74 UNION STREET PUBLIC PARTICIPATION COMMITTEE CASE Wednesday, November 23, 2016 Minutes

Transcription

1 74 UNION STREET PUBLIC PARTICIPATION COMMITTEE CASE Wednesday, November 23, 2016 Minutes PRESENT: STAFF: REGRETS: OTHERS: Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair Mr. Jamie McLean, Vice Chair Ms. Tara Quinton Ms. Diane Covey Mr. Paul Russell Mr. Malcolm McCall, Alternate PPC Member Ms. Thea Langille, Principal Planner, HRM Planning Mr. Tyson Simms, Planner, HRM Planning Ms. Tara Couvrette, Planning Controller Ms. Ann Merritt Mr. Kevin Riles, President & CEO of KWR Approvals Inc. (Applicant) Mr. Will Robinson-Muskat, KWR Approvals Inc. Ms. Sue Sirrs, Outside! Planning and Design Mr. Jamie Clarke, Outside! Planning and Design Mr. Geoff MacLean, SDMM Ltd. Mr. Andrew Holley, Levis Street Design Group Mr. Dennis Stormer

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CALL TO ORDER APROVAL OF THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AND APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 3 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Sep. 14, APPLICANT PRESENTATION / GROUP DESCUSSION NEXT MEETING ADJOURNMENT.... 7

3 1. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:13pm. 2. APROVAL OF THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AND APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Moved by Paul Russell, Seconded by Jamie McLean to approve the agenda as presented. Motion Put and Passed. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Moved by Paul Russell, Seconded by Jamie McLean to approve the minutes with amendments to section 7. Motion Put and Passed. 4. APPLICANT PRESENTATION FACTORS FROM PPC Mr. Kevin Riles, President & CEO of KWR Approvals Inc. (Applicant) showed a video of what the development would look like in both plan A and B. After the video Mr. Riles then asked that Mr. Geoff MacLean, SDMM Ltd. explain the science of how the video was created. Mr. Geoff MacLean then explained they used a drone, Surveys, walked the property as well as different programs to come with the video. Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair asked if the vegetation was supposed to be accurate. Mr. Geoff MacLean explained that it wasn t accurate for everyone s property but the general jest of where tree coverage is, is what is shown. Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair explained that it is defiantly not an accurate representation and pointed out some inconsistences. She stated what they are trying to interpret is interference of the site plan on the existing properties around it and if it is not accurate then you get a false sense of what the disruption would be to the home owners. She would like to point out that this interpretation is overly lush. Ms. Thea Langille, Principal Planner, HRM stated that Maybe some of the vegetation that has been selected in the imagery around the homes is not an accurate selection of the vegetation that is on the site now around the existing homes. Mr. Riles stated that they would address those concerns. Mr. Riles then went over what the committees concerns were from the last meeting: PPC Concerns PDT RESPONSE Density / Number of Units Would townhouses look into backyards and/or houses on existing properties? Headlights How would vehicle headlights effect existing dwellings when entering or exiting the development? Screening Techniques How effective would screening measures (natural vegetation, fences, etc.) work? How would screening measures look throughout site, whether looking into development from existing properties or from development towards existing properties? Retaining Walls How would retaining walls look throughout site? Concern with height of retaining walls, particularly retaining wall along high side of development Guest Vehicles Spaces Location of guest vehicles spaces along retaining wall in Site Plan A

4 Blasting and Vegetation Removal How long would vegetation removal take? Will blasting be necessary? Timeline for completion? Mr. Riles Sowed an aerial view of the development site as it is today as well as aerial views of what site plan A and B would look like from different vantage points. He explained the vehicle headlight schematic and how the private driveway is below the homes on Nottingham Street. He explained that SDMM looked at the headlights along two locations along the driveway in both development options (A&B). SDMM based the headlight beam on a typical vehicle and the results are generally the same in either development option. In both Option A and Option B, the headlight beams will shine into the ground below. He then explained the differences between the two options: Option A Option B Undisturbed Area 35% 33% Landscaped Area 33% 37% Retaining Walls 3 2 Front Face towards Nottingham St. Face towards Union St. Decks/backyards Face towards Union St. Face towards Nottingham St. Vehicle headlights Shine into retaining wall Shine into slope Guest Parking 7 Spaces along driveway 3 Spaces along laneway 7 Spaces along driveway 3 spaces at the top of the entrance Mr. Riles then turned the floor over to Ms. Sue Sirrs, Outside! Planning and Design to go over the vegetation that will be on the site. Ms. Sue Sirrs, Outside! Planning and Design explained what landscaping/vegetation they were thinking about using on both Site Plan A and B. (shown on slides) Ms. Sue Sirrs suggested that they would be selecting trees that have a fairly quick growth rate because they will be regular size plants that you would buy at a garden centre. Mr. Jamie McLean, Vice Chair wanted to know why there was one less retaining wall in Site Plan B. Mr. Geoff MacLean, SDMM Ltd. explained they are trying to stay away from the natural drainage features in Site Plan B so sloping allows them to stay outside of the drainage feature where in Site Plan A where block C is twisted the other way the only way to stay away from that natural drainage feature is to incorporate a retaining wall. Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair asked about vegetation, it s maturity, if it would be garden store variety. Ms. Sue Sirrs, Outside! Planning and Design stated that when she said garden store she just meant similar to the sizes you see in garden centres. She also spoke to growth rates. Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair asked about the views that were shown and noted that there were no views as if you were living in areas around Nottingham, Union or Bridge because that was something they had asked to see was street views Mr. Geoff MacLean, SDMM Ltd. explained they had included street views and went through the slides explaining where and what views were captured. Explained the buildings that are shown do not portray the actual buildings on the properties. Mr. Jamie Clarke, Outside! Planning and Design stated that when they walked the property they scrutinized the canopy of the vegetation that was there however it is difficult for this program to drop in exactly the species that is right in any particular spot. However, Mr. Jamie Clarke was pretty confident that Geoff s rendering was accurate enough that it represented the tree cover and buffering that existed. Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair asked for clarity on Union and Bridge you have shown a street view through but on Nottingham you have shown a backyard view. Mr. Geoff MacLean, SDMM Ltd. Yes. That is how the request of the committee was interpreted when the arrows were drawn on the map from the last meeting. Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair stated that they wanted to get a sense of how towering those townhouses would be from Nottingham because that is where the highest sight point would be looking down over them.

5 Mr. Kevin Riles stated that they tried to show a pretty good selection however they have limitations on how many different angles they can show. Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair asked that there be equal view from each, 3 street views, 3 backyard views etc. As it stands they have 2 street views and 1 backyard view. What they would like is 3 streets or 3 backyards so they know what they are seeing. Ms. Thea Langille asked Kevin that knowing what his team was able to do and the work that was done could his team tell the committee what they would see if they were standing on Notting looking towards the property from the street rather than their backyard. Mr. Geoff MacLean, SDMM Ltd. explained what the view would look like from Nottingham. He explained that the view that they had from the backyard was looking down on the townhouses not strait across. Mr. Jamie Clarke, Outside! Planning and Design stated it was a forced horizon line. Your eye is drawn to the center of the picture because the focal point for the image is down. In actuality if you were standing on that property looking straight across at a horizon you would be looking well up into the sky view. Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair stated that she appreciated the clarity because the image does not speak to what was described. Mr. Jamie McLean, Vice Chair wanted to know if the videos would be available to share. Ms. Thea Langille stated that there was discussion about setting up a drop box so that the information would be available to the committee. The power point was just too large to send out in an . The video is just a youtube link that can be sent out to the committee. Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair stated the Microsoft has One Drive and gmail has Google Drive. She thanked everyone for the clarity and stated they are going to have to interpret this back to other people and they are going to have questions and I would like to know that we are answering them properly. Mr. Jamie Clarke, Outside! Planning and Design stated the tag line is if we re going to be looking down at the back of your property and this is what you ll see rather than if you were going to look straight through your property. Mr. Geoff MacLean, SDMM Ltd. went over the spoke to the grading on the property with both site Plan A / B. He stated they tried to match existing as well as they could while maintaining firetruck access. Once you get up to the apex of the turn it levels off. Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair wanted to know what the grade at the apex was. Mr. Geoff MacLean, SDMM Ltd. stated it was 8%, 10%, 15% and then flattens off to 3% along the top and 3% down. So there is quit a drop where the green is along the top of the retaining wall, the backfill on top of that wall and the drop down to the asphalt. Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair wanted to know if the retaining was on the site property. Mr. Geoff MacLean, SDMM Ltd. stated it was. Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair questioned the parking. Mr. Geoff MacLean, SDMM Ltd. showed on the slides of site plan A / B where the visitor parking was. Mr. Jamie McLean, Vice Chair asked what the height of the retaining wall would be. Mr. Geoff MacLean, SDMM Ltd. stated it would be about a meter with some backfill in behind it. Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair wanted a rough estimate of how many feet would be in between the driveway and the property line. Mr. Geoff MacLean, SDMM Ltd. stated there would be between 5-10 feet.

6 Mr. Kevin Riles stated one of the key differences is the location of the driveway. One is closer to Nottingham and one is closer to Union and that is the ultimate factor that affects the layout. It is a choice A or B. Ms. Jennifer MacLeod, Chair wanted to know the height of the retaining wall in both A and B. Mr. Geoff MacLean, SDMM Ltd. stated in A it starts at nothing and gets to 2 ½ meters and in B it start from nothing and gets to 3 meters so, it is about a ½ meter taller and carries on a lot longer. Mr. Jamie McLean, Vice Chair asked if one options was more expensive than the other in terms of what has to be done to prepare the site. Mr. Geoff MacLean, SDMM Ltd. stated option A very well be more expensive because of the third retaining wall. Mr. Kevin Riles said he would make the following offer to the people of the committee. He offered to take more angles / views if they would allow him to come on their decks as well as in their living rooms so that they can get other views/perspectives. He then asked if there was anyone willing to allow them to come out to their homes to get these views. They can then reconcile the video. There was then discussion around the different addresses/development sites that would be best to get these pictures from. They will be looking for pictures from the property, deck, and upper bedroom window. They ended up with the following locations as options: Bridge 14, 22, backup - 26 Union 76, 88 Nottingham 11, 13, 19, NEXT MEETING Ms. Langille went over next steps. It was determined that the next step would be to set up a PIM (Public Information Meeting) at the end of January (Jan 23-27) beginning of February (Jan 30 Feb. 3). The committee is going to engage the community to get a feel of what type of meeting they would be comfortable with however, they are leaning in favor of a traditional PIM. The committee would like it noted that they would like to have timelines included in the PIM from both staff and the applicant on the process and construction. 6. ADJOURNMENT Ms. MacLeod adjourned the meeting at 8:49pm.