Agenda ltem #
Page
#
T
ll
NEleb
Ghuck Parker
CHAIR AND MEMBERS
TO:
-
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
FROM:
JOHN M. FLEMING
MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND CITY PLANNER
SUBJEGT:
BEAUFORT/ tRWtN/ GUNN/ SAUNBY/ ESSEX (',BtcS") STREET
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
MEETING ON Monday, November 26,2012
RECOMMENDATION
That; in response to the public, City Department and Agency not¡ce of public meeting/liaison
sent on October 19,2012; the Managing Ðirector, Planning and City Planner, SUBMITTING the
attached conespondence received to date on the BeauforVlnrin/Gunn/Saunby/Essex (.B|GS')
Streets Neighbourhood Draft Plan in advance of the public participation meeting to be held on
November 26,2012.
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER
August 15,2011
Report to BNEC entitled "Planning Options for the BIGS Neighbourhood"
October 15,2012
Report to BNEC containing Draft Neighbourhood Plan
BACKGROUND
Purpose of the Public Meeting
The purpose of this meeting is to provide an opportunity for the public to provide comments on
the Draft Plan which was tabled at Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) on October 15,
2012. The Draft Plan was received from the consultants in October 2012. The Plan was based
on background research they had completed and comments received at two neighbourhood
workshops. To give the public, other City Departments and Agencies an opportunity to review
the Draft Plan and provide comments a notice of public meeting and request for comments was
sent on October 19,2012 and a public meeting was scheduled for November 26,2012.
Following this meeting Planning staff will review all of the comments received and revise the
Draft Plan accordingly. lt is expected that another public meeting with be held with PEC in the
new year to adopt the Plan.
The Process to Date
On August 29,2011 representatives of the "BIGS" neighbourhood appeared before the Built and
Natural Environment Committee (BNEC) to raise concerns about intensification in the area and
ask Councilto put in place an interim control by-law until revised policies are put in place to
control intensification. As a result Council directed that staff report back regarding potential
actions that could be done to address these neighbourhood concerns.
On September 12,2011 a report was presented to BNEC outlining a range of options available
to dealwith the residents'concerns. In response, on Septembèr 19, 2011, Councildirected that
a study be undertaken to prepare possible amendments to address the neighbourhood
concerns. Council further directed that staff;
1
Agenda ltem #
Page
#
llNEleb
Ghuck Parker
(¡) retain a Planning Consultant to prepare a planning study forthe Essex Sfreef
Area bounded by the Canadian Paciftc Railway to the south, the Thames RrVer
to the east, the University of Western Ontario and Thames River to the north,
and Platt's Lane to the west (see reverse); it being noted that this plan wíll
consolidate the recommendatíons of the Essex Sfreef Study prepared in March
1995, where appropríate, and may ínc[ude a master plan and policies to direct
future development within the context of the Great Near-Campus
Neigh bourhoods Strategy;
(ii) consider initiating Official Plan amendments to implementthe
recommendations of the planning study, as identified in part (i) above; and,
(iii) consider adding zoning regu[ations in conformity with the Official PIan, as
amended, as noted in clause (ii) above;
The City retained Peter J. Smith Company, a planning consulting firm, to undertake this study
on March 16,2012.
A liaison letter was sent to public, agencies and other City departments on May 3,2012 and
Living in the City notice was provided May 12 and 19,2012 in advance of the first
neighbourhood meeting on May 23,2012. Approximately 20-25 people attended. The first
meeting focused on identifying neighbourhood issues, strengths, new ideas and a vision for the
neighbourhood (see attached). lt was evident at that meeting that the attendees were split
evenly between those who wanted to allow further development in the neighbourhood and those
that wanted to restrict future development.
A second public liaison letter was sent June 6,2012 and Living in the City notice given June 8,
2012in advance the second neighbourhood meeting held on June 20,2012. This meeting
focused on discussing density,form/character, occupancy and neighbourhood condition options
(see attached). Again, approximately 2Q-25 people participated in the workshop and, again,
there was the same split in the acceptance of future development as at the previous meeting.
Since the end of June the City and the consultants have been preparing a Draft Plan for public
review. The attached Draft Plan is the end result of that effort.
Agenda ltem
#
Page #
z
f
È
ô
o
o
IÉ,
f
o
o
I
l¡¡
z
l-t¡J
t¡J
É,
ttÞ
xt¡J
ttl
râ
llJ
i-- -é
-É
>zÐoz
Fó2
l-. O
o-zJ¡!
-)
-2
-(,
o
:EO
Jo g
É5 Ë
f < É,
Èö I
Summary of Key Findings, Draft Plan Recommendations and Directions
Agenda ltem #
Page
#
T
ll NEle b
Chuck Parker
Summary of Key Findings, Draft Ptan Recommendations and Directions
Existing Conditions and Key Findings
1.
Residential land uses occupy 53o/o oÍ the total land area of the neighbourhood.
2. Approximately
43o/o
of the housing stock in the neighbourhood is owned by absentee
landlords
3.
only 6% of the housing stock is considered to be in poor condition.
4.
Teachers and professors make up24o/o of the population, considerably higherthan the
City average of 6%.
5.
Public transit is the most popular mode of travel for residents.
6.
Redevelopment in the neighbourhood is occurríng based on the existing Residential R2
Zoning (some R1 and R3 Zones) which has been in place since 1991 and the previous
Two-Family (2F') Zoning in the CP By-laws in place since at least the 1970's. Given the
City's existing regulations there can be 5 bedrooms per unit.
7.
WharncliffeMestern Road canies 20,000 vehicles per day and will be widened to four
lanes in2Q20.
Recommendations and Directions
1.
The Plan establishes a future vision for the neighbourhood as an "Urban Village'.
2.
Provides four core principles to implement the vision; 1) enhance character and identity,
2) develop a complete community, 3) support sustainability and healthy lifestyles and 4)
connect to University and educational community.
3.
The Plan provides opportunities for intensification but recognizes different character
areas.
4.
Direct additionalresidential intensification along WharncliffeMestem Roads.
5.
Provides for a diversity of dwelling types.
6.
Establish Street Hierarchy.
7.
Provides the planning tools to implement the vision including policies, zoning by-law
regulations and urban design guidelines
L
Consistent with the Near Campus Neighbourhood Strategy
Liaison Response Received to Date
ln response to the liaison letter sent October 19,2012 we received one public comment and one
agency comment. They are attached to this report.
Planning staff have also agreed to meet with some neighbourhood residents on Monday,
November 19,2012 to get their comments.
4
llNEleb
Chuck Parker
The Name of the Plan
One issue that still needs to be resolved is the title or "branding' for the neighbourhood.
The
an Village - London,s Secondary plan for
ood'. lt would be beneficial to get
me. Some suggestions to date include;
1.'University Village"
2. 'Notth Petersville Village'l
3. Soufh Uníversity Village"
Through comments received on the Plan it is hoped that a name for the neighbourhood will be
determined.
Next Steps
Following the public meeting on November 26,2Q12 planning staff will finalize the draft ptan and
incorporate any directions arising from the public input. A statutory public participation meeting
to adopt the Plan will be scheduled in the new year.
PREPARED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
W.J. CHARLES PARKER
SENIOR PLANNER - CITY PLANNING
AND RESEARCH
GREGG BARRETT
MANAGER. CITY PLANNING AND
RESEARGH
RECOMMENDED BY:
JOflN FLEMING
MANAGING DIRECTOR
- PLANNING AND CITY PLANNER
November 13,20'12
cp
Y:\Shared\policy\Area-Communþ Plans\Beaufort Gunn Saunby Essex Neighbourhood Plan\coveneportpEOnov262Ol2.docx
UPPER TT{AMES RN¿ER
"
Inspi rin g a Heol ¡h¡' Environ
nte n
t,,
Novernber 8,2012
The Corporation of the City of London
Planning Division
206 Dundas Steet
London, Ontario N6A 4L9
Attention: Chuck Parker
DearMr. Parker:
Re:
File 11 NEI
eb
-
Beeufort/Irrvin/ Gunn/Saunby/ Essex Street .BIGS. Neighbourhood pl¿n
The Upper Tharnes River
s
BeauforlGunn/SaunbyÆssex
october lz,2ol2and offers the following
had an opportunity
to
review the
dbyPeterJ' smith&companylnc' dated
comments.
As shown on the enclosed mapping and as indicated in Section 5.3 of the
report appendix, there are lands in the BIGS
A in accordance with Ontario Regulation 157/O6,made pursuant to
Section
The regulation limit is comprised of riverine flooding and erosion
neighbo
hazards
UrRCA has jurisdiction over lands within the regdáted area and
requires that landownen obtain written approval from the Authority prior
to undertaking any site alteration or
development within this area including filling, grading, conskuction, altèration
to a watercoiuse and/or interference
with a wetland.
land should be developed and should include play
lit tail. Furthermore, it is recommended that Essex
within the regurated
area and we thererore
recommend.Jï:i:ä:î#ilä"i1î:
ïr:åì#ifliffiiîfåî*
The UTRCA concurs with the OS zoning recommendations presented in
Section 4.9.
With respect to Section 5-3 Flood Plains we wish to clarifrthat the lands located south
of the rail tracks are within a
iondon SPA. The City of London and the UTRCA have
potential Special Policy Area (SPA) known as the West
d use changes and dwelopment in potantial SpAs. The
d uses in these neighbourhoods so that the final outcome
, the West London SpA has not been approved by the
West London area would be formally recognized as an
flood plain concq)t carinot be reasonably applied. This
recognition would allow for the implementation of area specific
foücies thaiwould help minimize nooa^impact ana
1424clarkeRoad'London-ont.N5v5B9'Phonc: 5l9J5l.lE00'Fax:
-51945
I ll88'Email:
infolindalthamesriver.on.cawww.thamesrivet.on.ca
UIRCA Comments
BIGS Neiehbourhood plan
permit the upgrading or redevelopment ofproperties
that would otherwise not be allowed under provincial
flood plain
policy.
T\e Upper Thames River Source Protection Area Assessment Report has also
bee,n reviewed in order to confinrr
whether the study area is located within a vulnerable area. The Drinïing
water source protection information is being
disclosed to the Municipalþ to assist them in fulfilling their
aecisionãafting responsibiliti", *do
planning
th"
The clean water act
Act.
(cwA), 2006 is
intended to protect existing and future sources of drinking water.
The Act is part
of the ontario govemment's commiünent to implement the rec'ommendations
of the walkerton Inquiy as well as
protecti¡g
and enhancing human health and the environment. The cwA
sets out a framework for source protection
a watershed basis with Sowce Protection Areas established
based on the watershed boundaries ofOntario,s
planning on
36 conservation Authorities. The upper Thames River, Lower Thames
valley and St clair Region conservation
Authorities have entered into a partnership for The Thames-Sydenham Source protection
Region. Drinking water
Sou¡ce Protection represents the first banier for protecting drinking water including
surface and ground water from
becoming contaminated or overused thereby ensuring a sufficient, ã1"*,
safe supply now and for the future.
Assessment Reporß:
The Thames-Sydenham Source Protection Region has prepared lssessm ent Reporß
that:
'
¡
'
identiffvulnerable areas associated with drinking water systems;
assess thelevel ofvulnerabilityinthese areas; and
ide'ntify activities within those vulnerable areas which pose tbreats to the drinking water
systems, and
risk due to those threats.
assesses
the
The Assessment Report for the Upper Thames watershed delineates three tlpes of vulnerable
areas: Well Head
Protection Areas, Highly Vulnerable Aquifers and Signifrcant Groundwater Recharge Areas.
The subject lands are in
an area that has Highly Vulnerable Aquifers. A portion of the lands are also in a Significant
G¡oundwater Recharge
Area. Mapping which shows these areas is available at:
Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas
2
%20S GRA%2OVulnerabilitv.pdf
Highly Vrrlns¡¡þls Aquifers:
2 Hiehhp/o20Vulnerable%20Aouifers.pdf
S o u rc e P rot¿c,tio n Pl en s :
Using the information tnthe Assessment Report, a Source Protection Plan is being developed for the
Upper Thames
watershed. It is anticipated thatthis Ptanwill consist of a range ofpolicies that togãther, wi-ll reduce
the risks posed by
the identified water quality and quantity threats in the vulner¿ble a¡eas. these policies will include
a range ofvotuntary
and regulakd approaches to manage or prohibit activities which pose a tbreat tõ drinking
water. Activities that can lead
to; low, medium and significant threats have been identified in appenaix
of
Protection Area Assesstnent Report, dated Augustl2,zoll which is available ail
fi
thl (Ipper
Thames River Source
UTRCA Comments
BIGS Neiehbourhood plan
At this timg c"rtain a.ti.ti
Given that the source Prot??ji9n Flan isbeing developed, the UTRCA
cannot speÇulate what the plan mightdictate
for these areas' Under the CWA, the Source Protection Committee
has the authority to include polic ies in theSource
Protection Plan that may prohibit or restrict activities identified as posing
a significant threat todrinking water.
Proponents planning to undertake changes in these areas need
to be aware olthis possibility.
Provìncial Poliqt Støtement (pps, 200 S) :
Section 2.2.1 requires that
"Fhanning quthorities shall proteet, improve or restore
the quality and quantity of water by: d) irnptementing
necessdry restrictions on development ond site alteration to:
I. proþcr aII municipal drinkingwater supplies and designated wilnerable areas; and
2'
protect, improve or restore vulneruble surface and grouncl waterfeatures, and
their hydrological functions,'
Section 2.2.2 requires that:
"Development ønd site alteration shall be restricted in or near sensitive surface waterfeatures
and sensitive grotmd
waterfeatures such that thesefeatures and their related hydrologic
fiinctions will be protected, improved or restored,.
Municipalities must be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement when making decisions
on land use planning
and development.
Thanlç you for the opportunity to comment on the neighbowhood plan. If you have
any questions, please contact the
undersigned at extension 293.
Yours truly,
UPPER THAMES RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
{_
1,._,
'-,\>
,-^:
{
I
Christine Creighton
Land Use Planner
CClcc
Enclosure
-
Regulations Mapping þlease print on legal size paper to ensure that the scales are accurate)
¡.
tegencl
Road Lâbels (1:64K)
Assessment Parcel
Watercourse
Open
-ii . ',{r!r'
Tiled
r I
j
Speciat Pol¡cy Area
Evaluatecl Wetland (MNR)
Unevaluated Wetland (UTRCA)
London Hazard
FLD25O
Remnañl Vãlley
'-,- it
-t
¡l "{.
ï ..1;
Stabl6 Slop€
loe Erosion - Stâble
Stopo
Top of Slopc
Flooding Hazard
Erosion Hazard
Wetland lnterference
Regulation Lim¡t
:,1
.*ril*
?ref'{Sl:ì¡fÏl
1',,t
The RegulaLion Lim¡t depicted on lhis map schedute
representatron of O Reg 157/06 under O Reg g7l04
6
â
lhe Regul¿tion Limit ¡s a conseñaLive stimation of the hâzard
lands within the UTRCA watershed Depend¡ng on the specific
characterìslics of the hazârd land and the tand use proposed,
lhe Regulation Lim¡t may be subject to change
The UTRCA disclaims explicitly any waranty, represenlation or
guarantee as to the content, sequence, accuracy, Limeliness,
nlness for a particular purf'ose, merchantabil¡ty or
completeness ol any of the dâtê depicted and pþvided herein
hø
fhe UTRCA âssumes no liâbility for any etoE, omissions or
inaccuracies in the information provided herein and further
assumes no liability for any decis¡ons made or actions lâken or
nol taken by any person in rel¡ance uoon the information and
data fumished hereunder
This map is not a substilúte for professionâ¡ advice ptease
contact UTRCA staff for any çhânges, updales and
amendments lo the informalion provided
',:--#;t
Sourcas D6ls us€d u¡der ircence wilh th6 OnLario Nlinislry of òlalurâl
Resources, copydght O Queeo s Printer for oñlado, city of London
2006 Aodâl Photography Copyright O 2006 Fißl Bâs6 Solurons,201 0
Aerial Photography Copy¡ighl @ 2010 Queens Prinrer for Ontâdo
I
Notes:
BeauforUlnvin/Gunn/Saunby/Essex (BIGS) Neighbourd Area
100
metres
1 5000
Copyrighl@2012
UTRCA
By email to: çarker@london.ca
November 7,20L2
City of London
Planning Division
P.O.Box 5035
London, Ontario
N6A 4L9
Attention: Mr. Chuck Parker
Re: Beaufort/lnrin /Gunn/SaunbylEssex ('BIGS") Neighborhood
Area Study
DFS Investments Inc. is the owner of 358 Hollywood Crescent and 366
Hollywoo.d crescent in London, ontario, which are located within the
BIGS neighborhood study area;
DFS Investrnents trnc, suppo,rts intensification in the BIGS stud¡r area
in
order to make better use of existing infrastructure.
After review of the BIGS draft Neighborhood Plan, DFS Investments [nc.
wishesto eomrnend the effo,rts of the city of London planning stafffor
the work done in the BIGS neighborhood study area.
As well, DFS Investments Inc. wishes to supporttheproposed BIGS
Neighborhood Plan and the proposed rezoning of Hollywood Crescent
from R1-10{4) to some R5 variation to allow for stacked townhouse
development
Yot¡rs truly,
DFS Investments Inc.
4ó' ft^t'o^*
Warren Fireman