HomeMy WebLinkAbout15/02/2007
Citlf o~ Minutes I Meeting Summary
Statutory Public Information Meeting
Council Chambers
Thursday, February 15, 2007
7:00 pm.
Attendees: Councillor Dickerson - Chair
Councillor O'Connell
R. Pym, Principal Planner - Development Review
L. Roberts - Committee Coordinator
1. Zoning By-law AmendmentApplicationA10/06
Coughlan Homes
2000 Bro.ck Road Concession 1
Part of Lots 19,
Cit of Pickerin
1. Planner Comments
Ross Pym, Principal Planner - Development Review provided an overview of the
applicant's proposal pertaining to this site, as outlined in Information Report # 01-07.
He went over the details of the development and surrounding land uses. He also
explained the requirements of the Planning Act. He indicated in his outline that this
proposal was downsized in comparison to the previously planned development. He
discussed the written comments received to date in regards to this application:
. access to property
. road classification
. impact on sustainability of site
. property values.
Sustainability of the site was also discussed. Mr. Pym reviewed the importance of the
sign in sheets in order to be notified of any upcoming meetings pertaining to this
report. At this point, it was decided to have the comments from the residents next, so
that the applicant could respond accordingly.
Page 1
CORP0228-2/02
2. Comments from Members of the Public
1) Peter Dowsett
1995 Royal Road, #113
Peter Dowsett appeared before the Committee with respect to the Zoning By-law
Amendment Application A 10/06. His concerns were as follows:
. traffic conerns with Brock Road and Finch Ave. West
. access off Brock Road North in the evening
· questioned whether a traffic study had been done would like to receive info
· trees/shrubs currently existing - would like to confirm that they will remain as a
buffer
2) Cheryl England
1995 Royal Road, Unit 103
Cheryl England appeared before the Committee with respect to Zoning By-law
Amendment Application A 10/06. She stated she was not opposed to the
development, but questioned whether the existing shrubs and tress would be staying.
She also questioned access into the development - there are only two ways in, you
cannot get in from northbound. Finch Avenue is a single lane road, it is difficult to turn
onto Royal Road. She questioned whether there were plans for Finch Avenue to
have a left hand lane, she was worried traffic would be using Royal Road as an
alternate route. She also questioned the road classification of Finch - Type C
designation for Finch, had it been changed since the 2003 application, as it is now
noted as a Type Broad.
3) David Loyst
1995 Royal Road, Unit 158
David Loyst appeared before the Committee and stated he was not opposed to the
development, but was concerned with traffic and the access in and out of the
development. He also noted there needed to be a center left turn lane on Finch
Avenue. He questioned what type of development was proposed, whether it would be
an adult community or family oriented. He did not see a lot of open space for
playgrounds, etc in the plans.
Page 2
CORP0228-2/02
CORP0228-2/02
Steve Phillips, Property Manager
Fuller Spicer and Associates Ltd.
Steve Phillips, Property Manager for Fuller Spicer and Associates Ltd. appeared
before the Committee. He questioned the height of the units. He noted there were
bungalows on the opposite side, and indicated his concern with shadowing problems.
He also questioned whether the units would be freehold or condos and requested
clarification on parking. Would this be underground or strictly visitor parking.
Mr. Phillips also questioned the price range of the proposed units.
Mark Speakman
1995 Royal Road Unit 150
Mark Speakman appeared before the Committee and questioned why visitor parking
was proposed on the west side as opposed to the south side of the site.
He asked about the landscape design and what was planned for this.
He also expressed concerns with the height of the second storey, and questioned
whether it would be higher than the existing units. He also questioned what the
square footage of the units would be and the number of parking spaces per unit.
He questioned the provisions for a walkway between the two units and noted he was
opposed to having this. He also questioned the elevation changes and what the
exterior finish would be.
3. Applicant Comments/Responses
Ron Halliday
2280 Whites Road
Ron Halliday appeared before the Committee on behalf of the applicant in regards to
the zoning by-law amendment application. He explained the parking was planned for
the west side in order to save the existing trees. He indicated the height would be no
higher than the shadows. He stated that when the previous shadowing study had
been completed, there were no problems in this regard. The height to the top of the
roof on the three storey elevation would be 10.5 metres or approximately 36 - 39 feet.
Mr. Halliday indicated that a solid fence as well as trees already exist and made
assurances that the trees would be saved and the landscaping would be in keeping
with the previous development. He made note that there were colour drawings
available with considerable detail shown at the meeting, and indicated he would be
available after the meeting to go over the details.
Page 3
Mr. Halliday stated that all the parking would be outside. There would be three
parking spaces per unit. Each unit would have a single or double car garage,
depending on the square footage of the unit.
Mr. Halliday indicated that traffic studies had been done on Finch Avenue during the
previously proposed project. He did state the need to look into another study. This
will be revised and forwarded to the Region again. He also made note that this
development would have fewer units as opposed to the previous plan for
development, and stressed the high quality of these units. He commented on the
high level of property management in the existing area.
He indicated that the height of some of the existing trees would be in excess of 60
feet, quite possibly higher than the proposed units. He stated the units would be
condo style and the approximate values would range from $275,000 for 1,700 square
feet up to $325,000 to $350,000 for 2,600 square foot units. The exterior finish would
be composed of man made stone and brick, which would be compatible with
surrounding units. He confirmed walk throughs would not be likely as these are
private units, there being no need to have public walkways. It was noted again that
this development was approximately 100 units less than the application previously
submitted.
Discussion ensued on the problems with walkways as well as the plans for garbage
removal. It was noted that this would be dealt with during the site plan approval
process, and that they were looking for direction in this regard.
4. Comments from the Chair
Councillor Dickerson thanked the applicant and the neighbours for coming out and
voicing their concerns. He also reminded everyone to sign the sheets in order to keep
informed on the matter.
The meeting adjourned at 7:55 pm
Page 4
CORP0228-2/02