|
Recommendation: That, on the recommendation
of the Managing Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the following
actions be taken with respect to the application of Romlex International
Inc., relating to the properties located at 1057, 1059 and 1061 Richmond
Street:
a) the
Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that Municipal Council recommends
that Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 BE AMENDED as Appendix “A” attached,
(in conformity with the Official Plan), FROM a Neighbourhood Facility (NF1)
Zone and a Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-2(9)) Zone TO a Holding
Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision Bonus (h-5*NF1(_)*B(_)) Zone to
permit churches, elementary schools, and day care centres, one (1)
residential dwelling unit within the existing church building, located at
1061 Richmond Street, and a Bonus Zone to allow for increased residential
density to permit a maximum total of eleven (11) residential dwelling
units at the subject property, to be located within the existing building at
1061 Richmond Street, with regulations that permit a maximum of three (3)
bedrooms within nine (9) of the dwelling units and a maximum of two (2)
bedrooms within two (2) of the dwelling units, a maximum density (61 units
per hectare), a minimum of 13 parking spaces, a minimum parking area setback
from the east lot line of 0 metres, a minimum parking area setback from the west
and south lot line of 1.5 metres and a minimum landscaped open space coverage
(30%), in return for heritage preservation by designating 1061 Richmond
Street, under Section 29(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, and also in
return for enhanced landscaping and site design, by constructing a masonry
wall, of no more than 1 metre (3.28 ft) in height, matching the materials and
architectural character of the existing building located at 1061 Richmond Street,
to provide for screening and the creation of a built street edge along the
majority of the Richmond Street frontage and by allowing for no vehicular
access to the site from the municipal laneway adjacent to the west and
subject to a holding provision which requires a public site plan review;
b) the
Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to include the attached, revised,
conceptual site plan, in the bonusing clause of any development agreement for
this site;
c) the request to
amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property
FROM a Neighbourhood Facility (NF1) Zone, which permits churches,
elementary schools, community centres, day care centres, libraries, private schools, fire stations, private club, police station and a
Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-2(9)) Zone, which permits single
detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplex dwellings and converted
dwellings (maximum 4 dwelling units) TO a Neighbourhood
Facility Bonus (NF1*B(_)) Zone, to permit the same range of uses in
the Neighbourhood Facility (NF1) Zone on the entire site except police
stations and fire stations as the base zoning and adding a bonus zone to
permit 14 residential dwelling units subject to special zoning regulations to
permit a minimum landscaped open space coverage (10%), a minimum parking area
setback from the interior/rear property line of 0 metres and a parking area
setback from the front/exterior side lot lines of 0.5 metres BE
REFUSED for the following reasons:
i)
the
requested amendment is not consistent with the Policies for Near-Campus
Neighbourhoods of the Official Plan;
ii)
the
requested amendments implement a form of development which is not consistent
with the site plan agreement registered to the lands at 1059 Richmond Street;
and,
iii)
the
number
of special provisions required and the extent to which they deviate from the
requirements of the Zoning By-law are indicative of a development that is too
intense for the subject site;
d) the notice of the
Municipal Council's intention to designate the property located at 1061
Richmond Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest BE GIVEN,
for the attached reasons, under the provisions of Section 29(1) of the
Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18; it being noted that
that the owner, Romlex International Inc., has not concurred with the
designation;
e) unrestricted
access on Richmond Street BE PERMITTED; and,
f) the
developer BE ASKED to work with the City to repair the lane;
it being noted that
the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following
communications, with respect to this matter:
·
a
communication, dated September 26, 2013, from M.G. Mann, President & CEO,
Statesman;
and,
·
the
attached communication, dated October 8, 2013, from D. Bartlett;
it being pointed out that at the public
participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals
made oral submissions in connection therewith:
·
Greg
Priamo, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the applicant – indicating that
staff has done a good job providing the Committee with the information that
has been presented in the staff report; expressing agreement with the
Manager, Planning and City Planner’s observation that this is a rare
situation; noting that he has been in business for 25 years and has not seen
this kind of revision in the recommendation before; advising that they are
certainly perplexed by it; indicating that he listened very carefully to Mr.
Tomazincic’s presentation and has read the report very carefully; advising
that they continue to believe that the original report, which was presented
to the Committee and the Municipal Council twice, is actually the best and
most fair assessment of this situation on a balanced basis; indicating that,
in the new report, there seems to be a great deal of weight placed on two
things; advising that one of them is the Near Campus Neighbourhood policies,
when they were approved and how they were applied to this application;
advising that the other item is the existing site plan for this property;
indicating that it has been his experience, in the City of London and in many
municipalities, that, when Council approves a policy document, whether or not
it is subject to Ontario Municipal Board proceedings, it is considered by
staff when they are considering applications that are relevant to these
policies; indicating that the Committee was advised by Mr. Tomazincic this
evening that, because they were not approved by the Ontario Municipal Board,
even though they had long since been approved by the Municipal Council, they
were not considered in the original reports; indicating that even a cursory
review of the original reports clearly shows sections of the reports that
deal specifically with the Near Campus Neighbourhood policies; noting that
there is an explicit determination that the development, as proposed,
complies with the Near Campus Neighbourhood policies; indicating that he is
perplexed by the notion that somehow a further review turned that all around;
advising that he is also perplexed because he is unable to find anything in
the new report, from an informational standpoint, that staff did not have
when they wrote the report, their first report, but that they dealt with in a
comprehensive and effective way; advising that their site plan was available
to staff; noting that staff they said that their site plan was fine, now
staff say that it is not; indicating that the Near Campus Neighbourhood
Policy was available to them in Council approved status and, as Mr.
Tomazincic stated, the Ontario Municipal Board approved the Policy exactly
how the Municipal Council approved it; advising that the policies were there
and, in his submission, staff did consider them; advising that he is unable
to determine what actually happened that resulted in the change in recommendation
because the policies existed; indicating that they have two recommendations
that rely, in his submissions, on the exact same body of information;
indicating that they met with the neighbours before the first report came to
the Committee and they met with the neighbours before it came back to the
Committee the second time; indicating that there were submissions from the
public, but they were the same submissions; reiterating that there was no new
information provided at that time; advising that a review of the reports
would indicate that they responded to the concerns that were raised;
indicating that they agreed to not use the laneway, they agreed to drop the
Sherwood property from the application and we are surprised by much of this;
indicating that they acquired another property, for parking, because they
were advised, and certainly believed, that compelling concerns of the
neighbourhood were two things: one, that significant off-site parking would
be generated on this site regardless of the land use and there was concern
about the diversity of the tenants that may occupy the building; advising
that they went to the extraordinary measure to acquire enough land to provide
the required number of parking spaces for the units that they were proposing
to ensure that they could attract a diversity of tenants to this site and to
ensure that they minimized the potential impacts of off-site parking;
indicating that they have now been advised that now it is more appropriate to
have half the number of the parking spaces and less diversity in the number
of bedrooms in the units; advising that they are struggling with this, but in
my submissions to you tonight, he is not looking for a rationalization;
suggesting to the Committee that, in their opinion, they have reviewed the
two documents and they think staff got it right the first time; indicating
that the first report provides a much more balanced, comprehensive assessment
and, in my submissions, their original conclusions were the right;
reiterating that he urges the Committee to consider that very carefully
because they believe that their proposal is well thought out, is a balance
between the concerns of the neighbourhood and the economics of this project
and it is going to result in the preservation of a culturally significant and
a neighbourhood significant building without change; commenting on some of
the zoning issues that were raised in the analysis; noting that this is an
existing building, they are not creating yards; further noting that the zero
yard on the south side, exists today, the parking for the church in that
condition exists today; indicating that it is not a new condition that they
are proposing; advising that the existing site plan agreement, while it may
be instructive, is not regulation; noting that there is no obligation;
reiterating that the site plan agreement is for a church and the removal of a
manse, not a site plan agreement that is reflective of a converted church
building for residential purposes; indicating that a site plan agreement will
be required to effect this development and they will go through the process;
reiterating that he urges the Committee to consider, very carefully, a
balanced approach to this development and to look favourably on the original
recommendation; requesting the Committee to instruct, through staff, to the Ontario
Municipal Board, that the original report is the preferred solution in this
regard; advising that, even prior to this staff report, they agreed that
access would be entirely off of Richmond Street and to not use the laneway as
part of their access arrangement; advising that they filed an urban design
brief with their application; indicating that a component of the urban design
brief is a compatibility report that is entrenched in the urban design;
advising that the direction that was referred to by Council in part e) of
your previous resolution was to revise the urban design brief to address the
revised project proposal; reiterating that that was the direction; noting
that it was not a direction to provide a compatibility report; reiterating
that the compatibility analysis was filed in the urban brief, in the original
application and, at the direction of the Council, they provided a revised
version to staff; indicating that this information is available; advising
that their determination may be different from others, but their analysis is
there and they stand behind it; and advising that it meets the criteria in
the Official Plan policies.
·
Sid
Noel, 196 Sherwood Avenue – commending the Planning Department staff for this
very thoughtful report; indicating that it is clearly based on research and
presents a clear rationale for the recommendations; requesting clarification
on one aspect of the report, involving the traffic in and out of the parking
lot for the development; realizing that access to the laneway is not part of
the proposal; noting that this has been clearly stated; advising that there
has been some discussion of permitting only right turns in and right turns
out into the parking lot for the development; advising that this would be a
mistake in many respects; indicating that he believes that it would lessen
the chance of the owner of the property having an economically viable
development because it would inconvenience those who must use the parking lot
as well as the residents of Sherwood Avenue; noting that, if that was the
case, a resident of the complex arriving from South London would not be able
to turn left into the parking lot, the driver would have to turn left onto
Sherwood Avenue, which is a narrow street and try to do a three-point turn
because the street is too narrow to do a u-turn; indicating that this is
difficult enough to do in good weather, but it is doubly difficult to do when
there are cars parked on the side and in winter when there is snow piled up;
noting that this is unnecessary for this project and he hopes that it is off
the table; indicating that, at the last meeting, there was unanimous
agreement that this should not be permitted; indicating that the idea of
putting a pork chop barrier in the center of Richmond Street really ought to
be a non-starter; seeking confirmation that this is so; noting that he is not
speaking on the developers behalf but this is a common interest for the
developer and the residents of Sherwood Avenue; expressing support for the
report in its entirety, with this important confirmation; advising that the
report does not meet all of the wish list of the area residents but it goes a
long way to meeting their concerns; and urging the Committee members to
support the staff report.
·
Steve
Harris, 201 Sherwood Avenue – expressing a number of concerns with the
intensity of the project; believing that the reduced density would mitigate
many of the deficiencies in the proposal for the church site; wishing to
speak about two specific matters; indicating that, as they reside two doors
west of Richmond Street, the demolition of the home at 1057 Richmond Street
will create a serious noise problem for them from the volume of traffic on
Richmond Street; noting that all of the Officials present are aware of the
cost of noise barriers for neighbourhoods; further noting that the least
expensive option for all parties stands currently at 1057 Richmond Street and
it would be demolished as part of the proposal; indicating that their most
serious worry has been addressed in the new report; expressing appreciation
to Council and to the Planner for their concerns for the neighbourhood around
the church, for listening to the public and letting democracy work; advising that
half of the families on the street have school age children and their safety
is their primary concern; advising that the laneway on the west side of the
church is their pathway to school; indicating that the Municipal Council
agreed unanimously that the narrow lane should not be part of the
redevelopment of the church; advising that, regardless of other planning
rationale, to argue to the contrary is to argue that children’s safety is not
a baseline value for the community; and advising that he speaks on behalf of
all of the families on the street when he says that they are most grateful to
Council and the Planning Department when you agree that children’s safety
should be at the top of the list.
·
Michael
Backx, 192 Sherwood Avenue – expressing appreciation to the staff for the
revised report as it is a major improvement from where they were at with the
first report; advising that their biggest concern has always been the
density; indicating that the applicant has never provided a character
statement or a compatibility report showing how his development will fit in
with the neighbourhood; advising that the residents were left with not many
options and ultimately they ended up getting the advice of another Planner
who gave them a recommendation which was compatible with the neighbourhood;
noting that that recommendation was six units in the church with three
bedrooms, leaving the home on Richmond Street which would preserve the
landscape and the beautiful gateway that the Council has talked about
entering the City of London, which would have worked out for everyone;
advising that the applicant has a different idea; indicating that he wanted
to rip down the house and create all parking there; reiterating that he did
not show any compatibility with the neighbourhood; reiterating that this
report is a major improvement; raising that, in comparing the first staff
report, with 14 units and 34 bedrooms, with the second report, where they
have nine units and 27 bedrooms; noting that, on a proportionate basis, the
reduction in units is 36% while the reduction in bedrooms is only 20%;
indicating that, in order to be consistent with this new report, then of 36%
reduction, the maximum number of bedrooms should be 21, which is more in line
with what the neighbourhood suggested and also more in line with the
recommendation that the Council referred back to the Planners; advising that,
if he remembers correctly, at the last Council meeting, the Civic
Administration, asked specific guidance on what Council wanted staff to consider;
indicating that Council was very clear in its response, indicating that they
will have the maximum target goal density of 45 units per hectare; noting
that this was based on six units in the church, with two bonus units in the
church, the house remaining with one unit with the existing number of
bedrooms in it; further noting that this would bring it up to 45 units per
hectare; reiterating that the Civic Administration asking the question, but
he has not heard from them this evening, the rationale for going from 45
units per hectare to 50 units per hectare; reiterating that there has never
been anything from the applicant outlining how this is going to fit in with
the neighbourhood; and indicating that all the parameters required in the
Official Plan have not been provided by the applicant and therefore, this
application was deficient.
·
Mary
Ann Colihan, 191 Sherwood Avenue – see attached presentation.
·
Paul
Adams, 191 Sherwood Avenue - see attached presentation. (2013D14A)
|