Title
DEPUTATION CONCERNING MOTION 22-P-002, ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION - 407, 411, 413, 417 AND 419 MAPLEVIEW DRIVE WEST (407-419 MAPLEVIEW INC AND ENCORE GROUP) (WARD 7)
The following Deputations were provided concerning motion 22-P-002, Zoning By-law Amendment Application - 407, 411, 413, 417 and 419 Mapleview Drive West:
1. Janet Foster advised that she is a professional planner who has been retained by the residents of the Redfern Avenue and Mapleview Drive neighborhood to speak on their behalf. She indicated that the residents are concerned that the proponent’s application for a medium density RM2 Zoning with Special Provisions as it will result in a high density development in an area not identified in the Official Plan or its supporting policies as an intensification corridor. Ms. Foster explained that the neighborhood residents do not object to a medium density townhouse development, and therefore support the proposed amendments discussed at the January 18, 2022 Planning Committee meeting.
Ms. Foster discussed the City’s Official Plan policies which require residential intensification developments outside an intensification area to be considered under its own merits to ensure that the scale and physical character of the development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She cited the developments at 30 Hanmer Street and 105-111 Edgehill Drive which were approved for increased height and density outside a designated Intensification Area. She noted that these projects were evaluated based on their own individual merits making it difficult to establish precedent in these instances.
Ms. Foster expressed concerns regarding the proposed development with respect to the high density, the development being the first of its kind in this neighborhood, the lack of appropriate transition to intensification, and the rooftop patios impact on the character of the neighborhood. She stated that the City’s Official Plan policies support compatibility between dwelling types, graduated density, and buffering protection to minimize the impact on adjacent low density lots and to assist with integration between residential land uses. Ms. Foster noted that the amendments discussed at the January 18th Planning Committee meeting address these needs.
In closing, Ms. Foster commented that she felt that the proposed amendments can be supported by the City’s Development Services staff and would enable intensification outside an intensification node or corridor. Ms. Foster shared her opinion that the amendments consider the public interest and are considered to be good planning.
2. Anna Del Col summarized her concerns associated with the proposed development throughout its various iterations with respect to the preservation of trees, height of the building, and the lack of visitor parking. She expressed her opinion that the proposed development does not fit the character of the neighborhood and noted that the density of the development is still the remaining concern. She advised that keeping the density in line would assist with managing the other concerns regarding the proposed development.
Ms. Del Col stated that Mapleview Drive is not an intensification corridor under the City’s current Official Plan and will not be when the new Official Plan is adopted. She expressed her concern that approving the proposed development would set a dangerous precedent and urged Council to protect the sense of security in the neighborhood and to follow the City’s Official Plan.
Ms. Del Col commented that Councillor Harvey’s proposed amendments would still result in an increased density for the development. She expressed her concern that constructing a 72 units per hectare development in the neighborhood is motivated by the profit for the developer in question and that the residents of the neighborhood will have to live with what remains.
3. Andrew Zvanitajs requested that the proposed development application not be approved at its proposed density and height. Mr. Zvanitajs shared his concerns regarding the proposed development being twice the allowable density permitted and if approved, is concerned that the development will fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood. He also expressed concerns regarding traffic and parking and that there are no comparable buildings abutting these properties in the neighborhood.
Mr. Zvanitajs requested that Council follow the City’s Official Plan. He commented on the location of the site not being an intensification. Mr. Zvanitajs expressed his opinion that a modest two or three-storey townhouse complex would be more appropriate for the site and would compliment the existing neighborhood. He requested that Council take the opportunity to show residents how seriously it takes development and to consider the amendments discussed at the January 18, 2022 Planning Committee meeting.
4. Kapil Uppal advised that residents are requesting that the City’s Official Plan be upheld. He expressed concerns regarding the proposal being a high-density development in an area that is not designated as an intensification corridor. He commented that although the developer has reduced the number of units, the development is still to high of a density under the City’s Official Plan.
Mr. Uppal expressed his concern that the proposed development is not consistent or compatible with the adjacent low density residential neighborhood and that it would represent an overdevelopment of the site. He shared his opinion that the site is best suited to a medium density development. Mr. Uppal also expressed concern with the practice of allowing developments to significantly exceed the 20-unit density target in order to compensate for other developments that do not meet this target.
In closing, Mr. Uppal stated that Council has a responsibility to the residents of Barrie and that allowing the proposed development to go forward could be precedent setting for the community. He stated that every proposal should be evaluated at on its own merits. Mr. Uppal expressed his opinion that the amendments discussed at the January 18, 2022 Planning Committee meeting represent a good compromise.
5. Doug Rolling commented that he agrees with the comments made by other residents and Janet Foster. Mr. Rolling expressed concerns with the proposed height of the development and reiterated concerns regarding parking congestion on the street as a result of the proposed development.
6. Sarah Davis advised that Janet Foster was hired to speak on behalf of the neighborhood and that she supports the comments made by Ms. Foster. She stated that the residents have concerns with respect to the density of the proposed development. Ms. Davis commented that while she felt that the amendments discussed at the January 18, 2022 Planning Committee meeting are not perfect, they are a relative compromise between the two parties.
7. Darren Vella from Innovative Planning Solutions spoke on behalf of the applicant, Encore Group. Mr. Vella shared his opinion that the proposed development is a good fit for the property and that he agrees with some of the amendments proposed by Councillor Harvey as they relate to the rear yard townhouse units backing onto Redfern Avenue. He expressed concerns with the proposed amendments that relate to the height and density of the units facing Mapleview Drive.
Mr. Vella discussed slides demonstrating the relationship between the subject lands along Mapleview Drive and the intensification corridor. He stated that the height and density of developments will be reduced the further away they are located from the intensification corridor. Mr. Vella commented that the development proposes a three and a half storey building with rooftop balconies and that only eight units out of the developments total 46 units have balconies that exceed 10 metres in height.
Mr. Vella discussed slides illustrating the distance of the balconies to the neighboring properties. He commented that there is a substantial four lane road that separates the rooftop balconies from the dwellings on the other side of the road and noted that there is substantial vegetation that exists that provides a further buffer. Mr. Vella expressed his opinion that he felt that the concerns with respect to rooftop balconies overlooking the pools of the neighborhood are unfounded.
Mr. Vella expressed his concern with the images shown by Councillor Harvey and stated that they are inaccurate. He discussed the seniors building located in the neighborhood and noted that it has been used to establish the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Vella shared his opinion that he felt that there are more similarities than differences between the two sites and that the proposed development is located three times closer to the Essa Road intensification corridor.
Mr. Vella discussed the changes that have been made to address resident concerns, including the reduction in units, greater setbacks, two parking spaces per unit, and that the trees in the rear yards are being maintained. He also commented that the size of the public walkway is being increased. Mr. Vella cited examples of recent developments that exceed the proposed development’s height that have been approved outside of designated intensification areas and are located adjacent to single family homes.
In closing, Mr. Vella stated that Encore Group has no intention of submitting a revised proposal. He expressed his opinion that he felt that the proposed development is a fair size compromise and balances the concerns of residents against growth in the City of Barrie. Mr. Vella commented that Encore Group is a reputable developer and that he felt that voting with Councillor Harvey is a vote against developing more attainable units in this part of the City.
8. Andrew Barnett expressed his concerns with the proposed development with respect to the height of the building, its incompatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood, its location outside an intensification corridor, the impact on existing single-family dwellings, and the privacy issues for the homes on Redfern Avenue presents.
Mr. Barnett commented that the proposed development does not conform to the City’s Official Plan and that Council has an opportunity to reject the proposal and consider how development will occur in the City. Mr. Barnett expressed his support for the amendments proposed by Councillor Harvey.
9. Raffi Ehtemam expressed concerns regarding the proposed development with respect to its incompatibility with the existing character of the neighbourhood, its location outside an intensification corridor, the lack of parking, and the increased traffic on Redfern Avenue. He requested that Council consider that the proposed development must be in accordance with the existing character of the neighborhood and reconsider approving the application. Mr. Ehtemam expressed his opinion that the proposed development is not the right fit for neighbourhood.
10. Dave Robinson expressed concerns with the proposed development with respect to privacy for residents located on Redfern Avenue and that he felt that the proposed development will devalue his property. He commented that he purchased his property on the basis of its location in a low-density area and an expectation of privacy in his backyard. Mr. Robinson shared his opinion that there has been no solution offered from the developer to address these concerns.