[Stoney Creek] Liuna Gardens Redevelopment | 81 m | 2x4, 2x15 & 2x24 fl | Proposed

[thomax]

source

Full Size:

source

Google Maps | Liuna Gardens, Stoney Creek, Hamilton, Ontario

[StEC]

Wow those are quite beautiful.

[ScreamingViking]

I like the concept. Especially what (hopefully) appears to be a public pathway and strip of greenspace by the water. The bus is a nice touch lol.

They will probably get much pushback from the homeowners in the area though for the usual reasons, and probably end up being 6-8 floors maximum. Which may be the goal here.

And those townhouses facing the shore will go for a mint!

[ScreamingViking]

PS: Something like these would be really nice at/near the west harbour. Especially on the rail yard lands *IF* they ever open up for development.

[Innsertnamehere]

microsite:

https://urbansolutions.info/liuna-gardens/

This application appears to have gone in. 81m in height, 1067 parking spaces for 1209 units. Very curious about the >1 space per unit proposal, given the lack of existing or even planned transit service within walking distance here.

[matt602]

What do you mean no planned transit service? There's a bus right there in the rendering!

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by matt602

What do you mean no planned transit service? There's a bus right there in the rendering!

Casino tour bus.

[ScreamingViking]

"Rustic character"? I understand the fight against something so different than what's in the area now (and yeah, add some commercial units that could be home to businesses the locals would visit), but I'd not have ever thought this part of town is "rustic" Nor would I say this development is a complement (never mind "compliment" as used in the story) but few things aside from large single family homes would be complementary.

No transit, sidewalks lacking, no bikelanes... maybe there's reason to be adding such things, especially with new developments like this one coming.

I think I'd prefer to see this one cut down in height, maybe half or so, with more townhomes and perhaps stacked multi-unit blocks. But that's a pretty big chunk of land. It would be a waste to see 30 or 40 detached homes built there, though that would probably make most of the adjacent residents happy.


Towering LIUNA Gardens condo plan riles Winona neighbours
Redevelopment fits 1,212 housing units on former banquet hall site

Stoney Creek News via The Spec
Richard Leitner
Mon., April 11, 2022

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%...eighbours.html

Neighbours of Winona’s LIUNA Gardens say they’re alarmed by a proposal to redevelop the former banquet hall property with 1,212 housing units, including in two 24-storey and two 15-storey condo buildings.

“It could be cut in half and it would still be an inappropriate size,” said East Street resident Holly Watts, who lives near the 3.4-hectare lakeshore property. “It really is just beyond even a scale that one would want to start negotiating with.”

Presented at a March 29 online neighbourhood meeting hosted by project consultant Urban Solutions, the proposal seeks to change the property’s zoning to medium-density residential from the current local commercial designation.

But developer Fengate LIUNA Gardens Holdings LP also wants several site-specific exemptions from the new zoning, including on housing density, building height and setbacks, and parking.

The development proposes 1,067 parking spaces, all but 12 underground, compared to a required 2,099, allotting no spaces for visitor parking. It also provides 727 bicycle parking spaces.

The four condo buildings exceed the new zoning’s maximum height of nine storeys and the housing density of 425 units per hectare is above the limit of 99.

The development also includes 30 two-storey townhouses along the property’s lakeside boundary and 64 four-storey townhouses south of the condo buildings, with a single private road providing access via Winona Road and East Street.

A planning justification report by Urban Solutions cites the city’s contentious rezoning of a municipal property at 1400 Baseline Rd. to allow a nine-storey building as an example of higher-density development in the vicinity.

“The Winona area is undergoing a period of transition from traditional low rise single detached dwellings,” it states. “As such, the proposal implements a range of dwelling types and has been carefully designed to compliment the existing character of the neighbourhood.”

Watts said she supports infill development to contain urban sprawl, but suggesting the proposal is compatible with surrounding single-family homes “is crazy talk.”

She said she’s worried the development’s size and fewer parking spaces will create spillover traffic congestion and on-street parking.

“The parking being less than one per unit, that might be appropriate downtown,” Watts said, noting there is no public transit in the area. “We all drive. It’s a driving community.”

Winona resident Dawn Simpson, who started a Facebook chat group after the online meeting, said the development “already looks monolithic,” even through a rendering downplays the 24-storey buildings by showing them as being only about 18 storeys high.

Apart from the development’s visual and shadow impacts, she said, the provision of bicycle spaces to compensate for lack of vehicular parking ignores that the area has no bike lanes.

Simpson said many people live there for its rustic character and she’s concerned about pedestrian safety given a lack of sidewalks, especially on the Winona Road bridge over the QEW, used by teens to get to the Costco plaza.

She said doesn’t oppose development, but if the goal is to create a walkable community, it makes sense to include a corner store and some other commercial amenities so people don’t always have to go elsewhere.

“I’m pro 'let’s get rid of our cars and try and make a walkable lifestyle' but it doesn’t seem like they’re trying to do that,” Simpson said. “They’re trying to plant that in the middle of suburbia, where you have to drive.”

Coun. Maria Pearson said she’s been receiving negative emails since the online session and Urban Solutions has been asked to “go back to the drawing board” to respond to concerns at a followup meeting she hopes will be in-person.

“That’s a huge piece of property,” she said. “It’s certainly going to be an impact because there have never been towers in that area.”

Efforts to get a comment from Urban Solutions were unsuccessful by deadline.

[drpgq]

People like being near to water. I'm not sure limiting living near it to a select number of people in single detached homes makes sense.

[Innsertnamehere]

I'm also not sure this is really the appropriate scale here either given the lack of transit service, especially since they are proposing less than 1 parking space per unit here. It's not really that easy to live car free here without a parking space, and even if transit does get added it'll probably be a bare-bones service which is barely useable given the relatively low densities of the area, even including this project. Sidewalks would also have to be added over the QEW on Winona for me to be comfortable with people living here without a car so that they can safely access the commercial plaza.

[SteelTown]

Winona builder appeals towering LIUNA Gardens plan to land tribunal
'They are trying to shove this down our throats,’ neighbour says

https://www.thespec.com/local-stoney...mended_for_you

A controversial redevelopment plan for Winona’s LIUNA Gardens property is headed to the Ontario Land Tribunal before the city has completed a review of the project and held a legally required public meeting.

Developer Fengate LIUNA Gardens Holdings LP’s June 1 appeal argues it needs the tribunal’s help “to ensure a timely approval” of its plan to build 1,212 housing units on the 3.4-hectare lakeshore property.

The project has riled neighbours who say the proposal for two 24-storey and two 15-storey condominium buildings is out of character with the area’s single-family homes and townhouses.

They’re also concerned the plan only provides 1,067 parking spaces, all but 12 underground, compared to a required 2,099, allotting no spaces for visitors.

But Fengate’s appeal argues the development represents “good planning and urban design,” expressing concerns about initial feedback from the city and the impact of the Oct. 24 municipal election.

“The break in council meetings as a result of the municipal election will delay community consultation opportunities and push back any decision on the application, which decision could still be appealed,” the appeal states.

“This leaves open the potential for significant delay in the approval timeline. Despite the appeal, (Fengate’s) goal would be to engage with the city and any stakeholders … including through mediation, to ensure that meaningful dialogue will continue.”

Coun. Maria Pearson, who represents the area, said she’s frustrated but not surprised by the appeal because the Ontario Land Tribunal is increasingly being used to get contentious projects approved.

She said the appeal not only forces the city to oppose the plan because staff hasn’t even completed its review or held a public meeting, but also doesn’t allow her to try to find a consensus resolution.

“It’s just a sad situation all around, what’s going on,” Pearson said, citing the OLT’s February approval of an 11-storey condominium building by Highway 8 and Ellington Avenue that was five storeys taller than approved by council.

“It’s frustrating for me because I want to continue to work with the neighbourhood and say, OK, let’s work on these things. If it goes past that point and they get approval, I don’t have any safeguards.”

Dawn Simpson, whose Winona Road home is across the road from the LIUNA property, said the appeal takes away neighbours’ due process and shows “great disrespect” for the city and residents.

She said she has many concerns about the plan, including the size of the condo buildings, traffic impacts, pedestrian safety, change to the area’s rural character and lack of public transit given the number of parking spaces will be about half normal requirements.

“It feels, really, like a dirty step, honestly, which I don’t believe is going to put them in any higher esteem in the eyes of the neighbourhood,” Simpson said of the appeal.

“You want a development to have a positive impact on the community, and it really feels like that, by sidestepping the process, they are trying to shove this development down our throats."

Urban Solutions, planning consultant for Fengate, did not respond to a message seeking comment on the appeal and neighbours’ concerns.

The plan proposes to change the property’s local commercial zoning to medium-density residential while also seeking several exemptions on the new zoning.

This includes exceeding the maximum height of nine storeys and a housing density that is more than four times the limit of 99 units per hectare.

The development also includes 30 two-storey townhouses along the property’s lakeside boundary and 64 four-storey townhouses south of the condo buildings. A single private road would provide access via Winona Road and East Street.

[SteelTown]

Winona residents ‘blindsided’ by second LIUNA Gardens appeal
City kept mum despite getting Nov. 28 notice, opponent says

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

Opponents of a towering housing plan for Winona’s LIUNA Gardens property are criticizing the city for not disclosing a second Ontario Land Tribunal appeal filed by the developer to try to speed up approvals.

Viv Saunders of the Lakewood Beach Community Council said she only learned about the second appeal from the proponent’s lawyer two days after a preliminary March 3 tribunal hearing on the first appeal.

Fengate LIUNA Gardens Holdings LP is seeking to build two 24-storey and two 15-storey condominium buildings as part of a plan for 1,212 housing units on the 3.4-hectare lakeshore property, former home to a banquet hall and union training centre.

The community council and three residents have joined the city as parties opposing the plan before the tribunal, contending the development is too intensive for the area and doesn’t provide nearly enough parking spaces.

Fengate’s initial appeal last June argued the proposal needs the tribunal’s help to “ensure a timely approval” of required zoning and official plan amendments. A 10-day hearing is scheduled in September.

The second, Nov. 28 appeal cites the city’s failure to approve a site plan control application within 30 days.

“Please note we will be asking that this appeal be heard together with our client’s (first) appeal,” Fengate lawyer David Bronskill wrote in a notice to the city clerk’s office.

Saunders said she was “taken aback” when Bronskill informed her of the second appeal after she asked about two references to a site plan on a list of issues the city submitted for settlement talks.

She noted the second appeal wasn’t listed in a Jan. 31 staff report to councillors on active tribunal appeals that did include the initial June appeal.

Saunders said the new appeal is “a game-changer” because it may affect proceedings and increase hearing costs for her council and the other parties to the initial appeal.

“I think it speaks to procedural fairness. That seems to be lacking lately,” Saunders said, adding her council is debating whether to continue its involvement.

“Now what’s going to happen is settlement talks are going to occur on the whole ball of wax,” she said. “This shouldn’t be happening, where residents are blindsided by this stuff.”

City spokesperson Michelle Shantz said the January staff report didn’t include the second Fengate appeal because it only updates councillors on tribunal appeals on applications for official plan and zoning bylaw amendments, and plans of subdivision.

“Site plan applications appeals are not part of this regular update,” she said. “If any parties or participants in an Ontario Land Tribunal proceeding allege a lack of procedural fairness, such matters can be raised as issues and the respective parties can respond accordingly if necessary.”

Winona Road resident Dawn Simpson, who is a party to the first appeal, said the second appeal “just further confuses an already convoluted, difficult, time-sucking and expensive process.”

Opponents already faced an uphill battle because the land tribunal almost always sides with developers, she said.

“It takes a lot of time and resources to be able to use what ends up being a very small voice when up against lawyers whose clients have millions or billions of dollars,” Simpson said.

“Trying to understand the process, procedures, the legalese, trying to figure out the information and how to most effectively be engaged in challenging the proposal — it's a system designed for us, as neighbours of the project, to fail.”

Jeff Beattie, the area’s councillor, said staff recently informed him Fengate is trying to consolidate the two appeals, but it doesn’t change his opposition to the proposal.

But he said the second appeal highlights the city’s need to deal with applications more quickly because several tribunal appeals are due to non-decisions within prescribed timelines.

“I’ve expressed my concern with senior leadership that we need to do better, and it’s my belief there are plans already underway to improve the city’s track record,” Beattie said.

[PaperSun]

The Lakewood Beach Community Council needs to take a hint, they aren't stopping any of this development around here.

[king10]

Originally Posted by PaperSun

The Lakewood Beach Community Council needs to take a hint, they aren't stopping any of this development around here.

Is it actually a Council with elections? I always just see one name.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by PaperSun

The Lakewood Beach Community Council needs to take a hint, they aren't stopping any of this development around here.

These community groups are honestly so damn annoying. The Durand Neighbourhood Association and Strathcona Shadow Dwellers are just a collection of NIMBYs with no understanding of law/economics/government.

[PaperSun]

Originally Posted by king10

Is it actually a Council with elections? I always just see one name.

Well up until recently community groups were able to appeal developments to the OLT but Ford made changes that now community groups cannot appeal.

Going to OLT is very expensive so I would imagine its a group with decent sized pockets because they would need to hire their own lawyers and experts to defend their positions why these developments don't work.

[mikevbar1]

Does anyone else feel that the city is missing an opportunity to be pre-planning the Stoney Creek waterfront? As it stands these independent proposals like this one are going to create a mish-mash of density with no designated infrastructure (parks, transit, etc). Humber Bay Shores is my preferred example, both for how we should be planning it in advance and how we should be thinking about transit services before the density arrives (as Humber Bay has failed to do). Sure, it wouldn't be popular with residents, but the demand for waterfront living Isn't going away.

It would be nice if we could create a cohesive vision for the entire eastern lakefront, really, given that we have made it very difficult to have any natural semblance of urbanity here what with the QEW and industrial parks.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

Does anyone else feel that the city is missing an opportunity to be pre-planning the Stoney Creek waterfront? As it stands these independent proposals like this one are going to create a mish-mash of density with no designated infrastructure (parks, transit, etc). Humber Bay Shores is my preferred example, both for how we should be planning it in advance and how we should be thinking about transit services before the density arrives (as Humber Bay has failed to do). Sure, it wouldn't be popular with residents, but the demand for waterfront living Isn't going away.

It would be nice if we could create a cohesive vision for the entire eastern lakefront, really, given that we have made it very difficult to have any natural semblance of urbanity here what with the QEW and industrial parks.

That's a very different context though -- the land Humber Bay Shores is built on was largely industrial (e.g., the former Christie plant) and there was a strip of motels dating back to when Lakeshore Blvd. was Highway 2. The houses of Mimico and New Toronto were pretty far west.

In Stoney Creek we're talking about a largely residential area, much of which has been there a while -- that part of town between the QEW and the lake has been residential SFHs for a long time, and townhouses and duplexes became more prevalent as infill starting in the 1990s or so. There were a few tall-ish apartment buildings, but these new ones are changing the game.

I don't know what plans were in place, and I don't think these proposals will bring Armageddon, but the city will definitely need to amp up transit, active transportation, parks, and probably a bunch of other services and things.


People are generally resistant to change. Especially when it comes to their homes and neighbourhoods. I think the fears are often misplaced and extreme, but opinions are valid. A discussion about what Stoney Creek should look like in 20-30 years is warranted! We can't please everybody, but voices do deserve to be heard.