Recommendation: That, notwithstanding the
recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning & City Planner, the
application of Romlex International Inc., relating to the properties located
at 1057, 1059 and 1061 Richmond Street BE REFERRED to the Civic
Administration for consideration of the following:
a)
designating
the laneway one way, heading north;
b) traffic in and out access
on/onto Richmond Street;
c) the removal of the holding
provision for the stairs; and,
d) meet with the applicant and the
neighbours;
it being pointed out that at the public
participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals
made oral submissions in connection therewith:
·
A.
R. Patton, Patton, Cormier & Associates, on behalf of the applicant – advising
that his client agrees with the “Conclusion” section of the Civic
Administration’s report; expressing four issues of concern in the Civic
Administration’s report; reading the second bullet point under “Additional
Transportation Comments (January 25, 2013)”; advising that the stairs are
accessed by the north and south sides of the building; noting that there is a
patio in this area; advising that there is no doubt that the church built the
stairs on city property; advising that the structure has been there for a
long time, presumably with the City’s permission; indicating that the Civic
Administration would like to remove the stairs and patio area for bus rapid
transit; indicating that bus rapid transit is important; however, it is
premature to have such an impact on this building; indicating that there is
no need for the holding provision for the stairs; noting that the City owns
the land; advising that the final design of the bus rapid transit on Richmond
Street has not been completed; recommending that, 20 to 30 years from now, if
the members of the Planning and Environment Committee are still on Council,
that they have a bunker to hide in as the residents of Richmond Street are
not going to be happy with the removal of their trees for bus rapid transit;
reading the first bullet point under “Additional Transportation Comments
(January 25, 2013)”; advising that Richmond Street is four lanes and
enquiring as to what kind of median would be installed; advising that
rights-in and rights-out onto Richmond Street are legal; advising that there
is no proposal to restrict left turns onto Sherwood Avenue; indicating that,
in the proposed by-law, the Civic Administration gets prescriptive; advising
that the first unit and the east end shown on the proposed layout in the
Civic Administration’s report is shown as a four bedroom apartment; noting
that the proposed apartment will be approximately 1800 square feet, which is
a luxury apartment and the patio will be included for the tenants of the
apartment to use; noting that the proposed second four bedroom apartment will
be the same layout and be located above the four bedroom apartment on the
first floor; stating that Trudeau once commented that “the state has no
business in people’s bedrooms”; advising that the expected tenants would be
nurses, professionals and business owners along Richmond Street; advising
that the church parishioners parked in the parking lot behind the church; indicating
that there are 20 parking spaces for fourteen units; noting that the ratio of
parking spots to units in this area of the City is one to one; indicating
that the property is within easy walking distance to the University, the
hospital and businesses; advising that they are meeting the parking standards
established by the City; advising that the residence located at 1057 Richmond
Street is not a well-kept building; noting that it has been a student
residence for a long time; advising that the original proposal was to turn
the building into offices and the property located at 203 Sherwood Avenue
would be used for parking; indicating that when the development at 1057, 1059
and 1061 Richmond Street is completed, the property located at 203 Sherwood
Avenue will be listed for sale; and requesting that the Zoning By-law be
implemented with two changes, namely, the inclusion of two four bedroom
apartments and the removal of the holding provision; advising that the
garbage will be stored internally and picked up by the City on the assigned
day; indicating that his client is willing to restrict vehicular traffic onto
the laneway at the end of his parking lot; advising that the incline on the
laneway starts well west of his clients’ property; advising that the laneway
does not deal with the function or safety of the proposed development; and
advising that it is an increase in one unit, not 10%.
·
Jeff
Gard, 204 Victoria Street – indicating that his property abuts 203 Sherwood
Avenue; advising that he has had a bit of experience with laneways;
indicating that the laneway from Victoria Street to Cheapside Street is a
private laneway; noting that there is no verbage on the registered plan for
the laneway between Sherwood Avenue and Victoria Street; advising that, prior
to 2002, the City was listed as the owner of the laneway; indicating that
there was a huge fight with the church when they wanted to install the stairs
in 2000/2001; expressing concern with the effect of the development on the
laneway; noting that the laneway is in horrific shape, is not maintained by
the City and that gravel from the laneway runs on to the sidewalk; and
enquiring as to whether the City is going to take responsibility when the
sewers break because of the increased traffic.
·
Helen
Luckman, 1069 Richmond Street – advising that she has resided in her house
since 1973; noting that she previously lived at 203 Sherwood Avenue;
indicating that they were relative newcomers and were welcomed by their
neighbours; reading item seven under “Rationale” in the Civic
Administration’s report; emphasizing the words “while maintaining the
character of the abutting residential neighbourhood”; suggesting that the
living space in each of the units could be enlarged to have the number of
units equal the number of parking spaces; hoping that the developer sees the
comments in a constructive manner; and hoping that this building can become a
creative, attractive and novel destination in Old North.
·
Steve
Harris, 201 Sherwood Avenue – expressing concern with the dramatic increase
in traffic; indicating that 10 of the 13 homes along Sherwood Avenue are
owner occupied; indicating that the development will double traffic and tax
the laneway; advising that laneway is one way; advising that the lane is
accessed from Sherwood Avenue and runs from Regent Street to Grosvenor
Street; indicating that there is poor visibility when turning onto Victoria
Street; advising that his greatest concern is the safety of the children who
travel along the laneway; advising that there is no room on the laneway for
pedestrians if a vehicle uses the laneway; indicating that if two people were
driving, from opposite ends of the laneway, one person would have to back all
the way out; indicating that Richmond Street is designed to carry a high
volume of traffic but the laneway is not; advising that there is no green
space around the church; and indicating that it is sad that a heritage
building may be torn down for a parking lot.
·
James
Waters, 1059 Richmond Street – indicating that access to and from the parking
lot should only be from Richmond Street.
·
Pollyanna
McClinton, 194 Sherwood Avenue – advising that there are a lot of families
living on Sherwood Avenue; indicating that it is a beautiful street and
neighbourhood; noting that they have excellent neighbours; expressing concern
with the impact of this application on the community; expressing concern with
children using the laneway and having to watch out for cars; requesting that
people think about how the laneway is used; noting that people bicycle along
the laneway in the summer and that the laneway is not plowed in the winter;
indicating that the laneway is in terrible shape; advising that she does not
drive down the lane; indicating that that laneway is convenient for people
along Sherwood Avenue; and, advising that the lane south of Victoria Street
is larger, has speed bumps and is plowed.
·
Mike
Cornelius, 192 Sherwood Avenue – expressing concerns with the amount of
density and the amount of vehicle parking; advising that the Official Plan
states that the density needs to be 75 units per hectare; noting that this
proposal is for 76.6 units per hectare; indicating that this would be a 10%
increase from the Official Plan requirement; indicating that this raises
questions about density; enquiring as to whether this Council is favouring
low density residential or the higher density developments; advising that he
thought that there would only be one four bedroom unit, not two; advising that
the representative for the applicant indicated that they meet the requirement
for parking; advising that most people have cars; noting that there will be
32 bedrooms and parking for 20 cars; further noting that there may be more
than one person per unit and advising that guests will need parking.
·
Mary
Anne Colihan, 191 Sherwood Avenue – advising that the residents of Sherwood
Avenue are hemmed in; indicating that this proposal will jam up their access;
noting that Sherwood Avenue is a dead end street; indicating that there is a
dip towards the end of the street; advising that there is no way to turn
around at the end of the street and several vehicles have had to be towed
out, including city garbage trucks, buses and plows; indicating that cars
cannot park safely on the street, even after the plow has gone by; indicating
that all of the trees along the laneway have been cut down by Mr. Grigoris; indicating
that the lane was built for horses and buggies to travel down it; advising
that the neighbours knew that the church would be occupied, they just weren’t
sure how it would be used; indicating that the property located at 203
Sherwood Avenue should not be cut down; enquiring as to what stops developers
from knocking down more homes; advising that there is a sea of “for sale”
signs along Richmond Street; expressing hope for a true adaptive use of the
church; requesting that the development be made into a green development;
advising that there could be a secure bike unit to encourage people to use
their bicycles; and advising that the neighbours would like to see less
density.
·
Brian
Luckman, 1069 Richmond Street – requesting that everyone look at the first
floor plan; noting that there are three proposed entrances; further noting
that there are currently only two entrances; expressing concerns with the
possible increase in garbage on Richmond Street; enquiring as to where the
garbage will be stored and where it will be picked up from; enquiring as to
where the 10% green space is; advising that there is no green space on the
owner’s property, it’s all on the City’s property. (2013-D14A)
|