2001/08/07SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, August 7, 2001
4:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING MATTERS
1. Chief Administrative Officer
PD-2001-67, Minor Variance Application;
A-33/2001; 5651 River Road, Proposed Aviary
redevelopment of the former Niagara Falls
Museum site.
COMMUNITY SERVICES MATTERS
1. Chief Administrative Officer CS~2001-08, Jolley Cut.
2001-t58
2001-159
2001-160
BY-LAWS
To authorize the execution of a Servicing Agreement with Canadian
Niagara Hotels Inc. respecting Mewburn Road commercial block.
To authorize the execution of a Servicing Agreement with Canadian
Niagara Hotels Inc. respecting Mewburn Road Townhouses.
To authorize the acceptance of an Offer to Sell, submitted to 876850
Ontario Ltd., for properly described as 5986 Drummond Road being
part of Lot 6 on the east side of Drummond Road, north of Barker
Street in the Regional Municipality of Niagara for $165,000.00.
ADJOURNMENT:
The City of
Nia a,a Fa,,
Corporate Services Department
Planning & Development
4310 Queen Street
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E §X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Teh (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: planning@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
August 7, 2001
Doug Darbyson
Director
PD-2001-67
His Worship Mayor W. Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re:
PD-2001-67, Minor Variance Application A-33/2001
5651 River Road
Proposed Aviary Re-development of the former
Niagara Falls Museum Site
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council reconsider the Committee of Adjustment decision for minor
variance application A-33/2001 and direct staff to undertake actions deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
On June 25, 2001, an application for a minor variance was received for the lands known as 5651
River Road, site of the former Niagara Falls Museum. The applicant, Larry Vann, requested relief
fi:om the Zoning By-law requirements for parking, building height and the rear yard setback as they
pertained to his proposal to re-develop the subject lands for an aviary attraction. (The proposed
aviary is, essentially, the same as the NPC's butterfly conservatory except that birds would be used.)
The relief sought was as follows:
parking:
required - 80 spaces; provided - 26 spaces; a reduction of 54
spaces.
building height:
maximum permitted - 12 metres; proposed - 19.5 metres; an
increase of 7.Smetres (24.6 feet).
· rear yard setback: minimum permitted - 3 metres; proposed - 0 metres.
}Forking Together to Serve Our CommuniO~
Clerk's Finance Human Resources Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development
August 7, 2001 - 2 - PD-2001-67
Prior to receipt of the minor variance application, the applicant and his architect, had engaged in
discussions with the Planning staff regarding the proposed aviary since November of 2000.
Discussions involved options as to how to resolve the lack of available parking on-site. On May 10,
2001, an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment was received for the proposed aviary with
building height being the only provision to be amended. Parking was to be provided as a
combination of on-site and cash-in-lieu. The subject lands are located outside of any cash-in-lieu
area and there is no strategy in place for the City to secure lands in this area for a municipal lot.
Staff requested a traffic and parking study to address parking. The applicant responded that as he had
akeady explored the possibility of off-site parking on two adjacent properties, Michael's Inn and the
Niagara Fall Bridge Commission (NFBC) parking lot behind the proposed development. Staffwere
still discussing the alternative arrangements for parking when the minor variance application was
submitted. Instead of pursuing an integrated planned approach that considered interim and long-term
solutions within the context of a development that is to be phased in over a three-year period, the
applicant has resorted to an ad hoc approach in order to obtain a building permit.
Contrary to staff's recommendation, the Committee of Adjustment approved the application. Staff
have serious concerns regarding this decision, its potential impacts and precedents.
The variances are not minor in nature. The extent of relief granted by the Committee of
Adjustment for both required parking and building height is substantial and significant. The
parking to be provided only mounts to approximately one third of that required by the
Zoning By-law. The site is small in lot area and is to be over-developed to the extent that
sufficient land is not available for on-site for surface parking. The applicant has to consider
scaling down the project or building a parking structure. Reductions and other alternatives
can only be considered with proper justification and a full review afforded by a Zoning By-
law Amendment.
The relief granted is not within the intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaw. The intent
of the Zoning By-law is to provide parking on-site so as to lessen the impacts on surrounding
neighbourhoods and roads. Where development provides less than the minimum on- site
parking, without reasonable justification, the unused result is on-street parking, extensive
queuing on the streets and the potential to cause excessive traffic congestion on the local road
network. The proposed aviary will be a destination-oriented attraction that will require at
least the amount of parking required by the Zoning By-law to be provided on-site in order
to perform adequately without seriously jeopardizing the functioning of the local road
network. The relief granted is not justified and clearly not within the intent and purpose of
the parking provisions of the Zoning By-law.
The proposed relief is not within the intent and purpose of the Official Plan. The
Official Plan requires that all developments within the Tourist Commercial areas that
propose buildings above that permitted by the Zoning By-law must obtain Council's approval
August 7, 2001 - 3 - PD-2001-67
by way of a Zoning By-law Amendment. The proposed development has the height
equivalent of over six storeys whereas the height permitted by the Zoning By-law equates to
four storeys.
The Official Plan states that all required parking is to be provided on-site. The intent is to
meet the needs of the travelling public and integrate well with the community. Off-site
parking beyond the two adjacent properties, the Niagara Fails Bridge Commission 0NFBC)
parking lot and Michael's Inn begin to intrude into the residential area to the north and west
of the site and outside of the area where there is a municipal strategy for public parking lots.
Such intrusions into a residential area result in land use conflicts.
When both issues of bnilding height and parking are considered within the context of the
Official Plan, it is clear that the application is not within the intent and purpose of the Plan.
The decision of the Committee is contrary to the Transportation Master Plan. The
recently submitted update to the City's Transportation Master Plan (February 2001) clearly
recognizes the need for adequate and convenient parking supply for the viability and growth
of the tourism industry. Hotel developments and attractions are to provide parking in
accordance with the minimum requirements of the zoning by-law. Relief fi'om parking is
only to be given to small scale developments (i.e. retail or entertainment uses less than 500
square metres). The Committee of Adjustment decision to provide significant parking relief
to a new attraction is not in keeping with the parking strategy recommended in the
Transportation Master Plan update.
A traffic impact and parking demand study has not been conducted. Traffic and parking
studies are routinely required from developers for larger scale, destinatiun-orientated
proposals which generate significant traffic. Because of the potential for impact on the local
road network, Municipal Works has requested a traffic impact study be performed. Such a
study could also outline alternatives for off-site parking. As no conditions were imposed by
the Committee of Adjustment and it is unlikely that the City can require a traffic impact
study as a condition of the site plan agreement, the City will not be able to require any road
improvements be undertaken by the developer in order to assist in mitigating impacts on the
road system.
The decision sets a precedent: not to require parking threatens the existing and future
parking strategies for the City. The Committee's decision sends the message that parking
is not needed for tourist operations. No justification for the reduction was provided. By
granting such a request, the Committee has removed the onus of providing parking by
business owners and placed it on the City to provide public parking lots that service private
enterprise. Other businesses may, in the future, by-pass Council with requests to be exempt
from meeting the City's parking requirements. This will exacerbate parking problems in the
core area.
August 7, 2001 - 4 - PD-2001-67
CONCLUSION:
Clearly the decision of the Committee of Adjustment is one that fails to recognize that the
application is not within the intent and purpose of both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is not
minor in nature and is not appropriate for the proposed development. The application does not pass
any of the tests for a minor variance as required by the Planning Act. Should the decision be allowed
to stand unchallenged, the result will be that developers will make similar applications to the
Committee citing this application as a precedent. Minor variances are not to be precedents.
Based on the foregoing, staffare of the opinion that an appeal of the decision of the Committee of
Adjustment respecting application A-33/2001 for 5651 River Road to the Ontario Municipal Board
is the appropriate action. A Notice of Appeal must be lodged with the Secretary-Treasurer of the
Committee of Adjustment by August 14, 2001. By doing so, the matter will be adjudicated
impartially and a decision rendered. Staffwould request an expedited hearing before the Board so
that the developer will not be unduly delayed.
Johli Bamsley
Planner 2
Edwa?d ~. L~usting~Respect~lly submitted:
Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended by:
~..ug Darbyson
Director of Planning &
Development
Approved by:
Tony Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
JB:lp
S:~PDR~2001 ~PD2001-67.wpd
Niagara Falls lJlll
Community Services Department
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) 357-9293
E-mail: jmacdona@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
CS-2001-08
John MacDonald
Executive Director
August 7, 2001
His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson
and Members of the Municipal Council
City of Niagara Fails, Ontario
Members:
re: CS-2001-08 - Jolley Cut
Recommendation:
1)
That Council authorize staff to initiate the public process to close the unopened portion of
Robinson Street, and further
2)
That Council support, in principle, the proposal put forward by Canadian Niagara Hotels
to purchase the unopened portion of Robinson Street, known as the Jolley Cut. This
action would be subject to the proponent successfully complying with the conditions
listed below.
Background:
At the City Council meeting of April 23, 2001, Canadian Niagara Hotels (CNH) requested that
the City sell the unopened portion of Robinson Street (Jolley Cut). This request has been made
in order to merge these lands with the parcel of land immediately to the south which is owned by
CNH. The property to the south is currently zoned for a 27-storey hotel. CNH is of the opinion
that merging the lands will allow for a more satisfactory building layout. The proponent has
suggested that the new proposed layout would be less intrusive on the moraine and would
provide better site lines for the neighbour to the north.
The Jolley Cut provides a major access to Queen Victoria Park. In order to maintain this access,
CNH has proposed to relocate the upper section of the Jolley Cut onto lands owned by HOCO
and tie in with the existing Jolley Cut at the bottom, owned by NPC. In addition, the proposal
calls for a stair tower or elevator and pathway improvements from top to bottom.
The proponent has indicated that he will take full responsibility for the improvement,
maintenance and liabihty costs.
As a result of this proposal, staff facilitated two meetings with interested stakeholders in the
Fallsview area to solicit on the proposal. In addition, written submissions were invited.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development · Building & By-Law Services
August 7, 2001
CS-2001-08 - Jolley Cut - 2
This consultation process identified several concerns which must be addressed before final
approval is granted for the proposal.
!n smnmary, the stakeholder concerns can be summarized as follows:
unfettered, free "Public Access"
improvements to the pathway from top to bottom
public "control" over right-of-way and mechanical devices (elevator)
Jolley Cut improvements are a public responsibility and should be shared with area
landowners
protection of the environmental issues and moraine management plan
In addition to the issues mentioned above, Council should be aware that Mr. George Yerich, of
the Skylon Tower, suggested an alternative to the CNH proposal. Mr. Yerich's proposal
suggested that the Jolley Cut be relocated on the south side of CNH's property and that the
pathway mn east from Robinson Street.
Subsequently, Mr. Yerich suggested that a link should be created on both the north and south
sides of the existing Jolley Cut. In addition, CNH was requested to consider a north-south link
above the top of the bank, as provided for in the Official Plan.
Both of Mr. Yerich's alternatives would require land conveyance by CNH and a possible
purchase of land by CNH from HOCO. Each of the alternatives was considered by the
proponents and deemed to be unsatisfactory.
Another important issue which has been discussed is the fact that no detailed plans of the CNH
hotel development have been brought forward. Therefore, it is impossible to determine how the
new development will fit with the City's Official Plan and related planning policies.
The expansion of land for the purpose of seeking additional hotel development rights will require
rezoning. As a result of the rezoning process, detailed information will be reviewed. During this
process, issues regarding other park linkages and hotel size will be addressed.
At this time, staff is considering the issue of an unopened road allowance and the implications of
closing the road allowance, selling it, and the direct implications of this action.
If Council accepts the recommendation in this report, a public process will be undertaken to close
the road allowance. The process will provide additional opportunity for public input.
August 7, 2001
CS-2001-08 - Jolley Cut - 3
Conditions for Approval:
provide guaranteed public access by means of an easement on title
enter into a maintenance agreement for the Jolley Cut from top to bottom
final design plans must be acceptable to the City and NPC
a moraine management plan must be acceptable to the City and NPC
proponent provides a north/south pedestrian link connecting the Skylon property to the
HOCO property
pay full market value for the existing unopened road allowance
pay all related costs
Presently, the Jolley Cut is in need of major improvement and enhanced maintenance. While the
entrance from Robinson Street is not easily identified, the Jolley Cut is used extensively by the
public. All stakeholders agree that this link to Queen Victoria Park is important for the Fallsview
area and should not be restricted in any way. The issue in dispute may be whether an easement
for public access will serve the same purpose as public ownership. Council will be asked to
decide whether public ownership is essential, in this case.
The recommendation in this report is based on staff opinion that this proposal has potential to be
a win-win situation for the City, the Public and the Private Sector.
Council can divest itself of an asset which will require substantial capital investment over the
next few years. The City will also incur savings in ongoing maintenance. In addition, the sale of
the land will result in funds which can be utilized for other City priorities.
The Private Sector will have a larger property for development which will provide additional
economic impact through jobs and taxes to the City.
The public will benefit from an enhanced linkage between the Fallsview area and Queen Victoria
Park. The proposed elevator will allow easier access for the disabled and the elderly.
//~ecommended by: ~ /
John MacDonald
Executive Director of Community Services
Respectfully submitted:
Chief Administrative Officer