[Stoney Creek] 310 Frances Ave | ? | 44fl, 37fl, 34fl | Approved

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by King&James

The same people will complain about whatever downscaled version is created this round. Horizon should have stuck to their guns and pushed ahead regardless. Also if the variance was 1800 units vs 1000 for adding a lane to an overpass, that is a lot of incremental re-occurring revenue to pay for it. Honestly if the City didn't want that much density, it should not have created a (or left in place), zoning that allowed unlimited height etc. Horizon could play it smart by hitting the city up for a density transfer to a key site in perhaps a more desirable area (say an LRT stop).

People look at the number of units and assume it means THAT MANY additional cars on "their" roads, all the live-long day. It doesn't. It means there will be additional vehicles at certain times of day, but road capacities are much greater than people assume.

North Service Rd. may get busy at times, but does it get congested? I guess when you expect few other vehicles to be on it (and any time I've driven that road, there are few other vehicles) any increase will be frightening.

I totally agree with your last point -- a trade-off for allowing more on another site, by building less on this one, makes a whole lotta sense.

[Innsertnamehere]

My daily commute in the mornings is on north service road and it’s never congested at all.

1,800 units with a high automotive modal share like this location would generate a ton of traffic though.

Traffic impacts are indeed always smaller than locals think, especially for smaller projects, but when you are talking about thousands of units the impact is often great enough to have real impacts. This development will likely see a vehicle exit it’s garage once every 5 seconds or so at peak hours if it had 1,800 units like originally proposed. That’s a lot of cars, enough to start to cause real issues, especially if it’s stacked on top of other growth in the area. This isn’t the last development parcel on this stretch of the waterfront.

[Innsertnamehere]

This is going to the committee of adjustment for various variances.

[ScreamingViking]

Hopefully there will be updates on the proposed buildings... perhaps even some renders.

[Innsertnamehere]

If it’s any consolation the plans submitted with the variance are still consistent with the last plans shown here more or less, including the proposed heights.

[lachlanholmes]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

If it’s any consolation the plans submitted with the variance are still consistent with the last plans shown here more or less, including the proposed heights.

Interesting, whereabouts did you find that? I scoured over the documents and couldn’t find anything relating to tower height - but I’m probably looking in the wrong place.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by lachlanholmes

Interesting, whereabouts did you find that? I scoured over the documents and couldn’t find anything relating to tower height - but I’m probably looking in the wrong place.

Welcome to Hamilton! We have the information you want... but we know you want it, so we're going to make the mystery last for your enjoyment!

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by lachlanholmes

Interesting, whereabouts did you find that? I scoured over the documents and couldn’t find anything relating to tower height - but I’m probably looking in the wrong place.

huh. I could have sworn I saw the heights when I first looked at it, now they appear to be gone. I remember being surprised to see the same heights. Perhaps they re-uploaded without them for some reason?

[Innsertnamehere]

For comparison's sake, the previously seen site plan:



the new site plan:



The plan remains primarily the same, with tower heights scrubbed. The parking podium has been reduced to 5 floors from 6 though, and the podium between the two southern towers has been removed.

[Innsertnamehere]

Also, we do know the newly proposed parking ratio (1.25/unit), compared to the previous plans which had 1.3/unit. If we assume the only parking removed from the project was the 163 space upper level, we have 2,224 parking spaces for residents. Apply the new parking ratio, and the parking provided could support 1,779 units.

This is a reduction of units by 57 units, or about 6 floors of development.

So unless they also lopped off an underground level as well, which would result in a much larger loss of units, we may only be seeing small adjustments to heights here.

[ScreamingViking]

Still pretty tall, but not as much as before...


Builder scales down Stoney Creek lakeshore skyscrapers

By Richard Leitner
Stoney Creek News (via the Spec)
Tue., Nov. 23, 2021

https://www.thespec.com/local-stoney...yscrapers.html

A second redesign of three proposed skyscrapers near the lakeshore in Stoney Creek will cut their height, although the builder still wants relief from seven city zoning standards.

New Horizon Development Group unveiled the latest proposed site plan for the condominium towers at 310 Frances Ave. at an online open house that drew more than 200 registrants.

The revised plan calls for buildings of 38, 44 and 33 storeys, down from an original 48, 54 and 59 in December 2018.

The development still features a 5-storey parking garage that will also include some housing, but reduces the total number of condo units to 1,346 from an original 1,830.

Nearly 90 per cent would be one-bedroom units, with the rest being two bedrooms.

...

Planning consultant Sarah Knoll said the new plan boosts the commercial floor space to 1,220 square metres, up from an original 400 and enough for six retail stores and a restaurant. They will have 47 dedicated parking spaces.

But she said the plan requires seven minor variances from city zoning regulations, including on a proposed 1.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit, which will provide 336 fewer spots than required by the standard of 1.5 spaces.

...

The plan’s other proposed variances, set to go to the city’s committee of adjustment on Dec. 9, include:
• reducing the minimum landscaped open space to 36 per cent of the lot area from the required 50 per cent, which Knoll said reflects the intent of the property’s 2010 site-specific zoning that placed no limit on building heights;
• reducing a required 9-metre landscape strip by a storm channel on the southern lot line to 6 metres;
• relief from a regulation that doesn’t allow pedestrian walkways and driveways to cross a required landscape strip.
• reducing the amenity space per dwelling to 8.8 square metres, below the required 18 square metres for one-bedroom units and 53 for two-bedroom ones, a standard Knoll said hasn’t been implemented anywhere else in Stoney Creek;
• substituting fitness rooms and other internal amenity uses for what would normally be commercial space on the ground floor, which requires relief from a regulation only allowing residential units to be built above commercial space.

...


full story

[Innsertnamehere]

good to see this moving forward. And frankly the new heights are a bit more appropriate for the area while still being very aggressive.

Also, 90% one bedroom units. LOL. This building is going to be full of retirees and 20-something commuters.

[ScreamingViking]

People up in arms about building heights and traffic impacts... but I don't recall anyone asking the developer about the mix of unit sizes.

That's going to have to become a discussion point if the city is going to grow sustainably within its present urban boundaries. Developments will need to include more options for larger households.

[Innsertnamehere]

https://www.thespec.com/local-stoney...=&utm_content=

The developer hoping to build three skyscrapers near Stoney Creek’s lakeshore is being denied relief from municipal zoning standards it argues are unreasonable.

Members of the city’s committee of adjustment on Dec. 9 rejected New Horizon Development Group’s application for seven minor variances for the proposed condo towers at 310 Frances Ave.

City planners recommended denial of the variances, including relief from requirements for parking, outdoor space and indoor amenity space, and had the backing of the area’s councillor, Maria Pearson.

“The proposal is a wonderful proposal, but the impact it will have because of intensification will create major problems in that neighbourhood,” Pearson said, calling for changes to the parking and outdoor space components.

But New Horizon managing director Jeff Garland spurned suggestions he pause the application to try to resolve the issues in dispute and urged the committee to consider the variances “under the lens of logic and reason.”

He said the zoning standard of 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit doesn’t match market demand and called a required 18 square metres of indoor amenity space for one-bedroom units and 53 square metres for two-bedroom units “extraordinarily high.”

New Horizon’s application proposed 1.25 parking spaces per unit and 8.8 square metres of indoor amenity space per unit regardless of size, and sought to reduce the two-hectare property’s landscaped space to 36 per cent from a required 50 per cent.

[ScreamingViking]

The likelihood that this thing dies on <100 of 1,000 cuts is growing, I think.

Given the zoning height "loophole" left by the city, I wonder if they're reluctant to offer any variances now in return for their own gaffe. And will the builder start to think "This ain't worth our trouble"

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

The likelihood that this thing dies on <100 of 1,000 cuts is growing, I think.

Given the zoning height "loophole" left by the city, I wonder if they're reluctant to offer any variances now in return for their own gaffe. And will the builder start to think "This ain't worth our trouble"

This’ll go to the OLT on appeal and likely be approved there.

[King&James]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

This’ll go to the OLT on appeal and likely be approved there.

Fully agree, the City is being frivolous and vexatious . The developer should throw some height back on and more units to offset the extra time to market the OLT will take.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by King&James

The developer should throw some height back on and more units to offset the extra time to market the OLT will take.

They should. Even add a fourth tower, with the second from the left (when viewed from city hall's angle) being the tallest.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by King&James

Fully agree, the City is being frivolous and vexatious . The developer should throw some height back on and more units to offset the extra time to market the OLT will take.

OLT hearings for minor variance appeals are luckily typically much quicker than zoning by-law amendment appeals.

[drpgq]

Stoney Creek skyscraper plan headed to tribunal hearing

https://www.thespec.com/local-stoney...l-hearing.html

The developer hoping to build three skyscrapers near Stoney Creek’s lakeshore is appealing a decision by the city’s committee of adjustment to deny the project relief from municipal zoning standards to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

“I knew they would,” Maria Pearson, the area’s councillor, said of New Horizon Development Group’s challenge of the Dec. 9 rejection of its application for seven minor zoning variances for a two-hectare vacant property at 310 Frances Ave.

New Horizon unveiled a revised plan in November to cut the height of the three proposed towers to 38, 44 and 33 storeys, down from an original 48, 54 and 59 presented three years ago, reducing the overall number of residential units to 1,346 from 1,830.

But Pearson said council never envisioned what is being proposed even though it approved a mixed-use commercial zoning for the property in 2010 that didn’t limit building height or the number of residential units.

She said although she’s pleased the revised plan reduces floors and units “quite considerably,” she remains especially concerned about the proposed relief from zoning requirements for parking and amenity space.

New Horizon is proposing 1.25 parking spaces per unit, rather than the required 1.5, and 8.8 square metres of amenity space per unit regardless of size, rather than the required 18 square metres for one-bedroom and 53 for two-bedroom units.


Kind of a bummer that we're losing 500 units in a time of really high rents and condo prices.