DECISION/DIRECTION NOTE

Transcription

1 DECISION/DIRECTION NOTE Title: Application to rezone land to the Apartment Medium Density (A2) Zone REZ St. Joseph s Lane Applicant: Fougere Menchenton Architecture Inc. Date Prepared: July 7, 2017 Report To: Chair and Members, Planning & Development Committee Councillor & Role: Councillor Art Puddister, Chair, Planning & Development Committee Ward: 2 Decision/Direction Required: To consider a rezoning application for 22 St. Joseph s Lane to the Apartment Medium Density (A2) Zone, to allow expansion of the existing Apartment Building for the development of an additional 14 Dwellings Units. An amendment to the St. John s Municipal Plan would be required. Discussion Background and Current Status: The City has received an application from Fougere Menchenton Architecture Inc. on behalf of Premier Executive Suites Atlantic Limited, to rezone 22 St. Joseph s Lane (former St. Joseph s Junior High School) from the Residential High Density (R3) Zone to the Apartment Medium Density (A2) Zone. The proposed rezoning would allow the expansion of the existing (34-unit) Apartment Building for an additional 14 Dwelling Units. Properties in this area are designated Residential Medium Density (RMD) and zoned Residential High Density (R3), with the exception of the St. Joseph s Convent, which is designated and zoned Institutional (INST). The Residential Medium Density (RMD) District, under the St. John s Municipal Plan, applies to areas that can accommodate a variety of housing types ranging from semi-detached and duplex dwellings to rowhousing and walk-up apartments. Zones which allow higher density residential uses like the A2 Zone, can be considered subject to a Land Use Assessment Report (LUAR). A Terms of Reference for the LUAR would need to be approved by Council. The subject property falls within Planning Area 2 East End, Battery, Quidi Vidi Village (Sub-Area 2 Quidi Vidi Road) under the St. John s Municipal Plan. Objectives for Planning Area 2 are identified in the Local Area Plan, and include: preserve and enhance landmarks, heritage buildings, historic landscapes, natural features and recreational facilities; views of Signal Hill and Quidi Vidi Lake; and residential neighbourhoods. Policy for lands specifically within Sub-Area 2 state that only rowhouses, single-detached and semi-detached dwellings may be approved. City of St. John s PO Box 908 St. John s, NL Canada A1C 5M2

2 Decision/Direction Note Page 2 22 St. Joseph s Lane The Local Area Plan for Planning Area 2 was completed in the 1980 s when both the school and church were in operation. Since that time, the school has been converted into the existing Apartment Building, and St. Joseph s Church (40 Quidi Vidi Road) has been converted into a condominium. The proposed expansion meets the local context as it has been designed to appear like a two storey rowhouse and is a residential use. The proposed building extends towards the street, filling a hole in the streetscape along Signal Hill Road. The building is located in a neighbourhood where most dwellings have a minimal setback from the street line, and an average building height of 2 3 storeys. Based on the current policy for Planning Area 2, a rezoning to the A2 Zone to allow an Apartment Building would conflict with existing policy, therefore Council would have to amend the Municipal Plan by altering the Local Area Plan for Planning Area 2. There have been several applications for this site dating back to 2008, all of which have been rejected due to the increased density for the local neighbourhood, subject to the existing policies of the current Municipal Plan and Local Area Plan for Planning Area 2. During consultations for the new Municipal Plan, the public identified their desire for a city of healthy, walkable neighbourhoods with access to neighbourhood services. There was also recognition that a greater mix of uses and higher density of residential development were required to support such development. Although the new Municipal Plan has yet to be adopted, it has been supported by Council, and its policies endorsed by the public. The proposed expansion of the existing building meets the intent several of Envisions new policies. The subject property is within Heritage Area 3 and would be subject to approval by the Built Heritage Experts Panel. The A2 Zone requires a minimum Building Line of 6m. The proposed location of the Apartment Building extension is located 3m (Building Line) from street. Therefore under Section of the St. John s Development Regulations, Council would have to establish the Building Line. The reduced Building Line is consistent with other buildings along Signal Hill Road, and provides adequate snow storage for the City s snow clearing operations. The Apartment Medium Density (A2) Zone requires a minimum Side Yard on Flanking Road of 6m. The proposed Side Yard along Powers Court is only 5.4metres, therefore a 10% variance would be required. Parking for the A2 Zone requires 1.25 spaces per Dwelling Unit. The proposed development would require 60 spaces for all 48 units (existing and proposed), while only 53 spaces are provided. The applicant is requesting parking relief for 7 parking spaces. Correspondence from the applicant explains that the parking lot(s) are current under-used, and that based on the type of development and central location of the site, does not anticipate any current or future parking needs that exceed what is shown on the submission. Under the existing Development Regulations, Council s discretionary authority to grant parking relief does not apply to parking requirements contained in Section 10 of the Zone Requirements, and can only be applied to those uses set under Section General Parking Requirements. Parking requirements for all Apartment Zones are contained within the appropriate Zone under Section 10. Therefore a proposed

3 Decision/Direction Note Page 3 22 St. Joseph s Lane text amendment to the Development Regulations is proposed to allow Council to grant parking relief for all Apartment Zones under Section 10. Key Considerations/Implications: 1. Budget/Financial Implications: Not applicable 2. Partners or Other Stakeholders: Neighbouring residents and property owners. Parking use at Civic 40 for the proposal may be of concern to surrounding property owners who currently use the site. 3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted Plans: Neighbourhoods Build Our City: Increase access to range/type of housing. 4. Legal or Policy Implications: An amendment to Planning Area 2 under the St. John s Municipal Plan would be required as the existing policies do not support an Apartment Building as a permitted type of dwelling; Rezoning to the Apartment Medium Density (A2) Zone is required in order to consider the proposed development; A text amendment to the St. John s Development Regulations to allow Council to consider parking relief for all Apartment Zones; Under Section of the St. John s Development Regulations, Council would have to establish the Building Line for the proposed expansion at 3m; Approval of a variance for 10% in order to establish the Side Yard on the Flanking Road at 5.4m; and Consider approval of the request for parking relief for 7 spaces, subject to the proposed text amendment. 5. Engagement and Communications Considerations: Recommended to be advertised with a Public Meeting chaired with a member of Council. A Commissionaire s Hearing will be required at a later stage in the amendment process. 6. Human Resource Implications: Not applicable 7. Procurement Implications: Not applicable 8. Information Technology Implications: Not applicable 9. Other Implications: Not applicable Recommendation: It is recommended that the application to rezone 22 St. Joseph s Lane from the Residential High Density (R3) Zone to the Apartment Medium Density (A2) Zone be considered and the attached draft Terms of Reference be approved. Upon submission of a satisfactory Land Use Assessment Report, the application

4 Decision/Direction Note Page 4 22 St. Joseph s Lane would be referred to a Public Meeting chaired by a member of Council. An amendment to the Municipal Plan Planning Area 2 is required, therefore a Commissioner s Hearing will be required at a later date. It is also recommended that the text amendment to allow the consideration of parking relief for all Apartment Zones under Section 10 of the St. John s Development Regulations be advertised for public review and comment. Upon completion of this process, the amendment would then be referred to a future Regular Meeting of Council for consideration of adoption. Prepared by - Date/Signature: Lindsay Lyghtle Brushett, MCIP Planner III Signature: Approved by - Date/Signature: Ken O Brien, MCIP Chief Municipal Planner Signature: LLB/dlm Attachments: Zoning Map Site Plan Terms of Reference LUAR

5 TERMS OF REFERENCE LAND USE ASSESSMENT REPORT (LUAR) APPLICATION TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 22 ST. JOSEPH S LANE TO THE APARTMENT MEDIUM DENSITY (A2) ZONE FOR EXPANSION OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING (ADDITIONAL 14-UNITS) The proponent shall identify significant impacts and, where appropriate, also identify measures to mitigate impacts on land uses adjoining the subject property. All information is to be submitted under one report in a form that can be reproduced for public information and review. The numbering and ordering scheme used in the report shall correspond with that used in this Terms of Reference and a copy of the Terms of Reference shall be included as part of the report (include an electronic PDF version with a maximum file size of 15MB). A list of those persons/agencies who prepared the Land Use Assessment Report shall be provided as part of the report. The following items shall be addressed by the proponent at its expense: A. Building Use Identify the size of the proposed building (expansion) and existing building by: Gross Floor Area, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Identify all proposed uses/occupancies within the building by their respective floor area. B. Elevation & Building Materials Provide elevations of the proposed building. Identify the finish and colour of exterior building materials. C. Building Height & Location Identify graphically the exact location with a site plan: Location of the proposed and existing buildings; Proximity of the building(s) to property lines and identify setbacks; Identify the height of the building(s); Information on the proposed construction of patios/balconies (if applicable); Potential shadowing/loss of sunlight on adjacent public and private properties, including sidewalks; and Identify any rooftop structures. D. Exterior Equipment and Lighting Identify the location and type of exterior lighting to be utilized. Identify possible impacts on adjoining residential properties and measures to be instituted to minimize these impacts. Identify the location and type of any exterior HVAC equipment to be used to service the proposed building and identify possible impacts on adjoining residential properties and measures to be instituted to minimize these impacts. E. Landscaping & Buffering Identify with a landscaping plan, details of site landscaping (hard and soft) and measures to be undertaken to buffer the adjoining residential properties from activities on the building site. Identify the location and proposed methods of screening of any electrical transformers on the site. Identify the location for refuse storage to be used at the site and buffering.

6 TERMS OF REFERENCE Land Use Assessment Report 22 St. Joseph s Lane Page 2 F. Snowclearing/Snow Storage Identify proposed method of snow clearing and location of snow storage area(s) on the site. G. Off-street Parking and Site Access Identify the number and location of off street parking spaces to be provided and means by which parking area storm water runoff is to be managed. Identify any parking areas, including vehicular ingress and egress and on-site traffic circulation. H. Traffic Provide the anticipated traffic generation rates associated with the proposed development. I. Public Transit Consult with St. John s Metrobus (St. John s Transportation Commission) regarding public transit infrastructure requirements. J. Construction Timeframe Indicate any phasing of the project and approximate timelines for beginning and completion of each phase or overall project. Indicate on a site plan where workers parking is to be accommodated during the construction period and designated areas for equipment and materials during the construction period.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 Public Meeting Wednesday, May 16, 2018, 7:00 p.m. Foran/Greene Room, 4 th Floor, City Hall Present: City of St. John s Councillor Deanne Stapleton, Chairperson Lindsay Lyghtle-Brushett, Planner III Ann-Marie Cahsin, Planner III, Urban Design & Heritage Kathy Driscoll, Legislative Assistant Proponents Mr. Ron Fougere, Fougere Menchenton Architecture Inc. There were approximately 30 citizens in attendance. Deputy Mayor O Leary as well as Councillors Hickman and Korab were in attendance. Prior to the meeting coming to order, Mona Rossiter from the Signal Hill Neighbourhood Association made a point of order suggesting the proponent should not be sitting up front during the meeting and further the Neighbourhood Association should be provided seating up front. PURPOSE OF MEETING The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the following application: The City of St. John's has received an application from Fougere Menchenton Architecture Inc., on behalf of Premier Executive Suites Atlantic Limited, to rezone 22 St. Joseph s Lane (former St. Joseph s Junior High School) from the Residential High Density (R3) Zone to the Apartment Medium Density (A2) Zone. The proposed rezoning would allow the expansion of the existing (34-unit) Apartment Building for an additional 14 Dwelling Units. One petition with 48 signatures and 6 written submissions were received. CALL TO ORDER AND BACKGROUND PRESENTATIONS Chair Councillor Stapleton introduced the head table, gave an overview of the proceedings, and invited the City s Planner III, Lindsay Lyghtle-Brushett to speak about the proposed development. Before giving her presentation Ms. Lyghtle-Brushett requested any questions be asked once herself and Mr. Fougere had presented. 1 P a g e

17 Ms. Lyghtle-Brushett presented information on the application for 22 St. Joseph s Lane (former St. Joseph s Junior High School), to rezone property from the Residential High Density (R3) Zone to the Apartment Medium Density (A2) Zone to allow expansion of the existing (34-unit) Apartment Building for an additional 14 Dwelling Units. The floor was then turned over to the proponent, Mr. Fougere, for presenting. Mr. Fougere thanked everyone for coming. He spoke to the proposed application; addition of 14 units to the existing 34 suites, noting 7 units would be on the bottom level with the additional 7 placed on top. He referenced rendered drawings and was cognizant of the Planning vision Ms. Lyghtle-Brushett had referenced. He provided an overview of the project noting the design fit well within the neighbourhood as it would be a salt box design that worked with the natural slope of the site. Mr. Fougere acknowledged a letter from Newfoundland Historic Trust about the proposal that Mayor Breen had received of which he had been copied in. The letter stated the proposed project fits in well, an improvement to the area, that respects heritage without mocking it. Councillor Stapleton thanked both Ms. Lyghtle-Brushett and Mr. Fougere. She further acknowledged Deputy Mayor O Leary, Councillors Hickman and Korab as well as, Ann- Marie Cashin (Planner) who were in attendance. DISCUSSION FROM THE FLOOR The Chair then invited the attendees to come forward with any questions or comments. Kerri Norbert, 54 Signal Hill Road Ms. Norbert provided a Powerpoint presentation to provide reasons as to why she felt the project should be denied. She spoke to variances with existing dwellings and spoke to the following: Structure Type Structure Style Lot Area Floor Area Ratio Density Building Use Garden Area Colour Scheme Period Style Building Material 2 P a g e

18 She further spoke to traffic, parking, and snow clearing concerns, as well as addressing tourism, culture and heritage. She referenced Anderson House, the oldest surviving structure in St. John s and oldest house in Newfoundland, which she suggested would be completely obscured if the proposed project proceeded. Ms. Norbert concluded her presentation noting the rezoning of this area to Apartment Medium Density(A2) would negatively impact the entire neighbourhood, city, province and country. She stated Signal Hill belongs to everyone. Ms. Norbert stated if the applicant were successful, permitted uses in the rezoned area would include: Service Shops Hairdressers Convenience store in apartment building A Six Story Apartment Building She further suggested the applicant s proposal contained six marked legal or policy implications, an unacceptable number for an area with such unique specifications. Ms. Norbert asked that development controls be upheld. Given the clear marked variances with existing residential dwellings, the substantial and mounting concerns surrounding traffic, parking, heritage, snow clearing, revenue loss and tourism, as well as the international reputation of Signal Hill, she requested Council deny the applicant s proposal to rezone this area further noting Signal Hill is not a renewable resource. Response from the City s Planner III: Ms. Lyghtle-Brushett advised while listening to the presentation she had written some notes. She spoke to the planning area and sub areas and allowed and existing uses in the area. She was then asked by area residents to discontinue her responses until area residents had an opportunity to speak. Response from the Recording Secretary: She noted normal process for Public meetings were to allow area residents to speak followed by a response from staff and/or the proponent. An area resident asked that they continue to speak prior to the City or the proponent responding Area Resident: Stated they all wished to speak first to give themselves the time allowance they required to address their concerns and opinions. Response from the Recording Secretary: Again, she addressed that the procedure for these meetings were to respond after a resident had voiced their opinions or concerns. Derek Osborne, 22 St. Joseph s Lane: Stated he supported hearing the City s and Proponent s responses after each discussion. Response from the City s Planner III: Spoke to the use and noted the definition of an apartment building 3 P a g e

19 Response from Ron Fougere: Spoke to the application noting the property was owned by one owner with the apartment building all being designed to look the same. Mrs. English, Power s Court: Requested to maintain integrity of the neighbourhood and advised presently the area does not allow much room for traffic flow and allowing an extra easement would create more congestion. Response from Ron Fougere: Expressed everyone has a right and entitlement to their opinion. He advised he was in receipt of several architectural awards for his work. He also referenced a letter to the Mayor from NL Historic Trust that he was copied in. The letter commended the proposed project. Area Resident: Addressed concern with the proposed project disrespecting the oldest building in the City, Anderson House. Area Resident: Once again requested that residents be allowed to speak. Response from Deputy Mayor Sheilagh O Leary: The Deputy Mayor asked to have continuity with the meeting and requested staff and the proponent wait to respond until all area residents spoke and then follow-up with a rebuttal. Mona Rossiter, Power s Court Signal Hill Neighbourhood Association: Noted she had previously filed a letter with the City. She stated she did not have a design issue with the project however, her concern was obscuring larger issues such as land use and zoning issues with implications for years to come. She spoke with Councillors on hand as well as Heritage representation from the City. She suggested the project be rejected as there were broad zoning implications for the area. She implied it was solely a hotel versus being labeled an apartment building. Ms. Rossiter referenced the nightly rentals. The current zoning is R3 which is a non-conforming use further reiterating it wasn t an apartment building but a hotel, which if allowed would be precedent setting and allow expansion of more hotels in the area. Ms. Rossiter noted overflow parking takes place on Signal Hill and projects should contribute to the vibrancy in the neighbourhood. She referenced protecting long-term livyers who make-up and represent the neighbourhood and this proposed project does not fit the neighbouhood. Ms. Rossiter noted the façade of the project is masquerading as a row house development but is realistically representing a hotel complex. She referenced previous concerns and advised if the zoning was changed, it was possible the project could go up to 6 storeys. Ms. Rossiter addressed parking concerns noting if parking relief was provided it would cause further congestion in the area. She noted this went against creating walkable neighbourhoods. 4 P a g e

20 She referenced a petition signed by area residents to reject the proposal and expressed if the project proceeded it would change the land for years to come. Ms. Rossiter noted the project did not fit the A2 Zoning and asked that Council abide by the Municipal Plan and be accountable to the neighbourhood. In conclusion, Ms. Rossiter advised she would continue to advocate to reject the proposal. Area Resident: Raised the question if more names could be added to the current petition and were informed they could do so. Shirley Jones, 58 Signal Hill Road: Advised she was part of Signal Hill Neighbourhood Association. She noted she has resided in the Signal Hill area since She spoke to the previous school and church that had served the Battery and spoke to the heart of the neighbourhood. She noted when these structures had been removed and new projects were presented to the area, Ms. Jones suggested the residents were almost threatened to sell their homes for expansion. She noted the proposal would obstruct her view and suggested it was a hotel versus and apartment complex. Spoke to noise pollution with taxis blowing their horns at all hours of the night at the existing apartments. She concluded stating the project did not fit the neighbourhood and further provided historical details of the neighbourhood. Paul Rowe, 23 Walsh s Square: Advised he had visited the City s website and referenced how the Mayor and Councillors referenced the term community. He expressed concerns that the nieghbourhood was under threat and noted the project would be put in place for short-term rentals and not livable accommodations. Mr. Rowe said this project would be detrimental to his community. He referenced approximately 65,000 vehicles visit the Signal Hill area each year already in the area and the project would only add and increase dominant traffic. He provided a copy of his submission for the record. Sheila Coleman, Area Resident: Advised she had resided in the Signal Hill area for over 30 years and does not support the project. She further questioned how Councillors could destroy the neighbourhood. She further expressed concerns with garbage and snow storage. Ms. Colemen reiterated concerns with the existing structure operating as a hotel versus an apartment complex. Ron Welding, formerly of Power s Court: Referenced the area had been previously zoned Institutional with Nolan Hall previously threatening condominiums or a commercial school for the area. He advised the area was then changed to an R3 Zone. Lindsay Lyghtle-Brushett: Confirmed the area was changed to an R3 Zone. Ron Welding, formerly of Power s Court: Asked why the City would entertain A2 Zoning. 5 P a g e

21 Lindsay Lyghtle-Brushett: Stated the A2 Zone requirements were the best fit for the proposed development. Area Resident: Questioned snow clearing in the area. Response from Lindsay Lyghtle-Brushett: Advised Public Works reviewed snow clearing for the proposal and noted it would not impact the area Mona Rossiter, Power s Court Signal Hill Neighbourhood Association: Referenced the process and advised her question was directed at the proponent. She spoke to a letter of May 2014 that stated the consultant had met with area residents. Ms. Rossiter stated no one had met with them. She stressed to Council she wanted it made clear that this meeting never occurred, and this letter was misleading. She further expressed the project states it will fit under A2 Zoning. Ms. Rossiter stated the existing apartment complex exists as a hotel and not apartment units. Further it is a condominium unit with no condominium board. Derek Osborne, 15 St. Joseph s Lane: Advised he understood problems of residing across from a hotel referencing noise and parking concerns. He spoke in support of the proposal and believed in mixed development. Mr. Osborne further noted its where the neighbourhood has to go for progress. Hubert Alacoque, Business Owner: Operates an Engineering company across from the proposed development. Noted it would be great to get a good development in the area. He reiterated the same concerns with traffic but noted part of the problem was the lack of will and courage for the Community and the City to address the traffic issues for the area. He reiterated previous concerns with MUN purchasing the Battery and magnifying the traffic issue and asked that the City look at alternate ways of directing traffic through the area. Mona Rossiter, Power s Court Signal Hill Neighbourhood Association: Took offence to Mr. Alcourte s comments pertaining to redirecting traffic stating realigning the roadway is a distraction. Kerri Norberg, 54 Signal Hill Road: Made a point of clarification asking how were mailouts handled when area residents required proposal notification. Was everyone notified? Response from Lindsay Lyghtle-Brushett: Advised staff prepare a mailout list consisting of 150 metre radius of the proposed development for property owners. The question was raised if someone owned a building, would the tenants be made aware of the proposed development. 6 P a g e

22 Response from Lindsay Lyghtle-Brushett: It would be the owner s responsibility to advise tenants of the proposal. Paul Rowe, 23 Walsh s Square: Suggested Kerri s proposal was all related to development. (not sure what you mean by this part?) Hubert Alacoque, Business Owner: Stated cities struggle with Air B&B as the operators/owners don t reside in the community, stating Vancouver struggles with this and is ruined by the phenomenon. Rebecca Furlong, Cavell Avenue: Spoke to historical background to her home, advising her grandparents had resided in the home for 50 years before her. Addressed commentary on other cities stating that the discussion was not about other cities but with St. John s. Reiterated concerns with parking as relatives who live in the area and want to go grocery shopping may not have a parking space when they returned. She referenced the existing hotel and suggested it did not match homes in the area. Michelle Furlong, 25 Howe Place: Lived and grew up in area and does not support the project. She stated the area is maxed out with development and was at a lack of understanding that this project would be brought forward. Reiterated concerns with parking further noting no one was against progress but the question needed to be raised as does this project wok with the area. She suggested the area is just too enclosed to accommodate the proposal. Kevin English, 38 Power s Court: Asked if there will be access to the back of the units that go to the parking lot. He referenced the developer makes a profit and the Council collect property tax without giving thought to existing residents. He reiterated the same issues with vehicles, snow clearing, and noise. He stated there wasn t a need for the project and would not be supporting it. Area Resident: Project will create safety issues in Power s Court. Area Resident: Comment for Council: Building is not presently conforming, and Council now wish to rezone to A2 with separate variances suggesting that Council would wish to continue manipulating. Area Resident: Asked if there were outside decks planned? Further, with rezoning, suggested it was precedent setting and things could be added whenever it suited. Area Resident: Stated every tourist will see a roof view of the project. Reiterated concerns with snow clearing as she herself takes 3 hours to clear her driveway after a snowfall. Reiterated noise concerns with plows operating all hours of the night. Mona Rossiter, Power s Court Signal Hill Neighbourhood Association: Spoke to the street scape the proponent had spoken about. She noted a lot of goose necks on roof tops. She suggested it was one large building masquerading as row housing 7 P a g e

23 connected by a corridor to another large building providing allowances for people to come and go all hours. Paul Rowe, 23 Walsh s Square: Spoke to short term rentals and asked that consideration be given to long-term and learn from the negative experiences other cities had. Louise French, 38 Power s Court: Moved to the area with the expectation that the zoning would not be amended. Reiterated concerns with snow clearing and that she would not be supporting the project. Hubert Alacoque, Business Owner: Suggested adding a third storey to the existing building making it a better, simpler solution which would also remove the goose necks. Tyler Stapleton, Pleasant Street: Inquired as to whether blasting would be necessary for the proposed project and the impact to the neighbourhood. Area Resident: Referenced a previous situation in which an area became an archeological site. Response from Ron Fougere: He provided an overview and responded to area residents regarding traffic, noting the front entrance with controls in place if someone was coming or leaving. He spoke to parking issues noting there are parking issues everywhere. He advised 27out of the 34 units would be rentals of one month to one year and that some may be nightly. He noted existing fencing could be left or removed which would allow for more snow clearance. Mr. Fougere advised the project was conforming with Development Regulations. Mona Rossiter, Power s Court Signal Hill Neighbourhood Association: Noted snow clearing is an issue in the Signal Hill area no matter if fence removed or left. Response from Ron Fougere: Advised snow clearing would remain status quo in Power s Court. He referenced digging concerns advising hitting rock when excavating would affect the project s budget. Mona Rossiter, Power s Court Signal Hill Neighbourhood Association: Wanted it noted a member of Southwest Properties, Mr. Ben Young, chose to reside in residential seating versus sitting up front with Mr. Fougere. Area Resident: Questioned if only excavating 3 feet, it would not permit a driveway. Response from Ron Fougere: Advised driveway would be 3 feet lower and elevation of the site would be 10 feet. Mr. Fougere also noted an Archeologist must be on site in order to obtain a permit. 8 P a g e

24 Mona Rossiter, Power s Court Signal Hill Neighbourhood Association: Wanted it known that Mr. Alacoque was not an area resident but a business owner in the area. She noted it was her understanding the City was moving away from spot zoning; however, developers were approaching the City and making communities fit into their zoning. She wanted it placed on the record, on behalf of the Signal Hill Neighbourhood Association, the whole process was flawed. She advised she would take the matter further by going to Council, the media and possibly seeking legal support. Chair: Spoke to a Decision Note of 2017 previously referenced by the attendees advising it had nothing to do with current elected officials. She further noted she had heard concerns about parking, traffic, and snow clearing and that residents only get up to speak if they had something different to offer. Response from Lindsay Lyghtle-Brushett: Every property owner and developer has the right to make applications with the City. She noted there are guidelines and a set process that may require amendments to the Urban and Rural Planning Act. She further advised the Public Engagement Process is subject to the Act. Mona Rossiter, Power s Court Signal Hill Neighbourhood Association: Advised it a was a flawed process leaving area residents scrambling to make a case within a two-week period and providing the developer an advantage. She referenced the City was in the developer s pocket. Response from Lindsay Lyghtle-Brushett: Clarified the City worked with the developer subject to the Municipal Plan and Development Regulations. Mona Rossiter, Power s Court Signal Hill Neighbourhood Association: She suggested the City has relationships with developers and reiterated the process is flawed. Ms. Rossiter advised the process positioned the developer behind the eight ball and kept residents out of the loop. She questioned the larger issue on hand was zoning changes and whether the City would support it. She suggested the City was going against the Municipal Plan. CONCLUDING REMARKS Chair Stapleton convened the meeting, thanked everyone for coming and advised that the matter will be referred to Council for their decision in the coming weeks. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm. Councillor Deanne Stapleton Chairperson 9 P a g e

25

26

27

28

29

30 Kathy Driscoll From: Sent: To: Subject: CityClerk Tuesday, May 8, :27 PM Kathy Driscoll FW: 22 St. Joseph's Lane From: Ron Peters Sent: Tuesday, May 8, :01 AM To: CityClerk Subject: 22 St. Joseph's Lane I wish to hereby express my concern for the traffic flow in this general area of the City. I own 2 Cooks Hill and experienced the resent pilot project carried out in the area. I am very much opposed to using Cooks Hill, which has no sidewalk and only two houses on it to be used as a thoroughfare. I hope to attend the meeting and get some response. I am not against the project itself. Ron Peters NLAA Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1

31 Kathy Driscoll From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: CityClerk Thursday, May 10, :45 PM kerrinor; CityClerk Karen Chafe; Andrea Roberts; Ashley Murray; Dave Wadden; Gerard Doran; Jason Sinyard; Kathy Driscoll; Ken O'Brien; Lindsay Lyghtle Brushett; Planning RE: Public Meeting for 22 St. Joseph's Lane Good Afternoon: In order to facilitate your request, we ask that (a) you limit the presentation to 15 minutes and (b) your provide our office with a copy of the presentation in advance so that we can have it ready to go. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me directly. Elaine Elaine Henley City Clerk City of St. John s tjon t. (709) e. ehenley@stjohns.ca Original Message From: kerrinor Sent: Thursday, May 10, :43 AM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@stjohns.ca>; Subject: Public Meeting for 22 St. Joseph's Lane Dear city clerk, Please accept this as a formal request to make a written and verbal submission in response to the development application from Fougere Menchenton Architecture Inc. on behalf of Premier Executive Suites Atlantic Ltd. to rezone 22 St. Joseph's Lane during the Public Meeting to be held on Wednesday, May 16 at 7 p.m. Please advise if any additional action is required prior to the Public Meeting. Sincerely, Kerri Norberg Civic #54 Signal Hill Road 1

32 Kathy Driscoll From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: CityClerk Tuesday, May 15, :47 AM Kerri Norberg Kathy Driscoll; Andrea Roberts; Ashley Murray; Dave Wadden; Gerard Doran; Jason Sinyard; Karen Chafe; Ken O'Brien; Lindsay Lyghtle Brushett; Planning FW: Submission Public Meeting Signal Hill Signal Hill Rezoning.docx Good Morning Ms. Norberg: We thank you for your submission and advise that it has been referred to the City s Department of Planning, Engineering and Regulatory Services. We will arrange for the presentation to be projected to the room. Elaine From: Kerri Norberg Sent: Monday, May 14, :21 PM To: Kathy Driscoll <kdriscoll@stjohns.ca>; CityClerk <cityclerk@stjohns.ca> Subject: Submission Public Meeting Signal Hill Dear Ms. Driscoll and Ms. Henley, Please find attached my submission for the Public Hearing this Wednesday, May 16 at 7:00 re: Signal Hill Rezoning. I will be reading this submission verbally at the meeting. Sincerely, Kerri Norberg 54 Signal Hill Road 1

33 May 16, 2018 Mayor Danny Breen Deputy Mayor Sheilagh O Leary Councillors Burton, Collins, Froude, Hanlon, Hickman, Jamieson, Korab, Lane, and Stapleton City of St. John s P.O. Box 908 St. John s, NL A1C 5M2 Re: 22 St. Joseph s Lane Dear Mayor Breen, Deputy Mayor O Leary, and Councillors Burton, Collins, Froude, Hanlon, Hickman, Jamieson, Korab, Lane, and Stapleton: On behalf of the board and members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Historic Trust, we express support for the proposed Signal Hill Gate expansion and the associated rezoning of 22 St. Joseph s Lane. This is an excellent design that fits well with the historic fabric of Signal Hill and downtown St. John s. It will be an improvement to the neighbourhood, a densification that is in line with the historic character of the area, and one that respects heritage without mocking it. However, our support does come with some concerns, questions, and feedback: We are concerned about potential impacts during construction how much blasting will be required in order to create the proposed underground parking? How will the Anderson House, St. Joseph s Convent, and neighbouring homes be protected from this? Can we guarantee that the elevations that are outlined in the LUAR will be accurate, given the challenges of the site? Rooftop structures should be minimized as much as possible, and we encourage enclosure where possible. We appreciate the detail in the LUAR to address their impact and note that while both options for placement appear sensitive to the sightlines, option 2 would be preferable (page 12-13, placing the heat pump outdoor units on the side of the building facing St. Joseph s Convent rather than the roof). Option 1 is also well placed and would be acceptable with enclosure/screening. This roof will be highly visible to those descending from Signal Hill. We are in support of the parking relief request. Development in historically significant areas should not be impeded by broadly-based parking regulations that fail to address the needs of individual neighbourhoods. This neighbourhood has a high walkability score. The proposed use of the building suggests that less parking is needed than that which is currently regulated. Planning for the future suggests that parking requirements will The Newfoundland Historic Trust is a non- profit, membership- driven organization dedicated to the preservation of the built heritage of Newfoundland and Labrador through advocacy, research, and education since PO Box 2403, St. John s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, A1C 6E7 coordinator@historictrust.ca

34 further reduce through changing technologies. For environmental and social reasons, we should likewise encourage this trend. We could not find details on the design of the proposed buffer fencing. We request assurance that fencing will be historically appropriate for the site (no chain link fencing), and be as unobtrusive as possible. Fencing should not unnecessarily restrict pedestrian traffic. Finally, because it is located within a City of St. John s heritage area, the proposal should be reviewed by the Built Heritage Experts Panel. Provided the design is built as proposed, and it can be guaranteed that construction will not damage surrounding historic properties, we believe that it will bring new life to the area, supporting both tourism and local liveability. We commend Emily Campbell and Fougere Menchenton Architecture for their attention to heritage issues as they apply to our built environment and social fabric. Sincerely, Board of Directors Newfoundland and Labrador Historic Trust cc: Emily Campbell, Fougere Menchenton Architecture The Newfoundland Historic Trust is a non- profit, membership- driven organization dedicated to the preservation of the built heritage of Newfoundland and Labrador through advocacy, research and education since PO Box 2403, St. John s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, A1C 6E7 coordinator@historictrust.ca

35 Kathy Driscoll From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: CityClerk Wednesday, June 6, :31 AM Debbie Roche; CityClerk Kathy Driscoll; Andrea Roberts; Ashley Murray; Dave Wadden; Gerard Doran; Jason Sinyard; Karen Chafe; Ken O'Brien; Lindsay Lyghtle Brushett; Planning RE: 22 St. Joseph's Lane Good Morning Mr. & Mrs. Roche: We acknowledge receipt of your and advise that your concerns have been referred to the City s Department of Planning, Engineering and Regulatory Services. All submissions will be forwarded to Council for consideration prior to a final decision being reached on this application. From: Debbie Roche Sent: Wednesday, June 6, :30 AM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@stjohns.ca> Subject: 22 St. Joseph's Lane June City Clerk, Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors, We are writing this letter in regard to the proposal to rezone 22 St. Joseph's Lane to the Apartment Medium Density (A2) Zone. 1

36 We've lived on Signal Hill for almost 27 years. Battery Road and Middle Battery Road before that. We have lived most of our lives in this area. My parents, grand parents and ggparents on both sides of my family were also from this area. My grandfather onced lived where The Geo Centre is today. We've seen many changes to this area over time. It seems as if the people who have lived here all there lives have the most trouble getting things done over people who my parents use to call people with money they could build what they wanted and get away with it. A few years ago my brother who was renovating our family home, had to hire an architec to redesign his roof, so he could get 8 foot ceilings in the house as to not block the basements windows of the house behind him. The owner of a vacent lot at 44 Signal Hill couldn't even build his house as wide as the one he took down, it was only about 20 foot wide as it was. During the summer when visitors of Hometel park on Signal Hill we ourselves have had to park in Powers Court. If the new proposed building have doors that open unto Signal Hill you can be assured that they are going to park in front of their doors and not in the parking garage. We already have less parking due to the relocation of the fire hydrant last year. If the people who are renting these properties have parties it will increase noise and parking problems we already have been dealing with over the past number of years. In the winter we push the snow onto the side of the road that the proposed building is to be built.if there are cars parked on both sides of the hill where are we going to put the snow? It is also very fustrating that when you spend hours shoveling out a place to park your car and leave to get groceries, someone from Hometel is parked in your spot when you return. They are told they can park on the hill when there is nowhere to park by their own door. In 2002 council approved changes to the school to non conforming use provided there was no change in size or bulk. Petition Sept stated that Hillgate Development agreed to these conditions. So why should they be allowed to add onto it today? NO, WE DO NOT AGREE that this property should be rezoned for the development of 14 additional units. Debbie and Sean Roche 48 Signal Hill Road St.John's NL A1A1B1 2

37

38