Recommendation: That, the Civic
Administration BE ASKED to prepare a report addressing questions
presented at the public participation meeting, at a special meeting of the
Planning and Environment Committee to be held on Wednesday, October 24, 2012
at 1:00 p.m.;
it being noted that the Planning and
Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications:
·
a
communication, dated October 9, 2012, from J. MacDonald, Executive Director,
Downtown London, R.T. Usher, Board Chair, London Downtown Business
Association and J. Adams, Board Chair, MainStreet London;
·
a
communication, dated October 12, 2012, from D. Young, Senior Planner and J.
Paul, Managing Principal, Stantec Consulting Ltd.;
·
a
communication from E. Saulesleja, GSP Group Inc.;
·
a
communication, dated October 11, 2012, from E. Bustard, 6654 Beattie Street;
·
a
communication from A. Soufan, President, York Developments;
·
communications,
dated October 12, 2012, from C. Wiebe, MHBC Planning, Urban Design &
Landscape Architecture;
·
a
communication, dated October 14, 2012, from S. Stapleton, Vice-President,
Auburn Developments;
·
a
communication from T. Boyes, 6931 James Street;
·
a
communication, dated October 12, from R.-L. Gillis, Shaver-Brockley
Coalition;
·
a
communication, dated October 15, 2012, from J. Kennedy, London Development
Institute;
·
a
communication, dated October 12, 2012, from K. Patpatia, Flexion Properties
Inc., 1787996 Ontario Inc. and J. Manocha;
·
a
communication, dated October 15, 2012, from J. Chisholm, President, New Urban
Retail Inc.; and,
·
a
communication from T. Brown, West Talbot Landowners Association;
it being pointed out that at the public
participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals
made oral submissions in connection therewith:
·
Jeanette
MacDonald, Downtown London – advising that the City’s investment in the
Downtown area is paying off; advising that there are now 43,000 residents
living in the Downtown; noting that this represents 9% of property taxes;
indicating that they are not opposing the SWAP; requesting that the office
space be protected; noting that this Plan allows 200,000 square feet; and
advising that any more office space availability will impact the Downtown.
·
C.
Friar, Lambeth – requesting that natural heritage areas be protected;
indicating that they have had requests to increase their density and have
been asked to remove their woodlot; and indicating that the volume of traffic
will increase.
·
Jeff,
1787996 Ontario Inc., 3405 Dingman Drive, 3226 and 3356 Westminster Drive – indicating
that he likes the SWAP; expressing appreciation to the Civic Administration
for their efforts with respect to this Plan; indicating that, historically,
everything has been built along the Highway 401 corridor; advising that their
properties have been downsized from M-1 and M-2 Zones; advising that he has
some Open Space zoning on his properties and enquiring why the Open Space
zone is being applied as he has never seen anyone on his properties; and
advising that the land is vital to future growth.
·
Gina
Brummit, on behalf of Farhi Holdings Corporation – advising that the 200,000
square feet of office space being permitted in the Plan is a huge concern to
the Downtown; asking that the Plan be postponed until revitalization is
realized; advising that Mr. S. Farhi, Farhi Holdings Corporation, owns land
in the SWAP and he would like to develop the land in the shorter term, not
wait for 20 years; and advising that when Mr. Farhi approached staff about
his plans, he was advised to wait until next year when ReThink London is
completed.
·
Tim
Brown, on behalf of the West Talbot Landowners – reiterating his comments
from his submission on the Added Agenda.
·
David
Gillis, 2753 Dingman Drive, on behalf of the Shaver-Brockley Coalition – advising
that the residents in the Shaver-Brockley area have strong feelings on the
use of the Light Industrial Zone; advising that Roma-Lynn Gillis submitted a
communication to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda, item 20
i); requesting that a South Central Area Study be conducted before any other
Light Industrial Zoning be undertaken; and indicating that they are looking
for compassion.
·
Allan
Tipping, 2809 Dingman Drive – advising that he owns three acres of land;
indicating that an Industrial Zone is recommended beside his property;
advising that this will landlock his property; indicating that no one is
going to want to live there; advising that his property was originally
located in the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), but with the stroke of a pen, his
property is outside the UGB; indicating that the SWAP area is too large;
advising that Brockley-Shaver has been in an urban stalemate for years;
enquiring as to where the hotels and casinos are going to be built;
requesting that the Industrial Zone be moved outside of the City; indicating
that there will be odour issues all over the City; indicating that the Area
Plan is too premature; noting that the proposed new overpass may change the
City; advising that their hamlet has a public school and high school;
advising that there is a creek in the area that needs to be protected; and
advising that the people living near Lambeth are going to get the run-off.
·
Gary
Brown, 35A – 59 Ridout Street – requesting that nature be left for everyone
to enjoy; advising that water and wastewater must be pumped further;
suggesting that the land be used more efficiently; advising that the zero
percent tax increase puts the burden onto the next Municipal Council;
indicating that he has been to several ReThink London events; indicating
that London should be a city of people for people; indicating that spreading
out London is unnecessary; and advising that Peter Mansbridge indicated that
you should not ask for people’s comments and then ignore them.
·
Geoffrey
Faul, on behalf of the Lambeth Community Association – see attached
communication.
·
James
Street – advising that “vision” and “imagination” are great words; advising
that there is disconnect between the Plan and the execution of the Plan; and
requesting a balanced approach for the area.
·
151
Pine Valley Boulevard – advising that the cloverleaf at Wonderland and
Highway 402 is an improvement; encouraging the Planning Division to
straighten the boundary line to include the cloverleaf; and noting that all
other boundaries are straight.
·
Jim
Kennedy, President, London Development Institute, on behalf of the London
Chamber of Commerce, the London Development Institute and the Urban League of
London – indicating that they did not receive the information until late last
week; and asking for more time to review the Plan.
·
Carol
Wiebe, MHBC Planning – advising that she has several communications on the
Added Agenda; advising that the property located on the southeast corner of
Southdale Road and Bostwick Road is 50 acres, zoned medium density
residential; requesting that the property be zoned higher density
residential; indicating that on the other side of Wonderland Road corridor,
no new high density sites are proposed; indicating that there is a shortfall
of high density zoning; recommending a combination of medium and high
density; and requesting this property be rezoned to high density; advising
that the second parcel consists of 13 acres adjacent to the hydro corridor;
noting that it is the former Wally World site; advising that this property
has been purchased by the Muslim Association of Canada and advising that they
would like to build a mosque and residences on the property; advising that
they are asking the property be zoned high density residential; and
indicating that this is a narrow strip of land.
·
Jim
Harbell, Lawyer, York Developments – advising that York Developments owns property
west of Wonderland Road, north of Wharncliffe Road; commending the Civic
Administration for this complicated enterprise; advising that he has four
specific points he would like to raise; indicating that his client has filed
a complete application that he hopes will be before the Committee shortly;
expressing concern on the numerical limit on the retail; requesting that
there not be a number at all; advising that using twenty-five percent of
building form and 75 percent of lands for parking creates debate; advising
that, with the Wonderland Road reconstruction, there is a 57 metre wide
approach to the arterial gateway; requesting that the numbers be taken out
and the vision put in; advising that the number of lanes required is
acceptable; advising that numbers belong in the implementation plan; advising
that, with respect to the shadow road network, it is appropriate 20 to 30
years from now; advising that it looks like it is required; advising that
lenders will have financial difficulties; recommending that the vision be put
in place; advising that, with respect to the 30 metre development buffers on
either side of natural features, the scientific approach be used; and
advising that York Developments and MHBC Planning have submitted letters with
respect to this matter; and advising that he is not suggesting a delay of the
Plan.
·
Dan
Young, Stantec Consulting, on behalf of Z Group and the Aarts family – advising
that the Z Group owns 80 acres in the proposed Plan; indicating that they are
satisfied, for the most part; expressing concern with the medium density
designation on Wharncliffe Road; advising that the Aarts family owns property
located at 17 and 31 Exeter Road; noting that there are a mix of uses on this
site; expressing disappointment with the low density designation; advising
that his clients were hoping for a mixed use; advising that his clients
wanted to create a small business park, with a 24 hour population basis and
an auto oriented commercial zone in the south end of the property; and requesting
that the property be rezoned high density residential.
·
Sergio
Pompilii, Sergio E. Pompilii & Associates - see attached
presentation.
·
Steven
Zakem, on behalf of Sifton Properties Limited – advising that Elizabeth
Housen-McCauly was the principal author of the Wellington Road corridor study
when she worked for the City; advising that the Planners today are doing what
the previous Planners did; expressing concern that the implementation has not
gone far enough; and enquiring as to what plan will result in what you see on
Wellington Road.
·
Bob
Stratford, on behalf of Sifton Properties Limited – advising that it will
cost $90 million to service the Wonderland Road corridor; indicating that the
full build out is intended to recover the costs; indicating that he looked at
the revenue generation; noting that in one zone, the revenues are $19
million; advising that the commercial uptake is part of the 15 year plan;
noting that the City will be carrying large debt burdens for a long time;
indicating that he cannot see where the development revenue comes from to pay
for the costs; enquiring as to whether or not this could stifle growth
elsewhere; advising that there are no soft costs; noting that he is not sure
whether or not the costs will offset the balance; advising that there will be
$1.2 million in sanitary costs; requesting that further analysis of the costs
be done; requesting that the Plan be sent back; advising that this new
version is a fundamental departure from earlier versions; indicating that the
Plan was only released six days ago; advising that this will not result in a
stunning approach to the City; advising that there is additional pressure for
commercial lands; advising that this is a new approach, not a refinement of
the previous approach; indicating that the Official Plan is a legal document;
and requesting that the Plan be referred to the Civic Administration for full
costs and a proposed phasing plan.
·
Michael
Hughes, New Urban Retail – see attached presentation.
·
David
Wood, on behalf of Green Hills and Smart!Centres – see attached
presentation.
·
Jeff
Thomas, Development Engineering – advising that he has prepared detailed
drawings and prepared estimated servicing costs; noting that the stormwater
management facility is on their lands; and requesting that the City install
the ultimate servicing from Dingman Drive to Wonderland Road.
·
Laverne
Kirkness, Kirkness Consulting on behalf of the Johnstone family – see attached
communication.
·
Richard
Zelinka, Zelinka Priamo Ltd. – advising that he was unable to receive solid
direction from his clients as the Plan was released a few days before this
meeting; reiterating comments from the Auburn Developments communication on
the Added Agenda relating to this matter; requesting that the validity of the
SWAP be tested during a five year process; advising that the policies created
for the southwest area should be tested city-wide; advising that the urban
design policies are very prescriptive, and are far from allowing for
distinctive character; advising that the policies should be placed into
guidelines and not be as prescriptive; advising that their previous comments
have not been incorporated into this version of the SWAP; indicating that
there will be a further submission on behalf of his clients. (2012-D11-09/2)
|