Mr. Clendening conducted a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Official Plan & Zoning By-Law Amendment for 2312 Princess Street. A copy of this presentation is available upon request through the City Clerk’s Department.
Councillor Chaves noted continued concerns regarding drainage and flooding. He asked if the applicant would be responsible for ensuring proper drainage and flooding prevention. He further inquired what assurances the residents have that the drainage plan would be followed. He asked if there would be pollinator friendly plants included in the landscaping plan. Mr. Clendening stated that the City's engineering team reviews all applications to ensure compliance with the law but added that the owner would not be responsible for any flooding that occurred prior to the purchase of the lot. He explained that professionals at the City are required to review the drawings provided by the applicant and it would be a matter of law for the applicant to follow the plans provided. He noted that there is extensive vegetation proposed for the buffer area to the north of the property but could not confirm whether it is pollinator friendly.
Councillor Chaves asked how close the project would be to net-zero. He asked if a community garden would be considered. Mr. Bar stated that the applicants had not yet submitted for their building permit but added that the developer does tend to build to the National Building Code which has a greater green target associated. He noted that there is an ability to have a community garden on this property.
Councillor Chaves expressed concern for the conflict in the applicants proposal and staff's recommendation regarding balconies. He asked for confirmation that the balconies would be Juliette balconies on the North facing wall only. Mr. Clendening stated that the applicant does have the right to appeal based on the failure to make a decision within the prescribed timelines.
Councillor Osanic asked if there has been any discussion with the applicant regarding ensuring the survival of newly planted trees. Mr. Clendening noted that the Zonoing By-Law requires that there be a two meter strip of vegetation on the property. Mr. Bar added that this vegetative buffer that is required by the Zoning By-Law will be captured in the site plan control agreement and therefore will ensure a contractual obligation for the owner to maintain the vegetative buffer post-security release.
The Chair provided an opportunity for members of the public to speak.
Mary O'Brian, 163 Ellesmere Avenue, expressed concern for the size, density, and height of the proposal. She stated her desire for the property to remain arterial commercial and low density residential to allow for some housing. She listed privacy, compatibility, and shadowing as additional concerns with the application. She noted the size of the building and depth of the underground parking as indicators that construction would take several years.
Catherine Ceasar, 155 Ellesmere Evenue, expressed concern for the size of the proposed building, the traffic impact study, and the fencing. She stated that construction of a building of this magnitude would destroy the wooden fence of residents backing onto this lot. She noted that the owner should be responsible for constructing a decent fence between the property and the residents of Walnut Grove. She expressed additional concern for the vegetative buffer and the length of time it would take for new trees to mature to create the buffer represented in the application.
In response to public comments, Mr. Clendening stated that blasting in construction is regulated provincially and that the Site Alteration By-Law is in place to aid in managing these types of construction activities. He added that 53% of the North facing balconies were calculated at an aggregate level, including the furthest south. He noted that the subdivision located next to the property has many mature trees that will act as a buffer while the vegetative buffer provided by the applicant will provide additional privacy. He confirmed that the applicant is not proposing to replace the existing fence but that the developer would take the necessary precautions to mitigate negative impacts on the existing fence. He added that the applicant did submit a traffic impact study that was not required to be revised based on the new proposal that sought to minimize the extent of overlook and massing. He further noted that shadowing would generally be maintained to the applicants property during the fall, spring, and summer with the exception of minor shadows across residential lots to the North during the fall and spring equinox.
Councillor Chaves commended staff, the applicant, and residents for working together on this application. He reiterated the concern regarding overlook but recognized the compromises made by the applicant.
Councillor Oosterhof asked if the developer could plant older trees in the buffer to respect the privacy of the residents in the area. Mr. Bar confirmed that typically trees that are four or five feet in height are chosen for planting but added that the applicant has proposed to plant trees that are two meters in height.