Report..... BRAMPTONS*K F5-I Planning, Design andbramptoiua Flower City Development Committee Committee of the Council of

The Corporation of the City of Brampton

Date: August 12, 2014 PLANNING. DESIGN &DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Files: C05W07.004 DATE:

21T-10020B

Subject: RECOMMENDATION REPORT Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law and Draft Plan of Subdivision

KLM PLANNING PARTNERS INC. - Four X Developments Inc. c/o Metrus Development To permit the development of 402 single detached dwelling units Part of Lot 7, Concession 6, W.H.S. Ward: 10

Contact: Paul Aldunate, Planning and Building Division, 905-874-2435

Overview:

• This report recommends approval in principle of an Official Plan Amendment to establish policies for the Huttonville Secondary Plan (SPA29). The primary purpose of the new Secondary Plan is to provide guidance for the development of a new residential subdivision proposed by Four X Developments. It also implements policies for the existing Huttonville Estates community to the south of the Four X lands.

• This report also recommends approval of the associated draft plan of subdivision and Zoning By-law amendment to permit the development of 402 detached dwellings, two storm water management ponds and a neighbourhood park.

• The development proposal is characterized by its unique location and natural heritage features, which makes it the ideal location for incorporating executive residential housing. The planning vision for the area is to create a community that builds on the area's unique characteristics and proximity to natural heritage features.

• This community will incorporate alternative design standards for the local and collector road network serving this subdivision, which includes collector road widths of 21.5m and 18.0m and local road widths of 16.5m.

• The recommended conditions of approval will ensure that these lands are developed in a manner that is sensitive to the scale, design and character of the existing Huttonville Estates and Springbrook neighbourhoods and implements the planning vision for the area.

T5-A

As part of finalizing the Urban Design Guidelines and plan of subdivision the developer needs to demonstrate that the roundabout lots and entry lots are of sufficient size to meet functional requirements and achieve the urban design objectives for these visually prominent locations.

Recommendations:

1. THAT the report from Paul Aldunate, Development Planner, Planning and Building Division, dated August 12, 2014 to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of September 8, 2014 re: RECOMMENDATION REPORT, Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law and Draft Plan of Subdivision, KLM PLANNING PARTNERS INC. - Four X Developments Inc. c/o Metrus Development, Ward: 10, File: C05W07.004 be received;

2. THAT the subject Official Plan amendment application be approved in principle, including the conceptual layout of land uses as set out in the draft schedules for Secondary Plan Area 29(a) and 29(b) attached as Appendix 8;

3. THAT staff be directed to prepare an official plan amendment for the consideration of City Council to implement the policies for Secondary Plan 29, which shall generally include the following provisions:

3.1. Low Density Residential:

i. Lands designated "Low Density Residential" shall consist of only single detached structural dwelling units and shall have a maximum density of 21 units per net hectare;

ii. Buildings at gateway locations shall be sited and orientated to address the intersection and contribute to the establishment of a well-structured focal point. An enhanced form of architectural design and detail in addition to site design, landscaping and buffer treatment will be required to recognize, establish and reinforce their focal significance.

iii. Creation of special streets that provide a distinctive neighbourhood character through view corridors to valley lands and neighbourhood parks.

iv. Provision of a variety of upscale housing choices expressed through attention to detail in the architecture, choice of building materials, garage siting, building elevations, roof lines and landscaping in a variety of distinctive enclaves.

v. Within the "Low Density Residential" designation a separate area shall be established for executive residential housing and shall have a minimum of 95 lots with lot frontages of no less than 14.3 metres (47 feet) and a minimum lot area of458 m2 (4,925 ft2). The executive housing area shall provide:

P5-3

• A maximum overall density of 16.5 units per net hectare within the "Low Density Residential (Executive)" designation.

• a range of lot widths between 14.3 metres (47 feet) to 18.2 metres (60 feet) or greater.

• distinct and attractive built forms and a range of architectural housing styles throughout the community in a manner that is compatible with surrounding development and that showcases the executive nature of the neighbourhood.

3.2. Policies that manage the natural heritage system and guide the transportation, recreational open space, servicing and community design elements of the subdivision, to ensure the development is compatible with the adjacent Huttonville Estates and Springbrook community and the long term vision for this community is achieved.

4. THAT staff be authorized to issue the notice of draft plan approval at such time as all items approved by Council to be addressed prior to draft plan approval have been addressed to the satisfaction of the City, subject to the following:

4.1. any necessary red-line revisions to the draft plan identified by staff and/or identified in comments, including any changes to the width of the roundabout lots and the entry lots that are in proximity to Walkercleave Road and Mississauga Road;

4.2. all conditions contained in the City of Brampton List of Standard Conditions of Draft Approval for Residential Plan of Subdivision, or derivatives or special conditions and any other appropriate conditions in accordance with the intent of the approval in principle of this plan of subdivision application, to the satisfaction of the Chief, Planning and Infrastructure Services Officer; and,

5. THAT the following shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of draft plan approval and further that the recommendations set out in the identified studies be incorporated into appropriate conditions of approval:

5.1. final comments and/or conditions of draft plan approval from external circulated agencies and internal City departments shall be received, and any appropriate "prior to conditions of draft plan approval" and conditions of approval, including revisions to the plan and physical layout resulting from these comments, shall be undertaken;

5.2. the Functional Servicing Report prepared by Beacon Environmental, shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of Engineering and Development Services, in consultation with the Region of Peel and Credit Valley Conservation;

P5-H

5.3. the Community Design Guidelines, prepared by NAK Design shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, Planning and Building Division. In the process of finalizing the guidelines, the applicant shall demonstrate that the entry lots and roundabout lots are of a sufficient size to function appropriately and achieve design objective that reflect their visual prominence within the subdivision;

5.4. the Transportation Impact Study, prepared by Cole Engineering, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of Engineering and Development Services and the Region of Peel, which shall include:

5.4.1. finalization of temporary/interim secondary access to Mississauga Road until a future permanent access becomes operational north of the subject lands;

5.4.2. finalization of the design and dimensions of the two roundabouts shown on the plan;

5.5. the owner shall provide a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment and confirmation of the filing of the Record of Site Condition, in compliance with the most current regulations, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and the owner shall be agreeable to the implementation of the requirement of the Department;

5.6. the applicant shall prepare a preliminary Homebuyer's Information Map for the subject lands. The Homebuyer's Information Map shall be posted in a prominent location in each sales office where homes in the subdivision are being sold. This map shall contain the applicable information prescribed within the City of Brampton List of Standard Conditions of Draft Approval for Residential Plans of Subdivision as it pertains to Sales Office Homebuyer's Information Maps and the possible temporary locations of Canada Post mailboxes, including the number and estimated duration of these temporary locations;

5.7. a Development Allocation be granted for the development;

5.8. the owner shall execute a preliminary Subdivision Agreement to the satisfaction of the City, which shall include a schedule identifying all of the notice provisions for all of the lots and blocks within the plan of subdivision;

5.9. the applicant shall pursue asset naming opportunities to commemorate the Cleaveview Farm, its operation and dairy farming in general;

5.10. the applicant shall provide a copy of the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment to The Peel Art Gallery, Museum + Archives (PAMA);

fS-5

5.11. the applicant shall contribute financially to a study that identifies and evaluates Brampton's remaining farms as part of an overall Heritage Master Plan Study;

5.12. the applicant shall agree in writing to the form and content of an implementing official plan amendment and zoning by-law for the subject application;

6. THAT the following street names be approved:

Milky Way • Lookoff Crescent • Settlers Field Road Churning Gate • Midmorning Road • Walkercleave Road Factory Heights • Outbound Heights • Dairymaid Road Frost Street • Raindrop Terrace • Blue Silo Way Longevity Road • Rolling Acres Drive

7. THAT staff be directed to present an exemption by-law to a future meeting of Council to exempt the Four X lands from Interim Control By-Law 306-2003; and,

8. THAT the decision of approval for the subject application be considered null and void and a new development application be required, unless a zoning -by-law is passed within 36 months of the Council approval of this decision.

BACKGROUND

Origin This application was submitted on September 17, 2010, by KLM Planning Partners on behalf of Four X Development Inc. c/o Metrus Developments.

Date of Public Meeting A statutory public meeting for this application was held on April 8, 2013.

Details of Proposal (See Map 1) The applicant is proposing a subdivision consisting of 402 single detached dwelling units, two stormwater management blocks, three open space blocks and a neighbourhood park.

The following lot mix is proposed:

♦ 18 detached lots with lot widths being predominantly 18.3 metres (60 ft.) and a minimum lot area 585 m2 (6297 ft2);

♦ 67 detached lots with lot widths being predominantly 15.9 metres (52 ft.) and a minimum lot area of508 m2 (5468 ft2);

♦ 8 detached lots with lot widths being predominantly 15.9 metres (52 ft.) and a minimum lot area of438 m2 (4715 ft2);

£5-6*

♦ 114 detached lots with lot widths being predominantly 14.3 metres (47 ft.) and a minimum lot area of 458 m2 (4926 ft2);

♦ 22 detached lots with lot widths being predominantly 14.3 metres (47 ft.) and a minimum lot area of 393 m2 (4230 ft2);

♦ 142 detached lots with lot widths being predominantly 11.6 metres (38 ft.) and a minimum lot area of 371 m2 (3995 ft2);

♦ 31 detached lots with lot widths being predominantly 11.6 metres (38 ft.) and a minimum lot area of 319 m2 (3434 ft2).

MAP 2: LOCATION MAP

The surrounding land uses are described as follows:

North: Vacant agricultural lands that are currently designated as part of the North West Brampton Policy Area and Corridor Protection Area;

South: Credit River Valley, beyond which is Embleton Road and existing single detached dwellings;

East: Mississauga Road, beyond which is the Springbrook Upscale Executive Housing Community;

West: Natural features to the west and

southwest of the property, associated with the Credit River

valley system.

t=6-T-

The subject lands have the following characteristics:

♦ is primarily located at 9330 Mississauga Road, which is currently being used for agricultural uses. This property includes a farmstead, known as the Cleaveview Farm, which is identified as a Class B Cultural Heritage Resource. The Cleaveview site dates back to the early mid-19th century and contains a house built in 1914, and a large wood-clad barn, constructed in 1882, among more recent structures and outbuildings such as sheds, a trailer and two silos;

♦ a portion of the development site is located at 9264 Mississauga Road. An existing single detached dwelling is situated on the property.

♦ has a site area of approximately 43.81 hectares (108.26 acres), with a frontage of approximately 500 metres (1640 feet) along Mississauga Road;

♦ including Huttonville Estates, the Official Plan Amendment covers an area of approximately 84 hectares (208 acres).

Changes from the Original Proposal The following changes have been made to the plan since the public meeting on April 8, 2013 to address the comments received through the development review process:

• An executive residential enclave has been defined, which will primarily be located along the south end of the draft plan, and is characterised by dwelling units with a range in lot widths between 14.3 metres (47 feet) and 18.3 metres (60 feet).

• An executive residential transition area with lot widths that generally range from 14.3 (47 feet) metres to 15.9 metres (52 feet).

• A minimum of 14.3 metre (47 feet) wide lots have been incorporated along Mississauga Road to be consistent with the larger lot widths that align the east side of Mississauga Road within the Springbrook community.

• An additional north-south local road (Outbound Heights) has been added through the middle of the plan to break up the large block and support walkability.

• The length of Raindrop Crescent has been reduced to accommodate the abutting valleyland and buffer.

• An alternative design standard has been used for the road network resulting in road widths of 16.5 metres (54 feet), 18.5 metres (60.7 feet) and 21.5 metres (70.5 feet)

F5-S

MAP 1: PLAN OF SUBDIVISION

. ::-" •-•'••• ' ' : ' *l ^

PLANNING ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Four X Developments Incorporated has proposed a plan of subdivision that includes a component of executive residential housing to provide an appropriate interface and transition to the adjacent communities of Huttonville Estates and Springbrook.

The subdivision design is characterized by the central park location and views/ connections to the surrounding open space system. The neighbourhood park also acts as an entry feature given its location at the end of Walkercleave Road.

An official plan amendment will establish the policies for Secondary Plan 29. The amendment will define the policy framework for Huttonville Estates and set out the development principles to guide the new subdivision. The new Secondary Plan will also ensure that Huttonville Estates will not be negatively impacted by the Four X subdivision.

1=6-°l

PLANNING ANALYSIS SUMMARY cont'd

The Urban Design Guidelines show that the quality of the architecture and open space design elements will be sympathetic to the surrounding communities of Huttonville and Springbrook. In the process of finalizing the guidelines and the plan of subdivision the applicant shall demonstrate that the entry lots and roundabout lots are of a sufficientsize to function appropriately and achieve the design objectives that reflect their visual prominence within the subdivision.

The Four X development proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan, as well as the City's Strategic Plan.

The proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments are acceptable in principle. Specific restrictions and requirements will be included in the amendments to ensure that these lands are developed in a manner that is sensitive to the scale, design and character of the surrounding community.

A public meeting was held April 8, 2013 with seven residents speaking to the proposal. This report addresses concerns raised throughout the public consultation process, which includes issues related to traffic, privacy, environmental protection and compatibility.

The proposed development represents good planning.

Corporate Implications:

Financial Implications:

There are no adverse financial implications to the City of Brampton, with respect to this application to amend the Official and Zoning By-law.

Other Implications:

There are no other corporate implications, with respect to this application to amend the Official and Zoning By-law.

Strategic Plan:

The recommendations noted in this report support the Strategic Plan, in particular the "Building Complete Communities" strategic initiative of the "Growing" strategic priority, by contributing to the range of housing options available within the City of Brampton.

FS-IO

Respectfully submitted:

Paul Mdupale, M.PL. MCIP RPP Paul Snape MCIP RPP Development Planner Director, Development Services Planning and Building Division Planning and Building Division

Authored by: Paul Aldunate, Development Planner M.PL. MCIP RPP

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 - Official Plan (Schedule "A" General Land Use Designations) Extract

Appendix 2 - Existing Zoning Plan Extract

Appendix 3 - Existing Land Use Map

Appendix 4 - Detailed Planning Analysis

Appendix 5 - Public Meeting

Appendix 6 - Results of Application Circulation

Appendix 7 - Correspondence Received

Appendix 8 - Draft Land Use Schedules 29(A) and 29 (B)

CPISO

~J5 Date map

10

EXTRACT FROM SCHEDULE A (GENERAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS) OF THE CITY OF BRAMPTON OFFICIAL PLAN N-W BRAMPTON

rzzi SUBJECT LANDS VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT

OPEN SPACE

AREA

PROVINCIAL

ESTATE GREENBELT RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL AREA/PROTECTED COUNTRYSIDE

APPENDIX 1 „BRAMPTON OFFICIAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS

bromplon.co FlOWOr GtV KLM PLANNING PARTNERS INC. PLANNING, DESIGN &DEVELOPMENT Four X Development Inc..

0 50 100 I I I Drawn By: CJK

Metres Date: 2013 02 25 CITY FILE: C05W07.004

http:bromplon.co

TFT

SUBJECT LAND

I ZONING BOUNDARY

• BRAMPTON bromptonco Flower City PLANNING, DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT

50 100

Drawn By: CJK Metres

Date: 2013 02 25

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

APPENDIX 2

ZONING DESIGNATIONS KLM PLANNING PARTNERS INC. Four X Development Inc..

CITY FILE: C05W07.004

FLOODPLAINAGRICULTURAL

OPEN SPACE

Air Photo Date: Spring 2014 I I SUBJECT LAND © RECREATIONAL FACILITY CITY LIMIT

OPEN SPACE | SCHOOL

APPENDIX 3 - AIR PHOTOSB BRAMPTON KLM PLANNING PARTNERS INC. bramplon.cn Flower City Four X Development Inc. PLANNING, DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT

Drawn By: CJK Date: 2013 02 25 CITY FILE: C05W07.004

http:bramplon.cn

fs-h

APPENDIX '4'

DETAILED PLANNING ANALYSIS

City File Number: C05W07.004

Provincial Policy Statement: The Four X Developments proposal is consistent with matters of provincial interest as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement. Specifically the proposal is consistent with Section 1.1.1 which requires planning authorities to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of housing. In this case, low density housing is proposed with a component of upscale executive housing, which contributes to the range of housing available in Brampton.

The Four X Developments proposal is also consistent with Section 1.1.1 c, which requires planning authorities to avoid development and land use patterns, which may cause environmental, or public health and safety concerns. A thorough environment review process was undertaken in consultation with Credit Valley Conservation to ensure that the Credit River and its tributaries are protected.

Official Plan:

Four X Developments (OfficialPlan Amendment, Rezoning and Plan of Subdivision): The lands subject to the Plan of Subdivision are designated as "Estate Residential" and "Open Space" according to Schedule A - General Land Use Designations of the Official Plan. These lands are also "Upscale Executive Housing Special Policy Area 2" according to Schedule A1.

It was determined through the pre-consultation process that the lands do not fall within the Northwest Brampton (NWB) Urban Development Area, NWB Policy Area designation and the NWB Corridor Protection Area designation. On this basis the lands can proceed independently from the planning of Area 52 (Huttonville North) and Area 53 (Mount Pleasant West), collectively referred to as Heritage Heights. The applicant has proposed a policy framework that will guide the development of the subdivision. The proposed amendment specifies desired land-use designations, a transportation network and the protected natural heritage system (see Appendix 8).

The "Upscale Executive Housing Policy Area 2" designation that applies to the subject lands also applies to a large part of the Credit Valley Secondary Plan. The minimum amount of executive housing to be achieved in the special policy area is 1000 units. This objective has already been met with most of the executive housing occurring in the Springbrook area. Despite this, the development proposal will still provide elements of executive housing, including large lot sizes and upgraded design components to be compatible with Huttonville Estates and Springbrook.

Huttonville Estates (Official Plan Amendment): The area known as Huttonville Estates is designated as "Village Residential" and "Open Space" according to Schedule A - General Land Use Designations of the Official Plan. A component of the Official Plan Amendment application also applies to the existing community of Huttonville Estates. No development is proposed within Huttonville Estates and

14

FS-15

there currently is no Secondary Plan that applies to Huttonville Estates. The existing policies of the Official Plan will continue to apply, but are proposed to be augmented with policies in the new Secondary Plan.

Secondary Plan: The proposed policy framework provides the development principles that will guide the development of the subject lands. The lands are to be designated as "Low Density Residential", "Low Density Residential (Executive). Only single detached units will be permitted. The "Low Density Residential (Executive)" component will be defined by the lot sizes and upgraded architectural design features. The "Low Density Residential" designation will have similar architectural features but will allow for smaller lot sizes. Additional policies will be included to provide for a transition.

The "Low Density Residential (Executive)" area has a density of approximately 16.5 units per net hectare (6.47 units per net acre). This is greater than the typical density for upscale executive housing (14.5 units per net hectare), however is acceptable given the limited area devoted to executive residential for this neighbourhood. In addition to the executive residential enclave, a transition area is provided along the north side of Rolling Acres Drive and the southern portion of Longevity Road, with lot sizes in the range of 14.3 to 15.9 metres wide. These provide an appropriate transition to the 11.7 metre wide lots generally located north of the community. This development will have an overall maximum density of 21 units per net hectare.

In addition to the residential development principles, the Secondary Plan will also provide the designation and policy framework for the "Natural Heritage System", "Stormwater Management Pond" and the "Neighbourhood Park" elements of the development.

The new secondary plan recognizes the existing community of Huttonville Estates, which is characterized by large estate residential housing on large lots with private services including water and septic systems. The community has a very rural appeal with no sidewalks, extensive landscaping and tree cover in a natural setting. The existing official plan policies will continue to apply but will be supplemented with policies in the Secondary Plan.

Zoning: Four X Developments: The lands subject to the Plan of Subdivision are zoned "Agricultural-1869 (A-1869)", "Agricultural-1872 (A-1872)", and "Floodplain (F)". In conjunction with the Plan of Subdivision, an amendment to the Zoning By-law is required. The draft zoning by-law is acceptable in principle and will be refined prior to enactment of the zoning by-law.

Huttonville Estates:

Lands within Huttonville Estates are currently zoned "Residential Rural Estate One-177 (RE1177)", "Residential Hamlet One (RHM1)", "Floodplain (F)", Agricultural (A) and "Open Space (OS)" by By-Law 270-2004, as amended. No amendment to the Zoning By-law for Huttonville Estates is proposed or required.

15

F5-IU

Interim Control By-law 306-2003: Although the lands fall outside the NWB Corridor Protection Area identified in the Official Plan, the lands are subject to an Interim Control By-law (ICBL), which includes the Four X Development property.

On October 15, 2003, City Council enacted interim control By-Law 306-2003 to protect lands in West Brampton so the Ministry of Transportation could undertake a Needs Assessment Study for a proposed "North South Transportation Corridor." The Ministry's Strategic Directions report of January 2003 identified a potential north-south highway link in Brampton's west end, consistent with the City's earlier findings that there was a need for a "North-South Transportation Corridor" in the Halton-Peel boundary area.

In 2005, Council adopted an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law to implement corridor protection policies and zoning provisions. OP93-255 and Zoning By-Law 300-2005 were subsequently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) by a number of parties. The final disposition of these appeals has not been determined by the OMB. Therefore, in accordance with Section 38 (6.1) of the Planning Act, Interim Control By-Law 306-2003 remains in effect until the appeals have been dealt with by the OMB.

More recently it has been determined by the Province that the subject lands no longer fall within the GTA West Preliminary Route Planning Study Area.

Since the lands are within the area subject to the ICBL, an exemption from the ICBL is required. Prior to the adoption of the OPA and enactment of the Zoning By-law staff will present a by-law for Council enactment to exempt the lands from the ICBL.

Urban Design: As part of the development approval process, the applicant submitted a set of Community Design Guidelines (CDG's), which provides the design direction for the community and serves as a supplement to the City's 'parent' Development Design Guidelines. The CDG's focuses on the physical design of the community, with particular references to major Structuring Elements, including the Natural Heritage System (NHS), major road network, trails and pathways, neighbourhoods, park and open space and stormwater management ponds. The document describes and details how Special Character Areas and distinct components form the identity of the community and define neighbourhoods. Additionally, it will prescribe landscape and built-form guidelines and principles for these areas and components, including related non-standard elements.

The following section describes these key areas and components of the proposed community that are integral to the establishment of a unique character, including the following:

• Mississauga Road Interface • Roundabout Dwellings • Central Park Area

• Executive Residential Area

16

F5-R-

The Mississauga Road interface provides a highly visible community edge which will largely define the character of the Four X Development from outside the community and will serve to provide the link with the established Springbrook community situated on the east side of Mississauga Road.

The roundabout dwellings shall be designed to serve as community landmark homes, since they area in a highly visible location at the entry road into the community. Each of these dwellings will have a unique facade treatment and presence.

The Central Park Area serves as a primary focus for the Four X Development community. This area is situated along the main north-south axis and the two main east-west axes, with terminating views along the major entry road into the community from Mississauga Road.

The four lots that flank onto the park provide will provide an opportunity to create an attractive built form backdrop to this neighbourhood feature. Lots have been sized with additional widths to allow wall articulation, building projections and additional windows to face the park.

The executive area is meant to provide the architectural and landscape open space elements that are consistent with upscale executive areas across the City. The majority of the lot sizes within this area are reflective of the lots size typically found in other upscale communities, with some exceptions noting that this is a transition area from the core upscale executive housing elements located in Springbrook and the existing Huttonville Estates.

In addition to these character areas, the subdivision has provided the opportunity for future executive residential housing to the west of the proposed subdivision as part of the extension of Dairymaid Road. The tertiary plan that was created in support of the development proposal shows that the lands to the west have the potential to develop as further executive residential.

Staff continue to review the CDG's but are generally satisfied with the work that has been completed to date. Prior to draft approval, staff will need to work with the applicant to address the configuration and design of the roundabout lots and the entry dwelling units that flank Mississauga Road and front on to Walkercleave Road. Staff want to ensure there are no conflicts between vehicles entering and exiting their driveways and the traffic along Walkercleave Road, while providing for appropriate urban design features that will mark the entrance to this community. Similarly staff want to ensure that the roundabout lots are wide enough so that the driveways do not conflict with the function of the roundabout and meet the design objectives that reflect their visual prominence within the subdivision.

As such, staff recommend approval of this development application, subject to specific conditions requiring the CDG's to be finalized, including the design of the entry feature lots and roundabout lots.

Transportation/Traffic: In support of the application, Cole Engineering was retained by developer to undertake Traffic Impact Study. The applicant is proposing one primary access point on Mississauga

17

FS-IS

Road opposite Beacon Hill Drive and one emergency access off Milky Way to Mississauga Road.

The TIS concludes that the proposal will have negligible impact on the intersection operations, capacity and delay during both weekday AM and PM peak hours for the surrounding network, which include a review of the 2018 and 2031 projected scenario.

City staff continue to review the TIS however are in support of its findings. In order to make accessing the site more efficient, transportation planning and the applicants consultant are still assessing the need for a temporary secondary access until additional access points are provided north of the subject lands as part of the Heritage Heights Secondary Plan. If a temporary access is provided, it will not have any major impacts on the development proposal. Prior to draft approval, final determination of the temporary/interim access will need to be addressed.

Certain alternative design standards have been proposed by this developer for the local and collector road network serving this subdivision. Specifically, the applicant is proposing collector road widths of 21.5m and 18.0m and local road widths of 16.5m. These alternative

design standards have recently been used in other parts of the City including Mount Pleasant and Countryside Villages. From a land-use planning perceptive these design standards offer more opportunity for the developer to provide the larger lots that are envisioned for these lands. From an engineering and transportation planning perspective these alternative design standards provide for the functional requirements necessary to serve the proposal. The City's Engineering and Development Services section has endorsed the use of these alternative design standards.

Environmental Issues:

An Environmental Implementation Report (EIR) was submitted in support of the application, to confirm the environmental hazards and ecological constraints associated with the valley and watercourse corridors, drainage features, wetlands, woodlands, fish and wildlife habitat and the groundwater system.

The primary focus of an EIR is to address the impacts of development on the natural environment and implement the recommendations of subwatershed studies. The EIR is also intended to confirm natural feature limits, and evaluate protection requirements for natural heritage features on adjacent lands. Typically the EIR process will identify the requirements and responsibilities for implementing the approved sub-watershed study.

In this case, given the property's location and status within the Official Plan, a subwatershed study has not been completed. Since the property falls outside the Northwest Brampton Urban Development Area, the EIR was prepared independently of those area specific studies. In consultation with the City and Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), the EIR was prepared in a manner that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the ongoing Heritage Heights Subwatershed Study. The information that is available from the Heritage Heights Subwatershed Study was used as input to this EIR.

18

F5H*I

Although staff from the City and Credit Valley Conservation continue to review the EIR, the EIR is considered substantially complete. The limits of development are not anticipated to change as a result of completing the final components of the EIR. Prior to draft plan approval the EIR will need to be finalized in consultation with CVC and the Region of Peel.

Servicing: The EIR also incorporates a Functional Servicing Report (FSR) component, which details how the lands are to be serviced from a stormwater management, water and sanitary servicing perspective.

Stormwater Management: Stormwater quality and quantity control for the development will be provided by two stormwater management (SWM) facilities. One is located within a 3.65 ha SWM block at the southwest corner of the development and the other is located within a 4.41 ha SWM block at the southeast corner of the development.

Sanitary Sewer: The internal sanitary sewer system will connect to the local deep sanitary sewer discharging flows to the existing 1200 diameter sanitary truck sewer located along Mississauga Road at the intersection with Beacon Hill Drive.

Water:

The property is located within an area that will be serviced by the Region of Peel Lake Based Water Supply System. The area is with the western water supply system, serviced by the Lome Park Water treatment Plant and is subdivided between pressure zones 4, 5, and 6. The current proposal will be serviced internally by a 300 mm diameter watermain and will connect to an existing 750 mm diameter watermain located on Mississauga Road.

The FSR is also considered to be substantially complete and will need to be finalized in consultation with CVC and the Region of Peel, prior to draft approval.

Schools:

The subject application has been circulated to the Peel District School Board (PDSB) and the Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board (DPCDSB) for their review and comment. The PDSB anticipates a potential yield of approximately:

• 142 Junior Kindergarten to Grade 5 students, • 61 Grade 6 to Grade 8 students; and • 55 Grade 9 to Grade 12 students

The DPCDSB anticipates a potential yield of approximately:

• 53 Junior Kindergarten to Grade 8 students; and • 17 Grade 9 to Grade 12 students

Both school boards do not object to the proposed development and have provided conditions of approval in this regard. The Developer will be required to advise future residents through

19

F5-Ao

purchase and sale agreements and signage that students from this development may be accommodated in other schools outside the area.

Emergency Services: The subject site will be serviced by fire station 212, which is located at 8220 Mississauga Road. The fire station is located approximately 3.6 km from the subject site.

20

F6-2\

APPENDIX '5'

PUBLIC MEETING

City File Number: C05W07.004

April 8, 2013

Members Present:

Regional Councillor P. Palleschi - Wards 2 and 6 (Chair) City Councillor V. Dhillon - Wards 9 and 10 (Vice-Chair) Regional Councillor E. Moore - Wards 1 and 5 Regional Councillor J. Sanderson - Wards 3 and 4 Regional Councillor G. Miles - Wards 7 and 8 Regional Councillor S. Hames - Wards 7 and 8 Regional Councillor J. Sprovieri - Wards 9 and 10 City Councillor G. Gibson - Wards 1 and 5 City Councillor J. Hutton - Wards 2 and 6 City Councillor B. Callahan - Wards 3 and 4

Staff Present:

Planning, Design and Development Department

D. Kraszewski, Acting Commissioner P. Snape, Acting Director, Planning and Land Development Services M. Won, Director, Engineering and Development Services H. Zbogar, Acting Director, Planning Policy and Growth Management J. Hogan, Planning Project Manager G. Bailey, Development Planner A. Dear-Muldoon, Development Planner

Corporate Services Department

J. Zingaro, Legal Services E. Evans, Deputy Clerk S. Danton, Legislative Coordinator S. Pacheco, Legislative Coordinator

Results of the Public Meeting: A special meeting of the Planning Design and Development Committee was held on April 8, 2013 in the Council Chambers, 4th Floor, 2 Wellington Street West, Brampton, Ontario, commencing at 7:00 p.m. with respect to the subject application. Notices of this meeting were sent to property owners within 900 metres of the subject lands in accordance with the Planning Act and City Council procedures. The following seven area residents made representation:

21

ps-aa

1. Don Naylor, River Road, Brampton, 2. Tony Mason, Huttonville Drive, Brampton 3. Helen Chapman, Huttonville Drive, Brampton 4. Rob Duval, Ostrander Boulevard, Brampton 5. Steve Shaw, Ostrander Boulevard, Brampton 6. Jerry Smitka, River Road, Brampton 7. David Mew, Ostrander Boulevard, Brampton

Below is a summary of the concerns that were raised by the public during the development review process followed by staff's response to each of these issues:

Privacy

Some residents were concerned with privacy given that their existing homes back onto the development proposal.

Staff Response: Two stormwater management ponds and open space blocks are located at the south end of the plan of subdivision, adjacent to Huttonville Estates. These ponds and open space blocks will act as a buffer and transition to the existing residential lands to the south. The open space blocks will be heavily vegetated to provide screening and maintain the privacy of the existing Huttonville residents. It is noted that there is a substantial distance of approximately 115 metres between the rear yard property line of the existing residential lots in Huttonville and the rear yard lot line of the proposed draft plan of subdivision.

Along the southern portion of the proposed subdivision, there will be formal pedestrian connection that will lead to the service road for the stormwater management ponds. These service roads will encircle the two stormwater management ponds and will provide access to the ponds for the purpose of long-term maintenance, which is a typical design standard for stormwater management ponds. Although not a formal trail, these service roads will act as an informal trail for residents.

Compatibility

Residents have expressed concern with respect to compatibility between the existing subdivision and the proposed plan of subdivision.

Staff Response: The applicant is proposing the largest lot sizes at the south end of the subdivision, which are primarily 18.3 metres (60 feet) wide, as a way of transitioning from the existing estate lots in Huttonville. These lots are considered to be executive residential and will be characterized by a high degree architectural built form. This in conjunction with the considerable distance between the dwellings of the proposed plan and the existing homes of Huttonville, provides for a suitable transition.

22

F5-23 Traffic Congestion

Residents expressed concerns with the potential for increased traffic in their neighbourhood as a result of the development proposal.

Staff Response: The impact of this development on traffic is addressed in the Detailed Analysis section (Appendix 6). The traffic generated by the proposed development will have minimal impact on the intersections in proximity to this site. The proposed road network has no direct access to the Huttonville Estates area.

Environmental Concerns

One resident noted that there are stormwater ponds in Brampton that are releasing "silty water" into the Credit River. They noted that the water is harmful to the river which is home to salmon that need clean, cold water to survive. It was noted that the Environmental Ministries are working hard to protect and restore the salmon population and a poorly managed, improperly built stormwater pond is unacceptable.

Staff Response: The Environmental Implementation Report has been reviewed by Environmental Planning staff from the City and Credit Valley Conservation and deemed to be substantially complete. The EIR/FSR provides a detailed analysis of water quality and quantity, and its impact on the Credit River tributary. Staff from the CVC and the City are satisfied with the analysis and that the tributary of the Credit River will not be negatively impacted and that appropriate controls will be in place.

Construction Activity

Residents have expressed concern over the construction activity associated with this development and the potential of dust and dirt.

Staff Response The applicant will have to adhere to standard practices in terms of hours of work and control of dust, mud-tracking and noise. They are prohibited from operating construction equipment before 7:00am and after 11:00pm. The owner is obligated to keep the public sidewalks and streets clean from construction, such as the tracking of mud and dirt from roads. If there is a problem that has not been rectified and the City is notified, the City provides a warning to the developer, asking that the situation be rectified within 24 hours. If the work is not completed the City has the option to clean up the area itself and charge the costs back to the developer.

23

P5-AH

APPENDIX '6'

RESULTS OF APPLICATION CIRCULATION

City File Number: C05W07.004

24

F5-25 Aldunate, Paul

From: Mohammad, Ghazanfar

Sent: 2014/08/12 9:30 AM

To: Aldunate, Paul

Cc: Hale, Brad Subject: 21T-10020B_C05W07.004-Four XDevelopments Inc._Recommendation Report

Hi Paul, We have the following comments on this application.

1. Wewould like a specific conditionof approval for endorsing"ADS" in this plan. 2. Please add a condition that speaksabout the proposed roundabouts statingthat priorto draft approval, the

ROW for the two roundabouts within the plan shall be finalized to our satisfactions. 3. Daylighting at intersections shall be provided as per City's Standard DWG. No. 245, revised 2012-02-13. 4. We would like a condition under clause 5 prior to the issuanceof draft plan approval that speaks about

finalization of temp/interim second access to Mississauga Road until Longevity Road isextended and become operational northerly up to Williams Parkway.

Thanks.

Ghaz(Ghazanfar Mohammad), P.Eng. M.Eng., M.B.A., MOSPE

Transportation Planning Technologist Engineering and Development Division Planning & Infrastucture Services 2 Wellington Street West, City Hall, Brampton, ON L6Y 4R2 Tel: 905-874-2519 Fax: 905-874-3369

Email: ghazanfar.mohammadObrampton.ca

http:ghazanfar.mohammadObrampton.ca

F5-2U Aldunate, Paul

From: Won, Michael

Sent: 2014/07/09 4:31 PM

To: 'JBottoni@MetrusDev.com'; Hale, Brad Cc: 'DSteedman@MetrusDev.com'; Aldunate, Paul; Terminesi, Ozzie; Mazzotta, Frank

Subject: Re: Four XADS

Hi Jason. Seeingthat Heritage Heights is anticipated to be a communitydesigned with active transportation in mind, we do not have an issue with utilizing 'alternative design standards' for Four Xas well. That said, we will be reviewing the current ADS cross sections that were implemented in the Mount Pleasant secondary plan. We can put general verbiage to capture this in FourX; however, the rights-of-way dimensions have yet to be finalized, though we will try to be as close as possible to the current ADS's. Trust this helps. Talk soon. Michael

From: Jason Bottom [mailto:JBottoni@MetrusDev.coml Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 04:15 PM To: Won, Michael; Hale, Brad Cc: Darren Steedman : Aldunate, Paul Subject: RE: Four X ADS

Michael, Brad,

Hope all is well.

Ihad a chat with PaulAldunate yesterday regarding the forthcoming Recommendation Report for the Four XDP this September. Iunderstand he was still hoping to get formal approval from you with respect to the use of ADS for this project.

Kindly advise whether you've had a chance to discuss this and whether you are now in a position to providedirection to Paul in this regard.

Many thanks,

Jason Bottom, M.Sc.PI., MCIP, RPP Project Manager

METRUS DEVELOPMENT INC 30 FLORAL PARKWAY, SUITE 300 I CONCORD, ONTARIO I L4K4R1 I Tel (905) 669-5571 x5225 I Fax (905) 6692134 I Cell (416) 726-0070 Email ibottoni @ metrusdev.com

A Reduce YourCarbon Footprint, Please ThinkBefore YouPrint

http:metrusdev.commailto:DSteedman@MetrusDev.commailto:JBottoni@MetrusDev.coml

FS-2^ Aldunate, Paul

From: Guy, Katrina Sent: 2014/07/28 11:33 AM

To: Aldunate, Paul

Cc: Kassaris, Stavroula Subject: RE: 9330 Mississauga Rd (Four XDevelopment) - C05W07.004 Attachments: 20140121hbcr 1.9330 Mississauga Rd.pdf

Good morning Paul,

As discussed, the heritage requirements for 9330 Mississauga Rd (Four XDevelopment) that were endorsed by the BHB and approved by Council on February 3, 2014 (see attached), must be reflected in the draft plan conditions, which must include the following:

1. Prior to top soil stripping the applicant shall provide an Archaeological Assessment(s) for all of the lands within the subject application and shall mitigate adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found, to the satisfaction of the City and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. No demolition, grading, filling, or any form of soil disturbances shall take place on thesubject property, prior tothe acceptance ofthe archaeological assessment by the Ministry, indicating that all archaeological resource concerns have met all licensing and resource conservation requirements. In this regard, the applicant is required to submit to City Heritage staff the Archaeological Assessment(s) and letter(s) of acceptance from the Ministry for review.

2. During any phase of topsoil stripping, grading or construction, should acemetery be discovered, the applicant shall: a. Establish a permanent "no disturbance" buffer zone(s) of between 5-15 metres in depth (to bedetermined by the

City) between the outside edge of the proposed development and the known boundaries of the Cemetery. Note that a 4.5 m buffer is a statutory requirement between a known burial and any standing structure under the Cemeteries Act. If previously unknown burials are discovered during an archaeological assessment, the limit of the proposed buffer zone will begin alongside the grave discovered, at the farthest point from the previously known Cemetery boundary;

b. Establish permanent vegetation screening using appropriate native trees, shrubs and other plantings along the outside edge of the buffer zone;

c. Erect appropriate permanent fencing to further protect and screen the Cemetery. Anoise wall would not be deemed appropriate in this context; , .

d. Erect temporary protective fencing/screening and signage along the Cemetery boundary, before topsoil stripping and other construction activities commence;

e. In accordance with provincial standards and Brampton's Official Plan, relocation of human remains shall be avoided.

3. Prior to draft approval the applicant shall pursue street and asset naming opportunities to commemorate the Cleaveview Farm, its operation and dairy farming more generally;

4. Prior to draft approval the applicant shall provide acopy of the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment to The Peel Art Gallery, Museum + Archives (PAMA);

5. Prior to draft approval the applicant shall contribute financially to astudy that identifies and evaluates Brampton's remaining farms as part of an overall Heritage Master Plan Study;

6. Prior to registration and the issuance of a Demolition Permit the applicant shall offer the right to salvage materials from the property to the Cleave family due to the strong emotional attachment of the family to the property;

7. Prior to registration and the issuance of a Demolition Permit the applicant shall retain aqualified heritage consultant to conduct the recording and documentation of the farmhouse and barn identify any additional elements recommended for salvage; documentation of the demolition shall occur and all photos and records of this exercise shall be submitted to the City of Brampton.

1P5-2S 8. Prior to registration the applicant shall retain a demolition contractor experienced in dismantling historic buildings to

salvage the identified materials;

9. Prior to registration the applicant shall confirm the final destination ofthesalvaged materials with the City prior tothe initiation of any salvage process;

10. Prior toassumption the applicant shall salvage the Cleaveview Farm sign and incorporate it into the commemorative program of the site;

11. Prior toassumption theapplicant shall install public art commemorating thedairy history ofthe farm in close proximity to the original homestead; and

12. Prior toassumption the applicant shall provide a series ofheritage interpretive signage that outlines thehistory of dairy farming in Brampton and the Cleaveview Farm more specifically.

Please note thatthe community garden stipulation listed in the attached memo has been omitted due to the earlier determination that the public park is not large enough to create a communitygarden.

If you have any further questions orconcerns please do nothesitate to contact me at905-874-2618 or katrina.guvObrampton.ca.

Regards, Katrina Guy Heritage Coordinator (West)

http:katrina.guvObrampton.ca

va FS-2^ Planning andy BRAMPTON Infrastructure Servicesbrompton.co FlOWef City Engineering and Development Services

Date: April 11, 2014

File: C05W07.004 &21T-10020B

To: M. Debnath, Urban Designer Planning &Building Division

From: C. Heike, Open Space Planner Engineering &Development Services Division

Subject- Community Design Guidelines - 2nd Submission CommentsFOUR XDEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY comments Prepared by NAK Design Strategies &John G. Williams Ltd., Architect for MetrusDevelopment Inc., dated December 19 2013 ^crniecr ror Metrus Ward: 6

Inn »h^S P'an£ing aSd Deve,°Pment Section (the former Parks and Facility Plannina Section

Parks Plannina Comments

2. Our previous comments also indicated that the location and size of the park block would hPdetermined once the EIR had been reviewed bv the Citv andr\/r in «5f oiock would be

3. Figure> 3.3.2a -FourX Development plan with potential pathway network nwv Pta=«»show the entire SWMP maintenance access routes with aSnCetype ^ i. Fipure33.2a- FourX Development plan with potential pathway network oaae32 ThoFuture Potenhal Green System Trail" connections shown ^f^XJ^%n

FOUR XDEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY C05W07.004 & 21T-10020B The Corporation ofThe City of Brampton

2 Wellington Street West. Brampton, ON L6Y4R2

http:brompton.co

« /'H

R.fe 1

conjunrtion with the ongoing review of the 2- submission of the Four XDevelopment EIR

Parks Development Comments:

The following comments are provided by Mike Colangelo. Should you require further clarificationof these comments, please contact Mike at 905-874-2322 or mike colanaP.ln^mn^.," 5. Table ofContents, page ii

a. Ensure page reference number matches the page in the document d. Add a section for landscape upgrades in executive areas c. Add a section for the existing farm/ historical references.

6. 1.1 Purpose of the Document, page 1- Please reference the City's Strategic Plan. 7. 31.2 Road Hierarchy, page 11 - The cross sections are good however if thev are Citv

standards and not ADS, they may not be necessary? Are they ADS? PleaseAdvise 8. 3.1.3 Neighbourhoods &3.1.4 Neighbourhood Park, page 12

a. Please use consistent terminology throughout the document by referring to theneighbourhood 'park' - not 'parkette'. •wwnng io me

b. Are there any preservation suggestions in the park area from the existing farm vegetation, or historical artifacts? Please advise.

9" l'Zl'1 BXin F?m page 15 ~The DevelPment Planner to confirm if the subdivision istechnically not considered executive housing?' Is this an accurate rtaSrSS? 10. 3.1.2.2 Landscape Guidelines, page 16

a. 100mm caliper trees required in Mississauga Rd buffer b. Decorative crosswalk not required at Regional Rd intersection c. Laststatement is incomplete.

11. Figure 3.2.1.2b, page 17

3' rrfnp?rcTndhte•"!? ** Reg,l0n'S Mississau9a Rd widening drawings. The 3.0m trailappears to be in the wrong location b' IHfL *Mr iS!° be 1??;/o P,anted Per City standards as implemented along the east

side of Mississauga Rd through Springbrook. Update figure 3.2.1.2b and add notes.

12. Figure 3.2.2, page 18- Please remove the photo with the sodded roundabout.

13. 3.3.1 Streetscape Treatment, page 24 - Please speak to restoration requirements in ooen space blocks 406, 408 and within 10m buffers. requirements in open

14. 3.3.1.3 Fencing, page 28

3" locatfonste: min''mUm re^uirement" P™*W fencing required for lots flanking mail box b. Replace sketches with aunique fence design specific to 4X. These are the

Springbrook details. Plus the caps/ coping do not match on the two details.

FOUR XDEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY 2 | Page C05W07.004 & 21T-10020B

http:3.2.1.2bhttp:3.2.1.2b

m F5-3\

15. 3.3.1.4 Community Mailboxes, page 29

a dX^X'aTaLtcf- Thesefeat—"' "* •» ^P'-ented at defiled b. Please remove photo with mailbox trellis.

16' ^5TXP!BCement' page 30 ~Wi"the new R°9ers Fibre to home utility be used? If soplease identify locations for pads screened from the public realm. '

17' til7 StreeLfi9nage'page 30 ~Execu«ve designated areas require the City's upgradedstreet signs. Please clarify on plan which areas are to receive the upgrade 18.3.3.2 Trails and Pathways, page 32

a. Please identify the limestone screening trails on the SWM pond maintenance accessroads with another line type. Connect the trails in the 2ponds ma,ntenance access

b.

oS^SSS^system suggestions requlre further internal dlscusslonc. Figure 3.3.2b: where is this 3m asphalt trail type envisioned within the community?

19.3.3.4 Community Gateway, page 35a." ̂ Su^ePemme6 "C6ntre IS'and medianS and are t0 be re,ocated a,on9 b.

^toSfSbTunique entry wa"design speclfic t0 4X-This is simi,ar t0 the c. Consider awall in the Main Street roundabout as well as acommunity identifier.

20.3.3.5 Neighbourhood Park, Figure 3.3.5b, page 38 a. Potential desire lines from the west and east b. Remove two minor shade structure/ trellis at entrances (conflict with City trucks) c. d. e.

Replace with decorative columns, fencing etc. Relocate the shade trellis' over benches inside the parkIdentify one 20' gazebo as a focal point. Remove portolet from plan.

^ }'

f. g.

Move play area to one side to open up larger free play areas Do notsplit jr. &sr. play.

h. Replace formal seating at entrances with decorative paving. Add seating areasaround playground and gazebo. idling areas

i. Historical signage for the former farm? Show location and sketch j. Are there tree preservation opportunities? Please advise

SL'Siv°Ck IS t0 lnC!U?e commemora*ve measures to honour the farming anddairy traditions associated with this area. The developer is aware of their ^£?!?^th!"TV0 C?atS somethin9 unia.ue a"d above the ordinary. Then^*J2T^'^°f the eXJSting farm' home and recommendations onhow to theme the park in afarming motif. This shall include ideas such as:

• Play structure theming and colours in a farming heritage.• Commemorative artwork and/or sculptures. • Utilizing existing/salvaged items from the farm. • Customized gazebo.

FOUR XDEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY 3 | Page C05W07.004 & 21T-10020B

1

21.3.3.6 Stormwater Management Ponds, pages 40&41

a*~;^ «-•*- -dsketch vegetation. Showview corridors on the

Chnstopher Heike, Hon. bsc. mpi. mcip rppOpen Space Planner, Parks &Facility PlanningEngineenng &Development Services Division Planning &Infrastructure Services DepartmentTel: (905) 874-2422 Fax: (905) 874-3819 chnstoohf>r.heike/a|hramptnn ^

Attachments

Sffi^^and dated 19/lS?3 *

CommunityeS'9n Strat^ies and John G. Williams Ltd, Architect

cc. (via email only): B. Smith, S. Chevalier, M. Colangelo, S. Kassaris

(Note: Adigital copy has also been uploaded to PlanTRAK.)

FOUR XDEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY 4 | Pa g e C05W07.004&21T-10020B

Planning and§1 BRAMPTON F5- ?>3> mfrasiructure Services WW K Ah, Planning and BuildingE*S Flower City

Date: April 07, 2014 File: C05W07.004

To: Paul Aldunate

From: Madhupama Debnath Subject: Four XDevelopment Community

Design Guidelines -2nd submission

The Urban Design Services Section is in receipt of the Community Design Guide.ines dated 19th Dec 2013 and we have the following comments,

Section and which accompany this document. t) Piease note that this is the *- submission of the Community Design Guide.ines and

3)La944;0:^4, Page 6, section 2piease.ev.se>J^&™£^£« may change to 5)Smlc^^

locations ^Sf^^JS^^ this regard wiii be permitted"3S 21 '"ease crop the'ignt htSng from the bottom right image as no deck , „SSg 3.4a; P-ease note that ̂ ,S^l3Z^^^^recommendations. The guiding P^J**"£ c'°* andUhen gradual transition to

guidelines that are not covered in the DDG.

The Corporation of The City of Brampton T905 874.2000 TTY: 905.874.2130 2Wellington Street West, Brampton, ON L6Y 4R2 I. auo.ar^

11) Page 57, section 4.1.1, please revise "refer to Section 7.0 of the ACGGRD" to Section 7 Oof theDDG(ACGGRRD)...." ...

12) Section 4.1.1, last paragraph-this plan of subdivision does not have any non- residential uses, therefore delete this sentence.

If you have any questions or further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Madhuparna Debnath MUD, MRAIC, MCIP, RPP

Urban Designer Urban Design Services | Planning and Building Planning and Infrastructure Services City of Brampton |Tel: 905. 874. 2084 | Fax: 905. 874. 3819 E-mail: madhuparna.debnath(a>brampton.ca

http:madhuparna.debnath(a>brampton.ca

W DC ^£T rm

§|||| DRAM PTO N Planning, Design and Development

brampton.ca FlOWef City Planning and Land Development Services

Date: March 25, 2014

To: Paul Aldunate, Development Planner From: Michael Hoy, Environmental Planner and

Susan Jorgenson, Manager, Environmental Planning Subject: 2nd Submission Environmental Implementation Report: 4X Lands

dated Janaury 2014 ' Functioning Servicing Report, dated January 2014 Hydrologeology Investigation and Slope Stability Study, dated December 18, 2013 Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment Tableland Vegetation Assessment

Planning, Design and Development staff have now reviewed the Environmental Implementation Report dated January 2014 which includes:

• Functioning Servicing Report, dated January 2014 • t!T^!°9e0l0gy ,nvestj3ation and Slope Stability Study, dated December

18, 2013

• Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment • Tableland Vegetation Assessment

The following represents comments from Environmental Planning, Open SpaceDesign &Construction and Environmental Engineering.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT: Environmental Planning 1• The 2nd submission has identified some mitigation/compensation for the loss of

wetland features, headwater features, intrusion into environmental buffers and loss of trees; however, City staff remain concerned with the following matters:

a. Please provide atable with the following informaiton that is identified byNatural Area: ELC community; the loss of and/or encroachment into natural heritage features and functions (i.e. #of hectares),proposed compensation area by ELC community including # of hectares; and proposed mitigation measures, including* of hectares. Table 31 needs to be revised to only include direct compensation/mitigation. Please note that environmental buffers, standard buffer plantings and SWMP

Tho Corporation ofThe City ofBrampton

2Wellington Street West, Brampton, ON L6Y 4R2 T: 905.874.2000 TTY: 905.874.2130

http:brampton.ca

F5-3k

plantings are not considered mitigation/compensation for the removal of natural heritage features and functions.

b. The report does not adequately address the justification and mitigation of the proposed reduction of environmental buffers, notably 30 metres around the PSW and 10 metres around CRT5-5.

c. The submission recommends removal ofthe HDF CRT5-6 and an associated wetland feature that is approximately 0.4 ha. Mitigation 1 recommendation requires the applicant to uReplicate functions through enhanced lot level conveyance measures, such as well-vegetated swales (herbaceous, shrub and tree material) to mimic online wet vegetation pockets, orreplicate through constructed wetland features". Currently, the plan does not demonstrate mitigation / compensation for the form and function of CRT5-6 and associated wetland area.

Staff would recommend that a wetland feature of approximately 0.4 ha be provided north of 'Street 10* including recognition of clean flows and installation of an appropriate wildlife culvert connection to CRT5-5.

d. ELC Unit #11 is rich in mature native trees and would appear to provide a strong linkage between the Credit River valley and the Woodland/Wetland feature (Oak-Maple Deciduous Forest and Maple-Green Ash Swamp) located on the Region of Peel property north of this area in the Heritage Heights community.

The City recommends the protection of this hedgerow including the provision of a 10 metre buffer to ensure that this feature is protected from the impacts offuture development.

e. Tableland Vegetation Assessment - provide photo evidence ofUnit #11.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT: Environmental Engineering

1. The finding of the Heritage Heights sub-watershed Study including the boundary of study area covering Block 52 and 53 should be included in the subject

Environmental Implementation Report (EIR).

2. The EIR should be revised to indicate that the limit of development is 10 m measured from the greater of the following:

• Regional storm flood level • Existing stable top of bank • Long term slope stability line • Meander belt width

• Vegetation dripline

(•W C$8

3. The Executive Summary of the subject report should identify that the EIR includes a Functional Servicing Report; and therefore the title of this report should be changed to "Environmental Implementation Report and Functional Servicing Report, FourX Lands, Brampton, Ontario."

4. To facilitate the review of the detailed assessment of Credit River tributary, please show the location of CRT 5-3 reach on Fig. 6, Fig 7, etc.

5. To facilitate the review of the reach characteristics of the subject property against North West Brampton Heritage Heights Subwatershed Study, another column should be added to Table 9 containing sub-watershed ID of the previous study by Geomorphic Solution included in Appendix 'D' of the report.

6. The report recommends a 25.0 m meander belt width for reach CRT 5-3, but does not include a recommended meander belt for the remaining reaches within the study area. Please qualify whether a meander belt width assessments for other reaches is required?

7. The EIR states that best efforts will be employed to implement LID techniques that can function under low permeability conditions, which implies there is a possibility of failure. Therefore in the event of a failure, please describe what alternative measures will be employed to maintain the water balance, particularly to ensure that the recharge rate will not be significantly affected.

8. To facilitate the review of the plan and topography of the existing site conditions, the scale and legend must be added to Fig (10) included in Hydrogeologic Investigation Report.

9. The proposed bioswale conceptual drawings should be confirmed by an appropriate calculation and acceptable design criteria.

10.Table 4 of the EIR (Page 34) provides a breakdown of the proposed drainage for Credit River sub-watershed 9, and areas should be clearly shown on Figure 6, for example, the proposed area of 12.7 ha. Please revise the figure or create a separate figure to show all of the sub-catchments as identified in Table 4.

11. Please revise Figure 9 to include the Regional Storm floodlines.

12. Page 68 of the EIR notes that a feature based water balance model has been established and run monthly for three separate years and mitigation will involve infiltration targets. However, the report also identifies that the existing features are mainly fed by surface runoff.. Please clarify this inconsistency.

P5-3X

13. Based on Terraprobe's report, please confirm if the proposed SWM facilities will lu oC^?A9/°und water tab,es and if so- whether an impervious liner is required for the SWM facilities.

14.Appendix Eof the Terraprobe's report provides results for the site specific water balance as well as feature based water balance assessments. Please providedigital copies of calculations, including sizing calculations for mitigation measures to facilitate a thorough review.

FUNCTIONAL SERVICING REPORT: Environmental Engineering

1. The proposed residential development is within the Huttonville Secondary Plan Area 29, and found immediately to the south of the North West Brampton urban development area and Heritage Heights Secondary Plan Area 52 and 53; therefore the 1 paragraph of Item 1.0 (Introduction) should be corrected as above.

2. The City of Brampton Terms of Reference for Functional Servicing Report should be included in Item 2 (Background Information), which can be found in the City of Brampton Subdivision Design Manual.

3. Asummary of the North West Brampton Heritage Heights sub-watershed findingsreportshould be included in background information.

4. The post development drainage area shown on Fig 4 refers to 43.43 ha while the existing drainage area is 44.30 ha. Therefore, indicate on the drainage area planthe portion of the drainage area that is not included in the drainage system.

5. The proposed drainage boundaries should be shown on Drawing No. 2, entitled preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan.

3. The criteria for using Foundation Drainage System should be added to Item 5 1 1 (Conveyance System).

7. Please add to Item 5.1.2 the following: The design of stormwater managementfacilities must comply with the requirement of City of Brampton as specified in the Subdivision Design Manual and with City Standard drawings.

8. Major drainage system including direction of flow and water path must be shown on Drawing No. 2. and on the same drawing, the drainage area in hectare and coefficient of runoff must be indicated.

9. The drainage from 1.88 ha development area will be conveyed directly to the adjacent watercourse via a proposed bioswale and wetland feature without quantity control measures, which is not acceptable. Therefore please include

F5-31

flooding and erosion control measures to protect the bioswales from damages during flood event.

10.Show on SWM Pond figures the spillway details including water levels, free board and discharge route.

11.Please include in the report confirmation that the discharge from SWM Pond will not adversely affect downstream properties and receiving watercourses, including flooding and erosion impacts.

12. Please include a copy of latest draft plan in your next submission.

13.Please include a digital copy in CD format for the FSR and EIR as required for our records.

14. Please add the following statement in the Functional Servicing Report:

• The FSR complies with the latest subdivision design manual • The FSR complies with the recommendations and constraint set out in the EIR • The drainage of the adjacent lands will not be adversely affected

15.Please submit digital copies of SWMHYMO input and output files to facilitate a thorough review.

16. Please revise the FSR to clearly outline site specific water balance and feature based water balance requirements for the proposed development. Relevant information may be available from the Terraprobe report.

17.As stated in Page 10, the proposed SWM plan considers the future development of external lands located north of the subject site. Please clarify if the ultimate outlet structure of the SWM ponds needs to be revised for the interim condition before the external areas are developed.

18.As shown on Figure 3, external areas to the north currently discharge to the subject site. Based on Figure 4, two DICBs are proposed, located west of the existing water courses and immediately north of the subject site. Drawing 2 shows that the temporary swales are proposed to divert external storm runoff to the DICBs. Please provide preliminary sizing calculations and grading design for the temporary swales.

19. RDCs and FDCs are proposed to direct clean storm runoff to the creek.

i. Please clarify if the proposed RDCs and FDCs convey only minor flows to the creek, and also if major flows from these areas are collected and controlled by the pond.

F5- HO ^ ii. Please show that the overall target rates are not exceeded with the

uncontrolled RDCs and FDCs flows, iii. If possible, please incorporate a flow splitter so thatexcess storm runoff can

overflow to the storm sewer system and eventually can be collected by the proposed SWM ponds for quantity controls,

iv. Please provide details on howdrainage to the RDCs and FDCs are determined and how the RDCs and FDCs are sized.

20.Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the existing and postdevelopment drainage plans, respectively. Please provide a table showing the breakdown of areas to CRT 5, CRT 4B and CRT 4A for the existing and post development conditions. If possible, please showthe drainage areas for the subject site, the external area owned by the proponent and external areas further to the north.

21.Page 14 of the FSR states that approximately 1.88 ha located east of CRT 5 cannot be collected by the eastern SWM pond. It is proposed to convey this drainage through a bio swale. Please provide sizing calculations for the bio swale. In addition, please revise the SWMHYMO model to model this area as uncontrolled drainage. The proposed SWM pond may need to be oversized so thatthe overall target rates are not exceeded.

22.Page 52 states that the proposed SWM ponds will provide controls of post development flows to pre development levels for storms up to the Regional event.

i. Please clarify why Regional flow controls are required for the proposed SWM ponds,

ii. Based on the FSR, Regional flow control is only provided for the eastern SWM pond instead of both SWM ponds. Please clarify,

iii. Page 20 states that the Regional storm event is based on the 48-hour distribution. Please also verify the pond size using the 12 hour Hurricane Hazel storm with the AMCIII condition.

23. Please note that sub-catchment 909 assumed by Schroeter (31.4 ha) is essentially the drainage to CRT 4A. Based on Figure 3, 18.7 ha of drainage discharges to the Credit River through CRT 4B ratherthan CRT 5. Please clarify.

24.As the eastern pond will discharge to CRT 5, please calculate the target release rates using the existing area to CRT 5. As noticed, 1.92 ha of CRT 5 will not be collected and treated by the proposed pond (Figure 4), so please exclude this area from calculations. As a result, the target rate for the eastern pond should be calculated based on 53.28 ha (i.e., 42.9 ha + 12.3 ha-1.92 ha =53.282 ha) instead of 64.78 ha.

25.The proposed western SWM pond will discharge storm runoff to CRT4A. Based on Figure 4, CRT 4A has an area of 2.6 ha that cannot be controlled by the SWM pond. Therefore, the target release rate for the western SWM pond should be calculated based on 27.3 ha (16.6 ha+13.3ha-2.6 ha). Please clarify.

(M

F6-HI

26. Please note that comments on the design of the SWM ponds will be provided once the target rates and drainage areas are corrected.

Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns,

Michael Hoy Environmental Policy Planner Planning, Design and Development Department City of Brampton (905) 874-2608 michael.hov@brampton.ca

mailto:michael.hov@brampton.ca

F5-4a Aldunate, Paul

From: Vandenburg, Ryan Sent: 2014/07/15 3:51 PM

To: Aldunate, Paul

Subject: FW: Four X- Mississauga Rd

Ryan Vandenburg Development Services

From: Hamdani, Hashim Ali Sent: March 18, 2014 11:15 AM To: 'Jason Bottom1; Lipka, Boguslaw; Mohammed, Junior Cc: Jamroz, Damian; Darren Steedman; Jerome Abarquez Qabarquez@coleengineering.ca); Smith, Neal; Nieuwenhuysen, Bob; Ganesh, Steve; Vandenburg, Ryan Subject: RE: Four X - Mississauga Rd

Hi Jason,

Wehave reviewed the proposed functional design for the intersection of Mississauga Road at the Four Xentranceand offer the following comments:

• We agree with 9.03 metres width from the property line to the edge ofthe through laneat the east sideof Mississauga Road. Please be advised thatthe present width of the northbound right turn lane and far-side bus bay is 3.5 metres (not 3.00 metres as shown in the functional design);

• Northbound through lanes shall be 3.75metres (Curb lane) and 3.65metres (second and third lanes)as per attached BILD requirements;

• We agree with the 3.25 metres width for the northbound left-turn lane; • Weagree with the left-turn lane median width of2 metreswide, edge of pavement to edge of pavement; • Southbound through lanes shall be 3.75 metres (Curb lane) and 3.65 metres (second and third lanes) as per

attached BILD requirements; • Southbound right turn lane and far-side bus bay shall be 3.5 metres; • Shelter and boulevard width of 8.40 metres shall be maintained on west side of Mississauga Road as per

attached BILD requirements; • Please be advised that the six lane functional design centreline and cross-section needs to be extended and tie

into the existing six lanesat the intersection ofMississauga Road and Ostrander Boulevard / Adamsville Road.

Arevisedfunction design incorporating the above will be required for our review.

Should you have any questions or wish to have another meeting, please let me know.

Yours truly,

Hashim Ali Hamdani

Technical Analyst Traffic Development and Permits Transportation Division, Public Works

Tel: (905) 791-7800 extension 7852 Fax: (905) 791-1442

mailto:Qabarquez@coleengineering.camailto:Ryan.Vandenburg@peelregion.ca

E-mail: hashimali.hamdani@peelregion.ca F5-43

From: Jason Bottoni rmailto:JBotton8(g)MetrusDev.com1 Sent: February 19, 2014 4:18 PM To: Lipka, Boguslaw; Mohammed, Junior; Jacyla, Orest Cc: Jamroz, Damian; Hamdani, Hashim Ali; Darren Steedman; Jerome Abarquez (iabarauez@coleenqineerinci.ca) Subject: FW: Four X - Mississauga Rd

Gentlemen,

Further to our last meeting in late January, we've been working with Cole Engineering on a proposed functional design for the intersection of Mississauga Rd and the Four X entrance road. The attached design provides a 6-lane cross section with only minimal impacts to the current Draft Plan. Below is a summary of the various standards referenced to establish the Functional Design provided:

• East side of present day Mississauga Road assumed to be fixed. Curbs, northbound right turn lane and far-side bus bay to remain untouched; Through lanes depicted at 3.7m wide as per TAC Table 2.2.2.3; Northbound left-turn lane depicted at 3.25m wide as per Region of Peel Standard Drawing 5-1-6; Northbound left-turn lane storage depicted at 100m long as per TIS Synchro results; Northbound left-turn lane taper depicted at 130m long as per TAC Table 2.3.8.1, a Design Speed of lOOkm/h, a Taper Ratio of 40:1 and a lane width of 3.25m; Left-turn lane median depicted at 2m wide, edge of pavement to edge of pavement, as per TAC Figure 2.3.8.4, section b-b; Bus Bay depicted with 65m storage and 75m taper as per Brampton Transit Drawing No. 265; Bus Bay depicted at 3.5m wide, edge of pavement to edge of gutter, as per Brampton Transit Drawing No. 266; Bus Passenger Waiting Pad depicted as per Brampton Transit Drawing No. 267 for a boulevard width of 4.8m, back of curb to edge of ROW; Southbound right-turn lane depicted at 3m wide, centerline of pavement marking to edge of pavement, similar to existing northbound right-turn lane; Southbound right-turn lane storage depicted at 30m long as per Region of Peel Standard Drawing 5-1-6, Note 2; Southbound right-turn lane taper depicted at 60m long as per TAC Table 2.3.5.2, a Design Speed of 80km/h, a Taper Ratio of 20:1 and a lane width of 3m; and

• Boulevard of northwest quadrant extended to the currently proposed ROW line as it exceeds the 4.8m boulevard width provided to the south as per Brampton Transit Drawings.

As per the bullet summary above, the various standards referenced are attached and highlighted.

If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call.

Upon receipt of your feedback we can determine whether another meeting is required.

Thank you,

Jason Bottoni, M.Sc.PI., MCIP, RPP Project Manager

METRUS DEVELOPMENT INC

30 FLORAL PARKWAY, SUITE 300 I CONCORD, ONTARIO I L4K4R1 I Tel (905) 669-5571 x5225 I Fax (905) 6692134 I Cell (416) 726-0070 Email ibottoni@metrusdev.com

•* Reduce Your Carbon Footprint, Please ThinkBefore You Print

mailto:ibottoni@metrusdev.commailto:iabarauez@coleenqineerinci.camailto:hashimali.hamdani@peelregion.ca

T5-4H Vie Region of Peel is the proud recipient ofthe National Quality Institute Orderof¥ Region ofPeel Excellence, Quality, the National Quality Institute Canada Award ofExcellence Gold Award,

Wo/tfeifK) ft/l tlOtl Healthy Workplace; and a2008 IPAC/Deloitte Public Sector Leadership Gold Award.

May 21, 2014

Gavin Bailey, Development Planner Development Services City of Brampton 2 Wellington Street West, 3rd Floor Brampton, ON L6Y4R2

RE: Revised Functional Servicing Report Four X Development Inc. c/o Metus Development 9330 Misissauga Road Part Lot 7, Cone. 5 WHS City of Brampton File No: 21T-10-020B Associated File: OZ10-5W7.4B

Dear Mr. Bailey,

Development Engineering staff have reviewed the revised Functional Servicing Reportdated January 2014, prepared for Four X Development Inc., submitted by Rand Engineering and provide the following:

Sanitary Sewer Existing sanitary sewer consists of a 1200mm diameter trunk sewer located on Mississauga Road. A 525mm diameter sanitary stub has been preinstalled at the intersection of Mississauga Road and Beacon Hill Drive to service the proposed development.

Due to requirement of dual sanitary sewer system, large storm sewer, watermain and potentially requirement for RDC/FDC sewers along street 10' and especially 'Street 12' the proposed right-of-way widths need to be increased to allow proper offsets between the proposed infrastructures.

Watermain . . The proposed subdivision is located at the top of Pressure Zone 5 (PZ5). Existing PZ5 services consist of a 750mm diameter watermain located on Mississauga Road, a 300mm diameter watermain located on Adamsville Road and 200mm diameter watermains located on Balin and Black Diamond Crescents. Two 300mm diameter watermain stubs were preinstalled to the west side of Mississauga Road off 750mm diameter watermain.

Public Works

10 Peel Centre Dr., Suite A,Brampton, ON L6T 4B9 Tel: 905-791-7800 www.peelregion.ca

http:www.peelregion.cahttp:OZ10-5W7.4B

F5-LJ5

The water servicing plan included in the report is generally acceptable. The final alignment of the pressure zone boundary will require further discussion and analysis. Some streets may require dual mains in order to loop the system properly.

Storm Sewer

Under item 5.2 Minor and Major Drainage System, page 14 of the Report indicates that storm water from existing Mississauga Road right-of-way is provided by the existing SWM Pond located on the east side of Mississauga Road. This is true; however, the report does not take into consideration future increase to ROW width of Mississauga Road by approximately 2.75 meters or 4.5 meters if dual left turn lanes are required. Please revise the report to show future storm drainage from part of Mississauga Road ROW.

In summary, the Functional Servicing Report is not acceptable, it needs to be revised and resubmitted to the Region of Peel. Should you have any questions, please contact Bob Lipka at (905) 791-7800 extension 5071.

Best Regards,

Ryan Vandenburg Development Services

Public Works

10 Peel Centre Dr.. SuiteA, Brampton, ON L6T 4B9 Tel: 905-791 -7800 www.peelregion.ca

http:www.peelregion.ca

The Ktgiun uj Peel is the proud recipient ofthe National Quality Institute Order ofPRegion of Peel. Excellence, Quality; the National Quality Institute Canada Award ofExcellence Gold Award, WO/lKlRfl fO/t tfOH Healthy Workplace; and a2008 IPAC/Deloitte Public Sector Leadership Gold Award.

December 14, 2012

Paul Aldunate, Development Planner Development Services City of Brampton 2 Wellington Street West, 3rd Floor Brampton, ON L6Y4R2

RE: Subdivision Application KLM Planning Partners Inc. Four X Development Inc. c/o Metus Development 9330 Misissauga Road Part Lot 7, Cone. 5 WHS City of Brampton File No: 21T-10-020B

Associated File: OZ10-5W7.4B

Dear Mr. Aldunate,

Region staff have reviewed the above noted application and provide the following:

Region of Peel Development Services - Planning

After review of Schedule C of the ROP and Schedule F of the City of Brampton's Official Plan, Regional staff noted that the development proposal appears to be within the limits of the Northwest Brampton Policy Area. Further to discussions with City of Brampton Planning staff, Regional Planning staff have been advised that Citystaff believe that a mapping error was made in preparing Schedule F, that the limits of the NWBPA shown on Schedule F are incorrect and that and the proposed development should be entirely outside of the NWBPA, if it had been correctly delineated.

Regional staff have since reviewed the Minutes of Settlement relating to Peel ROPA 15 and Brampton OPA 93-245, dated August 11, 2006, which were agreed to by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Region of Peel and the City of Brampton. These Minutes of Settlement were the basis for the OMB approval of the NWBPA policy framework and were the origin of the mapped limits of the NWBPA, then shown on Schedule D to the Minutes of Settlement and now shown on Schedule F to the City's Official Plan. It appears to Regional staff that there is indeed a mapping inconsistency in the attachments to those Minutes of Settlement.

Schedule A to OPA93-245 in the Minutes of Settlement shows the above noted property designated as "Estate Residential Area", and clearly indicates that it was inside the Urban Boundary as it existed prior to ROPA 15. As the NWBPA was only intended to apply to lands that were west of Mississauga Road and within the urban expansion area added by ROPA 15, these lands should not have been included within the NWBPA limits shown on Schedule D to the

Minutes of Settlement (now shown on Schedule F to the City's Official Plan). While these lands are the subject of the "Special Study Area' hatching that is shown on Schedule A to the Minutes of Settlement, this "Special Study Area" hatching related to the future "Corridor Protection Area'

Public Works

10 Peel Centre Dr., SuiteA, Brampton, ON L6T 4B9 Tel: 905-791-7800 www.peelregion.ca

http:www.peelregion.cahttp:OZ10-5W7.4B

fS-Lft

which is the subject of other City and Regional planning initiatives that are ongoing, and these lands are not within the area that has been identified for corridor protection.

Further to the above, Regional staff suggest that the Region and the City coordinate on providing this information to the Province, as they were also a party to these Minutes of Settlement. Since all three parties agreed in 2006 with this mapping, we think it right that all three parties should have the opportunity to review this mapping inconsistency and determine if they agree that an error was made in the mapping attached to the Minutes of Settlement. We expect that it will not take long for the MMAH staff to reach the same conclusion that the City and Regional staff have reached and are of the opinion that this can b