At the southeast corner of Mill Street and Bricker Street in Port Elgin, the numbered company 1596666 Ontario Ltd. has proposed to build a 24 rental apartment development with two buildings.
In a report to Council, presented by Mark Paoli, Director, Development Services on August 21st, it said that comments will be considered as part of the site plan approval process. the development was recently the subject of a zoning by-law amendment regarding the scale, setbacks and landscaped open space.
According to the report, the Urban Existing Neighbourhoods Design Guidelines (UENDG) recently initiated by the town are “… not applicable to this project since (they) were not adopted until after the original site plan submission.”
The staff report goes on to say however, that the proposal “addresses the Guideline … and comments from the public meeting regarding the zoning by-law amendment has informed the Site Plan submission”.
The UENDG introduces design matters by outlining that there is wide range of design characteristics throughout Saugeen Shores, and that there is no single character to maintain. “Each area of the Town must be examined to ensure infill development addresses small-town charm.”
Paoli said that there are elements that are “… reflected in the design … there is a commitment to retaining trees and planting new trees to buffer the development from neighbouring lands … the finishing is generally satisfactory although there should be more of a ‘window presence’ facing Bricker Street … the 30 per cent landscaping is satisfactory to staff.”
Councilor Bud Halpin said that he was pleased to see the commitment to 30 per cent green space landscaping however, he was not “…happy with the facade of the building.” He said that the development does not reflect the character of the neighbourhood given the older homes that exist there. “We asked that the development reflect the character of the neighbourhood and I don’t feel that we are quite there yet. A lot of the stuff that we put out there talks about the use of dormers and decorations around windows. I feel that the applicant could do a lot more to match the character of the neighbourhood.”
Paoli countered however saying that the “… buildings in theory could just be cubes but they have added a bit of architectural interest. There are peaked roofs in a few locations and posts at some entrances combined with brick on the lower levels. So, there is some visual interest.”
In the reports it states that “Achieving 30% landscaped open space is a worthy zoning standard. How that 30% is achieved flows through the site plan process. New trees adding to the Town’s tree canopy, retaining existing trees where possible, and use of a variety of materials and species are encouraged”.
According to the report submitted to Council, “This proposal addresses this recommendation. The existing maple trees along Mill are to be retained and the cedars along the eastern boundary are to be retained in the corner. New trees are proposed along Bricker and framing the parking areas. There is a mix of grasses, perennials, shrubs, and trees. Additionally, the vegetation along the east boundary acts as a visual screen with the adjacent property”.
Deputy Mayor Diane Huber however, questioned the landscaping. “There is not a strong comment about the buffering between the small residential unit to the East and this development. It’s not clear from the drawing whether there will be a fence … it almost looks like there are just a couple of shrubs along there. I would see that area as a good area to do whatever we can do to create a solid significant boundary line as there is a very different residential situation right beside that (development) … and that’s significant.”
She also questioned the fact that referred to the municipal parking lot as a “… temporary parking” location. “This was made very clear to the developers that the municipal parking has no overnight parking and specifically during a large chunk of the year. I hope that ‘temporary parking use’ is not a long-term parking solution should there be a situation with parking on this property.” Huber also wanted to know if there were any improvements to be made to the parking entrance that feeds from the laneway off Bricker Street. “This (laneway) is public property so, is there going to be any improvement made to it as it will become a regular use … as opposed to a once in awhile use?”
Paoli said that he was unaware of any changes but staff would review it. Huber added that, if there are improvements, it should be “… on the developer’s plate and not the taxpayers’, to provide access to their parking.”
Councilor Rachel Stack also questioned the ‘look’ and colour of the building. “I am in support of the development but can consideration be given to the colour scheme? There is concern around the brick tones. The nearby church and homes are yellow brick and the grey-brown is not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.”
Under the UENDG all development should strive for: affordability, active transportation, age-friendly design, heritage, climate readiness, and safety.
The site plan proposal, as shown through the zoning process, does address affordability, active transportation, and climate readiness. In the report submitted on August 21st, it also states that the development “… includes two accessible units, complementary built heritage features of the neighbourhood (as shown in this report and on the drawings), and additional ways of addressing climate readiness and safety.”
Site Plan – for larger view, Click on Image
Deputy Mayor Diane Huber referred to the two accessible units as contravening the original plan that stated there would be four accessible units. “I also wanted to make note very specifically that, in the April 17th report where we first saw this, it made reference to the fact that, “… staff confirmed that these units are rental purpose-built apartments … and that the four ground-level apartments will be fully accessible but, it only showed two accessible parking spaces at that time. The next time it came back, it showed four accessible parking space that are still on these current drawings. However, this report now shows only two accessible units. So, I am finding this a conflict with the process so far. Staff confirmed that all of the ground units were to be accessible … and it was defined at the last meeting that we were getting four fully accessible units. Is that not the case anymore?”
While the Director said he did not have details regarding Huber’s question, he would look into the situation and ensure that the plans complied with the approvals given to date.
While there is a mix of housing types in this area of Town, they also have relatively common architectural features such as brick/stone finishes at ground level, articulated facades, porches, craftsman style features, peaks/gables, and framed windows. According to the staff report, the proposal as seen on the rendering addresses these architectural and heritage features.
Regarding windows, the Guidelines encourage better use of wall space for windows on walls facing streets. It was, therefore, recommended that additional windows be located on the façade facing Bricker Street.
