comments received from the agency circulation. Staff also reviewed site specific amendments establishing a maximum building height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones of Zoning By-law 2511 passed since the year 2000, and found that many were for 9.0 metres or less.

Most of the individuals who provided comments at the Open House, Public Meeting and through written submissions support a maximum building height of 9.0 metres, indicating it will provide a reasonable transition between new contemporary housing development and older existing residential development. There were also concerns expressed that a maximum building height of 9.0 metres is too restrictive considering modern construction methods and that 10.0 or 10.5 metres would allow some flexibility to address local conditions and would facilitate homeowner desires to have higher interior floor to ceiling heights.

Draft Implementing

Zoning By-law Amendment

Appendix I to Report PLN 06-18

27

28

Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham (A 09/17)

Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering initiated an application to regulate maximum building height within the "R3" and "R4" Zone categories within Zoning By-law 2511;

And whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it advisable to amend By-law 2511 to regulate the maximum building height within the "R3" and "R4" Zone categories; .

Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows:

1. Schedule I

·Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is hereby declared to be part of this By-law. ·

2. Area Restricted

The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands designated "R3"- Residential Third Density and. "R4"- Residential Fourth Density by By-law 2511.

3. Text Amendments

Section 9.2 and 1 0.2, are hereby amended, by incorporating the following subparagraphs to the Area Requirements of "R3" and "R4" Zones as follows:

(1) 9.2. 7 Building Height:

Maximum- 9.0 metres

(2) 10.2.7 Building Height:

Maximum- 9.0 metres

(3) New Subsection 1 0.3.6 is hereby added to provide a site specific exception as follows:

10.3.6 Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 & 26, Plan 350 (Now Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4 of Plan 40R-29501)

By-law No. XXXX/18 Page 2

Notwithstanding the provision for maximum building height in Subsection 1 0.2.7, lands as shown on Schedule I to By-law XXX/18 shall have a maximum building height of 9.5 metres. ·

4. By-law 2511 . . .

By-law 2511, as amended , is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2511 , as amended.

5. Effective Date

This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2018.

David Ryan, Mayor

Debbie Shields, City Clerk

29

(.1.

)

0

- -

Lytto

n C

ourt

Ro

ug

em

ou

nt

Dri

ve 1--

--1

1-1

> !'.l

1--

--1

13

92.9

m

, a ::!.

~- 0 0 c ;::;.

Cha

ntill

y R

oad

Oa

kwo

od

Dri

ve

Rosebank- Lands Zoned ·R3 & R4

CJ Rosebank Neighbourhood

CJ R3Zone

R4 Zone ....__-----1

1:10,000 0 125 . 250 I I I I

500 Metres I

West Shore - Lands Zoned R3 & R4

D West Shore Neighbou

D R3 Zone 1:15,000 R4 Zone 0 125 250 500 Metres

I I I I I I I I I

Bay Ridges - Lands Zoned R3 & R4

D Bay Ridges Neighbourho

0 R3Zone

R4 Zone

1:15,000 0 125 250 500 Metres I I I I I I I I I

Staff Response to Written Submissions

Commenter Written Submission Staff Response

1. Marshall a) 9.0 metres is not sufficient when considering a) Based on staff's research a 9.0 metre maximum Homes modern construction methods; the maximum building height can accommodate a modern

_ height should be 10.5 metres. two-storey dwelling.

b) Between building code changes, raised heels for b) See staff response a) above. better insulation, basement heights for flooding, and homeowner preference, an additional 1.5 metres can be expected on new construction.

c) A new two-storey home will be approximately c) See staff response a) above. 1 0.5 metres in height.

-~

d) The home value of properties in Bay Ridges and d) A correlation cannot be conclusively made between West Shore had been steadily increasing until the initiation of establishing a maximum building September 2017, when the Amending By-law was height in the "R3" and "R4" Zones of By-law 2511 announced; a height limit of 9.0 metres will and housing prices in the Bay Ridges and West substantially reduce property values. Shore neighbourhoods. Other influences, such as

market forces, rising interest rates and Ontario's Fair Housing Plan may be contributing factors.

2. Resident- a) Concerned that some areas not covered by the a) Staff research showed that only properties zoned Timmins proposed zoning amendment. "R3" and "R4" under By-law 2511, not already Gardens subject to site specific building height limits, had

no restriction on maximum building height.

3. Resident- a) Why is the area west of Frenchman's Bay a) The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment only Essa excluded from ·the zoning amendment? Several applies to lands zoned "R3" and "R4" under Zoning Crescent three-storey houses are being built in that area. By-law 2511 which have no maximum height

provisions. Lands west of Frenchman's Bay are within Zoning By-law 2520 which has a maximum building height limit of 1 0.5 metres for all residential zones.


4. Resident- a) Strongly against many new proposals in Bay a) The lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Ann land Ridges that are not in keeping with neighbourhood, Neighbourhoods Study will examine the broader Street remove trees, are too tall and will have parking issues of character and transitioning

issues. neighbourhoods.

b) Does not like the three-storey dwelling at b) Comment noted. 663 Pleasant Street.

c) A two-storey, 9.0 metre tall dwelling would be c) Comment noted. acceptable.

5. Resident- a) ·Very happy with a maximum height of 9.0 metres. a) Comment noted. Pleasant Street b) Many homes have been built that look out of b) The lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established

place and infringe on neighbours' privacy. Neighbourhoods Study will examine the broader issues of character and transitioning

' neighbourhoods.

6. Resident- a) Does not want a height restriction placed on her a) The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is an Front Road property, as it may impact resale value along Front interim measure until the lnfill and Replacement

Road. Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study either confirms that 9.0 metres is an appropriate building height limit or recommends a different building height limit.

7. Resident- a) Disappointed that the City has not done statistical a) Analysis regarding building heights for Victory studies to determine optimum building height for neighbourhoods in the South Pickering Urban Drive individual neighbourhoods. Area will be undertaken through the lnfill and

Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study.

b) Concerned that the way height is measured (to b) The definition of height will be reviewed through the mid-point of the roof) does not capture how the lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established height wiU impact neighbourhood perspective. Neighbourhoods Study.


c) Height should be measured to the peak of the c) See staff response b) above. house, rather than the mid-point of the roof.

d) Roof ornaments or mechanical equipment should d) See staff response b) above. be covered by the maximum height requirement.

8. Resident- a) Approves of adding a building height limit along a) Comment noted. Pleasant Street is zoned "R4" in Pleasant Pleasant Street. By-law 2511 and would be subject to the proposed Street Zoning By-law Amendment that would limit

building height to 9.0 metres.

9. Resident- a) Would like to see maximum height standardized a) The lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Leas ide between Zoning By-laws; the proposed· height Neighbourhoods Study will examine the South Street restriction of 9 metres should also apply to lands Pickering Urban Area, which encompasses By-law

under By-law 2520, not just By-law 2511. 2520. Currently, By-law 2520 has a maximum building height of 10.5 metres.

b) Concerned about some homes with above grade b) See staff response a) above. cellars/basements.

10. Resident- a) Concerned that builders will get around the a) The "R3" and "R4" Zones only permit detached Front Road proposed height restriction' because the restriction dwellings. They do not permit "attached" ·

will only apply to detached dwellings. Builder will dwellings.

t I

build "attached" dwellings instead to get around the height limit.

11. Resident- a) Uncertain what the rationale is for measuring a) Measuring building height as the vertical distance Cliffview building height to the mid-point and not the peak of between the established grade to the mid-point of Road the roof. peaked roof is common in municipal zoning by-laws.

The rationale is that that even though a peaked roof would extend higher than a flat roof of the same height the mass of the two buildings would be approximately equal. Measuring to the midpoint also encourages a variety of roofstyles.

c..:> (0

Commenter

14. Resident -Westshore Boulevard

15. Resident-Pleasant Street

Written· Submission

g) Land should not be raised so as to increase absolute height.

h) The City Development Department should review all rebuilds and infills.

a) The proposed height is too short; it will devalue their property by restricting the size of a home to be built in the future

a) Concerned about much of the infill construction occurring in their neighbourhood.

b) The house at the corner of Pleasant Street and Ann land Street is an example of bad design and a house out of character.

c) In addition to height restrictions, homes should be made to suit the neighbourhood.

Staff Response

g) Grading of lots for new homes is undertaken to facilitate proper overland storm drainage from the lot to the street without impacting adjacent properties. The effect of the lot grading increases the relative difference in height between a new and existing building and will be considered in the broader context of neighbourhood character through the lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study.

h) All development is reviewed by the City Development Department.

a) The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is an interim measure until the lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study either confirms that 9.0 metres is an appropriate building height limit or recommends a different building height limit.

a) The intent of the forthcoming lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study is to examine what would constitute appropriate infill in the City's mature, established neighbourhoods. The Study is . intended to look at neighbourhood. character and review matters such massing, height, and scale.

b) Comment noted, also see staff response a) above.

c) See staff response a) above.


d) The house at 660 Pleasant Street is an example d) Comment noted. of good infill.

e) A 9.0 metre height limit is a good start, but e) Staff have recommended a 9.0 metre maximum 8.0 metres would be even better. building height as a means to provide a

reasonable transition between new contemporary housing development and older existing residential development.

16. Resident- a) Streets with trees and greenery increase human a) Landscaping design elements may be a matter Simpson life span. Large trees are destroyed to addressed in the lnfill and Replacement Housing Avenue accommodate massive new buildings and front in Established Neighbourhoods Study.

yards are paved over for new infill developments.

b) Over the past few years builders have been b) The intent of the forthcoming lnfill and pushing the envelope with height and size of new Replacement Housing in Established buildings. Neighbourhoods Study is to examine what would

constitute appropriate infill in the City's mature, ·established neighbourhoods. The Study is intended to look at neighbourhood character and review matters such massing, height, and scale.

c) Would like to see a 2 year halt on development for c) Staff are recommending a 9.0 metre maximum the City to determine how to maintain the health building height for lands zoned "R3" and "R4" in and wellbeing of citizens. Zoning By-law 2511 and are proceeding with the

lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study.

d) A temporary solution which can be amended d) Comment noted. down the road is better.

-C~6~pJ(KERJNG



From:

Subject:


Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2017-03 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26, Plan 350

Recommendation:

1. · That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2017 -03, submitted by Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. on lands being Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26, Plan 350, to establish a residential plan of subdivision consisting of 7 lots for detached dwellings as shown on Attachment #3 to Report PLN 05-18 and the implementing conditions of approval as set out in Appendix I, be endorsed.

Executive Summary: The subject lands are located on the west side of Frontier Court, east of Rougemount Drive, north of Toynevale Road and south of Highway 401 within the Rosebank Neighbourhood (see Lo~ation Map, Attachment #1).

. . Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. has submitted an application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a residential development consisting of seven lots for detached dwellings fronting onto an extension of Frontier Court (see Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #3).

Staff support the proposed draft plan of subdivision. The proposal demonstrates appropriate lotting pattern, lot sizes and lot frontages. The existing zoning standards which are proposed to remain the same, will ensure that the future dwellings will be in keeping with the character of the surrounding residential comm.unity. The applicant is proposing two-storey detached dwellings having maximum building heights of 9.5 metres whichis in keeping with the existing zoning in the area. The proposal implements the policies of the Official Plan and is consistent With the Rosebank Neighbourhood policies. ·

Accordingly, staff recommends that Council approve the Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2017-03 and endorse the implementing conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix I.

Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this report.

41

42


Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Page 2

1. Background

1.1 Property Description

The subject lands are located on the west side of Frontier Court, east of Rougemount Drive, north of Toynevale Road and south of Highway 401 within the Rosebank Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands have an area of approximately 0.66 of a hectare and were created through a land assembly facilitated by various land division applications. The land division applications severed the rear yards of three properties (653, 655 and 661 Rougemount Drive) to the west fronting Rougemount Drive. Additional lands on the south side of Highway 401 were acquired from the Ministry of Transportation (MTO): There are currently no structures on the subject lands. However, there are a number of mature trees located on the site.

Surrounding land uses to the east, west and south include low density residential development consisting of one and two-storey detached dwellings. Immediately to the north is Highway 401 (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2).

1.2 Applicant's Proposal

The applicant is proposing a residential development consisting of seven lots for detached dwellings fronting onto the extension of Frontier Court (see Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #3). The proposed lot frontages will be approximately 15.2 metres and lot areas will range between 518 square metres and 976 square metres. Frontier Court is proposed to be extended approximately 30.0 metres to the west terminating in a cul-de-sac.

A remnant parcel of land west of Lot 5 will be created through the proposed development. The applicant has indicated that the remnant parcel is intended to be conveyed to the abutting landowner to the south at 661 Rougemount Drive upon registration of the draft plan.

The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing zoning standards which are the same as the abutting properties to the west and south and similar to the existing zoning standards of the adjacent properties to the east fronting onto Frontier Court (see Existing "R4" Zone Provisions, Attachment #4).

2. Comments Received

2.1 October 2, 2017 Public Information Meeting, and Written Submissions

A Public Information Meeting was held on October 2, 2017 at which two residents attended to express their concerns regarding ·the proposed development.

The following is a summary of key concerns and comments:

• the resident at 401 Frontier Court expressed concerns that the building height and massing of the proposed dwelling on Lot 1 would have a.negative visual impact on their property as their home is a bungalow and requested that the dwelling on Lot 1 be restricted to a bungalow



• concerned that the existing adjacent residential lots will be impacted by storm drainage from the proposed development

• concerned about the loss of existing trees on the subject lands • requested clarification regarding the construction management practices to ensure

construction impacts such as dust, noise, mud tracking, parking of construction vehicles and other related construction activities are minimized

2.2 City Departments and Agency Comments

2.2.1 Region of Durham

• the Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Living Areas", which shall be used predominately for housing purposes

• sanitary sewer and municipal WC\ter supply is available to service the proposed lots • the Region has no objection to draft approval of the subdivision plan and has

provided its conditions of draft approval • as a condition of approval, a Record of Site Condition Compliant Phase Two

Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is required to further examine two areas of potential environmental concern identified by the Phase One ESA prepared by Soil Engineers Limited, which include: the past use of pesticides for farming purposes and a dry cleaner located approximately 171 metres north of the site

• as a condition of approval, the filing of a Record of Site Condition with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change may also be required

• the Region will also require a completed Reliance Letter and Certificate of Insurance to extend reliance to the Region for the environmental work

2.2.2 City of Pickering Engineering Services Department

• no objection to the proposal subject to the conditions of draft approval provided • the owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise of the

City of Pickering including, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the owner and the City concerning the provision and installation of roads, services, grading, drainage, utilities, tree compensation, construction management, cash in-lieu of parkland, noise attenuation and any other required matters

2.2.3 Durham Catholic District School Board

• no objections to the proposal • students from this development will attend Father Fenelon Catholic Elementary

School located at 795 Eyer Drive and St. Mary Catholic Secondary School located at 1918 Whites Road

43

44

Report PLN 05-18

Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd.

2.2.4 Durham District School Board

• · no objections to the proposal

March 5, 2018

Page 4

• students from this development will be accommodated within existing schools

2.2.5 Ministry of Transportation (MTO)

• no objection to the proposal • as condition of a draft approval, the owner shall submit a detailed stormwater

management report in accordance with MTO Stormwater Management Requirements for review and approval

• as a condition of draft approval, the owner shall submit a traffic impact study to assess site impacts on Highway 401 operations and ensure that appropriate mitigation, if required, is provided for

• requests that the following Note to Draft Approval be included: • MTO Building & Land Use permits are required for all lots within a 395 metre

radius of any Highway 401 intersection; MTO permits are also required prior to site grading/servicing/internal road construction and for site signs

3. Planning Analysis

3.1 The proposal conforms to the policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan and the Neighbourhood Development Guidelines

The subjects lands are within the Rosebank Neighborhood and are designated "Urban Residential Areas- Low Density Areas" within the Pickering Official Plan, which provides for housing and related uses. This designation permits a density of up to and including 30 units per net hectare. However, theRosebank Neighbourhood policies restrict lands west of Rosebank Road to the development and infilling of single detached dwellings and establishes a maximum residential density of 17 units per net hectare. The proposal is for 7 lots for detached dwellings having a density of approximately 12.5 units per net hectare.

The Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines identify three distinct Design Precincts, each having their own separate guideline requirements. The majority of the subject lands are situated within Design Precinct No. 2, except for the northerly portions of proposed Lots 5, 6 and 7 which are situated within Design Precinct No. 1. The guidelines outline that residential development within both precincts shall be limited to detached dwellings only and that all new lots shall have minimum lot frontages of approximately 15.0 metres and minimum lot depths ranging between 30.0 metres and 36.0 metres. The proposed lots will have a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres and lot depths ranging between 30.0 metres and 48.0 metres, which comply with the requirements of the Rose bank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines.

ReportPLN 05-18 March 5, 2018


The Official Plan also states that where new development is proposed within an existing neighbourhood or established area City Council shall encourage building design that reinforces and complements existing built patterns such as form, massing, height proportion, position relative to the street, and building area to site ratio. The applicant is proposing to develop the lots in accordance with the current "R4" zoning provisions (see Existing "R4" Zoning Provisions, Attachment #4). The existing zoning of the subject la.nds is the same as the abutting properties to the west and south and are similar to the existing zone standards of the adjacent properties to the east, fronting onto Frontier Court. Utilizing the existing "R4" zone standards will ensure that the future built form will be in keeping with the existing pattern of development within the surrounding area with respect to lot frontage, lot size, yard setbacks and lot coverage.

3.2 Proposed building height will be compatible with the existing building heights within the immediate area

As noted above, the applicant is proposing to maintain the existing "R4" zone provisions. The existing "R4" zoning standards do not have a maximum building height requirement. The abutting properties to the west and south are also zoned "R4" and are occupied by detached bungalows and two-storey dwellings. The lands to the east are subject to site specific Zoning By-law 5688/00, which restricts dwelling heights to 9.0 metres except for the 3 properties on the south side of Frontier Court, where the maximum height of a dwelling is limited to 6.0 metres.

At the September 11, 2017 Council meeting, Council approved the recommendations of Report PLN 15-17 (lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods). One of the approved recommendations authorized staff to initiate a zoning by-law amendment to the general provisions of By-law 2511 to add a maximum building height where the site specific zoning amendments do not regulate maximum building height.

At th~ November 6, 2017 Planning & Development Committee Meeting, the City Development Department presented an Information Report that proposed t<;:> amend the general provisions of By law 2511 to add a maximum building height requirement of 9.0 metres that would apply to the "R3"- Residential Third Density Zone and "R4"- Residential Fourth Density Zone. Staff's recommendation report to introduce a maximum building height will be considered by the Planning & Development Committee at its March 5, 2018 meeting.· ·

The applicant has submitted Conceptual Building Elevations (see Conceptual Building Elevations, Attachments #5, #6 & #7) and a preliminary siting plan for the future dwellings. ·The applicant has requested City Development staff to consider a maximum building height of 9.5 metres for the subject lands. Their request for the additional 0.5 of a metre in building height would provide for a marginal buffer to allow for grade differences of the various lots. The submitted conceptual elevations and siting plan demonstrate building heights ranging between 9.0 metres and 9.5 metres depending on their location and the grade. ·

45

46



Acknowledging that the applicant submitted an application for draft plan of subdivision with the understanding that there was no building height restriction in place and undertook the design of buildings in accordance with the existing by-law, staff have recommended in Report PLN 05-18, that a site specific exception be made in Zoning By-law 2511 to permit a maximum building height of 9.5 metres for the proposed development.

Maintaining a maximum building height of 9.5 metres will ensure that the proposed dwellings will be compatible with the existing zoning within the immediate area.

3.3 Proposed grading and drainage from the development will not impact adjacent properties ·

An area resident expressed concerns that abutting properties may be negatively impacted by stormwater runoff from the subject lands, should they be developed.

A Functional Grading Plan, prepared by Candevcon Ltd., dated December 11, 2017, was submitted in support of the proposal. Split drainage and walkout drainage lots will be utilized within the proposed subdivision to ensure the proposed grades match existing boundary grades. Drainage from the front yards will outlet to the existing storm sewers on Frontier Court and drainage from the rear yards will be captured within infiltration trenches located in the proposed rear yards.

An overall grading plan for the subdivision and a detailed stormwater management report will be prepared at the detailed design stage. Additional details and specifications will be established in coordination with the Engineering Services Department. The Recommended Conditions of Approval (see Appendix I) require the applicant to prepare and submit detailed drainage and grading plans. These plans will be reviewed further by City staff to ensure compliance with City's engineering standa~ds. The required detailed drainage and grading plans for the development will ensure that drainage from the development will not impact adjacent properties. Drainage issues are not expected to impact the existing lots surrounding the subject property as a result of this development.

3.4 Noise Attenuation Measures

A Noise Impact Study, prepared by YCA Engineering Ltd., dated June 23, 2016, was submitted in support of the proposal. The study recommends that the future dwellings be constructed with central air conditioning units and that warning clauses be registered on title on all lots. The Recommended Conditions of Approval require the applicant to agree in a subdivision agreement to implement noise control measures and warning clauses as recommended in the submitted noise study. The Noise Impact Study has been reviewed by the Region of Durham. The Region is satisfied with the noise consultant's recommendations.

Report PLN 05-18

Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd.

March 5, 2018

Page 7

3.5 A construction management plan will be implemented to minimize the impact of construction activities

Area residents also expressed concerns regarding noise, dust, debris and traffic during the construction process of the future dwellings. The applicant has submitted a Construction Management and Erosion/Sediment Control Plan, prepared by Candevcon Ltd., dated June 20, 2017. The submitted construction management plan proposes a variety of mitigation measures to be implemented during the construction process in order to minimize any negative noise, dust and traffic impacts. The mitigation measures proposed include a mud mat at the construction exit to minimize. debris from construction vehicles being tracked off the site, silt fencing to mitigate erosion impacts, and water trucksto control dust, as required. The Recommended Conditions of Approval require

. that the applicant enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the City. A condition of the Subdivision Agreement will require that the applicant implement the measures outlined in the submitted Construction Management and Erosion/Sediment Control Plan as approved by City staff.

3.6 Tree compensation will be required for the loss of existing vegetation

Another concern identified was the loss of existing trees on the subject property. The applicant has submitted a Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan, prepared by Cosburn Nauboris Ltd., dated January 9, 2017, which surveyed and evaluated 47 trees on the subject lands and proposes to remove 37 trees, while protecting approximately 1 0 trees. The health condition of the trees proposed to be removed include poor, fair and good, with various trees highlighted as having poor structure. Appropriate tree protection fencing will be implemented throughout the construction process. The Recommended Conditions of Approval require the applicant to compensate the City for the loss· of tree canopy through either payment of cash-in-lieu and/or replanting.

3.7 Technical matters will be addressed as conditions of subdivision approval

To ensure an appropriate development, the City, Region and Agency requirements have been provided as conditions of approval for the subdivision application. Technical matters to be further addressed include, but not limited to:

• construction managemenUerosion and sediment control • stormwater management • on-site grading and drainage • site servicing

. • fencing • noise attenuation measures • payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication

The conditions of approval set out in Appendix I to this Report address these (and other) matters. It is recommended that Council endorse these conditions.

47

48



4.0 Applicant's Comments

The applicant has been advised of and supports the recommendations of this report.

Appendices

Appendix I Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2017-03

Attachments

1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision 4. Existing "R4" Zoning Provisions 5. Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations 6. Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations 7. Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations

Prepared By:

1 esH Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design

CM:NS:Id



/ / . ' . /} 4 f~ . {/---Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner

Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. . Director, City Development & CBO

~ &i. t4, Z.ol8 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer

Recommended Conditions of Approval

for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2017-03

Appendix I to Report PLN 05-18

49

50

General Conditions

Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2017 -03

1. That the Owner shall prepare the final plan generally on the basis of the draft plan of subdivision, prepared by Design Plan Services, identified as Drawing Number 1592-9, dated April 6, 2017, which illustrates 7 lots for detached lots and a road (extension of Frontier Court).

Subdivision Agreement

2. That the Owner enters into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the .City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the conditions outlined in this document.

40M-Pian

3. That the Owner submits a Draft 40M-Pian to the satisfaction of the City Development Department.

Street Names

4. That street names and signage be provided to the satisfaction of the Region and the City.

Development Charges & Development Review & Inspection Fee

5. That the Owner satisfies the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act.

6. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to payment for engineering review fees, lot grading review fee and inspection fees.

Architectural Control

7. That the Owner submits preliminary model designs for sale to be reviewed and approved by the City's Urban Design Review Consultant. The Owner will be responsible for the City's full cost of undertaking this review.

Pre-Condition Survey

8. That the Owner submits a pre-condition survey for 401, 402, 403 and 404 Frontier Court to the satisfaction of the City. The surveys must be prepared by a qualified professional and must be undertaken prior to any site works commencing.

Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2017-03 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd.)

Page 2

Stormwater

·9. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision and any provision regarding easements.

10. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services for contributions for stormwater maintenance fees.

11. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services for the design and implementation of stormwater management facilities and easements for outfalls and access to the outfalls.

Grading

12. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the submission and approval of a grading control plan.

13. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting authorization from abutting landowners for all off-site grading.

Geotechnical Investigation

14. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical investigation.

Fill & Topsoil

15. That the Owner acknowledges that the City's Fill & Topsoil Disturbance By-law prohibits vegetation or soil disturbance, vegetation or soil removal or importation to the site. No on-site works prior to the City issuing authorization to commence works is permitted.

Construction/Installation of City Works & Services

16. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the construction of roads, storm sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs through the submission and approval of a site servicing plan.

17. That the Owner s~tisfy the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City.

18. That the Owner satisfies the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar services.

19. . That the Owner agrees that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the responsibility of the Owner.

51

52


Phasing & Development Coordination

Page 3

20. That if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration, the Owner will be required to submit a plan showing the proposed phasing, all to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the City. ·

Dedications/Transfers/Conveyances

21. ·That the Owner conveys to the City, at no cost, all road allowances with the proper corner roundings and sight triangles.

Easements

22. That the Owner conveys, to the satisfaction of the City, at no cost, any required easement for works, facilities or user rights that are required by the City.

23. That the Owner conveys any easement to any utility provider to facilitate the installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City and the utility provider.

24. That the Owner arranges, at no cost to the City, any easements required on third party lands for servicing and such easements shall be in a location as determined by the City and/or the Region and are to be granted upon request any time after draft approval.

Construction Management Plan

25. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting the submission and approval of a Construction Management/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan; with such Plan to contain, among other matters:

(i) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these controls as per the City's Erosion & Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction

(ii) addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building ·materials during servicing and construction, and ensuring that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on existing streets, or the proposed public street ·

(iii) assurance that the City's Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law

(iv) the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to the site

(v) type and timing of construction fencing

(vi) location of construction trailers

(vii) details of the temporary construction access

Recommef!ded Conditions of Approval (SP-2017-03 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd.)

Fencing

Page4

26. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the provision of temporary fencing around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior to the commencement of any works .

. 27. That the Owner agrees to install a 1.8 metre high board-on-board wood privacy fence along the west, south and east property lines, where there is adjacent existing residential lots fronting onto Rougemount Drive, Toynevale Road, and Frontier Court.

Landscaping

28. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services. respecting the submission and approval of a street tree-planting plan.

29. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services with the submission of a tree preservation plan which will illustrate the protection of trees and other natural features where appropriate, with specific attention to preservation in all public open spaces prior to the approval of a preliminary grading plan.

Tree Compensation

30. That the Owner agrees that prior to final approval of the draft plan, or any phase thereof, compensation for the loss. of tree canopy will be required either through replacement planting or cash-in-lieu, to be paid to the City of Pickering. In accordance with Council Resolution #387/18, approved on January 15, 2018, tree removal

· compensation is to be calculated in accordance with the City of Pickering Tree Inventory, Preservation and Removal Compensation requirements. Where compensation through replanting is being considered, the Owner will be required to provide a Landscape Plan indicating the location, size and species of trees to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Services.

Engineering Plans

31. That the Owner ensures that the engineering plans are coordinated with the streetscape/architectural control guidelines and further that the plans coordinate the driveway, street hardware and street trees to ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimized and all objectives of the streetscape/siting and architectural design statement can be achieved.

32. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting the submission of appropriate engineering drawings that detail, among other things: City services, roads, storm sewers, sidewalks, lot grading, streetlights, fencing, tree planting; and financially-secure such works.

Noise Attenuation

33. That the owner agrees in the subdivision agreement to implement noise control measures and warning clauses as recommended in the Noise Report.

53

54


Parkland Dedication

34. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the payment of cash-in-lieu in accordance with the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act.

Fire

Page 5

35. That the Owner agrees that no development will proceed on any land until adequate services are available including adequate water pressure to the satisfaction of the City's Fire Services Department.

Model Homes

36. That the Owner enters into a model home agreement with the City, if applicable for this draft plan. All model homes must satisfy all requirements of the siting and architectural design statement.

Other Approval Agencies

37. That any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham, the Ministry of Transportation or any utility for the development of this plan be obtained by the Owner and upon request written confirmation be provided to the City as verification of these approvals.

Plan Revisions

38. That the Owner acknowledges and agrees that the draft plan of subdivision and associated conditions of approval may require revisions to the satisfaction of the City, to implement or integrate any recommendation resulting from studies required as conditions of approval.

39. That the Owner revises the draft plan as necessary to the satisfaction of the City, to accommodate any technical engineering issues which arise during the review of the final engineering drawings. Required revisions may include revising the number of residential building lots or reconfiguring the roads or lots to the City's satisfaction.

40. That the Owner agrees to implement the requirements of all studies that are required by the City for the development of this draft plan of subdivision to the satisfaction of the City.

Notes to Draft Approval

41. This draft approval shall lapse three years from the date the draft approval has been granted if the noted conditions have not been fulfilled, or if it has not been extended by the City of Pickering.

ATIACHMENT tl I TO REPORT t1 _fLN 05·-t 8

SUBJECT LANDS

-edt; P1CKER1NG


Location Ma File: SP-2017-03

1---+--ll- t---t---r' t---1----1 m ~----~----~ -'11---+---1 t---1----1 () t---1-........... ::o+---+---1 t---1----lff}t---1---1 t---1----1 0:: t---t----1 t---f----1 () t---t----1

Date: Feb. 01, 2018

6

-Cipo/P1CKER1NG


ATTACHMENT# d TO RI:PORI # · PLN 05-IB

File: SP-2017-03

Date: Feb. 01, 2018 SCALE: 1:5,000

THIS IS tlOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.

0'1 ....t

~0·

-r-~-a.~

Ao"

/1~-;-/ I I

/ I I

// / : //1 // ! I

. // 1-/ / : ./~ ~ / : // \ \ I i

Remnant Parcel

/ \ \ / I

//'--;_ \ \ I I

/ -- ' ' ' ' ........ --- ', y -•- /1 . . . --- •/ ' ,/ '

.,-·*' \ I ·-... / \/ I ·~ ' • 7 I ' ·- • 1----T---- I I

..f..\'JJ~

-Cdt; ofPJCKERJNG


LJ.J

~ 0 fz ::> 0 :::?2 UJ

~ ::>

~

• • ' T _________ J L--------0

I I 1 ~ I

7

: I \ I

• 1 I I I r---- \. -- I ~ . I ' , r----.---- -------" ' ' " . ' ' ' ' '

I

t . ~'" , L ' ' , ' ' I ' ' . ' r,.--" ' ' ' ' 1/ 661 • ' . ----i' ~--~ : I I 1 }------- J r;---------- 1 . c : ', 1 1 : 1 --- I ~ --, 4 u. !' •, I \1 I I I I I I : •• 1 ;.., '\.C·-"---'-----_1_ I I J : I _ ' . t-- . -~-~1 ,---------"

r ----- ' • • • ,, • - - ' I ------"-------! ~ '>, ,r- F~offec Coort '

1

I 1 655 ! - ·, ~l'r--- l----- ' -------- I 3 I T----.- -,-- I ----i I -------- ' ' , ---- I ' I - - ---• • ' ' ' ' . ' L 653 I . I : I I I 1 ~ , _________ j , ------ • > 1 • ' ' , ' o I ' I ,-----.,-------L I I : I : I ~ I I ' ' • . ' ' ' I ' I : : : . ·~·-· ·- ..J·---+----r' : ~~ I 20- r---------J

I

I I I I • I ----'r = I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---+---' ~ '

I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 0 L I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' I ~ ---- ' L - ' ' ' ' : I ' : ' ' I u I ------1 --~---L I I ' ' I ' ' I . I ' --~-- ' ' ' ' ' I ' I '

- '- - - _j I I I I I I 1------- I - -- _L_ _ j \

1

1 \ J I ----j --~ I · I __ u_ _ _l \ I -~ I ~ I -- --1-

,-- ~

5 ,c;,.'l

6

T~ynevale Road

Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision FILE No: SP-2017-03

APPLICANT: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. PROPERTY DESC~IPTION: Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 & 26, Plan 350

FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT •

1' N

l DATE: Feb. 08, 2018

:;:;:ll> 1'1" ~ -='-! 0)> :on -'::c '1>.5

m 2 -1

_ 'It,

t ----~

0

58

Existing "R4" Zoning Provisions

Zoning By-law 2511

Provision Existing

'R4' Zone Standards

Permitted Uses Detached dwelling

Lot Area (min) 460 square metres

Lot Frontage (min) 15.0 metres ..

Front Yard (min) 7.5 metres

Side Yard (min) 1.5 metres·on one-side arid 1.8 metres on the other side

or

1.5 metres on both . sid~?s where a garage

is erected as part of the detach~d dwelling

'Flankage Yard (min) 4.5 metres

Rear Yard (rriln) 7.5 metres

Lot-Coverage (max) 33 percent

. ...___.

FRONT ELEVATION 'A' FRONT ELEVATION 'B'

------:--0/p ~~PlCKERlNG


Submitted Conceptual Building· Elevations FILE No: SP-2017 -03 APPLICANT: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 & 26, Plan 350

FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

~

~

PIN 5f(.Ot()rut

:21 ~ ,:.

1'01"01'~

TOP 01' HltCIOH =-.

~· ~

DATE: Feb 1, 2018

:J:J:t:> f1"1 .....JJ \J -: 0> :DC") --~ ::c "-"S:

m 2 -1

~~~ ;Ill-~ c~

' ...... !OJ a i

FRONT ELEVATION 'A' FRONT ELEVATION 'B'

-at/fof

PlCKERlNG City Development

Department

Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations FILE No: SP-2017 -03 APPLICANT: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 & 26, Plan 350

FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb. 1, 2018

::;:}J:>. ;T' --l -c;>.-1 0)> »n _, ::c ,s;:

m 2 -1

~.~~~"'l> ·~

~. l

Q5-u 0

m __..

~

-Cd:JofPJCKERJNG


PER5PEC.TIVE VIEif.ll

Submitted Conceptual Building Elevations FILE No: SP-2017-03

APPLICANT: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:.Part of Lots 23, 24, 25 & 26, Plan 350


'ii

DATE: Feb. 1, 2018

62

--Ci/J o/-PJCKERJNG


From:

Subject:


Future Reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway 1331301 Ontario Inc. In Trust 1450 Pickering Parkway File No.: Site Plan ApplicationS 07/17

Recommendations:


1. ·That City of Pickering Council supports a future reduction in the Pickering Parkway right-of-way width to a minimum of 22.0 metres to accommodate a maximum 7.0 metre widening of Highway 401 into the City's right-of-way, should the Ministry of Transportation widen Highway 401 in the future and that the City accepts responsibility for the future reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway and associated impacts; and

2. That the Site Plan Control Agreement for Site Plan Application S 07/17 contain provisions obligating the landowner to convey the required 2.0 metre road widening along the entire frontage of Pickering Parkway to.the City, at no cost to the City, in the event that ~ighway 401 is widened; and

3. That a copy of this Report PLN 07-18 and Council's resolution on the matter be forwarded to appropriate staff at the Ministry of Transportation and 1331301 Ontario Inc.

Executive Summary: In August 2017, the City received a site plan application for an eight storey retirement residence located at the northeast corner of Glenanna Road and Pickering Parkway (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The siting and design of the ·proposed development conforms to the Council approved City Centre Zoning By-law, and is consistent with the urban design objectives as outlined in the approved City Centre Urban Design Guidelines (see Applicant's Submitted Site Plan, Attachment #2).

In response to the circulation of the site plan, the City received comments from the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) indicating that a minimum 14.0 metre building setback must be provided from the north limit of Pickering Parkway. MTO's Building and Land Use Policy outlines minimum building setbacks to essential components of a development to ensure that future widenings of provincial highways can be accommodated (see MTO Comments, Attachment #4). Implementing the required 14.0 metre building setback would negatively impact the proposed development and compromise the City's desired built form objectives for the City Centre.


Subject: Future Reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway Page 2

Based on further discussions with MTO, they would be supportive of a 2.0 metre building setback, as illustrated on the applicant's site plan, subject to a resolution from Pickering Council indicating that the City would support a reduced right-of-way width for Pickering Parkway and assume responsibility for the reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway and associated impacts (such as partial road relocation and lane reductions, reduction of boulevards, removal/relocation of utilities, relocation of multi-use path, etc.) should the MTO expand Highway 401 in this immediate area.

City staff are satisfied that in the event Highway 401 is widened, a reduced right-of-way width of 22.0 metres for Pickering Parkway can accommodate future traffic volumes, and the various functions for transit, cyclists, and pedestrians as outlined in the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines (see Future Pickering Parkway Cross Section, Attachment #6). Therefore, City staff recommend that City Council pass the required resolution indicating its support for a future reduced Pickering Parkway right-of-way width and accepting responsibility for the realignment of Pickering Parkway and related impacts, in the event that the MTO expands Highway 401.

Financial Implications: No immediate direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this Report .. However, in the event that the MTO widens Highway 401 impacting·Pickering Parkway, the additional costs for the realignment of Pickering Parkway and associated works, (which may include the relocation of existing sidewalks, streetlights, transit infrastructure and a multi-use path on the north side of Pickering Parkway and the potential relocation of a significant power line that exists on the south side of Pickering Parkway), will need to be identified and will b~ the responsibility of the City.

1. Background

1.1 Applicant's Proposal

1331301 Ontario Inc. In Trust (Rockport Group) has submitted a site plan application for the lands located at the northeast corner of Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject property has an area of approximately 0.63 of a hectare and is currently vacant.

The applicant is proposing an eight storey retirement residence consisting of a total of 165 units including units for memory care, and assisted and independent living. The site plan illustrates two accesses to the site from Glenanna Road and Pickering Parkway. A total of 55 parking spaces have been provided on~site, including 9 surface parking spaces for visitors, and 46 parking spaces for residents within a one level underground parking structure (see Applicant's Submitted Site Plan and Submitted Conceptual Renderings, Attachments #2 and #3}. ·

The proposed retirement residence will have a number of central common facilities located mainly on the ground floor including, dining room, pool, salon, fitness room, library craft/workshop room, multi-purpose rooms, and offices. Separate private kitchens will not be provided within the units. Services provided to the residents will include: food services, cleaning services, recreational activities, nurse facilities and transportation services.

63

64



The proposed building is sited close to the intersection of Glenanna Road and Pickering Parkway having a minimum building setback of 2.0 metres from each road. The principal entrance, with a pedestrian canopy, is located on the north fagade, and a secondary pedestrian entrance is proposed along Glenanna Road. A central landscaped court yard is provided along Pickering Parkway, and an additional outdoor green space is proposed to the east of the building. The proposal has been prepared in accordance with the Council approved City's City Centre Zoning By-law and is also consistent with the approved City Centre Urban Design Guidelines.

1.2 Ministry of Transportation Comments

The site plan application was circulated to internal City Departments and external agencies for review and comment, including the Ministry of Transportation (MTO). The MTO has expressed concerns with the location of the proposed building. The MTO Building and Land Use Policy requires a minimum 14.0 metre setback for all essential site features when a property abuts a service road (Pickering Parkway), which adjoins a Provincial Highway (Highway 401). The 14.0 metre setback is to be applied from the limit of the service road. In this instance, the setback would be applied from the north limit of the Pickering Parkway right-of-:-way. The intent of the 14.0 metre setback is to protect for a future expansion to Highway 401, which in this area may require a realignment of Pickering Parkway to the north.

City staff requested the MTO to explore whether they could consider a reduced setback given that the required 14.0 metre setback would significantly impact the proposal and result in a built from that is inconsistent with the City's urban design objectives for the City Centre. The MTO advised that they would be willing to reduce the required setback to a minimum of 7.0 metres from the north limit of Pickering Parkway since it is consistent with other developments in the area.

Further, the MTO indicated that they would be willing to accept the proposed 2.0 metre building setback, as shown on the applicant's site plan, provided that the City of Pickering, through a resolution of City Council, agrees to be responsible for the reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway and associated impacts (which may include partial road relocation and lane reductions, reduction of boulevards, removal/relocation of utilities, and relocation of multi-use path) in the event that Highway 401 is widened in the future (see MTO Comments, Attachment #4). The applicant has requested the City to consider passing the required resolution in support of the 2.0 metre building setback as this option has the least adverse impact on their proposal.

2. Planning Analysis

2.1 Pickering Parkway right-of-way width and designation

Pickering Parkway currently has a right-of-way width ranging between 26.0 metres and 27.0 metres with two lanes of traffic. The current configuration of Pickering Parkway includes a 13.5 metre wide asphalt road, 6.75 metre wide boulevards, and no painted bike lane. Pickering Parkway is designated as a Type "C" Arterial Road in the City's Official Plan. Compared to Type "A" and Type "B" Arterial Roads, Type "C" Arterial Roads are designed to carry lower volumes of traffic, at slower speeds; provide access to properties;

·and generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 26.0 to 30.0 metres.



The City Centre Urban Design Guidelines identifies Pickering Parkway as a "Special Street". Pickering Parkway is a street that is to be designed to provide a gateway to higher order transit services. Pickering Parkway, east of Valley Farm Road, is to provide two 3.5 metre wide traffic lanes, sidewalks on both sides, a 1 :5 metre wide bike lane, and a generous landscaped realm of 3.65 metres on both sides of the street within a 26.0 metre right-of-way (See Pickering Parkway Cross Section - City Centre Urban Design Guidelines, Attachment #5). ·

2.2 Applicant's Response to MTO comments

To support the reduced building setback, the applicant retained the BA Group (transportation consultants) to examine the existing and future operation of Pickering Parkway adjacent to the proposed development, in light of a potential widening of Highway 401, and design options for a reduced right-of-way width for Pickering P·arkway.

BA Group has indicated that recent design work completed by the MTO to develop an expanded core-collector system through Durham Region did not include a shifting of Pickering Parkway and therefore, it is expected that this widening is not anticipated to occur in the near future.

BA Group prepared three potential design options supporting a reduced right-of-way width for Pickering Parkway from the required minimum width of 26.0 metres to 22.0 metres. The potential reduction in the right-of-way width will require a 2.0 metre land conveyance from the subject property to create a 22.0 metre right-of-way width for Pickering Parkway. This conveyance would be required to accommodate the pedestrian infrastructure as outlined in the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. Should City Council support the potential reduction in the Pickering Parkway right-of-way width, City staff will ensure appropriate clauses are included in the registered site plan agreement requiring the owner of 1450 Pickering Parkway to convey the required 2.0 metre road widening along the entire frontage of Pickering Parkway to the City, at no cost to the City, in the event that Highway 401 is widened.

2.3 City's Engineering Services is supportive of the reduced right-of-way width for Pickering Parkway in the event that MTO widens Highway 401

The City's Engineering Services Department has reviewed BA Group's findings and are satisfied that if Pickering Parkway is reduced to a 22.0 metre right-of-way width in the future, it will continue to provide the intended form and function of a Type "C" Arterial Road as outlined in the City's Official Plan and the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. Engineering Services has prepared a revised cross section for Pickering Parkway along the frontage of the subject property and further west fronting Pickering Town Centre to illustrate how Pickering Parkway could be redesigned in the event the MTO undertakes a 7.0 metre expansion of Highway 401 in this area (see Future Pickering Parkway Cross Section, Attachment #6).

65

66



The City's Engineering Services Department has confirmed that future traffic volumes can be accommodated within a reduced right-of-way for Pickering Parkway, the curb reduction from a potential 4 lanes to the proposed 3 lanes of traffic would have minimal impact on the efficiency of the road. The focus was to minimize construction impact on the north side Transit Hub area. The section of Pickering Parkway, from the subject property to the · pedestrian bridge, where the road directly abuts Highway 401 does not require the full pedestrian infrastructure on the south side due to the existence of the abutting provincial highway. Therefore, an opportunity to reduce the right-of-way width exists while maintaining the intended function and design contemplated by the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines.

2.4 Potential Costs incurred by the City should Highway 401 be widened in the future

The City has not budgeted any cost towards the reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway, and it would be premature at this time to identify all the costs the City would incur as a result of a future widening of Highway 401. A reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway would impact various types of City infrastructure, including the possible relocation of existing sidewalks, streetlights, transit infrastructure and a multi-use path on the north side of Pickering Parkway and the potential relocation of a significant power line that exists on the south side of Pickering Parkway.

3.0 Conclusion

Development of the subject property is constrained by a number of existing easements on its north limit. Therefore, shifting the proposed building further north cannot be accommodated. The application of the 14.0 metre MTO building setback could only be accomplished by significantly reducing the footprint of the proposed building, which would further constrain the opportunity to develop the subject lands. Furthermore, imposing the 14,0 metre MTO building setback would result in an undesirable urban design condition along Pickering Parkway.

The applicant has worked closely with City staff to ensure that their proposal meets the requirements of the City Centre Zoning By-law, and the siting and design of the proposed building addresses the City's built form objectives as outlined in the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. Should the MTO expand Highway 401 into Pickering Parkway, a reduced right-of-way width of 22.0 metres for the City's road can accommodate future traffic volumes, and the various functions for transit, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Staff recommend that Council support the applicant's request, and pass the required resolution to enable the proposed 2.0 metre setback of the building adjacent to Pickering Parkway to be retained.



Attachments:

1. Location Map 2. Applicants Submitted Site Plan · 3. Submitted Conceptual Renderings 4. MTO Comments 5. Pickering Parkway Cross Section - City Centre Urban Design Guidelines 6. Future Pickering Parkway Cross Section ·


(l~ /;y----.....__-o arnett · Princip I P anner, Site Planning

. "· rtJ~IP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design

TB:Id


Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner

;y~ Kyle.Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO

. u 5I. 2L>1 ZotB Tony Prevedel , P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer

67

8

-Ct4Jc/PJCKERJNG


Location Ma File: 807/17

ATTACHMENT# I TO RtPORl # PLN 07-18

~~------~----~ ~.----------I 0

U'i co >-0 z <( (f) 0

<( 0 a:: lU 0

~ 1------1 :J ....J <(

Date: Feb. 09, 2018

~l:c.-a

e?a~~~ ~gaec.no. -

r.:\~~ 0 C5 w

a: ~ ~ ~ z 8 ~ "

l ... coo.otrhl -- ~ -....tv.TH- v

:ir::b~ liiUUtlOW.O:c»> ""'tC"AUI

•~OIIIWJliiTALLIE'flo.l.~l:t T'I',.Nnll10~,0111

'"""'

... , . .,,.,......., """"'~

-04JofPJCKERJNG City Development

Department

,: ~.

··--...

~~I"I!HI"''Y.t.TTOI'fl/.lolrl------------

g'!l~~":f~o~'JAUUiOQfi(D -------- • --- -·

UQIT~T~'f"P •. JI1UUilOIA'fCIGc.uoll•oo.~TAA.q

=~~~~::: ... ~~-=- _·_--:_----=-~:-.I NtOI.Co\DIIGAAT:ACCf~ ,

KO~IIII[f!AWLAIIOXN"!: · roA.lU.Wtt::ICAJI~H:>tl'IP! 1

. 1

I

•. . ! I

.;;·_,,, . ,,. .. ' . :·:f

"""'"~'-- ; ·-:

.~...<c,¢~"' '?'C,T"

- ···ftiAL:IINO!IM!lOf'l!

mew• · UN"TI'AVr.HNr=

--·--·· ----· • ......: •• --- - r::NQIO"t

------·--- UOII'T DCUAllD

"""~ <?P.~'t-'"

fl'l~f!fi;TOLAN:I'"..cAJ!t rOAotTAIL:J

Applicant's Submitted Site Plan FILE No: 807/17 APPLICANT: .1331301 Ontario Inc. In Trust PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1450 Pickering Parkway


L:\PLANNING\COREL\PLANNING\APPS\PCA\2018

- t.tAGOtln"f&rm'IFV.TIIn!'N--U. IIW'~TOI..li~IORtx;TAIU)

---fl.loi!WPCltmto\.'lcnQC~lNO

----UU&rCII".I-L:UX'o~AIIOCURO " tCNTIN.I:V:lHIOJ:tHlMI\'CW-''f

- ~:?.0~~11:\I'G AA-""'CtiOYifoi:UIACIHGWff!Jo

----~·Jo~I'ICnTI'P. lq•CJot lDIMO"...co.JI'E: FOAa:v.a..:l)

- ;.:;,~';;~~Wo\U.

-------I'IIIOI'OtCJ ::IIt.I-#T

DATE: Feb. 9, 2018

:D)> ,.,-I \:'-4 0)> :no -l:::J:

""' S m 2 -l

f ---~ Cf:)O

AERIAL VIEW OF SITE FROM NORTH

AERIAL VIEW OF SITE FROM NORTH-EAST

- Cfj;c,fPJ(KERJNG

Submitted Conceptual Renderings FILE No: S07/17 ·· APPLICANT: 1331301 Ontario Inc. In Trust

AERIAL VIEW OF SITE FROM SOUTH-WEST

AERIAL VIEW OF SITE FROM SOUTH

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1450 Pickering Parkway City Development

Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF TH IS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR V IEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. .

L:\PLANNING\CORELIPLANNINGIAPPS\PCA\2018

DATE: Feb 9, 2018

:D> I"T' -1 '1:'-! 0> ::Oc-, -' :c "'" S m

2 -l

~~r~ Q -1

I

-· -~ K:!;) o

Barnett, Tyler

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject~

ATTP.CHMENT It .£ 'TO Rf.POR! II PLN 67-/ &3

Tuz, Sylvester (MTO) <[email protected]> -Wednesday, October 25, 2017 9:16AM Rose, Catherine; Barnett, Tyler Hewitt, Tom {MTO); Aurini, Shawn (MTO); Kolet, Arieh (MTO); Kathryn Randle

· RE: Site Plan Application S07/17- 1450 Pickering Parkway

. Good morning Catherine and Tyler,

Further to the Ministry's comments on October 2nd regarding Site Plan Application S07/17 for a proposed retirement home at 1450 Pickering Parkway, I have discussed the concerns pertaining to the 14m setback requirement with my· Manager in an effort to move forward.

The Ministry of Transportation has reviewed the request for a setback reduction for the proposed retirement home at 1450 Pickering Parkway. The Ministry protects for a 14m setback to account for future expansion of Hfghway 401, which in this area may require a potential realignment of Pickering Parkway to the north, which would negatively impact the proposed development.

With the above noted, after review, the Ministry will permit a reduced setback of 7m from Pickering Parkway to the proposed development as this is consistent with other devetopments in the general area of the subject site.

. . If the 7m setback is not agreeable, the Ministry will consider the 2m setback if the City Of Pickering provides a Council Resolution stating that if Highway 401 is expanded into the Pickering Parkway ROW, the City will be ·responsible for the reconfiguration of Pickering Parkway and associated impacts (ex. Lane reductions, loss· of boulevard, removal/relocation of utilit.ies, etc ... ).

We hope that the above is helpful for the project. As mentioned to the Developer, non.,.essential site features such as surplus parking, landscaping, amenity.space, signs, etc ... can be located within the MTO setback. We look forward to a revised submission.· ' .

If you have any questions, pleasefeel free to call <md discuss .

. Thank you,

Sylvester Tuz, B.E.S. Corridor Management Planner

Ministry of Transportation Highway Corridor Management Section- Central Region 159 Sir William Hearst Ave., 7th Floor Toronto, ON M3M OB7 Phone: 416-235-4351 I Fax: 416-235-4267 Email: [email protected]

From: Tuz, Sylvester (MTO) Sent: October-02-17 10:53 AM To: 'Barnett, Tyler' Cc: Kolet, Arieh (MTO) Subject: Site Plan Application S07/17- 1450 Pickering Parkway

1 71

ATTACHMENT# L/ TO RE:PORT # 'PL.N o·7-i 8

Hi Tyler,

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has reviewed Site Plan Application S07 /17 for a proposed 8 storey retirement home at 1450 Pickering Parkway in Pickering.

After review, the Ministry offers the following comments:

Site Plan

• The propose~ Site Plan layout in its current state is not acceptable to MTO • MTO requires a minimum 14m setback for all essential site features (buildings, above/below ground structures,

required parking spaces, fireroutes, etc ... ) when a property abuts a Provincial Highway • As per the Ministry's Building and Land Use Policy, when a subject site abuts a Service Road (Pickering Parkway)

which abuts the Highway, the 14m setbad< is applicable from the Service Road property line. o This is to ensure that should Highway 401 be further expanded and Pickering Parkway is shifted, this will

not be detrimental to the development. • A 14m setback is required from the Pickering Parkway property line. • Through discussion with Management, due to the irregular shape of the lot, the 14m setback will only be a'pplied

to the western portion of the lot. I have attached a rough red lined plan illustrating this. • Non-essential features such as landscaping, surplus parking, etc ... can be within the 14m setback.

MTO Permits

• An MTO Building and Land Use Permit will be required prior to construction on-site. • MTO Sign Permits will be required for all new signage visible from Highway 401. • MTO Permits can only be applied for once all MTO comments have been addressed and the Site Plan has been

approved by the City of Pickering. This is to ensure tbere are no discrepancies with the Site Plan revision numbers.

• MTO has recently launched a new online Permitting website, Applicants must apply online at the following link: www.hcms.mto.gov.on.ca/

I trust that the above is clear, however, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

Regards,

Sylvester Tuz, B.E.S. Corridor Management Planner

Ministry of Transportation Highway Corridor Management Section- Central Region 159 Sir William Hearst Ave., 7th Floor Toronto, ON M3M OB7 Phone: 416-235~4351 I Fax: 416-235-4267 Email: [email protected]

72 2

min. 26n1 ----------~------------------------~

-Ciipo/PJCKERJNG


Spill out Zone or

residential • . yard 1 (typ)

.!1:

~ Landscaping I Parking

"0 u;

ROW

0 +

<II ~ I Travel Lane

<II "Oc ~~ ~ ::l Ql

t

Tm~ La"'~~ I Ql "OC ~.5 & '5 Ql

Parking I Landscaping

Pickering Parkway Cross Section - City Centre Urban Design · Guidelines .FILE No: S0?/17 APPLICANT: 1331301 Ontario Inc. In Trust .

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1450 Pickering Parkway

FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING ATTHE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.


.!1: (ij ~ .g u; li

5: I~

DATE: Feb 9, 2018

.::u:;::. rr• -l "1:' -l 0:;::. ::x;JC") _, :J:

% $ rn z -t

~[ ·~r ~--~ :ooo

..t: ....... ctS Q) a.. ~

"E c: Q) ctS CIJ ctS ...J ~ >

I ~ Q) E > ::J

::J ~ 0

:2 m 1-

~QJ +>c So...-o_J

z>. a>+> ct.

~ l:p ~ +>OJ ~0 s....c Xt.. o_ we... Z_J

""0>. OJ+> lilt. 0 OJ a.n.

~ 00 i . .~ t..t.. a... a...

2.5 m. I. 6.6m

~l 3.75m • I •

-a~(Jf

PlCKERlNG

0.20m

9.1 m

22.0m

Future Pickering Parkway Cross Section FILE No: 807/17 APPLICANT: 1331301 Ontario Inc. In Trust

Q) t: ctS

c: I-

::J 1-~ Q)

....I

r==\ "" p

"l t::: ...... I

1

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1450 Pickering Parkway City Development

Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.


Q) c: "E ctS

...J ctS > Q) Q)

> ~

::J 0

1- m

~QJ +>s: ::::5-o_J

7m (1')>. a>+>

.s:. ct.. -OJ

+>QJ +>a. ::0 ]> ::::5c ~0 ~ =1 o_ X So...

(I')_J we... 0)> :on -l :::c:

t:s>. ~ s:: OJ+> . m lilt. z OQJ

_, n.n.

~ 0 0

·~= S....t.. a... a...

MTO Highway 401

~~6 "l7t::: ..... I II I

w

DATE: Feb 9, 2018

Documents

Planning & Development Committee Meeting · In July 2017, Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., submitted a revised proposal for the all of the developable lands. 4. Applicant's Proposal