Stratford city council approved an amended application on Tuesday night from the group developing the former Krug furniture factory that requested several zoning bylaw changes, including approval of the controversial height request for one of the central pieces of the development.
Front and centre in the pre-vote discussion was the proposed 10-storey building that would be built behind the existing factory building and towards the south side of the property. Alex Burnett of the city’s planning department, stated in his presentation that they supported the proposed structure because it reduces urban sprawl and it will be largely shielded from view by its central location and the existing factory building. It would also be the only building on site that exceeds 22 metres – the current maximum height in the city’s bylaws for residential buildings.
Another aspect of the amended application was the exclusion of 266 King Street, a property that was in the original plan submitted for consideration. That decreased the land area of the development from 2.85 hectares to 2.65ha, dropped the number of buildings from 11 to nine, and shrank the number of dwellings from 382 to 361. The density would now register at 1.45 rather than 1.5 under the previous application.
While there were other issues debated prior to the vote – parking allotment, setbacks and lot coverage, noise and environmental concerns from the neighbouring CN rail yard – the height of the one building was a major focal point. Coun. Cody Sebben, who was the lone councillor to vote against the proposed bylaw amendments, questioned why the city went against its own bylaws without more consideration for, among other things, concerns from the neighbouring property owners.
“We have a zoning bylaw and the official plan that was put together thoughtfully by previous councils and through a public process, and I think if proposals are being brought to staff that are way outside the bounds of what existing policy dictates that it shouldn’t be presented or moved forward,” he said. “It’s a development with a lot of positive aspects, and if you build either 10 storeys or six, that’s still a lot of new residential development. But with 10 storeys, that’s a big financial implication for the budget.”
To back up his point, Sebben pointed out that other recent developments that came before council – including ones built on former agricultural lands – did not face the same kind of discussion or scrutiny when they lacked more vertically-inclined development plans.
“In the last term, there have been developments approved and council hasn’t pushed for more density where there were no existing neighbourhoods,” he said. “The 10 storey piece does feel like too much for me, and we heard from many of the neighbours as well. They said that in their opinion, it’s too much development.”
Among the positives from the amended application, according to Caroline Baker, a land use planner for the Baker Planning Group who worked on this application, were the high walkability score it received (71 out of 100), the design taking any future development into account, and 15 per cent of the units have been designated as accessible as per the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Coun. Lesley Biehn was also pleased to see there were going to be 38 affordable units included, something she called a significant number.
Speaking on behalf of his family, Henry Bailey referred to the sheer size of the proposed centrepiece structure. His family occupies the home at 266 King Street and has lived there for almost 40 years, and while he agrees with the need for more housing and said this isn’t a ‘not in my back yard’ argument, the height factor will significantly impact the entire neighbourhood.
“I currently live in Hamilton and I don’t see that many 10-storey buildings there,” he said. “The sheer size is enormous and I hope you would reconsider this before you vote.”
Bailey added another issue during his presentation, saying that a proposed road that would bisect the development and run right past his family’s property would be a potential hazard.
“I think the increased density will cause people driving in this area to use the new road as a thoroughfare, making things less safe for people who live here,” he said.
Rob Ritz offered another point during his delegation, saying that by agreeing to this amendment request the city was opening the door for other developers to make similar requests that would now be supported by precedent and will handcuff future councils in their decision making. That argument was eventually countered by Coun. Brad Beatty, who made an impassioned plea that council accept the application for one simple reason.
“In the two years this council has served, no other topic has been talked about more than housing,” he said. “This is a crisis and we have an opportunity to do something. We can’t say we’re going to find a solution and then not take the opportunity when it presents itself. This is not a monster – it’s an opportunity.”
Coun. Larry McCabe echoed Beatty’s sentiment but painted it slightly differently.
“If we don’t see growth, it’s going to be impossible for us to fix the infrastructure deficit that we have here,” he said. “If we’re not planning to grow to 50,000 people, we do not become a priority for other levels of government and that’s going to become difficult for us to negotiate as we go along. You have to grow and you have to grow in a strong way or you risk losing your best people to other communities.”
McCabe called this a ‘unique opportunity’ for the city because it would not only save a heritage building by repurposing it but also do something to help attract younger people to the community. It will help grow the city’s tax base, potentially helping them avoid year over year double-digit tax increases.
“I don’t have a yield calculation on what tax looks like (when you compare 10 storeys to six), but if we only have six storeys what does that mean as far as paying for your parks, your swimming pools, and the services we provide to residents,” he said. “Maybe we could break that kind of thing down a bit more for people so they understand it and see the implications a little more clearly. If we’re going to survive and thrive as a community, we need to take opportunities like this. I want to see us being an attractive place for multiple generations to come and live.”
In a recorded vote, the motion was passed 8-1 with Sebben the lone dissenting vote. Councillors Taylor Briscoe and Mark Hunter were absent from the meeting.
