Downtown Bureau

King/Dundurn Shoppers Drug Mart Plan Moves to OMB

On Wednesday evening, 25 to 30 residents of the Strathcona neighbourhood gathered to hear about the proposed development of the Shoppers Drug Mart location at the North East corner of King and Dundurn.

By Jason Allen
Published March 21, 2014

On Wednesday evening, 25 to 30 residents of the Strathcona neighbourhood gathered to hear about the proposed development of the Shoppers Drug Mart location at the North East corner of King and Dundurn. Councillor Brian McHattie kicked off the evening by introducing Matt Johnstone and IBI Group, the design contractors for Shoppers, who gave a short summary of the development.

Proposed new Shoppers Drug Mart on King at Dundurn
Proposed new Shoppers Drug Mart on King at Dundurn

In August of 2013, the initial design was submitted for an 8000+ sq. ft. Shoppers, with an additional four-storey, 27-unit apartment building to be located behind the Shoppers, facing onto Head Street to the North. There was considerable neighbourhood concern over the plan.

The concerns raised sent IBI back to the drawing board, but the delays caused by the redesign meant that the redevelopment would now be restricted by the new Strathcona secondary plan, which was about to be approved by council.

As a result, IBI chose to take the development proposal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) under Shoppers Drug Mart's direction. The OMB appeal addresses provisions in four different planning and zoning regulations, and was launched once the provincially mandated time limit for the city to respond to the original rezoning request had expired.

Although a developer is not required to appeal to the OMB once this deadline expires, and indeed many recent development proposals in Ward 1 in the past few years have not done so, Shoppers chose to appeal immediately.

Johnstone explained that the entire design process had been constrained by the existing long-term, renewable lease held by the Tim Hortons drive through, which gave them guaranteed street level visibility from King.

Further compounding the design was the no-truck restriction on Dundurn, requiring delivery vehicles for the enlarged Shoppers to enter from King, unload, and then turn around to exit back onto King.

Take-It-Or-Leave-It

With all of these restrictions in place, IBI presented the proposal that is now before the OMB. Unfortunately, due to the nature of OMB appeals, it meant that the proposal being presented to residents on Monday night was essentially a take it or leave it proposition, with Johnstone stating on several occasions that the only alternative to IBI's design was to leave the property as it is now.

Overhead site plan
Overhead site plan

The design itself is for the Tim Hortons to move to the front of the lot, just behind the popular bus stop on King and Dundurn. It would be surrounded by a small landscaped area with possible benches and trees to improve the streetscape.

The drive-through would be behind it, with vehicles still entering from King, and winding up past the Shoppers entrance to begin queueing for their coffees.

Dominating the plan is the 62-vehicle parking lot that would be at the front of the 17,000 sq. ft. two-storey Shoppers facing onto King Street. The driveway from King would be moved further east, and the driveway onto Dundurn moved further North, which would line up directly with Hunt Street on the other side.

The Shoppers itself would have a mezzanine level for office space for the store along with storage. The loading dock would be located at the front of the store on the East side of the building, due to the no-truck restriction on Dundurn, a feature that was described as highly unusual.

At the back of the property would be eight townhouses facing on to Head Street, with garages at ground level, and a second and third floor living space.

Townhouse condos on Head Street
Townhouse condos on Head Street

Unusual for this arrangement, and possibly unique to Hamilton, would be the presence of a "backyard amenity," a deck or patio, that would be accessed from the second floor of the townhouses and located on the roof of the Shoppers. As such, the townhouses would be condominiums, and would share a rear wall with the retail store.

Community Frustration with Process

After the initial presentation, various residents spoke. Strathcona Community Council executive member Jennifer Dawson described her frustration at the process, feeling that community voices had been shut out by Shoppers appeal to the OMB.

She reminded the audience that the Strathcona Secondary plan had come about after years of consultation with residents.

At this point, McHattie and Edward John from planning stepped in to say that they were continuing to work with IBI on the fine details of the plan, in the hopes that minor improvements could be agreed upon.

Dawson also expressed reservations about the driveway on Dundurn aligning with Hunt Street. Her concern, echoed by many there, was that Tim Hortons customers would simply race across Dundurn and down Hunt. This increased traffic would then access Hwy 403 at Breadalbane and King, the location of a two-way bike lane that has already seen a number of serious accidents.

Some residents also expressed their disapproval of the modern look and feel of the town homes in a neighbourhood that dates from the late 1800s.

Others asked questions about increased traffic on residential streets such as Strathcona Avenue and New Street as shoppers tried to navigate their way from the Dundurn Fortinos back to Shoppers to complete their errands.

Closer to Neighbourhood Wishes

While many in attendance had concerns, several residents on Head Street expressed support for the Shoppers design itself, and congratulated IBI on the work they had done to bring the design closer to what the neighbourhood would have wanted.

Several residents then suggested ideas on how to improve the development, prompting Johnstone to repeat again that because the proposal was before the OMB, not much was possible in the way of changes to the design.

Closing up the meeting, Councillor McHattie asked for feedback on the design to be emailed either to him, or to the Strathcona Community Council. He requested specific feedback that he could consider in deciding whether or not to ask the city to oppose or support the design at the OMB.

Edward John from planning also explained that only residents who had already written to the city with concerns over the development would be able to request participant status for the pre-hearing Aril 7. Any community members who had expressed concerns to the city, in writing, in the past were welcome to show up on the 7 and request to be part of the process.

Jason Allen is a chronic hive whacker in the Kirkendall Neighbourhood.

70 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By CDH (anonymous) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 09:02:36

Thank goodness for the OMB... Despite it's murky ways, it really saves this province from excessive nimbyism, something I bet most North American cities are extremely jealous of. Looks like a nice plan to me.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted March 25, 2014 at 13:07:09 in reply to Comment 98779

who doesn't love a giant parking lot on prime urban land....

Permalink | Context

By oldcoote (registered) | Posted March 25, 2014 at 11:53:24 in reply to Comment 98779

Some might argue the OMB allows developers to push past local opposition.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By durander (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 09:19:39

Looks like a great plan to me! Let's make it happen...enough with "Nimby-ism"...much better than what's there now...and will actually help improve Strathcona!

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted March 25, 2014 at 13:08:59 in reply to Comment 98784

Let's make a trade. You can take the 62 space parking lot and big box store and drive thru, we'll take the 15 storey condo being proposed in Durand that you're neighbourhood is all up in arms about.
We'll see if we can get a retail space on the ground floor of the condo building, facing King.

It's a win-win. You get rid of hundreds of new residents in a new condo and you get the giant parking lot and drive-thru that will improve Durand.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By kdslote (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 09:32:19

I was optimistic when I looked at the elevation - the form looks relatively urban. Then I looked at the plan and saw that there is a sea of parking in front of the Shoppers!!! Very disappointing to have such a suburban-style development at an important corner location on the edge of downtown.

Imagine how much better this would be if they were creating a continuous streetwall along King. Shoppers was able to achieve this (somewhat) on King St in Dundas. It's sad that regulatory restrictions appear to be preventing that from even being an option here.

Permalink | Context

By JasonAAllen (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2014 at 10:03:11 in reply to Comment 98787

Just to clarify: Regulatory restrictions would have REQUIRED just what you're asking for - the continuous streetwall - specifically the Strathcona Secondary plan. It was the Tim Hortons lease that prevented it.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2014 at 10:19:14 in reply to Comment 98797

How on earth does a property owner's lease agreement with a tenant trump the city's zoning and land use bylaws?

Permalink | Context

By Tybalt (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 11:11:08 in reply to Comment 98806

I don't think it does trump it. But to pay off the Horton's franchisee may simply be too expensive.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2014 at 11:17:28 in reply to Comment 98828

But why would the City have to change its built form rules to allow Shoppers to honour its contract with Tim Hortons? How can a tenancy contract violate the zoning bylaw?

Permalink | Context

By JasonAAllen (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2014 at 11:53:38 in reply to Comment 98832

Hence the appeal to the OMB. It was initiated prior to the secondary plan being approved, for that reason. That being said, the Drive Through is a 'legal non-conforming use', and it's expansion would have likely survived the implementation of the SSP. Because the drive-through was grandfathered in, it's very difficult to get rid of it, or so it was explained at the meeting.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2014 at 16:06:28 in reply to Comment 98838

I'm surprised that even a complete re-build like this supports grandfathering. I mean, in other fields you tend to lose whatever wiggle-room you've been given on regulations when you tear down and rebuild from scratch.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 23:06:18 in reply to Comment 98867

Last year in one of our meetings earlier on in this project we were told that Hortons has a 10-year lease guaranteeing them no buildings will be built at the front of the property to their east. They wrote right into the agreement that their store can be the only thing to locate at the front of the property so traffic only sees their store while coming along King.

And all this time I thought it was their massive customer base of coffee/donut addicts that drove their profitability. Apparently nobody really wants to go there, but they can't help themselves when driving down the street and seeing their cute little store surrounded by parking lots.

Ticats, HWDSB, Hortons..... geez, some of biggest corporate/institutional giants are our worst enemies in this city.

Permalink | Context

By HamiltonBrian (registered) | Posted March 23, 2014 at 13:10:13 in reply to Comment 98897

"Ticats, HWDSB, Hortons..... geez, some of biggest corporate/institutional giants are our worst enemies in this city."

I've often wondered if it'd be worthwhile to direct-action right by the drive-thru...just a sandwich board suggesting "Bad Coffee, Worse Community Building" or something to that effect.

At some point future generation will hear of this thing called a drive-thru and shake their heads.

Permalink | Context

By kdslote (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 10:32:31 in reply to Comment 98806

Ugh. Ridiculous.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2014 at 09:43:06

You can't tell me that Tim Horton's stocks their old-city Toronto locations with 18-wheeler transport trucks.

Permalink | Context

By lunky (anonymous) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 15:04:59 in reply to Comment 98790

18 wheelers? No, but they do have box trucks who love to park in bike lanes. Sometimes they even park on the sidewalk.

Permalink | Context

By JasonAAllen (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2014 at 10:01:00 in reply to Comment 98790

No, but Shoppers does.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2014 at 09:48:58 in reply to Comment 98790

We allow it because we don't think we deserve any better: new urban fast-food stores with drive-thrus, suburban-style commercial plazas behind off-street parking lots, malls reconstructed as big box blocks, etc. ad nauseam.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By grahamm (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 09:54:25

That parking lot is going to be a mess. The entrance to the Shoppers is right where cars aiming for the drive thru will be turning. It's not great how it is now, but having the cars that are not going to Shoppers pass right by the front door of the Shoppers is going to create endless conflicts.

Fortino's plaza anyone? Cars headed for parking spaces should pass by front doors.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By anjoman (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 10:00:25

The trucking ban seems problematic to me. It basically means that no business that requires deliveries could ever open on that street, regardless of how appropriate or desirable that business is to the local residents. I understand the desire to stop trucks from using your neighborhood as a shortcut, but this is a bad side effect. Local trucking is one of the most efficient uses of roadways.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2014 at 10:18:20 in reply to Comment 98795

The truck ban is to ban through trucks from using Dundurn as a way to get somewhere else. Local deliveries are still allowed.

In any case, most self-respecting cities restrict the use of 18-wheeler transport trucks through mixed urban neighbourhoods. There's no reason deliveries can't be made with a smaller truck.

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted March 24, 2014 at 12:03:09 in reply to Comment 98805

The truck ban is to ban through trucks from using Dundurn as a way to get somewhere else. Local deliveries are still allowed.

This statement seems at odds with the article, which says that the design was restricted because their delivery truck has to stay off Dundern:

Further compounding the design was the no-truck restriction on Dundurn, requiring delivery vehicles for the enlarged Shoppers to enter from King, unload, and then turn around to exit back onto King.

If the ban really applies only to through trucks, and not to local deliveries, then I don't understand why the ban constrains the design. I would think that whether the truck went on Dundern or King, this would be considered a local delivery.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted March 24, 2014 at 12:27:52 in reply to Comment 99078

Im guessing it's just Shoppers misleading the public so they can build a giant parking lot on King St.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted March 25, 2014 at 22:32:38 in reply to Comment 99080

You're right. It's a conspiracy!

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 21:13:16 in reply to Comment 98805

There is no reason why deliveries cannot be made with cargo bicycles. We already have a company in Hamilton specializing in just that. See:

https://www.facebook.com/THAATCoop

Permalink | Context

By AP (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 23:49:12 in reply to Comment 98887

@KevinLove, did you really just let the chance to say "specializing in just THAAT" pass you by?! Missed opportunities abound ;)

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted March 22, 2014 at 14:45:28 in reply to Comment 98901

The pun was deliberate on my part, but I was of the opinion that spelling it "THAAT" would be piling it on too thick. Subtle humour is more my style.

Permalink | Context

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 10:57:42 in reply to Comment 98805

"There's no reason deliveries can't be made with a smaller truck."

Not unless you are prepared to pay higher prices.

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted March 22, 2014 at 14:50:54 in reply to Comment 98823

But we are paying high prices. According to the Medical Officer of Health, the health care costs of air pollution in Toronto due to cars and trucks is $2.2 billion per year. Do the math to scale it for Hamilton.

Source:

http://www.smartcommutetoronto.ca/media/...

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2014 at 11:13:14 in reply to Comment 98823

Tell me, do they use 18 wheelers to deliver into their locations in other dense urban environments like Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, etc. No?

Then why should Hamilton have to suffer that? Because you think this city sucks and therefore should take whatever we can get?

Permalink | Context

By Keith (anonymous) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 13:45:32 in reply to Comment 98830

Ottawa's truck route goes through the downtown core to access the Macdonald-Cartier bridge, including many turns (for instance, Nicholas to Rideau to King Edward). It's not uncommon to see some making deliveries along the way (you can see them parked outside of the Zellers on Spark Street occasionally). They also have the habit of getting lumber trucks coming in from the Quebec side.

Most of the major roads in the Market are designated truck routes.

Permalink | Context

By smithgregc (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 10:52:46 in reply to Comment 98805

I brought this very point up. I'm not sure how the city defines a truck.

This is an acceptable delivery vehicle: http://www.publiquip.com/photo/E350-E450...

These are not: http://www.scenicreflections.com/files/N... http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3118/30860...

I challenged the Shoppers rep. with the fact they would use the the largest vehicle possible allowed under by-law. I then asked how they manage to service other urban stores where 18 wheelers aren't allowed. I went on to state that it seems as if the design of the site was placing too great an emphasis on the ability to stock the store with an 18 wheeler. The rep became very defensive, and it broke down into shouting. At the end of the meeting the rep approached me and apologized, and added that he very much doubted they would be using a full size semi to service this store, likely a single axel truck.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2014 at 11:01:02 in reply to Comment 98820

Unfortunately, the city's truck route bylaw is a blunt instrument that does not distinguish between different types of truck. Dan Rodrigues did a good write-up on this issue during the debate over the new truck route a few years ago.

Permalink | Context

By jonathan (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 17:24:00 in reply to Comment 98825

I had an interesting run-in with a police officer, who was kind enough to inform me that my unloaded company pickup truck was not allowed on truck routes (specifically, King St. through downtown). Not because it was overweight, but because it was REGISTERED for a higher weight than the limit. Except that someone at my office messed up, and it was actually incorrectly registered for less than the limit. Long story short, someone's screw-up prevented me from getting a ticket.

I mentioned to him that he must see a lot of people who don't consider their pickup trucks as being over weight for truck route limitations. His response? 'Yep...easy tickets!'.

Unintended consequences...

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted March 22, 2014 at 14:56:25 in reply to Comment 98869

There are far too many pickup trucks being driven downtown. We should strongly encourage Hamilton Police to enforce the law and write these tickets.

Permalink | Context

By smithgregc (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 11:11:40 in reply to Comment 98825

I had a vague recollection of this. Thanks for digging it out. Seems ridiculous, I'd have no problem with a cube van being allowed on every city street. I'd be completely fine walking or cycling beside this:

Alt Text

Comment edited by smithgregc on 2014-03-21 11:12:25

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ask tim (anonymous) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 12:44:06

Surely Tim Hortons would revisit its lease in the interest of community building or at least not community destroying???

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 23:08:27 in reply to Comment 98843

hahahahahahahahahaha

Permalink | Context

By JasonAAllen (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2014 at 12:53:21 in reply to Comment 98843

They will not. They were approached by both the city and the developpers to see if they would reconsider their requirement for both street visibility from King, and a drive through, and the answer was no.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2014 at 13:36:38 in reply to Comment 98844

A drive-through Tim's on King is a license to print money. Every commuter heading out to the 403 is going to swing by on their way to the onramp. I'm not really surprised they're not going to back down on that point.

At least with the double-wide queue the line might not back out to the street the way the one on Main does.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 23:09:47 in reply to Comment 98853

but make note, they could still keep their drive-thru, but allow the Shoppers store to be built at the sidewalk. They've only uttered one word the past 2 years to every single question, suggestion or offer made to them by the community: No

Permalink | Context

By jonathan (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 17:29:33 in reply to Comment 98853

Not every commuter. The smart ones have discovered that the self-serve in the Esso station is considerably faster than that drive-thru.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2014 at 13:35:12 in reply to Comment 98844

How pathetic is it that a Tim Horton's drive-thru has the power to bring a city of half a million to its knees. We desperately need the collective self-confidence to say NO to low-quality, low-value development. We're going to be stuck with this garbage for decades.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Boycott tim (anonymous) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 14:33:14

I'm boycotting Tim Hortons. But then again, I don't drink coffee anyway :)

Seriously though, its not in corporate interests to ruin the community's potential. Its the opposite of giving back to the very city that made this company.

Permalink | Context

By Henry and Joe (anonymous) | Posted March 22, 2014 at 01:21:28 in reply to Comment 98860

^I like that idea. These particular drive through Tim Horton's are, by way of policy, anti-community. I recall walking over to this particular location only to pull on a locked door. I was surprised by the locked doors given that the establishment was open. The clerk mimed to me a car driving motion through the window which I took to mean that I could get service by car only. I mimed back a foot walking motion, and all I got was a disapproving nod. Their coffee is sub-par and most of the food is inedible. Consuming their products is really a matter of last resort for me.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Keith (anonymous) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 15:38:15

So what does the community want exactly given the constraints that exist? It seems like a fairly reasonable and respectful design given the limitations and practicalities of the site.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 23:14:20 in reply to Comment 98865

the main thing the community wanted was for both stores to face King with parking in the back. The new Shoppers at Main/Emerson is a great example. Would have been great to start to re-urbanize King.

I don't go to Hortons, but if I ever do, I'll be sure to not head to any owned by the couple who own this one. They were sitting in the front row literally laughing at us (the community) at the first public meeting about this topic a couple of years ago. They think it's a big laugh that we want walkable streets and neighbourhoods. We were suggesting street patio facing King/Dundurn, still keep the drive-thru, perhaps in a mixed-use building containing both Hortons, Shopper with condos above.

They sat there and giggled and laughed until someone finally blew their top and let them have it.
We asked them repeated questions for the 2.5 hours and they didn't say a single word. Just sat there ignoring everyone and everything that was going on.

Permalink | Context

By fmurray (registered) | Posted March 22, 2014 at 12:51:51 in reply to Comment 98900

I don't often go to Tim Horton's but would like to avoid locations owned by this arrogant couple. Which locations do they own?

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted March 22, 2014 at 14:45:54 in reply to Comment 98933

westdale

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted March 22, 2014 at 18:22:06 in reply to Comment 98940

Good to know. I don't go there often anyway, but this gives me a good reason to give it up altogether.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Groan (anonymous) | Posted March 21, 2014 at 22:28:54

I wish I knew what the spam words I'm using are. I feel like posting one word at a time to see what gets denied.
Don't get me wrong Ryan, I appreciate what you're up against and everything RTH provides for the community but can't find any rhyme or or reason to recent anon comment denials.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted March 22, 2014 at 00:02:52 in reply to Comment 98895

Honestly, just register an account. You can get disposable fake email accounts easily online if you want to protect your privacy. The spam-filter only applies to anonymous comments.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By This sucks (anonymous) | Posted March 22, 2014 at 00:23:46

Seriously, like Ryan, I can't understand how or why these Timmy owners should have their way with this drive thru. Like Ryan said we'll be stuck with this BS at a key intersection for decades. Anyone have a gamelan to stop this from happening?

Permalink | Context

By Rimshot (anonymous) | Posted March 23, 2014 at 17:51:23 in reply to Comment 98904

"Anyone have a gamelan to stop this from happening?"

Try this one: youtube.com/watch?v=qIq8LNbYKT8

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted March 22, 2014 at 09:07:24

All consternation aside, I think it's important to now make sure that we get some very clear design requests added into this project.

I sent this to the Strathcona prez and McHattie the other night and they agreed we need to ensure it happens.

  1. Bike parking
  2. vegetation around the site and parking lot. And not just the useless strip of grass and two scrawny trees required by city staff. http://cdn3.pacifichorticulture.org/wp-c...

  3. Proper landscaped frontages on Head St that will enhance the street, not just pave it over. http://www.torontolife.com/wp-content/up...

I think I also differ from some at the meeting the other night in that I'd love to see modern town homes such as the ones pictured above. Faux heritage usually ends up being some of the worst architecture imaginable.

Some heritage features mixed with modern design can work, as is currently being built in Corktown: http://www.corktowns.ca/images/image19.j...

But the landscaping and street trees in front of Shoppers, on Dundurn and on Head are something the community can agree on and should push for.

Comment edited by jason on 2014-03-22 09:10:10

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted March 25, 2014 at 22:38:27 in reply to Comment 98922

Some heritage features mixed with modern design can work, as is currently being built in Corktown: http://www.corktowns.ca/images/image19.j...

Great shot there where most of the stucco is not visible. Here's a much better shot on this thread:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthre...

This doesn't go with the rest of the neighbourhood. The ones being built over at Young and Catherine much better match the existing buildings.

So why is it that the city can't say no to a small coffee outlet? I'd like to know more about that since that is apparently why this redevelopment can't go forward. Also, would the Shoppers be 24 hours still or would it become another "open till midnight" location?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Observer (anonymous) | Posted March 22, 2014 at 16:13:06

It looks like they're building a parking lot, to me. It is a case, again, of designing for the automobile with suburban planning for an urban environment. It is disgraceful.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By krist (registered) - website | Posted March 22, 2014 at 23:51:19

Thanks for the write up Jason A., this is an excellent summary of the meeting.

Jason L., I openly hinted that this location be targeted as a hub for the bike share, and Councillor McHattie echoed that others had this in mind as well.

I think that it is important that those who are insisting that this is nimbyism be informed that this is a development that residents were excited for. We wanted this to be an example of how mixed-use commercial space can be used as positive urban intensification. Instead, we're left with a gigantic parking lot-66 spaces. A parking lot that is designed to potentially steer traffic onto 2 quiet residential streets (Hunt and Breadlebane). The Tim Hortons driveway flows directly adjacent to Hunt Street in this design, which is everything our neighbours were against.

Shoppers knew this. They saw that the Strathcona Secondary Plan would deny this format of the development. They took it to the OMB so that it would remove the future potential of public input.

As for Tim Hortons, the franchisee also operates the Fortinos' Plaza sit-down restaurant. This is why they are unwilling to have this unit be sit-down. Forces our community to have to navigate a terrible intersection for pedestrians, King and Dundurn. At least my love for ice cream won't be bringing me into their store anymore (alas, I enjoyed the Coldstone Creamery too much).

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted March 23, 2014 at 09:31:39 in reply to Comment 98974

Good summary Krist, thx.

Couple of thoughts:

  1. Why do they need 66 parking spaces?? The new Shoppers on Main across from Mac looks to only have maybe 20ish.
  2. Somehow I missed this in all the months of discussion on this project, but how can their driveway lead to Hunt? Did they but the homes on Dundurn?? So, now we're losing part of the residential street wall on Dundurn for parking lots and a driveway??

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted March 23, 2014 at 12:30:35 in reply to Comment 98999

The number of car parking spaces they need is zero. This is an urban environment. Walking, cycling and public transit provide all the transportation needed.

Permalink | Context

By durander (registered) | Posted March 24, 2014 at 13:10:09 in reply to Comment 99005

Zero? Really? So when I want to go get prescriptions from Bay South, I should walk or take the bus?!? Come on!

Permalink | Context

By dandruff (anonymous) | Posted March 24, 2014 at 13:57:07 in reply to Comment 99084

Or you could go to the drug store one block away on Caroline and Herkimer, which doesn't have any parking and seems to do okay. Or you could go to the multiple drug stores a couple blocks away on James, which don't have any parking and seem to dookay.

Guess what? We're in a city! Not everywhere has to have it's own parking lot!

Permalink | Context

By durander (registered) | Posted March 24, 2014 at 15:53:36 in reply to Comment 99085

Awesome...I'll go at 8 o'clock when I get home...oh no, wait...because it's not a busy store, it closes early...so i'll take the ever convenient off-peak HSR...

Permalink | Context

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted March 24, 2014 at 12:44:49 in reply to Comment 99005

Are we talking about practical needs, or city-mandated parking requirements?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By krist (registered) - website | Posted March 23, 2014 at 11:17:25

Jason,

  1. The Shoppers at Main and Emmerson is of substantially less square footage. I believe they don't have a pharmacy, or a post office.

This new, 17000 square foot unit will no longer have a drive through - which is what they will probably use to justify increased parking. With the additional square footage and much larger delivery bay, I assume they will be applying to Canada Post to increase their net reach of package delivery. I have no clue how that system works, this is all assumption.

  1. The site concept was submitted July 11, 2013, to the City's planning department. I believe that it was unclear at our meeting with Brian in October if they had actually purchased the homes on Dundurn that will have to be demolished. Estimating from the site concept, I believe we're going to see three homes knocked down.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hshields (registered) - website | Posted March 25, 2014 at 15:47:29

  1. Like most urban planning issues it comes down to parking. It looks like this re-designed plaza is increasing surface parking in the face of greater density requirements. How will these two forces manage to live together?

  2. What ever happened to the re-design efforts of Dundurn Plaza across the street? Is this a preview of what we should expect from OMB and parking issues?

Permalink | Context

By what would you do (anonymous) | Posted March 26, 2014 at 19:16:23 in reply to Comment 99128

If you owned this land, what would you do given the way people move around this City? Given it is a commercial property and you want people to come to it, would you want parking?

Permalink | Context

By Don't Be Silly (anonymous) | Posted March 26, 2014 at 19:28:20 in reply to Comment 99193

What a stupid question. This land should have been expropriated for public housing.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Nearby Neighbour (anonymous) | Posted April 02, 2014 at 14:13:54

Am I the only one depressed by the design of the town houses? I really don't like the idea of looking at those ugly cubes and the fact that the houses already there have to be destroyed for it makes me even more sad.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds