Loading...
04 27 2009 PAC AgendaTOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS Date: Monday, April 27, 2009 Time: 7:00 p.m. 1. OPENING OF MEETING BY CHAIR 2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF: - "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT" 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING -March 30, 2009. 5. PRESENTATIONS: None. 6. PUBLIC MEETINGS: a) 7:00 p.m. Proposed Amendment to the Zoning By-Law, 2009-ZBA-06, Part of Lot 19, Concession 13 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, 77 Line 12 North (Ferris). 7. PLANNING APPLICATIONS: a) Report No. DS 2009-026, Steve Farquharson, Intermediate Planner, re: Proposed Redline Revision -Draft Plan 43-OM-20001, P-100/OO,Part of North Half and South Half of Lot 3, and Part of Lot 4, Concession 4 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, (Horseshoe Valley Lands). 8. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION: None. 9. OTHER BUSINESS /EDUCATION: a) Tom Kurtz, re: Source Water Protection Committee Update. b) Andria Leigh, Report DS 2009-019 re: Township Official Plan Review -Work Plan. 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS ~. APR - ~, 2~~~ MEETING: COUNCIL C. OFVV.^ March 30, 2009, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Present: Council Representatives Mayor H.S. Hughes Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Councillor Terry Allison Councillor Mel Coutanche Councillor Sandy Agnew Councillor John Crawford Councillor Dwight Evans Regrets: Public Representatives Linda Babulic Roy Hastings Mary O'Farrell-Bowers Larry Tupling Tom Kurtz Staff Present: Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services; Glenn White, Manager of Planning Services; Steven Farquharson, Intermediate Planner; Janette Teeter, Deputy Clerk `~' °` ~ Also Present: Nelson Robertson, Bill Soles, Geraldine Abraham, John Abraham, Margaret Robertson, Carl Swanson, Robert Hogean, Andrew & Connie Roller, Jean McNair, Doris Hogean, R. Crolly, Ron Walker, Brad Moreau, Gary Lovelace, M. Randsalu, Bill Stonkus, Pat & Jim Woodford, Jim Dixon, Pat Prokop, Lou Mason, Heather Mason, Ray Duhamel, Garry Johnstone, Ken Orr, Brian Johnstone, Ray Morhan, Don Munro, C. Savage, Gary Bell, David Anderson, Jarret Stuart, Peter Gill, Glen Stewart 1. OPENING OF MEETING BY CHAIR. Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough assumed the chair and called the meeting to order. 2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA. Motion No. PAC090330-1 Moved by Linda Babulic, Seconded by Roy Hastings It is recommended that the agenda for the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of Monday, March 30, 2009 be received and adopted, as amended, to withdraw Item 9a), Tom Kurtz re: Source Water Protection Committee Update. TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES 2006-2010 TERM Carried. °° 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF: - "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT". None declared. 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING -March 2, 2009. Motion No. PAC090330-2 Moved by Roy Hastings, Seconded by Linda Babulic It is recommended that the minutes of the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting held on March 2, 2009 be received and adopted. Carried. 5. PRESENTATIONS: a) Ray Duhamel, Jones Consulting Group Ltd. and Helios Energy, re: Background Information Regarding Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan for Solar Farm (to be held after public meeting). A PowerPoint presentation was presented. Motion No. PAC090330-3 Moved by Larry Tupling, Seconded by Linda Babulic It is recommended that the correspondence dated March 30, 2009 presented by Ray Duhamel, Jones Consulting Group Ltd. and Helios Energy, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan for Solar Farm be received. Carried. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting March 30, 2009, Page 2 ~f -~j 6. PUBLIC MEETINGS: a) Proposed Amendment to the Zoning By-Law, 2009-ZBA-02, Part of Lots 8 and 9, Concession 12 and Part of Lot 9, Concession 13, in the Township of Oro-Medonte (Oro) [Hillway Equipment Limited]. Deputy Mayor Hough called the public meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and explained the public meeting has been called under the authority of the Planning Act, Section 34, R.S.O. 1990 c.P.13, to obtain public comment with respect to a proposed Amendment to the Zoning By-law, Application 2009-ZBA-02 (Hillway Equipment Limited), Part of Lots 8 & 9, Concession 12, and Part of lot 9, Concession 13 (formerly within the Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte. Notice of the Public Meeting was mailed to landowners within 120m (400 feet) of the specified site on March 9, 2009 and posted on a sign on the subject property on the same date. The following correspondence was received at the meeting: Ministry of Natural Resources dated March 26, 2009. Glenn White, Manager of Planning Services, explained the purpose and effect of the Proposed Amendment to the Zoning By-Law. A PowerPoint presentation was presented. Gary Bell, Skelton Bramwell & Associates Inc., on behalf of the applicant, presented an overview of the application. A PowerPoint presentation was presented. The following public members offered verbal comments with respect to the proposed amendment: Jim Woodford, Margaret Robertson (submitted correspondence dated March 30, 2009), Geraldine Abraham (submitted correspondence dated March 30, 2009, Brian English, Bill Stonkus, Jean McNair, Don Munro, Bill Soles, Pat Woodford, Peter Gill. The Deputy Mayor advised that no additional deputations to Council will be permitted with respect to the Proposed Amendment to the Zoning By-Law. A digital recording of the meeting is available for review at the Township Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South. There being no further comments or questions, the meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. 7. PLANNING APPLICATIONS: None. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting March 30, 2009, Page 3 ., 8. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION: None. 9. OTHER BUSINESS /EDUCATION: a) Tom Kurtz, re: Source Water Protection Committee Update. This item was withdrawn. b) Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services, re: Township Official Plan Review Status Update. Motion No. PAC090330-4 Moved by Roy Hastings, Seconded by Larry Tupling It is recommended that the verbal update presented by Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services, re: Township Official Plan Review Status Update be received. Carried. c) Councillor Coutanche, re: Future Agenda Items -Email March 8, 2009. Motion No. PAC090330-5 Moved by Larry Tupling, Seconded by Roy Hastings It is recommended that the verbal update presented by Councillor Coutanche, re: Future Agenda Items be received. Carried. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting March 30, 2009, Page 4 ~, 10. ADJOURNMENT Motion No. PAC090330-6 Moved by Linda Babulic, Seconded by Larry Tupling It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 10:52 p.m. Carried. Chair, Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Deputy Clerk, Janette Teeter Director of Development Services, Andria Leigh Planning Advisory Committee Meeting March 30, 2009, Page 5 ~G-~ ~~2UYtS~tt~3 U~ ~~ REPORT Iarc~t~d Heritage, .~xcitircg Fuf.:are Report No. To: Prepared By: DS 2009-026 Planning Advisory Committee Steven Farquharson, Intermediate Planner Meeting Date: Subject: Proposed Redline Motion # April 27, 2009 revision to Draft Plan of Subdivision -Horseshoe Roll #: Valley Lands Ltd. - P-100/00 - R.M.S. File #: 4343-010-002-15900 part of North Half and South Half of Lot 3, and Part of Lot 4, D12 10864 Concession 4 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte. RECOMMENDATION (S): Requires Action X For Information Only It is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council: 1. THAT Report DS 2009-026 Re: Redline Revision to Horseshoe Valley Lands Ltd (Adult Lifestyle Community) 43-OM-20001, Part of the North Half and South Half of Lot 3, and Part of Lot 4, Concession 4, (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, be received for information. 2. THAT the applicant be requested to revise the redline draft plan to address the comments received from Aecom dated April 16, 2009 and comments from planning Advisory Committee at their meeting of April 27, 2009; and 3. That staff bring forward a subsequent report to the Committee once the revised redline plan is received and reviewed. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to consider the proposed redline revisions to the Draft Plan Approved Adult Lifestyle Community application submitted by MHBC Planning on behalf of the above noted property owner. On April 5, 2001 the original plan of subdivision on the subject lands was given draft plan approval by the Township (as the approval authority) for 595 residential lots and 32 blocks for services and open space/golf course subject to a number of conditions being fulfilled before registration of the plan. Subsequently, the Phase 1 lands were sold to Laurel View Homes, a redline revision which reduced the number of lots in Phase 1 was approved by Council, and Phase 1 was registered and developed. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date: Monday Apri127, 2009 Report No. DS 2009-026 Page 1 of 5 `~~-a ANALYSIS: The lands subject to the draft plan are located north of Bass Lake Side Road between Line 3 North and Line 4 North within the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Area. The subject lands have a frontage of approximately 804 metres along Line 3 North and additional approximately 400 metres of frontage along Line 4 North. The draft plan has a total land area of 86.518 hectares and if the redline line revisions is approved proposes a total of 588 lots. There are a total of 68 lots proposed on 4.361 hectares in Phase 2a and 29 lots on 2.02 hectares proposed in Phase 2B. The site subject to the redline revision continues to be vacant. A redline revision refers to a draft plan of subdivision which proposes amendments to an existing draft approved plan and requires favorable consideration from the approval authority (Township of Oro-Medonte). A copy of the original draft approved plan with the proposed redline revision are attached for the Committee's review. The revised redline plan was circulated to Department Heads and the Township's Engineering Consultant, Aecom. The comments received from the Township's Engineering Consultant, Aecom, dated April 16, 2009 are attached for the Committee's reference. The redlined plan for Phases 2A and 2B proposes the following: 1. To reduce the number of lots from 99 to 97 2. To reduce the number of lots with 50 foot frontage from 90 lots to 34 lots 3. To increase the number of 55 foot lots from 4 to 48 4. To increase the number of 60 foot lots from 5 to 15 FINANCIAL: N/A POLICIES/LEGISLATION: Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan: The subject lands are presently designated Horseshoe Valley- Low Density Residential under the Township's Official Plan. The permitted uses within the "Horseshoe Valley -Low Density Residential" designation include single detached dwellings, home occupations, and Bed and Breakfast establishments. As single detached dwellings are proposed within this draft plan, no amendment to Official Plan is required. Zoning By-law 97-95 The subject lands are zoned Residential One Exception 140 Hold (R1 *140(H)) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The Exception 140 requires that the minimum lot area be 0.045 hectares (0.11 acres) and a frontage of 15 metres (49.2 feet) all of the redlined lots proposed satisfy these zoning requirements and therefore no zoning by-law amendment is required. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date: Monday April 27, 2009 Report No. DS 2009-026 Page 2 of 5 County Official Plan a The proposed redline draft plan of subdivision as indicated above, is located within the Horseshoe Valley settlement area and is identified as a settlement in the County Official Plan. Section 4.1.6, of the County Official Plan, states that development within settlement designations should be compatible with the character and features of the existing community; the Horseshoe Valley Settlement area currently encompasses a large amount of low-density residential dwellings, the redline plan would be consistent with the lands already developed within Phase 1 and would establish a framework for future consideration of additional phases of the draft plan. Provincial Policy Statement The intent of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is to build strong and healthy communities while at the same time promoting efficient land use and development patterns. Policy 1.1.3.1 states that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. Since the lands are located within the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Area, the draft plan and proposed redline revisions continue to direct growth to an area in which the PPS encourages growth to occur. In Policy 1.6, "Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities", addresses issues such as the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized, wherever feasible, before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities. The draft plan is to be serviced with municipal water and full sewage services from the Sewage Treatment Plan and thereby satisfies the policies of the PPS. Policy 1.6.3 of the PPS, requires infrastructure and public service facilities to be strategically located to support the effective and efficient delivery of emergency management services. Through comments received from the Township's Engineering consultant, it was identified that the access to Line 3 South is required to be constructed as a public road and is intended to provide an alternate access to this development for emergency purposes should the main access from highland Drive not be available. The proposed redline draft plan revision is considered to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. Places to Grow The application that has been submitted has been reviewed with reference to the Place to Grow policies that have been in place since 2006. In Policy 2.2.2 Managing Growth subsection (i) states that development should be directed to settlement areas. As stated above, Horseshoe Valley has been identified through both the County and Township's Official Plans as a settlement area and therefore the proposed residential development is proposed to be developed and location within a settlement area as required by Places to Grow. Subsection (j) states that growth in settlement areas should offer municipal water and wastewater services. The proposed draft plan is intended to be developed on municipal water and sanitary sewers as required by Places to Grow. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date: Monday April 27, 2009 Report No. DS 2009-026 Page 3 of 5 ,_ ^ 4 CONSULTATIONS: Internal Departments Aecom ATTACHMENTS: Schedule #1-Location Map Schedule #2- Redline Revision Map CONCLUSION: The redline revision application proposes to reduce the overall number of lots within Phases 2A and 2B, and also to increase the number of lots with 55or 60 foot frontages rather than the approved 50 foot lot frontages. The April 16, 2009 Aecom comments and any additional comments from Council and Planning Committee members should be identified at the April 27 meeting for the applicant to proceed with revisions to their redline application submission. A subsequent report from staff would review the Planning Act process for a decision on the redline draft plan by the Township (approval authority). Respectfully submitted: Ste arquharson, B.URPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by: ~~ ~~ Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Director of Development Services SMT Approval /Comments: C.A.O. Approval /Comments: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date: Monday April 27, 2009 Report No. DS 2009-026 Page 4 of 5 Schedule #1-Location Map .. .r ,~ '~ }+ ~ ~ ~ €rr n' ~,., Q' ~ / ~~.~ z ~ -.,~. °~, r ~ \, ~' ~- ;, ~ ~, t~ ~ Z .,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w l ~~ ~ d1 j l~ ~, d ~, ', I z~ ~~ I ~-.. ~., , ..~ ~~, ~ `~~ .~s ,;'` ~~ ~~l ~~ ''k sua~~cr ~~~s __~. '~ ___.._,.__ BASS LAKE. SII~EROAD t.~ ~ 4 d5 g0 180 274 364 ~ Z ~ Nlelers ~' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date: Monday April 27, 2009 Report No. DS 2009-026 Page 5 of 5 ascots f0 Checkiey Street, 6arrie, ON, Canada L4N 1w1 T 705.721.3222 F T05~T34.0784 www.aeco~n.com April 16, 2009 Mrs. Andra Leigh Director Development Services Township of ©ro-Medonte Sax 1.00., 148 Line 7 South Oro ON LOL 2X0 fear Mrs. Leigh; Re: Townsht~ of Oro-Medonte Horseshoe Valley Lands (Farmerty ACL) Project Number:. 109568 Former TSH # 440-00013-52 We received a submission of aged-.Lined Drawings and Revised Drat Plan,. and a Servicing Overview Report -Part 1 for the Phase 2 development for Horseshoe Valley Lands. Three 11" x 17" copies were submitted showing the original Draft Plan layout far Phase 2 lands with the revised Red Lined modifications:, dated March fly, 2009; the Revised Layout for Phase 2 dated March 05, 2009; and acolour-coded version showing different widfhs of lots with a Chart summarizing a comparison between original and revised layou#s dated March. 05, 2009. We also received fwo full-size Draft Plans showing REVISED DRAFT PLAN dated March 05, 2009,. and RED-LINED DRAFT PLAN dated .March 05, 2fl09: We have reviewed #his material and herein provide the fallowing comments: 1.0 General Comments. 1.1 We previously provided comments in our Memtrrandum of December 8, 2008 which are still valid;. however, information provided has provided some clarification an certain.. items.. 1.2 The Servicing Overview Report -Part 2 was not submit#ed; and the content of that Report is critical for to the development of these lands. 2.0 Servicin_ Overvtew Report -Part 1 2.1 In the Introduction, if is indicated that the Servicing. Overview ~2eport will be prepared. in two separate parts. The fart 1 t2epart submitted wil( address the feasibility of providing municipal services such as roads, storm drainage, sanitary sewers, watermains, and utilities: The Part 2 Report wil! address the feasibility of sufficient capacity in the sewage treatment plant, and sufficient water supply. We note that ONLY the Part 1 Report has been submitted for our review; although the Part 1 Report indicates in the last paragraph of Section 1.0 that "Bath reports wiq {norseshao atc phase 2letter epr tS 20b9y. Page 2 'township of Qro-Medonte Rpril 1F, 2Q09 ,~. ~ comment on the conformity of the Red-Lined Draft Plan with previous repartsldesigns prepared. for the Horseshoe Valley Lands and surrounding area°. 2.2 In the fast sentence of the. second paragraph. of Section 1.1, it should read "These SWM Ponds were designed to seruice the ultimate drainage area, which includes Phase 1, Phase 2 and Future Phases.,` 2.3 In the 3`d paragraph of Section 2.0, it indicates that the second access #o the site will need to be constructed as part of Phase 2A for emergency vehicle access. We would recommend that this second access be an actual road with a road allowance, rather than just for emergency vehicle access. 2.4 In the second paragraph of Section 3.2, it is indicated. that the water supply and distribution requirements will be completed as part of the Part 2 Report, which was not submitted... This information is required to complete a detailed review. 2.5 In Figure. WM-01, the proposed watermain must also be looped in the. cul-de-sae in the most south-west earner of lands indicated as Phase 2B. 2.6 In Section 4.1, it is indicated that. design flow data and' sanitary sewer design sheet is provided for the existing sanitary sewers. This information must be reviewed by the owner/operator of the sanitary system, and not the Township. This is also the same comment far information prauided in Section 4.2. 2:7 In Section 5.1, the pauement width has been indicated as 8.48 m with roll-over curb and gutter: !n order to alleviate parking on the. roll-over curb and. the boulevard behind it, we recommend that. a barrier curb be utilized with $.50 m of asphalt road. ~.8 A Conceptual Grading Ptan indicated as Figure GRa01 has been provided; however, it provides minimal grading information to properly assess any grading issues:.. We do note, however; that there are arrows. indicated as "Direction of Drainage," which shave drainage through fats at fat 8, 37138; 47, 66167, and 71/72. There is currently a 604 mm storm sewer that extends from Oakmont Avenue down the side of fat 47 .and lot 37138 to the future Landscapes Drive. The. drainage then will continue in Phase 2 to the SWM pond. Aft drainage. outlets thrQUgh and between lots MUST be in dedt~ated Drainage Blacks. 2.9 The external drainage east of lofs 59 to 68 must be sufficiently accommodated, with measures shown on GR-01 and identified in the Repork. 2.1Q In Section 6.t), it refers to inlet catchbasins in roadside ditches and rear fat catchbasins; however, there are no details of same ar any indications of them on attached. Figures. There is little information shown fo demonstrate the concepts. 'The contours shown an GR-01 are not labelled, and at the scale shown are not legible.: Provide detailed full-size drawings demonstrating the concepts. ~.~. ~r (poise;hoe xk phase 2 tetitr apr'1&2 . Pale 3 7"ownship nr C3ro-Meiiante April 76, 2DE)9 ~la-~ 2.11 The suggestion of easements for storm drainage works in Section 7.2 is not acceptable. This section refers to concepts of drainage outlets without providing a Plan with elevations and. Sections to verify same. 2.12 A single construction. access during. construction is indicated without indicating the location on a Figure. 3.0 devised Draft Plan ~.1 The Draft Plan must identify Drainage Blocks. as required for storm sewers and. drainage outlets through .lots to appropriate outlets.. Easements are not acceptable alternatives due to the narrow lots and narrow setbacks. if you require any #urther clarification, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, AECOM Ganada Ltd. ~. . fees, C.E.T. AML:Is (harsastiar aEC tease 2 teEter npr 15'2009) _ s ~' LAND 1 ~' a ~ M o ~ N ~ M7 N O ~ m I I "fi w am u m em nn am am ~ N q N o 9~ r7 ~ M q n p OM ~+ l VI X W I A'Ae n7 ;, / IeaeA Ie,nA lean IeaeA IaleA IeaeA Ap.tee uaeA IeaeA Ie,teA lean Ia.nA InteA le.tu uteA uaeA m.nA uae / S OI% 8 R N ~ 7 Ie) b ~ pm n le les a~ m O 8 N P] 8 Q # N ID ~~~ `. J1 ~ ~ ~ . m / /'' ~~1.l11 r lelel ] e In]0A Ie.MI 1e.leA 1 ) 1 1 I6 MA 10.YIA Ip,t1A Ie,teA 11.16A le,lel Ie,1eA t nnn . p1 .. ~e ne I BLOCK LINE J ~ Q O ZF..~ ~~Q ~~,~ ~ d' ~p~ ~ p W~ ~~-Z W J d. ap spa M ~ Q p Z 0 m V/ a 2 p a w ' ~ ' W ' J ~ ~ Q J J W W p p ~. ~ $ o o ~ \/ ~l~/ N I~ ~ ~ r 0 J W p 0 0 ~/~ K/ N 0 ti J Q rn 0 N 2 U LL xpD - Z P~ o 12 ~ ~ 5 n 1 t ~'~ ~ 13 ~b (J 1aSea m 1e.,0 19.,3 5.e9 ~J 'ai 6 m ~ wm ~ 70 1 DD < J ~ ~' ,e., ,e.,a l ,e.,0 ,e.,a e. ~ 20 ~ 21 S 22 ~ m 23 ^" ~ ~'> ~ L ° 7 ~ - x s 14 $ g ~ 19 s 18 s 8 w „u r~ 24 ~ ~ x s 17 ,n,p _ w 15 ~"~, ,e.,9 ,e.m ~~ '° CRESCENT 8 25 $ ~p0 >G ANG1 -E`NOO D ,.a9 ,J4.w ae.,9 9 'b N49he'55•E ,4 e.e, ___ _ --'0105 ~ an '~ R 47 ,a9a a9.e, yy„ 2516 7 a ° w 1 _ ;. rv Sg 48 26 ' N4 ~0°,° ~ w e, s JA,4 P~, 10 4~ NL p9 L~~K £ 66 _ ,nag - . si JS4a 27 e1,L9 o.se ) ,0.59 Jne4 f ~~'~~=.v~,~.~~~v J~R~01~.' ` tt LOCK 68 - 1600 ~i-- ' ~ ;s~`,~ -a~w P - ~ BL, O~C,~_ 69 ~ ~ u ~ ~ _ u _ 30.00 i1 NP' °' a N oa 138 : ; ° J0.00 N ~ 5545 0 w.oo 65 _____ - g S Ja.ao 50 8 r , ~ - - J9. , '^/ s; ''~- 4 -,no9__ A: e LQ ~= anoe f 30.00 'm rn om 239 m o ~ i 4 `0 w.w 64 J ~ J9.ao >" m. ' - ~ D S 'd 28 4 56 0 w ~ s s 51 s 4 s ~ 0nae 3 3~~a ni f 0000 w.aa ~ xi m _ - 29 e 3 ~ 5743`"0 63 ss 52 s 4 ~ "s o ,0.0J 30.00 c m o o 41 ~ o N 5842"0 ° ~ 62 - _ s a ,o.eo 53 s Jn 42 s o n 30 + 30.00 r 00.00 ~ m.o9 ~ x. .Z7 R7 Jw9, _ °a - ° ~ 5941 o ~ ° 61 D s ~ s 54 a 4 ~ s m 31 ~ 30.00 a. P A Z ! ~ J0.0, N 0 30.00 _ "~' 60 No_ 40 N° + ]O.OJ 60 s ~ s 00.00 55 s ]0. 4~ s 32 ° "s 6 30.00 ~ ~ + 'n xia9 D < J9.a9 J9. Jo.m , 44 0 N 61 3g~ 0 ° 59 se ~ Y"s 56 ss 3 "a ~ ~ ~ ~ 33 e 30.OW ~ , + 30.00 O W 7 45 ~9ga m + -N O a 6238 JO.W A ~ 88 u . >~ S P ~u 57 s P JO.Oe s ~ ~ 1600 3 ~ ~.,n 30.00 - 0 ° ,35~E N5 34 ~, 5~a0~u ,.o~ Ou .. m846m~ma 25.00 30.00 ro 0100 za.aa 4x00 ~-a9, >< o ~ v ~ TANGLEWOOD 1_, B~0 ,q++ M C J y 30.00 ~ E ~~ ~ 47 C ~~ OC~! 73 CRESCENT ) ~ k O m ,,,3j 7 30.00 t 4,.,0 Od0 ti.7a xesxc) w.ao eS, 2°°1 J m O J 7T 25.00 36m 25.00 `" 48 361i5'E r+'i J0 00 J0. ~ ^ L + P9,~.1, 35 + 112 111 ~a"pg68 ° ~ ~ m ~ 37 36 4.z, . l 30.00 r ~ -~ ~ + 30.00 „3 0 30.00 > - „D u N 30.00 N 9967 ~~ , 405 zes V P HAS E m # o # 30.00 J e.ee w ~ 30.00 ~ "'' N m N 30.0034 ~ ~ 5030.00 u, ~' , _ 30.00 _ 6 \ w R E s o 0 = ~ 114 g 109 6 o 100 00 30 a '\ A SS _ ~ ~ Z 2A ~ 30.00 :, N .~- 3 ~ ' m 5 30.00 a - ~ 1 . 30.00 _ 65 `" " . N a? ~ ~> ~~ . ~ ~ 51 ° { 11 ~ ° 108 p 10 1 ° N y 4 ~ / ~ _ s .oo ~1 330.00 m `"~ 52 :a ~ N 30.00 uN 11632ND m 30.00 m 052 107: 30.00 _ 30.00 o~ 10264+ ~, a v 30.00 m N1453 u 30.00 31 0 ~ 117 'm 53106 30.00 30.00 °; 10363 ~ ~ ~ O O ~~ 30.00 ~ z m 1 N28'58'40"W 7.47 Z _ 3000 _ a~ 554 " _ :11830 `" .oo a ~ 54105 ~ J a 10462 a S w w u~ ~ 28.77 R=22.30 N60'45'OS"E BLOCK 620 30.OD a ° _ 30.00 3 a' 30.00 J ~~ ) A=08.64 1 ' ' ~ 1 W N .3o RESERVE ( ,,, ° >~ 605°' N29 BLOC _ 30 00 :i A z ~, ~ 1 () ~ ~ N +D tO 30.00 ,' _ `" `" u 28132U . 133 29 97 a+ N 6113 ' ": ~N = BLOCK 626 n 7 ~ O1 ~ 2 ' 315e f P • AN U1(O 30.00 m N ~ ~ ' 131 ~-r, 30.47 °' o, 56134 ,. , - 1 g7 ~~ ww rn ~ r'"m i'~° (n Ui .p.~ ~° !a 1830. B7 'm , 27 31.02 3234 m , 601~8 S ~q ?~ ~~: m 2` -~"''~-'.- ,._~ ^'"~--'ti.,,. ,.~~ _; X3150 . ~ ^'~-`~~3Q~-'' `J,71.3cj~ , - ~-6~~ w~s~1~9 ~ ' ~.r_ ~ _y..v...~~., '~-..."~•-.F--.~_v" ~ ~~ - ~ 31.80 m -.r ° 2 ° 0 ti m 3 ~ ycJAw ~ E R-,00.00 3 ~ , -~., ~...~~..; ,,_.~_.~__,'\.. _- .. 7 12°0 2 h~59 ono 58 ,grow 602 ~ ,t~ sO ? ! ~ N f~HA E ~~: 324 s 1 ~ ~ ~ NP ~2012~ ^`~`bs N ~ ~ f.--(l ~` 329, i 24~~'r. N20~31 Cn 1. Q' G /A~ 6. Z _,2112 S1 ~'R><114 ~ ~ ~.-~...~ ~i~ . -' 3p°; it 13'09'45'E 'y° 33~'1G ~ r -- 4. £ 221 v-J °`~'~i~ R 17 6 3.Om WIDENING ~ ~~~ N5r 5'E Negn2'J~s~^~ Za, s4 123~`ZC ~ BL4~ ?~°~O~ o^O s4' `{}, 4~29~+9~ 22~4F~? 5. ~ ~ ~Ois E y ,1~°~~ '~` ~ry6~ 101, ry~o°.~~' ?ea ~ L1 cA y ?41^~g "5 > o 'P K,a 7 ~ ~~J~ ~°ay. BLK 100 e3 ~ 'ss2 ~~^~ ~om ,.ryry~ 3 ~ ie. 54 7 _zst ~ . 7 ~7~ N _,~) f n~ (, 2n^.~"~/ ° s°O ~' J"~ °O s N75'31'30'W R b' 6')(Y~ y0 ~ a+ a,~l h°j ` 'a~ ,yo°^Dc s ~j` 'b 21.58 _ x pM1'• ?, ~ '~ '2}J v °'74148 a ~j` ~6^~s~s,~~ 1.~9y54. ~l '7°d'Fj /s ~1 `v a6 '1 A c 31.2 + ~ IJ~ ~ ~~ °Otiy j '~ °° ~4}7 ~~ 6 9 ^g ~ S zs`b ~16 S°o N8098' 5' ro ~ ~ 40.63 ~ ~S~ h°i~rb ;r °'"`° 76150 `' ~ BLOCK 618 77 " ~ °O 0.30 WIDENING ~~yy 1~ is ~S :4 '5 'E 'a 1 ~N 4T50E~~"~^•~v~`v-C~-•'^=i~ ~?~-.yp~~~ ~~a-v4%1~vvv~;-v vim: vv'~..-~~v (/ p9 g0 a ¢ ~' ~~ a' NBOVe'S 00 VJ )~~ ~ 2Z 79 `1 '.a4~ ~~ rs 79P N l ~ 955 ~ 1.9J7 ~ e S~ ~~ >~e 's°°° 'a~~' ~ ` 3 ~,~ N14~ze~1o'~---- ~ ~ ~ *rs9°e a°o 961 ~,9 ` ~~ p''°° 9 s r zz.ue N 94 ti°~ : s 0.30 RESERVE 'Sg m !~ s', li , ~ ~ ~~ °~ 'C/ ph ~~ r%i r ~ B ~ 30.30 ti9 ~~ ~ sa 6~ h°O° r s ~~ ;; 8~ $ ~ S 155 '° S •NOi9 hy~~p ;r ~° ° 3 U 93 16 ~e~ '. ' S ~ ~ti\ v 88 s ; 16 „ !' , o ~ "°9p ro,e0 ,e.o 1go ~`8 e£~4o1 1 's°,~ 84~, 'sue r~_ 6Dc s~ o ~ ~ .~h ~ ~ ~ 87 ~; ; 1 ~ ~ 92 ~ mw u1 S ~ ~~ ~ °9 85~ p V +9o p1~ 'Sp' 'lj a~ °' 91 .0 90 m ~~6 ~~ " ® -- -- -- - 86162 -'` 619 MARCH 05, 2009 J t S \~ 15 00 6 h j ~ ~ ~22 S 'S°~r/Jp+ 13.E \ ~ ,S°~r0 ,J 'S ,54, ,~, $ ~ ~S ~~9 h° , .~ ~~ 'h°~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ 0 'S~ ~ J_ h ~~ N~ ~~ ~ & i ~^~~ •O` ~ o° ~~' °w } ~ 1 '~ ° (~ BLOCK a ~ o t; a 0 1 0 15 ~ Qi '~~ o ~ ~ ,'8 15.00 N W o N 15.00 ~ N o 15.00 N 'P c Of 15.00 N O~ p X75. (WO u.o2 1s.oo 15.00 1s.ao 1s.oo u.oo 1s. roN o ; l N N o a u P m N N o N 3.99 i5.00J 15.00 15.00 15.OOJ 015.00 15.00° 15. zee 1s.ao 1s.ao 1s.oo u.oo 1s.ao u.oo is uv° -' o N o w ~ ~ ~'~ '7 1 00 ~ 00 15.00 ~ 15.00 15.00 15.00 i$ ~...` i ~.. _.. ~..., ti/ BLOCK OTHER SANDS ~~~~> > HORSESHOE LIFESTYLE COMMUNITY =~ HORSESHOE LANDS LTD. A ~ vaL;E,~ua es 3 L ' Craig _ ~,~A'' , DRAFT PLAN OF PARi OF NORTf-I HALF AND SOUTFI HALF OF LOi 3 ANA PARi OF LOT 4 CONCESSION 4 ceocRnPwc TowNSh11P of oRo NOW IN THE -OWN SHIP O1= ORO--~MF.DONTE COUNTY OF SIMCOE zooo OWN ERAS CERTIFICATE n+E urvDEascweD, DEINC nIE Re~sERED ovrvEa DF nIE SUR.IELT LANDS. HEREON AUTHORIZE P. k. MENZIES, PLANNING AND DCVFI OPMEN f, )b PREPARE TI1IS DRAFT PLAN O- SUBDIVISION nN RMi SA C WN DRD-ME )UN if !OI IIR AL E ~~~~ E NESIL IIORSESI1Df vALLk'.V lnrvDS LfD. AIRVF YQft_~S L_~I~If.IC:AI. f. I ceanrv TI SUHDIViDEO ANU 'fllElft kELAi)DNSIiP i0 ADLACENT LANDS ARF ACCUIiniELT nND CnRRI LRY SUOwN. .t,.we :-9 ~- -- DnTE D N. s DN lARIO LAND SURVEYON FlDDITIONAL INFORMATION RGQUIRCD UNDER SCCTION 51(17) OF TFIC PLANNING ACT ~) sl G) SEE) KEY)PLANAN c) SI ON PLAN ii) R FN11AL r:) SEIDWN ON PLAN I) SlIDWN Orv P y) SI F) M WATER 0 snnoG~nNU canvrL i)) s DN PlnN I) N MUNICIPAL SFftvIGES i0 Rf PROVIDED DNE METRIC DISTANCES SHAWN ON TIiiS PLAN ARE IN METRES A LAN 13F. CONVERTED iD EE[1 BY DIVIDING DT fl..fDeO. COLE SHERMAN AND ASSOCL4TE5 CONSULTING ENGINEERS SHAWN P. WATTERS & ASSOCIATES P. K. MENZIES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT THE LANDPLAN COLLABORATIVE LTD PROTECT 99056 ® DINO ASTRI suwv~nNO LTO. -- _-- rrs Elio ~owo. _s_Mn /nn9 RrnuNr I MARCH ~. JDO9 DRAWN HT: MI /DA~ELx EU RT: D. AC)NI SERVICING OVERVIEW REPORT -PART 1 INTERNAL SERVICING AND TRANSPORTATION REVIEW HORSESHOE VALLEY LAND PHASE 2 Horseshoe Valley, Ontario for HORSESHOE VALLEY LANDS LTD. February 2009 e i 1 Horseshoe vauey candz std. Hors®sno. vanay sands, Phass ~ Horseshoe Vanay, Ontar~ Saniidng Overview Rapat-Part 1 Table of Contents Statement of Limiting Conditions and Assumpttons ................................................................ iiI 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1 1.1. Existing Site Description ......................................................................................................1 1.2. Backgronnd ...........................................................................................................................2 2.0 Proposed Development ......................................................................................................2 3.0 Water Supply and Diatribution ....................................................................... .................3 3.1. Existing Watermain .............a.....................................................................,.........................3 3.2. Proposed Watermain ............................................................................................................3 4.0 Sanitary Sewerage.» ...........................................................................................................3 4.1. Existing Sanitary Sewera .....................................................................................................3 4.2. Proposed Sanitary Sew'era ...................................................................................................4 5.0 Road Nehvork and Conceptual Grading .........................................................................5 5.1. Road Network ........................................................................................................«.............5 5.2. Conceptual Grading....» .......................................................................................................6 6.0 Storm Drainage System .....................................................................................................6 7.0 Stormwater Management ..................................................................................................7 7.1. Stormwater Management Overview ...................................................................................7 7.2. Conformity of Revised Draft Plan with URS Report ........................................................8 8.0 ErosIoa/Siltation Control Measures .................................................................................9 9.0 Transportatton .................................................................................................................10 9.1. Intersection Improvements and Staging ...........................................................................10 9.1.1. County Road 22/3`a Line Intersection ...............................................................................10 9.1.2. County Road 22/Horseshoe Valley Resort Entrance ........................................................ I 1 9.1.3. County Road 22/4ei Line .................................................... . I 1 .............................................. 9.1.4. 3rd and 4'"Lines .................................................................................................................12 9.1.5. Implementation .................................................................................................................12 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ...............................................................................13 L08-328 (February 2009) ~~~1.~ Cnlw Pnninaarinn Page i 0 i i v e i e i i e a i Norseshat VaNey Lida Ltd. Horseshoe VaNey Lands, Phase 2 Horseshoe vaH®y, Onfara Serviclrp Ovanrfew Report-Part t LIST OF FIGURES Figure LOC-O1. Location Plan Figure DP-01. Drag Plan of Subdivision Figure WM-01. Conceptual Water Distribution System Figure SAN-O1. Existing Sanitary Sewer System Figure SAN-02. Proposed Conceptual Sanitary Sewer System Figure GR-O1. Conceptual Grading and Storm Drainage APPENDICES Appendix A - Sanitary Sewer Design Calculation Sheet -Existing Areas and Proposed Horseshoe Valley Lands Phase 2 Appendix B - Sanitary Sewer Design Calculation Sheet -Ultimate Development L08-326 (February 2009) Cole Engineering Page Ff a Horseshw Valley Lands ltd. Horseshoe Valley Lands, Phase 2 Horseshoe Valley, Ontarfo Serv-r~nq Overview Report -Part 1 Statement of ~imitin Conditions and Assum tions 9 p 1. This Report /Study (the "Work") has been prepared at the request of, and for the exdusive use of, the Owns, and its affiliates (the "Intended Users"). No one other than the Intended Users has the right to use and rely on the Work without fast obtaining the written authorization of Cote Engineering Group Ltd. (CEG) and its (hvrux. 2. CEG expressly excludes Liability to any party except the Tntende~ Uses for any use of; and /ar reliance upon, the Work. 3. CEG notes that the following assumptior~ were made is completing the Work: a) the land use description(s) supplieel to us are correct b) the surveys and data supplied to CEG by the Owrtex are accurate. c) market timing, approval delivexy and secondary source information is within the control of Pasties other than CEG. d) there arc no encroachments, leases, covenants, binding agreements, restrictiats, Pledges, chnrgea, liens or special assessments outstanding, or encumbrances which would significanriy affect the use or servidng. [nvestigaHona have not bees carried out to verify+ these essumptiars. CEG decors the ~urces of data and statistical informati~ contained hexein to be reliable, but tive extend no guarantex of accuracy in these respects. 4. CF.G acv ~ responsibility fa kgai interpretations, questions of survey. opinion of tide, hoiden or inconspicuous exxiditions of the property, toxic wastes a contaminated mate:riala, soil ~ sub-soil ewnditiona, environrt>etttal, engineering or other faMual and technical matters disclosed by the Owner, the Client, or any publk agency, which by thdr nature, may charrgc the outcome of the Work Such factors, beyond the scope of this Wexlr, could affect the findings, conclusions and opinions rendered in the Work We have made di~losure of related potential problems that have conre to our attention. Rexponsitsility for diligence with respect to alt matters of filet reported herein rests with the Intended Users. S. CEG practices engineering in the general areas of infrastructure sad transportation. It is n~ qualified bo and is not providing legal a planning advice is this Work. ~ 6. The legal description of the property and the area of the site were based upon surveys and data supplied to us by the Owner. The plans, phobagraphs, and sketches contained in this report are included sokty to aide In visualizing the location of the property, the configuration and boundaries of the site, and the relative position of the improvenu:nts an the said lands. 7. We have made investigations from secondary sources as docuaeentexl in ow Work, but we have not checked for compliance with by-laws, codes, agency and governmental regulations, etc., unless specifically noted in the Work. 8. Because co~itioas, including eap~ity, allocation, teonomic. social, and political factors change rapidly and, on occasion, without notice or warning, the findings of the Work expressed hexein, are as of the date of the Work and cannot necessarily be relied upon as of any other lobe without subsequent advice fran CEG. 9. The value of proposed improvements should be applied arty with regard to the purpose arxf function of the Work, as outlined in the body of this Work Any cost estimates set out in the ~Yexk are based on construction averages and subject to change. 10. Neither posse~sfon of the Work, nor a copy of it, carries the right of publicatiat. All copyright in the Work is reserved to CEG arui is considered confidential by CEG. The Work shall not be disclosed, produced or reproduced; quoted from, or referred to, is whole or fn part, or published in any nuutner, without the express written consent of CEG and the Owner. I I. The Work is only valid if it boars the professional engineer's seal and original signature of the author, and if considered ht its entirety. Responsibility for unauthorized alteration to the Work is denied 1 LO$-326 (FabflJary 2009) ` ~~ (:niw Fnninnnrinn Pags Ni Horseshoe Va(!ey Lands Ltd Horseshoe Valley Lands, Phass 2 Horseshoe VaMsy, Ontario Saniking Overview Report-Part 7 1.0 Introduction Cole Engineering Group Ltd. (CEG) was retained by Horseshoe Valley Lands Ltd. (the "Owner's to prepare a Servicing Overview Report in support of a Red-Lined Draft Plan Application for Horseshoe Valley Lands, Phase 2 (formerly known as Horseshoe Adult Lifestyle Community, Phase 2) located in the Township of Oro-Medonte. Phase 2 is divided into two (2) ~„ phases. Phase 2A consists of 68 residential lots and Phase 2B consists of 29 residential lots. ® The Servicing Overview Report will be prepared in two (2) separate parts: 1) Servicing Overview Report -Part 1, Internal Servicin=and Transportation Review This Servicing Overview Report will address the feasibility of providing municipal services such as roads, storm drainage, sanitary sewers, watermains and utilities for Horseshoe Valley Lands - Phase 2 (referred to as Phase 2). This report will also describe the manner in which stormwatcr and traffic management will be implemented. 2) Servicing Overview Report -Part 2, Sanihry Sewage Treatment and Water Distribution System This Servicing Overview Report will address the feasibility of providing sufficient capacity in the sewage treatment plant for Phase 2 and Horseshoe Valley Lands -Future Phases (referred to as Future Phases) as well as the feasibility of providing sufficient water supply and distribution far Phase 2 and Future Phases. Both reports will comment on the conformity of the Red-Lined Draft Plan with previous 1 reports/designs prepared for Horseshoe Valley Lands and surrounding areas. 1.1. Existing Site Description Horseshoe Valley Lands cover an area of approximately 93 hectares (230 acres), and is legally described as Part of the North Half and South Half of Lot 3 and Part of Lot ~, Concession 4, Geographic Township of Oro, now in the Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe. The location of the site is illustrated in Figure LOC-01. e The existing Adult Lifestyle Development -Phase 1 (referred to as Phase l) is approximately 5.26 hectares (13 acres) and consists of 66 residential lots. Access to Phase 1 is provided from Highland Drive. Three (3) stormwater management (SWM) ponds were constructed on the adjacent existing golf course on Block 609, located to the east of Phase 2, as part of Phase 1. These SWM ponds were designed to service the ultimate drainage area, which includes Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 2 is bounded by Horseshoe Adult Lifes le Phase 1 to the north a elf course to the east tY ~ g and west, and open space to the southeast. The topography for Phase 2 slopes in a westward and northward direction. The overall fall across Phase 2A is substantial, with an approximate grade difference of 18m from the south to L08-326 (February 2008) ` ;~ Cnla Enninanrinn Page 1 Of 1S 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t ,,, ~~• ~ "' ~~ Cole Engineering Group Ltd. II,, ~ a i 1 III IQi1~ 100 Renfrew Orive -Suite 100 -Markham -Ontario - L3R 9R6 Phone: (410) 987.6161, (905) 940-0161 Fax: (905) 940-2004 DATE: ~ SCALE: LOCATION PLAN HORSESHOE VALLEY (ANDS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TOWNSHIP OF ORO•MEDONTE FEBRUARY 2009 PRO.~CT No.: LOB-326 N.T.S. ~ FIOURE No.: LOC-01 Hors®shoa Valley Lands Ltd. Horseshoa Valey Lands, Phast 2 Horseshoe Vary, Ontar~ Servklr~ Ove-visw Report-Part 1 north limit. The fall across Phase 2B is approximately Sm from the south to the north limit. The northern part of the site (Phase 2A) will tie into the existing design of Phase 1 at Landscape Drive and Oakmount Avenue. 1 v 1.2. Back round 9 In preparing this report, background studies and information referenced while preparing this report consisted of the following: • Horseshoe Adult Lifestyle Community -Functional Servicing Report, prepared by URS Cole, Sherman & Associates Ltd., Ref. CN30700043, dated March 2000. • Functional Servicing Report -Comprehensive Development Plan for Horseshoe Valley Resort, prepared by URS Cole, Sherman 8c Associates Ltd. • Horseshoe Adult Lifestyle Community -Golf Course - Stormwater Management Plan, Horseshoe Highlands, prepared by URS, Proj. No. CN30700043, dated Sept. 2001. • Tanglewood Crescent, Oakmont Avenue & Landscape Drive Culvert/Curb Installation, prepared by Richardson Foster Ltd., Project No. 0425, dated November, 2007. • Horseshoe Lifestyle Community -Urban Design Guidelines, prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd,, dated April 7, 2000. . Sanitary Sewer System for the Horseshoe Resort Corporation prepared by Thornburn Penny Consulting Engineers, Milton Ontario, File No. 1110.01, dated May, 1998. • `As recorded' information, dated May, 1998, and the Horseshoe Resort Master Plan Record Drawing prepared by AWS Engineers & Planner Corp., dated December 3, 2oa2. • Hydrogeologic Assessment -Proposed Horseshoe Adult Lifestyle Community, prepared by Terraprobe, File No. 00679, dated March 19, 2000. • Traffic Assessment Report far the Horseshoe Vallcy Settlement Node Lands, prepared by Cole, Sherman & Associates, Ref: 99379, dated June, 2000. • Traffic Review for the Horseshoe Vallcy Settlement Node Lands, prepared by URS Cole Sherman, Proj. 33014950, dated February, 2003. 2.0 Proposed Development The proposed land use pattern and roads for Phase 2 are based on the current Red-Lined Draft Plan Application provided by MHBC. Phase 2 includes 97 residential lots and is approximately 7.9 hectares (19.5 acres). Phase 2 is subdivided into two (2) phases, Phases 2A and 2B. Phase 2A consists of 68 residential lots and Phase 2B consists of 29 residential lots. Access to Phase 2 will be provided from Highland Drive in Phase 1 via Landscape Drive and Oakmont Avenue. A second access from Oro 3rd Line via Gatestone Way will also be provided. Although the Gatestone Way intersection with Oro 3rd Line is located in Phase 2B, this access will need to be constructed as part of Phase 2A to provide a second access to Phase 2A for a L08-326 {February 2009) Paae 2 of 1S Horseshoe Va~ey Lands Ltd. Horseshoe Valley Lands, Phass 2 Horseshoe Valley, Ontarfa Servldrp Overvlerv Rspwt-Part 1 emergency vehicle access. Phase 2A wilt serve as a connection from existing Phase 1 to both Phase 2B and Future Phases located to the east of Phase 2B. Storm runoffwill be directed to the three existing SWM ponds constructed within the golf course on Block 609. The site layout for Phase 2 is shown on the current draft plan prepared by MHBC in Figure DP- Ol. 3.0 Water Supply and Distribution 3.1. Existing Watermaln Supply is available for Phase 2 by two points of connection at the southern limit of Phase I . An existing 200mm diameter PVC watennain terminates in a plug dt blow-off on Oakmont Avenue. An existing 300mm diameter PVC watermain terminates in a plug at a hydrant & valve at the intersection of Landscape Drive and Tanglewood Crescent. The existing watermains are shown on Figure WM-Ql. 3.2. Proposed Watermain Internal watermains will be sized to provide adequate supply and pressure which wilt consider the internal looped system, the connections to existing infrastructure, and demand of the developments. Hydrants and valves will be spaced in accordance with Oro-Medonte design standards. Single water service connections will service each house. Conceptual watennains are shown in Figure WM-01. A review of the existing and proposed water supply and distribution system requirements, including recommended improvements, watenmain sizing and looping requirements will be completed as part of the Servicing Overview Report -Part 2, Sanitary Treatment and Water Distribution System which will be submitted under separate cover. 4.0 Sanitary Sewerage 4.1. Existing Sanitary Sewers The Horseshoe Valley area is serviced by sanitary sewers that convey sanitary flows to a treatment plant located north of Horseshoe Valley Road. The upstream portion of the sanitary system is comprised of the Phase 1 lands. From Phase 1, sanitary flows are conveyed via a 300mm sanitary sewer north along Oro 3rd Line, north along a section of sewer adjacent to L68-328 (February 2649) <<~,~., r..~„ r.._:.._.,.~__ Paaw 3 of ~r, HORSESHOE LIFESTYLE COMMUNITY ----, ~ ~~° _ ; ~ ~ ~ DRAFT PIAR of PART Of NORTH HALF AND . ~ SOUTH HALF OF LOT 3 ~ ' Ar`D .. _ ~ PART OF LOT 4 ~_ _ : _ ' i` `i" CONCESSION 4 \ ccocR],rR~c TpYR1SH~R a oRo ' ~ ~ NOW IN THE - t ,+ NTE F TOWN R>aarf, ' \ SIMCOE OUN ~ 0 _ __ .,. - ... ~ xooo _ p~~tg~ ~ _ . `.~~ .. ` ' ofatul's cunFiur¢ 1 ~ ` I ~ j .. ~ - :~ ' . 1 1 1 ate. 1 1 ! y ~/ ar w • i4~ Iwuac~+Ytlai wHho~atosRf[o~oti Mw:.c a 1 1 I 1 • • ~ ,.- { . . -: ~.:.. m p t.M~it wt q K~w~ar O ash-vsmf/GVim ; t psnf fefaa~Y " . _ I f ~ , ~ w ~ _ ax .._. / a` ~i - vtt ..csaa~ aawl.a wulitlula lA /~ ! l ~ 1 ~ / 1 1 t I / a 1 t I 1111 Rf~ fnRr, f.~ ~ , f J I JIJ ~ ' ~ ~ f~ t / 1 ~ I I ffa4:r w ~ ~ / uiR4Ftl]R'c CLRTMCfTE to - ") . 1 i siaRnn •v`f iwrai°r b rorwir r..kot a J 1 111 I 1 I J fr ~ clauca. soRc aal .afR.mr +v I-. aa+ . ....... w ~ ' a I I »~. ~~ .. .. 1 1 1 / I I i~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 wR f ` : ` : ~ . .., ~. avr Iavgvu f . . e ~. : ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ Y ~ ApplgNAl IKFORUAP(IR REQNRED LRDER "~'--"^ _~ " ~ ' $ECMRt Si(1]j OF T/K RLAkRIRG AGT _ ~ - ~ afa. wl ~I ) = _ ~ ~ r n fwI . inaM ~ v „VW F ~ _ . ~ ' ~ f11 vR .~ f ' f ~ i R s aw.aw.n I i / 1 I 1 1 wRRR MLL i I 1 ~. ~~ 1 w ~ wow ~caa b u 1f9.wR faf _- .. wn ~ ~ . ~ i ~ I 1 1 u r ~~_ ~ . 1.., > >, ~ ~w tfv(p fro.v m sa nf. frf a aaffµ eJwt F K CuWrO q t¢I Rf aNi gn r r .~ n .. ~~ y .~ 1'Al/E9plnwlly 0rwp p1AgNRMAT[lpttkA00QA70 •• •~ ~_ .ro wr YK > ~ 1!d OW1AlOM1R'11L7D RM f1111 DING A r]w~nn aal-. - n.f ws : o Lac uR>t .a: a na I.e1 anleo >w` DRAFT PLAN FIORSESFIOE VALLEY IANOS Cole Engineering Group Ltd. "~81D~"'"t'O~LOPf~ II ( 100 RanRavr Orlva - Seila 100 - IAazk~am - Onlarie - l]R 91i6 TONt~SFNP Of ORO-~DONTE POOna: (~ IB) 98]-6161, (905) O<0.6/81 FRY: (905) &03081 GATE: FEBRUARY $S(N PROJECT No.: LOb326 SCALE: N.T.B. fK3URE No.: -0i ,;:- '- - ~ ,'r _ - -•c'" "~- ~ ; DEVELOPMENT - PHABE ~ `~~` ty PL `~''.., '9Y . _- ~ ~, -- 1W ~ ~'~ ~ i i ~ _72 ~ 3 ~ ; .., _,~.,._._._._._._._._.. ._._.. .. _._._ _ ., i i ~ i ._._._._ ~ . t i ~ t ;, E j ~' W ~ i; f _ ~' V LANDS FUTURE PHASES [~ pAKMONTAVENUE ~~. ~ , ~. ~. i !' .~~ - ~ - ii ~~ ~ .. ._ ~: ...~ i ~, i. W 31 ~ 4 ~ i. ~ i. - t~ 1 - ~ . ' O ~~~ ~ ~`,~ .5 1 7 i, , ~ i ~. ~ ~ ~ iii I --- _ _ - .J '. CONCEPTUAL WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM p~pp yy - HOR8E8HOE VALLEY LANDS ~~n o Cole Engineering Group Ltd. _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ 5E PNAeE RE9IDENTIALDEVd-OPI~NT Sao ne.,n«, om.- sin. too -M..~n.m • w.no- ua w~ - PROPO~ YiIATERMAMI TON9131~ OP ORO-MEDON~E rn«a~N~e>oera+e~, too6l ao6tei r.r. tvm7wo-me+ 42 ••.-NU~lER OR l0T8 _._...._._._._._._.._. _FUTUREYVATERW19i GATE: PE9RlWiY1009 PROJECTNo.: W8329 NOTE: k9tiOR WATERAWN PM~E.4ARE NOT BFIOVYN 8CALE: 1~6W flat9tE Na: WM-0t Horseshoe Valley Lands Ltd. Horseshoe Valley Lands, Phase 2 Horseshoe Valley, Onta-io Servicing Overview Report - Parf 1 Carriage Hills Phase 4 and Horseshoe Hotel, Day Lodge Time Share, across Horseshoe Valley Road, and approximately 2km north along a section of sewer adjacent to Heights of Horseshoe Townhouses and into the treatment plant. Existing sanitary sewers are shown in Figure SAN-Ol. The capacity of the existing sanitary sewer from Phase 1 to the treatment plant was reviewed to determine if there are any capacity constraints. The review was based on "as-built" drawings for the Horseshoe Resort Corporation prepared by Thornburn Penny Consulting Engineers, Milton Ontario, File No. 1110.01, `as recorded' information, dated May, 1998 and the Horseshoe Resort Master Plan Record Drawing prepared by AWS Engineers & Planner Corp., dated December 13, 2002. Design flow data is provided from Table 4.1 of the URS Functional Servicing Report (2000). Sanitary drainage areas were not provided. From the above information a sanitary sewer design sheet was prepared and is provided in Appendu A. Based on this review, the existing sanitary sewers which service contributing areas from Phase 1 up to the treatment plant have sufficient capacity. Connection of Phase 2 to the existing sanitary collection system is available from two locations; the existing 250mm sanitary sewer and maintenance hole at the south limit of Phase 1 on Oakmont Avenue and the existing 300mm sanitary sower and maintenance hole located at the south limit of Phase 1 on Landscape Drive. 4.2. Proposed Sanitary S~wera The proposed sanitary sewers from Phase 2 will be connected into the existing sanitary sewer manholes located on Oakmont Avenue and Landscape Drive, at the south limit of Phase 1. Proposed sanitary sewers will be sized to accommodate Phase 2 and all Future Phases. Within the Future Phases, a high point is located approximately 200m east of Phase 2. The sanitary drainage area in the Future Phase located west of this high point will flow by gravity to the treatment plant. The sanitary drainage area east of the high point will flow by gravity to a proposed pumping station. Sanitary flows from the pumping station will then be pumped to the high point and then flow by gravity to the treatment plant. Conceptual sanitary sewers are shown in Figure SAN-02. A sanitary sewer design calculation sheet was prepared to include existing conditions and the contribution of Phase 2 sanitary drainage areas. Based on these calculations, there is sufficient capacity in the sanitary sewers to convey flow to the treatment plant. This sanitary sewer design sheet is provided in Appendix A. A second salutary sewer design calculation sheet was prepared to include existing conditions, contribution of Phase 2 and Future Phase sanitary drainage areas. Based on these calculations, a section of sewer from maintenance holes 10 to 11 is surcharged. The sanitary sewer design calculation sheet for the ultimate conditions is provided in Appendix B. Alternatives to rectify the surcharged sewer include excavating and increasing the gradient of the existing surcharged sewer and impacted upstream sanitary sewers or allowing the sewer to perform under surcharged condition. This will require an in-depth analysis of the existing sanitary sewer connections and L08-326 (February 2009) '` Cole Enaineerinn Page 4 of 15 Hi~~p w z 0 Cole Engineering Group Ltd. __,_ ,', ~„ ~illli ~ o loo aa,tr.Y, onw . swm loo - uxwn.m • oMa.w ~ ua mla . Ftli11RE ort/Mrtn' MHTARI' bE\MER PM1~ns:lal6)9ET8181, IW61W60181 Fare IHOS)9161084 _____---- ______-__ -p~ARy FORCENAW w z v Q PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL SANITARY SEWER SY8TEM -nweaoaos HORSE8HOE VALLEY LANDS ~ ,~„~ ResiDExrw. oEVELOw~eNr Tow~-uP of oa+rE 42 rKS~aoFtoTS DATE: FEBRItARY2WY PROJECENa: to8-s28 NOTE: IAINOR BANRARY SEWERS ARE NOT 81iOWN SCALE: 1600 FKiURE No:. 8AN-02 E%15TkIC ' SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT iMl 17 ~ A ~~ MN 12 IffiGHTS OF HORSfiSHOfi .. T0WHIi0USES - fi}QSTING PHASE 1 AND PROPOSID PHASES 2 - 3 i \ CATIIEORIL PNES p_i Rry TDWNSHlP OF ORO - MEDDNTE j PROP. `~, ~'- I_,,,T ~ ! HOTEL i SPA ~` a MH 6 ~ ~ H~ ~fi gv au~.• PROP. DAY LODGE AND PHASE , ze 200mm DfN1ETER. Tfj~$TIARfi PHASE 2 SANITMY SEWER" ~~ i ~.~ ^ / .MN 7~ U'ORAOE 4 - CARR4ICE MtL ~ ,~,'.rW 5 ~`~MN lA ' •...1~ 4 PHASE 3 iu~ 3c G CARRIAGE FIII.I.S ` ,iw se -PHASE 4 PHASE , s~'-~~:~~N~jT,~ywH yn 103 .: ~ 3`~,3~p{ 3 ' W .... _._ _-c'i}t• H7QSTII~TTCr1aULT '~4. ' ~~ ........ is ..`AEVELOYMENT- ~'L'k_ ~''-~-.r ' to + - ~ ' J ~ K~} PFMSE +A ~ 1 '•~ _. ~ - i ~ r I0EYAU,EYt.AND8 ~y2 ~-~--~1 ~~ ) '-.,+ PHA~2A ~ , ~g ~~ y ~q R\\~ NOItOp: TRAA `~?_~® ~~ ~~ ~_ HORSESHOfi VALLEY-LANDS -- `~CA .w -FViVREPHASES ° fl . ~ ~/~uFy ENp$ ~ iORCEWlWI .4 ~~ ~.. >t~ ""V i r C.. _._. - _ .f _._ `-t . ~.___.-______.~__-_-.__. _. ..-_ .._.._. :I . ... 2'K)1'$ 1@l0R SAHITARY SEVVSRS AR13lYCtT~OiVtI LEGEND: ,qp~~ o Cole Engineering Group Ltd. - -~~-~~-~- ~ ~''~ ,oo Ranhw om. -sows +oo • M.rWm -ammo- uR oRi Phpr: Jalel eeTe,s~, ryoslsaa,s, Fn lscsl aiams~ EXISTING SANITARY SEINER SYSTEM HORSESHOE VALLEY (ANDS xnA~ oEVeLOP~rr TCWM1gENP C)F ClRO#~0HTE a1TE F'EBRUARY200~ PROJECTNO~ tAB326 SCALE 1:10,000 qp~ No.: gµJ..pT Horseshoe Valley Lands Ltd. Horseshoe Valtay Lands, Phase 2 Horseshoe Valley, Ontario Servlcing Overview Report -Part 1 basement elevations in this vicinity to corm that this alternative is acceptable. An analysis will be performed at the detailed design stage and will require approval from the Township. A review of the treatment plant capacity and efficiencies based on existing and proposed sanitary flows, including recommended improvements, will be completed as part of the Servicing Overview Report -Part 2, Sanitary Treatment and Water Distribution System which will be submitted under separate cover. 5.0 Road Network and Conceptual Grading 5.1. Road Network Roads in Phase 2 will consist of an 18m right-of--way and a pavement width of 8.48m. The typical cross-section will be a modified urban cross-section. This cross-section allows for one travel lane in each direction and municipal services such as rolled curb and gutter, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, watermains, streetlighting, and underground utility accommodations. Subdrains are typically required under curbs; however, the need for subdrains is to be addressed during detailed design. The storm drainage system will include area drains in shallow ditches and storm sewers under the pavement. Storm flow will be directed into one of the three existing SWM ponds located on the adjacent golf course. Road sewer crossings will need to be installed at strategic locations to ensure storm runoff is properly conveyed to the SWM ponds. The proposed cross-section is derived from the Township of Oro-Medonte's recommendations based on their experience during Phase 1 construction. Phase 1 was originally designed as a rural cross-section; however, due to the steep grades and the front yard setback to the ditches, construction challenges were encountered. Richardson Foster Ltd. revised the design in November 2007 and the revised design was later implemented. The difference between the drainage system and road cross-section in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is that in Phase 2 there will be no driveway culvert crossings, and the area drains in shallow ditches will discharge into storm sewers that are located within the pavement. Conceptual road profiles confirm that the roads will be designed to match closely with the existing topography, as well as match existing road elevation to the north and at Oro 3`d Line, while providing sufficient cover for municipal services. The design of all roads is intended to conform to Township of Oro-Mendonte design criteria. The desirable minimum road gradient of 0.5% and a maximum road gradient of 6% will be provided. Right-of--ways will be designed to convey storm run-off into the SWM ponds. Design of hydro, streetlighting, telephone, cable TV and gas will be coordinated with the local utility companies servicing the Township of Oro-Medonte. Our review indicates that the road network and proposed road cross-section for Phase 2 provides for a suitable storm drainage system that will match to the existing Phase 1 development and Future Phases. A current topographic survey is required prior to detailed design. LOS-326 (February 2009) ~/^ Page 5 of 15 ~-- Cole Engineering Horseshoe Valley Lands Ltd. Horseshoe Valley Lands, Phase 2 Horseshoe Valley, Ontario Servicing Overview Report -Part 1 5.2. Conceptual Grading Where possible, site grading will follow existing topography to minimize excessive cut and fill. Areas requiring fill and roadway construction must be placed and compacted in accordance to Geotechnical Report recommendations. Lot grading will conform to Oro-Medonte standards. Grading for the lots will be typical rear to front, split drainage or, in cases with steeper grades, lots will be designed with rear deck or rear basement walk-out style or any combination of the above. The proposed storm drainage system mentioned in section 3.1 provides flexibility for house construction in areas where the front yard house setback is in close proximity to the roadside ditches. Architectural house designs for Phase 2 must be prepared to work with the modified urban cross-section. House setbacks are to be reviewed at the building permit stage to ensure that the proposed house siting grades can be accommodated. Conceptual grades are shown in Figure GR-01. In general, the proposed conceptual grading scheme for Phase 2 is in conformance with the existing Phase 1 and proposed Future Phases grading. A current topographic survey is required prior to detailed design. 6.0 Storm Drainage System The storm drainage system for Phase 2 includes a combination of shallow ditches and shallow storm sewers installed under the pavement. Area drains will be installed in ditches to allow storm runoff to enter from the ditches into the storm sewers. Storm flow will then be directed into one of the three existing SWM ponds located on the adjacent golf course. Direction of storm flow is shown in Figure GR-Ol. Storm service connections will not be provided and house sump pumps will discharge groundwater onto the surface and sheet flow into the ditches. In Phase 2A, inlet catchbasins will be installed in ditches to direct flow collected from storm sewers and ditches into SWM Ponds 1 and 2. These inlet catchbasins and separate storm sewer outlets will be located in front of Lots 7/8 and Lots 37/38. An additional topographic survey will be required to locate the "as-built" storm sewer inlets into the ponds. Adjustments to SWM pond inlet locations and respective easement locations may be required. In Phase 2A, a rear lot catchbasin is required at the rear of Lots 66/67 to convey external drainage from Block 608 which is located east of Phase 2A. An overland flow route will convey major flows on the surface between the homes and onto Oakmont Avenue through an easement. In Phase 2B, inlet catchbasins will be located at the front of Lots 71 /72 on Greenside Court and discharge ditch drainage into the SWM Pond 3. An overland flow route easement will convey major flows on the surface between the houses into SWM pond 3. L08-326 (February 2009) `~~- Cole Engineering Page 6 of 15 PHASE 2B >s ~'" i s ~ ~ t i~i~~ PHASE 2A ORO 3rd LINE - ---, z 399AQ EX .. _._.~,0~ _.: _ ._ ~ _ _.. ~ _ .. x' /~' "p"a°x'.°c''"°" ir~crt RoE v~rF~urrr+ N~ u+~ox oc,~'rtow ~.,(~`~ ~arrtox.~oci- 3 ~ ~~ 1O -ti 7 ± 17 17117 117 71 '~ X44 fX 1 i \ '~ x v j a N _ ., • \ u N ~ X 712 ~--~` 3u.'" ~ ~~ ;'~' 171 1 ..~ x® ".. ¢ , 1 1 1 i ~ >u ~~: ~ ~ W _+ ~ ~ ~ ///,'J/ ~ ~ ' J P s s _ 3 r 1 1 __ I I I 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ r V I I I - - - --- ~ x x399.97 EX -~- 382~FX. , 382.41(EX~ --r-r-r- -r-r-r-r-1 ~~1 1 '( I I I 1 I I I I' I I 1 Y'- i I I I I I I i I ~i I 1 1 $ I I I I I I I I I i I I ,~ r_.- W F--r--r-r-r-r-r--r-t -'-t'-II I I I i I I i I 1 I I i 1 ~"; . .T~ , I 1 i i i~ 1 i I 1 I 1 Y 1 I { I I I I. I I ~f~ x 380.10 EX ~~i 383.30 EX'S-- 393 ih -~- I I--~--i _,~ \ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I , i vT N m t4DTE, ~ER°~TOA"AEwDµ-,~is~er~IxaoAT®eEar.7.2001 FUTURE PHASES ( PHASE ~~D' CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE x 247.00 Ex ExnTrx~ E~EtrAnoR ph-AEE ~) MORSESFiOE VALLEY LAND9 ,,nip ~, Cole Engineering Group Ltd. ~ D~Tto"o~oRAt~ RES~oErrruLOEVELOP~eerir 100 aa,u.w axles . aw. 10D- unumm • oemm - ua Oaa x 247.60 PROPOB®GRADE Z) TOYYNBH~ ~ ORO#IEDONTE Pnw+•~.N1sfe791af, leas aoalsl F..: teaalaw-2061 ~~ ~FUT ~ ~i~ p~s~ GATE: iEBRUARY ZOOY PROJECT No.: LOB~20 L~9~ &CAI.E: 100 fKiURE Iio.: OR-01 a Horseshoe Valley Lands Ltd. Horseshoe Valley Lands, Phase 2 Horseshoe VaNey, Ontarfo Servklnq Ovarvlew Report- Part 1 A principle of the Horseshoe Valley Urban Design Guidelines is to promote stormwater infiltration. In support of this principle, shallow ditches provide an opportunity to reduce peak storm runoff flows, and promote infiltration. To supplement infiltration, the Terraprobe (2000) report recommends various methods such as soakaway pits and infiltration trenches to preserve and enhance groundwater recharge and groundwater quality across the site. These options will be reviewed during the detailed design stage. In general, the proposed conceptual storm drainage for Phase 2 is in conformance with the existing Phase 1 storm drainage concept. A current topographic survey, including a survey of the existing SWM pond areas, is required prior to detailed design. 7.Q Stormwater Management A SWM review was undertaken to confirm conformity of the proposed revised draft plan with the previous approved SWM plan, as outlined in the Horseshoe Adult Lifestyle Community Stormwater Management Plan, by URS Cole Sherman (URS), dated September 2001. The purpose of the review was not to check technical details such as drainage area delineation, SWM modelling or calculations, pipe sizes or pond design, but was intended to confirm conformity of the revised draft plan with that discussed in the URS report. As part of detailed design, a foist SWM report will be required and, at that time, all design details need to be confirmed by the SWM consultant. 7.1. Stormwater AAanagement Overview The study area of the URS report consists of the golf course and all phases of the proposed development. The current development proposal is for Phase 2, and has been slightly revised to provide some additional and wider residential lots. l:n addition, the draft plan used in the URS report showed an extension of Tanglewood Crescent westerly to Landscape Drive. The current development proposal has removed this extension and proposes that Tanglewood Crescent end in a `T' intersection at Oakmont Avenue. The URS report refers to a proposed rural cross-section for all roadways within the development; however, during the detailed design of Phase 1 of the development, it was determined that the use of a true rural crass-section would not provide sufRcient front yard setback. Therefore, for Phase 1 of the development, a modified rural cross- section was designed and constructed. In this drainage scheme, shallow ditches were constructed between the driveways and drained by area drains into a storm sewer system. It is proposed that Phase 2 be designed and constructed with a similar drainage scheme. The SWM plan proposed within the URS report for Phase 2 of the development was that runoff from the developed lands would be controlled in SWM ponds 1, 2 and 3. Ponds 1 and 2 are combination wet pond and infiltration facilities, providing water quality, quantity and erosion control. Pond 3 is a dry pond facility providing erosion and quantity control. Water quality control for the area contributing to Pond 3 is provided by the grassed swales within the catchment area. It is understood that ail SWM ponds have been constructed, as designed by URS, as part of the initial phases of development. L08-326 (February 2009) `~ - Cote Engineering Page 7 of 15 ~i Horseshoe Horseshoe Lands Lfd. Harseshoe Vafiey Lands, Phase 2 iANi[~/K] 01/ANIAW RwnAIl. f~ni/ 1 7.2. Conformity of Revised Draft Plan with URS Report In general, the revised draft plan is in conformance with the SWM plan outlined in the URS report. Post-development drainage boundaries, as outlined in the URS report, can be maintained with the revised draft plan. CEG has undertaken a preliminary review of the conceptual grading design of Phase 2. It is assumed that preliminary road profiles and site grading design was undertaken during preparation of the URS report to ensure that the post-development drainage boundaries are feasible. While the revised lot configuration, lots widths and proposed hybrid ruraUurban cross-section have the potential to increase the impervious area of the development over that utilized in the URS report modelling, it is anticipated that these changes will be minor. These changes should be incorporated in revised modelling undertaken at detailed design. The use of a hybrid ruraUurban cross-section for the proposed roadways will not affect the modelling methodology used in the URS report. According to post-development model output included in Appendi~c B, STANDHYD commands used to simulate Est-development catchment areas assumed that a large portion of impervious areas were directly connected. This modelling methodology is consistent with the use of an urban cross-section, where runoff from the road surfaces is directly connected into the storm sewer system. Any potential attenuation affects of the formerly proposed rural cross-section ditches was not included in the modelling. It is noted that easements should be provided for overland flow and to ensure access to the storm sewer system, where it is located on private property. Specifically, easements related to storm drainage will be required: • For the 600mm a storm sewer, between Tanglewood Crescent and Landscape Drive, between lots 37 and 38, and lots 47 and lot 58 (Phase 1). This pipe is intended as a major system pipe, however, an overland flow route should be provided through this easement if possible; • For the 800mm a storm sewer (size to be confirmed), between Landscape Drive and S WM Pond 2, between lots 7 and 8. An overland flow route must be provided. Preliminary calculations have indicated that a 1.2m bottom width ditch, at a slope of S%, with 3:1 side slopes and a maximum depth of 0.3m is capable of conveying the requiral overland flow. This ditch has a top width of 3m and should be accommodated within a 6m wide easement. This ditch may require erosion protection. The ditch configuration is to be confirmed during detailed design; • A rear lot catchbasin and storm sewer connection at the rear of lots 66/67 will convey storm runoff from Block 608 (external lands west of the site), and overland flow to Oakmont Avenue. A storm sewer design will be undertaken at the detailed design stage. Preliminary calculations have indicated that a 1.2m bottom width ditch, at a slope of 5%, with 3:1 side slopes and a maximum depth of 0.3m is capable of conveying the required overland flow. This ditch has a top width of 3m and should be accommodated within a 6m wide easement. This ditch may require erosion protection. The ditch configuration is to be confirmed during detailed design; and, • For a proposed storm sewer and overland flow route, from the proposed Greenside Court to SWM Pond 3. At this time, storm sewer design for this area has not been undertaken. Preliminary calculations have indicated that a 1.2m bottom width ditch, at t.08-326 (February 2009) `~.- Cole Enginee-ing P~9e 8 of 1 b Horseshoe Va!!ey Lends Ltd. Horseshoe Valley Lands, Phase 2 Horseshoe Valley, Ontario SenAcing Overview Report - Parf 1 a slope of 5%, with 3:1 side slopes and a maximum depth of 0.3m is capable of conveying the required overland flow. This ditch has a top width of 3m and should be accommodated within a 6m wide easement. This ditch may require erosion protection. The ditch co~guration is to be confirmed during detailed design. Due to the proposed hybrid ruraVurban cross-section, the storm sewer outlet from Greenside Court to SWM Pond 3 will require modifications to the Pond to receive a concentrated flow from the pipe. These modifications may include the installation of a headwall and some armouring to prevent scour. It is noted that the URS report confirms that the proposed SWM plan provides sufficient infiltration of stormwater as recommended by the May 2000 Terraprobe report. However, the Terraprobe report also notes, qualitatively, that infiltration is expected in the ditch drainage system proposed at that time. Water balance calculations should be reviewed and confirmed during detailed design and incorporated in the final SWM report. The proposed revised draft plan is generally in conformance with the SWM plan outlined in the URS report. It is recommended that the revised draft plan and final SWM report assess and confirm the following: • OTTHYMO modelling should be updated with the final drainage areas and revised imperviousness of the catchment to each of the S WM ponds; • Storm drainage easements be provided as described above; and, • SWM pond 3, receiving drainage from Greenside Court, will require design revisions to receive flow from a piped outlet. Water balance calculations should be reviewed and confirmed. 8.0 Erosion/Siltation Control Measures Generally, all on-site siltation control measures will be designed to Ministry of Natural Resources (I~iNR) Erosion and Sediment Guidelines, local Conservation Authority and municipal standards and inspection procedures. An Erosion/Siltation Control Plan will be included with the detailed design stage. Prior to construction, open areas and treed areas to be preserved should be delineated with tree- protection fencing. Additional sediment control fencing should be placed around the limits of the development area to prevent sediment transport onto adjacent properties. All fencing/hoarding should be maintained in good condition throughout the duration of construction operations. A single construction access is desirable directly from Oro 3rd Line in Phase 2B. This will eliminate local traffic and safety disruptions and maintain access to emergency services at all times. L08-326 (February 2009) ` ~ Cole Engineering Page 9 of 15 Horseshoe Valley Lands Ltd. Horseshoe Valley Lands, Phase 2 Horseshoe Valley, Ontario Servicing Overview Report -Part 1 A mud mat 6m wide by 20m long and consisting of 250mm of SOmm clear stone should be constructed and maintained at the Oro 3rd Line construction entrance. The contractor shall keep public roadways free of debris during the construction period. Straw bales, check dams or other suitable sediment traps shall be installed and maintained to prevent localized erosion. Accumulated sediment shall be removed and structures inspected and repaired after every storm event. An Erosion/Siltation Control Plan is to be included with the detailed design stage. 9.0 Transportation In June 2000, URS Cole Sherman prepared a Traffic Assessment Report for the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Node Lands for the Horseshoe Resort Corporation. Due to changes to the development concept, a follow up Traffic Review sport was prepared by URS Cole Sherman in February 2()03. These reports were reviewed in the context of the current development plans for Phase 2A and 2B, which are located in Traffic Zone 6 as identified u>t the previous studies and the Oro-Medonte Official Plan. Access to Phase 2 will be provided from Highland Drive and Gatestone Way via the Oro 3rd Line. This access arrangement provides two access points for site generated traffic and for emergency vehicles access. This is consistent with the previous traffic studies recommendations. The Gatestone Way access, which is part of Phase 2B, will be constructed as part of Phase 2A to provide emergency access at all times. The previous studies also outlined required road network improvements and the phasing or staging of the improvements. Our review indicates that the current Phase 2 plans conform to the approved phasing plan and the staging of the road network improvements. No revisions to the staging plan or the time of road improvements are required by the current Phase 2 development plans. 8.1. Intersection Improvements and Staging The following is a list of the recommended intersection improvements extracted from the Oro- Medonte Official Plan. 9.1.1. County Road 2213"' Line Intersection "Required improvements to this intersection include: . the provision of an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound approach to the intersection on County Road 22; • the provision of an exclusive left turn lane on the westbound approach to the intersection on County Road 22; and, L08-326 (February 2009) Page 10 of 15 Cole Engineering Horseshoe Horseshoe e 0 lands Lfd. Horseshoe Valley Lands, Phase 2 iBi111C1/id nvwndew Rwnn~i. Pmrt i . the widening of the northbound approach to the intersection to provide for exclusive left turning and right turning lanes. All of the above improvements are the responsibility of the proponents of new development within the Horseshoe Valley Resort Node. No more than 300 new dwelling units are permitted in `zones 5 and 6' as shown on Schedule D to this Plan until the improvements required by this sub-section have been constructed, or an agreement is entered into to provide for their construction as a condition of approval." 9.1.2. County Road 22/Horseshoe Valley Resort Entrance Required improvements to this intersection include: the provision of an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound approach to the intersection on County Road 22; the provision of an exclusive left turn lane on all approaches to the intersection on County Road 22; and, the installation of traffic controls signals. All of the above improvements are the responsibility of the proponents of new development within the Horseshoe Valley Resort Node. No more than 55 new dwelling units are permitted in `zones 5 and 6' as shown on Schedulc D to this Plan until the right turn lane on the eastbound approach to the intersection is constructed, or an agreement is entered into to provide for its construction. No more than 250 new dwelling units are permitted in `zones 5 and 6' as shown on Schedule D to this Plan until the two left hand lanes on County Road 22 are constructed, or an agreement is entered into to provide for their construction as a condition of approval. Traffic signals shall be installed at the intersection as a condition of approval of any major commercial or residential development in `zones 1 and 4' as shown on Schedule D to this Plan." 9.1.3. County Road 22/4"' Line "Required improvements to this intersection include: • the provision of an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound approach to the intersection on County Road 22; • the provision of exclusive le$ turn lanes on the eastbound and westbound; • approaches to the intersection on County Road 22; and, • the provision of separate left and right turn lanes on the northbound approach to the intersection on the 4~' Line. All of the above improvements are the responsibility of the proponents of new development within the Horseshoe Valley Resort Node. No more than 250 new dwelling units are permitted L08.326 (February 2009) `'~~-+ Cole Engineering Page 11 of 15 ~~Y Worseshoe Valley Lands ltd. Horseshoe Valley Lands, Phase 2 Horseshoe VaNey, Ontarfo Senricing OvervlewReport-Part i in `zones 6 and 7' as shown on Schedule D to this Plan until the right turn lane on the eastbound approach to the intersection is constructed, or an agreement is entered into to provide for its construction. No more than 600 new dwelling units are permitted in `zones 6 and 7' as shown on Schedule D to this Plan until the left turn lanes on County Road 22 and the improvements to the 4th Line approach to the intersection are constructed, or an agreement is entered into to provide for their construction." 9.1.4. 3ro and 4a' Lines "The 3`~ Line (formerly County Road 57) used to be under the jurisdiction of the County of Simcoe. The road was transferred to the Township in asub-standard condition. Improvements to the surface treatment, shoulders and ditches are required on the 3`~ Line. These improvements will be the responsibility of the Township. The curve located at the top of the hill in this area also needs to be improved. The responsibility for such an improvement will be the joint responsibility of the Township, the proponents of development within the Horseshoe Valley Resort Node and the proponents of any major development to the south. The Township will make every effort to ensure that benefitting landowners are responsible for this improvement through agreements. The 4a' Line between Horseshoe Valley Road and to a point south of Alpine Way is of an appropriate standard to accommodate development. The 4`~' Line south of Alpine Way to Bass Lake Sideroad was improved in the summer of 2000 and is therefore expected to function appropriately as development occurs. No further improvements to this latter portion of the 4`~ Line are anticipated." 9.1.5. Implementation "The road improvements described in this section of the Plan will be secured and constructed in accordance with agreements entered into between landowners and the Township of Oro- ' Medonte. Agreements may also be required between landowners and the County of Simcoe. The unit count numbers that serve as the triggers for the required road improvements are based on forecasts carried out in the year 2000. On this basis, an Amendment to this Plan is not required if the unit count numbers (triggers) and/or the timing and/or the extent of the required road improvements is changed. It is recognized that background traffic volumes that are unrelated to development within the Horseshoe Valley Resort Node may increase beyond what has been forecasted in the year 2000 over the planning period. Traffic volumes may also decrease. This means that the timing and/or extent of the required improvements set out in the Section of the Plan may change. In order to ensure that the required road improvements keep pace with new development and the changes to traffic volumes, if any, on Horseshoe Valley Road in accordance with Section C14.3.1 of this Plan, the Township may use a Holding Provision where required to ensure that the timing of the L08-326 (February 2009) /~ Pa e 1 `~'~-+ Cole Engineering 9 2 of 15 Horseshoe Vapey Lands Ltd. Horseshoe Valley Lands, Phase 2 Horseshoe Valley, Ontario Servicing Overview Report- Part 1 required improvements is appropriate and generally conforms with the policies of this Section of the Plan. The Holding Provision shall be removed once the Township is satisfied that the required improvements are built, or an agreement is entered into to provide for their construction. The Township shall obtain the comments of the County of Simcoe prior to the removal of the Holding Provision." 10.E Conclusions and Recommendations This Servicing Overview Report -Part 1, was prepared in support of a Red-Lined Draft Plan Application for a proposed 97 residential lot development known as Horseshoe Valley Lands, Phase 2 (formerly known as Horseshoe Adult Lifestyle Community, Phase 2). Based on our review of the municipal services considered in this Servicing Overview Report - Part 1, we conclude that it is feasible to provide municipal servicing to Phase 2. In general, the Red-Lined Draft Plan is in conformance with previous reports/designs prepared for the Horseshoe Valley area. A current topographic survey will be required prior to detailed design to confirm existing grades, tie in points to Phase 1, SWM pond locations and volumes, and location of existing infrastructure. Water Supply Phase 2 will be serviced by watenmains. The watennain for Phase 2 will be connected to the plug and blow-off on Oakmount Avenue and the plug at the hydrant and valve at the intersection of Landscape Drive and Tanglewood Crescent. The watermain located within Phase 2B will be looped along t~reenside Court and Turnberry Court. A review of the existing and proposed water supply and distribution system requirements, including recommended improvements, watermain sizing and looping requirements will be completed as part of the Servicing Overview Report -Part 2, Sanitary Treatment and Water Distribution System which will be submitted under separate cover. Sanitary Sewage The capacity of the existing sanitary sewers extending from Phase 1 to the treatment plant was reviewed to determine whether there are any capacity constraints in the existing conveyance system. The review concluded that the existing sanitary sewers can accommodate the existing contributing areas, and Phase 2. We note that there will be surcharge in the sanitary sewer from maintenance holes 10 to 11 when Future Phases are added. Further studies must therefore be completed prior to development of Future Phases beyond Phase 2. Phase 2 will be serviced by gravity sanitary sewers. Future Phases will be serviced by gravity sanitary sewers, forcemain and a pumping station L08-326 (February 2009) Pege 13 of 18 `~ Cole Engineering Horseshoe Valley Lands Ltd. Horseshoe Valley Lands, Phase 2 Horseshoe Valley, Ontario Servicing Overview Report -Part 1 A review of the treatment plant capacity and efficiencies based on existing and proposed sanitary flows, including recommended improvements, will be completed as part of the Servicing Overview Report -Part 2, Sanitary Treatment and Water Distribution System which will be submitted under separate cover. Road Network and Conceptual Grading All streets will be constructed with a hybrid ruraUurban cross-section with full municipal services in an 18m right-of--way. Duc to construction challenges experienced in Phase 1 related to steep grades and the front yard setback to the ditches, the Township of Oro-Medonte recommended the use of across-section which includes both shallow ditches and shallow storm sewers under the pavement. The purpose of the modified rural cross-section is to maintain a rural look and at the same time overcome grading challenges related to house sitings. All streets and grading are intended to conform to Township of Oro-Medonte design criteria. Where passible, site grading will follow existing topography to minimize excessive cut and fill. Storm Drainage System The storm drainage system for Phase 2 includes a combination of shallow ditches and shallow storm sewers installed under the pavement. Area drains will be installed in ditches to allow storm runoff to enter from the ditches into the storm sewers. Storm flow will then be directed into one of the three (3) existing SWM ponds located on the adjacent golf course. Adjustments to SWM pond inlet locations and respective easement locations may be required. Stormwater AAanag®ment A SWM review was undertaken to confum conformity of the proposed revised draft plan with the previous approved SWM plan, as outlined in the Horseshoe Adult Lifestyle Community Stormwater Management Plan, by URS Cole Sherman (iJRS), dated September 2001. The purpose of the review was not to check technical details such as drainage area delineation, SWM modelling or calculations, pipe sizes or pond design, but was intended to confirm conformity of the revised draft plan with that discussed in the URS report. The use of a hybrid ruraUurban cross-section for the proposed roadways will not affect the modelling methodology used in the URS report because the modelling methodology used in the URS report is consistent with the use of an urban cross-section. Easements will be required to convey external and internal storm runoff into one of the three SWM ponds. Due to the proposed hybrid ruraVurban cross-section, SWM pond inlets and easement requirements may need to be modified from the original design to accommodate the Red-Lined Draft Plan changes and "as-built" conditions. It is recommended that the revised drag lan and final SWM re ort as p p sess and confirm the following: . OTTHYMO modelling should be updated with the final drainage areas and revised imperviousness of the catchment to each of the S WM ponds; 10a-326 (February 2009) ""~~ Cole Engineering Paga 14 of 15 Horseshoe Valley Lands Ltd. Horseshoe Va!!ey Lands, Phase 2 Horseshoe Valley, Ontarfo Senricing Overview Report -Part T • Storm drainage easements be provided as outlined in Section 7.2; • SWM pond 3, receiving drainage from Greenside Court, will require design revisions to receive flow from a piped outlet; and, . Water balance calculations should be reviewed and confirmed. As part of detailed design, a final SWM report will be required and, at that time, all design details must be confirmed by the SWM consultant. Water balance calculations should be reviewed and confirmed during detailed design and incorporated in the final SWM report. Transportation A transportation review was undertaken to determine conformity of the current Phase 2 revised draft plan with previous URS Cole Sherman traffic reports. Access to Phase 2 will be provided from Highland Drive and Gatestone Way via the Oro 3`~ Line. This access arrangement provides two access points for site generated traffic and for emergency vehicles access. This is consistent with the previous traffic studies recommendations. The Gatestone Way access, which is part of Phase 2B, will be constructed as part of Phase 2A to provide emergency access at all times. lZoad network improvements and the phasing or staging of the improvement were provided in previous studies. Our review indicates that the current Phase 2 plans conform to the approved phasing plan and the staging of the road network improvements. No revisions to the staging plan or the time of road improvements is required by the current Phase 2 development plans. A list of recommended intersection improvements and staging was extracted from the Oro- Medonte Official Plan and is provided in Section 9.1 of this report. Yours truly, COLE ENGINEERING GROUP LTD. ~d1WgBR/1yC ~Q~OrrE:SSIONq~ 6 ~.~ F2 ~dc p,G ~ ~, ~S• ~°j ~Z k ~ '~` ~ N. KARAKIS ~ ~ ~'` ~ '' 100037074 7° u o~ ~~~ a eb.l~ ~~~~~ 1 D~ Q\0 &4Y aAN~ J. N~EOFp~P N~ a~s~ao Nick Karakis, P.Eng. Seymore Gan, C.E.T. Project Manager, Associate LOB-326 (February 2009) ~' -- Cole Engineering Pa e15of15 9 Appendix A Sanitary Sewer Design Calculation Sheet Existing Areas and Proposed Horseshoe Valley Lands Phase 2 SANITARY SEWER DESIGN -PROPOSED PHASE 2 "'~~~ ~ ° TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE ~ Cole Engineering 1ao ~, ~, ~, >eo HOR8E8HOE VALLEY RE80RT Mwalat, oH. tan Ma 7ak (daj f W -Ott. F~c p0y f W~ION ' Py~ i~ rM Mks w Mad oa IM INaaAN RwoR Mir -1~ Moad dr~wkM y AN~B Ea~kws ~ Mwww (kq. ANM 0~e. 17,160Y .IOY/ 10~3>t~91 DaIM Ibwa Y'd Mad all u'dNd TNN ~.1. Oapn Ilea w ht ~ i OnY~ r~ w ~p-alnrM. DlSKit~D mY:. P. Ppuani CHECKED BY:. 3. C3dx~ DATE: F~wry 12, 2009 9' ~ ~ daw df6 ~nslod M = paMdu~ haws ~' 0+n~ QA~Y/on Ilaw la ~Aa -ilYdlW FACTOR AA• (i~(iM(4~'"0.6~ lONK11Tx7NFLOW QMPP•~d6a0h % Capady H.M% 12.T% 1t.0% f.H6 1.!% 0.t% 4.d% dA% tiJ7L 9R.0% 15.NG ~.d% Ppa1W2 s:tsea FwEaalsllaM Oav Fro}eM M1 E14dpiNan vro~.a~us.s2e lloraaROa arwaM Ovwvww eesu*r9rd.1ct1 oapn eM.na«dwn d.roa a+aEF~12 axis SANITARY SEWER DESIGN -PROPOSED PHASE 2 "d" ~ Cole Engineering TOWNSHIP OF QRO-MED4NTE +oo rr«r~. Ddw. sww +{o HOR8E8HOE VALLEY Rf80RT . cm. ts~t {wt TN: ({Od) t40 • {Kt, f~C (N{j {I{•4{0~ !MW NIIvMs MM ~I{/a w bMN q1 M 110Hg110! M~Of! AMWf PUn R~aoM IrMiM{ yAWi E~pMws i ~MAMt{ COh. NM{ Die t], Tnn2 JOB{ LaJZ{~{4 Ohy11 {OMq Mr Ow{ qi u'dNW TMN ~d. DMill {OIM aR b- Plla!! OnIaQ{ {f{a {P{ {/p101i~1~M. D HY:. P. Piyszani c~ECKED eY:. s. c«, DATE: F{brwry 12, Z00o SUlMNSSlON: Pai~n{ry 4' Migr {ow {A{ ~ttla M ~ ~pidp{ RIUOr P : ~Y{WHay Q-rapMNNn Iow k ~n{M rffAKNi(3 PACTEM M- (1+{1M(4~A"C.6p PC-1AAT1011 fIOYV U~M'P'~+({{i{{) % Cap~CNr /~.2% 2{.NL Z0.2% 71.{% 21.i% ~{.MfL %.2% ~~.{% Z{.2% B1.n% P'~2al2 sauna or Ny~ak mat srre~wa~ -,q.saa-i{aa{ FlMaala~ N ovMVinv a{ u~ ~ ap.urea,rury awa-~bu euas e Appendix B Sanitary Sewer Design Calculation Sheet Ultimate Development ~ ~$ ~ $~ D ~~ o ~ ~ ~ rn cc a' co cc ~' ca ,~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ o~ ~ Z~ ~~ ~_~ _~~ m °O ~oZ ~ ~O~ ~~~ m~ -+ ~ v s ~ m ~r m° v;a ~ ~ ~ .>..~~ "" 'q iA ~~~ ~~ $ 4 ~ ~~ ~ ~ N y v x ~ ~ ~ L N SANITARY SEWER DESIGN -ULTIMATE DEl/ELOPMENT ~~q" "~ Cole Engineering TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE /00 R""~"'Di"`~ ~'""0° HORSE8HOE VALLEY RESORT Ate. oa. un ~ T~k (906) 910 - 6ti1, Fai[ (906) 910~19N 'PpN iM >~ ~ 6nW an 9w AlarMdle~ f4loA AhlUf PMn R~oold IkawiAp M AMPS w i Ft Cop. dill/ 6Uc. X69 LN429.W DMiOn 6aq an bu90 to YpNY/ T96M 4.1. D~1169M9 9h Alf lMlnN9 91M. 9/9p 1f91pp101111U1t. DESIGNED BY:. P, ppszan~ CI~CKffO BY:. S. G~An a~T~: Febn,9fy n, ~ ®' dYF 6mw 0.16 w'JAmd M ~ pddp halx ~ ~ X1900) ~9'Y~6011 RlW k ~lih PE/11tlIW FACTOa Y. rt.i~r....n n. % C~pl~dy ~.7% ~.7% 10.9% 171,9% K.7% t~.9% 42..0lL 79.7% 17.1% K.9% Paps 2 W 2 sn9a PwNolall,9,N ow Ati9+leb I SIAdNUIan np.oAlat99ax llafrnMe9 Cl19n19w 669 ~~a~ per„ +~ro ~n .n~.~-F.n~i w.xi.s PROPOSED REDLINE REVISION TO DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION - HORSESHOE VALLEY LANDS LTD. PART OF NORTH HALF AND SOUTH HALF OF LOT 3, AND PART OF LOT 4, CONCESSION 4 (ORO), TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE I Q 1 r W era _ I_ - f l~ 7.0 C> 3 'N F ~ r x 1. _rt Fes' H/XS w PH/1SE ` 2 C3 \ a. wcK f f' I V i.;i.. is ANDS MAKOH 05, 2009 c "tea I t a y ..v 4' ~ 17r ! CY ; R R C r h r t a [ rr » rv _ _ - P I' PHASE L L r 3 tea-- , _.....^y ~ ~ ~ of O~ ~1 ~ ~ c...-~ C l »I...[ ..«C~ .....1~,.,-~ ~....LY cl' ❑ LEGENOp i2EVIS17E> C3RFGINAd - Pt1ASEC?4JIVOAFiY L7F=2AF i nRl0.F i" PLAN Pt-^M (2000) 15.24m (50.0 ft.) WlE> L-<Y S 34 9Q l 7IC3.7t04 m (55.0 ft,) 1/Vt[:> L -r 48 4 18.28am (60-) ft.) WtE>a LC?TS 15 5 TC?TAL- 97 99 MA CH 45, 2009 o Open up for Questions or comments from Members of Council or the Audience' 16_~ ~~u>~s~ap c~~ ~~~~~~ REPORT Praud Heritage, Exciting Future Report No. DS 2009-019 To: Planning Advisory Committee Prepared By: Andria Leigh Meeting Date: April 27, 2009 Subject: Official Plan Review - Work Plan Motion # Roll #: R.M.S. File #: D08 38875 RECOMMENDATION(S): Requires Action X^ For Information Only It is recommended: 1. THAT Report No. DS 2009-018 be received and adopted; 2. THAT Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council to adopt the supports the attached Work Plan for the OP review and conformity exercise; 3. THAT in accordance with the March 26, 2009 letter from George Smitherman, Minister of energy and Infrastructure, the Township submit a request for a one year extension until June 2010 to complete the OP review and conformity exercise. BACKGROUND: The Township's Official Plan was the subject of a review under the Planning Act in 2002 with amendments to a number of the general policies being adopted by Council in August 2003 (Official Plan Amendments 16 and 17). These amendments were approved by the County of Simcoe in November 2004 and subsequently approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in part on Feb 16, 2006, April 18, 2006 and the balance of the Plan on Jan 24 2007. Over a number of years of use Council, staff, committees, consultants, and members of the public have identified a number of areas in the Plan that are not as clear articulated as they could be, there are areas in the Plan that require revisions, and there are policy areas that need to be included in the Plan that are currently missing. A general review of the plan is therefore required to ensure that it is satisfying its original purpose and intent and that the Township is achieving the vision as set out in this document. Section 26 of the Planning Act requires that the Council of a municipality shall, not less than every five (5) years, revise the Plan as required to ensure that it confirms with provincial plans or does not conflict with policy statements issued under Section 3(1) of the Act, and revised policies relating to areas of employment with respect to the removal of lands from areas of employment. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date April 27, 2009 Report No. DS 2009-019 Page 1 of 5 The Township Official Plan was prepared under the 1997 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The Province approved a new PPS which came into effect as of March 1, 2005. The concurrent changes to the Planning Act, effective March 1, 2005, now require municipalities to be "consistent with" the 2005 PPS as compared to the former "have regard to" policy framework. The 2005 PPS introduced a number of new approaches to the same planning areas, and included new matters of provincial interest that are not reflected in the Oro-Medonte Plan. The Plan therefore needs to be reviewed to ensure that it is consistent with the new 2005 Provincial Policy Statement. In response to the unprecedented growth in the Golden Horseshoe area in the past 20 years, and in anticipation of the growth forecast for the same area in the next 20 years, the Province passed the Places to Grow Act in 2005. The Places to Grow Act permits the province to designate an area of the province as a growth plan area and then requires the province to prepare a growth plan for the designated area. The Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) area, including the Township of Oro-Medonte, was designated as a growth plan area on June 29, 2005. In accordance with the Places to Grow Act, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe was approved on June 16, 2006. Subsection 12 (2) of the Places to Grow Act requires that Council shall make amendments to the local Official Plan that are required to bring it into conformity with the Growth Plan by June 16, 2009. The Township must undertake, so that it is in compliance with the Act, a conformity exercise to determine what changes are required to the Township Official Plan in light of the approved Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Council has planned for the Official Plan Review and Update, the completion of the project will culminate with an Amendment to the Township Official Plan to be adopted by Council. Once adopted, the Amendment will require approval by the County of Simcoe, in accordance with Section 17(2) of the Planning Act. In light of all of the above factors, notwithstanding the current Township Official Plan is not yet subject to the review under the Planning Act, a review is necessary given the other legislative changes to ensure the municipality has the most current Plan possible and one that is based on the best practices and policy approaches available, and to provide a clear visions for the future growth, development and change in the Township over the next 20 years. The update to the Township's Official Plan will achieve a number of objectives that have been set by Council and that have been determined by the legislative framework established by the Province. The overall objectives are to: Ensure that the Plan provides opportunities to accommodate new residential, commercial and employment growth in a manner that fits within the overall vision for the Township; Complete a conformity exercise to ensure the Township's Plan is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Province's Places to Grow Growth Plan, and the County Official Plan Provide Council with the best available guidelines and policies to direct growth and change to 2029. The Planning Division has prepared a Work Plan to set out and describe the tasks which form the main components of the Official Plan Review and Update project, to set a preliminary schedule for the project, and to discuss the Work Plan. The Work Plan is a starting point for the OP review and will require constant review and updating throughout the project schedule. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date April 27, 2009 Report No. DS 2009-019 Page 2 of 5 E-~ ~~ The Review will, among other matters as may be directed by Planning Advisory Committee and Council, focus on: - Implementation of new provincial policy initiatives such as the 2005 PPS and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; - Conformity with the County Official Plan resulting from their recent review; - Review and Update of existing Official Plan policies to ensure ongoing effectiveness; and - Other housekeeping and technical matters. The work plan for the Official Plan review sets out the steps, tasks and time frame for completion of the review including: Plan and Policy Conformity Exercise -which will focus on the changes and modifications required to the Township's Official Plan as a result of the following: 2005 PPP, Adopted County of Simcoe Official Plan. Operational and Housekeeping Review -during day to day use and the interpretation of the Plan's policies, a number of improvements, omissions, and additions have been identified by staff, Council, and other users of the document in order to enhance the use of the Plan for the next 5 years. The Township is required to complete a number of formal "conformity exercises" to meet the certain legislative requirements of the Planning Act and Places to Grow Act. These conformity exercises are required to ensure and demonstrate that the Township is planning in a manner that is consistent with and in conformity to the provincial requirements set out in the legislation. A background report will be produced as part of the Project to provide the basis for the update to the Official Plan. The Official Plan review will include a formal public consultation process so that the residents can actively participate in the preparation of the update to the Official Plan. An Official Plan is received most successfully and has community support when it has been developed through an open and consultative process. This Work Plan has been designed to include a maximum number of opportunities for the residents to participate in the process, to review and comment on reports, and to follow the development of the Official Plan review. The Official Plan review is being completed "in house" with the majority of work being completed by Planning Division staff. The following describes the proposed project administration, timing and schedule. Planning Division staff will provide the day to day administration of the Official Plan review from scheduling of meetings, preparing and circulating notices, production and distribution of documents, liaising with the County and other relevant agencies. Planning staff will also ensure consultation with other Township Departments throughout the OP review. Planning staff will be required to ensure that the Official Plan review process and proposed Amendment to the Plan respond to the legislative conformity exercise, reflect the input from the community, and meet the legal requirements of the Planning Act. The Official Plan review is an undertaking that will include and welcome input from all residents of the Township. The Planning Act requires a public consultation process as a way to receive input from the public and stakeholders in the preparation of the eventual amendment to the Township OP. The review process will provide for a full public consultation process, including statutory public meetings and open houses, and access to key information. There is also DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date April 27, 2009 Report No. DS 2009-019 Page 3 of 5 ~° intended to be a section contained on the Township's website under "Planning Initiatives" specific to the Official Plan review which will provide links to Notices of Meetings and relevant background documents. While the Planning Act requires the County to make a decision regarding the Amendment within 6 months from its submission, it is hoped that by keeping County staff "in the loop" throughout the review process that a timely review and approval can be achieved. As noted above, the municipality is required to update the Official Plan to comply with the Places to Grow Plan by June 16, 2009. While the OP review process will be underway in regards to the conformity exercise, the review is not scheduled to be completed until December 2009. There are currently no penalties identified for failing to update the local Plan within the timeframe set out in the Act, as the Township will have initiated its process we will have clearly identified our intent to comply with the legislation as soon as practical. As noted above, the Planning Act requires conformity with the County of Simcoe Official Plan, as Council is well aware this plan was adopted by County Council in November 2008 and is currently before the Province for review and approval. A review for conformity to the County OP can now be initiated; however a more complete understanding from the Province on their approval of the County Plan will be required prior to the Township completing our conformity exercise. Local municipal planners met with County staff and Provincial Planning staff on January 29, 2009 and advised the Province that meeting the June 16, 2009 timeline established in the Places to Grow Growth Plan was unrealistic given that a decision from the province on the County OP was not anticipated until June 2009. Local planners were advised that they must submit individual requests to the Province to require an extension to the identified timeline for a maximum period of one year (June 2010) as part of that request a work plan/timeline is required to be submitted. Attachment 2 contains the letter received from the Province at the beginning of April which clearly articulates the ability to request the extension and the information required to be submitted. Attached to this report is a work plan for the proposed timeline of the OP review. The work plan identifies a series of tasks to be completed as part of the process with a scheduled timeline for Council adoption of an Amendment to the Township's Official Plan by March 2010. Once, adopted, the Official Plan Amendment is required to be submitted to the County of Simcoe for review and approval. ANALYSIS: FINANCIAL: N/A POLICIES/LEGISLATION: Provincial Policy Statement Places to Grow Growth Plan County Official Plan Planning Act DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date April 27, 2009 Report No. DS 2009-019 Page 4 of 5 CONSULTATIONS: Planning Division Staff ATTACHMENTS: '~ Attachment 1: Proposed Work Plan Attachment 2: Minister of Energy and Infrastructure March 26 2009 letter I~ CONCLUSION: The Official Plan review will form the basis and support for the required amendments to the Township's Official Plan in order to ensure that the Plan is in full conformity with the Planning Act, County of Simcoe Official Plan, and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Review process is intended to provide the opportunity for input from Council, Committees, and members of the public. The attached work plan identifies and aggressive timeline for completing the review and ensuring conformity with the County and Provincial Plans by early 2010. Respectfully submitted: ~~ ~~ Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Director of Development Services SMT Approval /Comments: ~ C.A.O. Approval /Comments: S DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date Apri127, 2009 Report No. DS 2009-019 Page 5 of 5 Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Office of the Deputy Premier 4"' Floor, Hearst Block 900 Bay Street Toronto ON M7A 2E1 Tel.: 416-327-6758 Fax: 416-327-6754 www.ontario.ca/MEI Ministre de 1'Energie et de ('Infrastructure Bureau duvice-premier ministre 4e etage, edifice Hearst 900, rue Bay Toronto ON M7A 2E1 Tel.: 416 327-6758 Telec.: 416 327-6754 www.ontario.ca/MEI His Worship Harry Hughes Mayor, Township of Oro-Medonte P.O. Box 100 148 Line 7 South Oro ON LOL 2X0 Dear Mayor Hughes: ..~ APB 0 1 2009 ORO-ME~O(~!-; E ~rm;~® Ontario MEI1826MC-2009-2 At the Places to Grow summit on November 5, 2008, I presented my vision for a greener, more competitive and prosperous future for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. I was also pleased to announce this government's interest in investing in public infrastructure and working together with those municipalities that share this vision to implement the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. T'he Places to Grow Act, 2005 requires a council or municipal planning authority to amend its official plan to conform to the policies in the Growth Plan within three years of it coming into effect. The deadline for this work is June 16, 2009. I recognize that lower-tier municipalities require certain planning work to be done by upper-tier municipalities before they can complete their own conformity amendments. Therefore, in certain circumstances, I am willing to consider an extension for lower-tier municipalities to bring official plans into conformity. In order to be considexed for an extension of no more than one year, please provide a letter outlining the status of your conformity process, the reason for the required extension, how much time is needed to finalize conformity work and a brief work plan detailing the steps required to achieve conformity. In the mean time, however, there is significant work that lower-tier municipalities can continue with in preparaiion far official piar~ amendments related to conformity, including an analysis of intensification opportunities and development of local policies to achieve complete, well- designed, transit-supportive and pedestrian-oriented communities. In carrying out this Growth Plan conformity work, I strongly encourage you to engage those Aboriginal communities who have an interest in land use planning in your community, to ensure they have an opportunity to participate in this process. If you have any questions regarding my announcement or the process and expectations for conforming to the Growth Plan, please feel free to contact Brad Graham, Assistant Deputy Minister for the Ontario Growth Secretariat, at 416-325-5803 or 1-866-479-9781. Sincerely, COQ ~~~~~~ Geo e 'they an Deputy Prerruer, Minister Official Plan Review -Work Plan 2009 2010 Task April May June July August September October November December January February March 1 Present Work Plan to PAC (April 27) 2 Present Work Plan to Council (May 13) 3 Initial Public Input Meeting (June 8 or 22(PAC )) 4 Background Report Preparation 5 Conformity Review 6 Housekeeping Review 7 PAC Meeting -Review Background Conformity Report (Au g 17) 8 Revisions to Draft Conformity Report 11 Preparation of Draft OPA 12 PAC Meeting to review Draft OPA (September 28) 13 Open House on Draft Conformity Report & Draft OPA (Oc t 26) 14 Revisions to Draft OPA 15 PAC -Review revisions to Draft OPA (Nov 23) 16 Formal Public Meeting on Draft OPA (Jan 18) 18 Preparation of Final OPA PAC to review Final OPA (Feb 22) 19 Final OPA adoption consideration by Council (March 10) 20 Submission of OPA to County 21 County Review and Approval Process