From: CityClerk Sent: Friday, November 27, 2020 2:28 PM To: , CityClerk Cc: Andrea Roberts, Ann-Marie Cashin, Ashley Murray, Dave Wadden, Jason Sinyard, Karen Chafe, Ken O'Brien, Lindsay Lyghtle Brushett, Planning Subject: RE: (EXT) Parrish Lane Development 66-68 Queens Road Good Afternoon: We thank you for your feedback and advise that all submissions will be presented to Council for consideration prior to a final decision being reached on this application. Elaine Henley Elaine Henley City Clerk t. 576-8202 c. 691-0451 From: Sent: Friday, November 27, 2020 1:12 PM To: CityClerk <[email protected]> Subject: (EXT) Parrish Lane Development 66-68 Queens Road Good Afternoon Ms. Henley I’m writing today to voice my support for this project. I believe the benefits to the City far out way the nay sayers. Mr. Pardy has considered and taken into account the area surrounding this development and has proposed a project that will enhance this part of the downtown area. Also, to the Cities benefit, is the tax revenue that will be generated and you will not have any capital equipment outlay because you are already plowing the roads and sidewalks . I wish Mr. Pardy the best of luck and hope that council will support this development. Regards Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Disclaimer: This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the individual(s) addressed in the message. If you are not the intended recipient, any other distribution, copying, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email and delete the original message. Any correspondence with employees, agents, or elected officials of the City of St. John’s may be subject to disclosure under the provisions of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015, S.N.L. 2015, c.A-1.2. Karen Chafe From: CityClerk Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 4:47 PM To: CityClerk Cc: Andrea Roberts; Ann-Marie Cashin; Ashley Murray; Dave Wadden; Jason Sinyard; Karen Chafe; Ken O'Brien; Lindsay Lyghtle Brushett; Planning Subject: RE: (EXT) Application 66-68 Queens Road Good Afternoon: We thank you for your feedback and advise that all submissions will be presented to Council for consideration prior to a final decision being reached on this application. Elaine Henley Elaine Henley City Clerk t. 576-8202 c. 691-0451 From: Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 1:47 PM To: CityClerk <[email protected]> Subject: (EXT) Application 66‐68 Queens Road City Clerk, Mayor and Councillors: Machiavelli was right that change is dangerous because "he who innovates will have as his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things". For the proposed development at 66-68 Queen’s Road, those that who are “well off under the existing order of things” are the residents of Garrison Hill. They have enjoyed the use of the Church's land for decades. To support the status quo they have seized the false narrative that the proposed development will destroy the ”Last Naturalized Green Space in Downtown St. John's”. Really? The City’s “St. John’s Urban Forest Management Master Plan" 2006 identified over 50,000 trees on City property, predominantly in the downtown area. The developer is proposing to remove six trees. Not 60 or 600 or 6,000. Six! Assembling a petition with over 4,000 signatures on the false premise the proposed development site was the “Last Naturalized Green Space in Downtown St. John's” was a great tactic. Just not accurate. This is a well thought-out development bringing more residents to downtown St. John's and deserves the support of our City. Sincerely, Disclaimer: This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the individual(s) addressed in the message. If you are not the intended recipient, any other distribution, copying, or disclosure is strictly 1 prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email and delete the original message. Any correspondence with employees, agents, or elected officials of the City of St. John’s may be subject to disclosure under the provisions of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015, S.N.L. 2015, c.A‐1.2. 2 Karen Chafe From: CityClerk Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 1:58 PM To: CityClerk Cc: Andrea Roberts; Ann-Marie Cashin; Ashley Murray; Dave Wadden; Jason Sinyard; Karen Chafe; Ken O'Brien; Lindsay Lyghtle Brushett; Planning Subject: RE: (EXT) 68 queens rd. Good Morning We thank you for your feedback and advise that all submissions will be presented to Council for consideration prior to a final decision being reached on this application. Elaine Henley Elaine Henley City Clerk t. 576-8202 c. 691-0451 From: Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 10:26 AM To: CityClerk <[email protected]> Subject: (EXT) 68 queens rd. I do not want to have ANY of the view from the ROOMS looking out through the narrows blocked by the new queens rd. development. If they cannot reduce the height then scrap the project. Disclaimer: This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the individual(s) addressed in the message. If you are not the intended recipient, any other distribution, copying, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email and delete the original message. Any correspondence with employees, agents, or elected officials of the City of St. John’s may be subject to disclosure under the provisions of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015, S.N.L. 2015, c.A‐1.2. 1 10 November 2020 His Worship the Mayor and Members of St. John's City Council City Hall New Gower Street St. John's, Newfoundland Your Worship and Councillors, I write on behalf of the Basilica Heritage Foundation (BHF) to express our concerns over the application of Parish Lane Developments to seek a rezoning in order to construct a large condominium tower on the site of the former Anglican Cathedral Parish Hall and property. In the terms of reference set by the City, the developer was required to consult with and seek the views of adjacent neighbours before filing their revised LUAR. The City is required to inform neighbours within 150 meters of a proposed zoning change that such a rezoning request has been made. We are among those neighbours. Neither the Basilica Parish, nor the Archdiocese of St. John's, nor the BHF received any notifications about this development from the City. There are at least two Roman Catholic heritage properties within the immediate 150-meter zone. The first is the old Catholic Cemetery (1811-1846) on Long's Hill, next to the land for which rezoning is sought. The second property within the 150-meter zone is the Basilica Cathedral/Episcopal Library/Archbishop's Palace. We believe that the proposed mixed commercial CCM zoning, with all the commercial activity it implies, in which no buffers are required and in which developers can build right to the boundaries, is inappropriate to be granted immediately adjacent to the Old Roman Catholic Cemetery on Long's Hill, and inappropriate to be located in the middle of the City's Heritage Area 1. The proposed building at Parish Lane is only slated to have 8 visitor parking spaces. This will place unacceptable pressure on the parking spaces surrounding the Basilica Cathedral, which often are at capacity from daily traffic. We also understand that while the developer asked for one zoning, City planning officials have suggested that he apply for a different zoning. But once a zoning change is granted by the City, before a project begins, the developer may then opt to entirely change the proposed design. Instead of a condo tower, the site could see other intrusive commercial developments. Or the developer could sell the property, having been given by the City's rezoning a far more attractive and lucrative property. Neighbours then have no recourse once the zoning is changed. The rezoning that City officials in the planning department have suggested for this development is unprecedented in the heart of the Downtown Heritage District one, and in the heart of the Ecclesiastical National Historic District. It could destroy the view-planes to our structures from elsewhere in the city. It could impair the right of National/Provincial/City Historic Sites and designated structures under city current planning regulations to be surrounded by buildings with sympathetic architectural and roof profiles and complementary massing of structures which do not overwhelm the heritage architecture. Finally, the heritage district standards as stated in the City's regulations are NOT outdated and they must not 1 be dismissed but rather they must be recognized as the muscle and sinew which protect our heritage district. In our view City Council should not allow new developments or design briefs that do not meet these standards. We have serious concerns which have remained unaddressed. How will the Parish Lane Development (PLD) impact the heritage landscape and environment and what Parks Canada calls the commemorative integrity of the Basilica Cathedral National Historic Site and its visibility for 360 degrees around the City? How will the PLD impact the commemorative integrity heritage landscape of the Ecclesiastical District? The Basilica is working with the Anglican Cathedral, Gower Street United Church, and the Kirk towards securing federal funding for the restoration of the Ecclesiastical District, and towards its designation as a World Heritage Site. We have had multiple indications that the PLD could impact our ability to obtain World Heritage Designation because this development will put a modern building in the center of a heritage district which does not reflect ANY of the architectural styles or heritage features of the buildings already here.