As many are already aware, there is a public meeting December 12th to deal with an application for an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and a zoning bylaw amendment to enable development at 13424 and 13400 Keele St. You can read the notice for this meeting here.
The application is clearly not the usual one for King City as it involves much higher densities than is the norm in King City; and it involves building condominium townhouses. The latter are not unknown in KC but they are still very rare.
This kind of application is what was anticipated in the Intensification Study. And as those know who engaged in the Study, this specific site was identified as a possible site for intensification. Having said this I want to clarify that this specific application (i.e. the density, the format) was not specifically addressed in the Study.
I have already been asked by constituents as to what is my response to the application. Here it is. My initial gut response in early 2011 when I first heard about it was “no” –intensification is for the designated growth centres and King City is not one of them. Since then my personal thinking has evolved to being worried about lack of diversity in our housing stock (price, size, attractiveness to Seniors), high cost of public transit when the population is so scarce and stretched out; and I wonder if many of the homes in the new subdivisions are going to be “white elephants” when we have peak oil and much higher electricity costs.
This does not mean that I am ready to sign on for this application; what it does mean is that I am open to looking at it. And rather than saying “no” outright I want to identify what changes would be required to make it acceptable or even desirable.
In addition: I do know a little bit about the plans. From what I have heard they are of a quality which totally ” fits” in King City and it would provide residential options currently not available. But there are clearly many other factors unknown and to be seriously considered– including very importantly the impact on the current communities, the interface with the latter and the additional traffic.
Finally…..I encourage people to give their feedback either in writing and/or at the Public Meeting. I recommend reading here the Intensification report tabled at Committee of Whole (COW) November 1st as it provides good summary/background of the concept. For a summary of feedback received from public follow this next link which takes you to the minutes for the November 1st COW;— click on the second paper clip under item #9.
At the November 1st COW, Council accepted the report and said that pending completion of the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan the public feedback needs to be incorporated so that we can appropriately amend our Community Plans to incorporate intensification.
In the meantime, we have this application. Clearly, in the process of doing so we will flesh out further what kind of intensification we want to have in King City. And we can do so with the benefit of the work done to date on the topic.
Finally, I will appreciate hearing from you– your response to the application and ideas as to the modifications required to make it a good idea. If you don’t want to make a public comment on this blog you can always contact me directly.
Hi Debbie,
I agree that this lot does lend itself to some form of intensification, however, 45 townhouse units, plus 4 detached homes on this piece of land is a dramatic increase in density and would be in stark contrast to ALL the neighbouring residential lots on both sides of Keele. My initial response is to require a significant reduction in the number of units.
I’m not quite clear how four detached homes and an entrance to the townhouse complex would reasonably fit on McClure without fairly narrow lots.
In my view these lots on the west side of Keele are long overdue in having some kind of appropriate development built and landscaped that would compliment the existing homes in King Heights and on the east side of Keele.
Sincerely, Bruce Craig
Hello Debbie,
Your comments are very thought provoking and, although I don’t know what the building plans are, I suspect that they may be in the two to three storey range, based on the current construction in King City. If that is so, they would not be appropriate for the many seniors who find stairs quite uncomfortable. Many communities have bungalow-style townhomes would be much more appropriate, and inviting to seniors.
Bruce is correct in that forty-five townhome units and four single detached homes on approximately four acres seems quite out of character for King City.
Best regards,
Kay Brooks
Hello Kay, I agree totally….a multi storey dwelling is not designed for seniors. So, to meet one of my criteria of providing a housing alternative for seniors there needs to be single storey dwellings. From what I have heard from developer I am expecting to see some. Debbie
Thank you for your reply and your comments. We are fortunate to have you as a member of our Council.
Kay Brooks
I appreciate your kind words; doing my job well is much easier when the residents get involved!
I have already exchanged a few e-mails with Debbie, but thought it best to share my thoughts on her forum. My family lives at 9 McClure and my entire backyard borders on the proposed development. I have a number of points I would like to raise.
Firstly, what consideration is being given to the existing residents, especially those like myself and a handful of my neighbours who border directly on this site? We all built/purchased our homes with the knowledge that we will be living in an estate home community. If a townhouse development of any kind is approved what does that do to us? I have 130 ft width in my backyard and with typical townhouse lot widths of 18-20ft I may have as many as 5 or more townhouse backyards bordering my property. How does that maintain an estate home feeling and what will that do to my property value?
Secondly, if there is a requirement for seniors and affordable housing then that should have all been considered when approving the many new developments on-going in King, not wedged into existing communities where they don’t blend with the surrounding area. After living here over 20 years I don’t want to be in my backyard overlooking multiple backyards with wood fences, cars parked all over the place, etc. This would set a bad example for the future of King because if approved, every developer with a small infill site is going to try and maximize their densities and they will have a precedent to go by. Before you know it you will be seeing all kinds of these cookie-cutter sites popping up within existing communities.
The only intensification of this site that should be considered is something that conforms to the surrounding area (i.e. single family detached homes on half acre lots). This would still create a huge land value uplift for the developer and in turn he should be required by the Town to build something tasteful that will represent the entrance to King Heights and enhance this community. That would be a win-win for the residents and the developer.
Thanks Debbie for the e-mails we exchanged, I look forward to further discussion on this topic at the meeting.
Thank you Claudio for making a comment here. I understand your points very well. A couple thoughts: i) We don’t have the information yet to call the proposal a cookie-cutter one; but, again, I understand why you and others fear that. And to be clear I too do not want to see that. ii) And yes, there should have been more consideration about the need to ensure a diversity of housing 10-15 years ago. That was not done, or at least not done sufficiently. I don’t think that gives us the freedom to continue to ignore the issue. I am very glad that you are getting fully engaged in this process.
Claudio, you make some excellent points. Many of the people who have moved their families into this part of town came here with a clear understanding of the spirit of the Official Plan and a reliance on the town staff and our elected officials to support that Plan and respect the wishes of the majority of residents.
In my opinion, the owner of the land should be allowed to develop that land but it must be developed in a manner which conforms with the surrounding neighbourhood.
Your concerns about property values and the quiet enjoyment of your land are shared by everyone who lives in this community. I wonder if the developer would ‘backstop’ the value of your property as way of easing some of the tension? The developer leaves a bond with the town and, if the value of your property declines (from today’s value) at the time you wish to sell it, the town pays you the difference.
I applaud the great work that Councillor Schafer is doing for us (this website is an extremely informative resource and the opportunity to provide comments here is invaluable for mobilising the community) and I look forward to her upholding the interests of her constituents.
John, your idea of a bond is certainly unique. I just think with so many homes affected and people selling their homes at different times it would not be a realistic option (plus that doesn’t solve the problem regarding the enjoyment of my property and neighbourhood for the years to come. The bottom line is it would be irresponsible of the Town to allow any development that has the potential of lowering neighbouring property values. The goal should allways be to enhance the property values or at least stabilize them. This development, in my opinion, would certainly not achieve that goal.
Hi Debbie,
Your points about diversification of housing stock certainly have some merit. But that does not mean that the need should be addressed in this proposed development.
This is a samll parcel of land surrounded by existing homes of a certain size and style. Cramming a bunch of townhomes into this space at densities that are more than 5 to 10 times the surrounding area, simply makes no sense. It will fundamentally alter the nature of the neighbourhood, cause traffic problems, and significantly impact the resale value of the very large number of existing homes in the area. There is plenty of available land within King to provide for the kind of housing you are advocating. But changing an area that everyone knew was zoned low density to cram in a bunch of homes to line a developer’s pocket is completely inconsistent with the interests of the existing tax payers and voters.
I am sure that most of us would be happy to see the area developed in keeping with the surrounding community. I am equally sure that the vast majority of homeowners in the area are completely opposed to the current proposal. If you consult with the local homeowners, I believe you will find virtually unanimous opposition to this ill conceived plan.
It is time for more leadership than we are seeing!
Hello Bill,
i) You make the comment that “there is plenty of available land within King to provide for the kind of housing [I] am advocating.” I am not quite sure what “available” land you are referring to but just in case you are thinking of the rural land I want to point out that about 70% the Township is protected by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan which precludes development other than in the settlement areas such as King City. A significant portion of the remaining land area is agricultural land which should not be rezoned for residential.
ii) You are wanting to see “more leadership.” I don’t know what you would like to see but I would like to make a clarification point about the process underway. Anyone can make an application for development of a site (of which they are the owner of course). Per the Planning Act the municipality is obligated to review that application. The Public Meeting 12/12 is part of the legislated process. It is the means by which the public learns about the plan; and by which the developer hears from the public.
iii) I am very glad that you participating in the process. Debbie
I am a new resident of King City but have many friends and business associates in the area.
I can tell you all very clearly that the objection to this proposal is extremely high.
The development is solely for the purpose of capital gain with little consideration to the surrounding area and infrastructure.
See you all at the meeting.
Pat
Hi Debbie,
I attended our neighbourhood meeting last Thursday and learned quite a lot about how development processes work, and about the requirement for intensification of housing in King City.
Taking what I learned into consideration, I still vehemently oppose the current application, as it is suggesting a development that is so at odds with the surrounding neighbourhoods.
My main concern is that townhouses seem completely out of place in the proposed location, no matter how tastefully they might be done. And the current proposal, with the blocks of townhouses so tall and so close together, would really feel like one, big rectangular low rise apartment block, with no “common area” green space at all and hardly any garden space for the proposed homes. This would be such a huge contrast to the existing neighbourhoods around it, that it seems inconceivable that it could work. I don’t see how tall, tightly crammed townhouse blocks will ever fit in with a neighbourhood consisting entirely of estate style homes, generally of a low height profile, with large gardens of a half acre and more, on a road that is transitioning from the village into full blown countryside in a matter of a few hundred metres.
I hadn’t thought of the overall height of buildings until it was mentioned, but three storey high blocks adjacent to one and two storey homes also seems completely jarring and out of place with the adjacent neighbourhoods.
This being said, I am not against developing the site. I could see a tastefully designed development of 10 to 12 one and two storey homes, with overall height not exceeding other homes in the surrounding area. ( A “rule” along the lines of the more successful Caribbean islands, who do not allow buildings to be taller than the surrounding palm trees!) I would have thought 3 to 4 per acre facing Keele and maybe 2 to 3 per acre as a transition onto the existing homes to the West would seem viable and would offer a pleasant transition for everyone.
This option would certainly substantially increase intensity from the current two homes on this property, but would keep the new homes in harmony with their surroundings. The one level homes would be also be much more suitable for our seniors, whereas three storey townhouses would definitely NOT be suitable for those no longer able to climb many stairs.
This is a difficult time for King City, as we adjust to the reality of a village with sewers, and the inevitable burst of development and all the pressure that goes with it. There are already so many new homes being built, and we could quickly become a disastrous mess if we don’t tread carefully.
It would seem to be a good time to create an Intensification Plan for the township as a whole, and I believe that such a plan should be in place before we start infilling areas like this with much higher density housing. Once it has been built, it’s too late to regret it! King Township has survived well so far! Let’s not spoil our neighbourhoods and our village now for the sake of rushing applications like this through before we have a sensible, well considered, township plan in place, that provides comfortable neighbourhoods and reasonable transitions for everyone.
Cheers!
Jill
Greetings Debbie,
This subject property is about 5 acres, with a proposed 49 dwellings.
The adjoining property on the west side, in the same 5 acres has just 8 dwellings.
The neighbourhood north of the subject property on Aukland in 5 acres has just 9 dwellings.
The neighbourhood east, across Keele St. in 5 acres has just about 10 dwellings.
The adjoining neighbourhood south, in the 5 acres has just 8 dwellings.
This proposal seeks to increase the existing residential density by more than 500% right in the centre of the immediate surrounding area.
Obviously this is not the place for this development.
Keep up the good work Debbie, we most appreciate your efforts, and I am sure Jane Underhill does also.
Sincerely, Wilson @ Kathryn Markle