[Northern Light]

Quite frustrated by the proposal's retail component. Reducing 7 or so small units into one huge unit is a great way to destroy the granularity of the area and deaden the block -- regardless of how beautiful the ground-floor treatment is (which I find super tasteful). This seems to be a very common theme with "avenue"-facing midrises -- replacing a diverse range of retail uses by a handful of big-box units -- it strikes me as contrary to the goals of a 15-minute city.

While I agree w/your sentiment, in this case, this is about retaining an existing supermarket function on site. The existing store is very small and really does benefit from some enlargement.

Now I would still prefer to see at least one other Queen-facing unit, so we don't see a wall of window film. A restaurant fuction, with a side-flanking patio would be ideal, with the supermarket bending in behind it.

 

[NY99]

While I agree w/your sentiment, in this case, this is about retaining an existing supermarket function on site. The existing store is very small and really does benefit from some enlargement.

Now I would still prefer to see at least one other Queen-facing unit, so we don't see a wall of window film. A restaurant fuction, with a side-flanking patio would be ideal, with the supermarket bending in behind it.

I mean, I'm all for enlargement, but this proposal swallows 8 other extant units. That's nearly a full city block of potentially nothing but window film. Once the granularity of this block is gone, it ain't coming back.

Even your modest adjustments strike me as unlikely to arise. The city seems to measure only square footage of retail. I haven't ever seen them advocate for more additional retail units or push back against the proliferation of window film (I could be mistaken -- if you've got counterexamples, I'd love to hear about them!).

 

[T-Bor]

To clarify here, the developer cannot legally preclude someone from getting permit parking.

What they are doing is providing notice to prospective owners that the City will not provide them permit parking.

The City routinely excludes new developments from being eligible for permit parking, its very common.

****

The answer to this, of course is actually raising the price permit parking to fair market value.

Most permits (first car/permit and you don't have any spot to park on your property) is $22.19 per month.

That is less than 1/3 of what the typical tenant will pay for parking outside the core.

If you need to rent an off-site parking spot downtown, you need to be prepared to shell out anywhere from $100-$250 per month.

That the City gives these away is insane.

.Parking for .74c per day........pfft no wonder demand exceeds supply.

Charge $2.50 per day or $75 per month for that entry level permit, and $125 a month for those who have a spot on their property or are getting a second permit, and watch demand drop by 25% and lots of spaces become available for those who want them.

Yeah that was how Bradford framed it - it was the city putting on that stipulation, not the developer.

On your other points, I rely on street parking in the area, and even I think that $22/month is way too cheap.

Quite frustrated by the proposal's retail component. Reducing 7 or so small units into one huge unit is a great way to destroy the granularity of the area and deaden the block -- regardless of how beautiful the ground-floor treatment is (which I find super tasteful). This seems to be a very common theme with "avenue"-facing midrises -- replacing a diverse range of retail uses by a handful of big-box units -- it strikes me as contrary to the goals of a 15-minute city.

I don't mind the large retail to be honest. Sobey's was actually at the meeting and are a partner in the site. It's basically tripling the size of the existing grocery store. There's another grocery store about a 10 minute walk to the east, but for most of the Beaches, there's nothing walking distance.

But one comment from the City was that there should be something to break up the massive uniform street wall in some way

 

[Northern Light]

I mean, I'm all for enlargement, but this proposal swallows 8 other extant units. That's nearly a full city block of potentially nothing but window film. Once the granularity of this block is gone, it ain't coming back.

I do agree there's room for greater granularity here, though we may differ some on the exact extent. I am concerned about window film as well, that can be addressed to some degree via store layout, but that largely relies on the good will and sense of the store design team......... which doesn't always work out.

Even your modest adjustments strike me as unlikely to arise.

That would be unfortunate.

I haven't ever seen them advocate for more additional retail units or push back against the proliferation of window film (I could be mistaken -- if you've got counterexamples, I'd love to hear about them!).

Some planners/Councillors try, but there's very little room for Planning to micro manage retail design at this point. A good planner/Councillor team can sell a developer on a better vision.............