King City East Landowners gave the public an opportunity to understand their application to develop the southwest quadrant of 15th Sideroad/Dufferin. This application has not been approved; in fact, the approval process is just beginning. This development is significant: a big piece of land (204 ha/500 acres); and requested deviations from the current Official Plan are significant. At this stage in my understanding of the project I have 1 significant concern: the increase in density (on average, double that which is in official plan) and all the traffic which will come with that. I am also disappointed that the planned built form is predominantly single detached homes. And I am far from being comfortable about requested buffer reductions in a couple spots and will be looking for more information.
Below are links to the story boards shown at the March 6th open house. Note: these story boards have been prepared by the developers to present their application. For those interested to either simply understand this development or to try and influence it, these story boards are very useful. In the information below there is no mention of built form; my comments above are based on discussions at the open house.
Key Findings Here a comparison of the the application to the Township’s Official Plan Review is made. Please note that the comparison is with the OP Review; not with the current Official Plan. The Council has not approved a new Official Plan. In an earlier post I expressed concerns with a density of 7 units per hectare.
Existing and Potential Residential Development This shows the individual properties included in King City East Landowners.
Schedule 4 Here is the review of change in density i.e. the change in units per hectare (uha).
Preliminary Development Plan This gives you a “bird’s eye view” of what the development will look like: the patterns for the blocks, the natural heritage features & buffers, the roads etc.
Preliminary Development Restrictions This is again a “bird’s eye view” with specific attention to the limits of development activity because of natural heritage features.
Transportation Plan Here are comments about how the application “fits” with the Transportation Plan of King Township.
Sanitary Drainage Here 3 different options for building the necessary infrastructure is presented.
Next steps: In near future I anticipate that Staff will be scheduling the statutory Public Meeting; at this meeting the public can make deputations to Council to express support or opposition and to raise questions. The Staff report will identify outstanding issues/questions from their perspective; and they will recommend to Council to receive the report and to send back to Staff to complete their review and to consider information received from the Public.
As always I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Thank you for posting the information. I also attended the developers’ information session. I have 2 comments.
1) For the storyboard “Collector Roads Alternatives”, the first two options show a collector road connection to Keele St by extending the existing Tawes Trail road. This is not possible because in order to reach Keele St it would require crossing privately owned property where a large new home is presently being constructed. The King planning department is aware of this showstopper.
2) Their presentation of the storyboard “Transportation Plan” is misleading to the public. As noted above, the connection to Keele St shown on that exhibit cannot be completed. We will be left instead with what the KTMP shows in the plan for Exhibit E-4 “King City Proposed Collector Road Network”. This shows the new collector road reaching Keele St by traveling along three small, existing local neighbourhood roads. The developers’ transportation planners report indicates that this intersection is expected to be the busiest of any of the exits for the new development and it would have in the order of 400 vehicles per hour using it at peak times in the morning and afternoon. This would be an unacceptable impact on our small neighbourhood roads.
Residents of East Humber Dr. are against the application for Official Plan Amendment to increase residential density in the “Entas” lands from 5 to units per hectare. More disturbing is the showing of the extension of East Humber Dr.. in the Transportation Plan, through environmental protected lands all the way to Dufferin St. That will be catastrophic to a quiet residential community and to the natural environment.
Peter…I encourage you to attend the May 2nd public meeting for the development application and/or make a written submission.
I will attend the May 2nd meeting. I have also submitted a letter to the Township, hopefully it will be circulated to all concerned and involved in the decision making process.
Hello,
Where is the meeting being held on May 2nd at 6:00pm.
Thank You!
The public meeting for the OPA amendment application is at the Council Chambers (2075 King Road, King City).
How did that State view development turn out? What’s happening.
I told the town my concerns in not showing government housing in. I guess karma took it’s place on that one. The project should have never been approved.
Hello Stephen, I don’t understand your comment about “government housing.” I have been told that the Stateview development continues to be in limbo due to there being criminal charges. Having said that, although there were aspects to the proposal which I did not like the project was valuable as it would have delivered a munch needed different housing format in King.