Recommendation: That on the recommendation
of the Manager of Development Services & Planning Liaison, the following
actions be taken with respect to the site plan approval application for a
commercial building submitted by 2261531 Ontario Limited (York Developments),
relating to the property located at 1103 Adelaide Street North:
a)
pursuant
to section 13.7 of the Council Procedure By-law, the actions of the Municipal
Council taken at its meeting of April 30, 2013, related to the adoption of
clause 4 of the 9th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee,
concerning the property located at 1103 Adelaide Street North BE
RECONSIDERED;
b) 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 Site Plan application for the commercial building at 1103 Adelaide
Street North;
c) the
Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports the Site
Plan application for the commercial building at 1103 Adelaide Street North,
with the removal of the prohibition of the entrance/exit onto Huron Street
and the road widening to be consistent with the property located at 1135
Adelaide Street North, which is 6.1 metres off the property line;
d) the
Civic Administration BE ASKED to review their request for enhanced
landscaping;
e) the
London Transit Commission BE REQUESTED to improve the two subpar bus stops on
Huron Street;
f) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake, as a 2014 Capital Project,
improvements to Huron Street, including, but not limited to, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, traffic calming measures and a delineation between the road and
private property;
g) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to assist York Developments to proceed with
a minor variance for the rear yard setback; and,
h) the
Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with a minor variance application
for the property located at 1135 Adelaide Street North;
it being noted that it was the intent of
the Municipal Council to interpret the 3.4 metre rear yard setback as the side
yard setback; and,
it being further noted that the developer
and the community are in agreement with respect to the 3.4 metre side yard
setback;
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 Limited, applicant – indicating that this proposal
has been two years in the process; indicating that, when he first started the
process, he did not think that, two years later, he would still be talking
about the redevelopment of an existing building; noting that the application
is for the redevelopment of the former Harry’s Automotive; advising that the
building was originally 10,000 square feet when they purchased it and, with
the demolition of a portion of the building, the building is now 8,500 square
feet; indicating that there are four key components that they feel are
necessary to have this proposal be successful; advising that one of their
concerns is the road widening dedication; noting that there are three road
widening lines, the 19.5 metres, as identified in the Transportation Master
Plan, the 18 metres as outlined in the existing by-law and their neighbours
to the north, the Z Group building located at 1135 Adelaide Street North, which
has a smaller set back; advising that the distance between the parking stalls
on the east side of the property from the west side of the property is 6.7
metres, which is the minimum distance needed for an access lane for emergency
vehicles or two way traffic; advising that the City’s proposed widening would
eliminate not only the parking spots along Adelaide Street North, but also
the drive aisle access; noting that this renders the site non-usable and
would put him in contravention of the Act; advising that, what they are
proposing is the blue line on his drawing; noting that the blue line
represents the same widening as their neighbours to the north; indicating
that the 24 spots that are in question, along Adelaide Street, have not been
considered in their parking ratio so they meet the test under the Parking
by-law; advising that this is a Tim Horton’s proposal, and, at certain peak
hours, Tim Horton’s needs all the parking spots they can get on the site;
leading into his next comment relating to the landscaped areas; requesting
that the Committee look at the 3D renderings that they have put together;
advising that the landscaped areas that they have proposed meet and/or exceed
the landscaped open space coverage under the by-law, which is 15%; indicating
that their plan outlines tree plantings wherever we can fit the trees in, as
well as, planting beds along Adelaide Street North and along the three
boundaries, south east and north; indicating that they have made arrangements
with their neighbours to the west to do plantings on their property as well as
beefing up their plantings; noting that this creates a 360 degree buffer; indicating
that, between pedestrian connections and lush landscape implementations, they
think that they have met the test; advising that, to increase the landscape
coverage on this site and taking away eight or nine parking spots does not
meet the test of reasonableness; indicating that the third point has been a
little touchy through the process and he can candidly admit that; indicating
that the access onto Huron Street was a thought that may have made sense at
the time; advising that he thinks that some of the language in the Council
resolution talked about considering prohibiting the access onto Huron Street;
noting that the word consider tells him that maybe he should study this
access a little bit more; advising that they hired Paradym Transportation
Solutions who studied many of the intersections in the vicinity and, more
specifically, the intersection at Adelaide Street North and Huron Street;
advising that Paradym Transportation came up with a summary of findings that
could improve the existing situation; indicating that this site has four full
access points; noting that they plan on closing two of the four; further
noting that the two access points to remain are the two that are the furthest
away from the intersection; advising that the access from Adelaide Street
North will be restricted to a rights in/rights out access by the construction
of a centre median along Adelaide Street North; indicating that Adelaide
Street North carries 36,000+ cars a day; reiterating that, to have a full
movements access there does not make sense; however, if you limit the site to
one restricted rights in/rights out access, you create a very unsafe
situation because you will have people pulling u-turns in the middle of
Adelaide Street North to get in and out; noting that this does not make a lot
of sense, which is why they prepared the transportation study which has been
submitted to the Transportation Department; noting that the Transportation
Department has indicated that they feel that it met all the requirements;
advising that the fourth item, that he was not really prepared to speak to
today, is the 3.4 metre rear yard setback; advising that, based on their
interpretation of the Council resolution from March, 2012, they always
assumed that the rear yard was the rear yard; noting that the rear yard is
located on the west side of the building, which is where their loading doors
are located; further noting that the front doors will continue to be where
they are currently located; also noting that this is what the Council of the
day interpreted as well; advising that when he submitted his site plan
application, Mr. Henry, in his wisdom, brought this to his attention; noting
that he did not agree with Mr. Henry; indicating that he filed for the
variance that Mr. Henry requested in protest; noting that there was a cover
letter to the Committee of Adjustment outlining that he was applying for a
variance in protest; advising that the Committee of Adjustment hearing was
yesterday; indicating that, the Committee, in their respectful right, denied
the application; noting that, in all honestly, the application was not denied
based on the merits of the variances required; further noting that the
discussion got out of control and the Committee of Adjustment started talking
about other things on the site; reiterating that this is an infill
redevelopment site of an existing building; noting that the City is promoting
infill development; advising that this site is currently vacant, raising
approximately $20,000 in taxpayers revenue for the City; noting that, once
this site is fully developed, it will the revenue will be increased to
approximately $80,000; advising that they have commitments from Tim Horton’s
and other companies; indicating that they are about a year behind and the
companies are being very patient in working with them; respectfully requesting
that the site plan be tailored to render this a useful site; advising that the
entire west boundary is a composite wall structure; noting that sometimes the
City does not like to see a solid wall go right to the property line because
of the visual impact with cars pulling in and out so there is typically a
five metre or three metre stretch which they taper down to black wrought iron
fencing; further noting that this does not impact any of the noise
conclusions in the noise report; advising that he has worked with area
residents and understands their concerns; noting that they are living on a
subpar urban street with no curbs, no gutters, no sidewalks on one side of
the street, gravel shoulders and people treat it like a rural road; advising
that he can only do what he can on his property; and indicating that it is up
to the City to either step up or not step up to try to work with the
residents.
·
Chris
McDonnell, 525 Huron Street – advising that he lives a few doors to the west
of the development, on the south side of the street; expressing concern with
the current state of Huron Street, a residential street with an interesting
collection of neighbours; advising that he is not concerned with the site
plan; advising that his concerns are long standing about the safety issues on
the street; indicating that he thinks that the Councillors will recall quite
a bit of discussion about the existing traffic problems on Huron Street;
noting that Councillor Henderson once mused aloud that Huron Street should be
turned into a cul-de-sac, which was a wonderful idea; noting that they are
not proposing that; advising that they have worked very hard with the applicant
to try to come up with a workable solution for the development; noting that
they have received some assurance; indicating that it was the developers’
suggestion that they come to the City to see if they can find a win-win for
Huron Street to address some of the issues on Huron Street; noting that these
concerns include establishing proper curbs, gutters, sidewalks and some
traffic calming measures; advising that, currently, it is a free for all,
particularly in the latter part of the afternoon and into the evening;
advising that, because there are no curbs or sidewalks on the south side of
the street, traffic drives onto their lawns to make an extra lane on the
road; noting that there is nothing to impede them; advising that they have
met with representatives from the Traffic Department, Mr. Soufan, Councillor
Nancy Branscombe and have had some input from Mayor J.F. Fontana, that there
would be some expedition to correct the flaws on Huron Street; noting that
they undertook these steps to allow the withdrawal of their appeal to the
Ontario Municipal Board; advising that they spent one day with the Ontario
Municipal Board and provided compelling evidence; noting that the continuance
of the appeal was several months away and, in that time, Mr. Soufan had the great
idea that they all go together to the City to see if they could get some
assurances that their concerns on Huron Street could be addressed, which they
were glad to do; advising that they are generally quite satisfied with the
site plan for the development, but they are really dissatisfied with what is
happening on Huron Street; indicating that they did receive a letter from the
Traffic Department, on September 16, 2013, suggesting that the neighbours
might wish to put some speed cushions on the street; noting that, without
proper curbs or sidewalks, he thinks that gives drivers another reason to
drive on their lawns to avoid the speed cushions because there is nothing to
define them staying on the roadway and the speed cushions would do nothing to
encourage that; further noting that he is agreeable to traffic calming
measures; indicating that, when they met with representatives from the
Traffic Department, they could not get anything in writing because the
Traffic Department needs to consult the other neighbours; advising that
nothing had happened until they received a letter last week, which was very
disappointing because their discussion was held in early April or possibly
May and they did not hear anything until last week; reiterating that the it
was just a letter asking the neighbours if they wanted these traffic calming
measures; indicating that the letter suggested that you might want the
traffic calming measures, but keep in mind that you are going to have to
drive over them every day and it implies that you can have these if you want
them but I would not if I were you; reiterating that there was no
consultation and that it was a very discouraging letter; advising that he
thinks that the neighbourhood will still accept the traffic calming measures;
indicating that he thought that it was interesting that Mayor Fontana thought
that maybe Council should take the extra step to address what the rear side
yard of the development is; advising that he does not object to that and he
thinks that it makes sense; advising that he also thinks that, at the same
time, it is very helpful to the development and to the developer to give
something to the neighbours on Huron Street who are accepting that this drive
through is going to go through; advising that this is going to increase the
amount of traffic onto our street and make our street less safe; indicating
that Council voted not to consider prohibiting, and there has been a lot of
debate about that, but the vote was to prohibit access to Huron Street;
recognizing that Huron Street has a problem that needs to be dealt with;
reiterating that he is not here to speak to the site plan, which he does not
have a problem with, but to request that the needs of Huron Street be
addressed at the same time, not six months, a year or never; indicating that
some of their older neighbours were actually told, when the curbs were taken
out in the late 1970’s, that it was only temporary and here we are in 2013,
and it has not happened yet, so you can understand why some of them are not
too motivated to show up to a City Council meeting to push this along as they
have long given up; hoping that we can advocate for the street and that
Council can recognize that, as part of this development going through, Huron
Street will not suffer because of that, but that we can actually get the
improvements and the City agrees that the improvements are needed and are
valid concerns; noting that it is only a question of timing; hoping that,
because the development has to put in curbs and sidewalks, in tandem with the
development, the work could be done on Huron Street; and reiterating that
that is why he is here today.
·
Beth
Hickey, 541 Huron Street – indicating that she lives five houses west of
Adelaide Street; advising that if she looks out her front window and turns
her head, she can see the Tim Horton’s drive through; indicating that there
will also be a bus stop in front of her house; indicating that she is here
for the same reason as Mr. McDonnell; reiterating that they have been working
very hard with the developer; advising that they have compromised quite a bit
in accepting that there will be a drive through restaurant on their street;
indicating that they have never disagreed with having a commercial
development in this location; indicating that they are only opposing the
drive through, but they are now accepting that a drive through will be
located on that property; advising that they were given very strong
assurances that there would be something done to improve the safety of their
street as well as the visual beautification of their street, which is what
they are here today asking for; and advising that she would like to see
safety measures put into place before a Tim Horton’s opens because as soon as
it opens, they are going to have a lot of traffic.
·
Alon
Shatil, Or Shalom Synagogue, 534 Huron Street – advising that they have worked
with, and had several meetings with, the applicant; advising that they have
made arrangements that would mitigate the impact to their property and they are
pleased with that; noting that this includes the zero setback that has been discussed
today; enquiring about the durawall on the site plan; noting that the
durawall is quite clearly written at eight feet high; enquiring about the
other aspects of the wall that are just listed as sound wall; requesting clarification
as to whether the durawall is length of the west end of the property or if it
changes from one wall to another wall; and indicating that they have no
objection to the site plan which is in line with what they had discussed
previously.
Secretary’s Note: In accordance with
section 13.7 of the Council Procedure By-law, the reconsideration of this
matter requires the approval of at least two-thirds of the whole Council. (2013-D11)
|