Loading...
2001/05/25SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Friday, May 25, 2001 4:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING MATTERS Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer PD-2001-49, AppealtoZoning By-law No. 2001- 85, AM-46/2000, 6039 Fallsview Boulevard, Proposed 15-storey Hotel. PD-2001- 50, Application for Site Plan Approval, SPC-15/2001, 6039 Fallsview Boulevard, Proposed Tourist Commercial Development. RESOLUTION THAT the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls reaffirms the passing of By-law No. 2001-85, a by-law to permit a 15-storey hotel at 6039 Fallsview Boulevard. RESOLVED THAT the Council advise the Ontario Municipal Board that the appeal by 3414574 Canada Inc. to Zoning By-law No. 200%85 is frivolous, vesatious and made for the purpose of delay and was not made in good faith; AND FURTHER THAT the Ontario Municipal Board be requested to expedite this matter and set an early hearing date. ADJOURNMENT: The City of Niagara Fall Canada Corporate Services Department Planning & Development 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2354 E-maih nfplan@city.niag arafalls.on.ca May25,2001 Doug Darbyson Director PD-2001-49 His Worship Mayor W. Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: PD-2001-49, Appeal to Zoning By-law No. 2001-85 AM-46/2000, 6039 Fallsview Boulevard Proposed 15-storey Hotel RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council reaffirm, by resolution, the passing of By-law No. 2001-85 and direct staff to proceed to submit the appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board. BACKGROUND: The City has received an appeal to Zoning By-law No. 2001-85. The by-law would permit the development o fa 15-storey hotel development at 6039 Fallsview Boulevard and an associated off- site parking lot north of the hotel site. There are several reasons for the appeal, which are attached, but can be summarized as follows: By-law No. 2001-85 does not represent good land use planning; By-law No. 2001-85 does not conform with the requirements and/or intent of the Official Plan; The applicant's lands are large enough to allow for the development ora high qualityhigh- rise hotel without the necessity for any deviation from the Design Guidelines as set out in the Official Plan; By-law No. 2001-85 establishes the foundation for the phased development ora 29-storey hotel, whose foundation as presently designed, cannot and will not meet the applicable Design Criteria for high-rise buildings; and Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's Finance · Human Resources Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development May 25, 2001 - 2 - PD-2001-49 By-law No. 2001-85 is detrimental to the northern portion of the Fallsview subdistrict and is incompatible with the surrounding lands. The City is required by the Planning Act to forward the appeal and other applicable information within 15 days of the receipt of the appeal. The Board requires that Council's position be submitted with the appeal. CONCLUSION: Council passed By-law No. 2001-85 in accordance with the requirements of the Plmming Act and based on staffs recommendation, comments from various agencies and individuals, together with submissions made at the public meeting. A resolution of Council to reaffirm the passing of By-law No. 2001-85 is required. Jo~7'~arnsley -~ Planner 2 Respectfully submitted: Edward P. Lustig ~ Chief Administrative Officer Recommended by: Doug Darb.gson Director of Planning & Development Tony Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services JB:tc Attach. S:\PDR~2001\PD2001-49.wpd 17 submissions that a proposed development would sun/shadow the Appellant's hotel and obstruct its view and requested that consideration be given to relocating or reconfiguring the proposed hotel to the East. 34. Notwithstanding the comments in the Staff Report, and upon the request by Council for the Applicant, City Council passed By-Law Number 2001-85 permitting the proposed development to proceed despite the submission by the Appellant and without the provision of a 6 metre or 20 foot landscape buffer between the parking area and Fallsview Boulevard to the East and Stanley Avenue to the West. REASONS FOR APPEAL 35. The Appellant hereby appeals By-Law Number 2001-85 to the Board. 36. By-Law Number 2001-85 does not represent good land use planning. 37. The Appellant hereby relies upon all Official Plan Policies and Guidelines as they constitute a scheme for development and Design Criteria for buik form that are intrinsic to high-rise development and therefore are inseparable in the consideration of the Development P~'oposal. 38. By-Law Number 2001-85 does not conform with the requirements and/or intent of the Official Plan. 39. In particular, the By-Law fails to conform with the following Official Plan Policies: (a) Policies 4.6.8, 4.4.2(a), 4.4.2(c), 4.4.2(d), 4.1.24(e) and 4.1.24(g) 18 The scheme for development to be applied mandates that all development proposals of 10 storeys or more undergo a process of Archi[ectural Peer Review for the purpose of ensuring that design objectives of this plan have been met. The Architectural Peer Review Report stated that the panel recommended conditional approval of development proposal which conditions have not been met. Council must in its opinion determine that a proposed development adheres to the intent of the Official Plan and applicable Design Criteria. In doing so, in this case, Council must unequivocally state that the Architectural Peer Review panel's conclusion that the Development Proposal does not meet all of the Design Criteria is incorrect. It is submitted that Council must exercise ks discretion in a judicious manner in its consideration of this matter. There has been no finding by Council that the Architectural Peer Review panel conclusions were wrong. Therefore, by approving the development proposal without regard to the conclusions made by the Architectural Peer Review panel, Council is rendering the Official Plan Policies requiring Peer Review meaningless. Policies 4.1.24(b), 4.1.24(c), 4.1.24(d), 4.4.5 and 4.4.7(e): There has been no consideration of reduced building heights for the Proposed Development even though it is at the periphery of the Fallsview subdistrict or given the scale and character of surrounding land uses which are primarily 19 residential and/or low-rise. There is no evidence either in the Staff Report or in the Minutes of the Public Meeting that Council gave any consideration to the Official Plan policies in this respect. · Council has disregarded the concerns of the Appellant and of neighbouring properties notwithstanding the fact that there is ample room on the applicant's site to re-locate and re-configure the proposed development, as recommended by both Planning Staff and the Architectural Peer Review panel, to minimize impact including sunshadowing on the neighbouring properties, public streets and open spaces and encroachment on the views of neighbouring land owners. (c) Policies 4.1.24(f), 4.2.24, 4.3.1, 4.3.5, 4.4.2(b) and 4.4.4 · By-Law Number 2001-85 indicates that an agreement between the City and the Applicant remains to be executed under Section 37 of the Planning Act. At this point, absolutely nothing is known of how the bonusing aspect of By-Law Number 2001-85 is to function and no dollar amount is known as to what would be the contribution. Under the circumstances, it is impossible for the public to ascertain how or even whether the Official Plan Policies will be implemented. · There is no indication that the development proposal complies with the Official Plan Policies or implements them, and the public is unable to assess whether or not the Official Plan Policies can or will be met. (d) Policies 4.4.6, 4.4.7(b), 4.4.7(d) and 4.1.24(d) · Both the Architectural Peer Review Report and the Staff Report state that the le) 20 development proposal fails to enhance the pedestrian environment at the street level and, as presently designed, will have difficulty meeting the built form requirement of a reduction in building mass over the 15 storey level. There has been no consideration given to re-locating and re-configuring the Development Proposal to the East of the ske at the property line fronting on to Fallsview Boulevard which would lessen the impact in terms of encroachment of views and sunshadowing on the Appellant and neighbouring land owners and would satisfy the Official Plan Policies aimed at creating enhanced street level activities. Policies 4.5.3 and 4.1.5 A focus of the Official Plan is to provide a high quality visitor experience by extending the Park setting of Queen Victoria Park into the City creating a high quality urban environment as a framework for new private development. The Design Criteria For Parking Areas as established in TADS, which is incorporated as an Official Plan Policy, states that a surface parking lot should be separated from the street by a 6 metre landscape setback which would include a second row of street trees, lighting and a wall berm to screen the view of the parking lot from the street. The Development Proposal before Council at the public meeting failed to provide a 6 metre setback and the required landscaping features. Both the Architectural Peer Review Report and the Staff Report recognize the Official Plan goal of bringing the "Park into the City" and recommended 21 approval of the By-Law on the condition that a 6 metre landscape setback be provided for the parking areas located along street frontages. In particular, the Staff Report indicated that the 6 metre landscaping strip was paramount in this case given the excessive frontage of the hotel parcel, the lack of any street frontage buildings, the grading of the hotel site above Fallsview Boulevard, and the fact that the parking lots in front and behind the hotel would be imposing. Despite these recommendations and the Policies in the Official Plan, council accepted only a 3.5 metre landscaping strip along the street frontage and a 2.5 metre landscaping strip parallel to and along the interior lot line of Parcel 1. With respect to the off-site parking lot on Parcel 2, City Staff accepted a 3.5 metre landscaping strip along the Fallsview Boulevard rather than the standard 6 metre landscaping strip. In addition, although TADS recommends that off-site parking only be utilized for parking in excess of the requirements of the Zoning By-Law and are to be located within a 1,000 foot radius of the principal site, City Staff recommended approval of the off-site parking lot to be used for parking necessary to meet the requirements of the City's Comprehensive Zoning By-Law. 40. It is submitted that the Appellant is entitled to rely upon the development scheme in place in which, if there is non-conformance, the resulting impact on the Appellant is as follows: (4 There will exist a commercial parking lot directly across Stanley Avenue from the Appellant's Lands which does not meet the Design Criteria for Parking 22 Lots. Although the Appellant's approval for expansion pre-dated the approval of Official Plan Amendment Number 26, the Appellant was required to provide and did provide substantial landscaping along its street frontages. The phased development of the 29 storey hotel, which will not meet the Design Criteria as presently designed nor will be re-located or re-configured to the property line fronting Fallsview Boulevard, will substantially encroach upon the view of the Appellant and will have sun/shadow impact on public streets and on the Appellant's Lands. 41. It is submitted that the Applicant's Lands are ample enough to allow for the development of a high quality high-rise hotel without the necessity for any deviation or variances from the built form regulations and Design Criteria set out in the Official Plan. 42. By-Law 2001-85 establishes the foundation for the phased development of a 29 storey hotel, which foundation, as presently designed, cannot and will not meet the applicable built form regulations and Design Criteria for high-rise buildings. 43. By-Law 2001-85 is detrimental to the Northern portion of the Fallsview subdistrict and is incompatible with the surrounding lands. RELIEF SOUGHT 44. That the Board repeal By-Law Number 2001-85. 45. 23 That the Board grant the Appellant its costs of the appeal. 46. That the Board award such other relief as counsel may advise find this Honourable Board deem proper. DATED at St. Catharines, Ontario, this //~/(5 day of May, 2001. 3414574 CANAD~ q~. by its solicitors~ SULLIVAN ~A.I-I~ {EY LLP Victor F. Muratori SULLIVAN MAHONEY LL? Barristers and Solicitors, 40 Queen Street, P.O. Box 1360, St. Catharines, Ontario. L2R 6Z2 Telephone: (905) 688-6655 Facsimile: (905) 688-5814 The City of Niagara Falls Canada Corporate Services Department Planning & Development 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2354 E-maih nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca Doug Darbyson Director PD-200'1-50 May 25, 2001 His Worship Mayor W. Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re' PD-2001-50, Application for Site Plan Approval 6039 Falisview Boulevard Proposed 2-storey Tourist Commercial Development RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the site plan for a proposed 2-storey tourist commercial development~n the BACKGROUND: An application for site plan approval has been received from Orsini Bros. Inns Inc. for 6039 Fallsview Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2-storey tourist commercial development comprised of a bar/coffee shop, gift shop, restaurant, ballroom and two meeting rooms, together with an associated off-site parking lot located to the north of 6039 Fallsview Boulevard. The proposal is in compliance with the Zoning By-law No. 79-200 and By-law No. 95-176, the latter being a by-law that permits a 10-storey hotel on the northern part of the 6039 Fallsview lands. The site plan does not provide for a 6-metre landscape strip along both Fallsview Boulevard and Stanley Avenue. This is normally required of tourist commercial developments and is provided by applicants. Council previously reduced this provision within the amending by-law for the proposed 15-storey hotel to 3.5 metres, which is provided on the site plan. Council should note, however, that the reduction in landscaping is part of the appeal of By-law No. 2001-85, for the proposed 15-storey hotel. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's Finance Human Resources Information Systems Legal Planning & Development May 25, 2001 - 2 - PD-2001-49 Council should note that this application is being processed at the request of the applicant. The proposal is for the first two floors of the proposed 15-storey hotel development which has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Construction of the proposal is to proceed while the appeal is being processed and brought to a hearing. Notwithstanding the appeal, staff are processing the application solely upon its merits and its compliance with applicable zoning provisions and regulations and site planning standards, save and except for landscaping. The application is recommended without prejudice and at the sole risk of the applicant. sy: le~ Planner 2 Respectfully submitted: Edward P. Lustig ~,f/~r/~J Chief Administrative Officer Recommended by: Doug Darbyson Director of Plamfing & Development Approved by: Tony Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services JB:tc S:kPDR~2001~PD2001-50.wpd The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Council Chambers No. 14 Moved by Alderman FISHER Seconded by Alderman HENDERSHOT May 25, 2001 RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls reaffirms the passing of By-law No. 2001-85, a by-law to permit a 15-storey hotel at 6039 Fallsview Boulevard. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. Carried Unanimously R. O. KALLIO WAYNE THOMSON ACTING CITY CLERK MAYOR The City of Niagara Falls, On.rio Council Chambers No. 15 Moved by Alderman PIETRANGELO May 25,2001 Seconded by Alderman ORR RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls advise the Ontario Municipal Board that the appeal by 3414574 Canada Inc. to Zoning By-law No. 2001-85 is frivolous, vexatious and made for the purpose of delay and was not made in good faith; AND FURTHER THAT the Ontario Municipal Board be requested to expedite this matter and set an eady hearing date. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. Carried Unanimously R. O. KALLIO WAYNE THOMSON ACTING CITY CLERK MAYOR