/4. July 14th, 1975

City Planner advised that a tree survey had been taken and the front of
the property will remain very much like it is at the present time. Mr.
Dart further questioned the density of the proposed development and it
was noted that the development proposal had been reduced from 91 units
to the present 76 unit proposal and it was not a similar type of development
to Woodside Estates and therefore the density ratio could not really be
compared. Mr. Milner questioned the adequacy of the road design for
access to all buildings by fire trucks and was assured by the Fire Chief
that the landscaping in both this and che G.V.R.D. development, was
being designed in such a manner as to Support a pumper truck should it
be necessary to cross a landscaped area for access to a building in the
case of fire. Mr. Dart wished to record his opposition to the proposal
on the basis of too many apartment developments in one small area of the
City. Mr. Wenham questioned the apparent lack of notice to surrounding
residents regarding the proposal and Alderman Thompson indicated that
the proposal has been dealt with by the Planning and Zoning Committee
for some 18 months now and that it had been brought to a Zoning Public
Hearing on one previous occasion several months ago. In addition, it
was noted that all Planning and Zoning meetings are open to the public
and there is no reason that any interested person cannot be aware of
what is going on in his immediate area. In response tc Mr. Wenham's
question on the size and depth of the pipe proposed to fill the ditch,
the City Engineer advised that a 12" pipe will be installed at a depth
yet to be determined. Alderman Thompson noted Mr. Wenham's concern over
the cutting of trees to permit installation of the drainage pipe and
advised that for this very reason, a tree cutting By-law had been passed
and any developments since that time have had to provide an actual tree
survey to be approved by the City, and in this instance, the majority of
the existing trees should not be affected. Mr. Wenham also expressed
opposition to the proposed parking urea along the South boundary of the
development. Mr. Leonhard Penner of 1402 Columbia Drive noted that Mr.

Bill Casson had indicated at a previous meeting that the G.V.R.D. would

hold back if the school accommodation was not adequate and questioned @

that if it was as a result of an additionai development such as this
would the G.V.R.D. still wait for the schools to catch up and he was
assured by His Worship the Mayor that it was in writing that the G.V.R.D.

will not proceed with construction unless the schools are keeping pace