Kevin Bechard, Senior Associate with IPS Planning Consulting, agent for the applicant, co-presenting with Linas Saplys of Saplys Architecture, provided an overview of the proposal;
- 3.5 hectares or 8.6 acres, mixed commercial and residential building proposal, total building height of 20 stories on residential component including a 4.5 storey residential podium mixed with 2.5 stories of parking. Green roof on most of development, 40% of site is publicly accessible open space with trail system, lookout and wetland area.
- commercial component is 800 square metres of tourist, restaurant and office uses
- residential component is 380 units, from 500 to 1,200 square feet attainable housing
- 490 parking spaces, approximately 1.29 spaces per unit, shared parking between residential, commercial and visitor parking
- located in a strategic growth area, encouraging higher mix of residential densities, integration of commercial uses, tourist functions supporting the commercial uses
- proposing to increase residential height to a maximum of 20 stories; point tower designed to manage shadowing impacts and provide for an attractive style of building
- Open Space designations represent about 40% of the site, one for public access, access to the lake and lookout on the west side, and boardwalk on the perimeter of wetland area, the other on the south site is a wetland and to be enhanced
Linas Saplys indicated that this would be an iconic building to be a beacon from the lake and the surrounding area
- commercial component to be on the marina side
- all traffic removed and put inside the building allowing for the creation of more greenspace
- buildings are designed to be used as a public area, with a parking garage and 4 stories of residential units above, matching the previous design footprint, the tower is set back into the site
- tower operates like a pendulum, very thin, limiting shadowing
- fish scale finish on outside to blend into the location and the position on the waterfront
Connor McBride, Senior Development Planner, provided a brief overview of the applications for 232 Cameron Crescent;
- 380 apartment dwelling units, 7-storey podium, 20-storey tower, 402 dedicated resident parking spaces, 31 dedicated visitor parking spaces, 808 square metres of commercial space, 57 dedicated commercial parking spaces, outdoor privately owned public space surrounding the commercial building, indoor above-grade private amenity space
- initial 2008 elevations of massing of two buildings approximately 5 or 6 stories in height; new massing indicates one building with a portion 20 stories in height; increasing maximum height to 28.25 metres for the podium and 72.25 metres for 20-storey tower
- maximum density requested to be increased
- proposed zoning; site-specific Medium Density Urban Residential, site-specific General Commercial and site-specific Open Space
- Maskinonge Urban Centre is not one of the areas contemplated to contain high rise residential development
- insufficient servicing allocation available
- recommend application be refused or brought back for further consideration
Michael Garvey, 195 Cameron Crescent, advised that his main concern is the additional traffic the new building will attract to Cameron Crescent being a narrow street with no sidewalks, in addition to the commercial traffic it will generate, and the issues and safety concerns that will create; a balance of growth and safety is needed.
Kelly Wood, 220 Cameron Crescent, advised that the road is legally a lane and indicated his concerns with regard to potential shadowing of his home, proposed size of the units and potential use as Airbnb an VRBO rentals, boardwalks as opposed to natural shoreline, removal of mature trees, sensitivity of the site, increased traffic and need for a traffic light, excessive height, lack of parking for size and number of units. He indicated support of the development of the site but it needs to be a development that is acceptable for surrounding homeowners, developers and the Town.
Mark Drakup, 57 Chartwell Crescent, advised that he is encouraged that another development is proposed on the subject property, approves the vision, concurs with the previous speaker on some points, strongly encourages continued discussions, local residents should have largest input, subject property is a unique property and should be dealt with as such.
Danielle Ganter-Mathias, 243 Cameron Crescent, advised that her property looks onto the subject property and concurs with previous points, has concerns with potential traffic issues, public access to the site, safety for people on bicycles, walking, children, no sidewalk, losing well established trees, potential creation of water and septic system issues and backflow, overshadowing and Airbnb potential and accompanying noise.
Kevin Bechard;
- previous proposed project was for four buildings including a 7-storey hotel, parking structure, 3-storey commercial building, very little landscaping
- current proposal saves land for open space
- 20 stories, sizes of 380 units reduced due to increase in cost per square footage
- condominium corporation does not permit Airbnb units
- York Region has advised a traffic light will be installed at top of Cameron Crescent and The Queensway once the project moves forward
- will be shadow-casting, prepared to work with staff
- aware of engineering concerns, have gone to extraordinary lengths to make the site as natural as possible. A lot of the waterfront was restructured under the previous proponent.
- reconstruction of Cameron Crescent is part of the application, includes sidewalks, updated sewer and water systems
- LEED aspect of the property is still possible
- piles driven for previous proposal will substantiate the 20 stories, a small amount of additional piles to be driven based on small expansion of garage, less occupancy than with previous proposal, boardwalk will be public with playground, community areas, gym, private beach, docks will be reinstated, green roof to be year-round, cost of public boardwalk requested by Town is offset by the number of units proposed
Mayor Quirk suggested the applicant commit to; 1) not requesting a rebate after the 120-day timeframe, and 2) for a reasonable length of time, not moving to the appeal process based on a non-decision.
Kevin Bechard indicated that he obtained direction from the applicant in terms of the suggestion made to defer the decision and is proposing a 90-day deferral period to be added to the end of the January 17th expiry date, with possibly an extension if discussions go well. There is an interest in having this dialogue and the opportunity being extended for that is appreciated. The applicant would prefer to work with staff to address the issues being raised.
Denis Beaulieu; recommendation is born out of being bound by legislation which mandates fee refunds and appeal timelines, staff prefers to work with the applicants and residents to resolve as many issues as possible. Staff is willing to continue to work with the applicant until approximately the middle of April of next year, expecting resolution of many issues by that time.