Title
APPLICATION FOR REZONING - 145 BRADFORD STREET - G.D. COATES HOLDINGS (June 6, 2011) (File: D14-1484)
Darren Vella, Innovative Planning Solutions, explained that the purpose of the public meeting is to review an application for a rezoning submitted by Innovative Planning Solutions on behalf of G. D. Coates Holdings for lands located on the north side of John Street, east of Bradford Street and west of Ellen Street. He noted that the property is legally described as Lots 7-12 east side of Bradford Street and Lots 7-12 west side of Ellen Street, Registered Plan 22, City of Barrie, County of Simcoe, and known municipally as 145 Bradford Street. The property is located within the City Centre Planning Area with a total area of approximately 1.2 ha. The subject lands are designated City Centre within the City’s Official Plan and are zoned General Commercial C4 in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.
Mr. Vella stated that the owner has applied to amend the current zoning of the property from General Commercial C4 to Transition Centre Commercial C2-2 SP with Special Provisions to permit a proposed mixed use residential and commercial development, consisting of 254 apartment dwellings, 9 live/work units and 4588 m2 (49,386 ft2) of commercial space. He outlined the Special Provisions proposed by the applicant in the C2-2 SP Zone as follows:
• increased maximum building height from 45 metres to 65 metres;
• decreased side yard setback (Bradford Street) from 5 metres to 0 metres;
• decreased side yard setback (Ellen Street) from 5 metres to 3 metres (for buildings over 10 metres in height) and from 3 metres to 2 metres (for buildings less than 10 metres in height);
• reduction of the 3 metre landscape strips and elimination of the 2 metre tight board fence on the side property lines (adjacent to the Bradford and Ellen Street flankages);
• location of a required loading space which is not screened from view of a municipal street (Bradford Street);
• reduction of the minimum gross floor area for commercial/non-residential uses from 50% to 14% (includes proposed Live-Work units); and
• new provisions for nine Live-Work units related to parking, setback, height, and permitted uses.
Mr. Vella outlined the existing site conditions and the surrounding uses. He noted that the site is located within the Urban Growth Centre and has three road frontages. Mr. Vella stated that the owner is proposing a new zoning designation to the City of Barrie called a live-work unit which means a unit, part of which may be used as a business establishment with the dwelling unit as the principal residence of the business operator. He outlined the both general and specific provisions for the live-work units and a potential list of permitted uses as part of a live-work unit.
Mr. Vella listed the reports that had been completed to support the application and detailed a number of findings of the shadow study including the impacts on adjacent properties.
Mr. Vella concluded by stating that the proposal aims to create a new mixed use urban style development on vacant lands within Barrie’s Urban Growth Centre. He indicated that he feels the proposed live-work units will meet new Provincial standards for smart growth. He also noted that in his opinion, the development will optimize the use of existing infrastructure to support growth in a compact efficient form.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
1. Gary Caulfield, 48 Ellen Street, stated that his concern was not development itself but that that it was a mismatched approach as the entire block was not being addressed. He noted his concerns regarding the noise and traffic that would be created on Ellen Street. He inquired why Bradford Street was not the main entrance to the high rise building and why the building has to be where it is on the lot. Mr. Caulfield expressed concerns related to the impact on neighbouring properties from the shadows that will be generated due to the height of the condominium building. He concluded by stating that he would prefer to see a comprehensive plan for the whole block.
2. John Lawson , 37 Ellen Street, inquired if all units are condominium style. He also commented that the setbacks should remain the same instead of being decreased. Mr. Lawson stated that he shared the concerns of the previous speaker regarding the height. He applauded the developer for proposing the redevelopment of the vacant lot.
3. Peter Lowry, 75 Ellen Street stated that he would welcome any construction to improve Bradford Street while observing that he is disappointed that the plan does not extend north to Victoria Street. He noted that his main concern was the narrow width of Ellen Street and access and egress to his building as well as the ability of emergency vehicles to access the properties. Mr. Lowry also indicated that parking on Ellen Street during festivals and events on the waterfront is already a concern.
4. George Faulkner, 65 Ellen Street noted his concerns with traffic congestion and the ability of emergency vehicles to access the sites given the width of Ellen Street. He outlined concerns with respect to current parking matters.
5. Brenda McGregor, 64 Ellen Street stated her concern with respect to the live/work units and inquired where the parking for these businesses would be located.
6. Sherry Whiteside, 37 Ellen Street inquired where the visitor parking for the high rise would be located. She also noted her concern with the number of amendments that would be required to the Zoning By-law, stating that bylaws are in place for a reason and that they should not be changed for the development of one block. Ms. Whiteside asked that the matters outlined in her letter be taken in to consideration by City Council.
7. Bernice Louis, 65 Ellen Street suggested that the development be designed with an alternative access street and entrance to the parking garage. She expressed concern with the proposed access to the high rise condominium being located off of Ellen Street.
8. Lauraleigh Brumwell 37 Ellen Street noted that she felt that the setbacks should not be decreased as the streets are too narrow and not viable. She also stated that she believes that parking was inadequate.
9. John Lawson, 37 Ellen Street asked when this matter will be considered by City Council.
Members of General Committee asked a number of questions of the representative of the applicant.
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE:
1. Correspondence from Holly Spacek, Simcoe County District School Board dated April 14, 2011.
2. Correspondence from Gary Caulfield, Caulfield Development Corp. dated April 21, 2011.
3. Correspondence from Teresa Ricciuti dated May 18, 2011.
4. Correspondence from Jim Arnott, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., dated May 2, 2011.
5. Correspondence from Peter Dorton, Ministry of Transportation of Ontario dated May 18, 2011.
6. Correspondence from Robert and Sherry Whiteside dated April 26, 2011.