Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
iuui•ilpi =I 1E10001 10E1 1100000 10 1111 LEE 10711011I 1110001
uI
3 EU NMI mu ram]
Er MHO 100101 OEM 1[13001 00 130 0101101 00311011 EI10001
qoaan
iiiiiri J110001Eall EIM0 MOM! 0110
111 010111E10 ITO Tonna no
II END. ;0 010 t MEE 'RE
031:11:10EIX1 1:11110
MEIii T11 01001Eall 010 MBE Ell 010011:110 01111 0111:101E1 0110 1000011E ;
1 11 ni! E00001 111110001 REM NOON MOE
Nib EMI 1E101110001 XI 1E100101 R1111001 0100000 HEN E00101 11013311 HMO
EIEM PEE NEM 0000
HEM REM
5 p.r1 i .
w
4
! 1 . ' ' 1 044 InAM 1 . , .- 1
- 1 1 -14=111 :riltI-. i i'..•,, ':,: i k;fi; i WW1
i - • i ' " -, - "O "Ii-J1- ,, i
4giNFO IAM i, -,-, ; I. --IL ,,,,, L_
vITITIVIKI ''l"4“ litlini111"
: --, - qii-Tfillif 4 1 a_
ii-
2
- I 1
. _ti .. I ph
7 d!! ....
i -
11 1 ..
1 .
I
i
Iii 4 I -H 1 -
! II] .
iiii • flil DM
l'iri
-
1
-
Set N
o.
c'')
:ssL
a
tr•F
AL
L a
lma-
• •P
•9•7
AL
L
M•1
4•T
a.
peca,..7
&
MX
. 11.1
.101.1
,S
1E
11167.1
L
EIT
ER
r IJ •
IB
S. ,
• R
EH
S-.
•
71
01
. S
IMIE
NC
IN 1
.1,2
1/S
:ST
2.4 4
0.4
0`.
4.4
re L
erinerg
r-
L
ci
F77
G.G
...r
iCrE
.44,4
rd
1 I
AS
PN
AL
T
• D
Ec
-M14
.
7144
.03
ca0454044 r
wE
E
1F.0
L T
O D
E P
RO
TE
CT
ED
1
,SY
AL
T F
EN
CE
1.51
11 H
IGH
C
HA
RS
_RIS
"M
ICE
aur
'NE
E
xr_
c
1.0
c40100
ne
LAP
rosc
rws
asra
irrE
cl
SO
E
EIM
OR
D C
H D
OA
.. F
EN
CE
[R
EF
ER
TO
SA
FI)
1.2
.1 C
HA
N L
W F
EN
. cr
eErE
li T
O v
srap
. C
•LrI
N /
MC
PIN
CE
0•1
4 I,O
RO
co
me
rim
er F
M.
0412rE
rt 3
44,
91LO
CK
159
veer.
00000,-
we
r00
1T
iAL
C
.CE
PT
SA
L L
AT
0.1
7
RIT
IS,
INIT
ARE
PL
AIN
T L
IST
cara
rrrr
re
17:•
0117
RN
I•n
r-S
O
41a
■■■■
■•
/•:■
.
York
U
rban
ist
.1.
.3.
1141
1.1.
• /O
A'
riM
MT
NI..
m
ob
HI. C
al.
*Sp
a S
•cia
n
•i•W
•re
C
l,a
ss
lou
. ta
w C
aL
14
.tu
el, C
elft
m N
ow
A
lm. C
ram
p,.
•■••
• G
IL
,••11
. 411
111.
,.■
1••■
•■
PA
. E
l• C
aw
. E
stat
es o
f Gle
nway
••
E
LW
Lb
w,.
PN
•Ole
rm
.., P
EN
CE
+
13-2
,..1
11
1:1
160-1
. M
K F
..
Mil
a. N
MI
.1.1
■9■
1 .•
•••1
5••
N
I.1.7
4 1,1
.13.1
B
LOC
K 1
59
JaliP
eu
•612.•
Am
Aci
la
Sp
. LA
ND
SC
AP
E P
LAN
re
l.••
■1.
0.1.
1•••
■•11
1
TIR
M4S
ALS
11
.•••
alm
s C
•ral
e•••
• 1
41
4
nual
lmol
u 11
181,
4 •■
•41
.en
••
■•■A
mil
Ya
w p
is.
•••
DE
C 1
0 2
01
4
pLL
OC
K 1
7% P
LA
NT
LIG
T
90.4
11.6
L
AN
D6
C4in
PL
AN
,
;L. 5c4,4
1.
400
" S P
I K
EY
PL
AN
1
9 W
AX
NT
S 1
Am
. o
W•L
•bu
i io
m n
ag
M
EN
I •
I M..
IMO
= P
M
50
100
150
M
etre
s 20
0
110
S
rzt...41
0601
00'0
0001
,011
1
0114
:14.
.00
% w
ip
s
■111
4 0
:4 1
00
0.$
1 11
6. ,0
00
-*ON
wou
t cr
. IS,
1 w
ail
.1
,4
4 . •
100
0.0
6,,r
ot.,10,
1t.
40,,s
—
sso
7?-`..1
.• n
it 4
. in "'
tat
"ra
t AO
VIZ
0 V
S *1
00=
fj,
1„.1
1`
olgl
v 0
vora
4
,+.•'
Wel
l'S
• 11
. • O
rr•
Loca
tion
Map
47
0 C
ross
land
Gat
e
Pit)
New
mark
et
Des
igne
d &
pro
duce
d by
Info
rmat
ion
Tec
hnol
ogy
- G
IS
Prin
ted:
121
0112
015
Leg
end
Su
bje
ct L
an
d
Pro
pert
y Lin
es
Land P
arc
el
i= M
unic
ipal B
oundary
SO
UR
CE
S:2
01
4 C
olo
ur
Ort
ho
Im
ager
y —
Fir
st B
ase
So
luti
on
s In
c.,
70
14
Ort
ho
ph
oto
gra
ph
y:
Lan
d P
arce
l R
ou
nd
ares
- e
Ter
an e
l In
c. a
nd
Is
sup
pli
ers.
All
rig
hts
res
erv
ed.
NO
T A
PL
AN
OF
SU
RV
EY
. 2
01
4:
Rai
lway
. R
oad
s, M
un
icip
al B
ou
nd
ary
- G
eom
atic
s D
ivis
ion
, T
he
Reg
ion
al M
un
icip
alit
y o
f Y
ork
, ic
o.
25
14
; A
ll eth
er
data
la
yers
- T
he T
ow
n o
f N
ew
mark
et,
20
14
. D
ISC
LA
IME
R:
This
mappin
g i
s base
d o
n t
he P
OL
AR
IS p
arc
el
fabri
c p
roduct
com
pil
ed u
sing L
and R
egis
try S
yst
em
record
s and r
ecent
surv
eys
and c
ontr
ol
poin
ts w
here
avail
able
. T
his
mappin
g i
s a r
epre
senta
tion o
f th
e e
art
h's
surf
ace a
nd p
rovid
es
est
imate
s of
are
a a
nd
c4
stan
ce.
Th
e i
nfo
rma
tio
n d
ep
icte
d o
n t
his
map
has
been
co
mp
lile
d f
rom
vari
ou
s so
urc
es.
Wh
ile e
very
eff
ort
has
been
mad
e t
o a
ccu
rate
ly d
ep
ict
the i
nfo
rmati
on
, d
ata
/map
pin
g
err
ors
ma
y exis
t. T
his
map
has
been
pro
du
ced
fo
r il
lust
rati
ve p
urp
ose
s on
ly.
FT
ISN
OT
ASU
EST
ITIJ
TC
FO
RA
LE
GA
L s
uF
arE
y,
GA
Pro
iect
s li
nD
evel
oom
ent
an
d I
nfr
astr
uctu
re S
erv
ice
sP
lan
nin
ntia
lan
On
su
me
nts
14
11
) C
rossla
nd
Ga
te L
oca
tio
n M
an
Re
vis
ed
ma
id
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES Pl) Newmarket
Town of Newmarket 395 Mulock Drive P.O. Box 328, STN Main Newmarket, ON L3Y 4X7
www.newmarket.ca [email protected] T: 905.953.5321 F: 905.953.5140
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Site Plan Review Committee
FROM: Linda L. Traviss, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner - Development
DATE: April 16, 2015
RE:
Application for Site Plan Approval - Public Information Centre 470 Crossland Gate - Phase 1 - Block 159 Marianneville Developments Limited
At its meeting on January 19, 2015 Site Plan Review Committee considered the above noted application for site plan approval and directed the applicant to hold a Public Information Centre (PIC).
The PIC was held on February 24, 2015 and was attended by approximately 40+ residents. Public comments received at the PIC generally focused on traffic and parking, construction management, landscaping, amount of green space, height of proposed buildings and construction materials.
Following the PIC written comments were received from 8 residents and were provided to the developer for consideration (see attached chart). It is noted that some of the comments received were general in nature and applied to the entire subdivision. Attached to this memo is a written response from the developer dated March 19, 2015 in response to the written comments that specifically relate to Block 159.
If Committee were to grant an approval in principle to this application, staff will undertake a detailed review of the plans and reports submitted with the application and will work with the applicant to address the comments received from the community.
Linda L. Traviss, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner - Development
Att. (2)
1. My wife and I live at 306 Crossland Gate.We have a number of concerns that we would like to express following the town's open house on the Glenway development. We appreciate being asked for our input and we ask that this is thoughtfully considered.
Our primary concern is the lack of green space in ward 7. With the creation of this development over the next years, there will be a large amount of trees cut down and elimination of much needed green space. This is very concerning. Beyond that, there already was a lack of park space in Glenway, and now there will be a lack of park space and a lack of green space. The development rendering that was displayed at the open house had no park space planned. The town has the power to mandate that there must be park space and green space in a development. Green space has been proven to create healthier and happier communities, leading to a better town in the tong run. The town must demand that the developer make room for parks and green space throughout the Glenway development. One idea that we had would be to demand that the developer plan for a network of trails for biking, walking and jogging. This would allow people to utilize different methods of travel other than needing to drive everywhere and will result for a healthier community. The town must demand this in the new subdivision starting with the townhouse development.
We are also concerned with the flow of traffic coming out of this townhouse complex, but also thinking ahead to these cars (74 homes with a likelihood of 2 cars per home) plus the ones that will be coming out of the future Glenway development. We were told at the open house that adequate traffic studies had been completed but there was absolutely no information provided at the session to this effect. We are very concerned with the safety of our children because of the amount of traffic on our neighbourhood roads. Already Crossland gate is a bypass to Yonge Street and Davis Drive (at rush house it is constant cars flying down the street). An explanation of the traffic study should have been provided at the session. Bike lanes are also something that should be immediately included in all new developments to proactively plan for alternative ways of transportation for Newmarket's residents. In addition we believe the town homes which will introduce this subdivision are intrusive at three stories tall!
There was also no information provided at the session regarding the management of pollution, noise or disruption during the construction. Considering that this is an established neighbourhood, the town must absolutely put the needs of CURRENT residents quality of life ahead of the developers and put measures in place. We are starting our family and are extremely concerned that the next 10 years of our lives will be consumed with construction dust, pollution and traffic. We are already seeing trucks from the Mosaik development on Alex Doner when there is a no truck bylaw in effect. The town must be prepared to protect its current residents and enforce the bylaws that the town has. We are already seeing that the town is not enforcing its own bylaws and do not have the confidence that these bylaws will be followed when the construction is within our neighbourhood.
In summary, we demand that the town take a practice rote in ensuring the
integration, inclusion and maintenance of green space, the creation of trail systems, and the management of neighbourhood traffic. Throughout the Glenway development proposal, it appears as if the town has taken a passive role. Although we are in an unfortunate situation, the town must now take an ACTIVE and concerted role in protecting the quality of life of the established residents of Newmarket. As tax paying residents of Newmarket, we demand action on the above issues. They are fundamental to our safety and happiness as residents of the town of Newmarket.
2. My wife and I live at 486 Alex Doner Drive. We have a number of concerns that we would like to express following the town's open house on the Glenway development. We appreciate being asked for our input and we ask that this is thoughtfully considered.
Our primary concern is the lack of green space in ward 7. With the creation of this development over the next years, there will be a large amount of trees cut down and elimination of much needed green space. This is very concerning. Beyond that, there already was a tack of park space in Glenway, and now there will be a lack of park space and a lack of green space. The development rendering that was displayed at the open house had no park space planned. The town has the power to mandate that there must be park space and green space in a development. Green space has been proven to create healthier and happier communities, leading to a better town in the long run. The town must demand that the developer make room for parks and green space throughout the Glenway development. One idea that we had would be to demand that the developer plan for a network of trails for biking, walking and jogging. This would allow people to utilize different methods of travel other than needing to drive everywhere and will result for a healthier community. The town must demand this in the new subdivision starting with townhouse development.
We are also concerned with the flow of traffic coming out of this townhouse complex, but also thinking ahead to these cars (74 homes with a likelihood of 2 cars per home) plus the ones that will be coming out of the future Glenway development. We were told at the open house that adequate traffic studies had been completed but there was absolutely no information provided at the session to this effect. We are very concerned with the safety of our children because of the amount of traffic on our neighbourhood roads. Already Crossland gate is a bypass to Yonge Street and Davis Drive (at rush house it is constant cars flying down the street). An explanation of the traffic study should have been provided at the session. Bike Lanes are also something that should be immediately included in alt new developments to proactively plan for alternative ways of transportation for Newmarket's residents.
There was also no information provided at the session regarding the management of pollution, noise or disruption during the construction. Considering that this is an established neighbourhood, the town must absolutely put the needs of CURRENT residents quality of life ahead of the developers and put measures in place. We are starting our family and are extremely concerned that the next 10 years of our lives will be consumed with construction dust, pollution and traffic.
We are already seeing trucks from the Mosaik development on Alex Doner when there is a no truck bylaw in effect. The town must be prepared to protect its current residents and enforce the bylaws that the town has. We are already seeing that the town is not enforcing its own bylaws and do not have the confidence that these bylaws will be followed when the construction is within our neighbourhood.
In summary, we demand that the town take a practice role in ensuring the integration, inclusion and maintenance of green space, the creation of trail systems, and the management of neighbourhood traffic. Throughout the Glenway development proposal, it appears as if the town has taken a passive rote. Although we are in an unfortunate situation, the town must now take an ACTIVE and concerted role in protecting the quality of life of the established residents of Newmarket. As tax paying residents of Newmarket, we demand action on the above issues. They are fundamental to our safety and happiness as residents of the town of Newmarket.
3. Hello Linda, I attended the Public Information Centre on the Marianneville Development at 470 Crossland Gate and would like to submit some comments.
On Building 7 it appears balconies are being made using brick rather than metal bars, glass, ironwork, etc that seem more common in most current developments. I think the large expanse of brick is not appealing and would prefer to see other materials used.
Many of the newer developments and townhouse areas in Newmarket have very congested streets due to most houses being a two car family and some of those cars and visitors ending up on the street. I would like to make sure there are adequate "extra" parking spots.
Some of the trees indicated in the plan seem very close to pavement, and I wonder about their ability to thrive there.
Building 10 seems to have a very large peak - I wonder if that is necessary - larger buildings tend to create lots of shade and not always appealing against possibly smatter dwellings, or adjoining green space, but it is hard to tell from these schemes.
I would love in future if these Public Information Centres required the developers to provide actual pictures of similar developments, sample materials etc along with schematics. Other developments in our area seem to have a wide variation in their ''look and feel" in person, but I imagine the lower end developments probably looked fine in the original drawings. The quality of the materials has a substantial impact and at least for the average resident, it is not always easy to tell from drawings.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback.
4. I am sending this email to include input into the upcoming development.
1. I read somewhere that our quadrant of Newmarket does not meet the parks allocation that is set by the town. Now, I am not completely sure where I can verify this information, but if it is in fact truth, lets use this as an opportunity to MEET OR EXCEED the quota - especially considering the loss of greenspace the current residents have to adjust to.
2. The new subdivision in the North West section of newnnarket has a beautiful bike trail surrounded by many natural forests. This trail needs to be continued into our neighbourhood. The mature trees need to be included as part of this trail. Residents, the environment and wildlife will all be greatly impacted by the loss of these mature trees.
3. As the plan provided does not ensure homes in the new development are close to the same as the homes in the original Glenway development, the town needs to continue to fight to ensure the homes that are build as similar in appearance.
4. One of the most important point the town should consider is how this development can have the least impact on current residents. Leaving mature trees in place is a good start. As welt, traffic needs to be managed and roads need to be reassessed in order to eliminate the traffic on local roads. For instance, Eagle St. has become so busy that it is difficult for residents to get off of the streets surrounding it. With parking spaces coming to support the new YR building and an increase number of residents coming to this area, STEPS MUST BE TAKEN TO KEEP PEOPLE OFF of local roads and give them reasons to use roads like Davis and Yonge.
Please consider the points above from a concerned resident who is looking out for the best for the neighbourhood I reside in.
5. 1. We want similar brick and stone housing that matches brick colours used in neighbouring houses
2. We want mature trees preserved as they provide drainage, shade and transform CO2 into oxygen. Saplings take up to 20 years to offer such benefits.
3. We need to ensure residents fight not to have ugly concrete noise barriers along Eagle. Prefer natural berm or hedge or if necessary wood.
4. Residents need park space for recreation. Is there enough open space in condo or direct access to park space.
5. Bike trails help slow traffic as well as provide a safer lane for bicycles. Crossland (and Eagle) are supposed to be a bike lane. Please have these lanes painted.
6.
I
Thanks for the chance to give input to the townhouse development proposed for Glenway. I have a couple concerns/questions regarding the timing of the project. 1) Is there any consideration given to there being multiple construction sites within and surrounding Glenway at one time (ie. McGregor farm, townhouses, 4th hole and regional building, plus Yonge St. Viva)? It would be helpful for the powers that be to zoom out and see the big picture taking place in the northwest quadrant and the impact of construction on a stable residential neighbourhood.
2) I hope much thought goes into the development of the construction management plan and communication with the residents. The experience at McGregor farm hasn't been fantastic.
3) Given the projected lack of greenspace in the northwest quadrant when all is said and done (bizarre really), is the parkette within the townhouse complex a sufficient size for the number of people with young children likely to buy into that complex? It looked pretty small on the drawings.
4) Is it realistic to provide so few visitor parking spaces given the density of the complex and given that parking is restricted within the rest of Glenway?
7. I'm so disappointed in the town and the builder. We are so congested in Newmarket. The traffic is appalling. What a terrible place to live and you aren't making it any better. Just leave the trees atone. Try and leave some green space. This builder is dishonest saying 9 holes golf course and then back tracking. I can't even imagine what this builder has in store for the rest of the land and Oak Ridges Moraine. Disgusted,
8. My suggestion is that there be guest parking, like the development on terry carter, so we don't Have residents parked all over the streets and lawns. Also that the town homes be grouped not in excess of 8 homes. Thanks.
Aft ZELINKA PRIAMO LTD
MEMO
TO: Joanne Barnett Marianneville Development Ltd.
FROM: Richard Zelinka, MES, MC1P, RPP Zelinka Priam° Ltd.
DATE: March 19, 2015
RE: Response to Written Comments Received from February 24, 2015 PIC.
We thank members of the public who attended the February 24, 2015 P.1 .C. for the Block 159 Site Plan, and those who subsequently provided written comments to the Town.
We have reviewed the comments. Many address broader issues relating to the draft approved Marianneville subdivision, or to on-going existing conditions within the area.
We have provided responses to those comments which address the proposed Block 159 Site Plan proposal:
Amount of park or green space for the development.
The Site Plan and Landscape Plan show a large (993 m 2) amenity space central to the development. This will contain a children's playground area, a formal landscaped area including a sitting area, as well as informally landscaped passive areas, connected to Crossland Gate through a walkway and landscaped view corridor,
Moreover, Block 159 residents will have safe and direct access to the open space and trails adjacent to the stormwater pond across Crossland Gate.
318 Wellington Road London, ON N6C 4P4
Tel: (519) 474-7137 • Fax: (519) 474-2284 rr.nn -ynnimin renrn
2. Traffic coming from the Townhouse Development
The completed and accepted traffic studies for the community, which includes the Block 159 townhouse development, are available from the Town.
It should be noted that peak traffic generated by re-development of Block 159 is comparable to peak traffic generated by the former recreation facility at this location.
3. Three-storey height of townhomes is intrusive.
Most of the proposed buildings are two storeys in height. Only the four dual-frontage buildings facing Alex Doner Drive and Crossland Gate have a height of three storeys, in accordance with the approved Zoning Bylaw, and are only slightly higher than the height permitted in nearby R1 zones. These heights are considerably lower than the existing 5- storey apartment building to the south which is part of the existing neighbourhood.
4. Construction management.
A Construction Management Plan including Block 159 has been prepared. Notification of residents of any traffic or transit disruptions is a normal part of the construction management process.
5. Prefer to see materials other than brick used for balconies on Building 7.
Buildings 7-10 have large terraces over their interior-facing garages. They will not be visible from the surrounding community. The use of brick provides a privacy screen and enclosure for patio furniture, barbeques, et cetera, since these terraces face onto the central common amenity area.
6. Make sure there are adequate extra parking spaces.
The development will meet all parking requirements. The site plan shows 19 additional (visitor) parking spaces above the spaces for individual units.
7. Some trees seem close to the pavement.
All trees have been positioned by the landscape architect to ensure adequate room for root growth and long-term health.
8. Building 10 seems to have a large peak.
The peak of Building 10 is equivalent in height and pitch to buildings 7, 8 and 9, and is within the zoning requirement.
9. Quality/colour of materials.
The development will be using high-quality brick and stone materials from Brampton Brick. The colour of materials has not yet been selected.
10. Ensure that homes in the new development are similar in appearance to original Glenway development.
The Townhomes in Block 159 will not look similar to either the existing single detached dwellings or the existing apartment building. While they will have individual front entrances, unlike the single detached dwellings they are an attached form of dwelling, and units facing the public streets will be three storeys in height and will not have the front garage and driveway which characterize existing single dwellings in the community. Because of their lower height and individual at-grade entrances, they are unlike the nearby existing apartment building. Nevertheless, the townhomes have been designed to be compatible with the existing neighbourhood, and to provide an attractive northerly entrance to the community.
11. Preserve mature trees.
The developer has provided a Tree Preservation, Protection, Replacement and Enhancement Plan. Wherever possible, healthy, mature trees are being retained and protected or transplanted within the development area, and supplemented with new trees.
12. Townhomes should be grouped not in excess of 8 homes.
Buildings 5 and 6 are proposed to have 8 units. All other buildings will have six, five or four units.
REVIEW NOTES
470 CROSSLAND GATE (PHASE 1) — BLOCK 159
Marianneville Developments Limited
• Property is zoned Residential Townhouse Dwelling 1 Exception 124 (H) (R4-N-124) with a holding symbol by By-law Number 2010-40, as amended by By-law Number 2014-25 approved by Ontario Municipal Board
• Land use will be permitted at such time as Council passes a by-law removing 1-1' prefix subject to applicant addressing conditions for removal (e.g. servicing allocation granted by Town; Owner executing site plan agreement and posting performance securities)
• Servicing allocation was granted by Committee of the Whole on April 13, 2015 subject to final approval from Council on April 20, 2015
• Parking numbers and setbacks appear satisfactory
• Record of Site Condition required as use is changing from commercial to residential
• Fire route signage to be in accordance with sign by-law; temporary street signage required during construction to assist emergency responders; signage to be visible from street; fire break lots will be required
• Construction Management Plan required prior to issuance of any building permit
• Property is within Wellhead Protection Area and a Source Water Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan may be required
• Town's Consulting Arborist to review Arborist Report and Tree Removal/Preservation Plan
Preliminary Site Plan Review Comments April 20, 2015
