Recommendation: That the Planning
and Environment Committee was unable to reach a majority decision with
respect to the staff recommendation contained in Agenda Item No. 13 relating
to the application of Romlex
International Inc. regarding
the properties
located at 1057, 1059 and 1061 Richmond Street and pursuant to Section 18.6 of the
Council Procedure By-law, the appended staff recommendation BE SUBMITTED
to the Municipal Council for its disposition; it being noted that the
relevant staff report is attached for reference;
it being noted that the Planning and
Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication, dated May 1,
2013, from W. Pol, Pol Associates Inc., with respect to this matter;
it
being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with
this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection
therewith:
·
Richard
Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the applicant – expressing general
support for the staff recommendations; indicating that there is no need for the
holding provision for the front staircase; advising that the front staircase
is clearly on the municipal road allowance and the municipality can remove it
any time it needs the right-of-way; reiterating that there is no need for the
holding provision on the front staircase; advising that the design of the
building is such that the staircase is not necessary for the function of the
building as the ground units access the side entrance; advising that the
second holding provision deals with the details of site plan; noting that the
main portion of the site plan is known, being the church; noting that no
other buildings are being proposed to be built on this site; advising that
the other site plan details are parking, access and the laneway; asking the
Planning and Environment Committee to support the other elements of the staff
recommendation as this is an efficient and effective reuse of an important
building in the streetscape; advising that the intensification is fully
within the parameters of the City’s Official Plan, even without the bonusing;
advising that the bonusing provides the Municipal Council with extra control
to ensure that things are done in a particular way; advising that the
intensity that is being sought is an intensity that is permissible under the
Low Density Residential designation that applies to this property without
bonusing; indicating that this approach is an acceptable one where there is a
heritage building; noting that the approach that is being taken ties the use
to the building in an appropriate matter; advising that the comment was made
to refer the matter back to staff, noting that the Municipal Council has
already referred this matter back to staff for specific matters to be dealt
with; advising that the applicant has agreed to a number of improvements to
the laneway; indicating that the matter of traffic in and out on Richmond
Street was dealt with by the City’s Transportation staff and lead to the
recommendation before Committee today; advising that people will not be
crammed into the basement; noting that there will only be three units in the
basement; advising that the demolition of 203 Sherwood Avenue is no longer
part of the application; advising that the church is not to be considered as
a single family residence; noting that churches are not prezoned in all
single family residential areas because they have locational criteria and
they are intensive uses; indicating that what is being proposed is a
residential use fully in keeping with Low Density Official Plan Policies, as
well as in keeping with the Provincial Policy Statement; noting that the
Policies promote the preservation of buildings of cultural heritage merit;
indicating that this is not a blockbusting precedent; noting that this is a
unique situation on Richmond Street indicating that Neighbourhood Character
or Neighbourhood Compatibility statements were prepared at the outset of the
application; advising that the neighbourhood plan has downsides, as it will
be uneconomical and will not retain the church; indicating that preserving
the church will provide a neighbourhood benefit; noting that the church is
being preserved as it is with minor changes; further noting that it is too
expensive to maintain a slate roof; indicating that the stained glass windows
are still remaining; indicating that the neighbours and the applicant would
like to see a high class upscale development, which cannot be achieved by
reducing the number of units; advising that the application is for mostly two
bedroom units; indicating that this is not student housing; advising that the
costs to renovate the church are such that it is out of the students price
range; advising that these units will command a high price as they are in a
desirable location; reiterating that this proposal is within the Official
Plan policies; indicating that this application fulfills the intent for the
North London policies; and requesting that the staff recommendation be
passed.
·
William
Pol, Pol Associates Inc., on behalf of the area residents – see attached
presentation
·
Paul
Adams, 191 Sherwood Avenue – showing a video presentation prepared by M.A.
Colihan, 191 Sherwood Avenue.
·
Michael
Backx, 192 Sherwood Avenue – advising that the residents did not oppose the
residential use for this site, they oppose the application because it is too
intense; indicating that the issue on this application is intensity and how
many units should be permitted; advising that the issues relating to this
application, such as parking and traffic, just to name two, are related to
intensity; advising that, simply put, there are too many units proposed;
indicating that, in the church the applicant proposes 14 units with 34
bedrooms; indicating that a number of the residents are proposing 6 units,
with 3 bedrooms each, for a total of 18 bedrooms; advising that the issue is 14
units versus 6 units, in other words 34 bedrooms versus 18 bedrooms;
advising that the residents proposal conforms to the Official Plan and
represents good land use planning; requesting the Planning and Environment
Committee to consider the residents proposal; advising that the application
is contrary to everything that the City Council has done in North London;
advising that the issue of intensity in this area has been on every Council’s
agenda for decades; indicating that Council and the City have undertaken
numerous reports, attended countless Ontario Municipal Board hearings and
spent thousands of dollars in staff time studying issues directly related to
the intensity of this area; advising that there is the Richmond Street
Corridor Plan, which studied Richmond Street from Grosvenor Street to Park
Hill Avenue and the purpose of which was to preserve the Low Density
Residential character despite pressures of multi-unit residential and office
conversion uses; advising that there was also a North London Residential
Study which dealt with addressing pressure relating to residential intensity
and resulted in zoning amendments to address intensity, including the
imposition of more area ratios and parking regulations; advising that, more
recently, there was the Greater Near Campus Neighbourhood Strategy, which was
done to address issues related to residential intensification in this area;
advising that zoning amendments arising from this study include the three
bedroom limit which the City will be defending to the Ontario Municipal Board
in June; indicating that, despite all of these studies and years of problems
and countless Ontario Municipal Board hearings in an area whose primary
concern has always been intensity, the Planners are recommending a proposal that
will exceed the maximum density permitted in the Official Plan; indicating
that the neighbourhood is simply at a loss, hence why they looked for outside
advice; indicating that they have 14 units and 13 bedrooms, with a maximum
density of 75 units per hectare; reiterating that it is too much and is not
of the scale which is compatible with the neighbourhood; advising that this
is a blockbuster precedent; advising that there is nothing like this on
Richmond Street; indicating that on Richmond Street, between Grosvenor Street
and Huron Street, there is no other residential properties that, meet, exceed
or come even close to the maximum density in the Official Plan of 75 units
per hectare or that have 14 residential units; pointing out that there are
none with more than four residential units; advising that the application has
also included tearing down a heritage home on Richmond Street which will
leave a large, gaping hole in the landscape; advising that in the Official
Plan, it says that conversions done in this area are to be done through
conservation and rehabilitation of existing housing stock; noting that he
does not see how that fits with tearing down homes, especially heritage
homes; indicating that there was a suggestion to install a brick wall in place
of the demolished home; advising that this is not good urban design;
indicating that there are no brick walls on Richmond Street between Grosvenor
Street and Huron Street; enquiring if this is to be the new standard, brick
walls in front of parking lots all along Richmond Street; enquiring if this
is the face of Avenue Road in Toronto to which the applicant alluded to in
February; indicating that there is nothing in the Planning report to justify
how the Planners arrived at the maximum density; indicating that the Planning
report justifying 76.6 units per hectare to keep the church, is not a
reasonable bonus or density; advising that they are at a loss as to how
Planning staff can justify this amount; indicating that if the proposal is to
be compatible, the starting point for the density would be the surrounding
neighbourhood residential units, which he understands to be 35 units per
hectare, not the maximum of 75 units per hectare; indicating that they met
with city staff on this matter and the staff did not provide the residents
with an answer; advising that they are not aware of any obligation in land
use planning to suggest that the City must go to the maximum density;
advising that there was no neighbourhood character statement and no
compatibility report done by the applicant, as required under the Official
Plan, for intensification; indicating that these reports are critical to good
planning and that is why they are included in the Official Plan; indicating
that these reports would have highlighted the incompatibility of this
development on the neighbourhood; advising that the Official Plan is clear,
for intensification, a proposal must be compatible with the surrounding
neighbourhood; advising that there are 12 residential units, in total, on
Sherwood Avenue; noting that this proposal is for 14 residential units, which
more than doubles the existing intensity; indicating that concerns have been
expressed by the neighbours and even the City, about traffic, access and
parking; noting that all of these issues stem from intensity or the number of
units; if the traffic is too much for ingress and egress on Richmond, then
simply put, it is too intense; noting that if it is too much for Richmond
Street, then it is too much for Sherwood Avenue, which is a one block,
dead-end substandard street; advising that the impacts need to be contained
on the site and if they cannot be, then the proposal is simply too intense;
reiterating that the application is too intense, that it is contrary to
everything that the City has done to protect this area; indicating that
neighbourhoods are the fabric of our communities; requesting that
neighbourhoods be protected, not destroyed; and asking that the Planning and
Environment Committee refuse this application.
·
Sid
Noel, 196 Sherwood Avenue – indicating that the aspect of the planning
proposal that most affects life on Sherwood Avenue is whether or not access
to the laneway from the development is permitted, if it does, it will create
serious deterioration in the quality of life on the street; noting that it is
a narrow street, without a turning circle at the end; indicating that it is
totally inappropriate to have traffic directed into Sherwood Avenue in
connection with this proposal; requesting the Planning and Environment Committee
turn to page 9 of the staff report, at the top, where it states “the parking
access will be directed towards Richmond Street instead of Sherwood Avenue”;
commending the planning staff for realizing the importance of this point and
expressing support for this part of the staff report; indicating that the
staff report opposes placing bollards at the rear of the property, by saying
that the blockage would result in added vehicular impact on Sherwood Avenue
from vehicles travelling north on Richmond Street and turning left onto
Sherwood Avenue and using the street to u-turn, so that they could enter the
parking lot with right-in, right-out access onto Richmond Street; advising
that this entire passage is premised on the notion that only right-in,
right-out access will be permitted with even a raised median to be placed on
Richmond Street to prevent left turns; enquiring as to why should this
relatively small parking lot for the Robinson Memorial Church proposal be
treated differently than other lots on Richmond Street; indicating that the
Planning and Environment Committee should be aware that there are numerous
parking lots along Richmond Street that have unrestricted access and there is
no special problem with any of them, to site a few examples, there is the
CIBC parking lot just north of the Oxford Street/Richmond Street
intersection; noting that this is a busy parking lot during business hours;
the Chabbad House parking lot at 1114 Richmond Street, which is now a student
centre, formerly a Greek Orthodox church, has a parking lot far larger than
the one proposed for this redevelopment and it has unrestricted in and out
access onto Richmond Street; noting that the high rise apartment blocks north
of the University Gates, each with unrestricted entry and exit;
notwithstanding the reservations of the Transportation staff, urging the
Planning and Environment Committee to consider treating this access to the
parking lot like all of the other access points along the street; advising
that imposing a restriction on Robinson Memorial United Church redevelopment
only is an unnecessary complication and completely at odds with the treatment
of other parking lots that have exit/entry onto Richmond Street; reiterating
that not directing traffic onto Sherwood Avenue is the key part of the
planning staff’s report; and noting that, if this can be accomplished, it
would be a major step towards preserving the quality of life on Sherwood
Avenue.
·
Steve
Harris, 201 Sherwood Avenue – suggesting that the safety of children be the baseline
issue and the top priority; advising that he is requesting, on behalf of the
families with children on the street, that common sense rule as someone could
be injured or killed on this lane due to the increased traffic that would be
part of the new development; advising that the solution is simple, please
keep automobile access for this development along Richmond Street; and
requesting to please close the west end of the parking lot so that traffic
cannot enter or exit at the lane.
·
Brian
Luckman, 1069 Richmond Street – advising he is the former owner of 203
Sherwood Avenue and sold it to Jane Bigelow many years ago; indicating that
he and his wife have raised two children on this street at a time when all
the young children lived at the Richmond Street end and not the other end of
the street; expressing support for the restriction of the ingress into
Sherwood Avenue to allow any attempt at parking as it will make living in
their place completely unsustainable; noting that they already have major
problems with people turning around in their driveway at all hours of the day
and night; and noting that this will only make it much worse.
·
Pollyanna
McClinton, 194 Sherwood Avenue – expressing concern for the safety of the children
on Sherwood Avenue; noting that they play hockey and baseball on the street;
advising that the lane is used daily by all the children going to school or
to the park; and requesting that the Planning and Environment Committee
consider the residents quality of life.
·
Jim
Waters - advising that he previously resided at 1059 Richmond Street, which
has been demolished; reiterating that acess to the lane and the street be
denied; and advising that he spoke at the previous public participation
meeting with respect to this matter. (2013-D14A)
|