rebecca-dorval special policy area workshop: shaping the vision planning/ps-dnd-wkshp... ·...

December 14, 2010

On November 18, 2010, approximately 80 people attended a visioning workshop hosted by

Town planning staff regarding the redevelopment of the Rebecca-Dorval Special Policy Area.

The lands discussed are now owned by Canada Lands Company, but are commonly referred to

as the former Department of National Defence (DND) lands.

This document is a summary of the input received at the workshop, and in the following days.

It is intended for use by CLC to guide their creation of residential redevelopment concepts.

Any sketches produced at the workshop will also be provided to CLC.

CLC intends to share their preferred neighbourhood design with the community prior to

submitting the required planning applications to the Town in 2011.

The responses to the discussion questions have been organized by group or individual. There

may be conflicting ideas within a group because group members did not have to agree. All

ideas were welcomed.

Remember that the information here is part of both a comprehensive subdivision design process

by CLC, and the subsequent development review and evaluation process by the Town.

Additional information, such as official plan policies, technical studies (e.g. to support for

traffic and storm water management), and Town engineering standards, must also be

considered.

For more information regarding the Rebecca-Dorval Special Policy area, visit:

http://www.oakville.ca/lo-rebecca.htm

Lesley Gill Woods, Planner – Town of Oakville, Planning Services Department

P.O. Box 310, 1225 Trafalgar Rd., Oakville ON L6J 5A6

Tel: 905-845-6601, Ext. 3261 Fax: 905-338-4414

E-mail: [email protected]

Rebecca-Dorval Special Policy Area Workshop: Shaping the Vision

Summary of Input Received

http://www.oakville.ca/lo-rebecca.htm

mailto:[email protected]


Summary of Input Received of 26

1. Let’s go back to the list of policies that will be considered for the redevelopment of the

Canada Lands Company property and see if we can top it up. What, if anything is

missing from that list? Brad’s group: - keep density low; no more than 100 units - not subsidized houses - no Habitat (for Humanity) - tree preservation - parks Brenda’s group: - compatible built form

o primarily single family o maximum height of 2 storeys o townhouses to be limited / focused in one area, preferably along Dorval/Rebecca

(closest to intersection at Dorval/Rebecca) - keep the hedge along Dorval at approx. present height if possible Charlie’s group: - skeptical about policies

- other higher density development in the area

- school – impact – lights

- no commercial

- bike paths

- dog park David’s group: - The property should be developed with lot sizes that are similar to the existing

development pattern in the surrounding area.

- Building massing and floor areas of proposed dwellings are to be similar to surrounding

development.

- Pedestrian access should be included to move people into the site and beyond (from

Dorval through to school site and other local amenities).

- Connectivity to the school sites was viewed as important.

- Property should remain fenced around the entirety of the site. Gabe’s group: - no common area - permeable - cluster townhouses - open spaces between and around houses - park/green space; maintain larger trees - integration - pathways - take cues from neighbourhood; mirror Barclay Square - flow from/through area to the west



- corner store - no subsidized housing Geoff’s group: - maintain the existing trees; include the present trees in the application, especially the

trees on the western border of the CLC property - include access to local schools and local businesses - include lands at southwest corner of Mary St. and Dorval drive - include a playground - additional “screening” may need to be added Ita’s group: - no subsidized housing allowed; our local area has the greatest density of subsidized

housing; incompatible - ability to park an average sized car on the street between driveways - height restrictions; 2 storey max. - maintain existing trees on Dorval Dr., and add more trees - vegetative buffer and berm – protection from school lights - NO lighting on proposed high school playing field - rear lane parking - a street on the west side of Dorval (mirror what is east of Dorval, i.e. Margaret Dr.) - traffic flow - consideration to the aging population; bungalows and “bungalofts” - possible egress at corner of Mary and Dorval Kirk’s group: - put Oakville on the map; “showcase community” re: sustainability/latest in sustainable

design, new urbanism o focus on energy usage o energy and water systems

- interest in higher end value; interesting in preserving value Leigh’s group: - tree preservation - public roads - building setbacks and heights compatible with the existing area (similar / mirror) Philip’s group: - (look into) layout of the area before Dorval Dr.; historical information/perspective - could have used some examples (visual) of similar developments, i.e. award-winning

designs, environmentally sustainable - to keep as many of the existing trees as possible; policies on trees Ramona’s group: - no low income; no subsidized - like Fairway Hills in Glen Abbey - low density Shadi’s group: - green space! - park for community use - LEED



Individual Submission #1: - access to green space - maintain low density Individual Submission # 2: - no comment Individual Submission #3: - 3-storey multi-resident occupancy flats - perhaps multiple quads

Individual Submission #4:

- keep trees and planting

- maximum building height of 2 storeys

- natural screening around edge



2. Ultimately, people need to get to and from the site.

a) How/where should vehicles enter and exit the site? Provide both a primary and a secondary location. (The primary access should be “full moves”).

Brad’s group: - primary access: Dorval Dr.; full moves; push through to Deane Ave.? some hesitation

about this) - secondary access: Rebecca St.; right in/right out at existing Tudor Ave. entrance - emergency access onto Mary St. Brenda’s group: - preferably limit access - primary access:

o Rebecca St o Dorval Dr.

- secondary access: o possibly one limited (southbound only) access onto Dorval Dr. about halfway

down o Mary St.

Charlie’s group: - Dorval Dr. – no access at all

- Mary St. & Rebecca St. – full moves access

- concern with cut-through traffic

- conflict at Mary St. and bus stop David’s group: - Some individuals saw merit in opening up the north end of Hanover to connect with

Mary Street.

- Other individuals were opposed to the idea of an access from Mary Street as it was

seen as being too busy.

- A vehicular access point mid-block along Dorval was discussed as an option for

permitting access to the site.

- A mid block access on Dorval should be connected to Deanne Avenue.

- Concern was expressed as to whether this would be technically possible from a traffic

engineering perspective.

- Some concerns were expressed about the southern entrance to the site and how it

interacts with the entrance to the school site. Gabe’s group: - primary access: Tudor Ave.; leave generally in the same location – farther west - Mary St. reasonable only for pedestrians - buffer along Dorval Dr. - roundabout (Greak Lakes Blvd.; Lakeshore Woods)



Geoff’s group: - primary access: Dorval Dr.; grand and big – pillars, arches, landscaped features at the

entrance. - secondary access: Rebecca St., in middle - primary vehicular entrance off of Rebecca St. AND Dorval Dr. (road connected to

Deane Ave.) - no access to/from Mary St.; maybe an emergency access only Ita’s group: - primary access:

o not off Rebecca St. (already crazy traffic) o Dorval Dr.; traffic light and punch out to Deane Ave

- secondary access: o Rebecca St. / Tudor Ave. (existing)

Kirk’s group: - primary access:

o Dorval Dr.? o Rebecca St.; traffic lights? line up with new school entrance

- secondary access: o Mary St.; emergency?

- need 2 access points, maybe 3 Leigh’s group: - primary access: Rebecca St.; full moves at existing location - secondary access: Dorval Dr.; right in/right out; align with Deane Ave. - other: Mary St.; emergency access only

Philip’s group: - primary access:

o Rebecca St. / existing Tudor Ave. o new – across from new school (St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School) o Deane Ave.; new across Margaret and Dorval Dr.; new intersection

- secondary access: o out to Mary St.

Ramona’s group: - primary access: Dorval Dr., anywhere - secondary access: Rebecca St. - no Mary St. access Shadi’s group: - primary access:

o Dorval Dr.; in and out; traffic light; extra busy. o new – across from new school (St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School) o Deane Ave.; new across Margaret and Dorval Dr.; new intersection

- secondary access: o Mary St.; staying away from Rebecca St. – too much congestion and safer for

elementary children coming from the east to Morden Public School and St. James School

Individual Submission #1: - primary access: Dorval Dr.; create intersection with Deane Ave. (4 way traffic lights)



- secondary access: Mary St.; entry and exit

Individual Comments # 2: - Given the intensification and increased volume of cars since the redevelopment of the

high school and new condos at the corner, I feel that access should be from Dorval and Mary. Cars attempting to leave the new DND development in rush hour will find it impossible to enter Rebecca as it is already jammed at the Dorval lights. When access to Rebecca was originally designed it never contemplated such a volume of cars attempting to access Rebecca, especially so close to the current intersection.

Individual Submission #3: - vehicles access via Dorval Dr., connecting through Deane Ave.

Individual Submission #4: - not onto Mary St.

b) In addition to (or in combination with) the vehicle access points, how/where should

pedestrians enter and exit the site?

Brad’s group: - pedestrian access to school site - diagonal access to Rebecca St./Dorval Dr. for pedestrians and cyclists Brenda’s group: - onto Mary St. - onto Rebecca St. - at corner (of Rebecca St. and Dorval Dr.)

Charlie’s group: - walkway to/from Dorval Dr.

- walkway to/from the corner of Rebecca St. and Dorval Dr.

- pedestrian access to church site David’s group: - A Pedestrian entrance located at the NE corner of the site (on the Town owned lands)

was seen as desirable to increase connectivity into and out of the community.

- Opportunities for pedestrian connectivity to adjacent sites are important.

Gabe’s group: - good transit service - pedestrian/bike paths - breaking Dorval - children crossing Dorval - walkways to school/church property Geoff’s group: - access to/from Rebecca St. and Dorval Dr. - sidewalk on Rebecca St. - access from adjacent church/school site & existing pedestrian pathway from Mary St.



- pedestrian gateway at Dorval Dr. & Rebecca St. Ita’s group: - walkway to bus stops (dotted lines on group‟s sketch) - walkway to school - lots of internal walkways, one to grocery store - bicycle paths; sidewalk/bike paths (adjacent to Dorval Dr.) Kirk’s group: - walkway to/through St. James church and school - pedestrian crossing of Dorval to Deane Ave. (to get to park) - walkway up to Mary St. Leigh’s group: - at all vehicular access points, plus Mary St. - between the townhouses and singles, leading to Rebecca St Philip’s group: - exit to Mary St. - access to church/school property (to west) - bike routes to be considered/investigated - lots / many locations

Ramona’s group: - Mary St. – pedestrian access Shadi’s group: - pathways to St. James School / Church and Morden Public School - pathway onto Rebecca St. (to St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School) Individual Submission #1: - a pathway (catwalk) from the site to St. James church and Catholic elementary school - a pathway for access to Dorval Dr. - a pathway for access onto Rebecca St. to connect to the high school on the south side

of Rebecca St. Individual Submission # 2: - pedestrians should have 3 or 4 access points: Rebecca, Mary and 2 from Dorval Individual Submission #3: - access via Mary St. - access via Dorval Dr. - access via Rebecca St. Individual Submission #4: - corner of Rebecca St./Dorval Dr. - from Mary St. - access to/from school yard

Individual Submission #5 (re: Questions 2a), 3a), 3b) & 4 only): - make Deane Ave. go straight through to new subdivision with a full set of lights



3. Imagine you are facing the new neighbourhood from each of the surrounding streets.

Think about what you see in terms of: houses and townhouses; front doors; garages;

landscaping and trees; open space; streetscapes and sidewalks, etc.

a) From Dorval Drive, if the neighbourhood reflects your vision, what do you see?

Brad’s group:

- preference for backyards facing Dorval Dr. with landscaping

- townhouses and singles could share a common street

Brenda’s group:

- Maintain the hedge along Dorval Dr. If not, consider an internal access road parallel

to Dorval Dr. with houses facing Dorval Dr., but on the west side of the access road.

- laneway

Charlie’s group: - trees; preservation of trees

- people walking David’s group: - General consensus was to locate townhouses along the eastern edge of the site.

- Townhouses were discussed as having a rear yard relation to Dorval Drive (Reverse

frontage).

- There was discussion on how townhouses fronting onto Dorval would be impacted by

noise and safety issues as a result of traffic on Dorval.

- Desire to preserve as many trees as possible on the site. Suggestion to preserve all

trees in situ and not permit any tree removal on site. Gabe’s group: - two storey homes serviced by lanes - mature trees; vegetation; retain trees on Dorval Dr. - attractive - sidewalks Geoff’s group: - no chain link fence - keep existing trees - grand entrance - landscape features; homey - park - lovely, high-end homes - a pedestrian gateway at the corner of Dorval and Rebecca; highly landscaped, gateway

feature, and walkway into the neighbourhood.



Ita’s group:

- two storey houses matching townhouses on Margaret Dr. (Barclay Square)

- front doors

- access to Dorval (walkways)

- wrought iron gates

- brownstone style townhouses

- trees

- streetscaping on Dorval Dr.; main access into Town

Kirk’s group:

- green berm and trees / green wall

- access

- front doors of townhomes

- trees – 30 ft.

- premium parkland lots – detached

Leigh’s group:

- townhouses backing onto Dorval Dr., from Dean Ave. down (southward)

- existing trees saved and a berm

Philip’s group:

- detached homes along Dorval Dr.; mirror what is on Margaret Dr.

- see front yards, not back yards; front doors; sidewalks

- make it look like Neyagawa Blvd.; create a buffer; more trees

- put in an entry feature

- not gated

- pedestrian-scale lighting

- don‟t cut trees down

- make it all park

- „Olde Oakville‟ style feeling; Colonial type styling

- put high(er) density at corner of Rebecca St. and Dorval Dr.; lower density on west

side Ramona’s group: - townhouses along Dorval Dr. to new road and along Rebecca St. to the new road

(refer to sketch) - two-storey single from new road access (to Dorval Dr.) northward (refer to sketch)

Shadi’s group: - leave the natural tree lining on Droval Drive so that backyards face trees and

townhouses on Dorval Dr. - more evergreen trees and not just deciduous



Individual Submission #1: - leave tree line facing Dorval Dr. - townhouses facing Dorval Dr. Individual Submission #2: - a green wall of shrubs and trees. With the loss of the St Thomas greenbelt, i.e .the

west field, extensive large perimeter and internal trees and the loss of all the mature tress from the other two condo sites across from St Thomas the area has suffered immensely in terms of tree loss. Starting to look like Mississauga near Dundas!

Individual Submission #3: - I see homes either facing Dorval Dr. or Tudor Ave.

Individual Submission #4: - existing plantings - not front of houses - keep walkway

Individual Submission #5 (re: Questions 2a), 3a), 3b) & 4 only): - have the backyards face Dorval Dr., preferably the townhouses

b) Would it be different from Rebecca Street?

Brad’s group:

- housing fronting on Rebecca St. with rear lane

- no driveways on Rebecca St.

Brenda’s group:

- Keep the fronts of single family detached houses facing Rebecca St., as they were on

the DND lands, with separating driveways.

- Keep the trees on the site as much as possible.

- no fences

Charlie’s group: - houses fronting Rebecca St.; rear lane access

- reverse lots

David’s group: - no comments Gabe’s group: - no



Geoff’s group:

- no comments

Ita’s group:

- larger homes facing Rebecca St. with rear parking lanes; OR,

- some more brownstones; OR,

- a green space/parkette with pathways and benches

Kirk’s group:

- detached as it was previously

Leigh’s group:

- singles with berm and landscaping; buffer along Rebecca St.

- deeper lots onto Rebecca St.

Philip’s group:

- no [not different than Dorval]; see front yards, not back yards Ramona’s group: - no comments Shadi’s group: - townhouses wrapping around the corner and mixed with single detached dwellings - front yards on Rebecca St. (long front yardage – houses set back) - porches; flowering shrubs; evergreens Individual Submission #1: - semi-detached homes along Rebecca St. with long front yards - townhouses facing Dorval Dr. Individual Submission #2: - On Rebecca I would expect conformity with the existing neighborhood, i.e. similar

tree lined street with houses facing onto Rebecca. Individual Submission #3: - I see homes facing Rebecca St. - additional screening against the new school being constructed

Individual Submission #4: - like existing (before destruction), e.g. front of houses Individual Submission #5 (re: Questions 2a), 3a), 3b) & 4 only): - backyards as per above, but detached



4. Imagine this new neighbourhood of detached houses and townhouses. What would you

want to see or experience as you walk through the neighbourhood in terms of

streetscaping and amenities? What would leave you with a positive impression of the

neighbourhood?

Brad’s group:

- bungalows, back-splits, two storeys

- architectural variety to create community

- make sure townhouses and singles mesh with architectural detailing

- good quality construction

- keep Town road allowance (at Dorval Dr. and Mary St.) as open space

- housing that fronts onto park (driveways at rear)

- make a small green space and save some trees

Brenda’s group:

- keep maximum amount of current trees on site

- Fairway Hills (residential area southeast of Dorval Dr. and Upper Middle Rd.)

- attractive entrance to the development; entry feature

- some form of central open area; parkette/open space

- townhouses at corner

- lamp posts

Charlie’s group:

- parkette in the interior; park – swings; public square to be integrated; savannah; a people

place

- connectivity via walkways

- visitor parking – on-street; dedicated parking lot

- lots of trees, greenery

- Rebecca St. – townhouses okay, and along Dorval Dr.; limit height to 2 storeys

- townhouses and singles – mix of uses

- rear alleys/lanes

David’s group:

- Similar built form to the surrounding development is considered important.

- Complimentary and compatible with the surrounding development.

- Preservation of trees seen as a way to preserve character of neighbourhood.

- Residents would like to see an open space or park / recreation area located in the centre

of the development (similar to that which exists presently).



- Specific desire to see the use of Geo-thermal heating technologies as a means of heating

houses within the development.

Gabe’s group:

- townhouses – two storey

- clustered townhouses; common courtyards

Geoff’s group:

- not same character (varying style of houses; not all the same)

- should continue the character of the adjacent neighbourhoods to the west and to the north

- park – doesn‟t have to be in middle; multiple

- meandering path built in so that there were several smaller green areas to enjoy (that are

connected) instead of one large green space/park (meditation park? water feature?)

- sculptures; art walk

- separate bike and pedestrian paths

Ita’s group:

- top preference for all single dwellings

- min. 50‟ frontages on single dwellings (north, south and west sides of property); bigger

property/dwelling size; big properties

- single detached homes, esp. bungalows, on west side of Tudor Ave. to mirror homes on

Weybourne Rd.

- semis

- classy; upscale

- maintain mature trees

- no sidewalks

- non-invasive/minimal street lighting

- variety of housing styles; bungalofts on west side to appeal to aging population

Kirk’s group:

- lots of trees

- garages up front

- garages detached to the rear

- a community park; green space in middle

- bungalows and bungalofts

- more premium lots, the buffer

Leigh’s group:

- some kind of central park



- lots of trees

- smart design (garages); LEED

- public roads; no parking on road

- no rear lanes; don‟t want an Oak Park look (residential area in the Uptown Core)

- wider and deeper lots

- monument

Philip’s group:

- keep as many trees as possible

- common open space with school/church

- nice to have an open space inside

- bring water feature in

- make it an eco-village; sustainable homes; geothermal

- not huge monster homes

- community garden, market area

- create nice houses for middle-class families

- hide garages; invisible garages; rear lanes

- entry feature

- buffer/berm between Dorval/Rebecca

Ramona’s group:

- parkette; park benches

- parkland owned by Town

- variation in:

o housing form and materials

o building height

o design

o colours

- street trees

Shadi’s group:

- walkways

- trees

- play area

- neighbourhood parkette

- along western side, detached houses

- mixture of lot sizes on western side

- nice/eco-friendly lighting, especially on pathways



Individual Submission #1: - Have the (portion of) the property that backs onto Weybourne Rd. be the backyards of

detached or semi-detached dwellings. - verandahs - driveways off street - no garages in rear of any homes - keep trees; as many mature as possible - keep fence along development‟s west side (for homes that back onto Weybourne Rd.) - mixed lot sizes (to remove any “cookie cutter” design) - pedestrian sidewalks - low light emitting street lights (soft light)

Individual Submission #2: - open space; something substantial, not like a mini parkette - lots of large trees that included both deciduous and coniferous - possibly a stormwater retention pond with a natural biological filtering system

Individual Submission #3: - sustainable design - LEED – be it bronze, silver or gold - grey water systems - green roof - community focus on green spaces - water feature - artscape (perhaps something similar to Gairloch Gardens) - preserve trees - reuse existing brick

Individual Submission #4: - no townhouses - feel of Waneta/Weybourne - trees - parkette - nice lights - nice pathways with series of stops on way - single detached throughout - if townhomes, hide them - keep space between houses

Individual Submission #5 (re: Questions 2a), 3a), 3b) & 4 only): - parkette - small



5. Having now discussed a range of topics and issues, what are one or two things that you

would like the designers to focus on in the redevelopment of the property? What

makes you say that?

Brad’s group:

- provide development options

- lower than 29 u.p.s.h.; more like 23 u.p.s.h.

Brenda’s group:

- entry feature to development

- open area in the southeast corner to surround the townhouses - separation

Charlie’s group:

- blends in naturally

- trees/green

- family-oriented

- walkable, livable

- density approximately 20 u.p.s.h.

David’s group:

- A subdivision that has been designed to be complimentary and compatible to the

surrounding development.

- Green technologies should be used in the development, and the development should

become a showcase for new green development within Oakville.

- The drainage for the proposed development should be appropriate and should not have

any impact on the adjacent properties.

- There is a strong desire to incorporate an open space area at the centre of the site.

Gabe’s group:

- mirroring Barclay Square

- maintaining “integrity” of Dorval Dr.

Geoff’s group:

- maintain the existing trees as they are

- first choice: no townhouses, just single detached homes that have a 14 unit/hectare

density consistent with Weybourne Rd.; minimum 50-60‟ frontages

- keep character of the neighbourhoods to the west and the north

- high end; grand; grand presentation

- if you have townhouses, hide them



- large open spaces

- community focus

- nice surprise

- connection to Deane Ave.

- multiple small open spaces, not one

Ita’s group:

- fundamental driver: compatibility/consistency with the neighbourhoods to the west

- housing similar to Carlini Court (off Deane Ave.) or Abbey Lane; terrific looking

- keep it green; keep trees

- no sidewalks in “Surrey Park”

- along Dorval Dr., make existing sidewalk a combo sidewalk/bike path

- upscale bungaloft community

Kirk’s group:

- no comments

Leigh’s group:

- Do a design that:

o reflects the R03 regulations for lot areas and frontages.

o is environmentally sensitive

o is architecturally sensitive

o respects the existing houses

o uses public roads instead of condo roads

o does not use 29 u.p.s.h. as the accepted; be creative; use density limit

Philip’s group:

- go for LEED platinum certification; green design

o green roofs; grey water use/retention;

o geothermal; solar/off the grid

- not gated!

- inclusive community; mixed socio-economic stratification (kids - seniors)

- range of home prices

- range of home sizes; max. 2500-3000 sq.ft.

- upscale development

- Dorval Dr. should be addressed as a gateway feature. Dorval Dr. is a gateway to

Oakville. This should be reflected. Change street lighting and lower it to look less

highway-like. More trees.



Ramona’s group:

- an integrated development – compatible in terms of housing style and form – with the

surrounding neighbourhood

- low density

Shadi’s group:

- maintain existing “culture” and value of neighbourhood

- preserve nature and increase greenery

- make it a vibrant community; should be connecting to surrounding area

- green energy – LEED certified; put Oakville on the map

Individual Submission # 1:

- Maintain a similar density and traffic flows so that surrounding existing property owners

will preserve property values and enhanced lifestyles.

- This is what attracted us to this area. Please don‟t allow things to change to the point that

existing home owners lose the feel and intimacy that we‟ve come to know.


- Sustainability:

o I would like the Federal government and specifically the Town of Oakville to build

on its recent success of the authoring of the OP, and the mini success of passing

the new lighting bylaw, and continue to be leaders in the need to become

sustainable.

o I would like to see some major green initiative like a central geothermal system

that could provide a heating / cooling loop for the entire project. Given the clean

slate (i.e. design latitude), it would be easy to both design and administer. Imagine

the power this one initiative could save and reduction in pollution over a decade!

o Light pollution would also be key, i.e. use this site as the first pilot project to

incorporate SMART street lighting with full cuttoff louvres etc.

o Finally, the use of low maintenance ground cover where possible to help to address

the use of gas lawn mowers, weed whackers and blowers. Make it a site that

planners from all over the country wanted to see because different levels of

government were able to collaborate and make something special instead of just

another energy consuming development.


- refer to answers under Question 4




- like west of Dorval Dr., not east

- a place to be for the community

- looks like where Oakville is going not where it is; “Stucco” like Waneta

- aim for 14-18 units per site hectare

Individual Submission #6 (re: Question 5 only):

- I think this is a great opportunity to showcase the latest techniques in sustainable design.

Building homes that are LEED certified, each home having solar voltaic panels on the

roof, dual flush toilets, double pane windows, etc.

- This community could be a sort of “eco village” that improves liveability and

environmental performance for its residents.



Additional Comments from Y. Little:

November 22, 2010 Hello Lesley, Below are my thoughts on the DND lands: I was present at the workshop and these suggestions were made known to our coordinator at our table. Several people at my table were going with the "it's o.k. to put townhouses along Rebecca and Dorval", however I feel it is not really the best option and in further talking with the group, others agreed with me to not lay this on the table as their first choice. We already have a lot of high density being built in the area - Dorval & Rebecca (Margaret Drive) townhomes, the project at Maurice and Lakeshore (4 storey), as well as others being built on Rebecca, the plaza site on Lakeshore will probably be high rise, plus all the condo plans for Kerr and Speers, as well as the existing townhomes on the East side of Dorval off Margaret Drive and Barclay Square (to the north). There are also townhomes on Lakeshore at Brookfield. So why would we push for more? Ward 2 is becoming the area where the redevelopment is not being kept for single family homes - it is townhomes, condos, etc. With a lovely 16.5 acre site - they should build a lovely subdivision of detached homes, minimum 50 or 60 ft. lots. Keep all trees possible. Plant more trees along Dorval Drive, Rebecca. Lesley, please see that these comments are added to the "worksheet". I really do feel strongly that Ward 2 is becoming packed with high density - condominiums, townhomes, etc. Until the development of Barclay Square, the lands on both sides of the DND lands were single family detached homes. Now every new development is townhomes, condo's, four storey condos, etc. It should not ALL be located in Ward 2 as this could bring down property values on detached homes. We also have the "gift" of the designated truck route into downtown Oakville (Dorval Drive). Stop please, enough. There definitely should be walkway areas into the school lands, onto Mary Street, possibly one out to Dorval Drive, and onto Rebecca Street. There is an area of land at Dorval and Mary Street which has no use - turn it into a "parkette" with trees, shrubs, sitting areas, community garden? or other such uses for residents. Thank you, best regards, Yvonne



Additional Comments from V. Adamov:

November 25, 2010 Hello Lesley, First, thank you very much for organizing and facilitating the workshop. I was pleasantly surprised to find it much more useful and informative than I'd initially anticipated. Second, I want to submit some additional considerations regarding area access from Mary Street. During the workshop there were some groups that suggested full vehicle access from Mary St., and others that opposed such access but envisioned pedestrian or emergency access only. However, I did not hear many specific considerations in support of or against these options. I personally vouched for a restricted access (pedestrian or emergency only). And I would like to offer several specific considerations in that respect: 1. The distance between the Dorval-Mary intersection and the area access seems short if a line up of cars

incoming to the area from Dorval forms during rush hours (i.e. they need to turn right from Dorval onto Mary and then immediately turn left across Mary to access the area). Similarly, a line of cars exiting the area in the mornings would have to make a right onto Mary St. and then an immediately left onto Dorval towards QEW or Oakville GO. This is the natural flow of traffic in that area.

2. There is a covered bus stop next to the Dorval-Mary intersection on the side of the area. Incoming buses

would be in the way of such car lineups (either entering or exiting the area). 3. The covered bus stop is presently adjacent to the unoccupied municipal lot and away from the closest

house. A potential move of that bus stop further away into Mary St. and before the potential area access would mean putting it adjacent to a residential property.

4. There certainly should be some kind of access from Mary St. so that area residents can use the bus stop

(bus goes to the Oakville GO). Hope that helps, although, as we saw, there were plenty of conflicting (and useful) considerations for the area development. Best regards, Ven Adamov



Additional Comments from S. Bobesich: November 29, 2010 Hello Lesley, I was present at the November 18th, 2010 meeting pertaining to the DND lands, and when I read the question sheet of the group responses sent out [i.e. a draft of one group’s comments that was meant for that group’s review only – LGW] I found there to be quite a few discrepancies and important pieces missing. I am a resident of Mary Street and therefore directly affected by whatever development is put into place. For starters, the discussion of town homes came up several times. However, I know I can safely say that no one at my table, on Mary Street and in the immediate community wants to see townhomes put onto the site. The reason being is with all of the development occurring within a 1km radius (several Matas developments, the Vandyke development, Nexus Communities, Hush communities, the S.T.A. revival, etc.) and the increased traffic, pollution, noise and overall inconvenience as a direct result of this increased development anything but low-density single detached homes would be devastating to the area at large. Why is there a push for more development? Why can we not keep the property at 15 homes per hectare like it is currently situated at? This property has been revered by many as the nicest available property in all of Oakville. Why would the push for status quo be acceptable? Residents do not want to see an Oak Park or Glen Abbey they want a new green and forward thinking development. The preservation of all existing trees needs to remain (I applaud the CNC for their diligent job protecting every tree on the property). Prior to the construction of Barclay Square that piece of property mimicked the DND lands property in terms of trees and space residents do not want a repeat of that travesty. Residents and I also urge for more year-round greenery and privacy (similar to Neyagawa Blvd and Woodfield) along Dorval + Rebecca and perhaps a parkette or heavy privacy on the vacant piece on Mary. Lesley, please see that these comments are added to the "worksheet" in addition to other comments not included in the original “worksheet”. Residents and I also feel there needs to be nice treed walkway and bikeway areas into the school lands, onto Mary Street and at the corner of Rebecca and Dorval. Ward 2 – especially the Rebecca/Dorval intersection is becoming one of the most dense in all of Oakville, the push for condos and townhomes needs to stop and more detached homes with large lots need to find its way back into the area starting with the DND lands. Thank you for taking the time to read through my e-mail, please understand that these are the concerns and wishes of the entire community and I ask you to please take these comments into deep consideration when creating a plan for the DND lands. Kindest Regards, Stephan Bobesich



Additional Comments from SCORA:

Dec. 1, 2010 Attention: Lesley Gill Woods, Planner,

Town of Oakville, Planning Services Department The following are some comments regarding the CLC/DND property visioning exercise. Thank you for organizing this opportunity for the community to contribute to the development of this property. This is a very important issue for this area as not only is it a major entrance to Oakville but it is a “tip-factor property” that will impact the value of existing homes and the quality of future development. 1) The visioning process

While the process was good we do have a couple of suggestions for future events like this. a) We felt the briefing segment could have been more informative. Many of the groups never saw the

briefing pictures or if they did it was a quick pass around while the discussion was underway. The specific questions could have been addressed accompanied by Power Point visuals of the briefing sheets regarding house formats (per question 4) showing typical streetscapes and typical housing formats – both detached and townhouse formats – pathways and major street access. Most of the houses/townhouses shown were not of the character or level that many are hopeful for this development. They felt they were more reflective of a higher density development.

b) It would be helpful to have two or three layout options to react to … but perhaps that is something that CLC can do at their meeting to help refine it from here.

2) Traffic & major street access

This is one of the main concerns of the area. It is recommended that the town embark on a study that encompasses all the developments happening in the area and not rely on each developer’s respective studies. a) CLC lands will add 100 to 150 cars to the area

i. Access from the development onto Rebecca and turning East will prove difficult, and similarly turning into the complex coming East along Rebecca when the west-heading traffic is busy late in the day.

ii. Turning right out of the complex will add a lot of traffic onto Rebecca and then Morden and possibly Mary as they make their way to Dorval and Speers and the highway.

iii. Some want partial access onto Dorval (Right in and out only, not a full intersection) iv. Some want full intersection opposite Deane … whereas others view this as backing up Dorval v. Exit only onto Mary with right turn for Dorval access was suggested



b) Van Dyke development will add similar volume of cars coming onto Garden

i. Many will turn right onto Lakeshore and then north onto Dorval. Concern about Lakeshore backup since only one lane going West and also advanced turn-light from the west

ii. Access onto Rebecca and turning left to reach Dorval will be difficult in busy times

c) St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School i. Their exit onto Dorval which could be disruptive if going north. ii. Concern about the alignment of their Rebecca driveway relative to CLC and Weybourne

d) Other Development between Dorval and Arena - including Maurice Garden, townhouses and arena

redevelopment will all add a lot more traffic to the challenges at these major intersections and major streets

3) Types of houses

a) While the OP allows for townhouses along Dorval, the community generally preferred they not be used. i. The town house format doesn’t have to be. The townhouse format was allowed in the OP as a

compromise so the other properties could be larger to fit in better with the adjacent community. ii. If used they are allowed along part of Dorval, such as to mirror the similar format on Margaret.

b) Preference is to single family detached housing that is architecturally pleasing yet with some diversity

of format and design - from bungalows/bungalofts to two storey. Many thought the examples shown were more townhouse format and more compact north Oakville format that they are hoping is not being proposed for here.

c) No low-income or subsidized housing. This area has the highest ratio in Halton already.

d) Consideration to eco-sensitive green-feature construction is of interest. Something that Oakville and

CLC could point to as another example of leadership in being committed to being a Green community.

e) That the homes be of up-market quality is more important than size.

4) Low density & streetscape

a) There is a lot of intensification in the area, with Barkley Square, Van Dyke and other plans E of Dorval

b) This development should reflect more the density to the west, with 50 to 60 ft wide lots and the 14 units per hectare of adjacent properties to the west.

c) The streetscape should reflect the area with adequate setback and spacing between homes to

accommodate minimum two car lengths between any sidewalk allowance and the houses.



d) A transplant of a north Oakville high-density development is not in keeping with the surrounding

community. 5) Trees, parkland and walking trails

a) The property should retain all of the mature trees, and plan on adding to this especially along the streetscapes of Dorval and Lakeshore to provide buffer to the homes and attractive wooded streetscape to the community.

b) A small parkette with connecting walking paths through the community joining it to the outer

community i. Path access to Dorval and Rebecca intersection and to Mary ii. Path access to Catholic Elementary school

c) Rebecca street should have a heavily treed hill/berm to provide protection to those homes from the

school and traffic while likewise providing an appealing wooded streetscape d) Dorval and Rebecca is an important image intersection to the community. Dorval is designated as the

primary route to downtown so it is important that both landscaping and community gates at this intersection and the other main drive entrances project a quality lifestyle impression of a “named” community. Examples of entrances are Fairway Hills on Dorval and Shorewood Place on Lakeshore that project some beauty and distinction.

6) Community name

a) A name of local relevance should be selected by CLC --- either of historic or geographic significance to Oakville.

b) While we respect this is the right of CLC … SCORA will gladly request contribution of options from the

residents. We look forward to seeing your report on the vision exercise. Sincerely Charles Johnston President – SCORA Southwest Central Oakville Residents Association

rebecca-dorval special policy area workshop: shaping the vision planning/ps-dnd-wkshp... ·...

Documents