I.

DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

1.

That it BE NOTED that:

a)            Councillor J.P. Bryant disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 2 of this Report having to do with a Committee of Adjustment decision concerning the University of Western Ontario application relating to the property located at 1465 Richmond Street, by indicating that her husband is employed by The University of Western Ontario; and,

b)            Councillor W.J. Polhill disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 2 of this Report having to do with a Committee of Adjustment decision concerning the University of Western Ontario application relating to the property located at 1465 Richmond Street, by indicating that his son is a member of the Committee of Adjustment.

II.

CONSENT ITEMS

2.

Property located at 1465 Richmond Street

Recommendation:  That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, in response to the letter of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, submitted by the University of Western Ontario, relating to Minor Variance A. 007/12 relating to the property located at 1465 Richmond Street, the matter BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for further review.  (2012-D16-00)

3.

Sugar Creek Park and Area Design, Development and Maintenance Agreements with Old Oak Properties Incorporated

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the design, development and maintenance agreements with Old Oak Incorporated for Sugar Creek Park and area:

a)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to carry out all required actions to finalize the attached amendment to the existing Development Agreement as it relates to 400 Sugar Creek Trail and 460 Sugar Creek Trail;

b)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of Financing Report” provided as Appendix ‘A’ to the associated staff report, dated May 28, 2012;

c)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the License Agreement, referred to in clause a), above, for 400 Sugar Creek Trail for the use and maintenance of the park plaza adjacent to Old Oak’s Community Centre as an outdoor café sitting area, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions;

d)            the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Adopt-a-Park Agreement, any amending agreements and related documents, with Old Oak Inc. for Old Oak to provide added maintenance services for Sugar Creek Park;

e)            the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Adopt-a-Street Agreement, any amending agreements and related documents,  with Old Oak Inc. for Old Oak to provide added maintenance for Sugar Creek Trail from Proudfoot Lane to BeaverBrook Avenue; and,

f)         Old Oak Incorporated BE THANKED for their donation to the park development project and for their commitment to the community by entering into the Adopt-a-Park and Adopt-a-Street Agreements.  (2012-E06-00)

4.

Property located at 3071 Singleton Avenue (H-8058)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, based on the application of Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 3071 Singleton Avenue, the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 12, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R1 (h.R1-5) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-5) Zone, to remove the holding provision.  (2012-D11-07)

5.

Special Provisions - Landea Developments Inc. - Landea Subdivision (39T-05512) 

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a subdivision agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Landea Developments Inc. for the subdivisions of land over Part of Lot 22, Concession 5, (Geographic Township of London), City of London, County of Middlesex, situated on the north  side of Fanshawe Park Road West, between Wonderland Road North and Hyde Park Road, municipally known as 995 Fanshawe Park Road West:

a)         the attached, revised, Special Provisions to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Landea Developments Inc. for the Landea Subdivision (39T-05512) BE APPROVED;

b)         the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Estimated Claims and Revenues Report” provided as Appendix ‘A’ to the associated staff report, dated May 28, 2012; and,

c)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the  Subdivision Agreement, referred to in clause a), above, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication, dated May 24, 2012, from K. McIntosh, Whitney Engineering Inc., with respect to this matter.   (2012-D26-04)

6.

Special Provisions - Phyllis Matthews - Woodhull Subdivision (39T-03511)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a subdivision agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Phyllis Matthews for the subdivision of land over Part of Lot C, Gore Concession, (Geographic Township of Delaware), City of London, County of Middlesex, municipally known as 1820 Woodhull Road:

a)         the attached Subdivision Agreement, between The Corporation of the City of London and Phyllis Matthews for the Woodhull Subdivision (39T-03511) BE APPROVED; and,

b)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the  Agreement, referred to in clause a), above, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.   (2012-D26-04)

7.

Request for Extension of Draft Approval - Auburn Developments Inc. - FoxField Subdivision (39T-02505)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, the following action be taken with respect to the request from Auburn Developments Inc. for the property located at Land located between east of Denview Avenue, south of Sunningdale Road West and west of Wonderland Road North:

a)            the Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to approve the request for a 3 year extension of the draft plan of subdivision approval for the plan submitted by Foxhollow Developments Inc., (file 39T-02505) prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd., dated March 12, 2004 (Drawing No. DP-09), as red-line amended, which shows a total of three (3) single detached dwelling blocks, and several reserve blocks all served by one (1) secondary collector road, the two (2) local streets, SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in the attached Appendix “39T-02505”; and,

b)            the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Estimated Claims and Revenues Report” provided as Appendix ‘A’ to the associated staff report, dated May 28, 2012.  (2012-D26-01)

8.

Special Provisions - Sifton Properties Limited - Forest Hill (Phase 4B) Subdivision (39T-99515-4B)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a subdivision agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Sifton Properties Limited for the subdivision of land over Part of Lot 11, Concession 6, (Geographic Township of London), City of London, County of Middlesex, situated west of Springridge Drive and north of Rollingacres Drive:       

a)         the attached Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Sifton Properties Limited for the Forest Hill Subdivision, Phase 4B (39T-99515) BE APPROVED;

b)         the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Estimated Claims and Revenues Report” provided as Appendix ‘A’ to the associated staff report, dated May 28, 2012; and,

c)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Subdivision Agreement, referred to in clause a) above, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.  (2012-D26-05)

9.

Building Division Monthly Report for April 2012

Recommendation:  That the Building Division Monthly Report for April 2012 BE RECEIVED.  (2012-D05-00)

III.

SCHEDULED ITEMS

10.

6th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

Recommendation:  The following actions be taken with respect to the 6th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH), from its meeting held on May 9, 2012:

a)         the Inventory of Heritage Resources BE AMENDED to include the following properties:

i)              Priority 1:

A)   131 Pond Mills Road as a Priority 1; it being noted that the Stewardship Sub-Committee was asked to prepare a Statement of Significance for this property; and,

B)   68 Gunn Street as a Priority 1;

ii)             Priority 2:

A)   74 Gunn Street as a Priority 2; and,

B)   19 Beaufort Street as a Priority 2;

b)         no action BE TAKEN with respect to adding the property located at 78 Gunn Street to the Inventory of Heritage Resources as a Priority 3 listing;

c)         the Director of Building Controls and Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) does not support the designation of the property located at 72 Hamilton Road; it being noted that the LACH requested that the property owner try to preserve, retain and recover all possible interior and exterior heritage features and fittings for reuse in any future new construction; and,

d)         the Director of Building Controls and Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) does not support the designation of the property located at 1451 Wharncliffe Road South; it being noted that the LACH requested that the property owner try to preserve, retain and recover all possible interior and exterior heritage features and fittings for reuse in any future new construction;

it being noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage heard a verbal presentation from J. O’Neil, on behalf of the Stewardship Sub-Committee, with respect to these matters;

e)         on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the Heritage Alteration Permit Application of D. Baumann requesting permission for an porch alteration to the designated heritage property located at 773 Princess Avenue BE APPROVED; it being noted that the Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposed changes and has advised that the impact of such alterations on the heritage features of the property identified in the reasons for designation is negligible;

f)         on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the Heritage Alteration Permit Application of H. Mohammed requesting permission for signage on the designated heritage property located at 762 Dundas Street BE APPROVED; it being noted that the Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposed signage and has advised that the impact of such alteration on the heritage features of the property identified in the reasons for designation is negligible;

g)            the following information BE NOTED:

i)          the Stewardship Sub-Committee was asked to prepare a Statement of Significance for the property located at 3378 Homewood Lane;

ii)         the ReThink London event was well attended; it being noted that the Planning Department is looking for the public’s comments with respect to how the City will plan for our future roads, neighbourhoods, workplaces, community facilities, parks, and transportation;

iii)         an archaeological study has been completed for the property located at 2350 Dundas Street; and,

iv)           the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee is recommending an autonomous Board of Directors for Eldon House, to commence in 2013;

h)         the London Advisory Committee on Heritage recommendation relating to the Notice of Intent to designate the property located at 1576 Richmond Street under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, as a property of cultural heritage value or interest under the provisions of subsection 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 BE REFERRED to the June 11, 2012 Planning and Environment Committee for consideration;

it being noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage heard a verbal presentation from Michelle Doornbosch, Zelinka Priamo Limited and reviewed and received a communication, dated May 9, 2012, from Shelagh Martin, 260 Sydenham Street, with respect to this matter.

i)          that notice of the Municipal Council's intention to designate the property located at 498 Dufferin Avenue to be of cultural heritage value or interest BE GIVEN, for the attached reasons, under the provisions of subsection 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18; it being noted that the owners of the subject property (Benedict and Helen Lockwood) have concurred with this recommendation, with the understanding that the land to be included in the designation will be as shown on the assessment roll; and,

j)       that clauses 5 through 15, inclusive, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal delegation from G. Goodlet, Chair, LACH, with respect to these matters.

IV.

ITEMS FOR DIRECTION

11.

Assumption Notification

Recommendation:  That, the communication, dated May 18, 2012, from Councillor M. Brown, with respect to the Civic Administration’s notification process relating to the assumption of subdivisions BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for discussion at the next Development Liaison Forum meeting.   (2012-G14-00)

12.

Property located at 76 Gunn Street

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Manager, Development Approvals, the following actions be taken with respect to the site plan approval application by Escalade Property Corp. relating to the property located at 76 Gunn Street:

a)         the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that at the public meeting of the             Planning and Environment Committee held with respect to this matter, issues were raised with respect to the following:

i)          the increase in multi-family development in the community;

            ii)          the safety of children walking to school;

iii)            personal property safety concerns;

iv)           the vacancy rate of rental properties; and,

v)            absentee landlords;

b)         the Approval Authority BE ADVISED the Municipal Council supports the granting of approval of the attached site plan and elevations;

c)            the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Estimated Claims and Revenues Report” provided as Appendix ‘A’ to the associated staff report, dated May 28, 2012; and,

d)            the applicant BE DIRECTED to include significant tree plantings on both street sides of the property;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

·                     Dan Gallow, Escalade Properties – advising that the side of the house that does not have windows is a fire wall and is not allowed windows.

·                     James Corcoran, representing the BIGS Community Association – enquiring as to whether or not the London Advisory Committee on Heritage has spoken to this matter; advising that the BIGS Community Association appeared before the Built and Natural Environment Committee in October, 2011 expressing concerns with intensification in the Beaufort Street, Irwin Street, Gunn Street and Saunby Street area; advising that the rate of conversion from single family residences to 10 bedroom duplexes is alarming; indicating that the neighbourhood is turning into a single purpose district; advising that a balance of different housing is needed to sustain a neighbourhood; indicating that this type of neighbourhood in the core and near the Thames River is in short supply; indicating that the Association has previously asked the Municipal Council to institute an Interim Control By-law until revised zoning can be put in place; noting that the Civic Administration advised the Municipal Council that the Interim Control By-law would be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board; indicating that the developer has now taken out four more houses, not including the two applications in front of the Committee tonight; advising that a demolition permit has been applied for the property located at 73 Gunn Street; indicating that a lot of the people who have spoken tonight have been concerned about a single development, not several;  advising that the Planning and Environment Committee approved a 37 unit dwelling in the area in February, 2012; and advising that the University of Western Ontario is building 1,000 more student housing units.

·                     Tara Lee Bekolay, 78 Gunn Street – advising that her property is in the heart of the neighbourhood; advising that good developers should be praised for making neighbourhoods liveable; advising that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage listed the property located at 78 Gunn Street as a Priority 3 listing on the Inventory of Heritage Resources; advising that this is the gateway into the neighbourhood interior; advising that people walking along Gibbons Park and the Thames River enjoy the neighbourhood; indicating that other developers are concerned with the oversupply of rental housing in the City; enquiring what is going to happen to this property; indicating that students don’t like living in this type of area;  noting that students prefer 3 or 4 unit dwellings; enquiring as to what the worst that could happen if the Committee sends the application back to the Civic Administration; asking that the Committee demonstrate that their engagement in a “liveable” city is real; indicating that the applicant may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, but asking the Council to try something new; indicating that it is not our job to second guess the Ontario Municipal Board; enquiring as to who knows how the Ontario Municipal Board will look at the application; indicating that it may give developers cause to pause; recommending that the property located at 78 Gunn Street be maintained; and requesting that while there is a study of the area being undertaken, please delay the proposed demolition.

·                     M. Connor, on behalf of her mother Anne Conner, 77 Gunn Street – advising that her brother owns the house at 75 Gunn Street; expressing support for Mr. James Corcoran’s comments; advising that with the increased housing in the neighbourhood, she can see cars clipping the corner; expressing concern for children walking to school; indicating that some of the new duplexes are not renting and there are problems with absentee landlords; advising that the City is still reeling from the St. Patrick’s Day riots; indicating that it is scary with students throwing beer bottles; advising that someone defecated on her mother’s front porch; and advising that God is not making more rivers.

·                     Annette Lance, 72 Gunn Street – advising that this is not “Not In My Backyard” syndrome; advising that she enjoys living in the neighbourhood; advising that it is difficult to remain in the neighbourhood with the majority of properties becoming 10-bedroom duplexes; requesting that development be halted; and advising that students had rented the properties before they were developed into 10-bedroom duplexes.

·                     Michelle Doornbosch, Zelinka Priamo Limited – advising that the lands have been zoned for duplex dwellings; advising that the application is going through the site plan process; and advising that the urban design has been approved.     (2012-D25-00)

13.

Property located at 78 Gunn Street

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Manager, Development Approvals, the following actions be taken with respect to the site plan approval application by Escalade Property Corp. relating to the property located at 78 Gunn Street:

a)         the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that at the public meeting of the             Planning and Environment Committee held with respect to this matter, issues were raised with respect to the following:

i)          the increase in multi-family development in the community;

            ii)          the safety of children walking to school;

iii)            personal property safety concerns;

iv)           the vacancy rate of rental properties; and,

v)            absentee landlords;

b)         the Approval Authority BE ADVISED the Municipal Council supports the granting of approval of the attached site plan and elevations; and,

i)              the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Estimated Claims and Revenues Report” provided as Appendix ‘A’ to the associated staff report, dated May 28, 2012;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

·                     Dan Gallow, Escalade Properties – advising that the side of the house that does not have windows is a fire wall and is not allowed windows.

·                     James Corcoran, representing the BIGS Community Association – enquiring as to whether or not the London Advisory Committee on Heritage has spoken to this matter; advising that the BIGS Community Association appeared before the Built and Natural Environment Committee in October, 2011 expressing concerns with intensification in the Beaufort Street, Irwin Street, Gunn Street and Saunby Street area; advising that the rate of conversion from single family residences to 10 bedroom duplexes is alarming; indicating that the neighbourhood is turning into a single purpose district; advising that a balance of different housing is needed to sustain a neighbourhood; indicating that this type of neighbourhood in the core and near the Thames River is in short supply; indicating that the Association has previously asked the Municipal Council to institute an Interim Control By-law until revised zoning can be put in place; noting that the Civic Administration advised the Municipal Council that the Interim Control By-law would be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board; indicating that the developer has now taken out four more houses, not including the two applications in front of the Committee tonight; advising that a demolition permit has been applied for the property located at 73 Gunn Street; indicating that a lot of the people who have spoken tonight have been concerned about a single development, not several;  advising that the Planning and Environment Committee approved a 37 unit dwelling in the area in February, 2012; and advising that the University of Western Ontario is building 1,000 more student housing units.

·                     Tara Lee Bekolay, 78 Gunn Street – advising that her property is in the heart of the neighbourhood; advising that good developers should be praised for making neighbourhoods liveable; advising that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage listed the property located at 78 Gunn Street as a Priority 3 listing on the Inventory of Heritage Resources; advising that this is the gateway into the neighbourhood interior; advising that people walking along Gibbons Park and the Thames River enjoy the neighbourhood; indicating that other developers are concerned with the oversupply of rental housing in the City; enquiring what is going to happen to this property; indicating that students don’t like living in this type of area;  noting that students prefer 3 or 4 unit dwellings; enquiring as to what the worst that could happen if the Committee sends the application back to the Civic Administration; asking that the Committee demonstrate that their engagement in a “liveable” city is real; indicating that the applicant may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, but asking the Council to try something new; indicating that it is not our job to second guess the Ontario Municipal Board; enquiring as to who knows how the Ontario Municipal Board will look at the application; indicating that it may give developers cause to pause; recommending that the property located at 78 Gunn Street be maintained; and requesting that while there is a study of the area being undertaken, please delay the proposed demolition.

·                     M. Connor, on behalf of her mother Anne Conner, 77 Gunn Street – advising that her brother owns the house at 75 Gunn Street; expressing support for Mr. James Corcoran’s comments; advising that with the increased housing in the neighbourhood, she can see cars clipping the corner; expressing concern for children walking to school; indicating that some of the new duplexes are not renting and there are problems with absentee landlords; advising that the City is still reeling from the St. Patrick’s Day riots; indicating that it is scary with students throwing beer bottles; advising that someone defecated on her mother’s front porch; and advising that God is not making more rivers.

·                     Annette Lance, 72 Gunn Street – advising that this is not “Not In My Backyard” syndrome; advising that she enjoys living in the neighbourhood; advising that it is difficult to remain in the neighbourhood with the majority of properties becoming 10-bedroom duplexes; requesting that development be halted; and advising that students had rented the properties before they were developed into 10-bedroom duplexes.

·                                    Michelle Doornbosch, Zelinka Priamo Limited – advising that the lands have been zoned for duplex dwellings; advising that the application is going through the site plan process; and advising that the urban design has been approved.  (2012-D25-00)

14.

Properties located at 73, 77, 81 and 91 Southdale Road East, 3021 and 3033 White Oak Road (OZ-8047)

Recommendation:  That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, with respect to the application of the City of London relating to the property located at 73, 77, 81, and 91 Southdale Road East and 3021 and 3033 White Oak Road the following actions be taken:

a)            the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 12, 2012 to amend the Official Plan by ADDING a special policy in Chapter 10- “Policies for Specific Areas” to maintain the existing Neighbourhood Commercial Node land use designation adopted by the Municipal Council at its meeting held on May 22, 2012 to permit automobile sales and services use along the frontage of the Southdale Road East corridor to a maximum depth of 50m;

b)            the attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 12, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended in part a), above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Neighbourhood Shopping Area (h*h-11*h-63*h-103*NSA4) Zone, which permits retail commercial uses such as grocery stores, personal service establishments, restaurants, financial institutions to a maximum total gross floor area of 6000 m² TO a Holding Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (h*h-11*h-63*h-103*NSA4 (_)) Zone, which permits retail commercial uses such as grocery stores, personal service establishments, restaurants, financial institutions to a maximum total gross floor area of 6000 m² with a special provision to allow for automobile sales and service uses along the Southdale Road East frontage to a maximum depth of 50m and subject to holding provisions to ensure that a development agreement be entered into with the City, appropriate access arrangements are provided to the satisfaction of Council, implementation of all noise attenuation and design mitigating measures as recommended in a noise assessment report acceptable to the City, and to ensure that urban design matters are addressed at site plan review;

c)            the following design objectives BE ADDRESSED through a site plan and development agreement before the h-103 holding provision is lifted:

·         higher design standard through the site plan approval process and through the application of the Commercial Urban Design Guidelines;

·         discouragement of large, front yard surface parking areas, and drive through locations;

·         encourage street-oriented development;

·         introduce a higher standard of landscaping;

·         incorporate accessible pedestrian connections to transit facilities and to adjacent neighbouring residential areas;

·         massing and architecture within the node should provide for:

·         articulated facades and rooflines;

·         accented main entry points;

·         use of glazing and other façade treatments along sidewalk areas;

·         weather protection features; and,

·         street setbacks be minimized by placing smaller, single or multi-tenant buildings near the sidewalk and along arterial roads and increasing, as much as possible, the street frontage of this nodal development to assist in framing the prominent corner of  Southdale Road East and White Oak Road; and,

d)            the reclaimed brick BE PRESERVED and BE INCORPORATED into the design of the new structure;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

·                     Ali Soufan, York Developments – expressing support for clauses c), d) and e) of the staff report; advising that he and the Civic Administration have been able to narrow his concerns to a single issue; and expressing concern that the automobile depth is shallower than some of the existing automobile sales locations in the area . 

·                     Abram Oudshoorn, 345 Wortley Road – expressing support for the staff recommendation; advising that, with residential development to the south of this site, retail commercial uses, such as a grocery store, would be welcome on the site; indicating that there is currently a lot of automobile sales in the area; and, indicating that it is important that the community notice match what the Committee is voting on.   (2012-D11-02)

15.

Property located at 3535 Settlement Trail (Z-8018)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Speyside East Corporation relating to the property located at 3535 Settlement Trail:

a)         the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 12, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R7 Special Provision/Community Facility (R7(5)*D100*H13/CF1/CF3) Zone, which permits senior citizen apartment buildings, handicapped persons apartment buildings, nursing homes, retirement lodges, continuum-of-care facilities, emergency care establishments with a maximum density of 100 units per hectare and a maximum height of 13 meters and churches, community centres, day care centres, elementary schools, group home type 2, libraries, post office depots, private schools, secondary schools, police stations, public recreational buildings, public swimming pools and studios TO a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-103*R8-4 ( )*D100*H21) Zone, to allow for apartment buildings, handicapped persons apartment buildings, lodging house class 2,  stacked townhousing, senior citizen apartment buildings, emergency care establishments and continuum-of-care facilities with a maximum density of 100 units per hectare, a maximum height of 21 meters and a front yard depth of 6.0 meters;

b)         subject to Policy 19.1.1. of the Official Plan, the land use designation of the subject site BE INTERPRETED as “Multi-Family Medium Density Residential”;

c)         the following design objectives BE ACHIEVED through the removal of the ‘h-103’ holding provision and BE CONSIDERED by the Site Plan Approval Authority:

i)          a site plan and building elevations in general conformity with the illustrations attached as Appendix ‘A’ ‘B’ C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’;

ii)         step-back top two floors of the building facing Settlement Trail in order to achieve a massing that is compatible with adjacent residential development;

iii)            situate building and landscaping elements to maximize the enclosure along the Settlement Trail frontage of the Community Common;

iv)        provide an architectural element to mark the major entry into the site and terminate the view at the west end of Old Garrison Road;

v)         minimize the extent of the internal driveway in order to facilitate maneuverability and to reduce any potential traffic flow disruption and pedestrian vehicle conflicts; and,

vi)        maximize the advantages presented by existing grade changes to screen loading areas and vehicle entrances from street view and to locate parking underground;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individual made an oral submission in connection therewith:

·                    Michelle Doornbosch, Zelinka Priamo Limited, representing the applicant – expressing support of the staff recommendation; advising that the site plan approval stage has been initiated; advising that applying the holding provision delays the end of the process; and requesting that the holding provision not be placed with the zoning; it being noted that the staff responded to Mrs. Doornbosch’s concerns.   (2012-D11-07)

16.

Property located at 493 Sunningdale Road East (39CD-12504)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the Vacant Land Plan of Condominium application of Wastell Developments Inc. relating to the property located at 493 Sunningdale Road East:

a)         the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that there were no issues raised at the public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with respect to the application for draft plan of vacant land condominium relating to the property located at 493 Sunningdale Road East; and,

b)         the Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to utilize, if possible, one agreement to address the development of this site; it being noted that this would be in place of a separate development agreement and condominium agreement.   (2012-D08-00)

17.

Properties located at 779, 781 Richmond Street and 783 Richmond Street (Z-8021/Z-8022)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the applications of the City of London and 115287 Ontario Limited relating to the properties located at 779, 781 and 783 Richmond Street:

a)         the requests to amend Schedule ‘B’  Parking Standard Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change 779, 781 and 783 Richmond Street FROM Parking Standard Area 2 TO Parking Standard Area 11, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)          on-street parking has been identified as an issue in the neighbourhood for a long period of time, within the St. George/Grosvenor Area Study;

ii)         the proposal to reduce parking standards for all three properties is inconsistent with the Official Plan which recognizes that parking should be adequate for the land uses they support;

iii)         the proposal to reduce the parking standard for all three properties is inconsistent with the St. George/Grosvenor policies in the Official Plan; and,

iv)        there is inadequate on-street parking to accommodate office and commercial uses, permitted under the existing zoning, without additional off-street parking for all three properties;

b)         the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 12, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of 783 Richmond Street FROM a Residential R3/Residential R9/Office Residential/Office Conversion/Restricted Office (R3-1/R9-7.H15/OR2/ OC6/RO2) Zone TO a Residential R3/Residential R9/Office Residential Special Provision/Office Conversion Special Provision/Restricted Office Special Provision (R3-1(  )/R9-7.H15(  )/OR2(  )/OC6(  )/RO2(  )) Zone, to allow for commercial and office uses with a parking requirement “as existing”;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individual made an oral submission in connection therewith:

·                     Allan R. Patton, Patton, Cormier & Associates, on behalf of 115287 Ontario Limited – expressing support of the staff recommendation; advising that this property used to be a church and was a successful law firm; advising that the staff recommendation is fair and equitable; and advising that his questions have been answered by Alanna Riley, Planner.   (2012-D11-02/D11-06)

18.

Properties located at 19-21 Wistow Street (Z-8017)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Competition Toyota for the properties located at 19-21 Wistow Street:

a)         the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 12, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the property located at 19 Wistow Street FROM a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone, which permits single detached dwellings, TO a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision  (h-5*h-91*RSC4(_)/RSC6(_)) Zone, to permit surface parking for the existing automobile sale and service establishments with a minimum 30 metre rear yard setback and subject to holding provisions to ensure that a development agreement, a commercial boulevard parking agreement, an easement agreement be entered into with the City, to demonstrate that servicing is provided to the satisfaction of Council and to ensure that urban design matters are addressed following public site plan review;

b)         the following design objectives will be addressed through a site plan and development agreement before the holding provisions are lifted:

•           remove the existing vehicle access point from the local street;

•           provide a high standard of separation from residential areas through landscaped buffer as shown on the attached site plan; and,

•           provide for landscaping, fencing and appropriate lighting that mitigates adverse impacts on the adjacent residential areas; it being noted that duracreek fencing is to be installed between Competition Toyota and the property located at 106 Oakside Street;

c)         the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the  property located at 21 Wistow Street FROM a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone, which permits single detached dwellings, TO a Holding Restricted Service Commercial (h*h-91*RSC4/RSC6) Zone, to permit a wide range of service commercial uses that serve the needs of the travelling public on the Oxford Street East arterial corridor and includes automobile sale and service establishments BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

•           the current zoning for this property is appropriate, promotes neighbourhood stability, and maintains commercial uses oriented to the arterial road and residential properties in a manner which is compatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood;

•           the requested amendment has the potential to create negative impacts on the abutting land owners resulting from the further expansion of a commercial use into a stable residential area;

•           the requested amendment could set a precedent for further commercial encroachments into the stable residential neighbourhood and erode the residential character of the area; and,

•           the requested amendment is not consistent with the Official Plan criteria used to evaluate proposals to expand Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridor designations;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

·                     Steve Cornwell, Zelinka Priamo Limited, on behalf of the applicant – advising that Competition Toyota has been very successful and their staff is now required to park off-site; indicating that most of the neighbours are satisfied with Competition Toyota expanding to 17 Wistow Street; advising that they are satisfied with the staff report with the exception of the special setback requirement; indicating that no concerns have been expressed with respect to the proposed 30 metre setback; expressing a willingness to compromise on the 30 metre setback; advising that no new buildings are proposed; and requesting a 22.5 metre setback.

·                     T. Fischer, 106 Oakside Street – agreeing that Competition Toyota has been a very successful business; indicating that the community meeting was very lively; indicating that if 21 Wistow Street is demolished, it will affect their fence line; indicating that Competition Toyota does have property on Dundas Street; enquiring as to why Competition Toyota is expanding if they may be moving to a new location; indicating that the property located at 19 Wistow Street is abandoned; expressing concern with the potential of Competition Toyota moving and another business coming into this location; indicating that it does not make sense to have trees planted where they are parking new cars; indicating that the previous Council debated the installation of a nail salon on Gammage Street in a residence and it generated more press than this matter; advising that this is a nice neighbourhood; indicating that the trees to be removed are very old; enquiring as to what happens to the derelict, abandoned house if this application is denied; and indicating that she does not want to see the house neglected further or have students move in.

·                     Henry Bernat, 57 Wistow Street – advising that the application will increase traffic volume in the neighbourhood; agreeing that the dealership needs more room for expansion; enquiring as to what other uses are involved if the dealership moves; and expressing concern with the large trucks that unload the new vehicles.  (2012-D11-02)

19.

Properties located at 2310, 2330, 2350 and 2362 Dundas Street (39T-12502)

Recommendation:  That, the following actions be taken with respect to the Plan of Subdivision application of The Shrew Sports Corporation, relating to the properties located at 2310, 2330, 2350 and 2362 Dundas Street:

a)            the Plan of Subdivision application of The Shrew Sports Corporation relating to the properties located at 2310, 2330, 2350, and 2362 Dundas Street BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for further consideration; and,

b)            pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed plan of subdivision;

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 the subject 14.65 hectare lands are currently zoned automobile oriented commercial; indicating that there is room for 6 dealerships on 7 lots; advising that they approached the owner of the KIA dealership to ask if KIA wished to participate and the owner declined; expressing four concerns; indicating that conditions 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are affected by the one foot reserve, which is their first concern as it affects rights in and rights out; indicating that Lot 8 is zoned for commercial uses; advising that Lots 1, 5 and 6 have been reconfigured; indicating that the Lots were planned and zoned for car dealerships with frontage onto Crumlin Side Road; indicating that their second concern is with the access restrictions in Conditions 41, 43 and 45; noting that there will be a left turn lane for traffic heading north on Crumlin Side Road; advising that with the report that was delivered to staff today, they may be able to resolve the issues; indicating that the conditions require a through lane; advising that their third concern is with condition 73; indicating that the urban reserve guidelines should be appended to the subdivision agreement; indicating that it is important to recognize that each dealership has to conform to corporate built forms and cannot be varied; advising that the dealership owners are all London businessmen who have to agree to a complete set of guidelines and principles set out by their dealership corporations; indicating that their fourth concern is the servicing for the lands; indicating that the KIA dealership is immediately to the west and is capable of expanding; indicating that the triangular portion of the lands on Dundas Street are currently owned by the City; noting that the KIA lands and the City-owned lands can be accessed by Street ‘A’; enquiring as to what the city lands can be used for; indicating that if the City wants access from its lands, it should discuss this with KIA; advising that the KIA dealership could bring the road up from Dundas Street and tie in; noting that the KIA lands can function on a stand-alone basis; further noting that they are not subject to the same restrictions; advising that the Ontario Municipal Board ruled that it is not a requirement for the land owners adjacent to contribute; indicating that with one foot reserves and access restrictions, they can make progress in a week or so; requesting fairness at the site plan stage for rights in and rights out; requesting the Committee to refer this matter back to the Civic Administration to deal with the issues outlined in this presentation; and advising that the business owners do not get dealerships without meeting the dealership standards.

·                     KIA Dealership Owner – advising that the plan was approved in 2010; indicating that with this plan, the street is stopping short of their property; advising that he was told that land cannot be landlocked; advising that he is looking forward to seeing all the dealerships; and reiterating that he does not want his property landlocked.    (2012-D26-06)

20.

Properties located at 186-188 Huron Street and 2 Audrey Avenue (SP12-007186)

Recommendation:  That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Manager, Development Planning, the following actions be taken with respect to the site plan approval application of KAP HOLDINGS INC relating to the property located at 186-188 Huron Street, 2 Audrey Avenue:

a)         the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that at the public meeting of the             Planning and Environment Committee held with respect to this matter, issues were raised with respect to the proposed building, and established buildings, being out of character in relation to the other properties on the street;

b)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to look at significant landscape enhancements; and,

c)            the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to show creativity in the urban design in keeping with the neighbourhood;

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 Limited, on behalf of the applicant – advising that the proposal is for a single-detached dwelling located within a group of three single-detached dwellings; advising that this will be infill on the lot; indicating that the building will have the same character as the three dwellings located on the property; noting that the first building was seen as an affront; indicating that the three dwellings have a distinctive character; advising that the buildings are part of the neighbourhood; advising that the proposed dwelling will have the same character and will be fronting onto Audrey Avenue; requesting that the Committee consider that consent was granted to make better use of the land; advising that the proposal conforms to the Zoning By-law; indicating that the proposal is designed for students; advising that older homes are not designed to withstand the rigors of a transient population; and advising that this type of housing can endure and be in good condition over the long-term.

·                    Marie Blosh, 43 Mayfair Drive – advising that she is the former President of the Broughdale Neighbourhood Association; enquiring as to what the Urban Design Brief is; advising that this property has a long history; noting that a severance was granted in 2005; advising that these buildings are not what people think of when they think of a single-family dwelling; indicating that the Committee is asking an awful lot for the residents to keep coming to these meetings and also having to go to the Ontario Municipal Board for this property; advising that there was an outline of a door spray painted on one of the walls; requesting that the Committee refer the application back until all the documentation is received; requesting that the developer build something that isn’t going to make the situation worse; advising that landscape should be required to break up the walls; and advising that the walls facing Huron Street have no windows.

·                    Jacqueline Farquhar, 383 St. George Street – expressing support for Ms. Blosh’s comments; advising that she is an active person who walks up and down St. George Street; indicating that she does not try to see what faces them at St. George and Huron Streets; requesting that when all the documentation is in, request that shrubbery be planted; suggesting that an artist should paint windows and doors on the blank walls; and indicating that the neighbours did not want 56 families living on that site so they now have to live with what they have.

·                    John Manness, 77 Bloomfield Street – enquiring as to when the style of the three buildings becomes part of the neighbourhood; advising that there must be a mistake in the design of the complex; indicating that if the buildings were more mobile, they could put the buildings together to form a block of four; advising that he hates to see the buildings continue to be replicated; and suggesting that maybe landscape could help with the appearance of the buildings.

·                    Diana Coates, 321 St. George Street – advising that the new building should be the same material and same structure as the current buildings on the lot; advising that the tall buildings are not uncharacteristic in the neighbourhood; expressing that it is a sad fact that this was introduced into the low, single family area; advising that it is so stunningly out of character; and advising that there is enormous character and history on the street.

·                    Arnon Kaplansky, applicant – showing the Committee drawings on how he could complete the dwellings; advising that the 1989 Official Plan showed 2 buildings per lot; advising that in 1994, he proposed two detached dwellings and was rejected because of too many students; indicating that he waited 11 years and proposed to build 5 plexes and was again rejected; advising that in 2011, he proposed to build townhouses; advising that the three proposals shown have not been important to the neighbourhood association; advising that the design for the two buildings is similar to the three-storey apartment building on Huron Street; advising that the proposed townhouses would have generated $200,000 in development charges for the City; and advising that he is willing to remove the buildings to build townhouses.  (2012-D25-00)

21.

Property located at 537 Crestwood Drive (OZ-7963/39CD-11519)

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Star Homes Limited relating to the property located at 537 Crestwood Drive:

a)         the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 12, 2012 to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of lands FROM Urban Reserve Community Growth TO Low Density Residential;

b)         the attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 12, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended in part a), above), to change the zoning on the easterly portion of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone, which permits single detached dwellings on lots with a minimum lot frontage of 18 metres and a minimum lot area of 690 m² and an Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone, TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-2( )) Zone and a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-_.h-_.R6-2( )) Zone, which permits cluster housing in the form of single detached dwellings at a maximum density of 20 units per hectare, with special provisions to recognize the existing 10 metre lot frontage and a 1.2 metre interior side yard for the existing dwelling; it being noted that two holding provisions are being recommended to ensure that prior to development potential noise impacts and geotechnical issues will be addressed to the satisfaction of the City;

c)         the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning on the westerly portion of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-2( )) Zone BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)             changing the zoning on the westerly portion of the subject property is premature and the Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone should remain in place until such time as a rehabilitation plan and site restoration have been completed for peripheral lands in the adjacent aggregate extraction area; and,

ii)            changing the zoning on the westerly portion of the property at this time is not in conformity with the policies of the Official Plan or consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

d)         the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that at the public meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee held with respect to this matter, issues were raised with respect to road access to the proposed new development; and,

e)         the Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to utilize, if possible, one agreement in place of a separate development agreement and condominium agreement, to address the development of this site;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication, dated May 25, 2012, from J. McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

·                     Jean Monteith, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, on behalf of the applicant – expressing support for the revised recommendation.

·                     Sharon Whitfield, 551 Crestwood Drive – advising that this is a short street; indicating that she is not opposed to any type of building that the developer builds; indicating that she was advised that there is to be a 300 metre buffer beyond the Byron Gravel Pit; indicating that five or six years ago, at the north end of Crestwood Drive, condominiums were built; indicating that there are 9 houses on Crestwood Drive with no road access to the vacant lots behind their houses; expressing concern with a possible domino affect; advising that the properties to the north and south of the application are owned by someone else who wants to build on the properties; advising that they were told that the land would be redeveloped when the gravel pit closes; indicating that a different applicant was refused development by the Municipal Council, but that he may reapply; expressing concern as they are the last house on the street and there is ten feet between them and their neighbor; advising that there could be as many as 15 houses built behind her street with no road; and advising that if you let one person do this, how do you deny the next person.    (2012-D11-07/D08-00)

22.

Heritage Designation - property located at 1576 Richmond Street

Recommendation:  That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and Policy, the proposed designation of the property located at 1576 Richmond Street BE REFERRED to the June 11, 2012 Planning and Environment Committee for a report from the City Solicitor’s Office with respect to the potential designation or demolition;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications:

·                     a communication from M. Lake Collins, 1603 Richmond Street;

·                     a communication, dated May 23, 2012, from R. Johns and P. Norris, 19-1574 Richmond Street;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

·                     George Goodlet, Chair, London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) – advising that the LACH expressed support for the designation of the subject property.

·                     Alan R. Patton, Patton, Cormier & Associates – advising that this recommendation is called “detrimental reliance” which does not exhibit fairness and sets a bad precedence if the City designates the property; indicating that based on the information his client was given, he purchased the property for future development; advising that his client contacted the Heritage Planner and was advised that the property is not listed on the Inventory of Heritage Resources; advising that the property is zoned for Multi-Family High Density Residential; advising that the zoning occurred after the townhouses were built on the surrounding lands; indicating that his client was advised of the error; noting that steps were taken to list the property on the Inventory of Heritage Resources; advising that other similar buildings have more prominent locations as part of the streetscape; indicating that the property is located between the three-storey condominiums to the north and the one-storey condominiums to the south; advising that there is no practical reuse for the building for redevelopment purposes; indicating that there is insufficient opportunity to develop behind the house; requesting that the Committee approve the demolition of the building; and advising that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage received a communication, dated May 9, 2012, from Shelagh Martin, 260 Sydenham Street, with respect to this matter.

·                     John Manness, 77 Bloomfield Drive – expressing support for the designation of the property; advising that this is a valuable heritage building; indicating that the error of the removal of the property from the Inventory of Heritage Resources was made a long time ago; advising that this reiterates the need for the London Advisory Committee on Heritage members to be vigilant; and indicating that there are opportunities for other infill developments.

·                     Marie Blosh, 43 Mayfair Drive – expressing support for the designation of the property; indicating that this property makes the neighbourhood unique; and expressing sadness that the building may be demolished.

·                     Joey Pipicelli, 3 Medway Crescent – advising that he is representing the Medway Community; commending the London Advisory Committee on Heritage for their recommendation; advising that normally purchasers ask for information in writing; indicating that the purchaser had to know that the property has heritage value; advising that there is another heritage property on the northwest corner across from this site; requesting preservation in this area; noting that the Gillespie family has strong ties to the University of Western Ontario; advising that this property is the gateway to Richmond Street North; advising that this is a unique area with strong neighbourhoods; indicating that there is some cluster housing; expressing significant concern over losing such a home; and enquiring as to what we are doing to enhance the throughway.

·                     Ted Brown, 1574 Richmond Street – expressing support for the designation of the property; advising that the trees need an arborist and the landscaping needs to be cleaned up; advising that at the traffic lights at Richmond Street and Western Road, people cannot get out of the condominiums; advising that Medway Street is a dead end; and enquiring as to where the traffic is going to go.

·                     Rocklee Johns, 19 – 1574 Richmond Street - expressing support for the designation of the property; indicating that she is speaking on behalf of her neighbours; advising that she has lived in this area for seven years; advising that the building adds character and adds to the enjoyment of the area; and advising that she would hate to see a tobacco drying silo built in this spot.

·                     Julia Beck, 39 Cartwright Street - expressing support for the designation of the property; advising that she has a particular interest in infantry; advising that the building is in good condition; indicating that if a heritage property is demolished once, it can be done again and again; advising that with the owner’s consent, a designation permit can be applied; requesting that the neighbours and the London Advisory Committee on Heritage be given a chance to work with the developer; and advising of the outcome of the Red Antiquities building.            (2012-D13-00)

23.

Property located at 72 Hamilton Road

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the Director of Building Controls BE ADVISED that Municipal Council does not object to the demolition of the property at 72 Hamilton Street; it being noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage does not object to this demolition;

it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public participation meeting held in connection with this matter.   (2012-D13-00/D10-00)

24.

Property located at 1451 Wharncliffe Road South

Recommendation:  That, on the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the Director of Building Controls BE ADVISED that Municipal Council does not object to the demolition of the property at 1451 Wharncliffe Road South; it being noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage does not object to this demolition;

it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public participation meeting held in connection with this matter.   (2012-D13-00/D10-00)

25.

Hyde Park Commercial Area Official Plan and Zoning By-law Review re properties located at 1331-1369 and 1364-1420 Hyde Park Road

Recommendation:  That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate an Official Plan Amendment to apply a commercial land use designation on the lands located at 1351, 1357 and 1369 Hyde Park Road;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal presentations from Ric Knutson, Knutson Development Consultants Inc. and James Kozak, 8-40 Quinella Drive, with respect to this matter.  (2012-D11-04/D26-03)

26.

Properties located at 255 South Carriage Road and 1331 Hyde Park Road (39T-08502/OZ-7510)

Recommendation:  That, notwithstanding the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Kenmore Homes (London) Inc. relating to the properties located at 255 South Carriage Road and 1331 Hyde Park Road:

a)            Lots 159, 160 and 161 BE REZONED to permit one storey dwellings only and the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide the appropriate by-laws at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee;

b)            Draft plan conditions 31 and 40, as recommended by Staff BE DELETED from Appendix 39T-08502;

c)            notwithstanding the staff recommendation, the Official Plan be Amended to change the designation FROM Multi-Family Medium Density Residential TO Mainstreet Commercial Corridor;

d)            notwithstanding the staff recommendation, Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 be Amended to change the zoning FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone TO a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h∙ BDC2(4)) Zone;

e)            the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to initiate an application to amend the Official Plan designation of the properties located at 1351-1357 and 1369 Hyde Park Road FROM Multi-Family Medium Density Residential TO Mainstreet Commercial Corridor;

f)          the attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 12, 2012 to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of lands FROM Multi-Family Medium Density Residential TO Mainstreet Commercial Corridor;

g)         the attached, revised, proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 12, 2012 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended in part a), above), to change the zoning on the lands located at 255 South Carriage Road and 1331 Hyde Park Road, FROM a Holding Urban Reserve (h-2∙ UR3) Zone; an Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone, an Open Space (OS5) Zone;  a Compound Holding Residential R2/R4 (h∙R2-1/R4-6) Zone, a Compound Holding Residential R5/R6/R7/R8 (h∙R5-7/R6-4/R7∙D75∙H13/R8-4) Zone and a Compound Holding Neighbourhood Facility/Residential R5/R6/R7/R8 (h∙NF/R5-7/R6-4/R7∙D75∙H13/R8-4) Zone, TO a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h∙ h-100∙R1-3(4)) Zone; a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h∙ h-100∙R1-3(8)) Zone; a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h∙ h-100∙R1-3(_)) Zone; a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h∙h-100∙R1-13(6)) Zone; Holding Residential R1 Special Provision/Neighbourhood Facility (h∙h-100∙R1-3(4)/NF) Zone; a Holding Business District Commercial (BDC2(4)) Zone; an Open Space (OS4) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone; and,

h)         pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed plan of subdivision;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications:

·                     a communication, dated May 23, 2012, from Ric Knutson, Knutson Development Consultants Inc.;

·                     a communication, dated May 25, 2012, from Sandra Hudson, 4-1144 Coronation Drive;

·                     a communication, dated May 25, 2012, from Lisa Muench, 19-1144 Coronation Drive;

·                     a communication from Madge Witzing, 11-1144 Coronation Drive; and,

·                     a communication from Nancy Pettit, 23-1144 Coronation Drive;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

·                     Ric Knutson, Knutson Development Consultants Inc., on behalf of the applicant – advising that Lots 122 and 123 on Coronation Drive are larger due to the exterior side yard; advising that Councillor Matt Brown asked if the front could be facing onto Street ‘A’; advising that Lot 161 is approximately 70 metres; noting that if the dwelling is 6 metres long, that leaves a 50 metre rear yard with nothing but grass; enquiring as to on what basis Kenmore Homes owes money; indicating that the consent agreement includes a road sharing clause; requesting that conditions 31 and 40 be removed; and advising that the City has no authority to deal with four lots.

·                     Wanda Oatman – 1144 Coronation Drive – advising that this is going to reduce the value of their condominiums; indicating that you are going to have 2 storey homes near bungalow condominiums; indicating that they have small backyards; advising that this is not fair to the condominium residents; indicating that there could be a compromise by installing a road behind them; advising that there seems to be different rules for public and private roads; requesting that one storey homes be built so that their sunsets do not start at 2:00 p.m.; indicating that bungalows would look much nicer; acknowledging that this is an awkward piece of property; realizing that the new homes are going to be built; indicating that they pay their taxes and do all the right things; and indicating that most of the residents are enjoying their twilight years in their condominiums.

·                       Norma Spearing, 1-1144 Coronation Drive – enquiring as to what would be built on Lot 141; expressing concern about the value of homes that will be built; and expressing concern about the quality of homes being built.

·                       Lisa Muench, 19-1144 Coronation Drive – advising that this is a community of mostly retired people; requesting that decent homes be built; and indicating that the last two condominiums have sold for over $300,000.

·                       Madge Witzing, 11-1144 Coronation Drive – advising that they are living in a clustered community; reiterating what her neighbours have said; and indicating that the application is not fair.

·                       Hugh Hudson, 4-1144 Coronation Drive – advising that if the developer is required to build one-storey houses on Lots 159 and 161, they will be grateful.   (2012-D11-04/D26-03)

27.

5th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

Recommendation:  That the 5th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on May 2, 2012 BE RECEIVED.

V.

DEFERRED MATTERS/ADDITIONAL BUSINESS

VI.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 12:50 a.m.