In this submission, I have declared loud and clear that the PDVC application would substantially alter, and thus cripple, the intent of the Official Plans to suit not the greater community, but PDVC.

The Higgins Report claims that PDVC’s “proposal for the redevelopment of the Commercial Core needs to be viewed within the larger context of the historic evolution of the Core.”

The arguments put forth in this paper must be viewed from an even larger context of progressive urban planning^¶ as it needs to be applied throughout St. Catharines. As a whole, the PDVC redevelopment is a wonderful model of urban intensification, but only within a much larger existing ‘commercial core’, or newly created one – not the Port commercial area!

If approved, the amendments and ensuing built form would compromise the integrity of the traditional neighbourhood^{¶ §} component of smart growth^{¶ Δ §}, as well as the Official Plans. Port Dalhousie is an historically established traditional neighbourhood^{¶ §} - one with an attached Canadian Historical District Designation, and with tremendous potential for incremental renewal.

An amendment such as being proposed would also force a reconfiguration of the infilling framework currently being constructed with the Official Plans to direct, appropriate densification throughout the city.

In his report, Higgins claims, “… the design of the tower is really about the design of a monument and a visual landmark for Port Dalhousie in its entirety.” I suggest that: still quite reflective of its 19^th century roots, the heritage value of Port in its entirety is already a monument. That Port has survived modern times without extending up beyond the limits of surrounding treetops, establishes a pleasing, inspiring, visual landmark of a quaint, timeless community and dynamic lifestyle. This may once again prove to be Port’s greatest strength – and without this development. Evidence of that has been clearly displayed by the collective emotional appeals from residents far and wide, to have this application denied.

Emotions aside, I hope to strengthen their appeal with more rational reasoning. The decision upon which this application rests, should not be made out of fear of turning away willing developers. It should be made with the conscious intent of setting the parameters by which appropriate developments will fulfill the contextual objectives and principles of smart growth.

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

Focal Points

If I had to vote on PDVC’s application to amend the Official Plans, here is why I would vote to deny it:

• PDVC redevelopment not consistent with the intent of the Official Plans as declared
  
  
• “Making Development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective”
  
  
• Awesome smart growth^{¶ Δ §} development not entirely appropriate for Port Dalhousie
  
  
• PDVC’s proposed amendments put staff and council into a very precarious position
  
  
• Higgins report cuts deep into Port’s distinctive heritage fabric
  
  
• The Official Plans’ wording is critical to the intent
  
  
• The Existing Official Plan and Port Dalhousie Neighbourhood Plan are more relevant today than ever
  
  

The following collective materials are offered as objective reasons why PDVC’s application for amending the Official and Port Dalhousie Neighbourhood Plans must be denied.

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

PDVC Redevelopment Not Consistent with the Intent of the Official Plans as Declared

PDVC proudly proclaims they believe their project to be “consistent with the directions provided by The City of St. Catharines Official Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan for Port Dalhousie as well as the principles of the Niagara Region’s Smart Growth Strategy.”

Despite the project’s inspiring mixed use design, I submit that PDVC’s proclamation is erroneously misplaced. PDVC’s application to amend the Official Plans is not consistent with the Official Plans. Nor is it entirely consistent with the Niagara Region’s Smart Growth Strategy. In fact, it presents unseen barriers to future, legitimate, appropriate smart growth^{¶ Δ §} and infill^{¶ Δ} developments not just in Port Dalhousie, but throughout the entire city.

The 10 Smart Growth Principles evolved from the legitimate recognition that past land-use management, design and policies were not economically sustainable in the long-term. Smart growth is about progressive urban design^{¶ §} having to strike a greater balance between social, economic and environmental priorities. It is not simply a matter of densification for densification’s sake.

Smart growth^{¶ Δ §} acknowledges the need to strengthen the social fabrics that give residents their sense of place and communities their unique identities. This project threatens to unravel all that.

One of the four ‘implementation principles’ set out in the Ahwahnee Principles^[2], upon which New Urbanism and the 10 Smart Growth Principles^{¶ § Δ} are based, states that, “[r]ather than allowing developer-initiated, piecemeal development, local governments should take charge of the planning process. General plans should designate where new growth, infill or redevelopment will be allowed to occur.”

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

Making Development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective”

The subsection entitled Smart Growth ^[3] of PDVC’s material lists the 10 Smart Growth Principles^{¶ § Δ}, yet PDVC identifies how their proposal attempts to fulfil only nine. The ninth principle, thoughtlessly tagged at the end of the tenth improperly fulfilled principle states simply, “Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective”. Of all the ten principles, this one specifically applies to planning, council and community. Not developers!

I expect this submission to help show that if staff recommends, and/or council approves PDVC’s application, all the predictability and fairness the City has been striving to create within the Official Plans, will suffer severe setbacks.

The (Ahwahnee) implementation principle which forms the basis of the tenth Smart Growth Principle^{¶ § Δ} states, “Plans should be developed through an open process and participants in the process should be provided visual models of all planning proposals.” Out of this Ahwahnee principle came smart growth’s last principle: “Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in developing decisions.”

If this PDVC had applied this principle from the outset, city council, staff and the public might not have been put in reactive states. And PDVC might never had submitted an application I am certain will not be approved. Not by the City and not by the OMB.

Hopefully, the future Official Plans will provide for some vehicle whereby the ninth and tenth principles can be implemented prior to formal applications to Planning.

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

Awesome Smart Growth Development Not Entirely Appropriate for Port Dalhousie

How terribly ironic! The Official Plans in their current form through this local government strives to fulfil the above principles. A part of Port Dalhousie’s modern appeal is that it contains just about all of the traits and amenities of traditional neighbourhoods that espouse progressive urban design^{¶ §} objectives. Port’s heritage designation also plays a critical role in defining its identity and aspirations.

How inappropriate! PDVC’s ‘developer-initiated’ application to amend the existing Official Plans for the express purpose of approving a 100 meter tower, proposes to alter, and remove the very wording that would ensure Port remains a truly special, traditional neighbourhood.^{¶ §} It challenges those ‘general plans’, shaped by city officials and residents, to designate where throughout the city new growth, infill or redevelopment will – and will not – be allowed to occur. It would remove the predictability for developments that the City has been striving to create.

 

Taking a Position

Once I knew where I stood on the PDVC proposal, I reviewed the Official Plans to establish just how this redevelopment contravenes the guidelines established within. Having involved myself in municipal affairs and smart growth^{¶ Δ §} strategies for the City and Region over the past few years, I discovered that the wordings, and intents behind the Official Plans, were more relevant today than ever. Inadvertent as it may have happened from a smart growth^{¶ Δ §} perspective, that wording and intent underpinned the structures of traditional neighbourhoods^{¶ §} and great urban design.^{¶ §}

Familiarizing myself with the Official Plans, with no prior knowledge of the amendments proposed by PDVC, I started preparing this submission. For the most part, I intended on citing passages to show where and how the tower component contravened the scope of the Official Plans.

Just as I was ready to signoff on my submission, I saw PDVC’s proposed amendments. They had effectively reworked areas within the Official Plan such that PDVC redesignated where new growth, infill or redevelopment could occur. I am now concerned that with council’s approval, PDVC may inadvertently set precedents likely to confound future efforts to promote and encourage appropriate, contextual smart growth developments throughout the city. (See Important Note! Below)

(Formating note: Wherever I have provided excerpts of the Official Plans and PDVC material I have highlighted passages I think have bearing on either a specific argument, or combined contribute towards defining the intent of the Official Plan. Anything appearing between square brackets [] are my insertions.)

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

Important Note!

PDVC’s proposed amendments put staff and council into a very precarious position

Before I lose the reader’s sharper focus due to an extensive citations of various independent, and interrelated passages from the Official Plans, there is something from within “THE OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT SOUGHT” section of the PDVC application, to which I must draw attention:

“Within the Neighbourhood Plan there are specific policies related to the commercial core area. Rather than amend those policies on an individual basis, it is recommended that the existing policies be deleted and replaced to better reflect the vision as discussed in this [PDVC] report and the Development Strategy previously prepared for the City. To assist the readers of this report, the policies, which have been revised to reflect that vision, have been highlighted as follows:” ^[4]

When I do reach the point of citing the actual existing passages for which PDVC has requested revisions – 16 and 16.25 thru 16.33 inclusive - since I don’t expect to cite their proposed amendments, I will highlight what actually remains from the existing passages with an inverted highlight.

With respect to those passages for which PDVC recommends deleting or replacing without citation, or giving reference in some form of listing of subsections, as I progressed through the Official Plans for this submission, something unnerving seemed more and more evident: PDVC’s application to amend the Official Plan rests entirely on proving the proposed scheme conforms to the intent of the Official Plan. Due to vast interconnections between the ‘wordings’ and ‘intents’ dispersed throughout the entire Official Plan, I can’t see how this ‘developer-initiated’, ‘site specific’ application can possibly be approved without altering the entire Official Plan and various neighbourhood plans. It would effectively invalidate the Official Plans.

As it now stands, approving this application could have extremely severe, undesirable ramifications in any number of ways. I trust city staff to be better able to identify where and how that may be true. Otherwise my own feeble attempt follows.

What really needs to be understood is this: This application for amendments to the Official Plan, effectively enables PDVC to redefine directions for (re)development throughout the City in accordance with how PDVC interprets smart growth,^{¶ Δ §} for the sake of this one development, or as I will point out - more!

This application has effectively placed staff and council into a very precarious position of:

• compromising universal smart growth principles^{¶ § Δ} through developer-initiated misinterpretation and misrepresentation;
  
  
• destroying the integrity of the Official Plans as they would apply throughout the city;
  
  
• setting new precedents by which other developers, if not PDVC, could take advantage;
  
  
• enabling building/homeowners to argue that adding two, or more levels to their home/building would be of the same ‘general’ height to the surrounding buildings;
  
  
• raising higher, the level of a general public’s cynicism in our local government;
  
  
• losing the confidence and faith of the local and regional heritage communities;
  
  
• possibly weakening the case currently being made by the Region and various communities now seeking heritage designation for the historical canal corridors; and
  
  
• opening up staff and council to questions of improprieties of position and responsibilities to the greater community.
  
  

It is out of these collective concerns that I have invested the time and knowledge that I have to officially request for this application’s denial.

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

Higgins Report cuts deep into Port’s distinctive heritage fabric

Before actually delving into the Official Plans, I will address a couple of key excerpts from the Spencer R. Higgins report. As I have done with in my review of the Official Plans, cited passages will appear in italic font. My comments appearing in normal font and marked by ‘Response’ will at times be interspersed throughout and/or following cited passages.

2.6 Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District Guidelines for Conservation and Change ^[5]

“Conservation priorities are:

… encouraging the current vitality of the commercial area by promoting its unique architecture and contemporary commercial adaptive reuse as well as continuing to protect its distinctive heritage fabric;”

Response: While the brunt of many of my arguments are based on my own interpretations of such phrases as ‘continuing to protect distinctive heritage fabric’, I think those interpretations carry a high degree of validity. I will address ‘distinctive heritage fabric’ shortly.

“… maintaining the low profile, compact building forms of the cottage and residential areas by encouraging any future changes to develop in depth or in width rather than vertically in height;

… encouraging new development, construction and any public works where it is clearly demonstrated that such change will have no adverse effects upon the heritage attributes of the district and will positively contribute to the character of the area.” ^[6]

“There are two points we would like to make regarding the above cited priorities. First, change is permissible and even encouraged if it positively contributes to the heritage character of the area. “Encouraging the current vitality of the commercial area,” is particularly important. In our view, the proposed development, augmented by our recommendations, fulfils both of these criteria: it will preserve heritage value and promote cultural and economic vitality.

Second, in terms of height restriction, the priorities appear to put more emphasis on the importance of height controls “within residential areas” rather than in the Commercial Core. Specifically for the Core, the emphasis shifts from height, to preserve the overall heritage character and favouring vitality.”

Response: Higgins’ first point suggests the fulfillment of both preserving heritage value, and promoting cultural and economic vitality. The brunt of several of my impending arguments counter most of Higgins’ and PDVC claims of preserving heritage. Given that a number of passages cited herein, including the Official Plans, clearly establish the necessity of the mutual fulfillment of objectives, guidelines or conditions, it would follow that the failure of one effectively nullifies the other.

I refute Higgins’ second point on several levels.

Firstly, even if the Archaeological Services Guidelines regarding the height restriction could be interpreted as it has by Higgins, it does not supercede the intent of our own Official Plans. Second, a towering condo will have an adverse affect upon “the heritage attribute of the district” and neither Higgins, or PDVC have “clearly demonstrated that such change” will fulfill the mutual conditions that apply for residential or commercial areas within a Heritage District such as Port is.

Heritage, a term used mainly for historical roots, goes much deeper than mere connections to those who went before us to establish our built, social and cultural heritage. In the special case of Port’s heritage, the more ‘simplistic’, modest surroundings of olden times significantly contribute toward its ‘character defining element’. Port Dalhousie’s heritage is very much wrapped up in this ‘distinctive heritage fabric’.

PDVC, through the Higgins report, is grasping at straws and offering carrots in attempting to bypass the first two heritage priorities and lean heavily on their belief in fulfilling the third (dual) priority. I strongly question the compatibility of the tower to the small community, and to the character of the area. The tower will have an adverse affect upon the heritage attributes of Port just by physically altering them.

In order to “positively contribute to the character of the area”, the tower and overall redevelopment would have to be a success. Unfortunately, major developments such as this, often times fail to meet their projected success, and/or come attached with unfulfilled promises. Downtown St. Catharines has three such examples. The Brockville ‘Boardwalk’ development erroneously presented in the Higgins report as an contemporary precedent, as it was revealed at the June 28^th public information meeting, ^[7] exemplifies another.

While most everybody will acknowledge that problems exist within the commercial area of Port, not everyone agrees that the proposed redevelopment will resolve all of them. It would appear that a majority exists with little desire to risk the Heritage District they have worked so long and hard to have acknowledged.

 

The second key Higgins excerpt is:

2.7 The City of St. Catharines Official Plan and the Port Dalhousie Neighbourhood Plan ^[8]

New Construction

“new construction and/or infilling should be compatible with surrounding buildings and steetscape by: being generally of the same height, width, and orientation as adjacent buildings; being of similar setback; and similarly proportioned windows, doors and roof shape…” ^[9]

… the wording above uses the phrase “generally of the same height…as adjacent buildings,” implying there may be exceptions to this rule. The argument that the tower “fits in” when viewed from within the Core, rests on the fact that it will be experienced as a truncated element up close. From further away it will also “fit in” by acting as a visual focus and marker, a function for which there are both historical and contemporary precedents.

The tower does not comply to the letter of the official plan recommendations however we believe that the proposed scheme conforms with the intent of the Official Plan, - to ensure the appropriateness of the new construction and protect the existing heritage resources. ^[10]

Response: The developer’s material also points out that the City’s need for intensification can be met by approving the tower, while completely ignoring the ‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘how’s of smart growth’s land-use planning guidelines. PDVC attempts to rationalize the tower’s creation in “the commercial core” while in fact; no such real commercial core, wherein such a high rise condo would ‘fit in’, even exists in Port Dalhousie.

By pre-smart growth standards the area may have been a ‘commercial core’. Today however, it is not of the nature that most Smart Growth^{¶ Δ §} proponents would recommend for the sudden introduction of a tower – let alone a 328 foot one. In fact I would suggest that the Port Dalhousie Neighbourhood Plans be amended to change ‘core’ to ‘area’, or ‘zone’ - with a strong articulation as to its lakefront ‘fringe’ qualities.

I also challenge the assumption that this tower concept is ‘the answer’ to promoting the kind of cultural and economic vitality Port citizens hope to see evolve. Judging from the markets targeted by this development, (i.e. high end residents and consumers), Port Dalhousie’s heritage would become transformed such that the ‘sense of heritage’, and traditional walkable community would be lost, as well as its diverse socio-economic flavour.

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

The Official Plans’ Wording is Critical to the Intent

The above excerpt, taken from Spencer Higgins’ report, sets the tone of intent, I will now disprove. I do so mainly because I truly believe that the tower’s “fitting in” is a superficial justification for the tower actually being out of place to the character of the community and commercial area it threatens to profoundly alter.

There is a certain trait to St. Catharines as a whole, which often puts us at odds between maintaining a small community atmosphere while actually being a medium-sized city. I would submit that generally speaking, both the letter and intent of the St. Catharines Official Plan to restrict building heights reflects more than an historical desire to retain our uniqueness, particularly within our urban cores. Might it also be the reason for it finding pleasure in the eyes – and hearts – of visitors and residents?

With respect to Port Dalhousie in particular, I find the intent to be self-evident enough to caution council as to a bigger picture that extends well beyond the particulars of this development. Further into this paper, when I do cite directly from the Official Plans, I will attempt to indicated those critical passages thusly: !*!

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

The existing Official Plan and Port Dalhousie Neighbourhood Plan are more relevant today than ever

Section 1.1 of the Official Plan states clearly that the purpose (of the plan) “is intended to reflect the collective aims and aspirations of the citizens of St. Catharines as to the quality of life to be preserved and fostered in terms of social, economic and natural environment of the Municipality.”

Reflection: By applying as they have to amend the Official Plans “to better reflect the vision as discussed in this [PDVC] report” PDVC effectively invalidates the wording and intent of Section 1.1 - thus eliminating “the collective aims and aspirations of the citizens” from the Official Plans.

I would assume that to be so as well for the new Official Plan, once it has been completed in the very near future.

Under the Section 1.2 of the Community Goal Statements, which according to that same section, “reflects the [timely] directives outlined in the Community-Based Strategic Plan;”

• Quality of Life - “Create a physical, economic and social environment that gives the residents and employees of the Community an ideal place for living, working and recreating, and promoting a sense of history and identity.”
  
  Reflection: I would submit that for Port, that that ‘promotion’ has clearly established a deeply rooted sense of history and identity, all of which contribute toward a social environment. A major contravention such as this application represents, is likely to affect the spirit of the Port community that has evolved up until now. PDVC’s application has certainly forced that strong sense of history and identity to the surface.
  
  
  
• Heritage – “Preserve, promote and foster awareness that our heritage and diverse cultural institutions, man-made and otherwise, are vital to our community life and economic and social health.”
  
  Reflection: Later arguments will better address this directive if they have not already. However, here I wish to point out that ‘preservation’ is all that really remains to be upheld with respects to Port. I have to agree with them who claim that the tower would destroy, not preserve the integrity of the Heritage District. Piecemeal preservation adds to an authenticity while one or more major redevelopment schemes tend to destroy authenticity.
  
  Case-in-point: Last year, TVO held a provincial contest to determine the locations of Ontario’s best walkable communities. According to the judges, which included urban designers, NOTL was eliminated early because it lacked authenticity.

Under Explanation of Terms of the Official Plans, there are two explanations I wish to present with respect to this application:

 

• !*!‘Appropriate’ “means fitting, adequate and suitable for the circumstances involved. The City Council will be the arbiter of what is considered appropriate, but it will have regard for the principles of City Planning and a high standard of urban design^{¶ §}.”
  
  
• !*!‘Context’ “refers to the relationship of new developments to its surroundings, that is to neighbouring and nearby buildings, the natural characteristics of the site, (e.g. topography, slope, vegetation), and the surrounding streetscape and community.”
  
  Reflection: At the public information meeting of June 28^th, according to the applicants, the only two relationships the tower had to its surroundings was strictly an economic one in order to finance other elements of the project, and to provide a contrast between the old and the new.
  
  I would suggest that over time, because of trends forcing a recreation of traditional neighbourhoods,^{¶ §} and the progressive guidelines set out in the existing Official Plans, that quality piecemeal redevelopments will once again see appropriate, contextual restorations to Port’s commercial area, more likely to preserve Port’s authenticity as it has so far. That, in my mind, is the partial intent of the Official Plans.

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

SECTION 7 – URBAN DESIGN, AMENITY AND HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Note!
These excerpts from Section 7 are mostly provided for background for related subsections and those to be cited from the Port Dalhousie Neighbourhood Plan.

“Urban design^{¶ §} deals with tangible elements of city form (the visual aspects of planning). This includes the structure and character of open spaces including streets, parks, public gathering places, natural areas, and the diversity [or lack of diversity] of built environments.

The specific role and importance of urban design^{¶ §} and general amenity as part of the Official Plan is to interpret and draw together the community’s qualitative expectations for the urban area in physical terms. It is through these policies that a vision of what St. Catharines seeks to be can be expressed. The overall purpose of the policies is to achieve a high standard of design throughout the City.

… The Official Plan will guide change in a manner that sensitively integrates the new with the old. … The following policies should be read together with other sections of the Official Plan …”

Reflection: The tower, being unsympathetic to the existing built environment, in no way “sensitively integrates the new with the old”, PERIOD! The wording is critical to the intent.

 

7.7 – DESIGN SCHEMES AND LAND ASSEMBLY

“Development in certain parts of the City has produced patterns of low density in which many sizable parcels of land are becoming increasingly difficult to divide into reasonable lots. The results of this are seen in excessive costs for providing services, increasing difficulties in infilling and an eventual pattern of residential development that is of poor urban quality.

Reflection: I left the above portion of the citation in to be fair to the context of subsection 7.7.4 (below), even though by itself it could be used in an attempt to a justify the tower. I want to point out however, that in this case, the tower in an inappropriate location also leads to the “eventual pattern of [any] development that is of poor urban quality.”

“The intent of this Plan is to address this problem and to secure an improvement in the quality of these residential areas as they develop further. In order to do this, the following program will be pursued.”

!*! 7.7.4 – “Where the proposal is not in harmony with the neighbourhood, the City will endeavour to secure the voluntary co-operation of the owner and developer to revise it and to bring it into harmony. If such co-operation cannot be secured and if the realization of any part of the design scheme would be jeopardized by the proposal, it will not be permitted.”

Reflection: The tower component of this development is not in harmony with the neighbourhood, and if the developers can not bring it into harmony, then staff and council’s direction is clear.

I must add that while I am aware that ‘contrast’ creates harmony, harmonic success is only achieved when presented in equal, subtle measures.

 
!*! 7.9 – LENDING SHAPE TO BUILT FORM

“Previous sections of this Section have, for the most part, presented urban design^{¶ §} solutions to a number of specific issues … The fundamental guiding principle is sensitivity to context. St. Catharines is made up of a number of distinct areas, each with their own history, character, and sense of place. New development should ‘fit in’ in terms of form and function. … The following criteria are intended to apply to all forms of development. …”

Reflection: “The fundamental guiding principle is sensitivity to context. … The following criteria are intended to apply to all forms of development.” The wording is critical to the intent.

!*! 7.9.1 – “Development will be designed in a manner that maximizes compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of the following matters as a basis for evaluating compatibility and for achieving design excellence.

1. The proportions (relationship between height and width) of the front or primary façade(s) and, to a lesser extent, the other exterior building walls.
   
   
2. Overall building height.

Reflection: How could it possibly be said that a 100 meter tower “maximizes compatibility” with a 2-3 story skyline? The previous subsections clearly set the intent for the city in general, even before delving into the following subsection. As per my earlier warnings, approval of PDVC’s application would have direct impact on far more subsections than those suggested by PDVC.

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

!*! 7.10 HERITAGE CONSERVATION

7.10.1 “Cultural heritage resources include, but are not necessarily restricted to archaeological sites, buildings and structural remains of historical, architectural and contextual value, and human-made rural, village, and urban districts or landscapes of historical and scenic interest.”

Reflection: Could it not be said that the Port residents, individually and collectively are very important cultural heritage resources not mentioned within 7.10.1? Also, both of Port’s Commercial Core’s architectural and contextual values, are established by its modest, unassuming low-rise, 19^th century buildings.

7.10.6 “Within a designated [heritage] district it is the intent of council to conserve and enhance the unique heritage character of the area. …”

Reflection: One important element of Port’s commercial area’s unique heritage character, is the absence of height. PDVC’s ‘intent’ is obviously in direct conflict with “the intent of council’s”.

  !*! 7.10.7 “In reviewing proposals for the construction, demolition, or removal of buildings and structures or the alterations of existing buildings, the City will be guided by the applicable heritage conservation district plan and the following general principles:

1. heritage buildings, associated landscape features and archaeological sites including their surroundings should be protected from any adverse effects of change;
   
   Reflection: The low rise skyline of the commercial area is an apparent part of Port’s associated landscape features. The sudden appearance of a modern, high rise would certainly compromise this and is likely to have an adverse effect on how tourists, residents and the wider spread heritage community view and relate to Port Dalhousie. And “the City will be guided by the applicable heritage conservation district plan”!
   
   
2. original building fabric and architectural features such as doors, windows, moldings, vergeboards, walling materials and roofs should be retained and repaired rather than replaced wherever possible;
   
   Reflection: Again, I must suggest that height is integral to associated landscape, and architectural features and that what is being proposed would not be retaining either the associated landscape or architectural features of the unassuming skyline.
   
   
3. new additions and features should generally be no higher than the existing building and wherever possible be placed to the rear of the building or set back substantially from the principal façade;
   
   Reflection: “should generally be no higher” – were it not for the word within this phrase, PDVC would be left to argue how the tower would be sympathetic to the existing buildings. Has any of PDVC’s material attempted to argue how the proposed tower would be sympathetic to the neighbourhood and/or existing buildings? Could anything that is said to be ”providing contrast” be considered at the same time to be sympathetic?
   
   
4. new construction and/or infilling should be compatible with surrounding buildings and streetscape by: being generally of the same height, width and orientation as adjacent buildings; being of similar setback; and using similarly proportioned windows, doors, and roof shape.
   
   Reflection: Not only would the tower not be compatible with the surrounding buildings, the proposed contemporary design, although essential for energy efficiency, would not be within compliance of the second connecting guideline
   
   
5. Design, style, materials and colours for new construction will be considered on an individual basis on the premise that contemporary styles can be more appropriate in certain cases than using design style.”
   
   Reflections: PDVC’s application for amending the Official Plans does not make it clear as to just how the city should address the wording and intents within all of these subsections, and others like them. In light of this, one could easily conclude that PDVC has extremely oversimplified their application.
   
   Even at this point, I would have to say that the intent of the Official Plan should be self-evident. The application to amend them, completely alters the intent! Clearly staff and city council are strongly directed both by the ‘wordings’ and the ‘intents’ of the existing Official Plans, to deny PDVC’s application, especially if proven that their development does not in fact fulfill the intent of the Official Plans as PDVC claims.
   
   The next citation and ‘Reflection’ already appeared in the Overview of this paper. However, it just seems appropriate to repeat them in context to all the previous and proceeding subsections.
   

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

!*! 7.11 HERITAGE IMPLEMENTATION

7.11.1 “Where Council has designated Heritage Conservation Districts in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan it is intended that the general policies pertaining to districts will be refined and amplified to apply to individual designated districts and their particular attributes and features by means of heritage conservation district plans”.

Reflection: As recent as 2003, following the Heritage District Designation for Port, many of the sections and subsections I have and will yet cite, were “refined and amplified” in accordance with 7.11.1. This clearly means that the Official Plans are not out-of-date as PDVC claims. It also explains why the 2003 amendments have amplified, specifically the traditional neighbourhood^{¶ §} component of smart growth,^{¶ Δ §} making the Official Plans as progressive as I claim them to be.

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

SECTION 16 - THE PORT DALHOUSIE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

Note!
Other than subsections 16.25 thru 16.33 – and minor subsections unrelated to the more contentious issues – it is here that PDVC’s formal application for amendments begins.

“… the following objectives are established in support of [the development of orderly and attractive urban pattern].

1. To encourage the retention and rehabilitation of existing housing stock in the Port Dalhousie Area.
   
   
2. To provide a range of housing types of various income levels.”
   
   Reflection: While this objective is to remain according to the application, under this application there will never be a range of affordable housing/apartments within the development. I also have to question if there isn’t an over abundance of high-income level housing throughout Port already.
   
   
3. “To ensure that the character of the Commercial Core is maintained and protected and at the same time, ensure that the Commercial Core does not encroach into the adjacent residential areas.
   
   Reflection: A high concentration of well-heeled residents and guests at the hotel is likely to alter the existing, rather diversified socioeconomic character of the commercial area. The applicant’s amendment attempts to remove that portion of the subsection, which may be an indication that they can’t, or have not the desire to ensure an adherence to this objective.
   
   Also, if parking requirements for the entire scope of the redevelopment are not adequately met, then an encroachment into adjacent areas is likely to occur. This would not be in compliance with several guidelines.
   
   
4. To maintain and reinforce the atmosphere and character which has developed in the Commercial Core.
   
   Reflection: I think that in comparing the suggested wording against the existing wording, (i.e. “maintain and reinforce” versus “build upon and improve”) one could conclude overall that the PDVC application blatantly fails to fulfill the intent of the Official Plans and so makes concerted efforts at altering its intents. I point that out for example’s sake and strongly suggest using this kind of comparison throughout the applicant’s proposed amendments.
   
   ………………..

14. To conserve individual buildings of historic or architectural value
    
    
15. To protect areas of historic and architectural interest in Port Dalhousie.”

    Reflection: Again, I have to state here that a modern condo tower of 328 feet would not protect the historic and architectural interest of Port Dalhousie’s 19^th century flavour

16. “To encourage, wherever possible and practical, the consolidation of properties for redevelopment within the Commercial Core area to provide for consistent pattern of development and allow for a mix of uses in a design appropriate for the area.”

    Reflection: As it now stands, the tower offers no consistency to the existing “pattern of development’. If the amendment were to be approved however, other highrises could then be considered to be consistent.
    
    Objective 16(16), not cited here, is a recommended addition by PDVC. Since all other recommended amendments, if adopted, would have adequately addressed their proposed development, there is no other purpose served by this passage other than to create additional opportunities for further contraventions of the existing Official Plan.
    
    The PDVC current proposal already covers some 50 percent of the commercial area, and all their previous amendments have adequately dealt with their development, so it begs the question, why, if not to create a means whereby other highrises could be built, is this subsection being proposed?

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

GENERAL POLICIES

16.2 “The Port Dalhousie Neighbourhood is a community with areas of historic and architectural significance. It is the policy [intent?] of this Plan to conserve this character and improve the environment of Port Dalhousie through the enhancement of particular streetscapes and promotion of certain building types. The Harbour area shall also be improved. The neighbourhoods adjacent to the Commercial Core shall be protected from the negative effects of traffic and parking related to commercial uses in the Core Area.”

Reflections: Despite the removal of licensed seats within the commercial area, this development is to contain up to 80 condos, 75 hotel rooms and an increase in the number of commercial and retail outlets, while only adding 190(?) parking spots. I don’t see how the proposed development adequately addresses the parking problems experienced up until now. Then there is also PDVC’s projections of creating some 600 jobs. While not all employees would be working at the same time, their numbers still add further to parking demands not clearly met and more than likely to impact areas adjacent to the commercial area.

With regards to “improvements to the environment”, to lessen a development’s impact (ecological footprint) on the surrounding, and adjacent environments, is only one aspect of sustainable design. In the case of specific siting, the application of “the precautionary principle” is questionable, not just with respects to the existing natural environment, but the existing social environment which in this case is interconnected through the community’s heritage. As suggested by Pamela Minns, “the result of this development will ripple across this region, this province and this country. When heritage is infringed or destroyed, it goes forever.” ^[11]

Yet with respects to the natural environment, regardless of how high the LEED certification, there is always an impact. Green design in an area of degraded environments, can actually bring ecological restoration. For this site however, the tower would not “improve the environment of Port Dalhousie”. It could, and most likely would, have negative impacts on various environments, especially since such a structure does not even exist within the entire Port community, let alone so close to the lakefront.

The solitude, height and construction of the tower ignore the “precautionary principle.” The following is taken out of my paper, “Tools for Planning Policy Reform,” for which I had submitted to the Province and a Staff Report from Mr. Rodey is currently pending:

• Policy 1.2.5 [Provincial Planning Statement] provides an example of where the ‘precautionary principle’ should be applied – in the interest of the general public. If so applied, policy 1.2.5 could state, “Development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns will be forbidden.”
  
  Adopted at the 1992 UN Conference on the Environment and Development, ‘precautionary principle’ “should be applied where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the environment[. A] lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” ^[12]

 

I strongly suggest the tower my cause environmental, or public health and safety concerns with regards to, but not limited to:

• Reflective glare that would be spread throughout the city and pose potential danger to vehicular traffic (in particular).
  
  
• Danger to sea gulls, etc. Without proper research, I can not speak to the matter of migratory patterns that may, or may not exist.
  
  
• Potential water temperature fluctuations in areas shaded by the tower and heated by reflections of the sun.

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

MAIN STREET MIXED RESIDENTIAL AREA

16.12 “Medium density residential units may be permitted in the Main Street Mixed Residential Area only by way of an amendment to the Zoning By-law, and in reviewing the request for an amendment to the Zoning By-law, consideration shall be given to the following compatibility criteria:”

16.12.2 “Any such building will be similar to the existing streetscape, including such aspects as setbacks and roof-line and in particular, with respect to maintaining a house-form appearance (where such is the predominant characteristics of the existing streetscape);”

16.12.3 “Any such building will be compatible in scale and height with nearby buildings;”

Reflections: Based on arguments for infilling used by PDVC for this application, if approved, I can’t help but wonder the ramification for future proposals within this area, adjacent to the commercial area.

 

HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE

16.30 “In order to conserve and strengthen the special identity and character of the Commercial Core encouragement shall be given to the protection and enhancement of those properties, buildings and features of architectural, historical and/or landscape value which are located within the Commercial Core. Any new construction, particularly infill development, within the Commercial Core should be sympathetic to existing build environment in terms of height, mass, colour and materials.”

Reflections: Even generic standards of progressive urban design^{¶ §} dictate “sympathy to surrounding environments”, built and natural. Why then would PDVC remove this very specific wording from this subsection, unless they know the tower to be unsympathetic “in terms of height”?

16.31 “The present Zoning By-law will be amended to ensure that the standards are compatible with the built form in the Commercial Core.”

Reflection: The nature of the compatibility standards will have been effectively altered with the amendments passed, and the high-rise tower built. That this has been left in by PDVC, only adds further weight to the apprehension of future developments which would be unsympathetic to the existing area.

As also pointed out within my reflection for 7.11.1, these subsections may have been amended as a direct result of the Heritage District Designation and the intents of protecting an historical traditional neighbourhood.^{¶ §}

 

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

 

HERITAGE

Reflection: I can’t understand how it is that this (Heritage) Section of the Port Dalhousie Neighbourhood Plan was completely overlooked by PDVC. Still, it is an existing section of the Official Plans which could not possibly be removed or altered without threatening the Heritage Designation, and should be dealt with as PDVC’s amendments if approved by council, or even the OMB, would likely render this null and void. Should the application for amendment be approved however; a door would be open with respect to the original intent of all but 16.89.a.

16.86 “It is the policy of this Plan to recognize those buildings of historical and architectural significance in the Port Dalhousie area and take steps to maintain the character of this area.”

Reflection: Does this subsection not make it incumbent upon staff and council to ensure that Port’s historical skyline be maintained, and protected?

16.89 “The objectives of the Heritage Conservation Plan will be as follows:

1. N/A
   
   
2. Maintain the character of the townscape and building groups within the area
   
   
3. Direct growth in a manner compatible with the existing scale and character of the area;
   
   Reflection: If this subsection remains after the proposed amendments, then it enables the introduction of further highrises into the area. Otherwise, 16.89.c establishes solid guidelines as to how staff/council should address the “generally of the same height” argument put forth by the Higgins report. Anything higher than two additional stories, I think, would be out of scale and certainly not in keeping with the character of the area.
   
   
4. !*! Prevent the incursion of elements which would detract from the character of the area and to prevent unsympathetic alterations to buildings that would detract from the area’s character;
   
   Reflection: If my previous arguments surrounding the numerous traits displayed by Port hold true, then once more I have to say, “The wording is critical to the intent”.
   
   
5. Ensure that attention is given to the details of the design of new buildings so that those buildings are harmonious with the historical character of the district; and
   
   
6. Ensure that the renovation and restoration of older buildings within Heritage Conservation Districts carefully preserve the character and interest of the original building.”
   
   Reflection: 16.89(e) and 16.89(f) must both be fulfilled, and having addressed all the elements contained in both, I will just say one last time: “The wording is critical to the intent!”

I think I have presented more than sufficient legal, logistical and philosophical reasons why PDVC’s application fulfills neither the wordings, nor the intents of the Official Plans and must therefore be denied!!!

Otherwise, this council puts itself into a very precarious position for which it will have to answer!

 

Bernie Slepkov
1-213 St. Paul Street,
St. Catharines

tel: 905 984.3493

---

Click here for PDF Version  

Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn  

---

Endnotes

Footnotes maked by an asterisk (*) denote suggested relevant material without implying any passages quoted.

1. The Official Plan Amendment Sought, Application to Amend the City of St. Catharines Official Plan and Zoning By-Law; PDVC, Diamond Schmitt Architects Incorp., and BLS Planning Associates. September 2004

2. http://www.lgc.org/ahwahnee/principles.html

3. Application to Amend the City of St. Catharines Official Plan and Zoning By-Law; Port Dalhousie Vitalization Corporation, Diamond and Schmitt Achitects, BLS Planning Associates; September 2004 - Tab 'Planning Report (pg 16)

4. Application to Amend the City of St. Catharines Official Plan and Zoning By-Law; Tab 'Planning Report (pg 40)

5. Heritage Assessment Report, Port Dalhousie Commercial Core; Spencer R. Higgins Architect Incorp. May 2005 (pg. 57)

6. Archaeological Services, Guidelines, 2-5 (Higgins Report pg. 57)

7. Letter to Mr. Peter Connelly for Mr. Doug Grant, Chairman, Heritage Brockville

8. Heritage Assessment Report; pg. 58

9. Planning Department City of St. Catharines Official Plan Section 7.10.7(d)

10. Heritage Assessment Report; pg. 58

11. Public Information Meeting, June 28, 2005; Club Roma

12. Greening the Way Ontario Learns: A Public Strategic Plan for Environmental and Sustainability Education; Environmental Education Ontario, http://www.eeon.org

 

---

Click here for PDF Version