A development that is much bigger than anyone expected - but it meets all the rules and for the most part complies with the Official Plan in place now.

News 100 redBy Pepper Parr

July 25th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

Part two of a two part article on a proposed development in the east end of Burlington,

When the plans for the re-development of the Lakeside Village Plaza were shown to the public last week it wasn’t what many people thought they were going to see.

The presentation had large posters showing what would go where.

Two of the three candidates running for the ward 5 city council seat were in the room; Councillor Sharman worked one end of the room while retired school principal Mary Alice St. James worked the other end.

Sharman - hand raised

Councillor Paul Sharman explaining the development.

Councillor Sharman has been working to get some development of the site since his first year as a city Councillor – few thought that this was what Sharman had planned for the community.

St. James has made it clear that she doesn’t like the height and she isn’t pleased with the length of time it will take to complete the project. This could be as much as a decade – great for sidewalk superintendents but not what those who want a “peaceable Kingdom”.

If approved by city council the site will consist of nine buildings and underground parking with some of the structures reaching 19 storeys into the sky.

The proposed development V a

Nine buildings will be on the site – they range froma single story to 19 storeys.

The Plan has five phases that will take years to be completed.

The information before the public at this point comes from a Justification report prepared by professional planners who were hired by the developer, Glanelm Property Management.
The city’s role up to this point is to ensure that all the required reports are received and the required fees are paid. Glenelm has paid the city $235,052.50 and the Region $9,184.72.

Dana Anderson

Dana Anderson – planning consultant for the developer.

At this point data and information is coming from the developers planner. Residents haven’t had a chance to hear what the city has to say. The ward Councillor is in love with this project – it is something he had been pushing almost from the first day he was elected.

Ward 5 candidate Mary Alice St. James said: “The Lakeside Plaza is an example of why I put my name forward as a candidate as Ward 5 Councillor. Throughout Ward 5 there are intensification proposals for Lakeside Plaza, Appleby Village, on vacant land ripe for development and in the south end of Ward 5 where older homes are being swooped up to be over-intensified, over-massed.

Mary Alice - speaking

Mary Alice St. James – pulling in the votes.

1- Lakeside Plaza is a tired plaza that requires a much needed, as soon as possible update.
2- This first draft is too high, too dense with too many buildings with too big a span, all of which is too close to the abutting streets and current residents.
3- The City of Burlington needs to oppose this first draft.

The developers Justification report talks in terms of “taking into account efficient sequencing of site servicing, ensuring adequate access and parking is provided for uses that operate during the redevelopment process and facilitating the relocation of existing tenants to new portions of the site with minimal disruption to business operations.”

Phase 1 includes the demolition of the north-west corner of the existing plaza structure and the construction of a 6 storey residential structure with 3 levels of underground parking (Block B) facing Kenwood Avenue. Access Lane A will also be constructed at this time which will provide shared access to the Subject Lands and Skyway Arena. A second access will be introduced on Kenwood Avenue along with the associated Access Lane B which, through future phases, will connect to corresponding driveway access on Hampton Heath Road.

Layout - pedestrian

Where the buildings are to be located with parking and green space at the ground level

Phase 2 will see the demolition of the remainder to the west wing of the plaza and the construction of a 1 storey commercial podium facing Lakeshore Road with two residential tower elements on top with 13 (Block E) and 13 (Block F) storey heights. A 5 storey residential structure will link the two towers, the top of which will correspond with a further building step back on both tower elements. A 1 storey restaurant building (Block A) will be attached to the podium building facing Kenwood Avenue. Access Lane B will be extended to the middle of the Subject Lands.

Existing Access Lane D which provides access to Lakeshore Road will be improved with sidewalks and landscaping. The parking area north of Block E and F will be reconfigured and improved with landscaping and sidewalks.

Phase 3 will see the demolition of the eastern portion of the commercial plaza. The 1 storey grocery store will be redeveloped with an attached 4 storey retail and office building. A landscaped public amenity area will be created in front of Block I. The surface parking area in front of Block I and the grocery store will be reconfigured, providing landscaping and sidewalks. The service lane at the rear of the property will also be improved at this time.
That grocery store redevelopment – where will people shop while that is being done?

Hampton Heath

The view of the development from Hampton Heath looking west.

Phase 4 will see the removal of the remaining central portion of the commercial plaza and the construction of a 1 storey commercial podium with two residential tower elements (Blocks C and D), both 10 storeys in height. The two tower elements will be linked by a 3 storey residential structure, the top of which will correspond with a further building step back on both tower elements. The parking area in front of the blocks will also be reconfigured, landscaped and improved with sidewalks. A public amenity area will be constructed in front of Block D and a pedestrian only mews created between Blocks D and I. Access Lane A will also be extended up to the mews.

Phase 5 will replace an existing surface parking area with a 1 storey commercial podium facing Lakeshore Road with two residential tower elements on top with 17 (Block G) and 9 (Block H) storey heights. A 5 storey residential structure will link the two towers, the top of which will correspond with a further building step back on both tower elements. A landscaped pedestrian path into the Subject Lands will be provided between Block H and the abutting Scotiabank property.

Lakeshore elevation

This is what the development will look like when completed. All the buildings front onto Lakeshore Road.

The proposed redevelopment will see the phased implementation of a 3 storey underground parking garage for all portions of the Subject Lands where new buildings are proposed. The garage will be constructed as the corresponding above grade portion of each phase is constructed.

The proposed redevelopment has carefully considered these guiding principles in its design. The redevelopment is an efficient use of land through intensification at an appropriate location in the City and advances the Province’s growth objectives while balancing other objectives of the OP. The redevelopment will also be appropriately phased to ensure these principles are continued to be addressed in the implementation of the development.

The proposed redevelopment conforms to the City’s policy direction for land use by providing for a redevelopment on an under-utilized site in an existing neighbourhood. The redevelopment provides for a mix of housing and also maintains the planned function for the existing commercial centre.

Kenwood elevation

The view of the development from Kenwood looking east.

The Official Plan seeks to achieve a number of goals for new development with respect to urban design including compatibility with existing neighbourhoods while promoting higher densities and compact built form. The buildings are proposed to be located on the site in such a way as to provide a gradation in height and density. The highest buildings (at 18 storeys) are located along Lakeshore Road, a Minor Arterial road, opposite apartment buildings ranging in height from 5 to 19 storeys.

The building heights in the proposed development decrease moving away from Lakeshore Road. A 14 storey building is proposed along Kenwood Avenue opposite the existing Husky Gas station and commercial plaza.

A 6 storey building is proposed further north along Kenwood Avenue, opposite which are two storey townhouses. Two 11 storey buildings are proposed abutting the northerly lot line which abuts the park. These buildings will face the existing Skyway Arena and Park. The existing one storey grocery store will remain at its current location with a 4 storey addition along its westerly fa ade to provide for additional retail and office units. The distribution of heights and densities allows the proposed development to fit into the existing urban fabric and provides appropriate transition to minimize impacts on the surrounding residential land uses.

The Subject Lands are just under 4 ha and represent a significantly large redevelopment area which allows for a distribution of heights throughout the site. Given that the one storey height is being maintained for the grocery store and restaurant in Block A, it is appropriate to transfer what could have been 11 storeys in height on that Block to additional storeys on the buildings along Lakeshore Road (where taller buildings are more context-appropriate given the arterial road frontage and existing taller buildings to the south).

Cute!

There are a number of hoops that every development application has to go through. The developers planners spend a lot of time making sure that they comply as much as possible –and where their compliance is a little on the short side – the find a justification for a change in the zoning.

The proposal is consistent with Provincial Policy Statement 2014 (but not with 2017)

The proposal conforms to the Growth Plan, 2017

The proposal conforms to the Halton Regional Official Plan, 2015 and the inforce city of Burlington Official Plan, except those sections proposed to be amended.

The proposal is in conformity with the general direction of the proposed intensification framework set out in the draft city of Burlington Official Plan dates April 2018.

They don’t say they are in conformity – they say they are in conformity with the “general direction”.

Doubtful male

Not convinced yet.

The proposal can be adequately serviced and does not create any adverse impacts to the existing site and surrounding areas.

The proposal is well served by existing community infrastructure including public transit, bike lanes, parks, schools, places of worship and an arena

The proposal enhances the pedestrian environment within the site and along the exterior street frontages and along the exterior street frontages.

The proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood, provides an opportunity for intensification within the Built Up Area, preserves and upholds the overall urban structure as set out in the in-force OP and would implement the proposed urban structure set out in the Officasl Plan Review.

Careful here – the Justification report appears to want it both way – the development upholds what is required by the existing OP and would implement what was in the draft OP that has yet to be approved and will not apply to this development.

In the notes taken when the public met in a visioning session in 2015, the vast majority of the comment talked in terms of three, four and maybe six storey buildings. There was one mention of high density towers (25 storeys),

This development is for the most part legal – they can do what they want to do.

Related new stories:

The early concept.

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

8 comments to A development that is much bigger than anyone expected – but it meets all the rules and for the most part complies with the Official Plan in place now.

  • Stephen White

    At the April 19th Ward 5 Town Hall Meeting Councillor Sharman told those of us in attendance that the Lakeside Village developer would be releasing a design proposal shortly. He indicated that the developer was genuinely interested in working with the neighbouring community to ensure the redevelopment met their needs and expectations.

    Assuming that is true, and given that residents’ concerns and needs are very clearly and thoroughly detailed in the Justification Report on pages 90 – 98 based on the November 2015 consultation meeting, how in hell did the planners come up with a proposal that is so diametrically opposed and contradictory to residents’ perspectives? I attended the Open House on July 18th, and I didn’t hear a single positive comment about this proposal expressed by any attendees. What I did see and hear was shock, anger and mounting frustration at developers and public officials who are playing us all like marionette puppets. And to quote Lucy above, this development proposal is not just hideous, it truly is truly ridiculous on so many levels.

    Clearly, there is a serious disconnect here. It would appear that not only was the November 2015 consultation a sham and nothing more than “tick the box” exercise, but the developer doesn’t give a fig about public input and will do what he wants. As for Councillor Paul Sharman he increasingly appears to be seriously out of touch with the needs and concerns of area residents. If he seriously thinks this proposal will be acceptable to the majority of Ward 5 electors he can pretty much kiss his re-election chances good-bye!

  • Tom Muir

    As has been described in detail by Lucy and others here, this application is NOT IN CONFORMITY with the existing and in force OP.

    I will not repeat their analysis, just the essentials of the complaint.

    1. The existing OP residential density is Medium, but the application asks for High, so this does not comply with permissions stated in the OP.

    2. The heights and density requested are not permitted in the OP, so this is not in compliance either.

    3. There are a number of bylaw permissions where the application wants variances that are also not in compliance with the OP, but these are needed to accommodate the application as it is out of scale and compatibility with the existing OP and bylaws as these permissions are written.

    4. The developer planners always write that their applications are consistent with this policy or complies with that policy, but that is standard practice. They are obviously not going to write the opposite

    5. These justification narratives are nothing more than needed qualitative statements that are used to nicely wrap the application in suitable “planning style” prose in the “justification” style.

    6. The language of the various Policies narratives can be used to justify practically anything in an application. You just need somebody who will write it for you.

    So the bottom line is that the existing OP does not permit what is being applied for, so it has to be amended, and so the conflict.

    The residents opposed are not against redevelopment, but want to see something in compliance with the existing OP. They appear to be willing to move in the direction of some compromise.

    But what is asked for is beyond compromise and their eyes and ears are telling them this is too much.

    It is not in compliance with the permissions of the existing OP and this is the OP the City has said it will enforce, and really, legally has to use.

    So the application is not in compliance with the in force OP document that the entire Policy Framework says is the most important and appropriate framework and plan to work within.

    The developer planner can say all they want about it being in compliance, or they say they are in conformity with the “general direction”, but that over and over repetition does not make it so.

    The planners are creating an elaborate alternative universe in which they hope their application and policies will become beloved and adopted. “Good planning” is what they say it is.

    But the fact is the application is frankly NOT IN CONFORMITY with the existing OP permissions, and so it needs to be amended to provide all the variances and permissions that will provide for much more, and to make the application fit.

    This is all needed before anything can be considered “legal”.

    This is what the conflict residents like Lucy are so capably spelling out clearly. They are being conned in my opinion.

    Developer, take less I say, negotiate with the residents, ease up, and things may go smoothly. Too much resistance and things can fall apart.

    Councilor Sharman might take a dose of this too.

    Here I paraphrase George Orwell, who comes to mind every time I read one of these outer limits developer application planning justification reports, written by hired planners with duty to their client.

    “The planner told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” “And if all others accepted the lie, which the planners imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became the truth.”

    • Lucy

      Thank you, Mr. Muir, for taking the time to outline so clearly, the reasons why it should not be
      surprising that residents are so upset with what is being proposed. I am disappointed with the headline to this article because I feel it is misleading. It certainly should not be considered “a done deal”. At the afternoon open house July 18th, Mr. Sharman told me that because of his position on Council he was not permitted to tell me if he was for or against the proposal, but he already knew I was opposed, so he didn’t want to reveal that he favoured it. Coward!

      Will the present proposal be an asset to our relatively serene east end Lakeshore Road community? I believe the answer is a resounding NO! The 900 residential units proposed on the mere 3.84 hectares may easily add up to 1000 vehicles to our immediate surroundings if Lakeside Village Plaza is their home base. Considering the high number of seniors and children here, does that make sense? Obviously, NOT! Redevelop? Yes, but don’t be so ridiculous about it! Progress does not have to mean putting profit ahead of people.

      • And you believed Sharman when he said he couldn’t tell you how he was going to vote on this – you give gullible a whole new meaning.

        • Lucy

          Good Morning Mr. Snelgrove…At the time, I wasn’t certain if what Mr. Sharman stated was true or false. He said he wasn’t supposed to show his bias about the project. My response to him was simply: “Well, I know what your voting record is on other developments in the city that residents opposed, so it is obvious where you stand on this one. I have voted for you in the past, but you won’t get my vote in October.” I will return to the next open house, on August 8th and if he is there, I will ask him directly why he fed me false information.

      • Tom Muir

        Lucy,

        I think the headline is wrong and is totally misleading as well. It says;

        “A development that is much bigger than anyone expected – but it meets all the rules and for the most part complies with the Official Plan in place now.”

        The rules of the in place OP are being met only to allow the application to be assessed, and in fact the rules require the City to do that as long as the application is complete.

        That’s the only part of the rules it meets that are of any material matter at present.

        The general rules and compliance aspects that are the very most important, and are the only reason for the application to exist, are about the money-making that will be allowed by the build permitted, and these are definitely not met and are not in compliance with any OP.

        As you have described in detail, and I outlined above, the application is not in compliance with the OP Residential Medium Density designation, and not in compliance with the zoning and bylaws that state the permitted heights, density, FAR, massing, compatibility, parking, amenity area, and any and all of the permissions needed to make this development fit what the application is asking for.

        The developer can ask for anything he wants, and if you are looking for reasons why you see a proposal that is so diametrically opposed and contradictory to residents’ perspectives, and demanding of such OP and zoning bylaw amendments needed to get it, look no further than the recent track record and performance of City Planning and Council.

        I can’t even guess what the planners might make of this application in their assessment, and tell the public.

        So if you see developer applications coming in with recent approvals and other applications in mind, they are just going for the high stakes that City has indicated is on the table.

        My only point of consideration that I will give the planners and City is that they can always stick to their guns and enforce the OP density designations, like they publicly stated they would, show everyone publicly their informative consideration of the adopted but not in force OP, give serious and explained consideration of the neighborhood views and compatibility issues expressed several times, and do the right thing.

        I’m only allowing that sympathetic consideration because the adopted OP is supposed to now be behind us, and they have said they will enforce the existing OP. This is not Downtown, and not a Go Station, so no excuses.

        Councilor Sharman needs to wake up and remember who he is supposed to represent. It’s not himself.

      • Tom Muir

        Pepper,

        I thought you might swallow this opening line better.

        Tom

        Tom Muir
        Your comment is awaiting moderation.
        July 26, 2018 at 12:07 pm · Reply

        Lucy,

        I think the headline is somewhat misleading as well. It says;

        “A development that is much bigger than anyone expected – but it meets all the rules and for the most part complies with the Official Plan in place now.”

        The rules of the in place OP are being met only to allow the application to be assessed, and in fact the rules require the City to do that as long as the application is complete.

        That’s the only part of the rules it meets that are of any material matter at present.

        The general rules and compliance aspects that are the very most important, and are the only reason for the application to exist, are about the money-making that will be allowed by the build permitted, and these are definitely not met and are not in compliance with any OP.

        As you have described in detail, and I outlined above, the application is not in compliance with the OP Residential Medium Density designation, and not in compliance with the zoning and bylaws that state the permitted heights, density, FAR, massing, compatibility, parking, amenity area, and any and all of the permissions needed to make this development fit what the application is asking for.

        The developer can ask for anything he wants, and if you are looking for reasons why you see a proposal that is so diametrically opposed and contradictory to residents’ perspectives, and demanding of such OP and zoning bylaw amendments needed to get it, look no further than the recent track record and performance of City Planning and Council.

        I can’t even guess what the planners might make of this application in their assessment, and tell the public.

        So if you see developer applications coming in with recent approvals and other applications in mind, they are just going for the high stakes that City has indicated is on the table.

        My only point of consideration that I will give the planners and City is that they can always stick to their guns and enforce the OP density designations, like they publicly stated they would, show everyone publicly their informative consideration of the adopted but not in force OP, give serious and explained consideration of the neighborhood views and compatibility issues expressed several times, and do the right thing.

        I’m only allowing that sympathetic consideration because the adopted OP is supposed to now be behind us, and they have said they will enforce the existing OP. This is not Downtown, and not a Go Station, so no excuses.

        Councilor Sharman needs to wake up and remember who he is supposed to represent. It’s not himself.