Loading...
Additions 2010/07/19ADDITIONS TO COUNCIL, MONDAY, JULY 19, 2010 COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. PD- 2010 -61 - Queen Victoria Fountain at the Niagara Falls History Museum - 5810 Ferry Street. a) Correspondence prepared by D. Fotheringham ** The Niagara Falls Hero's Flag signing will be re- scheduled for a later date. ** COUNCIL 1. PD- 2010 -60 - 26T -11- 2010 -01 & AM- 2010 -012, Deerfield Estates Phase 9 Draft Plan of Subdivision a) Correspondence from R.C. O'Dell, Vice President, Warren Woods b) Copy of Petition sent in by Deby O'Connor. 2. PD- 2010 -56 - SBA - 2010 -001, Sign By -law Amendment Application 6361 Fallsview Avenue a) Correspondence from Andrew Cserpes, Niagara Freefall & Interactive Center b) Correspondence from the Region c) Photos from Ed Lustig, Broderick & Partners Miscellaneous Planning 1. Email from Clerk to Cathy Buchanan. BY -LAWS 1. 2010 -117 - A by -law to establish Part 1 on Reference Plan 59R -14286 as a public highway, to be known as and to form part of Hendershot Boulevard. (7/19/2010 Dean Iorfda - victoriamonurnentiinfo.doc INFORMATION PERTAINING TO MOVING THE QUEEN VICTORIA MONUMENT Prepared by D. Fotheringham July 15, 2010 MHC's Position as per the Staff Report The following reasons are given in the staff report for the MHC wanting to locate the Monument at the comer of Ferry Street and Sylvia Place: • the monument will maintain its visual prominence on Ferry Street; • the monument has been located on these lands for 87 years; • the importance of the Battleground pre - exists Queen Victoria's birth by 5 years and her reign by 23 years and is more relevant to be located in front of a building constructed during her lifetime; and • the monument is a designated feature Issues with regard to the Monument Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties The following is principle two of the Eight Guiding Principles: "RESPECT FOR THE ORIGINAL LOCATION: Do not move the buildings unless there is no other means to save them. Site is an integral component of a building. Change in site diminishes heritage value considerably." Although the principle refers to buildings, I believe it may be applied to any structure. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada recommends preserving built features in landscapes that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the landscape. The Monument was erected in 1901 to commemorate Queen Victoria's reign. She died in that year. It was moved to its current location in 1923 for safety reasons. Although the current location is not original, it has been the location for over eighty years. Additional Information regarding MHC's Position Baird, Sampson, Neuert, Architects presented information with regard to the Museum project at the MHC meeting of January 22, 2008. Present at the meeting, representing the Museum Board were Gord West, Don Jackson and Dino Fazio. MHC expressed three concerns, one of which was the relocation of the Monument. victoriamonumentinfo 1 uean iornaa - victonamonumenumo.aoc On September 23, 2009, Moriyama & Teshima, Architects, made a presentation to the MHC regarding the expansion project. The Monument is not included on the Proposed Site Plan but appears on the Street Views on the north -east corner of the property. The MHC was pleased that the Monument was retained on the property. On October 19, 2009, the Community Services Committee approved plans that were slightly modified from those presented to the MHC on September 23. The Monument is not included on the Proposed Site Plan but appears on the Street Views on the north- east corner of the property. At its November 4, 2009, meeting, the MHC was informed that City Council "had approved the new design direction for the Lundy's Lane Historical Museum" and was provided with copies of the approved plans. The MHC was pleased that the Monument was retained on the property. The Heritage Conservation Issues report of Goldsmith, Borgal and Company, heritage consultants, dated April, 19, 2010, was discussed at the April 28 MHC meeting. Peggy Boyle raised the issue of the Monument in conjunction with the Goldsmith, Borgal report even though the matter of the Monument was not included in the report. The following motion was approved: "The Queen Victoria Monument at the Lundy's Lane Museum not be relocated, but be retained on -site in a prominent position." Rather that writing to the Board regarding the motion, Peggy Boyle spoke to Gord West, Chair of the Museum Board, by telephone. Gord advised that the issue had been reported to Council months ago. It is strange that Janice Wing was not aware. At the June 23 MHC meeting, Margaret Mingle disclosed the Museum Board's plan to move the Monument. A motion, similar to that of April 28, was passed. Museum Board's Position as per the Staff Report r avc The following reasons are given in the staff report for the Board wanting to relocate the Monument to Redmond Heights: • there is insufficient room to properly place the monument on the corner and may be a visual distraction; • the monument is not in its original location; • permission has been obtained from the Ontario Heritage Trust to relocate the monument to Redmond Heights; and • the Battleground is a designated property. victoriamonumentinfo 2 (7/19/2010) Dean Iorfida - victoriamonumentinfo.doc Comments on the Museum Board's Position It is difficult to comment on the Board's position when it has never discussed the monument with MHC. There is insufficient room to properly place the monument on the corner and may be a visual distraction. The Board has never explained this issue to MHC. I visited the property recently and there appeared to be sufficient room at the corner of Ferry and Sylvia Place I cannot understand how the Board can believe that it is appropriate to remove a structure from a designated property because it may be a visual distraction. On a designated property the emphasis should be on the retaining heritage structures. The monument is not in its original location. The Monument was erected in 1901 to commemorate Queen Victoria's reign. She died in that year. It was moved to its current location in 1923 for safety reasons. Although the current location is not original, the monument has been the located here for over eighty years and was on the property when it was designated. It is part of the property's history. Permission has been obtained from the Ontario Heritage Trust to relocate the monument to Redmond Heights. MHC has no idea what was said to the Trust to justify relocation. In another instance where the Trust was approach on a Heritage matter, the Trust gave its permission but also advised the party to contact the municipality in order to secure local approval. Part of the process normally would be consultation with MHC. Was similar advice given to the Board? The Battleground is a designated property. The Battleground property is designated but has no connection to Queen Victoria. In fact, MHC should have been consulted about placing the Monument there but was not. victoriamonumentinfo 3 rage (7./.19/4.1.0 Dean lorfida Niagara Falls Hero's Fla From: Carey Campbell To: Dean Iorfida Date: 7/19/2010 11:56 AM Subject: Niagara Falls Hero's Flag Dean: I have been informed today by Michael Blais that he will not be bringing the Niagara Falls Hero's Flag in this evening, to be set up outside Council Chambers, as scheduled. He has mentioned that the flag still requires the names of the fallen to be added to it. He has advised that he will get back in touch with our office to arrange a time for Council to view and sign it at a later date. Thank you, carey P a g e 1 1 Mr. Dean Iorfida City Clerk City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen St., P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Re: Deerfield Estates Phase 9 Draft Plan of Subdivision, 26T -11- 2010 -02 & AM 2010 -012 Dear Sir, We are in receipt of the proposed draft plan approval and zoning by -law for the above noted development subject of the public meeting scheduled for today. We are in support of the development provided that the Warren Creek channelization construction will proceed as a capital project in 2011 and that the applicable Development Charges from this development will be applied to said construction. Please note that the reference in Condition #32 to Condition #23 should more appropriately be Condition #28. Yours R.C. cVDell Vice President cc. Andrew Bryce Planning & Development WA L WOODS A NATURAL HABITAT July 19, 2010 7595 Brown Rd., Niagara Falls, Ontario, L2E 6S5 CLERK'S JUL 19 2010 FROM : 000NNOR SALES FAX NO. : 905 3747409 } • art pN Cc400 lAtc,,,, FQ,eQa unriA do \-;/3 CA\ PaaCJC4 ±614-Q W&ka Gov, eou. 4A4 qd Cp. Jul. 19 2010 04:20PM P1 \ ICA) t-14 M I t c.Arli cotAmc.4 cuesikux& c Signature A Address P Pho er ( (cl /6‘4< 36 -imr5 I' ell y, �,, . . 6 ' A q( .,`(' Iar r 7- - 0,5 (o d 7 . P Ps" .3f`C -a r Mika 1 1 4 Mi 3111g J i i nc�l � � FROM : 000NNOR SALES _ / 72,/ • • • .■••-■7 C Poo �.►.� ea '11 k We the undersigned, petition Niagara Falls City Council to consider the following in the application for the rezoning of lands on Kalar Road File #AM- 2010 -012, west side of Kalar Road, south of Lundy's Lane, We oppose the application as submitted and request Council relocate the proposed block of apartments fronting on Kalar Rd to the rear of the property and adjacent to the existing commercial properties on Lundy's Lane. Failing that, the residents would then request a height restriction of 3 storeys maximum for any apartments located on Kalar Rd where single family homes are looted on the opposite side of Kalar Rd. That if possible, vehicular and pedestrian access be designed in the plan to allow for future access to both Lundy's Lane and Garner Rd. Resident Name g T .Wvret Di( 11 PS3 3 D' nn�r FAX NO. : 905 3747409 Jul. 19 2010 04:20PM P2 Sincerely /0 c..v u—! l (.( / Pip 6 NIAGARA FREEFALL & INTERACTIVE ) d ��J ('E\' TER �� July 14, 2010 City of Niagara Falls Planning &Building Depts. Attn: Director of Planning & Development 6357 Stanley Ave. Niagara Falls, Ont. L2G3Y6 Phone: 905 -356 -9764 Fax: 905 - 358 -7374 freefall@ican.net Dear Mr. Herlovitch, Re: Sign By -Law Amendment Application File # SBA - 2010 -001 for 6361 Fallsview Boulevard We are writing on behalf of Niagara Freefall & Interactive Center; Daredevils Bar and Grill and Rainbow Motor Inn to express our concerns and objections to the above application for Sign By-Iaw Amendment. The proposed enormous freestanding sign will cause complete visual obstruction to our businesses when looking up from Fallsveiw Blvd. and other neighbouring Hotels as well as creating a competitive disadvantage. We note however that we would not be opposed to this application if this signage was part of any existing building facade. Thank you for your consideration. Andrew Cserp President Niagara Freefall & Interactive Center Daredevils Bar and Grill Rainbow Motor Inn (manager) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT JUL 1 4 2010 Niagara - f Region Building Community.. Building Lives., July 19, 2010 Ms_ Peggy Boyle Assistant Planner City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen St., 2n Floor Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Dear Ms. Boyle: Re: Regional Comments Sign By -law Amendment SBA - 2010 -001 Joe DICosimo — Hilton Hotel City of Niagara Falls Regional Development Services staff has reviewed the information circulated for the above noted Sign By -law Amendment application, The purpose of the application is to permit a ground sign which exceeds the size permitted by the By -law. Technical /Engineering The sign is proposed to be located at the comer of Stanley Avenue and Murray Hill.. Stanley Avenue is a Regional Road. Technical staff has no objections to the proposed sign as it is located on private property and does not impede sight lines. A Regional Sign Permit is required prior to installation. Please contact Jim Zeoli at ext 3263 regarding this permit, Conclusion PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Development Services Division 2201 St David's Road, P.O. Box 1042 Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Tel: 905 - 6854225 ToI I- free:1 -800- 263 -7215 Fax: 905 - 687 -8056 www.niagararegion ca Regional Development Services staff has no objections from a Regional perspective to the proposed sign by -law amendment. If you have any questions or wish to discuss these comments, please contact me at ext. 3485. Yours truly, idne/t„, Marilyn Radman Manager or Development Planning Cc. Councillor Smeaton RECEIVED JUL 1 9 2010 PLANNING & REVELOPMENT Dean Iorfida - Re: Request to Address City Council on July 19th From: Dean Iorfida To: Cathy Buchanan Subject: Re: Request to Address City Council on July 19th Ms. Buchanan: r agc 1 01 Thank you for the e-mail. The statutory public meeting under the Planning Acton the City's proposed Environmental Policies took place on June 28th. Based on past case law, it is inappropriate for the Council to entertain deputations Monday night. If Council wants to hear again from the public, it would have to defer the matter and direct that another public meeting, properly advertised, take place. I understand your issue is with regard to the former Loretto property. I can reassure you that the developer is required to return to Council for a zoning by -law amendment (see attached report and minutes). Obviously, the public would have the opportunity to make representations at such a future rezoning meeting. I would also draw your attention to the safeguards outlined in the Council report and minutes from 2009. Before the rezoning can even come back to Council, the developer will have to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment, a tree inventory and preservation plan, an Archaeological Impact Assessment, an Architectural Peer review report, a Microclimate Analysis and a Shadowing Analysis. I will share your e-mail with Council; however, as indicated, it is staffs recommendation that it would not be appropriate to entertain your request Monday evening. As indicated, there will be feature public meetings on the Loretto property that you will have an opportunity to express your concerns. Finally, cut and pasted below, is an e-mail from our Director of Planning addressing some ancillary issues, that you may or may not have received. Sincerely Dean Iorfida, City Clerk City Council I understand that numerous e-mails have been received on the matter of the treed areas (primarily the Cucumber Magnolia) on the Loretto lands. I believe the e-mail below is one of the many like worded e-mails in circulation. I have received only one telephone call on the matter, from Cathy Buchanan. The concern seems to stem from the new Natural Heritage Policies which Planning staff brought before you at a statutory Public Meeting on June 28, 2010. You will recall the purpose of the meeting was to receive comments, incorporate any changes which were possible into the policies and bring the revised policies back to Council on July 19. The report of staff has already gone from this office which has a chart of comments and changes requested and the staff response as to how that has been accomplished. We were not aware of this particular matter at the time the chart was formulated.The following is an explanation of how I believe the issue has been raised and what is actually happening through this proposed Official Plan Amendment #96. The Loretto property is designated Tourist Commercial on Schedule A (Future Land Use Plan) in the Official Plan and has been since Official Plan Amendment # 26 was approved on May 30, 2000. Within the Tourist Commercial policies is a map called Figure 3 - Open Space Plan (page 2 -34) the Open Space policies of the Tourist Commercial designation are on the page ahead of that (policies 4.3.11 to 4.3.16). Figure 3 is an illustrative plan provided for interpretive purposes with respect to improvements to the public realm for public plazas, landscaped open space and streetscaping. Figure 3 does identify some treed areas on the Loretto about:blank 7/16/2010 ragc property as "environmental protection area" and similarly shows the moraine (steep slope) next to Queen Victoria Park as "environmental protection area ". The figure is illustrative; only those lands designated on Schedule A as Environmental Protection are subject to the Environmental Protection Area policies of Part 2, Section 12 (pages 2 -65 to 2 -68). the Preamble of that section states "Areas designated Environmental Protection are shown on Schedule "A" ". Those portions of the Loretto property shown on Figure 3 as environmental protection are not designated on Schedule A as Environmental Protection Area and therefore not subject to the polices of Section 12. Official Plan Amendment # 96 proposes to designate the certain clusters of trees on the Loretto property as Environmental Conservation Area on Schedule A based on mapping by the Region which identifies significant woodlands. The Environmental Conservation policies are new (never existed before in the OP). Since the lands are currently designated Tourist Commercial on Schedule A, the lands will receive more protection, than they have now, once the Environmental Conservation Area designation is in place. The Environmental Conservation Area policies are protectionistic, but allow the owner to have an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) done which would demonstrate that the Environmental Conservation Area designation is fully warranted or warranted in part (ie refine the boundaries). Where the designation is not warranted in whole, the land use designation of the surrounding lands would apply (in this case Tourist Commercial). The findings of the EIS would be implemented through a zoning by -law amendment. In addition to these new policies of the Environmental Conservation Area designation, the Loretto property is subject to the site specific policies which apply to the lands through Official Plan Amendment #90. The site specific policies state 'The additional height above 30 stories is in return for: ... retaining and conserving the portion of the site running north /south in an alignment to the east of the existing building." In essence, the landscaped area in front of the Lorretto building(s) is protected. The degree of protection is to be determined by an EIS and implemented through zoning. Further, the site specific policies require any amendment to the zoning by -law to be accompanied by a tree inventory and a tree saving plan. This inventory/tree saving plan would identify all endangered or threatened trees, their habitat and would address appropriate actions for protection. The moraine (steep slope) is still designated Environmental Protection Area under the Amendment # 96 and shows up as a dark green squiggly line (at the scale) on Map 1 appended to the amendment. I believe the Loretto property will have more protection as a result of the introduction of new Natural Heritage Policies and the designation of the treed areas as Environmental Conservation Area. I apologize for the lengthy response, but it is essential that the facts of the matter are fully set out to benefit everyone's understanding of what is proposed. Alex Alex Herlovitch Director Planning & Development Niagara Falls City Hall 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON L2E 139 905 - 356 -7521, ex 4231 »> Cathy Buchanan <cathymbuchanan(ahotmail.com> 7/16/2010 10:24 AM »> Dear Mr. Iorfida, about:blank 7/16/2010 As you know City Council will vote of the adoption of new environmental policies for the Official Plan on Monday. The new policies include land use designations for the two woodlands of the Loretto property. I am requesting 5 minutes to address city council as to why the land use designation for these woodlands should be Environmental Protection Area as opposed to Environmental Conservation Area. I am a founding member of Friends of Niagara Falls, and I would be speaking on behalf of the organization. http://friendsofniagarafalls.org/ Thank you for you consideration, Cathy Marie Buchanan http://cathymariebuchanan.com/ http://www.facebook.com/CathyMarieBuchanan ragc .) v1 J about:blank 7/16/2010 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By -law No. 2010 - A by -law to establish Part 1 on Reference Plan 59R -14286 as a public highway, to be known as and to form part of Hendershot Boulevard. WHEREAS Section 31 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides, in part, that a municipality may pass a by -law to establish a highway; THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That part of Block 78, Plan 59M -370 being Part 1 on Reference Plan 59R -14286 in the City of Niagara Falls, in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, be established for public highway purposes. 2. That said Block 78, Plan 59M -370 being Part 1 on Reference Plan 59R -14286 that is hereby established as a public highway, be known as and form part of Hendershot Boulevard. Passed this nineteenth day of July, 2010. DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK R.T. (TED) SALCI, MAYOR First Reading: Second Reading: Third Reading: July 19, 2010. July 19, 2010. July 19, 2010.