Below are the links where you will find a list of questions and answers brought forward by the community in anticipation of the Monday, March 21st PDC meeting along with the draft development agreement and related schedules outlining the developers commitment.
Please be advised the Agenda for the Planning and Development Committee Meeting scheduled for March 21, 2016 in the Council Chambers at 7pm has been posted. http://www7.mississauga.ca/documents/agendas/committees/pdc/2016/03_21_16_-_PDC_Agenda.pdf. Ponytrail is Item 4.4 on the Agenda.
For those wishing to speak to the Application at the March 21st Planning and Development Committee Meeting, please contact email@example.com as soon as possible to be added to the Speaker’s List no later than Friday, March 18, 2016.
- Where else in the City do condos and apartments co-exist on the same property? And how do they share amenities? One example is 3501 Glen Erin Drive – a condo conversion with a co-existing rental apartment building and rental townhouses. They share an internal roadway, access and private services. The shared amenities or services are managed through a shared facilities agreement between the rental and condo corporation. Such an agreement would address reciprocal costs and maintenance (see page 5, paragraph 4 of Recommendation Report– page 61 February 22, 2016 PDC agenda) . There are other scenarios of rental retail, for example in the bottom of condo buildings or different condominium corporations which share elements, accesses or amenities. This arrangement would be reviewed through a condominium application. Note that the properties are technically severed once the condo application is approved but the agreements are arranged for the buildings to share facilities.
- Can a condition be imposed that the condos cannot be converted to rental apartments? Our zoning by-law does not regulate tenure (i.e. rental or condo). Mississauga Official Plan has policies which encourage the provision of rental buildings (See Mississauga Official Plan Section 7 – Complete Communities i.e. Section 7.2.7). That said, the proposal is for two condominium buildings.
- The Subject paragraph and Items 1 and 2 in the Corporate Report refer to both “two new condominium apartment buildings” and “permit additional apartment buildings”. Residents were concerned with the wording – ie apartment infers rentals. Can we receive clarification that the application is for condominiums and not rental apartments. The proposal is for condominium buildings.
- The Traffic Study is dated 2012 prior to Transitway being implemented and conducted on only one day. The residents feel the Study is outdated and, depending on the day the study was conducted, does not reflect the congestion issue. May we have your comments? The 2012 traffic counts that the study was based on are acceptable as per the City’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and, therefore, updated traffic counts are not required. With that said, Transportation and Works staff also compared the traffic counts in the report against the latest traffic counts on record (2013, 2015). The differences between the 2012 and 2013/2015 traffic volumes are not significant enough to require an updated study.
- According to the design sheet, the added sanitary effluent will increase pipe flows downstream of the proposed connections to approximately 90% of the pipe’s capacity. Residents do not feel this is acceptable. Apparently, 8-10 years ago a pump was installed at 1764 Rathburn because the pipes did not line up. 1764 Rathburn and the subject site were built at the same time. Residents are concerned with the 90% capacity figure. May we kindly have your comments. There are no concerns regarding the sewer effluent that will be generated from this site, and there is sufficient capacity to support the development proposal. Further, the Region is considering potential infrastructure upgrades in the area, which may provide additional capacity in the future. Region staff are aware of the flooding concerns that have taken place upstream of this development, and it has been determined that these issues are unrelated to the development at 1850 Rathburn/4100 Ponytrail. The Region’s modelling of the proposed development shows the sewer well under 90 percent capacity.
- Can a condition be imposed to improve the condition of the existing rental building on site; See Page 5 of Recommendation Report (Page 61 Agenda, February 22, 2016 PDC agenda) – Improvements to the site and buildings will be detailed through the development agreement site plan application.
- To what extent can the community be involved in the contributions under Section 37 and the Site Plan process? The community can provide input regarding what the section 37 contribution can be put towards. The community can also provide input into the site plan process. While public consultation is not a statutory requirement for site plan applications, the community can certainly provide input.
- Please provide a list of what other community improvements have been implemented as a result of Section 37. To date, the only benefits that have been implemented are the major improvements to Harold Kennedy (formerly Lions) park in Port Credit through the Fram Development (pool, upgraded facilities etc.). There are a number of Section 37 contributions that have been secured through development applications but have not yet been implemented (i.e. monies for public art, streetscape, entry feature, bike lanes, etc.).
- The Wind Study is only a “desk top” study and did not take into account the Shaver Trail. May we kindly have your comment. A quantitative wind study was submitted and reviewed by staff. A quantitative study involves building a physical model and testing it in a simulation facility. The wind conditions on Shavers Trail will exceed the requirements for wind comfort on trails.
This application has been deferred – An update will be provided when a date has been set by Planning & Development.
The Agenda for the February 22nd, 2016 Planning and Development Committee Meeting and the Corporate Report for this Development Application is now available for review on-line under Item 4.4 at www7.mississauga.ca/documents/agendas/committees/pdc/2016/02_22_16_-_PDC_Agenda.pdf.
For those wishing to speak to the Application at the February 22nd Planning and Development Committee Meeting, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org before Friday, February 19, 2016 to be added to the Speaker’s List.
I will continue to oppose this Development Application and the Corporate Report as I am adamant this is not the appropriate development for this neighbourhood!!!!
To view the presentation from the January 13, 2016 Capacity Study meeting please click on the links below:
The Applicant attended before Planning and Development Committee on May 25, 2015 wherein the Corporate Report was presented by the City’s Planning Department. The Applicant made a formal presentation, followed by Deputations and comments from members of Rockwood Homeowner’s Association and PDOC and residents from the existing apartment buildings and surrounding neighbourhood. Thank you to those who made a deputation and/or comments and to all the residents that attended the meeting.
The Applicant will now be required to address the technical issues noted in the Corporate Report and the community concerns. The Recommendation Report will likely come back before Planning and Development Committee in the Fall of 2015.PDC Agenda – May 25, 2015 - Please refer to page 46 onward for the Corporate Report on OZ 12/009 W3 If you’d like to view any of the plans and associated studies, they are available at City Hall. For now, I have attached a site plan which shows dimensions and setbacks.The notice included a small image of one of the renderings that the applicant provided to give a general idea about what the buildings may look like. A2 – NOV21-2014 May 25, 2015 at 7:00PM Council Chambers – Application will be brought forward to Planning & Development Committee. Once the Planning Department has posted the agenda and report I will provide a link. I want to make it clear that my position has not changed. I am in support of the official plan, the current zoning for this area and completely opposed to to the current development proposal and changing the official plan. Staff comments: Staff have not formulated a planning opinion to date. This is because the revised proposal is still at a preliminary stage and we require additional information from the applicant and additional public consultation (through the statutory public meeting) to evaluate the application. Here is a summary of some of the main issues: Traffic/ Location of New Entrance Transportation and Works Staff required that the southerly site access to the site be aligned with Tapestry Trail in order to improve safety and reduce conflicting turning movements. This has been shown in the recent plans. A driveway access that connected to the intersection at Rathburn and Ponytrail was contemplated but is not required.An updated Traffic Impact and Parking Study was submitted and reviewed by staff. Based on the site statistics, the intersection capacity analysis results indicate that the analyzed intersections (7 intersections including Burnhamthorpe and Ponytrail and Rathburn and Ponytrail) are expected to operate at a good level of service in the future, total scenario. The centre median on Ponytail Drive will require modifications to provide sufficient left turn storage for vehicles turning into the site (the developer would be responsible for this work). Transportation and Works staff will be looking into the signal timing at Burnhamthorpe and Ponytrail and will do a site visit to observe the traffic condition at the peak hour. Stormwater Management An updated Functional Service Report is required to be submitted for review. Transportation and Works staff have requested that on-site storm water management techniques be incorporated into the design and construction of site works and services. Overlook to existing townhomes The distance separation between the existing townhomes and the proposed new buildings is being evaluated from an urban design perspective. Chain Link Fence abutting Shaver Trail The chain link fence was requested by Community Services as it is a standard requirement of private lands next to green belt lands. An opening in the fence is required for a walkway connection to be determined through the site plan process. Pedestrian Traffic Pedestrian traffic is a consideration in evaluating the proposed site and access design.Some considerations include:
- The use of Shaver Trail by residents and surrounding community
- The configurations of driveways and accesses for pedestrian safety and circulation
- The placement of buildings for pedestrian access
- Pedestrian access to the plaza across the street
- The comfort of pedestrians on site and along sidewalk in front of the site (as it relates to open space/wind etc.)
Key Points of Presentation:
- 2 buildings; one 12 storeys and one 15 storeys for a total of 278 units;
- 70% Greenspace on lands;
- New entrance to align with Tapestry Trail will be updated and modern;
- Rental and condo units to share all amenity space;
- Resident and visitor parking will be located both underground and on surface.
Aiden Stanley of the City’s Planning Department outlined the next steps with respect to the Planning Act process.
A Question and Answer Session commenced. The following are the concerns/questions raised:
|Flood/Storm Management||Glen advised Storm Management Plan meets standard; Councillor Fonseca to review City Policy|
|Density||1 x lot coverage is allowed; application is for 1.6 x lot coverage; Councillor Fonseca has requested a Local Area Plan be conducted for this area|
|Traffic Congestion||Glen advised Traffic Study has been complete and meets standard; Councillor Fonseca has requested City’s comments and investigation of the synchronization of traffic lights at Burnhamthorpe and Ponytrail|
|Property Standard Issues/Tenant Issues||Tenants to contact the Forest Park; Councillor Fonseca will arrange an inspection of the common areas by a Property Standards Officer|
|Proposed Chain Link Fence along Shaver Trail||Councillor Fonseca to receive clarification from staff|
|How to submit a Petition||Staff will provide information shortly.|
February 6, 2015:
February 4, 2015: Ponytrail Development Tenant Information Session Flyer
I understand the Applicant is hosting a meeting with the tenants of 4100 Ponytrail on February 10th. Unfortunately, due to the short notice I received and my commitment to Mississauga Cycling Advisory Committee’s meeting on the evening of January 10, I am not available to attend.
I am in the process of arranging a community meeting for all residents to attend. Once I have the venue confirmed, I will provide you with the date, etc.
October 2014 – The City of Mississauga has not received another formal submission from the applicant since June 2013 so the plans that are listed below are current and the application remains under review.
A community meeting was held on September 18, 2013 to bring residents up to date and prepare for the upcoming Planning and Development Committee meeting.
If you are not already on my e-blast list please send me an e-mail to email@example.com and I will ensure you are added or contact Aiden Stanley, Planner, at 905-615-3200 x 3897 or at firstname.lastname@example.org for more information.
OZ 12/009 W3
- On June 25, 2012 my office was advised that the Planning and Building Department had received applications to amend the Official Plan from Residential High Density I to Residential High Density II – Special Site and to amend the Zoning By-law from RA4-1 (Apartment Dwellings) to RA4 – exception (Apartment Dwellings). The purpose of the proposed amendments was to permit the construction of 156 units in a 16 storey apartment building, 152 units in three 4 storey apartment buildings and 105 stacked townhouse units in addition to retaining the two existing 18 storey rental apartment buildings.
- A community meeting was held on September 18th, 2013 at Glenforest Secondary School to discuss a development proposal submitted by Forest park Circle Inc., owners of the lands, to intensify this site.
- The Clerks office received a petition dated Nov. 6/12 from PDOC (Ponytrail Development Opposition Committee) with a total of 660 signatures opposing this application.
- Forest Park Circle Inc, owners of the lands, revised the applications with the submission of new materials which were circulated by Planning staff for review on June 10, 2013. The revised applications propose 114 units in a 10 storey apartment building, 94 units in two 4 storey apartment buildings facing Rathburn and Ponytrail and 82 units in two 4 storey apartment buildings adjacent to Shavers Trail. Current application drawings and details are contained below.
- City staff and external agencies are presently reviewing the revised materials and expect to complete their review in early August.
Please find below a listing of next steps associated with the processing of these applications:
- Completion of technical review of revised application materials by City staff and external agencies
- Second Community Meeting to hear input on revisions made to the development proposal following the first Community Meeting.
- Public Meeting before the City’s Planning and Development Committee (PDC).
- Continued staff and agency review of the applications.
- Planning staff present a Supplementary Report containing recommendations to PDC pertaining to the appropriateness of the applications.
- Ratification of the PDC decision by City Council.
Should you have any questions, require additional information or wish to review submission materials please feel free to contact my office or Aiden Stanley, Planner, at 905-615-3200 x 3897 or at email@example.com.