Monday, January 19, 2015 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST …Government/Council+… · · 2015-01-14Letter from Mr. D. Manahan, Manahan Consulting, received on December 16, 2014 requesting

MEETING: Committee of the Whole

DATE: Monday, January 19, 2015 Reference No. COW - 5/46

OPEN SESSION in S.H. Blake Memorial Auditorium at 6:30 p.m.

Committee of the Whole - Planning Session Chair: Councillor T. Giertuga

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA

Confirmation of Agenda - January 19, 2014 - Committee of the Whole

With respect to the January 19, 2014 Committee of the Whole meeting, we recommend

that the agenda as printed, including any additional information and new business, be

confirmed.

DEPUTATIONS

435 Memorial Avenue - Proposal for Purchase of Surrounding Lands

Letter from Mr. D. Manahan, Manahan Consulting, received on December 16, 2014 requesting to appear before Committee relative to the above noted.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

Heritage Advisory Committee

Minutes of Meeting No. 10-2014 of the Heritage Advisory Committee held on September 25,

2014, for information.

REPORTS OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS

Development at Arthur Street Marketplace

At the June 16, 2014 Committee of the Whole Meeting, Council requested a report with respect

to the recent development of a new LCBO outlet at 1101 Arthur Street West (Arthur Street Marketplace). Council directed that Administration prepare a report outlining the options for

limiting a future application for driveway access or a pedestrian walkway from Neebing Avenue

Committee of the Whole - January 19, 2015 1 of 27

Committee of the Whole - Meeting Date 01/19/2015

to that property and that the report consider the context of the original Development Agreement that resulted from the original development of the property in the early 1970s.

Report No. R. 15/2015 (Planning Services) recommending that the lands be designated for Site Plan Control to ensure that future development will require an approval. Furthermore,

Administration provides an option should Council wish to regulate access from the subject lands to Neebing Avenue.

Letter from Mr. G. Van Fleet, dated September 8, 2014 requesting to appear before Committee with Mr. F. Wilson and Ms. S. McCartney relative to the above noted.

With respect to Report No. 15/2015 we recommend that City Council authorize the designation of the lands described as Concession IV NKR, Part Lot 11, being Part 1

on Reference Plan 55R-569 (1101 West Arthur Street) for Site Plan Control;

AND THAT any necessary by-laws be presented to City Council for ratification.

93 Elm St. - Exemption to Fence By-law

Report No. R. 2/2015 (Planning Services) recommending that City Council not approve an exemption to the fence by-law at 93 Elm St, for information.

NEW BUSINESS

ADJOURNMENT

Committee of the Whole - January 19, 2015 2 of 27Page 2 of 2

MEETING DATE 01/19/2015 (mm/dd/yyyy)

SUBJECT Confirmation of Agenda

SUMMARY

Confirmation of Agenda - January 19, 2014 - Committee of the Whole

RECOMMENDATION

With respect to the January 19, 2014 Committee of the Whole meeting, we recommend that the

agenda as printed, including any additional information and new business, be confirmed.



MANAHAN CONSULTING

897515 Ontario Limited 304 - 101 Syndicate Avenue North Thunder Bay, Ontario P7C 3V4

Phone 807 623 2823 ; fax 807 623 2823 ; email [email protected]

Attention : John Hannam; City Clerk

Re : request for deputation to January 2015 Council meeting- Planning : Parts 1 and 2, 55R- 12647

1140675 Ontario Inc. - Frank Marino- owns 435 Memorial Avenue which has recently been converted from a nightclub to the new location for Thunder Bay Community Bingo.

On behalf of the above noted corporation and Mr. Marino, this letter is a request to be scheduled as a deputation at the January Council meeting- Planning.

Mr. Marino has, for several years been discussion with city staff the conversion of an existing lease of a part of Lisgar Street road allowance to a property purchase, however staff are not in agreement. The deputation will request that Council intervene and allow the sale to be competed.

Mr. Marino has a current lease on the Lisgar Street road allowance and on a portion of the Court Street road allowance. Notwithstanding that the abutting car sales and service business has fenced of the Court Street road allowance and rendered it inaccessible, Mr. Marino acknowledges that a major truRk sewer line is located in the Court Street allowance and it is a high priority for the city to own it. Accordingly he has discontinued his interest in acquiring the Court Street road allowance.

Lisgar is entirely different -- it is a local street and contains only local services. There would appear to be a much reduced need to continue city ownership for the lands on Lisgar Street.

The lands involved are currently paved and used for parking. Purchase will not in any way or manner alter the physical state of the lands, and the city would continue to have full and complete use for services and access to such services.

At present Lisgar is used sparingly -- as a rear access to the Push Business and as a local access for residents of Spofford and other nearby residential streets. It

MANAHAN CONSULTING 1

mailto:[email protected]


contains several turns that prevent use as an effective through street and likely even prevents primary use as access to the surrounding residential properties.

An annual leasing fee and an additional provision for a liability rider protecting the city are current costs that Mr. Marino incurs. In addition property tax is also paid for the land. Should the lands be purchase, both the annual lease fee and the city insurance rider would be eliminated, thereby significantly reducing cash flow and operating costs for the property.

The attached copy of a survey illustrates the lands that are involved in th is request.

The deputation will elaborate on the information above and request Council's assistance in bringing about purchase of these lands.

Please co~at a deputation has been scheduled. Thank you.

~~-Don Manahan

December 161h, 2014

MANAHAN CONSULTING 2

PLAN OF S~RVEY OF I REOUIRE THIS PLAN TO 9 PLAN 55R- l2.b'i1

LOT 8 .'OER HE BY BY-LAW ' 4399, LPA56644) LAND TITLES ACT. RECEIVED ANO OEPOSH0

& 0 ART OF COURT STREET RE-GISTERED PLAN M-192 OA7E Alw.r.ef!..U.. L,l-1l'>1.

--~-~~.[:).__ ~A~rR~F:of1sg~~R~T~f~~ET Li'ND RCISTRAR FOR THEREGISTERED PLAN 827 LAND TITLES DIVISION OF THUNDER r AY !No 55>PART OF! ONTARlO STREET

SCnEDLLEREGISTERED PLAN 572 ..., LOT P:,.AN ~tlo. 4Ft[.\& PART OF LISGAR STREET LOT 8 il.ISGAR STA[.(TI ALL OF11.-192 0 .006 "-t!'f BY-:..AW "399.lPt.~6~41 U1260069REGISTERED PLAN 147 / PART OF"'-Al Of USGAR STREE T loU' Ol1 0.037 kLi2t26-0062CITY OF THUNDER BAY _/ PART OFPART STR1DISTRICT of1- THUNDER BAY \._../ or COURT 0.02J "0.l'2'126-00!)9

SCALE I ' 500 1 '" 0.007 He

PART or.., i:ZI:t:i-0060

0.020 M;

PART OF M-192 0 .120 HG6l1Z~01 14

No 621Z600~9. PIN /.o. 621260060, a All OF' PIN N11. 621026-0069,

$"-..~~ C>. Oi[ l,..._.,._

~o.nstk.

L-~"D~P~

a \-U2...CJ,):'\SE:) 1-NG-s. I>L 5SR i".){!.Hi((T

lH!'i PlM~ COMPRI Sts PART Of' PIN PUI r'.o, 62126-0062. PIN " " 621250114

I I I I

7 .:,.4-2. (2~

-- i"- I

~ ~ ;8 . . Q .

I I

T o

METRIC

NOTES

C.~U,NCES SHOVt'N 00 C4N DE CO~VERTCD TO

8ARi'lGS Alii ~STAOtlOI.OC AND ARE RCF'ERA0 Of THE: UORTHV;(ST(AI.V lMT Of PART ~~!e)l', HAVV:G A BEARING Of N )l'-...'00' (.

8 O(t,'QTES 0 O(~OT(S 5!8 DWOTES 5518 O(NOTES IB D(N:lTCS CP OENOT5 WIT 0NOTt5 M(AS OCI.IOT(S 17l9 OCNOTES JD6 DEI~OTES OV DENOTES PI DEtlOTES P2 owons

SURVEY t.tONUt.I(NT SURV['f lo401'iUM[NT S T AM~ARD IRON 8AR SHORT STANDARD IRDH 6RON 9.\R COtiCR[T( PIN WITNESS UtASOR0 PETER de HAAN, O.L.S. J.D. S ARt.'ES l TO. OAIGII"l U NKN OWN PlAN ~~-96)7 R[GIS TRl0 PlAN

SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I URTifY THAT,

l. ThiS SI.AVEY A~ PlAN ARE CORRECT ACT, h SORV{YOOIS ACi ANf)

MAO[ UNDER TH(M. 2. tH( WRV(Y WAS COUPlEf ( O Q.N

$ J . D.BARNE S.. LA~O II'HO IUI ATI Ot: S P , C IALU TS lOII I Wil..lJ.I.NSTUET,SUIT~IOlA.lll.lto'TltlliAV,ON r mW.II

l . IIU7JUJUn

lri' 26TH O.U



SUBJECT Heritage Advisory Committee

SUMMARY

Minutes of Meeting No. 10-2014 of the Heritage Advisory Committee held on September 25, 2014, for information.

ATTACHMENTS

1. September 25, 2014 Minutes


MEETING: HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PAGE 1 of 5

DATE: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2014 MEETING NO. 10-2014

TIME: 5:00 P.M.

PLACE: MCNAUGHTON ROOM

500 DONALD STREET EAST CITY HALL

CHAIR: Mr. A. Cotter, Chair

PRESENT: OFFICIALS:

Mr. A. Cotter, Chair Mr. M. Szybalski, Corporate Records Manager Ms. G. Cyr Archivist

Mr. G. Graham

Councillor L. Hebert RESOURCE PERSONS: Ms. B. McKinnon Ms. B. McNulty, Ministry of Culture

Ms. D. Pallen Ms. P. Cain, Heritage Researcher

Mr. R. Eady, Planner II Development Services ABSENT: Ms. K. Butter, Cultural Services Coordinator

K. Costa

A. Yozipovic

GUESTS:

Ms. K. McKee, Form Architecture Engineering

Mr. A. Nicol, St. Andrews Roman Catholic Church

Ms. L. Wieben, Vice-President, Northwestern

Ontario Aviation Centre

Ms. D. Lyzun, Secretary - Northwestern

Ontario Aviation Centre

The Chair welcomed those in attendance.

1.0 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

None.

2.0 AGENDA APPROVAL

MOVED BY: Ms.G. Cyr

SECONDED BY: Councillor L. Hebert

With respect to the September 25, 2014 Heritage Advisory Committee meeting, we

recommend that the agenda as printed, including any additional information and new

business, be confirmed.



CARRIED

3.0 CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

MOVED BY: Councillor L. Hebert

SECONDED BY: Ms. B. McKinnon

THAT the Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting No. 08-2014 (Open &

Closed) held on August 28, 2014 be confirmed.

CARRIED

4.0 WHALEN BUILDING RENOVATIONS

Ms. K. McKee, Form Architecture Engineering provided information on the renovations

to the interior and exterior lobby area of the Whalen Building.

Noted in the plans was the strategy to be aesthetically sympathetic to the original elements of the design. Existing terra cotta, marble and terrazzo floor will be refurbished. Existing paintings will be removed during work and returned in place. Certain elements will be replaced with a more aesthetically appropriate material.

Mr. A Cotter, Chair outlined the process for a resolution to approve the plan and that the

Heritage Advisory Committee will seek to be involved in the signage naming of the

building.

5.0 NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO AVIATION MUSEUM

Ms. L. Wieben, Vice-President, Northwestern Ontario Aviation Centre and Ms. D.

Lyzun, Secretary - Northwestern Ontario Aviation Centre provided information on the

Northwestern Ontario Aviation Museum.

A publication and newsletter from the Northwestern Ontario Aviation Centre was distributed. Ms. D. Lysun outlined the development of the project and successful events. The long term challenges in relation to staffing and site lease were noted. Ms. L. Wieben highlighted activities and noted that the oral history project is available on the NOAC website.

Mr. A. Cotter, Chair thanked Ms. Wieben and Ms. Lyzun, noting that the HAC

Committee would like to possibly host a meeting on site.



6.0 ST. ANDREWS ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH PROPOSED NEW ROOF

Mr. A. Nicol, St. Andrews Roman Catholic Church informed the Committee of a new roof that will be needed on the Church and that he would return with a more detailed

plan.

7.0 TRINITY UNITED CHURCH MANSE

The Committee discussed the decision by council for a demolition permit on the property

and felt that a more detailed discussion at the November meeting would provide a better

opportunity to review the situation.

Mr. M. Szybalski commended the committee on the effort that was put forward to

prevent demolition of the manse noting the challenges and outlined the process now in

place for finalizing the demolition permit.

Ms. B. McNulty noted she had shared the committee report with her colleagues and the

committee is to be commended on their handling of the situation.

The committee discussed the need for financial relief programs and the need for council

to lobby for funding from the provincial government.

It was noted that there is an opportunity to educate new councilors about the Heritage Act

and heritage properties.

8.0 DOORS OPEN 2014

Ms. P. Cain, Heritage Researcher provided a report on Doors Open 2014 event held on

Saturday, September 6, 2014.

Mr. A Cotter, Chair acknowledged the committee and site volunteers thanking them for

their work in ensuring a successful event.

9.0 MUNICIPAL WORLD

Copy of the September 2014 issue of Municipal World was circulated for the Committees information.

10.0 WHALEN BUILDING RENOVATIONS.



Discussion was held relative to the proposed lobby renovations at the Whalen Building.

MOVED BY: Ms. D. Pallen

SECONDED BY: Mr. G. Graham

THAT the Heritage Advisory Committee approves in principle the draft plans for the

lobby renovations at the Whalen Building as presented by Form Architecture

Engineering, Project No. 2014076, dated 2014.09.05;

AND THAT the Heritage Advisory Committee requests that they are consulted on the

naming of the building.

CARRIED

Mr. G. Stover, Committee Coordinator will send a letter to Ms. K. McKee, FORM

Architecture Engineering advising of the above noted resolution.

11.0 NEW BUSINESS

11.1 Feast of Services

The Heritage Advisory Committee is sharing a booth space with the Archives at the event

on Friday Sept 26, 2014 and a volunteer schedule was established.

11.2 Culture Days

The Committee is organizing a presentation of James Whalens booster film Port Arthur and Fort William; Canadas Keys to the Great Lakes on Saturday Sept 27th at 10:30 a.m. at Mary J. L. Black Library.

Ms. P Cain will be participating in the presentation at the Spirit Garden on Local

Authors on Sunday September 28, 2014 commenting on Catherine Vickers.

Ms. K. Butter circulated information on other Culture Days Events.

11.3 Information Items

M Szybalski noted that the Womens History Month on-line exhibit for 2014 will be launched for October. L. Hebert noted that work on the Lyceum is underway. L. Hebert noted that the work on the ceiling of St. Andrews is complete with a late October opening of the space. The committee wishes to request a presentation from the Hillcrest School developer.

12.0 NEXT MEETING DATE


http:2014.09.05


The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 27th, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. in the

McNaughton Room.

13.0 ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m.


CCoorrppoorraattee RReeppoorrtt

DEPARTMENT/ Development & Emergency REPORT NO. R 15/2015 DIVISION Services - Planning Services

DATE PREPARED 01/08/2015 FILE NO.


SUBJECT Development at Arthur Street Marketplace

RECOMMENDATION

With respect to Report No. 15/2015 we recommend that City Council authorize the

designation of the lands described as Concession IV NKR, Part Lot 11, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 55R-569 (1101 West Arthur Street) for Site Plan Control;

AND THAT any necessary by-laws be presented to City Council for ratification.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the June 16, 2014 Committee of the Whole Meeting, Council requested a report with respect to the recent development of a new LCBO outlet at 1101 Arthur Street West

(Arthur Street Marketplace). Council directed that Administration prepare a report outlining the options for limiting a future driveway access or a pedestrian walkway from Neebing Avenue to that property and that the report consider the content of the

Development Agreement that resulted from the original development of the property in the early 1970s.

Administration recommends that the lands be designated for Site Plan Control to ensure that future development will require an approval. Furthermore, Administration provides

an option should Council wish to regulate access from the subject lands to Neebing Avenue.

DISCUSSION

Background

In 1971, an agreement was executed between the Cadillac Development Corporation Limited and the City. That agreement outlined how development would occur at the Arthur Street Marketplace, known at that time as Thunder Bay Mall.


Corporate Report No. Agenda Item R 15/2015

Among other matters, that Agreement indicated an intent not to permit an access to Neebing Avenue and further that any such application would require the approval of the

City. In addition, the approved plans required the construction of a berm with plantings. The intent of berm and plantings was for visual and sound attenuation of the commercial

development to the benefit of the adjacent residential area to the east (Confederation Drive area).

The Agreement and associated by-law were to be registered on title, including that the

Agreement would be binding on future owners.

For reasons unknown, that Agreement was not registered on title and as such, the current

mall owner, when purchasing the property in the mid 1990s, was not made aware of any such Agreement as the title search revealed nothing. The mall owner's solicitor and both current and former City solicitors are all in agreement that, as this Agreement was never

registered on Title to the lands, it is in no way binding upon the current mall owner.

This matter came to light when site work commenced on a new LCBO store in late spring

of 2014. The front portion of the berm and some trees were removed along the Neebing Avenue side from the front lot line at Arthur Street to a point falling between the two Confederation Drive/Neebing Avenue intersections. This stretch of the original berm

(southern portion) was also the widest portion. The northern portion was approximately one half as wide.

As noted previously, in preparing the site for this new building, substantial portions of the original berm and plantings were removed. This resulted in several of the residents of the area to the east, many of whom were familiar with the events leading to the 1971

Agreement, to contact the Development & Emergency Services Department to enquire about the enforcement of the 1971 Agreement.

Upon review, the residents were advised that the 1971 Agreement, as it was never registered on Title, represented only a Contract with the former owner and was not binding on the current owner.

The residents have submitted a petition to request that Council see that the intent of the original agreement is realized. This petition was presented to the June 17th meeting,

where Administration was directed to review the matter.

Administration has met, on several occasions, separately with both the current mall owner and representatives of the Confederation Drive neighbourhood group. It is clear

that the neighbourhood group wants the original agreement enforced and re-instated. However, it is also clear the Agreement is not binding on the current mall owner. As a

result, the new development need only meet the requirements of the Zoning By-law and other applicable Building and Engineering standards as Site Plan Control does not presently apply to the property.

Page 2



Issues and Options

Berm/Planting/Fencing:

The applicable zone requires that 15% of the lot area is to be Landscaped Open Space. This requirement is to include a 3.0 m wide strip along street lines, including Neebing

Avenue. Landscaped Open Space is defined as "an open area of land, unoccupied by buildings or structures, situated at ground level on a lot and used predominately for the growth and maintenance of grass, flowers, shrubs, trees or other vegetation."

As a result, a 3.0 m wide landscaped (meaning grass, shrubs OR trees) must be provided to meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning By-law.

The only option available under the Planning Act to enforce details of development above minimum zoning requirements is Site Plan Control. This property is not subject to Site Plan Control and it must be noted that passing such a By-law for Site Plan Control

would only apply to future development. This option cannot be used retroactively to have an impact on the development that is underway. As a result, and while we are

recommending that these lands be made subject to Site Plan Control for any future development on the lands, staff only have authority to require/enforce the minimum Zoning By-law requirements.

Driveway and/or pedestrian access to Neebing Avenue:

The residents group representatives have indicated that they are opposed to any access to the subject lands from Neebing Avenue. While a pedestrian connection is also opposed, some of the local residents have advised that a pedestrian connection is desirable. The mall owner has no plans at this time for a driveway access or pedestrian connection to

Neebing Avenue.

The 1971 Agreement included the following with respect to access to Neebing Avenue.

It is covenanted and agreed that there should be no ingress to or egress from the Site from Neebing Avenue for any vehicle without the prior consent of the City (bold added) and Cadillac hereby waives any right which it might have to call for curb cuts or

other means of access to its property from the said Neebing Avenue.

While the Agreement restricts Cadillac from applying for access to Neebing Avenue, it

does not restrict the present owners for the reasons outlined previously. In addition, it should be noted that the restriction is tied to a City approval, not an outright prohibition.

Such restrictions on access are contrary to the principles of vehicular and pedestrian

connectivity; and are also contrary to the goals and objectives of the Active Transportation Plan and the EarthCare Plan that encourages a more connected urban

fabric for the benefit of all citizens. The suggestion that this restriction be imposed, while perhaps seen by the residents of the Confederation Drive area as beneficial, are not in the best interest of the community at large.

Page 3



Providing for exiting the site to access a signalized intersection, such as Neebing and Arthur reduces turning movement impacts on the arterial roadway (Arthur Street),

improves arterial road function, and increases safety.

The Official Plan supports this potential access from the mall onto Neebing Avenue.

Similarly, Roads and Traffic Policy No. 11-03-01 states that "it is the policy of the Corporation of The City of Thunder Bay to prohibit access from abutting lands onto new and existing expressways and to new major arterial roads and to prohibit direct access

from all lands abutting existing major arterial roads where access from the lands is available to other roads." In this instance, the owner has an existing access to this major

arterial road, but the policy fully supports use of Neebing Avenue for access.

The owner has not requested that a new driveway access be created; however should the owner ask for such access, that request, based on policy in place would not necessarily be

rejected. Administration does not recommend the introduction of a restriction of access onto Neebing Avenue

However, should Council wish to pursue this restriction in response to this neighbourhood concern, staff offers only one option available to achieve this, although there may be longer term risks.

Section 35 of the Municipal Act permits a Municipal Council to pass by-laws to remove or restrict the common law right of passage by the public over a highway and the

common law right of access to the highway by an owner of land abutting a highway.

Visual and sound attenuation as contemplated in the 1971 Agreement:

It is not normal practice to shield developments such as the Arthur Street Marketplace

from streets. The Zoning By-law does require a landscaped strip and fence when such developments directly abut a residential zone along a common property line for visual

and spatial separation. Such is not the case with Arthur Street Marketplace.

The 1971 Agreement required a rather wide berm on the east side of the property along the Neebing Avenue lot line from Arthur Street to a point between the two Confederation

Drive entrances. The intent in 1971 was that the berm provides sound and noise attenuation of the mall to the benefit of the residential area. Furthermore, the berm also

provided a physical barrier to traffic and pedestrian movements as a guardrail was also installed along Neebing Avenue. From information in the Mapping Section's topography maps, the berm was a little over 2 metres (about 6.5 feet) in height measured from the

mall's parking lot. A number of original trees do remain; however, several were removed recently with the berm.

The mall owner does intend to comply with the Zoning By-law landscape strip requirement as part of the construction of the new LCBO outlet. The Zoning By-law requirement of a 3.0 metre wide landscape strip along Neebing Avenue will be met.

Page 4



It must also be noted that the owner of the Arthur Street Marketplace, as a gesture of goodwill in response to the neighbours' concerns agreed to build a six (6) foot high wood

fence within the required landscape strip to address concerns of noise and visibility. This fence would extend the same length as the original wide berm (see Attachment A). In

addition, every effort will be made to retain trees, but due to disturbance that has already occurred and further disturbance through the construction of a fence, staff is not, in any way, guaranteeing the ongoing health of these trees. Again, however, the owner has

agreed to plant additional trees in this area. At this time, the owner has no plans to remove the northern berm or plantings. The owner is willing to put this commitment in

writing.

Since staffs discussion with the owner, and again in response to concerns from the neighbourhood representatives with respect to a wood fence, the owner has installed a

white vinyl fence. In a recent meeting with neighbourhood representatives, they are pleased with the fence.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are minimal financial implications associated with the recommendation in this

report.

CONCLUSION

Administration recommends that the lands be designated for Site Plan Control, but that restricting access is not in keeping with the goals and objectives of Council approved

policy and initiatives

REFERENCE MATERIAL ATTACHED

Attachment "A" - Excerpt from 1971 Development Agreement's site plan

PREPARED BY: Anne Dawkins, MCIP, RPP, Supervisor Planning and Policy

THIS REPORT SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY: DATE:

MARK J. SMITH MA.MCIP.RPP. January 9, 2015 GM DEVELOPMENT & EMERGENCY SERVICES

Page 5


ATTACHMENT A Excerpt from 1971 Development Agreement's site plan

TITLE: Excerpt from 1971 Development Agreement's site plan Date: February, 2015

PREPARED BY AD SCALE As Noted FILE NO.


CiT't ~.

.. ll!f_)_~ j '~ ....,

,.~. . ' t.:n~) 763 Confederation Drive Thunder Bay, ON

P7E3N8

September 8, 2014 ( '

Office of the City Clerk City Hall, 500 Donald Street East, 3rd floor Thunder Bay, Ontario P7E SV3 Attention : Mr. John Hannam, City Clerk

Dear Mr. Hannam,

I, along with Frank Wilson and Susan McCartney, wish to make a deputation to City Council on restoration of the protective buffers separating the Confederation Drive neighbourhood from the Arthur Street Marketplace at such time as the Administration report on restoration options comes before Council.

These protections were negotiated and set out in an Agreement signed by the original mall owner and approved by a City Bylaw in 1971. The Agreement prohibited access from the mall to Neebing Avenue and required a landscaped berm to provide a visual buffer and to attenuate noise.

In May of this year the current mall owners, needing to expand the mall, proceeded to remove much of the protective berm and many of the mature trees. Concerned residents approached City staff only to learn that the 1971 Agreement, which had protected the 60 home neighbourhood for 43 years, was not enforceable on the current mall owners.

A petition, signed by 115 residents, asked that City Council honour the intent of the 1971 Agreement and Bylaw by having City staff produce a plan for a) the provision of effective noise barriers, b) visual screening and c) the prohibition of roadway and walkway access between the mall and Neebing Ave. Additional text from the petition is attached.

On June 16th Councillor Linda Rydholm presented the petition to City Council. In response, the following motion received unanimous approval:

"With respect to development on the Arthur Street Marketplace property, and the potential for either or both, a future application for driveway access from Neebing Avenue to that property or a pedestrian walkway, we recommend that Administration be directed to prepare a report outlining the options for limiting such access; And that the report consider the context of the original site plan control agreement that was arrived at during the original development of the property."


We, as neighbourhood spokespersons, met with Mark Smith and other City staff, and later with mall owner staff to discuss the neighbourhood concerns and how these might be addressed by the City and the mall owner.

Our deputation will provide a brief background, explain the residents' concerns and focus on the need to recreate reasonable buffers between this neighbourhood and the adjacent expanding mall. We are seeking measures which will allow the mall to continue to expand without negatively impacting the neighbouhood.

Respectfully yours,

Attachment


Petition on Protection of Confederation Dr. Subdivision

Introduction

This petition is respectfully submitted to City Council from the residents ofthe Confederation

Drive neighbourhood. We are a tightly-knit community of 60 homes, dating back to 1967, that

is located on the northwest corner of Highway 61 and Arthur St. The community is fully

enclosed by the aforementioned thoroughfares, the Neebing River on the north and the Arthur

St. Marketplace mall on the west. Neebing Ave., which runs between Arthur Street and the

Neebing River, separates the neighbourhood from the mall and provides the only vehicu lar

access.

Background

As a condition of approval of the mall, a 1971 Site Plan Agreement was authorized under

Thunder Bay By-law 114-1971 to address concerns of the residents. This Agreement set out the

requirements for a landscaped berm along the east boundary of the property and a prohibition

against access from the mall onto Neebing Ave. For 43 years, these conditions have served to

protect the residents of the subdivision from the negative impacts of the mall. The Agreement

was to be registered on title and applicable to successive owners.

City Administration and the mall owner recently concurred that the 1971 Agreement was no

longer valid because it was not registered on title, and as such the provisions of the Agreement

are no longer enforceable. The City then proceeded to issue a building permit to the mall owner

for the construction of a large new build ing on the southeast corner of the property to house

an LCBO outlet based upon the less stringent requirements of the current Zoning By-law. As a

result, the landscaped berm has been largely dismantled and the majority of the mature trees

along the berm have been removed.

Neebing Ave. is a short dead-end road, flanked by a major drainage ditch adjacent to the mall

property. Homes on the east side are within 80 feet of the mall property line. The subdivision is

exposed to a variety of negative sight and sound impacts from the growing commercia l

activities. The treed landscaped berm provided a noise barrier and visual screening for these

homes and all residents. Neebing Ave. also provides the only access for the subdivision, and any

additional traffic will likely cause unworkable backups both on Neebing Ave. and on Arthur St.

No non-local vehicular and almost no pedestrian traffic currently passes through the

neighbourhood. Any form of walkway between Neebing Ave. and the mall would make

Confederation Dr. the defacto preferred and shorter pedestrian route between the mall and

Arthur Street where it meets Highway 61. As a consequence, much of the foot traffic on Arthur

Street would shift to using Confederation Dr.


Our subdivision was designed with no sidewalks. Residents and children walk and play in the

streets. The safety of our families and the security of our homes are of utmost importance to

us. That is why we do not want either vehicular or pedestrian access between the mall and

Neebing Ave.

City Administration has the authority to approve access to Neebing Ave. without community

consultation or Council approval. This concerns us greatly. For the above reason s, we further

request that City Council prohibit veh icular and defined pedestrian access between the mall

and Neebing Ave. unless such access is specifically approved by City Council after public

consultation.

Petition Request -June, 2014

We the undersigned residents of the Confederation Dr. neighbourhood respectfully petition

City Council to honour the intent of the 1971 By-law and Site Plan Agreement by having City

Administration examine options and produce a plan for A/ the provision of effective noise

barriers, B/ visual screening, and C/ the prohibition of vehicular and pedestrian access from

the mall onto Neebing Ave. unless specifically approved by City Council after public

consultation.

Print Name House Circle Street Name Circle Signature

Confederation/Century Dr., Ct.

Confederation/Century Dr., Ct












Confederation/Century Dr. , Ct.


CCoorrppoorraattee RReeppoorrtt

DEPARTMENT/

DIVISION

Development & Emergency Services - Licensing &

Enforcement

REPORT NO. R 2/2015

DATE PREPARED 12/04/2014 FILE NO.


SUBJECT 93 Elm St. - Exemption to Fence By-law

RECOMMENDATION

For information.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To provide City Council with a response to the resolution dated November 3, 2014, regarding the request from the resident living at 93 Elm St. for an exemption to the Fence

By-law No. 314/94. Administration is recommending that City Council deny the exemption.

DISCUSSION

The City has a by-law that limits the height of fences. This by-law is typically enforced on a complaint driven basis. The resident at 93 Elm St. built a fence to the height of

approximately 2.75 metres, exceeding the 1.83 metre height restriction for the rear of the yard by .91 metres. A complaint was received regarding the height of this fence and the

Licensing & Enforcement Division commenced action to achieve compliance with the by-law.

On November 3, 2014 the owner of 93 Elm St. made a deputation to the Committee of the Whole requesting that the fence around his back be allowed to remain at its current

height. The property owner explained that the reason the fence had been constructed at this height was so that the top of the fence could serve as a header supporting a large sliding gate allowing vehicular access to the rear of the property from the lane.

It is suggested that there were and are many gate options and that a fence of this height is

not required in order that access be provided.

The Licensing and Enforcement Division receives many calls from customers regarding

the Municipal regulations related to the building of fences, and therefore staff created an information pamphlet that specifically lays out the provisions related to the maximum



allowable height of fences built in residential areas. The front page of the brochure clearly indicates that the maximum height of a fence is 1.83 metres. Staff also receive

many calls from customers regarding neighbors who build fences that do not meet the standards set out in the fence by-law.

Standards are put in place for many reasons, and some of the reasons fence standards exist include but are not limited to the following: limiting the height of fences in

residential areas helps ensure that proper amounts of sunlight enters yards; to prevent residents from creating excessive barriers between properties as a result of disputes; to

prevent residents from hiding illegal items in their backyard, such as junk/debris; the maximum height of 1.83 metres limits the different height variations that can occur, allowing for a better visual appearance in neighborhoods. It is suggested that allowing

the resident who lives at 93 Elm St. to keep an oversize fence will create a visual appearance that will not fit in with other residential fences, and could encourage other

residents to build fences that exceed 1.83 metres in height with the knowledge that they can seek an exemption to the fence height restriction. It should also be noted that many fence complaints are a result of disputes among neighbors, and allowing fences to be

higher than 1.83 metres may serve to exasperate such disputes.

In zones other than residential, the fence by-law restricts the height of fences to 2.75 metres. The by-law also recognizes that there may be site specific reasons in commercial and industrial areas for fences to exceed 2.75 metres in height, such as public safety and

to prevent people from entering property that may contain hazardous materials. In such cases, the by-law specifically notes that City Council has the ability to grant exceptions.

However, with respect to residential zones, the by-law makes no mention of exemptions.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION

None

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that the resident living at 93 Elm St. should not be granted an exemption to the fence by-law. If City Council supports the residents request for such an exemption, it should pass a resolution directing that the fence that currently exists at 93

Elm St. be exempt from the height provisions in the fence by-law.

BACKGROUND

The Licensing and Enforcement Division received a complaint on May 28, 2014 regarding the rear of a fence located at 93 Elm St. that was constructed to exceed the

height restrictions contained in the Fence By-law No. 314/94. The by-law allows for a height of 1.83 metres, and the fence measured to be approximately 2.75 metres in height.

Page 2



Enforcement staff notified the resident of the infraction in writing, and asked them to reduce the height of the fence from 2.75 metres to 1.83 metres. The attached pictures

illustrate the oversize fence and show the height of adjacent fences.

Enforcement staff attended 93 Elm St. on September 22, 2014, and the fence remained oversized. On the same day staff mailed the resident a final notice to request that they comply with the order to reduce the fence from 2.75 metres to 1.83 metres. On October

6, 2014, the resident contacted the enforcement officer and stated that they were going to request a deputation of City Council to ask for an exemption to the fence by-law. The

resident attended City Council on November 3, 2014.

The fence by-law was created by the City for several reasons, and specifically the height

restriction in residential areas helps ensure that rear fences are built to no more than 1.83 metres in height to promote a more uniform look.

REFERENCE MATERIAL ATTACHED

Attachment A Picture of Fence at 93 Elm St.Attachment B Picture of Fence at 93 Elm St.

PREPARED BY: James Coady

THIS REPORT SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY: DATE: (NAME OF GENERA L MANAGER)

MARK J. SMITH, MA.MCIP.RPP. January 7, 2015 GM DEVELOPMENT & EMERGENCY SERVICES

Page 3


Committee of the Whole - January 19, 2015

'

------

I r

' .

I

26 of 27


Table of ContentsAnnouncement Item 5 CONFIRMATION OF AGENDACONFIRMATION OF AGENDA ITEM 17_2015

Item 7 435 Memorial Avenue - Proposal for Purchase of Sur435 Memorial Avenue - Proposal for Purchase of Sur ITEM 20_2015 (No Document)AttachmentsLetter from Mr. D. Manahan

Item 9 Heritage Advisory CommitteeHeritage Advisory Committee ITEM 19_2015AttachmentsSeptember 25, 2014 Minutes

Item 11 Development at Arthur Street MarketplaceDevelopment at Arthur Street Marketplace R 15_2015AttachmentsAttachment "A" - Excerpt from 1971 Development Agreement's site planLetter from Mr. G. Van Fleet

Item 12 93 Elm St. - Exemption to Fence By-law93 Elm St. - Exemption to Fence By-law R 2_2015AttachmentsAttachment A - Pictures of Fence at 93 Elm St.Attachment B - Picture of Fence at 93 Elm St.

Documents

Monday, January 19, 2015 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST …Government/Council+… · · 2015-01-14Letter from Mr. D. Manahan, Manahan Consulting, received on December 16, 2014 requesting