Mr. Clendening conducted a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Official Plan, Zoning By-Law Amendment, and Amending Subdivision Agreement for 1519 Shira Drive. A copy of this presentation is available upon request through the City Clerk's Department.
Councillor Chaves asked for clarification regarding the extra items noted in the report such as parks and greenspace and whether these items would apply to both site one and site two or to site two only. He inquired about whether the owner could choose to develop an apartment building rather than a commercial space without the approval of the City. Mr. Clendening explained that only a parcel of the land is being re-designated and rezoned in anticipation of a future plan of subdivision, so only site two would be re-designated as commercial. He confirmed that an apartment building would be permitted with the language of the zoning.
Councillor Osanic inquired about traffic levels on Cataraqui Woods Drive and Bayridge Drive with a commercial entrance placed on site two. Mr. Clendening explained that through the technical review, transportation staff had advised that no entrances should occur from Bayridge Drive.
The Chair provided an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions. There were no comments received from the public.
Councillor Chaves explained that he is not opposed to apartment buildings but that the priority in this location should be for a commercial use. He moved a Motion to Amend the recommendation to delete references in the by-law to single-use apartment buildings. He added that this amendment would help ensure a sustainable, healthy, and attractive neighborhood that meets the needs of its residents.
Councillor Glenn inquired about whether the amendment would permit an apartment building alongside the commercial use for this site. Mr. Clendening confirmed that the wording of the amendment would allow residential development alongside commercial.
Councillor Osanic asked for clarification on the meaning of the amendment. Mr. Bar explained that site one would allow low-rise residential uses and site two would host a mix of commercial and residential uses. He added that the amendment removes the ability to have an apartment building on site two but added that it does not remove the ability to have a mixed-use building that contains commercial and residential uses.
Councillor Oosterhof asked staff if this amendment would allow them to be successful in working with the applicant. Mr. Bar stated that staff do not have a concern with the amendment.
Councillor McLaren inquired about the ability of the developer to build for residential uses only if they are not able to find a commercial business for the space. Mr. Bar explained that should commercial not be viable in this location a development application to have alternative planning approvals considered could be submitted.
The Chair was passed to Councillor Glenn.
Councillor Cinanni asked if the amendment could lead to any unintended consequences. Mr. Bar confirmed that staff do not foresee any unintended consequences arising from the amendment.
The Chair was returned.
Councillor Chaves asked for confirmation that the amendment would only apply to the small commercial area and that the developer could still build residential outside of the commercial area described. Mr. Bar stated that they would not be able to build residentially as-of-right but added that they could submit development applications to have other sites on their lands considered for an apartment building.