INNOVATIVE PLANNING SOLUTIONS planners project managers land development

Transcription

1 INNOVATIVE PLANNING SOLUTIONS planners project managers land development City of Barrie Ontario 70 Collier Street L4M 4T5 Monday December 18 th, 2017 Attention: Re: Bailey Chabot, B.Sc, M.Pl. - Planner Zoning By-law Amendment & Site Plan Applications Ontario Inc 521, 527, and 531 Big Bay Point Road City of Barrie, County of Simcoe In relation to the above noted project, we are pleased to provide the following revised Site Plan submission. We have revised the Site Plan as a result of feedback from the respective Neighbourhood Meeting, Public Meeting, Zoning & Site Plan circulation comments, and ongoing discussions with City Staff. It is our belief that this revised submission sufficiently addresses comments received. The development proposal has been revised as follows: Grade has been raised on the south sides of Building 1 & 3, and between Buildings 2 & 3, such that the basement ceiling height of each building is less than 1.80 metres high from average grade. This qualifies and confirms all 3 buildings as 3-storeys under the Ontario Building Code (OBC) without the use of altered or modified grade (landscape planters). Unit count reduced from 60 to 58 (building 1 will have 18 units) East and West side yard setbacks increased from 1.8 metres to 3.0 metres Street facing (Big Bay Point Road) units now enter at the first level of residential, instead of basement parking garage Front yard setback increased by 0.3 metres / Courtyard reduced by 0.3 metres Main sidewalk widths increased to 1.5 metres (central connection to Big Bay Point Road, and courtyard sidewalk double loaded with units) Secondary sidewalk widths increased from 1.0 metres to 1.2 metres (south sides of buildings 1 & 3) 1 50 DU NL OP ST RE ET, S UIT E 2 0 1, BA RRI E O NTARIO L4M 1 B2 TEL: ( 70 5) FAX: ( 70 5) EMA I L : INF O@ IPS CO NS ULT IN GIN C.COM

2 East Village Urban Towns 1.5 metre landscape buffer area added between building 1 and sidewalk connection to Big Bay Point Road 0.5 metre landscape buffer between private road and buildings 2 & 3 Privacy screens added to east facing six (6) end balconies Molok containers shifted westward to straighten central sidewalk Entrance features added on right and left sides of condominium road The incorporation of the above changes to the proposed development have allowed circulation comments to be addressed as follows: East Side Yard 1. Official Plan Policy (b) requires that buffering be provided between low and medium/high density residential uses. As per the City, the standard buffer size is 3 metres. 2. The Site Plan has been revised such that both the East and West side yard setbacks each provide the 3.0 metres requested by the City. 3. Additional east side yard buffering measures provided include: a. 2.0 metre tight board privacy fence on east property line b. Mature 3.0 metre (10 foot) tree plantings within east side yard such that they reach above the privacy fence height c. All windows on east faces of buildings 2 & 3 will be elevated d. Privacy screens will be installed on the most eastward balconies on buildings 2 & 3 in line with neighbouring back yards. 4. Cumulatively, the above buffering measures represent significant steps taken to appropriately buffer adjacent properties to the east. Sidewalk width 5. Official Plan Policy (a) requires that accessibility be considered through the design. The City has requested sidewalks wider than the previously provided 1.0 metre width. 6. The Site Plan has been revised such that secondary sidewalk widths have been increased from 1.0 metres to 1.2 metres (south sides of buildings 1 & 3), while main sidewalk widths have been increased from 1.0 metres to 1.5 metres (central connection to Big Bay Point Road, and courtyard sidewalk double loaded with units). IPS File No Page 2

3 Planning Justification Report 7. In response to various Site Plan comments relative to the Planning Justification Report, we provide the following information: a. Page 15 identifying the proposed built form as in limited supply in the general area. By this we refer to the fact that back-to-back Townhomes are nonexistent in this portion of the City, and in limited supply throughout the City. The proposed development will introduce a new housing type / built form to the area. b. Table 1 within the Planning Justification Report (PJR) incorrectly identified the parking special provision as 1.35 parking spaces per unit. Please accept this as clarification that the 1.0 parking spaces per unit provision found within Section 3.2 of the PJR is accurate. c. Section of the Official Plan does not reference minimization of parking spaces, however it does advise residential areas should be developed with densities that support transit use as well as pedestrian and cycling and contribute to the municipality achieving its intensification and density targets. The proposed development will be of such a density to support transit while also being of an excellent location, in close proximity to many commercial and institutional amenities within walking distance for pedestrians and cyclists. Section of the Planning Justification Report referenced Section of the Official Plan for the above reason, in conjunction with the further justification for reduced parking provided within that section. Special Provisions in relation to 1.75m road widening 8. The site statistics have been revised on the Site Plan accompanying this submission to reflect lot area after 1.75m road widening is taken. The lot area has been reduced from 5,025.6 m2 to 4,850.9 m2 as a result of the m2 road widening being taken. The following special provisions have been adjusted: a. THAT notwithstanding Section , a maximum of units per net hectare is permitted. b. THAT notwithstanding Section and Table 5.3, the following development standards shall apply to lands zoned RM2 (SP- ): i. i. Front Yard (Min.): 5.3 m IPS File No Page 3

4 ii. ii. Rear Yard (Min.): 5.0 m iii. iii. Gross Floor Area (Max.): 133% iv. iv. Lot Coverage (Max.): 45% v. v. Building Height (Max.): 12.0 m 9. It should be noted that the requested Gross Floor Area special provision has been reduced from 150% to 133%. The previously requested 150% GFA request was a calculation error that has been corrected. 10. It should also be noted that the previously requested Front Yard setback of 5.0 metres has been increased to 5.3 metres as a result of Site Plan changes. Density 11. In order to accommodate Site Plan revisions addressing City & Public comments, the proposed development has been reduced to 58 units. 12. Removal of the 1.75 metre City road widening removed m2 from the lot area of 5,025.6 m2, resulting in a net lot area of 4,850.9 m The resulting density is units per hectare. This represents the same density as was applied for originally (60 units / 5,025 m2). 14. The Yonge Street Corridor and Big Bay Point Road Intensification node envisions densities in the range of units per hectares and building heights in the order of 8 storeys. 15. Due to the recent development (within the past 10 years) of the bulk of this intensification node, it is expected that the intensification opportunities in the near future will be limited in nature. The proposed development assists the City in establishing logical and efficient residential units partially within an intensification node that may otherwise be underutilized. 16. The proposed development shall create a population base to support both the surrounding commercial amenities, and the City s public transit system. 17. Since the City s intensification policies were authored (2009), the most recent Provincial Growth Plan (2017) was released. Section of the Growth Plan requires a minimum of 60 per cent of all residential development occurring annually to be within the delineated built-up area. This is a substantial increase from the previous 40 per cent requirement prior to release of the 2017 Growth Plan. Projects like that proposed at Big Bay Point are beneficial to and required by the City in order to achieve the Growth Plan mandated growth. This significantly increased provincial IPS File No Page 4

5 density requirement displays the province s direction toward increased density and intensification within existing built-up areas such as. 18. Official Plan Policy 4.2.1(c) directs that residential areas shall be developed with densities which would contribute to the municipality achieving its intensification and density targets. The proposed development will assist the City in achieving the significantly increased density requirements established by the Province. 19. The recent approval of the YMCA lands within the Bayfield / Grove intensification node at 365 units per hectare with three 20+ storey buildings is evidence of the built form envisioned as appropriate by the City for intensification nodes. It should be noted that this project was similarly partially within an intensification node and partially outside of that node. It should also be noted that this property is directly adjacent to single family dwellings. 20. Another example of density direction within the City is 37 Johnson Street. This project was supported by City staff with a density of 290 units per hectare. It should be noted that this project is not located anywhere near any intensification corridors or nodes, and is directly across the street from single family dwellings on two (2) sides. 21. In accordance with the City s Mixed-Use zones (not yet adopted) and in relation to the above mentioned recently approved intensification projects in the City, it is our expectation that the centre of this intensification node will be redeveloped at a minimum of 6-8 storeys, but could be substantially higher. It would also be reasonable to expect a density of units per hectare or higher at the centre of this intensification node. 22. The City approved MU Zones, specifically designed for intensification corridors and nodes do not contain any density ranges or maximums. 23. Given the above, it is our position that the proposed density of units per hectare, and more importantly the proposed built form of back-to-back townhomes, is logical an appropriate for the subject lands. The proposed Site Plan is functional and allows for efficient use of land utilizing existing municipal services along Big Bay Point Road. It should also be noted that the City expects lands fronting Big Bay Point Road east of the subject lands to be redeveloped in the future. Intensification Node Transition 24. Official Plan policy (b) requires that densities be graduated where possible in order to provide for integration between adjoining residential land uses. Where IPS File No Page 5

6 medium or high density uses abut development of a low density nature, buffering will be provided to minimize the impact to the lower density uses. 25. It should be noted at this point that the City of Barrie expects redevelopment at higher densities on adjacent lands fronting Big Bay Point Road to the east of the subject property (as well as the west). 26. It is our expectation that the lands to the west will be redeveloped in the future at 5-8 storeys (MU Zone permitted) or higher as evidenced by other recently supported projects within Barrie. The centre of the intensification node will take the form of a centralized neighbourhood core, providing the largest density and height within at the centre, while providing smaller built forms radiating outward from the node, as is proposed by the subject development. 27. The adjacent properties to the west (517 Big Bay Point & vacant adjacent lot) comprise an area of 0.5 acres / 0.2 hectares. This property could feasibly be developed with a 6- storey, 36-unit building, resulting in a density of 180 units per hectare. 28. Further west, at the centre of the Yonge / Big Bay intensification node, the 623 Yonge Street property comprises an area of 1.3 acres / 0.54 hectares. This property could feasibly be developed with an 8-storey, 135-unit building, resulting in a density of 250 units per hectare. 29. Although these conservative estimations illustrate the proper built form and density transition provided by the proposed development, it is altogether possible that these two future development properties to the west could be developed at even higher heights and densities, as has been evidenced in other areas of the City recently. 30. Currently, properties to the east of the subject lands have the ability to be constructed to a height of 10.0 metres to the mid-point of the roof. Such height definition allows for construction of a dwelling built at 10.0 metres while having a roof peak close to 12.0 metres (height proposed by the subject development). 31. City Planning Staff have also commented that over the long term Big Bay Point Road will be redeveloped further east of the subject lands, equating to higher densities. It is possible that lands east of the proposed development will be grouped and redeveloped in the future as well. 32. When considering all of the above information, the proposed development provides the most logical and appropriate built form, height, and density to transition from the centre of the intensification node to the future redevelopment lands along Big Bay Point heading eastward. IPS File No Page 6

7 33. The intensification node density and built form transitioning outward from the intersection along Big Bay Point Road are best viewed graphically. 34. We have prepared Appendix 1 displaying a future development scenario under which lands to the west are redeveloped in line with intensification policies and the MU Zone (5-8 storeys), while the property to the east is reconstructed with a 3-storey single family dwelling as permitted under current zoning. 35. We have also prepared Appendix 2 displaying a future development scenario under which the property to the east is redeveloped with medium-density uses (triplex). It is however likely that properties to the east would be grouped together in similar fashion to Big Bay Point to allow for a more comprehensive development. 36. These appendices accurately display appropriate density and built form transitions from the centre of the intensification node outward as is envisioned by the City s Official Plan and Urban Design Guidelines. 37. It should also be noted that several revisions to the proposed development have taken place in order to increase screening and buffering in both the east and west directions. 38. It is our position that the proposed development provides an appropriate transition of density and built form for the property s configuration and location. The configuration of the lands allow for efficient and functional use of space while simultaneously providing excellent built form, buffering, and separation distance between lands to the east and west. Reduction in Barrier Free Parking Spaces 39. Justification for reduced barrier free parking spaces (to 2 spaces) is evidenced by the Ontario Building Code requiring 15% of residential units be barrier free accessible ONLY for residential apartment and condominium buildings (with elevators, etc). 40. Row houses / Townhouses do not require any units to be barrier free accessible, given that row houses are not inherently barrier free in nature (staircases). 41. It is our opinion that the two (2) barrier free parking spaces provided will be more than enough barrier free parking spaces to service this site at all times, and will likely be under-utilized. 42. We request clarification from the City that should zoning be approved for this project at a 1 parking space per unit ratio (58 parking spaces), without a zoning special provision for a barrier free parking space reduction, City policy would require three (3) barrier free parking spaces and not four (4). IPS File No Page 7

8 Intensification Area Urban Design Guidelines 43. In accordance with Policies and the proposed intensification and transition is achieved by an appropriate and logical built form for the position and configuration of the subject lands. The transition and density proposed by this development have been extensively discussed in previous sections of this addendum. 44. In relation to Policy (mixed-use development), a significant amount of existing commercial amenities and future commercial lands are in existence at the Yonge Street / Big Bay Point Road intersection. Ground floor commercial within the proposed development would not be desirable for the subject lands or beneficial to the general area given the major commercial amenities already in the area. 45. LIDs such as green pavers will be considered throughout the development. 46. The previous Site Plan submission contained units fronting Big Bay Point Road with primary access points in line with the basement parking garage, and not the first floor of residential. In response to City request and to improve the urban design, we have altered the design of these units such that the elevation along Big Bay Point Road provides access to the first floor of residential. 47. In relation to Policy 5.3.2(e), public walkway safety, the Site Plan has been revised as follows to improve pedestrian safety: a. Pedestrian connection formerly adjacent to the east face of building 1 is now buffered from building 1 by a 1.5 metre landscape strip. This landscape strip will provide for improved sight lines and separation. b. Pedestrian connection to the south side of building 3 has been straightened by shifting the Molok waste disposal systems westward, allowing the pedestrian connection to be straightened out rather than the previous S-shaped design in this area. c. The pedestrian connections to the south sides of buildings 1 & 3 (serving 10 units each) have been widened from 1.0 metres to 1.2 metres. d. The pedestrian connections between buildings 2 & 3 (serving 20 units) have been widened from 1.0 metres to 1.5 metres. IPS File No Page 8

9 Elevation Drawings East Village Urban Towns 48. The elevation plans contained within the architectural submission are in grey scale, however they now contain a colour artistic rendering. This rendering is not reflective of the current elevation along Big Bay Point Road, however it is accurate for colour palette and material reference. The rendering contained within the architectural package has also been printed in 11x17 colour (10 copies) included with this submission to give an enlarged view of the colours / materials. The rendering is currently being updated to reflect current revision streetscape along Big Bay Point Road, however this is being completed overseas with extended lead time. 49. No rooftop mechanical is required. 50. The revisions to the Site Plan and Grading Plan have allowed for the elimination of the retaining wall along the western border of the proposed development. Snow storage 51. Dedicated snow storage has been provided within the Site Plan. 52. Should excess snow occur and not be able to be stored in this dedicated area, the condominium corporation will be responsible to remove it. A warning clause shall be added to all Agreements of Purchase & Sale identifying that the cost of excess snow removal, should it be required, will be the responsibility of the condominium corporation. Private Waste Removal 53. The Molok waste disposal system was chosen for this project partially due to its aesthetic appeal. The Molok containers have been positioned far away from Big Bay Point Road. In accordance with the City request, several shrubs have been positioned adjacent to the Molok containers within the revised Landscape Plan. 54. A warning clause shall be added to all Agreements of Purchase & Sale identifying that the cost of private waste removal will be the responsibility of the condominium corporation. Landscape Plan 55. Within the previous submission, some uncertainty existed relating to ultimate position of the underground stormwater management (SWM) tank, and required grading within IPS File No Page 9

10 the amenity area. The SWM tank position and grading plan have now been finalized, as has tree retention. 56. The Landscape Plan has been revised in accordance with the revised Site Plan and comments received. Site Design 57. In relation to the City s CPTED concern with the sidewalk south of building 3, we offer the following: a. Grade has been raised on the south side of building 3. The height of building 3 as established from the sidewalk traversing the south side of it (utilized by residents), to the roof level, is approximately 10.3 metres (not 12.0 metres). b. The 2.0 metre privacy fence south of building 3 is positioned 0.6 metres lower than the sidewalk servicing residents of building 3. Effectively this fence is 1.4 metres in height compared to the sidewalk on which residents will be walking. c. The 10.3 metre building height & 1.4 metre privacy fence dimensions provide for a much improved situation versus the 12.0 metre height building and 2.0 metre tight board fence. d. The previous photometric plan submitted with first Site Plan submission and and deemed acceptable through Site Plan comments contained lights on the south side of building 3 at 600 lumens each. Through discussions with EME Engineering who completed the photometric plan, the lights on the south side of building 3 could be doubled to provide 1200 lumens each. Given that there is a commercial property south of building 3, no concern exists with light spillover onto that property by providing the doubled 1200 lumen lights. A revised photometric plan with the 1200 lumen lights can be provided should the City request it. e. It should also be noted that the east side yard adjacent to building 3 has been increased in size from 1.8 metres to 3.0 metres. 58. Previous Site Plan design contained a condition where the main sidewalk connecting pedestrians from this development to Big Bay Point Road passed directly in front of the parking entrance for building 1 (no gap or spacing). The revised Site Plan has addressed this issue by making this main sidewalk connection to Big Bay Point Road 1.5 metres in width, while also adding a 1.5 metre landscape strip between the main sidewalk and building 1. This landscape strip provides for increased sight line distance IPS File No Page 10

11 between pedestrians and vehicles, increased separation distance between the building and sidewalk, and improved aesthetic appeal. West property line 59. Increasing the west side yard setback to 3.0 metres allows for gradual grading from building 1 to the west property line, such that a retaining wall is no longer required in this area. 60. The cedar hedge located on the west property line is no longer required to be removed to accommodate this development. All other trees in close proximity to the west property line have been confirmed to be fully on the 521 Big Bay property (surveyed by Rudy Mak Surveying). 61. No authorization letter is required from the owners of 517 Big Bay Point Road as no boundary trees will be affected by this development. Fire Department comments 62. The revised Site Plan submission provides cross-sections of all 3 buildings, illustrating how fire ladders can effectively access the buildings in accordance with the parameters provided by the City Fire Department (75 degree angle, 35 foot ladder). 63. Grade has been raised on the south sides of buildings 1 & 3, and between Buildings 2 & 3, such that the basement ceiling height of each building is less than 1.80 metres high from average grade. This development no longer proposes the use of altered or modified grade (landscape planters) under Part 9 OBC. 64. The revised Site Plan increases the distance between building 1 & 2 to metres versus 10.0 metres in the previous Site Plan. 65. At the request of the Fire Department we did investigate moving the private fire hydrant to the front of the property, however doing so would not provide for the required 45m maximum distance from hydrant to truck. As such, it was necessary to maintain the central position of the private hydrant. Although not required, should the Fire Department wish, as a gesture of good faith, the developer is open to the inclusion of a second private fire hydrant at the front of the property to provide increased protection. 66. All fire routes and applicable distances have been shown on the revised Site Plan submission. 67. The Fire Department provided comments that building #3 would consist of two (2) separate buildings, one on each side of the firewall, and one of the buildings would not IPS File No Page 11

12 front a road. The Fire Department believed this to be in contravention of the OBC. A Building Code Commission (BCC) ruling with a similar situation was located and provided to the Fire Department. Although every situation is to be looked at on its own merit, this BCC ruling contained a very similar situation to that proposed within the subject development. Highlights of the BCC ruling are as follows: a. The Applicant is proposing the construction of a residential development which includes two blocks of townhouses consisting of 14 dwelling units. It is proposed that each block of townhouses will be subdivided by a fire wall to, in effect, create four separate buildings. Each block would then consist of two buildings having building areas of 179 m2 and 444 m2. b. The nature of the dispute involves the location of the fire truck access route in relation to the front entrances of the dwelling units in the two townhouse blocks. Furthermore, the adequacy of the size and configuration of the proposed fire route itself is in question. In this respect, the two proposed blocks of townhouses are situated perpendicular to the proposed fire access route c. The BCC determined it is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the addition of firewalls between certain units within the residential townhouse blocks to create buildings having an area of less than 600 m2 brings the design within the scope of Part 9 of the Ontario Building Code. As a result, the buildings are required to comply with Article of the OBC, which will ensure fire department access. d. It is also the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed fire fighting access complies with the intent of Article of the OBC Building Department comments 68. On November 2 nd, 2017 the City s building department issued comments requesting barrier-free accessibility to 15% of the residential suites in each building. 69. At that time the proposed development planned on utilizing landscape planters to establish modified grade. The City s building department viewed such a modified grade situation as placing the proposed development under Part 3 OBC (presumably creating the 15% barrier-free unit comment). 70. The proposed development has been changed such that the previously proposed landscape planters and modified / altered grades established by the planters are no longer proposed or required. The basement ceiling height does not exceed 1.80 IPS File No Page 12

13 metres height from average grade in any of the three buildings, establishing the proposed development under Part 9 of the OBC. 71. Within the Ontario Building Code, 15% of residential suites must be barrier-free in nature specifically as it pertains to apartment buildings (for the most part under Part 3). This rule can also apply under Part 9 of the OBC, but only for apartment buildings / apartment suites. 72. The proposed development is not an apartment building but rather constitutes a row house (town house) under Part 9 OBC. The 15% barrier-free accessibility requirement does not apply to row house developments, and thus does not apply to the proposed development. Public Meeting comments 73. A comment was made at the Public Meeting requesting information on how this development would affect municipal snow storage and removal along Big Bay Point Road. This development provides the City of Barrie with both a 1.75 metre road widening along Big Bay Point Road while also protecting a further 3.5 metres within the front yard for future road widenings envisioned. Cumulatively these areas will provide the City with additional municipal snow storage capacity / volume along Big Bay Point Road that currently does not exist. This development should be seen as enhancing and improving the City s snow storage ability along Big Bay Point Road. As mentioned at the Public Meeting, currently no additional measures are required for this area to remove snow along Big Bay Point Road (as is required for the City s downtown) and there is no reason to believe this development (which provides the City with additional snow storage volume) will have any affect but a positive one on the current snow storage condition along Big Bay Point Road. 74. A comment was made at the Public Meeting requesting information on traffic sight lines in relation to this development. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by JD Engineering. Section 5.0 of this traffic report is as follows: A review of the available sight distance was completed for the Big Bay Point Road / Site Access intersection, as part of this analysis. The available stopping sight distance east and west on Big Bay Point Road at the Site Access is significantly greater than the minimum sight stopping distance requirements identified in TAC guidelines (Figure ) for design speed of 60 km/h (85 IPS File No Page 13

14 meters). The available sight distance at the Site Access is sufficient for the intended use. The corner clearance from the Site Access to the existing adjacent residential driveways, east and west on Big Bay Point Road respectively, exceeds the minimum driveway spacing requirement identified in the TAC Guidelines (Figure ) for an arterial road (20 meters). 75. A comment was made at the Public Meeting regarding elevated windows on the east facing side of buildings 2 & 3. The purpose of elevating these windows on the east facing facades is to provide increased privacy for existing dwellings to the east. It is anticipated that these windows will have a sill height over 6 from the floor, and will serve to provide increased natural light into these end units. 76. A comment was made at the public meeting about potential impacts of the proposed development to surrounding wells. A Hydrogeological Investigation, including boreholes and monitoring well, was completed by Golder Associates specifically analyzing any potential impacts of this development on surrounding wells. hydrogeological investigation was submitted to the City at application submission timing within a report entitled Preliminary Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Investigation. Section 5.0 of this Report concludes as follows: IPS File No Page 14 This a. Groundwater levels in the confined aquifer and in the till have been measured at 3.47m, 3.52m, and 3.95m below ground surface, respectively. These water depths are at least 2.12m below the minimum footing depth. It is considered unlikely that there will be any change to the groundwater levels at the site, or at nearby wells, as a result during construction or when the building is complete. 77. A comment was made at the public meeting about signage of each of the three buildings for emergency services identification. The Site Plan now includes two entry feature walls at the front of the condominium road. These entry features will likely contain the development name & addresses, while each of the three buildings will also be individually identified. 78. A comment was made at the public meeting regarding the development potential of lands to the west. The adjacent properties to the west (517 Big Bay Point & vacant adjacent lot) comprise an area of 0.5 acres / 0.2 hectares. This property could feasibly be developed with a 6-storey, 36-unit building, resulting in a density of 180 units per hectare. Beyond 517 Big Bay Point Road, at the centre of the Yonge / Big Bay intensification node, the 623 Yonge Street property comprises an area of 1.3 acres /

15 0.54 hectares. This property could feasibly be developed with an 8-storey, 135-unit building, resulting in a density of 250 units per hectare. Environmental Site Assessment 79. A Phase I and limited subsurface (Phase II) Environmental Site Assessment were completed for the Site. These assessments are combined into 1 report. Given the size of this report (359 pages), three (3) hard copies and an electronic copy have been included with this submission. Should the City require additional hard copy versions of this report, we can provide upon request. Engineering comments (ZBA / Site Plan) 80. Ten (10) copies of a revised Engineering Submission has been provided by Pinestone Engineering Limited under a separate cover included with this submission. Tree Inventory & Protection comments (ZBA / Site Plan) 81. Ten (10) copies of a revised Tree Inventory & Protection Plan has been provided by Kuntz Forestry Consulting under a separate cover included with this submission. Landscape comments (ZBA / Site Plan) 82. Ten (10) copies of a revised Landscape Plan has been provided by Hensel Design Group under a separate cover included with this submission. It is our opinion that this revised submission sufficiently addresses all Zoning Bylaw Amendment and Site Plan comments received. It is our hope that the Zoning Bylaw Amendment can move forward to General Committee for decision at the end of January as previously (tentatively) discussed. Should you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, Innovative Planning Solutions Darren Vella MCIP RPP President & Director of Planning IPS File No Page 15

16 APPENDIX 1 IPS File No Page 16

17 APPENDIX 2 IPS File No Page 17