CITY OF ORILLIA

Addendum to Public Meeting re Planning Matter Agenda

Friday, December 21, 2018

Page Correspondence

3 - 45 1. Development Services and Engineering Department - re Supplementary Memo to Planning Report DSE-18-49 - Proposed Amendments to the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law 2014-44 - Waterfront Redevelopment Area, File Numbers D09-199 and D14-877. File: C01-2019- a) Development Services and Engineering Department - re Official Plan Amendment/Zoning By-law Amendment - City-Owned Waterfront Lands. b) Email dated December 19, 2018 from Joyce Ward. c) Letter dated December 19, 2018 from Thomas and Susan Langlois. d) Letter dated December 20, 2018 from Dennis Rizzo. e) Email dated December 20, 2018 from Mark and Wanda Elgar. f) Letter received December 20, 2018 from Brian Greer.

Page 1 of 45

Page 2 of 45

City of Orillia December 21, 2018

Official Plan Amendment/Zoning By-law Amendment City Owned Waterfront Lands

Pa

ge

3 o

f 45

City-Owned Waterfront Lands Official Plan Amendment/Zoning By-law Amendment

A Statutory Public Meeting was held on November 26, 2018 with respect to the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment related to the Waterfront Redevelopment Lands

Approximately 50 members of the public were in attendance, 15 people made oral submissions to Council

Since the term of the 2014-2018 Council was ending, the matter could not be deferred to a future Council meeting

The 2018-2020 Council has convened this second Statutory Public Meeting to obtain further public input prior to making a decision on the applications

Pa

ge

4 o

f 45

City-Owned Waterfront Lands Official Plan Amendment/Zoning By-law Amendment

Pa

ge

5 o

f 45

Journey to Date 1985-1998 2012 2016 2017 2018

BUILT ON FOUNDATION OF PUBLIC INPUT Downtown Tomorrow CIP (3 consultation sessions, stakeholder group) Front Street Reconstruction (2 Public Information Centres) Centennial Drive Reconstruction (3 Public Information Centres) Port of Orillia Area Public Realm Downtown Tomorrow Plan (4 days charettes, 2 open houses, video presentation, stakeholder group)

• Purchased rail bed along Centennial Drive

• Acquired for municipal purposes (municipal services and opportunity future waterfront-adjacent development)

• Development of the Downtown Tomorrow Plan

• Extensive consultation through four-day design charrette

• Culminated in 20-year vision to better link the downtown and waterfront

• Over 33 action items, including strategic acquisition of private land to facilitate redevelopment and create viewscapes

• Municipal acquisition of 70 Front St. N for Coldwater extension and to control development of site

• Staff negotiations re sale of portion of land

• Final Offer presented to Council for consideration

• Council declines Offer

• Proceeds with broader development analysis of 70 Front

• Best practices used to develop Preferred Development Concept (PDC) in consultation with the Waterfront Working Group

• PDC adopted in principle in December 2017

• Council prioritizes waterfront infrastructure to support growth and development

• Staff lays out implementation process in January 2018

• Extensive due diligence work completed

• Legal opinions sought re lease and tenant matters

• August 2018 open session Waterfront report outlines key decisions required from Council

• Council makes key decisions, staff proceeds to implement

Pa

ge

6 o

f 45

City-Owned Waterfront Lands Official Plan Amendment/Zoning By-law Amendment

Current land uses… Undeveloped property next to French’s stand used for vehicle and boat trailer parking on an informal basis.

1.6 acres

Pa

ge

7 o

f 45

City-Owned Waterfront Lands Official Plan Amendment/Zoning By-law Amendment

Part of the block of City owned land east of Front Street between Neywash St. and Coldwater St. is occupied by Metro.

3.3 acres

Pa

ge

8 o

f 45

City-Owned Waterfront Lands Official Plan Amendment/Zoning By-law Amendment

City-owned lands between Centennial Drive and the back of the Metro store are vacant former railway beds.

Pa

ge

9 o

f 45

City-Owned Waterfront Lands Official Plan Amendment/Zoning By-law Amendment

City-owned lands at the NW corner of Mississaga St. E. & Centennial Drive are vacant and currently being used as a Pay-and-Display public parking lot (Lot #12).

P

ag

e 1

0 o

f 45

City-Owned Waterfront Lands Official Plan Amendment/Zoning By-law Amendment

City-owned lands beside the Metro Store, fronting on Front St. and Mississaga St. E., contain a portion of the plaza and parking lot (including Public Parking Lot #8).

2.2 acres Pa

ge

11

of 4

5

Official Plan Amendment

The intent of the Official Plan Amendment is to redesignate the lands to the Central Core Intensification Area designation, and to create specific Official Plan policies relating to the redevelopment of these “Waterfront Redevelopment Lands” in accordance with Council’s direction.

Lands to be

redesignated

Pa

ge

12

of 4

5

Official Plan Amendment

The proposed Official Plan policies require the construction of a civic square by the ultimate developer of the Waterfront Redevelopment Lands.

The civic square would be at the northwest corner of the Centennial Drive and Mississaga Street intersection and would provide a gathering and event space. A civic square in a Downtown setting

(image from the Downtown Tomorrow Plan)

Pa

ge

13

of 4

5

Official Plan Amendment

“Intensification Areas” are

the areas within the City

(as shown on this map)

that are specifically

targeted for higher density

development. The

province requires all

municipalities to

designate intensification

areas to accommodate

growth.

Pa

ge

14

of 4

5

Official Plan Amendment

Pa

ge

15

of 4

5

Zoning By-law Amendment

The subject lands are currently zoned:

“Mixed Use Intensification - Intensification Area (Holding One)”

(C4i(H1); and

“Open Space One” (OS1)

(Proposed Waterfront Redevelopment Area shown outlined in red dashed line)

Pa

ge

16

of 4

5

Zoning By-law Amendment

Pa

ge

17

of 4

5

Zoning By-law Amendment

Pa

ge

18

of 4

5

Zoning By-law Amendment

Pa

ge

19

of 4

5

Issues and Concerns

During the public consultation process for the proposed

Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment,

some key issues were raised. These were:

Building Height and Massing

Parking

Loss of Parkland

Pa

ge

20

of 4

5

Building Height and Massing

The Orillia Port Area Public Realm Plan included recommended guidelines for built form and architecture including minimum and maximum building heights on the two blocks east of Front Street between Neywash Street and Mississaga Street East.

Pa

ge

21

of 4

5

Existing and Proposed Building Heights

Building Height and Massing

Pa

ge

22

of 4

5

Building Height and Massing

Pa

ge

23

of 4

5

The Angular Plane provisions are proposed to apply to any building higher than 3 storeys abutting a public road and/or with views to Lake Couchiching. This is intended to protect the waterfront vista and ensure compatible integration with the surrounding neighbourhood.

Building Height and Massing

Pa

ge

24

of 4

5

Building Height and Massing

Pa

ge

25

of 4

5

Building Height and Massing

Pa

ge

26

of 4

5

Parking Parking needs for the

downtown and waterfront will be evaluated through a parking study proposed to be undertaken by the City as a part of the 2019 Capital Budget.

It is recognized that parking is required for waterfront events, however alternatives are available such as special event buses.

Parking Lots are costly to build and provide the City with very little direct economic benefit.

Pa

ge

27

of 4

5

Parkland None of the property included in the

Waterfront Redevelopment Lands has ever been used as parkland. Most of the lands have historically supported industrial uses.

Development of the lands as parkland was thoroughly considered during the process.

No parkland will be lost as a result of the development.

Couchiching Park will be enlarged since the realignment of Centennial Drive will run west of French’s stand.

The new Civic Square at the corner of Mississaga Street and Centennial Drive will provide additional event space.

Couchiching

Park

Enlargement

New Civic

Square

Pa

ge

28

of 4

5

City-Owned Waterfront Lands Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment

The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment: Carry out Council’s direction Allow for flexibility in land use Protect and enhance viewscapes and public spaces

Pa

ge

29

of 4

5

City of Orillia December 21, 2018

Official Plan Amendment/Zoning By-law Amendment City Owned Waterfront Lands

Pa

ge

30

of 4

5

From: Susan VotourTo: Megan WilliamsSubject: FW: Dec. 21st Public Meeting: Future Development of Downtown Waterfront AreaDate: December-19-18 1:21:10 PM

-----Original Message-----From: Joyce Ward [mailto:j ]Sent: December-19-18 1:08 PMTo: Susan VotourCc: Tim Lauer; Linda GoodallSubject: Dec. 21st Public Meeting: Future Development of Downtown Waterfront Area

Good afternoon, The Downtown Waterfront Project is an exciting opportunity to add to the diversity of the City’scentrally-located residential opportunities, and to the Official Plan goal of creating a “completecommunity”. I’d like to add my voice to those wishing to ensure that the by-laws provide flexibility fordevelopers to incorporate/integrate (generally smaller) rental spaces amenable to affordable housing.The RFP could award a points bonus to encourage proposals including this component. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Joyce Ward (member, Simcoe County Alliance to End Homelessness)

Page 31 of 45

Page 32 of 45

December 19, 2018

To Mayor Clark and the Orillia City Council

Re: Waterfront Development Plan

We intend to participate in the Public meeting on December 21, 2018. However, we are not prepared to make an oral comment. Hence, this letter.

We are relatively recent residents of Orillia having moved from Bolton almost 5 years ago. We have been visitors for over 30 years both at the Port with our boat and by car with and without our bowrider.

We have always adored the Orillia waterfront and the downtown shopping/ dining. We have also enjoyed the main shopping downtown areas of Orangeville, Kleinburg, Thornbury, Huntsville, Grand Bend, Owen Sound, Tobermory, Port Perry, Bobcaygen and Little Current, which all have quaint and thriving designated streets for shopping/dining . Most of them are close to bodies of water and most of them have inns or hotels near the body of water. With all this competition, we still chose Orillia as the place to live. Why you may ask? We chose it for the proximity to the lakes and Trent/Severn waterway, the Port, the large parks with trails and beaches on the waterfront, the absence of residences near the downtown waterfront and the downtown shopping/dining/artist areas. Orillia is the only city in the area that has maintained these differences.

We completely understand the rationale for the waterfront development, ie. Need to recoup the money spent purchasing the downtown properties, the need to revitalize the downtown areas (including street reconstruction/improvements), the need to collect revenue from the downtown properties and the need to increase affordable housing within the City.

Based on our understanding of the objectives we have several questions:

1. Why not start with residential development of other vacant properties currently within the city? These could provide new communities for the homeless, the vulnerable and low income families.

2. What were the reasons for not considering a family-friendly hotel or time-share facility across from the Port? Such a development would attract visitors to Orillia year round to enjoy the many events and amenities the waterfront offers. It would provide a venue for all manner of events (eg. weddings, company functions, special celebrations). It would produce revenue to the city, jobs, taxes and a pleasant view from the Port. An excellent example of such a model is Thornbury. They have a 2 story hotel/time share overlooking their Port/marina, the pier and beach. There is also a large restaurant adjacent to the hotel. The facility busy all year round.

3. Has the safety of the boat launch in the park area been investigated? We have used the launch many times over the past 30 years. The launching of boats in the middle of 2 parks/trail and parking lot presents a serious safety concern for pedestrians, including children, strollers, skate boarders, bikers, scooters, wheelchairs, etc.

4. Has the possible removal of the launch and/or trailer parking been discussed with the Chamber of Commerce re: the effect on fishing events?

5. Has there been a study of the effects of high buildings on the wind currents in the Port and downtown areas?

We appreciate the opportunity to comment and are grateful for your consideration of our questions.

Sincerely,

Thomas and Susan Langlois

Orillia

Attachment (2 pages)

Page 33 of 45

Comments about the Orillia Waterfront and Port from a boaters’ perspective

Summarized by Susan Langlois of Orillia 2018-12-04

Introduction: The boater comments about the Orillia Waterfront must be separated by those who arrive by water and those who arrive by land. The issues and uses for the 2 groups are very different.

The boaters who arrive by water via the Trent Severn System (ie. Not local cottagers) stay overnight for 1 to many days. The boaters who arrive by land typically stay on the water for a few hours and then leave the waterfront when their boat is taken out of the water.

Method: The following question was posted on the Trent Severn Waterway group page on FaceBook. “What do you think of the Orillia Port and why? Is there anything you would change?”

Comments from boaters arriving by water:

All boaters who arrive by water spend money – the boaters who arrive by land typically do not spend money.

Results: 41 boaters responded within 2 days with 100% liking the port and many stating that it is the best port on the system.

The main reasons for liking the port include:

- Bathroom and laundry facilities - Central to downtown, groceries, restaurants and ice cream - Park, beaches, fishing pier and children’s playground - Large slip area with room for oversize vessels - Boardwalk and trails - Short taxi ride to Casino - Close to Fuel and pump-out at the Narrows.

Main concerns expressed:

- Need better weed control around the docks - Several issues regarding the cleats:

o Spacing too big for smaller vessels o Folding cleats cannot be used from the water and this means that crew on bow cannot grab or lasso the

cleat to tie line (this is a serious safety issue due to possibility of crew falling off the boat trying to grab the cleat)

o Too small for large lines required to tie large vessels o Too small for sharing lines from different boats o Port Staff must come to slip to assist boater with docking or every slip should have a least one non-

folding cleat. - Windy

Suggestions:

1.Conduct study of effects of development on wind in the Port and downtown areas.

2. Either replace folding cleats with non-folding cleats on wall and docks OR install non-folding cleats along side a few of the folding ones.

3. Increase frequency of weed removal during summer months.

4. Do not make any negative changes to main attractions eg. park, trails, beaches, location of groceries and ice cream.

5. Maintain the docks and boater lounge.

Page 34 of 45

Comments from boaters arriving by land:

Spend an average of 5-8 hours on water. Non residents do not stay overnight or spend money in town. Residents go home.

The main reasons for liking the launch include:

- Free launch - Free parking for cars/trailer

Main concerns expressed:

- Car and Pedestrian (including children, strollers, skate boarders, roller bladers, bikers, scooters, wheelchairs, walkers) traffic near launch (presents serious safety issues for boaters trying to either launch or retrieve their boats)

- Distance of parking from launch - Insufficient parking near launch

Suggestions:

Survey local marinas and Event Planners regarding use of the launch.

Move the launch and parking (possibly near the narrows)

Charge for both launch and parking at new location.

General Comment

As in the Thornbury Port/ Marina build a family- friendly 2-3 story hotel with balconies and roof-top patio immediately behind the Orillia Port. This would accommodate guests to Orillia year round and would benefit from the one-of-a-kind view of the Orillia Port, Park land, beaches, trails and Lake Couchiching and the events occurring all year round. It would complement the Fern Resort on the other side of the lake.

Page 35 of 45

Page 36 of 45

Dennis C. Rizzo - Orillia, ON - - Canada

tel/fax: ~ December 20, 2018 Second Commentary on Waterfront Development Plan City of Orillia by E-Mail: svotour@orillia.ca re: File Nos. D09-199 and D14-877 Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing to address the process and progress of the waterfront development, as embodied in the by-law changes in the above files. While the need for development of the fallow properties in that section of Orillia is clear, it is with the process and management of that development that many have concerns. Specifically, I am concerned with the overall effect on the Orillia lakefront of Area Specific Policy 4.2.9 as amended in August, 2018 and to be applied by the city. The stated purpose of the policy is: to re-designate the subject lands from the “Environment/Open Space - Parkland and Major Open Space "designation to the “Downtown Area - Central Core Intensification Area” designation.... The basis is: a Council direction to staff to pre-designate the lands in order to facilitate the transformation and redevelopment of the lands for a range of residential and commercial uses. The city is about to issue an RFP for development of the waterfront properties. As with the development of the parks and waterfront 100 years ago, it would seem appropriate for the citizens of Orillia to retain as much control over the scope and purpose of development as possible. I also believe, it would seem an appropriate and fortuitous time for the city to incorporate its affordable and attainable housing plan into the RFPs, and to seriously look at the on-going parking and traffic issues that will inevitably arise and on which the city has a less than stellar performance record. There have been questions raised about the scope and density of the development as specified in the Waterfront Development Plan. There have been questions as to the height and closeness of several of the proposed properties which would be permitted once the land is sold. Specifically, there is clear indication in the plan that condominium and/or rental buildings of six stories are permitted. There was clear indication at the last public meeting (by staff) that builders could immediately seek zoning changes to modify this to ten stories. The city staff and council assure us that the development will not be an eyesore or place a burden on the city and its residents. We are assured that the waterfront development will benefit the city with an increased tax base and more shoppers downtown. We are assured the builders will be held accountable for their designs and construction. This begs us to look at the performance record of the city in similar situations where builders and developers have held sway over our zoning.

Page 37 of 45

Rizzo - Waterfront Development Correspondence to Orillia Council - Dec 21 2018 page 2 A recent article in SunOrillia1 notes the following: "The City of Orillia’s zoning by-law has for years been questionable about parking space requirements for one particular class of development, retirement and long term care residences." Tidbits from the article point to a pattern of inefficiencies permitted in development planning.: - Victoria House, a 42 unit retirement home was approved with only 8 parking spaces, requiring council to subsequently ban parking on Jarvis Street because of overflow. Parking for the facility was not required to be changed by the owner. - Spencer House, with 160 beds, has some 80 parking spots. Residents in West Ridge, particularly Frost Court, were forced to deal with excessive parking and traffic from visitors who had no options. - Sundial Retirement, building on a property at the end of Laclie Street, recently came before Council for a plan amendment to allow for a second phase of construction. In this amendment they seek to reduce the number of spaces overall, resulting in only 3 additional spaces for 65 additional units. This was approved, Council stating they were sure the developer is a good enough citizen and will provide the parking required.

The article continues: " ...the City has shown to not be astute assessing parking demand at facilities similar to this, heck even for other types of development parking requirements are insufficient, pushing cars onto streets which then cause neighbours to get up in arms, which leads to parking bans." It seems to be a universal failure of our planning to address adequate parking for any kind of development. In a clear condemnation of the parking-versus-building process in Orillia, one counsellor this past week asked for a report to ban parking on Museum Drive, which runs alongside the Leacock Care Centre. Too many parked cars are clogging the road in his neighbourhood.

Recently, a developer on Laclie (not Sundial) requested a plan amendment. Instead of building 120 apartment units the developer decided it was more profitable to the shareholders to build 24 executive townhomes. Clearly, the city gave up 96 potentially attainable residential units to favour one developer.

Residents in West Ridge routinely express concerns about the influx of traffic and the inability to move efficiently in and out of their access roads. This, despite paying a premium for "executive homes". This was permitted under the Orillia plan and development guidelines.

Residents who make use of the Zehrs store off Westmount Drive have enough horror stories to fill a ghoulish Halloween bag. That design mess was also approved by the city under existing by-laws.

Many residents in West Ridge also find the "executive": homes they bought at inflated prices are less than solidly built. There was concern expressed recently by one local developer that the rules are too stringent in Orillia - tell that to the people who are retrofitting their "new" homes. Tell that to the trades people who are asked to cut corners and to use less-than-desirable materials to meet the profit margin for investors.

Which brings me to the Waterfront Development. The track record of the city in reviewing and approving designs, and in requiring developers to adhere to stated standards of performance is rather sketchy. We are told that the developers of our pristine waterfront will adhere to strict standards.

1 https://www.facebook.com/SUNonlineOrillia/posts/2471401986419972?__tn__=K-R

Page 38 of 45

Rizzo - Waterfront Development Correspondence to Orillia Council - Dec 21 2018 page 3 What standards is the city referencing? The standards we have seen enforced in the past decade? - the shareholder's standards? Should the city perhaps clean up its zoning and construction by-laws before issuing permits to develop the last waterfront zone we have?

The Waterfront Development Plan puts forward an elevation image of what the repurposed waterfront might look like. This elevation clearly shows high-rise apartment or condominium complexes at or adjacent to the park and along the realigned Centennial Drive. These buildings approximate the existing Elgin condominiums. Based on the current real estate market, one must assume these will not be priced for the average resident. In discussions, we are assured that these will not scar the face of the city, yet there is no clear history that the developers will follow the guidelines provided. Based on recent development activity in town, it would be fair to assume that the two-story townhomes proposed for the old rail line (where the dining cars were) will also be postage stamp in size, priced above market, and crammed together for maximum profit. It would be disingenuous to assume that the developers, left on their own, would build appropriate parking and access in those sites. Left on their own, they would seek to maximize profits. The City is also on the line for the infrastructure required to make the properties "salable". Development fees are always in question. Recent discussions have pointed to development fees, in general, being too high to encourage developers to invest. Will the fees charged in this development effort be based on the premium status of the property and sufficient to cover the refurbishment and upgrading of Front Street and Coldwater Road and other access lanes? Will those decisions be sold along with the property to the highest bidder? Commentary: This is prime water view property. It is situated across from one of the more engaging waterfront parks in the region. In this transaction, the city is in position to make demands of the developers who stand to make significant profit off the development of these lands. These developers (and the real estate commissions that ensue) represent a strong lobby. The average citizens of Orillia (present and future) who will need access to the lakefront deserve as much attention from this present Council. Is the Council prepared to act on behalf of all residents of Orillia, or only on behalf of the developers? High-rise development makes no sense in terms of preserving the waterfront. It only curries favour with developers and the people who can afford the price of these units. The Waterfront Development Plan has the feel of having been designed in absentia by a big-city-based firm and a handful of potential investors and beneficiaries. When there are more than adequate lands available near Cedar Island and along West Street, it makes no sense to allow the type of development on the waterfront which will have the effect of turning Orillia into Barrie or the Beaches. The townhomes and high rises have not been designed with attainability in mind. There is no mention of the Affordable Housing Action Plan or any of the several recommendations which would apply. However, there is a way for the city to make more from this sale. The RFPs to accept bids to purchase are to be constructed by City staff and a consultant. The city has the upper hand here with the prime land it is offering. There is a golden opportunity for the city to restrict proposals to bidders who unconditionally agree to complete concurrent development of an equal portion of the brown fields and vacant areas of town. Some developers will balk. Others will accept the challenge. The city can collaborate in positioning those developers for grants and

Page 39 of 45

Rizzo - Waterfront Development Correspondence to Orillia Council - Dec 21 2018 page 4 federal/provincial assistance in completing that portion of their obligation, in return for having access to the waterfront properties. Other cities have done this successfully. Developers have profited, citizens have profited, and the cities achieved at least a portion of their stated housing goals. This IS possible - assuming the City is writing the RFP, not the developers. And, it is those with the property who should determine the use of that property - and those are the taxpayers of Orillia. The RFP should clearly state these requirements. Developers WILL come, despite objections from the usual suspects. This would have the effect of leveraging the city's most desirable neighbourhood to achieve needed attainable and affordable housing elsewhere in the core. It would also assure us that the successful bidders are socially conscious and willing to move Orillia into the next decade with adequate housing for all. There are developers with principles who would jump at this chance with the appropriate incentives. The City has this one chance to develop for ALL of its citizens. The developers who build and sell on the waterfront zone will be long gone before the owners have an opportunity to test the viability of the designs. Let's at least ensure that the developers who win the property are obligated to assist the city in meeting its other obligations. What is needed is the intestinal fortitude to stand up to self-interested lobbyists and the quick buck short-term mentality we see too often. As we have seen in Barrie, The Beaches, and even historic Coney Island, once the waterfront is developed and modified it is gone forever. Forever is a long time. Sincerely, Dennis Rizzo

Page 40 of 45

From: Susan VotourTo: Megan WilliamsSubject: FW: Waterfront Development - Public Meeting December 21 2018Date: December-20-18 11:08:54 AM

 

From: MARK ELGAR [mailto:m ] Sent: December-20-18 11:03 AMTo: Susan VotourCc: MARK ELGARSubject: Waterfront Development - Public Meeting December 21 2018

December 20, 2018

Re: Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment

Dear Mayor and Council,

We are writing to express our opposition to the Preferred Development Option and theassociated changes to the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law.

We are very supportive of the concept of Downtown and Waterfront Revitalization and wesupport the changes made that will encourage more residential and business developmentin the area.  The Matchedash Lofts are an excellent start in this direction.  We note thatthere is an abundance of privately owned property in the downtown area just waiting to beredeveloped in a similar manner.  There are also significant “water-view” parcels availablewith the Schacter, Imperial Oil, and Legion properties.However we are very unhappy with the plan to re-zone, sell off, and develop the “oldrailway” land to the west of Centennial Drive, between Mississaga and Tecumseth.  It is ouropinion that this land, currently zoned for parkland and public open space, should remain inpublic ownership and should be used for the purpose of moving the road to the west,expanding Centennial Park, and/or providing the infrastructure such as parking that this parkrequires now and will continue to need into the foreseeable future.We note that no study of parking requirements, nor of the Centennial / Couchiching BeachParks Master Plan has been conducted.  The Preferred Development Option shows a majorreduction in available parking and provides no consideration of alternatives. The issue wasimproperly ignored in the recent Environmental Assessment process.  The minor change inthe routing of Centennial Drive does not provide any significant increase in publicrecreational space.Currently, the beach, picnic areas and the many events in the park combined with the boatlaunch create a very high demand for parking space.  If Downtown Revitalization issuccessful in growing both the residential population and the number of visitors, thedemands on the parking areas will only increase.  In addition, more people and more eventsin the park will need to be accommodated in larger public spaces.

Page 41 of 45

It would be short-sighted and irresponsible to allow private development of public land thatimmediately abuts Centennial Park.  Council should remember that this park is very tiny andmore than half its space is already paved over and devoted to automobiles.  Centennial Parkneeds to be expanded to meet public needs, not encroached upon and forever constrainedby a wall of multi-story buildings.In summary, it is premature to change the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law before public andPark needs are considered.  Centennial Drive should be moved to the west.  It would befoolish to forgo the opportunity to dramatically improve the public waterfront experience byselling it off for private development.  The growing demand for public recreational space atthe waterfront is more important than the potential tax assessments of a couple of dozentownhouses.

Thank you for your consideration,

Mark and Wanda Elgar

Orillia, ON

Page 42 of 45

Brian Greer Futurist - Trend Spo tter - Digital Visionary

To the Mayor and Council of the City of Orilia

I write with reference to the Zoning Bylaw meeting scheduled for December 21'1_

FirsL., I assure Council that I share a desire to promote intelligent development of the central core of

Orillia, and commend them for making an apparently conscious attempt to improve the tax base of the City

to at least partly fund other aggressive developments.

Sadly, I fear that Counci l underestimates the real value and cultural significance of the Waterfronts. The

proposed rezoning appears to assume that the City must approach developers as a supplicant_._, offering up

a large swath of waterfront proximity property, with few attached conditions, in order to attract interest in

developing the waterfront.

I am always troubled when I hear elected officials and public servants adopt the language of high pressure

sales people. "We must act immediately or miss the opportunity." "We have to meet the deadline." No

Council member has enumerated or quantitatively valued what the "opportunity" is that we are fearful of

missing.

A City employee has stated " It is anticipated the city will release the RFP in the spring of 2019." I've seen no

notices of meetings where I might learn what the City proposes for the RFP. Accordingly, I take the rezoning

as a proxy of said RFP.

This "pre-zoning" affords Council very little negotiating room _ It reads instead like a collection of special

dispensations that a developer might ask for in a proposal. 6 story building? Sure no problem. 10? Let's talk

"community benefit". Build right up to Centennial Drive? No front yard is required! Outdoor amenity

areas? Don't worry about it ... , you can use the park.

I urge Councillors to walk the length of Centennial Drive and reflect on the proposed changes. The simple

hashmarks on the materia ls provided do not adequately illustrate the outcome.

The maps below illustrate more clearly where the concrete goes.

Onlha ON, Canada. - Phone [mail Page 43 of 45

Brian Greer Futu rist Trend Spotter Drgital Vis i ona r y

By approving this pre-zoning prior to an RFP, the City is defining the parameters as:

"We're kind of desperate to make this happen. You can have all this land and treat Couchiching Park as the

front yard. Access for Orillia residents in other areas of the City will be reduced. When the population

increases, the City forgoes its ability to expand the park functionality and capacity using the old rail lands."

Orillia Citizen Access

Centennial Drive re-alignment plans that Coldwater, Mississaga, and Colborne all become 3 lanes with a

continuous central turning lane. This seems the very definition of chaos. Parallel parking will be on the

WEST side of Centennial, running along the front of what are presumed townhouses built as close as

possible to the curb (4.2.9 of the proposed zoning). This will look and feel tightly constricted, particularly in

the Mississaga to Coldwater Road section. The inclusion of "urban space" on the NW corner of Mississaga

and Centennial will not ameliorate this problem, particularly as the question of where to park becomes

apparent to the user.

Obviously, the only way to directly access the described parallel parking spaces will be to enter Centennial

Drive off Tecumseth. Co ldwater Road is the "gateway", except it isn't. We can expect U-turns and visitors

using the existing parking lot or Terry Fox Circle in order to turn around to use the parking. Residents will of

course be aware of the availability of parking for their guests or customers, and it will be used accordingly.

Key Map: Centennial Drive Area Improvements

SeAL£ - · -·- E'lltng~ll'ti-vHT,_. - ---- PrcpoMII ~•Tral

Orll O'J(. ada - Ph r lP al Page 44 of 45

Brian Greer Fu t unst TrPrHI Spotter Drnrtal V rsionary

Outcome Redevelopment and densification is INTENDED to bring more vehicles to Centennial Drive. Adoption of this

zoning proposal turns Centennial Drive into a Collector Route, and the Park into something to be driven

through rather than walked in. The planning documents posted define Centennial as a Collector. The

inclusion of a comment that it is "intended to function as a Local Road with an emphasis on non-motorized

travel" changes neither the fact nor human behaviour.

The combination of the redevelopment encompassed in this zoning proposal along with Centennial Drive

Re-alignment results in reduced availability of parking/access by citizens and visitors. The sale of rail lands

in totality abandons the possibility of future expansion of the park or adding public amenities that would

serve both the Waterfront and the Main Street in a future, larger Orillia . There is no future Mississaga

Walking Street possible under this proposal.

The Supplementary Report to DSE-18-49 suggests that parking and access issues might be addressed by

special shuttle buses for special events, or that the zoning permits parking lots. More telling is the

observation that Waterfront area parking lots are mostly used during special events and that the gravel

area where the grain mill stood is not representative of "other City public Parking lots". This does not lead

logically to selling that land, particularly as the clear objective is to put MORE people in the area. Instead, it

begs the question of how the Waterfront RFP will benefit Orillia's Citizens and Downtown Merchants.

Candidly, I'm a realist. Although I'm hopeful, I suspect Council will approve this zoning proposal as is. The

past 2 years have been characterized by rushed decisions taken out of fear of "missing the opportunity." In

fact, the land will be there 50 years from now. The question is; what will be on the land, and who will own

it?

My deepest hope is that some Councillors will reflect on the totality of the project, and commit themselves

to insuring that the RFP does not contain, nor is any development proposal accepted, which is anything less

than a stellar advance for the citizenry of Orillia.

The RFP must be guided by a two principles ... "What is in this for the City? What is in this for our citizens?

Brian Greer

OrilliaON-

Ordlia. ON. C~nada - Phone - · [ rn.rd Page 45 of 45