Looks good, but I'd expect tremendous push-back from locals. Port Credit, down by the water anyway, feels like the Beaches - a bit of a cottage/village vibe historically.
 
5.2 PUBLIC MEETING INFORMATION REPORT (WARD 1) Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications to permit 40 and 42 storey condominium apartment buildings containing 1,139 units and ground and second floor commercial space. Address: 88 Park Street East, formerly 0 Park Street East (Port Credit GO Station Parking Lot) Applicant: Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited

Files: OZ/OPA 22-10 W1 & T-M 22-02 W1 David Sajecki, Sajecki Planning provided an overview of the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications.

The following persons spoke:
1. Ben Szmuklerz, Resident expressed concerns regarding density, parking, and the impact on the environment and green space.
2. Michael Raftus, Resident expressed concerns regarding parking, privacy, traffic, noise pollution, and decreased enjoyment in the community.
3. Mary Simpson, Resident, TOPCA expressed concerns regarding height, parking, and the need for ground floor level amenities. M. Simpson spoke to the community engagement and advised that TOPCA does not support the additional height.
4. Chris Mackie, Resident, MIRANET expressed concerns regarding height, the FSI, the impact to local public services, and the impact to water and sewer requirements in the area.
5. Jonathan Giggs, Resident enquired about the parking requirements. D. Sajecki responded to questions.

DRAFT Planning and Development Committee - 2022/07/05 5 Committee Members engaged in discussion, enquired about the parking ratio, and expressed concerns regarding traffic, height and lack of family units. D. Sajecki responded to questions. Councillor S. Dasko read aloud a letter from a resident expressing concern with the loss of parking. Councillor S. Dasko requested that this Item be deferred. Councillor C. Parrish requested that the Item be received for information. Sacha Smith, Manager, Legislative Services and Deputy Clerk responded and spoke to the deferral process. Committee Members took a 5 minutes recess.

RECOMMENDATION PDC-0065-2022 Moved By Councillor S. Dasko 1. That the report dated June 10, 2022, from the Commissioner of Planning and Building regarding the applications by Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited to permit a 40 and 42 story condominium apartment buildings containing 1,139 units and ground and second floor commercial space, under Files OZ/OPA 22-10 W1 and T-M 22-02 W1, 88 Park Street East, formerly 0 Park Street East, be deferred. 2. That five (5) oral submissions be received.

YES (11): Mayor Crombie, Councillor S. Dasko, Councillor C. Fonseca, Councillor J. Kovac, Councillor R. Starr, Councillor D. Damerla, Councillor M. Mahoney, Councillor S. McFadden, Councillor G. Carlson , Councillor C. Parrish, and Councillor P. Mullin NO (1): Councillor P. Saito Carried (11 to 1)
 
I love hearing over and over that Mississauga made a mistake placing its city centre on the 403 and how port credit was the obvious choice. And then I love reading proposal after proposals around port credit which are a third of the height of MCC be rejected.
 
'MCC' has consistently moved north. Started at Port Credit, then moved up to Cooksville where there was even a City Hall which burned down in the 70s. Then, when Bruce McLaughlin rooked [ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead] Hazel with free land, they moved it up to his shopping mall, Square One. Mississauga, under that woman's leadership, and the developers she served, was a suburban, profiteering, con-job, from the beginning.
 
Good Ol' Brucie with his original MCC plan way back in the glory days of 1969, courtesy of the TPL - notice the full interchange at Burnhamthorpe and Hurontario
208139.jpg


Like it or not this kind of development was considered cutting edge in town planning back then. Hazel, like most people, is a product of her time. She wasn't elected until 1978, but she was already 57 at that time - to her this was the pinnacle of urban planning.

The problem is that Hazel held onto power, and therefor that era of thinking, for far too long. She was 10 years from retirement when she started as mayor, yet didn't retire for 36 years.
 
I find it sad that the city refuses to budge on its OPA regarding building heights, and instead there must be a "height heirarchy" within city limits.

Suggesting the maximum limit for building heights in this site as 29 floors is simply ignorant of the advantages of the location of this site, and ignorant of the massive housing challenges facing Peel. Port Credit is a great neighbourhood in the city that should be more welcoming of dense development, although of course it should follow general guidelines so as not to be undermining privacy, massing, or other planning rules.

I'm curioius now what they'd suggest for some of the maximum heights at GO stations further out of the urban boundary, like Erindale, Clarkson, or Meadowvale. Every one if those sites have excellent redevelopment opportunities, that should be explored to ease the housing crisis.
 
Love to hear what the city will say for the tower replacing that parking deck across from the GO station that will be taller than the current 27 story on the south side by the same owner for the tall tower.

Was planning to attend the meeting, but forgot about it for all 3 development.

Only have to look at the tower that got reduced on Ann Street to the south as it was too tall at 20 story, yet the Westport is getting built as 22s.

The City keeps on putting density into a small pockets of the city when it should be more,

Time to tax each area of the city what the real cost to built or rebuilt the infrastructure for it and everything else to support the area needs. Doing so will see the area tax bill jump 5-10 times more than then been currently pay, since the high rise folks will not subsiding them anymore.

One has to look at Brightwaters' development to see how low density will be on that site as well One Port St redevelopments.

Mr Ford needs to step in and slap the city down on this development.
 
GenerationLee said:
I find it sad that the city refuses to budge on it's OPA regarding building heights, and instead there must be a "height heirarchy" within city limits.

Suggesting the maximum limit for building heights in this site as 29 floors is simply ignorant of the advantages of the location of this site, and ignorant of the massive housing challenges facing Peel. Port Credit is a great neighbourhood in the city that should be more welcoming of dense development, although of course it should follow general guidelines so as not to be undermining privacy, massing, or other planning rules.

I'm curioius now what they'd suggest for some of the maximum heights at GO stations further out of the urban boundary, like Erindale, Clarkson, or Meadowvale. Every one if those sites have excellent redevelopment opportunities, that should be explored to ease the housing crisis.
Click to expand...
It isn’t ignorance about the opportunity to build beside transit or about the housing needs. It’s 100% NIMBYs and wealthy people making sure this doesn’t happen in order for their neighbourhood to continue to be more and more valuable. That is their one and only priority.
 
sixrings said:
It isn’t ignorance about the opportunity to build beside transit or about the housing needs. It’s 100% NIMBYs and wealthy people making sure this doesn’t happen in order for their neighbourhood to continue to be more and more valuable. That is their one and only priority.
Click to expand...
Oh I know. But it still reads as ignorant by the action alone. Their power in reducing developments in size is detrimental to the whole city. Sure, I can understand some concerns if they were more related to say, the massing being too large, or a bad parking garage access, but the height isn't the problem here.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top