Title
APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING BY-LAW - HARMONY VILLAGE - LAKE SIMCOE INC. - 51 - 83 BRADFORD STREET AND 20 CHECKLEY STREET (WARD 2) (September 9, 2013) (File: D14-1561)
Mr. Andrew McNeil, Vice President of LiveWorkLearnPlay (LWLP) provided a summary on the proposed development, indicating that it is meant to be an innovative and vibrant addition to the existing neighbourhood. He noted that his firm has already had meetings with area residents to provide them preliminary details of the development and receive feedback. Mr. McNeil indicated that LVWP wants to work with the City and area residents to ensure that the development is compatible with the xisting neighbourhood to create a legacy mixed use neighbourhood.
Mr. John Bousfield of Bousefield Inc., advised that the purpose public meeting is to review an application for an Amendment to the Zoning By-law submitted by Harmony Village - Lake Simcoe Inc., for lands generally located between Bradford Street and Lakeshore Drive, north of Vespra Street and south of Simcoe Street. Mr. Bousefield noted that the lands are known municipally as 51-83 Bradford Street and 20 Checkley Street. He provided an image of the proposed development plan.
Mr. Bousefield detailed the physical constraints associated with the site, including the discharge rate of Bunkers Creek and traffic circulation and advised how that these issues will be addressed by the culvert installation proposed for 2014 along Lakeshore Drive and the installation of the proposed connecting road (Harmony Road). Mr. Bousefield described the length of the current block along Bradford Street and suggested that additional connectivity through the installation of Harmony Road would provide for a more efficient and accessible downtown.
Mr. Bousefield noted the areas for public and private vistas, how these vistas can be exploited and associated public policy.
Mr. Roland Rom Colthoff of Raw Design provided conceptual renderings of the proposed development. Mr. Rom Colthoff described the four key ideas associated with the plant to create a complete community. He noted proposed amenities planned to be included as part of the overall development, including a foodstore, pharmacy, medical offices, Red Cross Office, satellite location for Georgian College, dinner theatre and a recreation facility.
Mr. Rom Coltoff described the five proposed towers on-site, noting that they are intended to have varying height from 22-13 storeys.
Mr. Rob Spanier of LWLP reiterated that Harmony Village is intended to be a vibrant destination and detailed key features of the proposed development.
In closing, Mr. Spanier, highlighted the economic benefits and overall amenities associated with the Harmony Village proposal.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
- Mr. Don Hamilton, 2 Toronto Street advised that he was representing a number of residents from his condominium building. Mr. Hamilton indicated that the area residents realize that an infill multi-residential project is inevitable to complete the neighbourhood, but are concerned about the size and design of the proposed development and the impact it will have on the existing neigbourhood. He noted that the development should not overwhelm/overshadow existing development and requested careful consideration of the number of towers and total density.
Mr. Hamilton indicated that the residents welcome some form of new ideas on the plan but feel the existing proposal overwhelms existing development and needs to be harmonious with its neighbours.
- Mr. Lorne McDonald, 33 Ellen Street advised that he represents some residents from his condominium building. Mr. McDonald advised that he is concerned with the size and layout of the proposed development and the traffic congestion that may be caused by new connecting road (Harmony Road).
He strongly objected to the proposed Harmony Road questioning the need for the road. He highlighted that the proposed development is substantially deficient in terms of parking.
He noted that there are no agreements for the amenities described in the Harmony Village proposal and question that the development would be built as proposed.
He also raised concerns with respect to the public and private views and access to the lake being diminished and the insufficient parking that is being proposed for the development. He indicated that the Developer should build the development in accordance with current City policies and plans including requirements regarding height.
- Mr. Robert Bishop, 33 Ellen Street raised concerns about the impact the proposed development will have on the Eco Park and green space in the area. He noted that the developer should be made to conform to the City's policy of a 16-storey building height. He also noted concerns with respect to the insufficient parking due to the number of residents and amenities proposed as part of the development and suggested that the commercial portion be restricted to Bradford Street.
- Mr. Gary Bell, 365 Codrington Road noted that his concerns relate to the proposed amendment to the zoning by-law, as the project itself will be dealt with through site plan discussions with the City. Mr. Bell provided photographs of current views of the site from different areas around the Bay and conceptual drawings of lake view and of arterial roads to demonstrate the possible impacts of the proposed development on the area. He detailed that proposed zoning by-law not only includes the height variance but a variance for the distance between buildings. He stated that the proposed development is 13 storeys higher than its neighbours and of a greater mass and form.
Mr. Bell noted that in his opinion, that a rezoning should regulate the development of the site to compliment adjacent properties. He provided a comparison of the Barrie Growth Centre Intended Intensification versus the increase of intensification that would occur if the application to rezone the site is approved.
Mr. Bell also indicated his concern regarding the economic benefits provided by LVLP. He commented that the height and density would be wrong for the site.
- Ms. Darlene Rice-Reecho, 33 Ellen Street raised concerns with respect to the potential impacts and proximity of the development to the Eco Park and Bunkers Creek. Ms. Rice-Reecho also noted her concerns to the size of the buildings and impact on area traffic.
She sought clarification on the location of the proposed Harmony Road in relationship to Bunkers Creek. She stated she opposed the road and commented on the need to look after the environment. She expressed concern regarding debris and garbage generated from the site, the height of the project and the neon lights from the commercial building.
A representative of Harmony Village provided information concerning the proposed road location and Bunkers Creek.
- Ms. Kathy MacLeod, Community Support Manager, Red Cross indicated that the Red Cross has a memorandum of understanding with Harmony Village to provide community programming at the Barrie development. She described the programs and services provided by the Red Cross, noting that it looks forward to being part of the development.
- Mr. George Gibson, 33 Ellen Street noted that a written submission had been provided. He raised concerns regarding the shadowing effect of that may result from the proposed development. He also noted concerns with respect to the timing of the shadow study conducted by the developer, as it was done in the summer only.
He detailed his concern regarding insufficient parking, as the parking at the proposed development will not only have to accommodate residents, but those using the amenities, and anyone providing service to the residents at any given time.
He noted that the pile driving can be loud and stated that he understood that there were undisruptive methods available.
Mr. Gibson also noted concerns with respect to the potential traffic and environmental impacts including the impact on Bunkers Creek, the Eco Park and water table that may result from the proposed development.
- Mr. Ian Rowe, 140 Dunlop Street raised concerns that if the application is approved that other developers would follow requesting height variances over and above the approved City standard. He commented that City staff had recently reviewed the height study and found that the current height restrictions were appropriate. He noted his concerns with the height and massing of the development stating that the previous approval for additional height was provided based other municipal benefits detailed specifically in the site specific zoning by-law. He questioned whether the development will provide any of these benefits. He suggested that if any exceptions were provided to the developer, it be completed though the site specific zoning by-law to provide the offsetting municipal benefits.
He noted his concerns with respect to whether or not the amenities, employment will be a reality.
- Ms. Jill Price, 114 Ester Drive advised she is a business owner in downtown Barrie and feels that that the new development together with the new amenities mentioned by LPLW will bring needed infrastructure and housing which will maintain and improve the quality of life and the benefit the economy in the downtown core.
- Mr. Brent Clarkson, 33 Ellen Street noted that his building will directly face the proposed development and detailed his concerns. He advised that he supports the Intensification Study and Growth Plan but feels that the development proposal is not sensitive to surrounding neighbourhoods. He stated that the development should be assessed with respect to the character and sensitivity to surrounding properties.
Mr. Clarkson, also raised concerns regarding additional noise, security, insufficient parking for the proposed amenities and increase of traffic related to the proposed Harmony Road. He stated that the proposal is not sensitive to the neighbours and requires substantial modifications.
He suggested making the proposed Harmony Road internal to the site if it is truly required.
- Mr. Rod Burns, 2 Toronto Street discussed that the site in question will be developed in some fashion but his concern is with the height variance. He noted that Provincial and City policies reflect that 16-storeys will meet required intensification standards. He highlighted concerns regarding the size of the units, the lack of parking and the over intensification of the site.
- Ms. Gwen Peterson, 33 Ellen Street, highlighted that the concept of the Harmony Village proposal provides within walking distance benefitting the environment and commented that she thought a mixed used development would be a good idea. She welcomed the shade from the tall buildings and expressed hope that the developer would implement the green spaces identified in the plan.
- Ms. Nancy Quinlan, 2 Toronto Street raised concerns about the proximity of the proposed towers within the development in relation to each other and her condominium building. She further noted concerns related to the podium height and the insufficient parking being proposed for the development and impact on wind patterns due to height of the buildings. She noted that the amenities are not proposed in Phase 1. She suggested reconsideration of the height of the towers.
- Mr. Brian Rusnell, 6 Bayfield Street indicated that the buildings would be a nice centerpiece to the downtown core and 5-6 storey buildings would cover a lot more area.
- Mr. Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, 49 Eden Drive indicated that the height variance of the buildings would blend in well with the existing condominium buildings. He noted that high-density residential development ends up paying for itself more than the sprawl associated with single family dwellings.
- Ms. Mary Lindros, 37 Ellen Street raised concerns that the proposed development is not in line with City Council priorities detailed in the City's planning documents. She quoted from the Downtown Barrie Next Wave document to support her position
- Mr. Darren Stajic, 33 Ellen Street indicated that he felt that the existing developments in the area are well thought out and this represents a radical change. He expressed concerns regarding the environmental impacts, shadowing, noise and traffic congestion. He also noted his concern regarding wind tunnel issues due to height and size of buildings and suggested the developer prepare a wind tunnel study in this regard.
Members of General Committee asked a number of questions related to the presentation and received responses from representatives of the developer and City staff.
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE
- Correspondence from Bell Canada dated August 23, 2013.
- Correspondence from John H. Bray dated August 21, 2013.
- Correspondence from the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board dated August 26, 2013
- Submission from Charles Gruchy received August 27, 2013.
- Correspondence from George Taylor dated August 27, 2013.
- Correspondence from William and Jacqueline Paterson dated August 28, 2013.
- Correspondence from Robert and Nancy Bishop dated August 30, 2013.
- Correspondence from Louis and Barbara Dyke dated September 3, 2013.
- Petition signed by 63 residents received September 4, 2013.
- Correspondence from Doug and Vera McKenzie received September 4, 2013 with additional signatures.
- Correspondence from C.D. McKenzie dated September 4, 2013.
- Correspondence from Simcoe Standard Condominium Corporation No. 360 received September 4, 2013.
- Correspondence from Donald and Christina Jay dated September 4, 2013.
- Correspondence from Synda Mcaskin received September 4, 2013.
- Correspondence from Susan Bracken dated September 4, 2013.
- Correspondence from Ian S. Malcom dated September 4, 2013.
- Correspondence from James Fan dated September 4, 2013.
- Correspondence from Valerie Holst dated September 1, 2013.
- Correspondence from Lauraleigh Brumwell dated September 5, 2013.
- Correspondence from David Phillips dated September 5, 2013.
- Correspondence from John and Deanna Smythe dated September 7, 2013.
- Correspondence from Deborah and Michael O'Dwyer dated September 9, 2013.
- Correspondence from Nancy Quinlan dated September 7, 2013.
- Correspondence from Michelle and Bob Tuck dated September 2, 2013.