The Public Meeting this date was to consider an application submitted by OnePiece Ideal (MS) Developments Inc., for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 47-story, residential mixed-use building with a total of 362 units on the Phase 1 (westerly) parcel of 28 Main Street (Ward 3) File No. PLAN 19 142690.
The Committee Clerk advised that 1947 notices were mailed on February 12, 2020, and that a Public Meeting sign was posted on February 5, 2020. The following two written submissions were received regarding this proposal:
- Cathryn Robertson for Edna Robertson, Amica Resident – expressing concern
- Roger and Donna Lambert, Unionville Residents – in objection
Sabrina Bordone, Senior Planner gave a presentation regarding the proposal, the location, surrounding uses and outstanding issues.
The Applicant’s Architect provided a presentation regarding the proposal.
The following deputations were made regarding this development application:
Rick Tranquada, Unionville Ratepayers Association provided the following concerns and feedback regarding the development proposal:
- The use of a nine story above ground parking structure in lieu of underground parking;
- The increase in height of the building to 47 stories;
- The proposed height of the building is not compatible with the Main Street Unionville Area, and it may set precedence for future developments in the area;
- The lack of a current Secondary Plan for the area;
- That the design of the above ground parking structure be attractive and maintained over the long-term, and that this condition be included as part of the Site Plan Agreement;
- That the developer consider adding a green roof, tree planter and amenities for residents on the top of the garage to improve the aesthetics of the structure;
- Asked that the above ground parking be isolated to Phase 1 of development, and that 20% of the units from Phase 1 be transferred to phase 2 development in order to reduce the height;
- Suggested eliminating the park on Main Street Unionville, and Enterprise Blvd to add a third building that would accommodate the additional units from Phase 1 and possibly some of the units from the current Phase 2;
- Suggested that a slurry wall system be used in Phase 2 of the development to permit for underground parking if feasible.
Masood Mohajer provided the following concerns and feedback regarding the development proposal:
- That a 47 story building is being built within 170 meters from the heritage district;
- The transition in property types should be more subtle, as the surrounding area is low density.
- The wind and shadows the building may create.
Shanta Sundarason expressed the following concern and feedback regarding the development proposal:
- The impact the development proposal will have on people living in the area;
- Requested Council take the necessary steps to minimize the impact of the added density to the area resulting from the development.
Paul Marsh expressed the following concerns and feedback regarding the development proposal:
- The area needs to be planned prior to being developed, suggesting that a precinct plan for the area is needed;
- The parking should be underground;
- The height of the building is too high, considering its close proximity to the heritage area;
- The building design includes too much massing.
Annalisa Longo, Planner, Rockport Group provided the following feedback on behalf of Amica and the Safe & Sound Self Storage Inc.:
- Supported the development application if approved as proposed provided the form of the Zoning By-law Amendment reflects the negotiations between OnePiece Ideal (MS) Developments Inc. and Amica Unionville Inc.
Beverly Dutoff expressed the following concerns regarding the development proposal:
- The height of the development proposal;
- The impact the building may have on Bill Crothers High School (wind and shadow impact);
- There are no plans to protect pedestrians.
Sam Orrico provided the following feedback on the development proposal:
- The height of the development proposal is too high.
Members of Council provided the following feedback on the development proposal:
- Requested there be underground or above ground connections (or a combination of the two) to the YMCA, Pan Am Centre, and GO Station;
- Did not support the height of the building;
- Requested that staff look at the possibility of moving some of the density being proposed in Phase 1 of the development, to Phase 2 of the development by eliminating the park on the corner of Main Street Unionville and Enterprise and absorbing the additional density at that location in a third building in order to reduce the height of the Phase 1 structure;
- Suggested the Secondary Plan for the area needs to be updated so that the big picture can be considered when approving development applications in this area;
- Noted that the School Board has not identified any concerns with the development proposal;
- Suggested some of the units should be purpose built rentals;
- Asked that the Shadow Study be provided to the Development Services Committee;
- Suggested selling the parking and condominium units separately to reduce the number of parking spaces required.
In response to inquiries from Members of Council and the public, the Applicant advised that the development proposal is comprised of 362 units, which are a combination of one, two, and three bedroom units. The density of the building will likely be maintained, but minor changes can still be made to the development proposal.
In response to inquiries from Members of Council and the public, Staff advised that Phase 1 of the development proposal is not able to support underground parking without putting the neighbouring properties at risk, as a slurry wall cannot be supported due to the narrow width of the property. Phase 1 does include one underground level that accommodates mechanical and building operations and a resident bicycle parking area. Phase 2 of the development may be able to support underground parking with the installation of a slurry wall.
Staff also advised that a shadow study has indicated that the development proposal will have minimal impact to neighbouring properties, and advised that the LPAT will likely give little consideration to the height of the building if the City appealed the development application, as the density of the proposal remains the same.