CITY OF KINGSTON PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING NO ADDENDUM Thursday, November 21, :30 p.m., Council Chamber, City Hall

Transcription

1 CITY OF KINGSTON PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING NO ADDENDUM Thursday, November 21, :30 p.m., Council Chamber, City Hall 8. BUSINESS a) Comprehensive Report No. PC (File No. D ) Application for Final Plan of Condominium Part of Lot 4, Concession 4 Geographic Twp Of Pittsburgh, City of Kingston; Isle of Man Applicant - Duffe Lane Cottage Association Memorandum from Mr. Grant Bain, Director of Planning and Development, dated November 21, advising of a correction to the Key Map listed Exhibit A of Report No. PC , schedule page 136 in the agenda package. (Schedule Pages 1 to 2) 11. CORRESPONDENCE b) Correspondences received regarding the application for a Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for 655 Graceland Avenue. i. Dan Kennedy & Jane Hillen, November 22, 2013 (Schedule Pages 3 to 4) ii. Fran & Bob Farquhar, November 19, 2013 (Schedule Page 5) iii. Dave Hagerman, November 19, 2013 (Schedule Page 6) iv. Don Patenaude, November 18, 2013 (Schedule Page 7) v. Valerie Jarzylo, November 14, 2013 (Schedule Pages 8 to 9) vi. Kenton & Zdenka Ko, November 5, 2013 (Schedule Pages 10 to 11) vii. Jeff & Cari Weston, November 1, 2013 (Schedule Page 12) viii. George & Cheryl Druce, November 1, 2013 (Schedule Pages 13 to 14) ix. Councillor Lisa Osanic, October 30, 2013 (Schedule Pages 15 to 16) x. Bob & Linda Dick (Schedule Page 17) xi. Dennis Cameron, November 20, 2013 (Schedule Page 18) xii. Jayna Burns, November 20, 2013 (Schedule Pages 19 to 20) xiii. Joe Forsythe, November 21, 2013 (Schedule Page 21) xiv. James Selkirk, November 20, 2013 (Schedule Page 22)

2 1

3 2

4 3

5 4

6 5

7 6

8 7

9 8

10 9

11 10

12 11

13 12

14 13

15 14

16 15

17 16

18 17

19 Subject: forest hill development From: Dennis Cameron Sent: Wednesday, November 20, :31 AM To: Budd,Jason Cc: lou Subject: FW: forest hill development Thanks Dennis Cameron 508 Forest Hill Dr.E. To Whom It May Concern: As a resident of close proximity to the new proposed subdivision, I welcome and am looking forward to the optimistic advantages of the new proposed subdivision being created in our neighbourhood in the near future. I have listed a few of the possible plosive aspects of this new project and they are as follows: 1, It will act as a sound barrier from the train tracks and the highway. 2. It will not de-valuate current property. 3. It would be more of a determent if they were planning on building apartment buildings or a complex of semi-detached homes. The plan indicates that all of the new homes will be single detached dwellings. 4. They have pro-posed to build 53 new homes in this area as where there is enough land to actually build and accommodate 109 homes. 5. The small amount of wildlife that reside in this area would be much safer in another location eg: Lemoine Point Park or away from the railway or busy highway. 6. There is no documentation to indicate that this vacant land was zoned as green land and when the Forest Hill area was developed that the vacant land would not be developed in the future. 1 18

20 Jayna Burns 621 Forest Hill Drive Kingston, Ontario K7M 7N6 November 20, 2013 Re: Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for 655 Graceland Avenue Zoning By-LawAmendment D & D Graceland Avenue Ainley Group Engineers and Planners Ontario Ltd. Congratulations to the new owners of this parcel of land it is indeed a beautiful space! With the right balance of planning and vision, this will be another lovely area for Kingstonians to be proud of. It is all ready unique in being an area that exists within a developed, close knit community. I came upon the proposed development information purely by accident and later learned that some area residents were recipients of mail outs wondering why I wasn t included on that list? I would like to share my concerns for the proposed plan for the area known as 655 Graceland. I have poured over the documents set up on the city website that share the processes and studies that have been done in preparation for the development of this area. I have reviewed the suggested layout of 53 homes, and wonder if there could be consideration of a few other ideas? Perhaps fewer homes, not 53 but 26, on larger lots that would ensure purchasers could enjoy similar size of yards as that of their pre-existing neighbours? 26 homes would greatly reduce the added traffic to the areas who are going to be affecting Lincoln, Truman, Bayridge Drive, Hudson Drive, Graceland, and Forest Hill. I m not suggesting that the developers would entertain any loss of revenue, infact the opposite, they would have something more unique to offer to home buyers in a market place that is all ready saturated with small cookie cutter new home options. 19

21 If my understanding is correct, the new road will be named Forest Hill Court, if this is accurate, could consideration be given to calling it Graceland Court as this is the main point of access? Maintaining the green space that has always existed behind Forest Hill East, closest to Bayridge Drive, could be accomplished by moving the suggested park area to that end, across from the pond/run off area, could that be considered? Perhaps keeping more of the 792 trees that currently thrive there? Less disruption to the existing wildlife, natural terrain and residents would be ideal. I understand that the requirement of an Environmental Assessment has been waived, but I don t understand why, when there are so many deer, foxes, birds, coyotes, rabbits, etc., could you clarify for me why it isn t required? In lieu of the modest park space/lot that has been suggested at what is currently the end of Forest Hill Drive West, could consideration be given to keeping the cul de sac as is, and developing the empty land at the end as three or four homes? This would maintain the integrity of the cul de sac as it has been for the last three decades. Would the developers consider modifying their plan to add more houses to this sought after location? And eliminate the drive through from Forest Hill West? Many other subdivisions have one portal for entry, for example Bayshore Estates off Bath Road has Tamarac, Sycamore and Rankin within, with one access road. It certainly has been my experience as a long time resident of Kingston, that our city and all of its employees are dedicated to creating the best possible quality of life for all of its residents. I m sure that the developers too, want to reap a solid return on their investments, but leave behind a legacy that they and their families will be proud to have their name associated with. I would appreciate if my thoughts could be considered and if I could be included in conversations moving forward that affect my community, my neighbours (both the ones I have now and the ones who will be moving in!) and my own family. Thank you very much. Jayna Burns 20

22 Subject: 655 Graceland Ave From: jforsythe Sent: Thursday, November 21, :45 AM To: Budd,Jason Subject: 655 Graceland Ave D , D As a resident of 1096 Lincoln Dr. for the past 27 years I have serious concern as to the traffic impact the proposed new subdivision will have on the residents of Lincoln Dr., between Bayridge Dr. and Forest Hill West. With 53 homes being slated and the average family possessing 2 vehicles, this could increase the traffic by 200 extra vehicles per day on the aforementioned stretch of roadway. As it stands now the vehicles exiting Forest Hill East onto Lincoln Dr do not head the Stop Sign at the end of Graceland Ave. Add the trees at the intersection into the equation and it becomes a dangerous intersection. If the subdivision was fed by a primary road such as Bayridge Dr. or Bath Rd. it would a much smaller impact on Lincoln Dr. As the proposal stands now it will cause major traffic and traffic congestion at both Graceland and Lincoln as well as Lincoln and Bayridge Dr. In conclusion, as a realtor, I am not opposed to progress, just not at the expense of the residents of the area who will be greatly affected by the increased traffic and expected decrease in property values. Sincerely, Joe Forsythe 1096 Lincoln Dr. Kingston. 1 21

23 Subject: Proposed development of 655 Graceland Avenue From: James Selkirk Sent: Wednesday, November 20, :14 PM To: Budd,Jason Subject: Proposed development of 655 Graceland Avenue Dear Jason: My name is James Selkirk and I am a local Kingston builder and past president of The Kingston Home Builder s Association. This letter is in support of the proposed development at 655 Graceland Avenue in Kingston. As a builder in Kingston, I am happy to see this development, especially from an independent local developer and not a large out of town developer. I am confident that the City will enter into an organized and well thought out subdivision agreement with the developer. This process will take into consideration storm water management pond, proximity to the railroad, the park, the residential dwelling lots and other pertinent issues. I am also confident that the City and the developer will not offend any basic planning principals. The above noted property is private property, zoned in the official plan as residential. This land is not zoned as greenbelt, and is not a public park. There is a need for more infill development such as will be provided by this project. Infill development supports the desire for increased urban density and reduces the need to extend existing municipal services beyond the current urban growth boundary. I fully support the developer for this project. Yours truly, James Selkirk CET, President James Selkirk Custom Homes Ltd. PO Box 2011, Station Main Kingston, ON K7L 5J8 1 22