Title
DEPUTATIONS CONCERNING MOTION 20-P-046, APPLICATION FOR AN OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT FOR 51-75 BRADFORD STREET AND 20 CHECKLEY STREET
The following Deputations were provided concerning motion 20-P-046, Application for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment for 51-75 Bradford Street and 20 Checkley Street:
1) Paula Bustard on behalf of Smart Centres commented that they had made application in December of 2019 and have been working diligently with City staff and the Conservation Authority on the application. She noted that a lot of changes have taken place since the first submission of the application. Ms. Bustard discussed the proposal of four towers, the amount of open space, pedestrian trails and circulation for the site. She commented that they had working closely with the Conservation Authority in creating the EP zone. Ms. Bustard noted that the height of the buildings has been changed by reducing the height in two towers, and two increased modestly on the direction of City staff in order to stagger the tower placement for better view corridors. She also noted that there has been a reduction in the tower floor plate by ten percent that creates slender towers and better visual views. Ms. Bustard noted Smart Centres is pleased with the application as it is now and requested that Council supports the application.
Members of Council asked questions of clarification to Ms. Bustard and received responses.
2) Rod Burns discussed his concerns associated with the proposed development including the height, density and traffic volumes. He provided an overview of the planning process wherein the community expressed their concerns repeatedly about the height and density of the development and he noted that he felt the comments were being ignored. Mr. Burns provided his opinion to a number of paragraphs within the Staff Report associated to the height and density and the concerns he has with them.
Mr. Burns advised of his concerns associated with the pedestal facing 2 and 6 Toronto Street being two stories and the pedestal of the Smart Centre project covering 50% of the total property coverage of 2 and 6 Toronto Street and creating a forty-foot wall, and noting that he felt that the pedestals will destroy the landscape vistas. He discussed his issue with less green space on the waterfront, the effects of the wind velocity will have on paddle boarders, kayakers, sailors and boaters. In conclusion, Mr. Burns asked members to look at the massive increase in height and density and that he believes that it does not fit within the context of neighborhood.
3) Cathy Colebatch discussed her opposition to the application and her concerns with an excessively tall building and noted that in her opinion this would not enhance but detract from the City’s cohesive waterfront. She noted her opposition with paragraphs 1, 2, 3 a) and 5 c) of the Staff Report and she questioned how high is too high and what is in keeping in character with neighbourhood. Ms. Colebatch commented that this development is by far the biggest in the history of the City and that this proposal has its merits with conference rooms, hotel rooms, rental units, small amount of commercial and the cash-in-lieu of parkland, increased tax revenues and jobs. She suggested that with the waterfront being unique, developers need to develop responsibly with the vision to protect the waterfront.
Ms. Colebatch discussed the numerous public comments of concern provided throughout the planning process suggesting that the time is taken to get this right and people are not happy with the proposal because of the height. She asked that Council listen to the public and reduce the height or defer the item to another meeting for further discussions with Smart Centres.
Members of Council asked questions of clarification to Ms. Colebatch and received responses.
4) Gary Bell discussed the following slides concerning his concerns with the application:
• The proposed Official Plan amendment;
• The conformity of the development with the Official Plan related to tall buildings and height control and shadowing;
• The building design should complement and contribute to the character of the neighbourhood;
• Protection of the view to the lake, City skyline and landmarks;
• Provisions in the Urban Design Manual to ensure compatibility of the development with adjacent area development and visual character; and
• Suggestions for Council to consider for the site.
In conclusion Mr. Bell noted that good planning and decisions should be flexible and fundamentally respect the Official Plan and the character of the neighbourhood.
5) Bonnie Gill discussed her concerns regarding the scope and scale of the proposed development. She commented on the numerous concerns from residents received during the planning process surrounding the height of towers; that tower 1 and the parking podium is too close to 2 Toronto Street; the density is too intense and a need to preserve Barrie’s waterfront and public parkland that is enjoyed by citizens of Barrie. She asked why with the public outcry on the concerns of the height on the towers and that consideration should be given to decreasing the tower in height to be more inline with neighbouring buildings. She discussed her concerns associated with the lack of recreation space and the provision of cash-in-lieu of parkland. Ms. Gill noted that with the site being so close to the waterfront and to the existing lakeshore area is insufficient to sustain current and future residents in the neighbourhood and citizens that attend and enjoy the waterfront. Ms. Gill advised that she is in favour of revitalizing the downtown as long as it is done responsibility and in character for the area. She advised commented that her and husband have lived in Barrie for 50 years and that she enjoys the downtown area. She concluded by noting its Council’s power and the responsibility to get it right.
6) Charlie Talbot advised that he believes that Barrie’s waterfront is the jewel of Barrie and is a testimony to the wisdom and the foresight of the previous City officials, and planners who limited the development to preserve the City. He commented that he is in support of the development for residential, commercial, and retail purposes but that he has some serious reservations about the scale and the design of the project. Mr. Talbot expressed his concerns that the development is too large and will overwhelm the capacity of the waterfront amenities and reduce the availability to all Barrie residents. He commented on his concerns associated with the shadowing from the buildings, the excessive density and that the buildings are too high. He also noted his concerns associated with parking, the access to Lakeshore Boulevard and traffic volume increases.
In conclusion, Mr. Talbot asked that Council maintain the parking ratios to the maximum possibility to avoid impacts to the waterfront parking, require the proponent to reduce the height between the buildings one and two Toronto Street to mirror the neighbouring buildings, the proponent to have a parking plan and for Council to remember that the City is the people and that he believes the people are speaking.
7) Leslie Hart withdrew her request for a Deputation.
8) Paul Armstrong was unavailable at the time of the Deputation.
9) Arnie Ivsins discussed his love for Barrie since moving to the Allandale area in 1986. He advised with these developments he is questioning whether they want to remain in Barrie. He advised that he felt allowing a development of this will change the landscape forever. Mr. Ivsins noted that he felt that the buildings do not fit the character of the neighbourhood and that something needs to be done with the space. He acknowledged that intensification is happening but that over the years a lot of buildings are now gone, including Barrie Central. Mr. Ivsins discussed his concerns associated with traffic around the lakeshore. He indicated that concerns around the lakeshore. In closing he noted that intensify in other areas then the waterfront and he suggested to leave it the way it is.