|
Recommendation: That, on the
recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, the following
actions be taken with respect to the application of the City of London, relating
to the properties located on the west side of Richmond Street between
Hillview Boulevard and Shavian Boulevard including 1607, 1609, 1611, 1615,
1619, 1623, 1627, 1631, 1635, 1639, 1643, 1649 and 1653 Richmond Street:
a) the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 21, 2014, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 28, 2014,
to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands
FROM a Low Density Residential designation TO a Multi-Family, Medium Density
Residential designation, to permit the development of multiple-attached
dwellings such as row houses or cluster houses, low-rise apartment buildings,
small-scale nursing homes, rest homes, homes for the aged and a convenience
commercial component within an apartment building;
b) the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 21, 2014, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 28, 2014 to
amend the Official Plan by adding a new special policy to Section 3.5
(Policies for Specific Areas) to guide the future development of the subject
properties;
c) pursuant
to Section 19.2 of the Official Plan, the Richmond Street-Old Masonville
Master Plan and Urban Design Guidelines, as appended as Appendix “C” to the
staff report dated January 21, 2014, BE ADOPTED at the Municipal Council
meeting to be held on January 28, 2014;
d) pursuant
to Section 19.2.2 of the Official Plan, the proposed by-law, as appended to
the staff report dated January 21, 2014, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal
Council meeting on January 28, 2014, to amend the Official Plan by adding the
Richmond Street-Old Masonville Master Plan and Urban Design Guidelines to the
list of Council approved guideline documents;
e)
the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 21, 2014, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 28, 2014,
to amend Zoning By-law Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, as
amended in clause a), above), to change the zoning of the properties located
at 1607, 1609 and 1611 Richmond Street FROM a Holding Residential R5 Special
Provision/Residential R6 Special Provision (h-5•R5-2(12)/R6-4(14)) Zone,
which permits cluster single detached dwellings, cluster semi-detached
dwellings, cluster duplex dwellings, and cluster townhouse dwellings subject
to a special zoning provision which regulates the minimum lot area (0.6 ha.),
minimum lot frontage (70m), maximum lot coverage (35%), maximum density (30
units per hectare), maximum height (10.5m), minimum front yard setback (3m),
minimum rear yard setback (7.5m) and restrictions on the location of parking
areas subject to a holding provision requiring a public site plan review of
the proposed development prior to the removal of the holding provision TO a
Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-5•h-(*)•h-(**)•R5-2(*)) Zone, to
permit cluster townhouses and cluster stacked townhouses with a special zoning
provision which includes a minimum lot frontage (70m), minimum lot area (0.4
ha.), maximum front yard depth (3m), minimum rear yard and south interior
side yard depth (15m), maximum lot coverage (35%), maximum density (45 units
per hectare), maximum number of bedrooms per dwelling unit (3) and maximum
height (12.0m on the eastern portion and 9.5m on the western and southern
portions) subject to holding provisions which will require a public site plan
review, ensure that
future development is consistent with the Richmond Street-Old
Masonville Master Plan and Urban Design Guidelines and ensure that a
storm/drainage and stormwater management (SWM) servicing design report has
been prepared and accepted to ensure that future development has the
sufficient storm outlet and SWM servicing;
f)
the
proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 21, 2014, BE
INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 28, 2014 to
amend Zoning By-law Z.-1 in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended in
clause (a) above, to change the zoning of the properties located at 1615,
1619, 1623 and 1627 Richmond Street FROM a Holding Residential R5 Special
Provision/Residential R6 Special Provision (h-5•R5-2(12)/R6-4(14)) Zone,
which permits the above listed uses, subject to the above listed special
zoning regulations, and subject to the above listed holding provision TO a
Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-5•h-(*)•h-(**)•R9-7(***)) Zone,
to permit cluster townhouses, apartment buildings, senior citizen apartment
buildings, and continuum of care facilities with a special zoning provision
which includes a minimum lot frontage (70m), minimum lot area (0.6 ha.),
maximum front yard depth (3m), minimum rear yard depth (15m), maximum lot
coverage (40%), maximum density (150 units per hectare), maximum number of
bedrooms per dwelling unit (3) and maximum height (15.0m on the eastern
portion and 9.5m on the western portion) subject to holding provisions which
will require a public site plan review, ensure that future development is
consistent with the Richmond Street-Old Masonville Master Plan
and Urban Design Guidelines and ensure that a storm/drainage and
stormwater management (SWM) servicing design report has been prepared and
accepted to ensure that future development has the sufficient storm outlet
and SWM servicing;
g) the proposed
by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 21, 2014, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 28, 2014, 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 properties located at 1631, 1635 and 1639
Richmond Street FROM a Holding Residential R5 Special
Provision/Residential R6 Special Provision (h-5•R5-2(12)/R6-4(14)) Zone,
which permits the above listed uses, subject to the above listed special
zoning regulations, and subject to the above listed holding provision (1631
and 1635 Richmond Street) AND a Residential R5 Special Provision/Residential
R6 Special Provision (R5-2(12)/R6-4(14)) Zone, which permits the above listed
uses and subject to the above listed special zoning regulations (1639 Richmond Street)
TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Convenience Commercial
Special Provision (h-5•h-(*)•R9-7(**)/CC4(*)) Zone, to
permit cluster townhouses, apartment buildings, senior citizen apartment
buildings, and continuum of care facilities in the R9-7(**) Zone, with a
special zoning provision which includes a minimum lot frontage (70m), minimum
lot area (0.6 ha.), maximum front yard depth (3m), minimum interior side yard
depths (3m), minimum rear yard depth (15m), maximum lot coverage (45%),
maximum density (200 units per hectare), maximum number of bedrooms per
dwelling unit (3), maximum height (20.0m on the eastern portion and 9.5m on
the western portion) and to permit convenience service establishments,
convenience stores, financial institutions, personal service establishments
and take out restaurants in the CC4(*) Zone with a special zoning provision which
includes a maximum gross floor area for convenience commercial uses (200.0m2) and no
additional parking requirements for commercial uses subject to holding
provisions which will require a public site plan review and ensure that future
development is consistent with the Richmond Street-Old
Masonville Master Plan and Urban Design Guidelines;
h) the proposed by-law, as appended to the
staff report dated January 21, 2014, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council
meeting to be held on January 28, 2014, 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 properties located at 1643, 1649 and 1653
Richmond Street FROM a Holding Residential R5 Special
Provision/Residential R6 Special Provision (h-5•R5-2(12)/R6-4(14)) Zone,
which permits the above listed uses, subject to the above listed special
zoning regulations, and subject to the above listed holding provision TO a Holding
Residential R9 Special Provision (h-5•h-(*)•h-55•R9-7(*)) Zone, to
permit cluster townhouses, apartment buildings, senior citizen apartment
buildings, and continuum of care facilities with a special zoning provision
which includes a minimum lot frontage (70m), minimum lot area (0.6 ha.),
maximum front yard depth (3m), minimum interior side yard depths (3m),
minimum rear yard depth (15m), maximum lot coverage (45%), maximum density
(200 units per hectare), maximum number of bedrooms per dwelling unit (3),
maximum height (20.0m on the eastern portion and 9.5m on the western portion)
subject to holding provisions which will require a public site plan review,
ensure that
future development is consistent with the Richmond Street-Old Masonville
Master Plan and Urban Design Guidelines and require the completion of a
traffic impact study prior to site plan approval to determine the location
and number of access points, the traffic impact on surrounding roads and the
roadway improvements required to accommodate this development; and,
i)
the
Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider, through the site plan
approval process, that development of the properties located at 1631, 1635
and 1639 Richmond Street be consistent with the Site Plan and Elevation
Drawings, as
appended as Appendix “I” to the staff report dated January 21, 2014;
it being noted that the Planning and
Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications,
with respect to this matter;
·
a
communication dated January 6, 2014, from B. McCall, Middlesex-London Health
Unit;
·
a
communication dated January 14, 2013, from B. Davis, President, Old
Masonville Ratepayers' Association;
·
a
communication dated January 16, 2014, from F. Metwaly, 1631, 1635 and 1639
Richmond Street; and,
·
a
communication dated January 16, 2014, from A.N. Circelli, Circelli Law;
it being pointed out that at the public
participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals
made oral submissions in connection therewith:
·
Laverne
Kirkness, Kirkness Planning Consultants, on behalf of Dr. R. Lubell and Dr.
P. Debellis – advising that his clients are located at 101 Fanshawe Park
Road, in the “L” shaped plaza; indicating that his clients have 2,000 square
feet of space and are overcrowded; indicating that they have purchased the
property located at 1653 Richmond Street, which is the most northerly of the
thirteen properties that are part of this site; noting that this property is
located on the corner of Hillview Boulevard and Richmond Street, in the
southwest corner of the intersection; indicating that the property currently
has a large, single-family bungalow on it; indicating that his clients
purchased this property with the intent of building a medical/dental office
on it of approximately 4,000 square feet; advising that his clients have been
following the Richmond Street-Old Masonville Master Plan and Urban Design
Guidelines and have been trying to follow and work in the same direction
as it is; advising that they have a new architect and, in the last ten days,
they are really following the Guidelines; showing the design the new
architect is proposing; indicating that they have applications for an
Official Plan, to change this site, to multi-family, medium density
residential, the same as what the Civic Administration is proposing and what
the Master Plan is recommending; reiterating that they have an application in
before the City to rezone the lands to permit an apartment/office building to
contain the medical/dental office; advising that those applications and the
supporting material, the Planning Justification report and the Urban Design
Guidelines, were put in around December 30 so that they could save $4,500 on
application fees; [Secretary’s Note: Mr. Kirkness was interrupted as the
Committee is not dealing with these applications]; advising that they are
here to support, in general, what the Civic Administration is recommending,
with some qualification; indicating that the Committee needs to know his
background in order to understand why they are seeking the qualification to
it; reiterating that the applications are before the City; noting that the
staff has hardly had a chance to look at them, but they have been declared
complete; advising that the Civic Administration has asked for two more
things; noting that they have changed architects and brought a new design to
the table that is very new, but you should know about it as part and parcel
of what the Committee is approving because the plan you are approving is one
of the most imposing and prescriptive plans that you have ever seen come out
of this City Planning Division; indicating that it is not very business
friendly because it is not very flexible; indicating that he is here to ask
for some flexibility; recognizing that the staff have worked on this for a
long time and it is generally going in the right direction from all that
Planners and planning know about in how to plan cities; indicating that there
is no question about that and that is why they are here to generally support
it; reiterating that they are asking for more flexibility; showing the most recent
design; indicating that, if you look at the top portion of the slide,
Hillview Boulevard runs across the north and Richmond Street down the left,
the building they have is put at the front of the site; noting that this
respects Urban Design principles and the Master Plan Urban Design Guidelines;
indicating that the parking is in the rear and there are two accesses to
Hillview Boulevard; noting that there is no access to Richmond Street;
indicating that there is another, almost five metre dedication, of road being
taken from the front of this property as well; indicating that there is also
underground parking; explaining that, in the rendered elevations, the one on
the left is from the intersection and you can see that the front doors are at
the front of the building; noting that you can see the variation in the
façade and the texture; [Secretary’s Note: Mr. Kirkness was interrupted
as the Committee is not dealing with these applications]; indicating that
the last feature is that it is also expandable to the south; indicating that
what they are asking for, to offset some of that inflexibility, is to ask the
Committee to change the Official Plan, just tweak it a little bit; noting
that they are not requesting changes to the zoning, as they will pay attention
to those details when their application comes forth in two or three months;
advising that they have a lot of work to do in terms of appearing before the
Urban Design Peer Review Panel, which they hope to do on February 19, 2014;
hoping to have their open information session a week later with the community
residents; reiterating that the zoning can be left; indicating that, in terms
of the flexibility of the policy framework, they are asking the Committee to
ask the Staff to introduce the notions of permitting greater flexibility on
land use at the corner of Hillview and Richmond, (1653 Richmond Street),
specifically medical/dental on the ground floor, if you want to confine it to
that, which is sufficient for the client; advising that, what this does, is
recognize that this corner property is, by far, the most impacted of all of
the 13 properties; noting that you have high intense commercial to the north
with TD Canada Trust, a number of restaurants, a gas bar, the major shopping
centre to the east; indicating that this property is trying to work with that
and at the same time be sensitive to the future multi-family residential to
the south and the existing, very stable, residential to the west; enquiring
as to what better could you have than a medical office that is a ground floor
transitional use in that location on that intersection, with apartments
above; advising that they have shown, in their planning, that they can expand
the underground parking, they can expand this building to the south and you
do not need to, in the name of comprehensive development, have 70m lot sizes;
in other words, somebody has to acquire all three properties northerly (three
properties) in order to develop them; indicating that they have shown the
Committee how they can develop 20m of the 70m in a comprehensive fashion and
be able to expand it to the south with development that is similar, or at
least, complimentary; reiterating that those two points are all that they are
asking for; advising that he can work with staff between now and the
Municipal Council meeting to introduce that into the policy framework if you
would direct that to happen; noting that otherwise they are faced with having
to be against this until their application comes forth so that they are then
seeking modifications to it; indicating that they do not think that this
change is huge nor requires any future public notice; advising that it is
tweaking the policy framework that the staff has brought in front of you;
advising that it is recognizing that the corner and the transitional nature
of that 1653 Richmond Street site; advising that that is what these doctors
would really appreciate, that are long established in the area and serving in
the area and want to remain in the area, but in a better facility to offer
their patients. (see attached presentation).
·
Clint
Wilson, 45 Cherokee Road – indicating that his property is directly behind
the proposed tweaking; advising that there are a lot of mature trees on the
property that would be directly affected by the proposed decrease in setback;
and, advising that he is in favour of the proposal to increase the setback to
15m.
·
Bill
Davis, President, Old Masonville Ratepayers’ Association – indicating that
some of the key principles from 2004 was the 70m of frontage that would
enable it to be developed in four parcels; noting that what is in front of
the Committee today is a slightly different zoning for those four parcels;
indicating that 7.5m is what they had agreed to in 2004; noting that it has
now gone up to 15m; advising that when they agreed to the 7.5m, they did not
realize that all of the mature trees would have to come out; noting that the
15m allows all of the mature trees to remain, which is important to them;
expressing sympathy to someone buying this property and not being aware of
the zoning; however, it is what it is; and, encouraging the Committee to
approve what is before it tonight and if another rezoning application comes
forward in two months they will deal with that at the time. (2014-D14A)
|