Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout74-61REPORT NO.5 CLARION hOLDINGN_uITE PLAN I have read the Consultants Report Noah attached hereto and I consur with the consultants recommendations with one modification. I do not consider an emergency access to "the Development Road" (Reg.Rdp 57) acceptable unless the barrier were a barrier to pedestrians as well as vehicles. This would be needed to keep young children from straying onto the main highway. I would recommend that instead there should be two accesses from Martin Road, or an access plus an emer- gency access spaced as far apart on the site as possible. I recommend that the architect be required to amend his site plan according to this and our consultants reports. Respectfully submitted, r George F. Howden, Planning Director, MUNICIPAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS CO. LTD., July 11, 1974. 400 Mount Pleasant Road, Toronto, Ontario. PN: 4440/9 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE Consultants' Report No. 6 CLARION HOLDINGS CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE PROPOSAL MARTIN ROAD 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE On June 13, 1974, we were requested in a letter from Mr. George Howden to comment on the Clarion Holdings Condominium Townhouse proposal to be built within an approved subdivision on the west side of Regional Road 57. 2. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION The subject site is designated Medium Density, Residential in the Official Plan and Zoned Medium Density Residential (RM1) in the Restricted Area Zoning By -Law. 3. DISCUSSION There are a number of problems with this proposal as out- lined in the following subsections: (1) DENSITY While the proposal is in keeping with the official Plan policy for residential densities the 14.7 units per acre (u.p.a.) density, in our view is very high for condominium townhouse devel- ment. This density plus a small site, irregular shape and some resident and guest surface parking leaves no area for facilities such as a swimming pool or tennis courts normally found in this type of development. Play areas which are provided are small and extremely close to end units of the buildings. (2) ACCESS AND TRAFFIC MOVEMENT The one access and long dead -end internal roadways, in par- ticular the southern route which is 520 feet from the entrance to (1) the last unit and 640 feet to the last parking stall, are not sat- isfactory for adequate traffic movement. Access becomes a problem if the entrance from Martin Road is blocked. (3) PARKING The proposal for parking, as shown on the first plan sub- mitted, has three areas for outdoor or visitor parking because the two central areas will undoubtedly be filled by residents of adjacent non - garage type units. These two areas will not adequate ly serve as visitor parking. As an additional inconvenience all visitors must drive through the length of the site to park. (4) GENERAL The three two - storey "a" type units in the central -west area of the proposal seem to be isolated by internal roads. Privacy for these units will be at a minimum with traffic on three sides of such a small building. The southern building in the proposal is extremely long (370 feet) with only one wal.kthrough at the east end. Some walkways seem to be very close to the end units. We recently met with the architect, Mr. George Realini, and discussed our comments with him. He may be redesigning the pro- posal to reflect a number of our comments. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: (1) density should be reduced to about 12 u.p.a. gross; (2) one reasonable -sized recreation area, rather than two small play areas, should be provided and should be set further apart from the dwelling units; (3) an emergency access with a barrier to prevent everyday usage be provided from the parking area to the "Development Road" to carry emergency vehicle weight year - round, if the slope in that location will permit it; (4) visitor parking should be located closer to the entrance; (5) the three two - storey "a" type units should be eliminated and replaced by a swimming pool or tennis courts; (2) (6) the southern building in the proposal should have a second walkthrough or one centrally located walkthrough; (7) walkways should be located further away from end units, pre- ferably not less than 4 or 5 feet. Respectfully submitted, MUNICIPAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS CO. LTD. Ow ��� DB /inp David Barber.