Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-111-10UNFINISHED BUSINESS #1 Clarln~( ~n Leading the Way V R.E P O RT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: COUNCIL /{~ Date: October 4, 2010 Resolution #: L7-y-~~ By-law #: N/A Report #: PSD-111-10 File #: COPA 2010-0004, ZBA 2010-0022 Subject: PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE: DEVELOPMENT OF A FREE STANDING FOOD STORE OF 2,829M2 AND A 2ND BUILDING OF 783M2 FOR RETAIUSERVICE COMMERCIAL USES APPLICANT: 1804603 ONTARIO INC. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended to Council: THAT Report PSD-111-10 be received; 2. THAT COPA 2010-0004, the Official Plan Amendment for a Neighbourhood Centre located on the northeast corner of Longworth Avenue and Scugog Street, Attachment 6 to Report PSD-111-10 be approved; THAT an open house with the residents to address urban design issues, in a format that includes a presentation, discussion of alternatives and question/answer session be held; 4. THAT the zoning and site applications submitted by 1804603 Ontario Inc. continue to be processed by staff and that a further report be prepared following the open house; and 5. THAT the interested parties listed in Report PSD-111-10 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F(905)623-0830 UNFINISHEa BUSINESS #~. o _ _ __ Leadiri Nte il'a g Y PLANNING SERV[CES Meeting: COUNCIL Date: October 4, 2010 Resolution #: By-law #: NIA Report #: PSD-111-10 File #: COPA 2010-0004, ZBA 2010-0022 Subject: PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FREE STANDING FOOD STORE OF 2,829M2 AND A 2ND BUILDING OF 783M2 FOR RETAILISERVICE COMMERCIAL USES APPLICANT: '1804603 ONTARIO INC. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended to Council: 1. THAT Report PSD-111-10 be received; 2. THAT COPA 2010-0004, the Official Plan Amendment for a Neighbourhood Centre located on the northeast corner of Longworth Avenue and Scugog Street, Attachment 6 to Repart PSD-111-10 be approved; 3. THAT an open house with the residents to address urban design issues, in a format that includes a presentation, discussion of alternatives and question/answer session be held; 4. THAT the zoning and site applications submitted by 1$04603 Ontario Inc. continue to be processed by staff and that a further report be prepared foliawing the open house; and 5. THAT the interested parties listed in Report PSD-111-10 and any delegations b~ advised of Council's decision. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 REPORT NO.. PSD-111-10 Pay E z Submitted by: G Reviewed by: y Langmai FCSLA, MCIP cting Director of Planning Services ... ~ ranklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer DJ/FL/df/sn 1 October 2010 REPORT NO.: PSD-11'I-10 PAGE 3 1.0 APPLICATION DETA[LS 1.1 Applicant: '1804603 Ontario Inc. 1.2 Official Plan: To remove the Medium Density Residential symbol within the Urban Residential Area and replace it with a Neighbourhood Centre symbol, to permit the development of a free standing food stare of 2,829m2 and a 2"~ building of 7$3m2 for retaiUservice commercial uses. 1.3 Rezoning: Ta change the zoning from Holding -Urban Residential Type Three Exception ((H) R3-25) to an appropriate zone to permit the proposed development, and to implement the Official Plan Amendment. 1.4 Location: 680 Longworth Avenue, located an the northeast corner of Longwarth Avenue and Scugog Street, Bowmanville. 1.5 Site Area: 1.43 Hectare (3.53 Acres) 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 On August 4, 2010, the applications submitted by 1$04603 Ontario Inc. far an Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment for a parcel on the northeast corner of Longwarth Avenue and Scugog Street, Bowmanville, to permit the development for retaillservice commercial uses were deemed complete. 2.2 The applicant also submitted the following background studies in support of development applica#iarr • Planning Rationale Report, prepared by R.G. Richards & Associates; • Supermarket Impact Analysis, prepared.by UrbanMetrics Inc.; • Traffic Study, prepared by HDR Corporation; and • Noise Impact Study, prepared by Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. Further discussion regarding the above listed studies is contained in section 8.0 of this report. 2.3 At the statutory Public Meeting on September 13, 2010, the General Purpose & Administration Committee received the staff report and requested that a report be brought back to the September 27~" GPA meeting. This resolution was subsequently amended at the Council meeting to allow the comments from the September 23~d open house and staff report to go directly to Council on October 4~", 2010. REPORT NO.: PSD-111-10 PAGE 4 2.4 A fetter and an a-mail objecting to the development proposal were received prior to the Public Meeting. Three citizens spoke in opposition to the application at the Public Meeting and 11 written submissions were referred to Planning Services Staff to form part of the review. A number of concerns from residents were also submitted to Planning Staff after the Public Meeting. A discussion of the public submissions and concerns are contained in Section 4.0 of Report PSD-111-10. 2.5 An agent of the applicant made a verbs[ presentation at the Public Meeting which included a summary on the background of the application, its merits and responded to same of the cancerns expressed by the public. 2.6 At the request of Council the applicant agreed to host an open house with residents. This meeting took place on Thursday, September 23, 2010 at St. Stephen Catholic Secondary School. 2.7 It is important to note that this site was the subject of an Official Plan amendment and rezoning application in 2003, the planning process of which was concluded through OMB order 0764 an April 1, 2005. Through the OMB decision, the site was re- designated from "Local Central Area" {now called "Neighbourhood Centre"} to "Medium Density Residential" for the development of 57 medium density residential units, and rezoned from "General Commercial (C1}" zone to "Urban Residential Exception {R3- 25}" zone. This OMB decision was connected with and related to the Official Plan comprehensive Commercial Policy Review finalized in 2005. Part of the planning analysis for this application considers the site`s planning history within the cohtext of the Commercial Policy Review. 3.0 S[TE CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING LAND USES 3.1 The site is vacant and has been used as a staging area for other adjacent developments, it is roughly graded. 3.2 The site is bounded by two roads. Running along the western edge of the site is Scugog Street, a Type C Arterial road that among other things serves as a main linkage between Downtown Bowmanville and the residential areas in the north-western part of Bowmanville. To the south, tl~e site is bounded by Longworth Avenue, also a Type C Arterial road that serves as an important east-west linking to Regional Road 57 from all the residential neighbourhoods north of the CP rail way line. REPORT NO.. PSD-11'1-10 ' ;,. .; ,_'~ Ary 3t-4 ~ , '~ r. r~ s, ;d ~'.F-L Y t L `r Y ~"• kr ,• J ~. ~ r " 3 ~~ . E ~~ I ~ ~~Y. . l ~ ~~ ii ~{ f ~ [~ ~ ~r"r'44~ f '~ t~ k` y~4'Y 1 r 1 r ~ yyt~ i pg~~i~ . M1 'ri' ~Y"~ ~ ~ F t~ '~i' "'"~~ 3~~~1 t'4.' ~ , ~~7 zd "fit rs ~ ~ i ~ * 'r ! f ~ 1+ 71 '+ ~, ~ r , }"'3i ~-A, l i i ! <' ~' ~ 3C'r l .-,j .:,v ~„'4~ `aFi 4 Ek '~S { .; ~~ ~ . It{R .f~ ~~4` {.r.}~. < y _ .. .f•St rip ~rxf`~ ' ' ~~3,~"".. __ ~., . : -,. ~. ~ !` l+ I _ ~~'3 _ ~, i _ `s', Pho to 1: Northward view of application site (13/81210) 3.3 Surrounding land uses: PAGE 5 North and East: A low density residential neighbourhood consisting of semi- detached 2 storey residential dwellings (link-homes). The backyards of these houses face the application site. There is a 6 ft, privacy fence along the rear lot boundaries facing the application site. South: Across Longworth Avenue, vacant lands set aside far medium density residential purposes, in terms of the Official Plan. West: Across Scugog Street, single detached dwellings on relatively large residential lots between 510m2 and 1100m 2 in size, with frontages ranging between 2$ metres to 35 metres. These dwellings are set back between 7.5 meters and 15 meters from the Scugog Street road allowance. REPORT NO.. PSD-111-10 PAGE 6 Photo 2: View of residential properties to the west, backing onto Scugog Street {131812010} 4.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS 4.1 Public notice of the Statutory Meeting held on September 13t~', 20'10, was given by mail to each property owner within 120 metres of the subject property and two public meeting notices were installed on the property. Notice was also posted on the municipal website, and supporting documents are also available on the municipal website. 4.2 Notice was placed in the local newspaper on August 25, 2010 and September 1, 2010, in view of the potential impact of the re-designation of this site within the broader context of the Commercial Policy Review. 4.3 It was established during the statutory notification period that a small number of property owners {7 in total} did not receive the notification {due to a technical omission}. Staff immediately delivered notices in person to each of the affected land owners. 4.4 The following is a summary of the three delegates that spoke in opposition to the development proposal at the public meeting held on September 13, 2010. 4.4.1 Erik Petersen, a local resident, stated that he is strongly opposed to this application and submitted the following points of objection/concern: REPORT NO.; PSD~111-10 PAGE 7 • The development proposal is detrimental to the neighbourhood and does not comply with the neighbourhood centre requirements: a neighbourhood centre is a gathering place and he does not believe that a supermarket parking lot is the ideal "social gathering place". He stated that, in discussion with neighbours, they feel that they need a neighbourhood centre which includes a gathering place, small local business, but not a large supermarket; • There is no mention of where the current proposed 57 residential units will be relocated if this new proposal is approved; • Concern over traffic impact, as Langworth Avenue and Sc_ugog Street are not designed for through-traffic; • The UrbanMetrics report states that the site might be viable, but it also notes that there are other locations with neighbourhood centre designations that are also viable and may be better sites; • Concern over the 25 ft. wolf which is proposed along the street edge, which does not encourage pedestrian traffic and will cause noise problems (with noise bouncing off the wall), He believes the sound levels will double if this development is allowed to proceed; • He expressed the opinion that this proposal will decrease the adjacent residential properties' desirability; and, • The developer's planning rationale report contains out-of-date maps and photos which do not reflect the residential development which has taken place in the past five years. 4.4.2 Tom Keen, a local resident, stated that he is not opposed to the project in general, but rather the additional traffic that will impact the new, yet to open school. As residents, he does not believe that they have been made aware of the traffic impact. 4.4.3 Andrew Wray, a local resident, noted that the proposal states that Bowmanville has roughly 91,000 people. He believes this figure as being the Clarington population, not Bowmanvi[le, and therefore there is not a need for another grocery store at this location. He also expressed concerned about the impact of the traffic on the local students and stated that he would prefer townhouses on the property. He noted that, if this property is rezoned to accommodate the development proposal, there would be a possibility that the vacant property on the south side of Longworth could also be rezoned for a similar use. 4.5 A total of 26 written objections were received. A summary of the written objections and the above 3 oral submissions and Staff's response thereto, are contained in Table 1 in Attachment 2. It is important to recognize that 23 of the objectors used a form letter, some attached or added additional comments in the allotted space. The significance of this is that a number of objectors do not live immediately adjacent or close to the application site, so there are certain points in the objection form e.g. "the view from my home will be enormously, detrimentally impacted" that are not relevant to some objector's properties. Table 1 (Attachment 2} lists the concerns, the merits of the argument and how they are being addressed. REPORT NO.: PSD-111-10 PAGE 8 4.6 Ronald Richards, agent of the applicant, 1804603 Ontario Limited made a verbal presentation at the General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting. He noted that the company has extensive experience as a developer of neighbourhood centres. He stated that there is a large supermarket tenant who has signed on to be the anchor for this project. He noted that the Supermarket Impact Study shows that there is adequate market #o sustain the proposed development. Mr. Richards stated that he is aware of the concerns of the local residents. He addressed concerns about noise by indicating that mitigating measures recommended by the Noise Impact Study could be addressed as part of the site plan {e.g. noise barrier walls on the roof and on the property boundary}, Mr. Richards noted that a traffic study has been completed by the developer and that his client believes that there will be reduced pollution because this centre is closer to the residents than other centres in terms of travel. He added that it has been his client's experience that residents will walk to neighbourhood centres. Mr. Richards mentioned that his client has had follow-up meetings with Planning Staff to discuss the site concept and elevations and his client is now cooking at providing a local gathering space in the development. He indicated that his client will continue to work with Planning Staff regarding "animating the frontage". He addressed the concerns regarding the need for another grocery store, by referring to the findings of the Supermarket Impact Study and stating that people will still continue to shop, just closer to home. Mr. Richards noted that the proposal of a 30,000 sq. ft. store is the smallest footprint for a grocery store that this national chain builds. He stated that the use of the out-of--date Google maps was in no way intended to mislead or ignore the existing residential properties. Mr. Richards concluded by asking that the application be brought forward for consideration at the first available Council meeting and stated that his client will endeavour to meet with the residents in a timely manner to discuss their concerns with the development proposal. 4.7 The Open House hosted by the devebper and attended by S#aff is discussed in Section 10 of Report PSD~111-10. In addition, the developer has recorded the comments received and indicated how the developer intents to address them in Table 2, Attachment 3. 5.0 PROV[NCIAL POLICY 5.1 Provincial Policy Statement {PPS} The PPS includes policies an key issues that affect our communities, such as efficient use of land and infrastructure and ensuring appropriate opportunities for employment and residential development, including support for mixed use development. REPORT NO.: PSD-11'1-10 PAGE 9 The Planning Rationale Report submitted by the applicant contains an explanation of how this development proposal is consistent with the PPS. Staff generally agree with the applicant's assessment however, Council should be aware that transportation and land use considerations are to be integrated at all stages of the planning process. The Traffic Impact Study and its analysis are subject to ongoing review by Planning and Engineering Staff to ensure conformity with the PPS. The desirability of the proposed land use at this location cannot be separated from the traffic impact and functioning of the road network in the area. 5.2 The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The planning rationale report contains an explanation of how this development proposal conforms to the Growth Plan. The application is within the designated greenfield area, which is a result of the unique methodology the Province employed in the delineation of the built boundary. In addition to the applicant's discussion, Staff are cognizant of a key growth management policy (Section 2.2.7 -Designated Greenfield Areas) in the Growth Plan, which stipulates that the designated greenfield area of each upper or single-tier municipality will be planned to achieve a minimum density target that is not less than 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare, and this density target wil! be measured across the entire upper orsingle-tier municipality. One of the objectives of this target is to promote the creation of employment opportunities closer to places of residence, which would reduce live-work trips and contribute towards the concept of "complete communities". The complexity in measuring the performance of this application against this policy lies in the fact that this vacant parcel is a very small part of the designated greenfield area across all of Durham Region. However, the development of the proposed commercial uses on this site implies the creation of local jobs in close proximity to living areas, which would contribute towards a more balanced job to resident ratio within the greenfield area in Bowmanville. The Growth Plan also contains the following policies for managing growth, which sets the broader provincial policy framework for the consideration of this particular development application. Population and employment growth will be accommodated by: • Building compact, transit supportive communities in designated greenfield areas; • Reducing dependence on the automobile through the development of mixed-use, transit supportive, pedestrian friendly urban environments; • Providing convenient access to intro and inter-city transit; and • Encouraging cities and towns to develop as complete communities with a diverse mix of land uses, range of and mix of employment and housing types, high quality public open space and easy access to local stores and services. REPORT NO.: PS©-111-10 PAGE 10 The proposed neighbourhood centre should make provisions for the introduction of a mixed use development or a residential component in support of the Growth Plan policies noted above. The application for an Official Plan amendment conforms to the Growth Plan. The specifics of how it will meet the criteria noted above will be addressed by the implementing Zoning By-law. 6.0 OFFICIAL PLANS 6.1 Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP 6.1.1 The ROP designates the lands "Living Area" which is intended predominantly for housing purposes. [n addition to permitting other uses such as convenience stares, limited office development and retailing of goods and services subject to certain conditions, the ROP also permits the designation of Local Centres (of which Neighbourhood Centres is a subcategory) in Living Areas, subject to the following criteria: Neighbourhood Centres shall be planned and developed similar to, but generally smaller in scale than Community Centres, and shall serve the day-to-day needs of the residents of the surrounding neighbourhood. The Council of the Regional Municipality shall determine if there is a regional interest in accordance with policy 8.3,9 (Any commercial proposal that would have the potential to negatively impact the planned function of a Regional Centre). Where there is a regional interest, a retail impact study shall be required to justify such designation and ensure that the proposal does not unduly affect the planned function and viability of any other centre. Furthermore, in regard to development applications in Living Areas, the ROP stipulates that regard shall be given to: The promotion of compact urban form, including intensive residential, office, retail and service and mixed uses along arterial roads and in conjunction with present and potential transit facilities; and, The use of good urban design principles with particular emphasis on internal traffic circulation, restricted access to arterial roads, attenuation of noise and orientation and design of buildings to maximize direct sunlight exposure. As far as meeting the above-listed criteria in the ROP, the applicant has submitted a supermarket impact analysis, traffic study report and noise study report in support of the application. This methodology is consistent with the direction in the ROP. These technical reports have been circulated to the Region for review. REPORT NO.: PS©-'I'~1-10 PAGE 71 Accordingly, a Neighbourhood Centre development can be permitted in the Living Area designation in the ROP, provided that the above criteria are satisfactorily met. This forms part of the further planning analysis by Planning Staff and can be addressed through specific requirements within the zoning application. The Regional Planning Department has deemed that a Regional Official Plan amendment is not necessary. 6.2 Clarington Official Plan (COPS 6.2.1 The subject lands are situated in the Knox Neighbourhood and the COP designates it "Urban Residential" with a "Medium Density Residential" symbol. The predominant use within this designation shall be housing and other uses may be permitted which, by nature of their activity, scale and design are supportive of, compatible with and serve residential uses. These include corner stores, home based occupations, parks, schools and community facilities. The current COP designation does not permit the commercial. development proposed, thus the proposed Official Plan amendment by the applicant. 6.2.2 The COP also contains certain core principles which set the basis for the consideration of all development applications in Clarington, of which the following are most relevant: {Staff comments are noted in italics} • Future development will contribute to the reduction of per capita energy consumption. {In the event of Council approval, Staff wilt seek the introduction of sustainable development concepts e.g. LEED certification, more permeable surfaces, etc. through the sife plan process}; • Opportunities and services will be provided for employment, learning, culture, recreation and emotional, physical and social well-being opportunities (The development proposal appears fo partially complement this principle in fhat pofenfial opportunities for employment and services maybe created},° • A competitive, adaptable economic environment will be promoted to encourage investment and diversity of employment opportunities (The development proposal appears to complemenf Phis principle in that it could potentially encourage investment and diversify our employment base); • The participation of all residents will be encouraged in the process of decision making and community building which affect their lives (This development proposal has been publicized through legal notices in fhe mail, the local newspaper, and fhe municipal website); • Excellence in urban design will be pursued to contribute to a sense of place, ensure physical safety, promote social interaction and enjoyment, provide human scale to the urban environment and promote the integration of land uses (The location and surrounding context of this sife require careful consideration of fhe urban design elemenfs associafed with the development proposal. The preliminary elevation drawings submitted by fhe applicant do not complement this principle -- this is further elaborated on in Section 10.0 of this report); and, • Compact urban form will be achieved with an emphasis on infill and redevelopment, higher densities and a mix of uses. (Although this sife is not within the built boundary as defined by fhe Provincial Growth Plan, if is within fhe urban area and fechnically an infill sife. As'a commercial site with a Large anchor REPORT NO.; PSD-111-10 PAGE 12 store, if does not complemenf fhe principles of compact urban form and higher density. However, within fhe context of fhe neighbourhood if could be complementary fo this principle by adding fo fhe mix of uses). 6.2.3 The COP contains design guidelines to be considered for Neighbourhood Centres. The applicant's planning rationale report contains a discussion on how the development proposal conformslintends to conform to these policies. The development proposal conforms to the Official Plan, with regard to the maximum floor space in that the proposal is less than 5000m2, has a proposed floor space index that is less than the limit of 0.3 f.s.i. anti the size of smaller stores is less than 500m2. However, "Neighbourhood Centres" must also meet the relevant urban design principles. Staff provided comment to the applicant that the elevations submitted da not implement the urban design guidelines in the Official Plan or complement the character of the surrounding residential development. Of particular concern are the large expansive blank walls along Longworth and Scugog Streets and the lack of public realm and amenities. Amore detailed discussion on these matters is contained in Section 10.0. 6.2.4 As noted in Section 2.7 of this Report, this site was the subject of an Official Plan amendment and rezoning application which was concluded through an OMB decision in April 2005. The lands were re-designated from "Local Central Area" to "Medium Density Residential" in the Official Plan and rezoned from "General Commercial {C1)" zone to "Urban Residential Exception {R3-25)" zone. The OMB decision included specific urban design principles to be considered in the development of the site. This issue is explained in detail in Section 10. 6.2.5 In view of the fairly recent conclusion to the Commercial Policy Review and the OMB decision, Staff requested the submission of a supermarket impact analysis. The analysis examines the market for additional supermarket space in Bawmanville and the potential impact of an additional neighbourhood centre in this location within the broader context of the commercial structure of the community. The conclusions of the study are discussed in Section 8.3 of the Report. 7.0 ZONING BY-LAW 7.1 The property is in the "Holding -Urban Residential Exception {R3-25)" Zone which does not permit the proposed food store of 2,829m2 and a 2~d building of 783m2 far retaiUservice commercial purposes. In order to permit the proposed development a rezoning application was submitted for consideration. 7.2 At this time, the detailed design development, internal traffic and pedestrian routes have not progressed to a stage where the zoning can be recommended. The zoning amendment will include the necessary specifics to ensure that the site when developed will address the issueslconcerns raised. REPORT NO.: PSD-11110 PAGE 13 7.3 The residents of the neighbourhood have not had a fulsome explanation of the alternative site layouts, the proposed streetscape, building massing and how the traffic and parking will flow. Many residents were disappointed by the open house as it did not meet their expectations, Residents expected a presentation, discussion of alternatives and question and answer session. Staff believe an additions! open pause that more specifically meets with the expectations of the residents will assist the applicant in being able to capture the neighbourhood character in the urban design of this site. Should Council approve the Official Plan amendment, a subsequent report will be brought forward when the specifics of the zoning and site plan have been addressed. 8.0 BACKGROUND STUDIES 8.1 The applicant submitted a Planning Rationale Report (prepared by R.G. Richards & Associates}, Supermarket Impact Analysis {prepared by UrbanMetrics Inc,), Traffic Study (prepared by HDR Corporation}, and a Noise Impact Study (prepared by Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd.}, to provide sufficient information and justification to enable evaluation of the development application. The applicant submitted addendum letters to the Planning Rationale Report, the Noise Study and the Retail Development Traffic Study on September 29«' and 30th, 2010, in response to questions from Staff and residents' concerns expressed at the Open House held an September 23, 20'10. 8.2 The Planning Rationale Report The Planning Rationale report sets out supporting arguments that. can be summarized under the following points. The need is demonstrated by the conclusion of the Supermarket impact Analysis that the proposed development can be supported and would act to serve the day-to-day retail and service needs of the immediate community. There is na food store available to the immediate community in this part of Bowmanville. The desirability is demonstrated by the following: o The site's convenient location amidst a new and growing residential community; o The site's location next to two arterial roads, which can accommodate traffic flow and access to the site at an appropriate level of service, as outlined in the supporting Traffic Impact Study; o The relationship of the site to the adjacent residential uses, which is perceived as ideal for a neighbourhood centre development because the town homes back on to the subject site and are separated from the site by a Eft. wooden fence; o The submission of a favourable Noise Impact Study and the commitment to the required noise attenuation, landscaping and screening of garbage pickup, loading and lighting requirements through the site plan process; REPORT NO,: PSD-111-10 PAGE 1~ o The proposed development's compliance with or conformity to Provincial Policies, the Regional Official Plan and the Official Plan policies pertaining to Neighbourhood Centres; o The proposed development will utilize existing infrastructure and will benefit from existing public transit services, which will reduce the length of automobile trips to retail service areas outside this area; o The conclusions of the Supermarket Impact Analysis supports the establishment of this use at this location and implements the original plarined function for retail uses on this site; and o The proponent referred to the submitted conceptual site plan and preliminary elevation drawings, detailing how the proposed development would meet the relevant development and urban design criteria in the Official Plan in order to maximize the quality of urban design and minimize any adverse impact on surrounding residential developments. Staff comments: Sfaff is generally satisfied that the Planning Rationale Report submitted by the applicant addressed most of the key aspects, except for the following: Details regarding fhe actual type of refai! and service commercial uses proposed in Building B were not discussed. An open ended statement fhaf Building 8 would accommodate typical neighbourhood cenfre service refai! uses that may include but not be limited to personal service shops, financial insfifutions, retail stores and banks was included. There is an array of uses within this broad category of commercial uses including uses that may not be conducive to the functioning of fhe site, that may create compatibility issues contrary to certain commercial poficies of Council, such as the limitation of banks outside downtown Bowmanville; The neighbourhood character (how the development is planned to fit into fhis area} and details as fo the jusfificafion for the loss of medium densify housing units in fhis location were not discussed. The long term use and evolution of fhis site was not addressed. 8,3 The Supermarket Impact Analysis The Supermarket Impact Analysis, prepared by UrbanMetrics inc., consists of the following key components: a A site and access evaluation, to evaluate the suitability of the site for the proposed commercial development; o Trade area delineation, which consisted of the definition of the trade area for the proposed supermarket, establishing Market Dimensions of the trade area which includes aspects such as population, per capita income, and food store expenditures within the defined Trade Area; a Competitive analysis, which included an updated inventory of all supermarkets and specialty food stores in Bowmanville and Clarington, and major proposals for new competitive developments or expansions to existing food stores have also been included; REPORT NO.: PSD-111-10 PAGE 15 o A calculation of the future market opportunity for the proposed supermarket and evaluation of the potential sales impact on existing supermarkets in Clarington; and, o An assessment of the development application in the context of the 2004 Commercial Policy Review for Clarington. The key conclusions from the Supermarket Impact Analysis are as follows: o Based on the market and impact analysis the development application as proposed can be supported; o The subject site would provide a focal point for the developing north Bowmanville community and would provide for day-to-day retail and service needs; o Although there will be market impacts on the existing supermarkets in Clarington with the addition of the subject site (with 1St full year of operation assumed in 2012}, the sales impacts are not expected to critically affect the planned function of any existing Town or Village Centre in Clarington. Between 2014 and 2016, any sales impact with both Walmart and the subject site added would dissipate with opportunities for more supermarket space over the longer term period up to 2031; o A supermarket anchored development on the subject site could potentially pre-empt andlor delay the development of one ar more of the two vacant Neighbourhood Centre sites along Concession Road 3 in north Bowmanville. From a market perspective, the designated Neighbourhood Centre at the corner of Concession Road 3 and Regional Road 57 has better locational characteristics for a supermarket anchored centre compared to the subject site and the other vacant Neighbourhood Centre site on the southwest corner of Means Avenue and Concession Road 3; and o The subject site would not pre-empt the ability a# the Bowmanville West Town Centre, which has a regional service function, to build out as planned. Staff comments; Staff is generally satisfied with the Supermarket Impacf Analysis submitfed by UrbanMetrics. The firm assisfed Clarington with its last comprehensive Commercial Policy Review and with Commercial Policy Review updates since fhen. The analysis follows a clear methodical approach and provides sufficient evidence to justify fhe market opportunity for an addifional grocery sfore in Bowmanville. 8.4 The Traffic Stud The Traffic Study, prepared by HDR Corporation, consists of the following key components: o An assessment of existing traffic conditions and operations in proximity to the site; and o An assessment of future background traffic conditions with and without the proposed development to determine the net impact of the development, as reflected on the submitted conceptual site plan. REPORT NO.: PSD-111-1 d PAGE 18 The conclusions from the Traffic Study are as follows: o The existing roadway network can accommodate the additional traffic expected to be generated from the proposed commercial development, and roadway improvements are not required. Sfaff comments: Engineering Services are safisfied Thaf the fraffic flows external to the sife have been addressed. Pedesfrian use of fhe sidewalk and infernal To the site, as well as The infernal Traffic layout of The site, will be addressed Through The zoning and sire plan process. 8.5 The Noise Impact Study The Noise Impact Study, prepared by Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd., consists of the following key components: o Identification of the Critical Noise Receptors; o Determination of the sound level limits; and o Identification of the Noise Sources, assessment of sound levels and noise control recommendations, as per the submitted conceptual site plan. The recommendations and conclusion of the Noise Impact Study are as follows: The following noise control measures are to be implemented: o Sound power levels of the rooftop mechanical equipment are not to exceed the levels listed in the Table on Page 6 of the Noise Impact Study; o A 2.4 m (8 ft.) high noise barrier along the east property line and north property line, which terminates at the plane of the proposed retail building. It can attenuate the sound level due to truck movement and truck idling noise; o A 3.7 m {9 2 ft.} high noise barrier immediately east of the loading docks. It can attenuate the sound level at the residential properties east of the loading docks due to truck idling; o A 2.4 m {8 ft.} high noise barrier east of the compressor penthouse and HVAC-1 along the east perimeter of the roof of the proposed supermarket. The noise barrier returns at the north end and south end. In addition, a 2.4 m (8 ft.} high noise barrier north of the Source 5 condenser. They can attenuate the.sound level due to rooftop mechanical equipment for the supermarket; and o A 2.4 m (8 ft.) high noise barrier on the roof of the retai[ building at 2 m north of the HVAC units and return at the east end. It can be one long continuous noise barrier that shields all 7 HVAC units; or there can be one shorter noise barrier for each HVAC unit. The noise barrier{s) can attenuate the sound level due to rooftop HVAC units for the retail building. REPORT NO.: PSD-111-10 PAGE 17 The consultant concluded that with the recommended noise control measures, the sound level emanating from noise sources associated with the proposed commercial development will meet the MOE sound level limits for commercial sites adjacent to residential areas. From a noise aspect, the proposed commercial development at 680 Longwarth Avenue, Clarington can be approved if the above measures are taken. Staff comments. There is sufficient informafion within fhe noise study to indicafe that with appropriate mitigation measures, such as noise barriers, the proposed commercial development will not impact the surrounding neighbourhood from a noise perspecfive. However, the site design has not been finalized. The Noise Study will have to be updafed to reflect fhe proposed builf form when an agreed upon site plan has been negotiated. The Region has requested a peer review of the Noise Study. 9.0 AGENCY COMMENTS 9.1 The Clarington Engineering Services Department has na abjection in principle to this proposal. Prior to final approval of the subject site plan, the applicant will be required to satisfy the Engineering Services Department regarding traffic entrances, drainage, noise attenuation and servicing. 9.2 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority has no objections to the development proposal and has stipulated certain requirements that have to be met prior to site plan approval. 9.3 Most of the utility companies have responded and indicated no objection to the development proposal. 9.4 The Regional Planning, Works and Transit Departments provided comments of which the following are relevant to this stage of the planning process: • This proposal will maintain the planned functions of the designated Regional Centres in Bowmanville, and conforms to the policies of the ROP. • Consideration shall be given to the design of the proposal in order to provide for an urban form that supports various modes of transport, as per the policies of the Provincial Growth Plan. It appears, from the preliminary site plan, that the public entrances to the food store and the retaillcommercial building are over 100m and 200m away from the current bus stop respectively. These distances, when compared to the proposed accesses provided for vehicular activity, diminish the attractiveness of public transit for patrons to this proposal. It is suggested that alternative building entrances and footprints be considered to improve access far public transit users. • The municipality should ensure the Noise Study Report is verified by a third party (e.g. peer review}. REPORT NO.: PSD-111-14 PAGE 18 • The Official Plan amendment does not have significant Regional or Provincial concerns, provided the above noted issues are addressed. In accordance with Regional By-law 11-2000 the Official Plan amendment application is exempt from Regional Approval. 10.0 STAFF COMMENTS 10.1 Plannin~ Hq story of the Site The Planning history of this site is significant to the consideration of this development proposal. It provides an understanding of the planning methodology and rationale when the Official Plan and zoning designation of the site where changed in 2005 through an OMB decision. At that time, certain changes were made to the commercial structure of the broader community -something that is now being changed by this application. The following points are a short description of the planning history of this site: September 1989: The Council of the Former Town of Newcastle approved an Official Plan amendment which included the introduction of a "Local Central Area" designation on the northeast corner of Longworth Avenue and Scugog Street. Subsequently, Council approved the rezoning of the site from "Agricultural" to "Holding -General Commercial ((H)CI)" and passed the corresponding by-law. The purpose of the application was to mainly permit a grocery store. 1996: Through the preparation of the first comprehensive Official Plan, the Local Central Area designation was expanded to also include a portion of the lands immediately south of Langworth Avenue. April, 2003: Staff received Official Plan and rezoning applications from Sernas Associates on behalf of Hal[oway Holdings Limited and Towchester Developments Limited for sands in north Bowmanville, which included the subject site as well as the lands on the northwest and southwest corners of Longworth Avenue and Liberty Street North. At that time the site in question was designated "Local Central Area" in the Official Plan and zoned "General Commercial 1 ". The vacant (ands on the southeast earner of Longworth and Scugog Street also formed part of the "Local Central Area" designation, but were already zoned for medium density residential purposes. The applicant purposed to delete the "Local Central Area" designation and replace it with a "Medium Density Residential" designation and to rezone the site to an appropriate zone to permit the development of 57 townhouse units. REPORT NO.: PS©-111-14 PAGE 19 The Official Plan amendment implied the removal of certain commercial targets that were set for this particular Local Centro[ Area at that time, namely retail floor space of a maximum of 4500mz, maximum office floor space of 500m2; it also affected the medium and high density housing targets for the Knox Neighbourhood. To support the change in designation a planning rationale report was prepared by the applicant. The planning rationale focused mainly on the marketability of the site at that time. It indicated that the future Local Central Area at the Longworth Avenue/Liberty Street intersection could satisfy the loco[ needs for commercial uses within the neighbourhood context. September 22, 2003: Report PSD-10303 was submitted at the public meeting on September 22, 2003 for this application. Public Meeting reports provide an explanation of the application and the aspects to consider. The Municipality did not make a decision on the applications within the prescribed time and the applicant appealed the applications to the OMB. September 7, 2044: Report PSD-104-04 was prepared in response to the appeal and submitted to Council for consideration. In the report Staff informed Council that a subsequent report was not forwarded to Council for a decision on the applications because: Council had authorized Staff to proceed with the Commercial Policy Review and Staff felt that the removal and reduction of Local Central Areas should be addressed in the context of the comrimercial policy review; and The applicant had proposed to transfer commercial development rights to lands in the Bowmanville West Main Central Area. The transfer of the commercial development rights from this site to the Bowmanville West Main Central Area is not clearly articulated in the subsequent OMB decision or the Commercial Policy Review. Cauncif resolved that the OMB be requested to defer the application to redesignate the (ands in question from "Local Central Area" to "Medium Density Residential" until the Municip~ility's Commercial Policy Review had been completed. January 31, 2405: Follawing settlement negotiations Report PSD-018-05 was submitted to Council for endorsement. The report recommended the proposed Official Plan amendment deleting the Local Central Area designation and replacing the 5000 m2 of retail and office floor space with a Medium Density Residential designation for the development of approximately 57 medium density residential units on the subject site, including the satisfactory resolution of certain urban design issues, such as the requirement for the proposed townhouse units on the north side of Longworth Avenue to be designed to face and front on the street as the preferred form of development and provision of certain urban design elements. REPORT NO.: PS©-111-10 PAGE 20 April 1, 2005: The OMB issued Order 0764 on April 1, 2005, approving the Minutes of Settlement, the Official Plan amendment and rezoning to permit the development of 57 medium density residential units on the site. 10.2 UrbanMetrics, in their Supermarket Impact Study prepared for this application, included comments that the medium density residential application could have been based on a transfer of the retail permissions to another site in the Bowmanville West Tawn Centre. However, UrbanMetrics have recently confirmed that that this particular request was not included in their analysis during the 2005 comprehensive Commercial Policy Review. Given this information, there is no evidence that the removal of the commercial floor space was transferred to Bowmanville West Town Centre. There was little evidence in the 2005 decision of compelling planning reasons to change the hierarchy of the commercial structure in Bowmanville. As such, returning the commercial designation with appropriate restrictions will not negate the need for the other Neighbourhood Centre locations in north Bowmanville as shown on Map A3 {Land Use} of the Official Plan; however it could delay their development. 10.3 To re-introduce a "Neighbourhood Centre" (previously "Local Central Area"} designation and commercial zoning at this location requires not only market support, which is illustrated by the Supermarket Impact Analysis, but also requires an examination af: • What developments occurred in the particular area since the re-designation of the site 5 years ago. • What comprises a "Neighbourhood Centre". Does this site (and its surroundings} have the "critical mass" to support the development of a "Neighbourhood Centre" at this location as currently defined in the Official Plan. 10.2 Development in the Surrounding Area 10.2.1 In 2005, when the site (and a portion of the lands south of Longworth Avenue) were re- designated from "Local Central Area" to "Medium Density Residential", the townhouses on the north and east sides were already established and the lands across Scugog Street were vacant, the lo# fabric to accommodate single detached dwellings had been established through draft approval and registered plans of subdivision. Therefore, low density residential development was contemplated for the lands immediately across from the site that was designated as "Local Central Area" and zoned for commercial purposes. Today, the lands across Longworth Avenue and directly opposite the application site are vacant and designated for medium density residential purposes. They are zoned to permit low or medium density housing and places of worship. The lands on the southwest corner of Longworth Avenue and Scugog Street have been integrated into the adjacent Environmental Protection Zone, they were recently gradedlseeded and will be a public park. REPORT NO.: PSD-191-10 PAGE 21 10.2.2 Between 2005 and now, the plans of subdivision on the west side of Scugog Street, immediately across from the site have been built out (Attachment 4). The quality of residential development is a result of factors such as geography (bigger and slightly elevated lots}, the cul-de~sac street (na through traffic} and market trends. In view of the style of residential development that occurred in the immediate area during the past 5 years, will commercial development on this site be compatible with the character of the area? This question is significant since many of the residents` concerns pertain to the compatibility and suitability of the proposed development in this area. To answer this question an understanding of the character of this neighbourhood and, what a "Neighbourhood Centre" means is required. 10.3 Character of the Neigh__bourhood The character of a neighbourhood is defined mainly by the interaction between: • Residents (fami[ieslsingles, younglo[d, their preferenceslneeds and socio- economic characteristics e.g. culture); . • Built form (massing, height and location, architecture, street relation); • The public realm {public streets and spaces -their accessibility, safety connectivity and significance in creating sense of place and identity); and • Land uses (land use pattern and how uses relate and transition). Residents: According to the 2006 Census, the subject property is centrally located within a neighbourhood that is predominately represented by households containing adults aged 35 to 49 and children aged 5 to 19. Through the public submissions and discussions with residents at the open house it is evident that they preferred this neighbourhood because it is close to schools and other amenities, it is safe, and low density. Residents are essentially auto-oriented but also walk or cycle to destinations close~by. Built form: The built form in the area is dominated by low density residential fabric consisting of double storey semi-detached or single dwellings. Most of the homes were built during the past 20 years, consisting of pitched roofs, masonry finishes with vinyl cladding in- between, and contain architectural detailing derived from the Gothic, Italianate or Victorian styles. Most of the homes are setback from the street front, maintaining a consistent built edge along the public streets. The placement of the homes allows far private amenity spaces (mostly as back yards) with entrances and porches facing the public streets, which creates an active, positive and self-policing relationship with the public realm. Public realm: The public realm consists mainly of the public right-of-ways (roads, sidewalks and pedestrian walkways) and the park located at the southwest corner of Langworth Avenue and Scugog Street. The public right-of-ways are generally well connected, illuminated, landscaped and are active with vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The park at Longworth Avenue and Scugog Street has only recently been graded and landscaped and holds the potential of becoming a focal point at this prominent street corner. The REPORT NO.: PSD-119-10 PAGE 22 Bowmanville Creek provides a passive recreation area, this natural feature provides the neighbourhood with a distinct visual identity. Land uses: The land uses immediately surrounding the application site are discussed in Section 3.3 of this report. The land use pattern in this neighbourhood is dominated by low density residential. Within a wider radius (within a 2-minute walk) there are a number of schools, a public park {south-west corner of Scugag{Longworth intersection} and the Bowmanville Creek. The elements mentioned above create the particular imagelidentity and character of this neighbourhood. Except for the schools in the area, the neighbourhood is fairly "uniform" in housing types which perpetuates the concept of a single use neighbourhood, rather than a more diverse mixed use neighbourhood and development of "complete communities" as defined by the Growth. 10,4 Neighbourhood Centres 10.4.1 Neighbourhood Centres as described by the Clarington Official Plan are to serve as focal points for residential communities and provide far day to day retail and service needs. They are to be planned and developed in a comprehensive manner with a maximum amount of grass leasable floor space not to exceed 5000m2. Neighbourhoad Centres are intended to be developed with adjacent areas as transit nodes containing higher density residential uses and wherever possible, recreational, community, cultural and institutional uses. The Official Plan also specifies that an appropriate range of retail and service uses will be identified through the zoning in accordance with the following conditions: • Uses will be appropriate to be located in proximity to adjacent residential areas; • Uses will be limited in scale; . • Drive-through restaurants will not be permitted; • Mixed-use development will be encouraged (e.g. residential /commercial integrated on the same site) The Official Plan sets out certain design criteria, referred to in Section 6.2.3 of this report, which is to be implemented through site development. 10.4.2 The policies in the Local Official Plan, read together with the policies on Neighbourhood Centres in the Regions! Official Plan and the policies in the Growth -Plan paints a picture of Neighbourhood Centres that are the sum of a number of pieces carefully assembled to fit rota and. complement the neighbourhood. The policies imply that Neighbourhoad Centres should be mixed use nodes. Where possible, they should include uses such as residential, retail, community and institutional uses that are planned and designed to function as a centre of service and enjoyment for the local neighbourhood. Ta accomplish this, one needs a land mass that is appropriately sized and positioned to accommodate this vision -this can be either in the form of a single site or a cluster of sites. REPORT NO.: PSD-1'11-10 PAGE 23 10.4.3 Even though [ow density housing dominates the land use pattern in this neighbourhood, the immediate area around this site contains certain elements e.g. a park (southwest}, a secondary school (northwest), and two arterial roads (public transit routes} bisecting the area, in support of a neighbourhood centre. Given the site's prime location at this intersection, it should be a prominent landmark, adding more structure to the residential area, strengthening the identity of the neighbourhood and introducing more diversity such that is becomes a local destination. The Growth Plan, (Section 5.2), seeks development of "complete communities" with a diverse mix of land uses - to introduce commercial uses in this location would complement this policy and could potentially reduce trips to commercial uses further afield while providing local conveniences within walking distance of many residents. 10.4.5 Staff support re-introducing a Neighbourhood Centre designation for this site; however, the proposed site development must reflect the Neighbourhood Centre and urban design policies of the Official Plan to ensure that it fits into the character of the neighbourhood. 10.5 The Development Proposal 10.5.1 The applicant proposes a free standing grocery store of 2,829m2 and a 2"d building of 783m2 for retaillservice commercial uses, with a parking lot far 188 cars in between. Provincial Planning policy framework as well as the Regional and Local Official Plans discourage conventional single storey, single use developments in central areas and encourage higher density, mixed-use developments in a more compact form in support of public transit. The site size, its irregular shape and the fact that this project is tenan# driven (by a known food store franchise}, offer certain challenges in terms of store design, site functionality, and presents obstacles to adding residential uses on the site. The current site development concept does not include residential development. However, the Official Plan amendment has to anticipate how the site should be allowed to evolve over time. Should the commercial development not materialize as anticipated, or in a number of years if the commercial viability of a grocery store at this location changes, the opportunity for mixed use development on the site becomes desirable. The Provincial and Official Plan policies encourage mixed use development in Neighbourhood Centres, and to address the potential loss of medium density residential housing on this site Staff recommend that the Official Plan amendment include provision for the eventuality of residentia! uses as part of the development. By doing so the dynamic nature of Neighbourhood Centres is acknowledged and a planning framework is put in place for this Neighbourhood Centre that allows it to evolve over time (e.g. the policy resembles the changing planning regime and provides more flexibility to respond to change}. REPORT NO.: PSD-111-10 PAGE 24 Prior to this application coming forward, Halminen Homes had draft approval for the construction of 57 medium density Dousing units on this site. The current request to have a Neighbourhood Centre designation on this site is based on amarket-driven application far a grocery store. However it is obvious from the planning history of the site that it could also have a residential component. In addition, providing for mixed use development meets the principles of the Grawth Plan, ROP and Clarington's Official Plan. 10.5.2 Staff as part of the public meeting report PSD-095-~ 0, expressed concern that the proposed development concept includes built form and a site arrangement that does not complement the surrounding neighbourhood. The applicant has been requested to consider alternative design options. The incorporation of tenant merchants in small stores attached to the grocery store and facing onto Scugog and Longwvrth or relocating the second smaller building to face Scugog Street was suggested. The applicant has been requested to investigate alternative site plan layouts and elevatians that could better address the street fronts, the street corner, and the functional relationship between buildings, especially with regard to pedestrian accessibility and convenience. 10.5.3 At the Open House on September 23, 2010 the applicant presented a revised site plan concept which added a tenant space at the corner. This would provide a more active relationship between the public square feature and the other uses on the site. They also presented colour drawings of building elevations, which contained minor improvements to the elevations along Scugog Street and L.ongworth Avenue (Attachment 5). 10.5.4 Based on further input #rom the public at the Open House the applicant made additional minor revisions to the site plan concept, such as adding a second public square component along the Scugog Street adjacent to the proposed Building B and by moving the supermarket building further westwards to allow trucks to do a full U-turn out of the loadings docks to exit onto L.ongwarth Avenue. No major changes to the overall site plan concept are being contemplated by the applicant at this time -- in their opinion the proposed footprints of the buildings are the best fit for this site given the site characteristics and size. 10.5.5 Staff are not satisfied with the building elevations for the grocery store. Additional work will be required to respond to the neighbourhood character, especially since the site is lower than the residential properties to the north and west which would make the principal building's visual impact even greater. Staff are recommending the following urban design principles be adopted as a framework for the consideration of the detailed design components of this development: • The proposed commercial development at the intersection should be treated as a focal point to connect the adjacent residential areas; REPORT NO.: PSD-111-10 PAGE 25 A positive commercial image is a key design consideration for enhancing the quality and character of the overall streetscape and the neighbourhood centre. The height, mass and architectural design of buildings and structures should be designed to be compatible with the established neighbourhood, therefore, franchise architecture and/or highly contrasting colour schemes shall be excluded from the building design; The commercial development should incorporate high quality architectural treatments, building materials that provide visual interest at pedestrian scale, reduce building mass impacts, and respect local character. The duality and scale of materials used in the building should be carried through to those used for pathways, and areas surrounding the building to contribute to a cohesive and integrated image of the development, Landscaping will be sensitively integrated in the development to visually enhance the site, soften hard edges and contribute towards environmental sustainability. 10.5.6 Using the above noted principles, Staff anticipate that the applicant will revise the submission to address: • The store fronts, especially along Longworth Avenue should be better articulated through vertical recessions and projections; • Glazing along Longwarth Avenue street front must be introduced in order to provide a more positive response to the street and passing pedestrian traffic, in the absence of street related access points and window display; • The roof design -alternative roof andlor parapet wall designs (such as a pitched roof) would be more compatible with the built form of adjacent residential area and screening of the mechanical equipment, such as HVAC units, that would otherwise be visible from the houses across the street; • The parking lot can be more effectively screened from public view through a combination of conifer and deciduous trees and shrubbery; and • Aline of trees, consisting of indigenous deciduous and coniferous trees will be planted within the landscape boulevard on the west side and east side of Scugog Road, for the full length of the eastward view of the commercial site. 10.5.7 In further discussions during the week of September 27, 2010 the applicant indicated that they are willing to work with Staff to further refine the urban design and landscaping components and that they would also be willing to further discuss the urban design elements with the residents. 10.5.8 The details regarding the actual type of retail and service commercial uses proposed in Building B were not included in the applicant's Planning Rationale Report. At the meeting held with the applicant on September 27t" it was indicated that the proposed second building is intended for uses that would typically complement the grocery store such as a dentist, a coffee shop or hairdresser. 10.5.9 The applicants will be required to prepare alternative site layouts, building massing and elevations to address the policies set out in the official Plan amendment. It would be appropriate for the applicant to present the alternatives to the public for their feedback. Based on public input and staff comments, the site layout will become the basis for the site specific Zoning by-law and the site plan agreement. REPORT NO.: PS©-111-10 PAGE 26 10.6 Residents Concerns At or prior to the Public Meeting held on September 13, 2010, a number of concerns were raised by residents of the surrounding area. Table 1, Attachment 2 to Report PSD-111-10 provides an overview of those concerns and an evaluation of where these concerns would be best addressed through the planning process. In summary, the public concerns can be categorized as follows; • Concerns regarding the reintroduction of a commercial land use generally; • Concerns with permitting a proposal of this size and scale specifically; • Concerns related to the odours, emissions, nuisance and traffic concerns with introducing the proposed use onto the subject site; and • Concerns which are typically addressed at the Site Plan review stage (such as lighting and noise controls). The applicant held an Open House at St. Stephens Catholic Secondary School with residents in the area on September 23, 2010, The Open House was in the format of a drop-in and panel display manned by consultants to answer questions, retard concerns and indicate how they would be addressed (Table 2, Attachment 3). A total of 15 written submissions were made at the Open House. Most of the concerns raised at the Open House are already embodied in the Staff summary of resident's concerns (Attachment 2). Ta avoid unnecessary duplication, only those concerns that are new or different from the Open House, have been added to the table of concerns and addressed accordingly. Many of the resident's concernslobjections outlined in Table 2 {Attachment 3} can be addressed at the rezoning and site plan stages. Those concerns that need to be addressed at this stage of the planning process have been incorporated into the Official Plan Amendment (Attachment 6). 11.0 CONCLUSION 11.1 The Supermarket Impact Analysis illustrates that certain changes have occurred in the local market and a reconsideration of the retail commercial rights on this site are warranted. 11.2 The planning history of this site envisioned this site as a local commercial centre far the neighbourhood. Staff can support introducing the designation of "Neighbourhood Centre" provided that it includes the mix of uses called for in the Neighbourhood Centre and urban design policies of the Official Plan. 11.3 The Official Plan Amendment (Attachment 6) recommends that a Neighbourhood Centre designation for the northeast corner of Longworth Avenue and Scugog Street with the appropriate restrictions will create a focal point for the neighbourhood and provide services within close proximity to residents. REPORT NO.. PSD-11110 PAGE 27 11.4 Given the desire of the applicant to address residents concerns and the discussion contained within.this Report regarding neighbourhood character, an open house to address urban design issues is warranted. It is recommended that the format of the open house include a presentation, discussion of alternatives and questionlanswer session. Staff will work with the applicant to assist them in addressing the concerns of the residents. 19.5 Should Council approve the Official Plan amendment, Staff will draft a site specific zoning by-law to address the broad category of uses permitted in the C1 zone. Some uses present compatibility issues at this site, the Official Plan prohibits drive-through facilities in neighbourhood centres and given the desire to retain main branch banks in downtown locations the C1 Zone requires modifications for this subject site. 11.6 The zoning and site plan applications will continue to be processed by Staff. Staff Contact: Dean Jacobs Attachments: Attachment 1 -- Key Map Attachment 2 -Table 1- Public Comments, Sept 13, 2010 Attachment 3 -Table 2- Open House Comments and Applicants Response, Sept 23, 2010 Attachment 4 -- Pre and Post 2005 Development in Proximity to the site Attachment 5 -Conceptual Site Plan and Preliminary Elevations Attachment 6 - Official Plan Amendment List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Erik & Kathrene Peterson R.G. Richards & Associates Kelly August Zelinka Priamo Ltd. Jennifer Remillard Metro Ontario Inc. Valerie Kowal Christina Rase Shaun Asseistine and Kim Sullivan Michele Wynne Amanda Kocklay and Nathan Cook Neil Murray Michael and Donna Stephens Aimee Tinline Sam McBride and Amanda Hyde Carl Pokoski Marie O'Hare Triston Hymus Ken and Maria Hilts Michael Webber and Jennifer Tremain Gordon and Lucille Sturrock Dale and Don Sturrock Andre Bos Tom Keen Andrew and Lindsay Wray Corey Robbins and Lindsay Highmore Jason & Jody Coulas Joseph & Sharon Reader Shirley McLean Robert & Amanda Hall Heather Beveridge Wayne Moores Gerry & Luise Lens Raymond Scimone Dawn Tighe Geoff Bryann Bob Harty Gerry & Diane Harness Francis Williams E. Greenham Kelly Rainey Attacn-nent '{ To Report PS©-111-10 .-. f - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~~~~ ~s ~, y !}~~ '~ ~ Q m xY., ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ _ 53~M1YOtl~ N o 'a ~ o ° ~ Q 'L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _.. 3 p ~ o C /..~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 _ ,g, o Q o O ~ N .~° c o 1331115 OOOf,~S ~ ~„5 ooa'as ,3 Q N W W O ~ , ~ ~,~ 3 ~ _ ~ V o m ~ -- ~'Q+ N ~ O . EL v ~ .!~ J ~ {~ V 4; ~~ ¢~~E es° GP~ ~~S o~' s ~ 2~ ~d yY ~ o n ~i ~2° ~ ° > ~~ a~ ~ r° ~ ~O ~m ~m b~ bb .~~~als ~o~nos Attachmeat 1 Ta Report PSD-111-10 ~"' Q N M T a d N a~ 0 V m .~ . ~ ~ ~a~.~ o~-~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ -~ }' N arc ~ ~ •~ a .~. o ~ ~,' ~~ Q c~ ~ ~ ~ c~ o, ~ ;t=~ ~ ' ~o ~'v ~ ~ N ° ~ ~ ca ca~ L ~ a ~~~ ~ ~ ~ N a~~N Q~ ~ Ui-es ~ ~' ~ E-~ o ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ N. ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ O O- ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ t~ ~ ~ O N . ~ Z ° ~ ~~ ~ ~ °~ ~ °a.«' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ° N~ ~~ w o ~ n Q.a~ ~ o ~ a o ~ o o ~ ~ ro ~~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ Z a..~~s.~N~c.~Q.NC~Ncc .E F-~°~~.~c> c~Q.~ ~ ~ ° ° ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ C ~ ~ N ~ :~ ° ~ ~ ''_' ~ ~ -'-' ~ N N cn o o •v Q ~ •~ ~ O a •~ ~ ~ Q . ~ E ~ ~ N ~ W O O 'C ~ N ~ ~ ~ m ~ (~ '~' ~` ~ ~ O ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q E ~ N ~ ~ ~ O ~ L =_ O 3 ~` ° ~ ~' n.'v cn ~ ~+' ~.~ can ~ v v ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ o a~ ~ •~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'u ~i ~ ~ o N . ~ _ N ~~~ ~ V ~ ~~ ~ fl.. ca N O U N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~°~~~~o?'~~ '~N ~ •~ -Y ~~ a i ~-c~°o om ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ m ~ o ~ ~ '~( ~NCC• ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ..~ ~ ~ C L ~ . '~ O ~ O Q O O U ' ~ O ~ ~ 7 C U ~ ~ ~ a _ :~' N ~ N ~ N ~ +~~ ~ '~ O em O 7 _N N 7 . ~ p ~. ~ ° ~ . f .. H z psi ° ~ ~ i..r_ ca ~ c~ E ° N -~ Q ~ ' n ~ ~ ;~, ~ ~ c ~ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, 3 0 ~ ` c ~ 3o~b ~ ~~~ o U : ~ c v~'i ~~ a~~~Q~ a ~ E o v', a~~ ~ ~QQ~b~ ~ a ~ ~~~~ ~a~~~~ ~,a ~- aa~~n ~t~.5~~~ ti.c 0 T N M r Q. d (/7 O .~ d as ~- tts ~ g 7 ~' ~ +. ~ . ~ O ; ~ O ' to ~ ~ • ~. N f~S N ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ as ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 0 u~iu~i ~~ ~~~ • ~" c O ~ •~ ~ N U '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N O d), ~ '~ ~ N ~ N 7 ~ N ~ •~ p ~ ~ Z , ~ 'O N 'a ~ ~ ~ •Q ~ "~' ~ _ O ~-_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Vj _ •~ Q. ~ a ~ = (5 ~ ~ O "a~~0 ~ O C ~;~ (~ 3 6?~Q~ E ~ = :~ c o ~ QO ~ - .p N Q. C ~ ~ ~-- ~/~ ,~, a.~ Q~ N L ~ ~ ~u Z ~ N 'C3 L ~ ~F-~ ~ ~f ~ O ~ p Q. ~ ~ ~ N ~. ~ N ~ ~' ~ ~ V '~ O ~ +-' 3 ~ O .~', N O 07.... ~ ~~ C ~ - N 1... ~ ~ ~ O o; HQ N~~~•~ T•~o ~ o~o ~~ N ~o ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p c ~ +r N C~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N U `~ ~ ~ C O ~ ~ `~ ~ f~I ,~ N N ~ ~ fFf ~ ~ ~ Q „ 'i3 a3 p ~ ~ .N O ~ ~ ~ U ~ ' ~ Cj ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U (A ~ O ~ N ~ ~ O. ~ (~ ~' C ~ O J .U ~ ~ ~ O N N ` O K- ~ ~ ~ ~C O ~ ~ f[S •C 4_- ~ N. 47 d-~ Q ~ ~~ ~ ~ O .L ~ •~ , ~ x ~ ~ Q v ~ Q -p fn O .~ ~ to N ~~ 3 U ~ ~ Q. EU ,p ~ Q C U ~ O N ~+ ~ ~ LL. U ~ "~ ~ Q ~ ~ O ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q , ~ U03 ~ tU .~ ~ 7 ~ ~ (~ 3 E ,~ ~ `~ Q1 p ~ v w O ~ ~ s - ' ~~ , ~y aa~ °c °°'~ ~ , =~ p ~~ ~ G~ ~~ . y Cj v 'V B O O R ~ 4 ~ = C ~, ~ ~ v O y ~V1 ~ ~'~ ~ ~°c~ ~'~~c 3~~a~ a ° 3 ~~ 'may ~~a~ 3~o~a oj , 3~a ~~~ ~R~~ =~~c°oca a,v~ ~~.caa N ~ ~ ~ ~ ;F, ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ C ~ W d, N UO (U . ~ ~ '`'' ~ ~.. N ; N ;.~ N L Zoo ~~ENay o ~-' ~ ~ z3 o +. _ ~a ~~~c~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ I- fl) U) .~ .S v .E f 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ Rj a ~!) ~ ~ N ~ N -~+ U S~ c N ~ ti5 ~ ~ ~ ;~' 4.., Q ~ ~+ O ~ (MI5 I-' ~ ~ -~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o o.n~~ o E~ c~ c~ ~' ~ ~ ~ U ~ dU U ~ N ~ ~ N ~.C'~~'~~ N Q3 {~ ~ .C O U N C~ 7 U ~2, o~ai ~~~c~'c°aQ-a~~~~ c~ o ~ U can 3 N ¢-~.~ c°~~ c~a.QCW EQ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ i C C Q `- p `` Q. ~ O "~' V ~ U U ~ ~ Q-~ ~ '~ ~ ~- o dr ~ p ~ ~ N ~ ~~ ~ ~ a.~ ~, '''~ (E N .NU ~x o U "'"" '~ p ~ "~ ~ tt3 ~N ~ .~ ~ O ~ U O O fA N ~ O ~ C ~~~ ~~ ~ °O~~=a~ cUU~ 3'n 0 .~ '~ O ~ ~. .Q Q ~ ~ N ~ ~--` (!~ y..a N ~~ ''_' c p ~ N ~ •N ~~ '~ ~ ~ ~ O O X ~ L ~ ~. ~ ~ ~L s~'~ o . ~' U C ~ ~ C U ~ ~ Q ~ ' ~ U ~ (~ C) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C E~ {L ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ I-O ~~ ~~+-~ ~~•~.f.., ~ ~ `d N ~ N O~ ~o oE , ~ - ~ ° u o N~ m oo.n~ ~ ~ ~ ° Q . ' ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ m ~~c~ 3 ~- ~ a ~ c a~o0 ~~ '~°~~~ ~'~ay .soya '~ ~ C C `' y ~N y N C ~~~ O ~ ~ V C ~ . w ~L b j ~ ~ ~ ~ C . C U ~ ~ '~ ~ O ~ ~O ~ ~ ~ ro O C J ~ ;aa ~ ~o ~y Cys4.o 3 ~ ~ E~~ycc cba~`~~~ c°',~~o ooq~a3 a~ctib~ ~ c~~w ~ R~~ ~N cCCa ~ O]Rvw C~~~ y '['~' a H cri t- a 0 N 4~ 0 v a d .O N c~3 ~~ ,v_~~ ' ,` ~ ~ O ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ O-~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ N ~ U ~ O -~ {tf ~ O t/~, '~ ~ ~~ N L U '''' U N `' a ~=~ - ~- ~ o .~ c~NN Z .Q O O ° vi ~ ~ ~ . ~ 3~ ~ o-~a i~° cn N ~ v ~ `C ,N ~ v- .O .~ t~ C7 Q N ~' fA Z ~"" "C] .Q .O cn R5 p ~ {~ ~ .~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ O L cll N N ~ ~ ~ p I1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (4 fn ~ t' ~ ~ ~ . C ~ 0 ~ t6 IF5 -O ' j ~ ~--- ~- ~j cn .- LV N _ x N ~ C U N a. U ~ .U ~ 3 Q C E O' ~ p ~ +J ~O U O .~ ~ ~ O C NN ~ ~ ~ . ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ '~ ~ ~' N N ~+ O U U U ~ N ~ U N 'O ~ c~ O 5 o O - ~ ~ `'-' o o a} ~ N N N f~ .O N .U - ~ Q - 'o v ~ ~ N4--~._ ~. ~ ~ N 3 Q-m 3 O ~ cu .~ .Q ~ O qy,~.° . Q N ~ .3 EU U O L N .L ,a; O EU U3 + ~ ~ s... ~ , N N ~ 7 EU ~. (~ L C {' O Q) ~' ~ ~ :w, +-~ N ~ v- ~ C ~ ~ s O . ~ ' -.+ (f3 .~, o ~ L~ ~-. ~a~~o - o NO ~u~ ~ 3 00 ~. O q O O ~ .~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ q~ (~ .SZ (4 N N ,'~ w O ~ N ~ N ~ O ~ o • (6 Q C ~ ~ g O- cn ` lU - (~ N U -o o .~, N o ~'~~':~~~~ i ~~.~o o~s ~N Cn~ °~~~~o~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ d N . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ cam, a~ ~ •- ~ O ~c s~.c~ o ° ~ a, Q ~~ ~ ~ ~ o °.~ o o ° ~ ~ ~ ° X ~ ~ F -.n~ o ~~ o E- uj m~ .N ~ c ~ ~~ i.~ ~ c i~ ~ Q a b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O C ~~,~ '~~~ b ~ ow H ~. a~, ~ ~ ~ tea'"~ ~ ' , ~`~~ `°~' ac , b m3a~ ~ 4ha~~~ " ~ ~ °3a~a '=-c~ ~~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ U o0O0 ~ ~~~a ,_ ~ob~'QOb ~ •~ ~ , vim., Q ~ C D} ,~ ,,~ ~ ,~ avi y t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C3 C '~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~~ '~ ~ Rf v ~ ~ a ~ w ~ , ~' ~ C d w ~, ~E3n ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ , ° E ~~y = Q a 0 M a a~ N 0 U tv a a r~ c .~ ~ {' ~ N ~ ~ .a ~ o ~ U N 'C3 uoi ~ -~3 ~ ~ (~ '~ p O'O ~ v ~ ~ ,N ui U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c . ~ N U ~-• ~~ ~ - . ~ Ill O ~ C O •C E' U3 a v+r ,~ O 'L C ~~ (Cf L ~' N N C O Q. (~ ~ (~ O +~ (ll N C .C ~ O C~~ O E N ' Z S .~ ao o C , °ui«~3~s C N N ~ o~~~~~ -Q. ~ ~ ~~3~c ~:c~~trnca ~~ ~ ~~cao~ ~~.~~°~ N iii .~ O ~ .Q ~ LO ' G O ~ ~ ~-•~~-' ~ N ~ DEL ~ a ~ ~~ ,~.(6 t~ N~ N ~ ~ Q+ ~ C O7 ~, ~ ~ N C Rj cU ~ ~ RS p ~ ~ ~r- C ~ L O ~ Q3 ~ . _ . ~.r O f4 ~ '~ ~ Q ~ " -i-+ ~ C ~ , ' R1 C i a •c ~ U ~ U? . ~ () ~ fA ~ ~ ~ N N N C3 0 ~~ . V N ~ N ~ _ O q~ O 'II Q " t cll iU ~ ~ U (tf ~ .O C O N N C { C U a -+ C O C 'i~ O ~~ - . O) ~ Q ~ L O U 3 ~ ~ ( j ~ f~ ~ ~ f0 j N p ~ .O O cll ~+- S~ O N ~ .O . C O_ .~ ~ ,r, O . O ,EU ~ p EU ~ 'a a ~ ~ 3 ~> ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~~ u >,~ m~ .~ a i ~N ~ ,c ~ o o~., ~ :~ fA .Q O ~ ~ ~ e~ ~ ~ + C cF -' -C O ~ '~ f~ ~ ~ ,i]7 4-. ~ O O , ,,,, _ y fA p ~ ~ ,~ ~ O ~ ~ + ~ cis -ti fl C p ~ '3 ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ . -~ ~ ~ a °~ ~ ~~ g ~ ~~a ~~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~' a~ o~ia ° E a.~- ~ ~. C O 'C N ~ a~ c~ n . 'C O E~ C N O o c~ . U . C~~ ~' C O a ^.. v- N~ N C (E) ~' ~~ o~ .-.~ ~ O, o ~ ~ te . o ~ ~ . o O a~•- U1 N ~ ~ .~.. ~ H ^ cn ~ ~ O .,~ ~ E F- ~ U} ~ +. O I- O. O..,._, v "~7 O ,~ C aLi•~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,p ~ v.' O a ~ cm b""E ro ~~~ . ~~ ho a Q ~ c ~ =w o ~ v ~ 'Q b ~ w ~ ~ o ; ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 c i ~ a V' p N v a ~``ro,4 c ~ ~ 3 b~ ~b ~ a~i a ~~.a ~, a * ~ y~ ~ ~, b4~ ~ , °~ ~~ ~ b>~ ~ °~, °ib ~ ~ y•y V ~, Ow v 3 A. ~` 0 Q' wva;w ~~~ ~a.~ xc ~~~°ca~ Q r O N T Q V! c d7 O V a d rs F ~ ~ ' ~ •~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ' .~ ~ 'i"3 'L7 ~ .~ ~ Q. ~ 'D N, N ~ N ' ~. ~ ~ ~ (6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N G ~ ~ U "''' ~ N; N N U N -~ N ~''~^ fn fn ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ V ~ ~ =d. Z. ~ O O O O N . ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ O c L :~ N O O vO- (~ ~ ~ ,~ y L ~ ~ 3 Z Z ~ '~ ~ Q a-+ Z }x! O ~ Q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U - Q~ ~ '~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ (n y"'i ~ 0 ~ "" 1~ 3 ~ U v cn~'L~ ~ ~ -- ~ o a~ ~ ~ '~-° ~ ~ o cn ~ ~.o vai ~ ~ ~ o c°~ cn ~ o o n' ro.~ ° ~ ~~ , C a i a i ~ ~, ~ U U ~' o O •~ m E.~ i N~ N ,~ N O U Zvi ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ O~ O U ~ L~ ~ ~U ~~ c• .f} Q N ~ ~ ~ ~ _ N 0 . X 1 ~ ~ ~ v O QJ ~ ~ ~ ,~ Vf CJ t'~7 ~ U3 ~ Q V ~ ~~-- O ~ O ~ U ~ O ~ ~ .,Q ~ (S3 ate"'' ~ ~ O Q ~ ~ .O ~ 'N Ell ~ O N N cU ~ `' O f6 .1r~ O ~ U> y + ~ O ~ ~ ~ N E~ ~ ~ O Q) ' U O L ,O ~, -~y U QfZ' O f~ U ~ (~ ~ ~ / /~ V / ~ L O ~ tU C 03 O UO N •~ ~ ~ (U O N L _ N ON"~ ~ ~ ~-C ~ ~ ~ O (U RS . O O ~ O ~ O ,Q ~ u? Q ~ ~ L .~. N O ~ O ~' ~ O C ~ ~ N . Q 13 ~ ~ O 4- ~ ' (Cf q~ .C Q7 ~ ~ V N ~ ,(~} ~ C f ~ ~ (n O N L 4. O C N ~ ~ ~ Q. O ~ O ' ~ j N ~ ~ O O ~ ~-' N ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~-'' ~+ ~ O O '~ , ~ '~ '~ ~ C O N .U N O N N tU N L .C O ' ~ a~ ' ~ ' O ~ ~ ~~ 1 ' ~ 'Q) ~ ~ fl (~ O O C Ri $ O a - (~ O O) . ~ Q_ Q O I- O a-+ U 4- ~ O 'O C . O O O ~. N ~- O 0.. ~ U 'a U (~ .~ Q N L ' O .~ I-' v-- a--~ „ y C ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ C w ~ 41 ~ ~ ~ t ' O w ~"~,, ~ ,0 :~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ,G `O ~ ~ ~ C O ~O v ~~ ~ .Q ~ ~ y ~~ C ~ O ~ L l b w ~~ Q G> v} L O C~~ v O c C0.1` ~ ~`-`_ ~ ~ O~~~ab~ w G~ ~ O~~ W ~ ~ O O ~ O U C L C O; ~ ?~ L w O G 'j ~ ~! O ~. C ;~ d +'' O O ~ O Q w~ 'Q C O N , ~? C [4 N U ,~o~ccC ~ L` wvv,Oy~•'~~"' Vj O Q! `G E ,Cy, ~,~~4 G? Q ~ ~~~ , Via,-m a~ w ~~,~ °''~ Eow~'aa~ ~ro~ ~w 3o a, ~~ roz~° ~ ~~~~~~~ omc~ O . a i o?o X04: o Q .p a~ 0 T Q N M r -F+ a d cu E 0 ~_ a .~a H ~L N. W.. •~ ~ O N ~ ~ L-. • ~y~' Z' ~ O -Q O ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~a o ~ °> : z ~-- cn L ' ' (/~ .}r ~ U .~ ,~ in ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- cv ~ a~: .,-. O. U '~ C J ~ U O ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ O .c E ~ (~ N Vf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . +' '~ ~ Q EU N ~ O- L N ~~ ~ ' ~" (~ Q C .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ C ' tlf it ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ C G O ~ ~ ~L~ ''" Q EU O • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'U (n ~. ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q V ~ ~ ~ Al ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ V ~ ~~ V ~` i-a ~ .VJ `~ `~~ ~~ c o~ i3 i ~.?~a ;~o ~ ~-Q ~~ ~-Q ~ ~.Q~~ ~ ~•~~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ Q. ~ ~~ O ~ ~ V ~ Q ~ ~' ~ QS ~ ~ O~ ~ U ¢ O O U ~ N~ `C3 i~ ~ O~ ,~ Q. U p~ Q F~ U t- iJ t1T „C G N U ~ U1 H . .~ . w y 0 ~ O ~a,c "~~'aK o Oy ~~ o~ ~m,~a ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ,~ Q ~ ,0 0 o ~ ,y~ ~ v3ZOp~~ 4 "~ Ebbw '~ ; G~ fib O w ~ v ~ ~~ c d a b ~~ p ~ ~a~o _~ ~1 ~ ] O ~ RS ~w C ~~ w w w~ ~Q°acs3 yo~~~~ m ~, ~ ~ ~' as m c ti w ~ w ~ C m a~ w ~ O ~ .~ ~~ Attachment 3 To Report PSD-191-10 Table 2: Open House Comments and_rApptican#s Response September 23, 2090 OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS 680 Longworth -Proposed Neighbourhood Centre 180-4603 Ontario [nc, General Comments Discussed Comment Many residents were looking for local convenience facilities and were interested in the type of food store being praposed . Res Two residents favored~a different brand of food store than that proposed Several residents indicated that the neighborhood was lacking in these types of services and that this would be a welcome addition Several residents expressed concern over child safefy particularly at the Longworth Avenue access point Some residents wanted assurances that the development would occur as shown and that it would continue !n operation and not become an eyesore Some residents were concerned that the development would not proceed as planned and that once owned if would be changed Concern was. expressed about commercial development extending beyond the site While pedestrian and bus trafftc was taken into consideration in the initial traffic study fhe consuifant has been asked to revisit.fhis issue and provide an addendum report whic}~ specifically addresses the #raffic issues relating to the schools in the-area (see attached}. Assurances were given that the project would occur as shown on approved plans. public was advised that the proponent is a professional retail center owner and manager and that it is in #heir best in#erest to ensure the maintenance and success of the deveoopmen# as They are long term holders The approval process was explained to the residents. They were.advised that the development must comply with approved plans and that if subsequent changes were required new plans would need to tie approved by the Municipality. This discussion occurred in the presence of one city councilor who advised That given the amount of new residential development extending to. the north, it was highly improbable #ha# retail devetapmenf would expand Many residents were inquiring as to the future tenants for building f3 The proponen# was only able to . confirm a lease deal with a dentist to date. Fflrmal (easing of this building has not commenced, but typical neighbourood retail service commercial uses such as a cafe bistro, hair salon other personal service uses -are ex ected. Concern about increased traffic There is a great deal of discussion with many residents regarding traf#ic in fhe neighborhood and the safely of pedestrians, especially children, as a result of the development. A copy of the traffic study was available and was reviewed with several residents. The results of the study were conveyed verbally to others. See of#ached traffic addendum for further clarification. Concern about left turn onto Scugog See above Concern about the building facades- There was little discussion about people don't want just a box (they liked building appearance although the the drawings thaf were shown fast night) need fo be complementary fo the neighborhood was expressed. Proposed building elevations and ongoing site plan discussions are addressin this concern Some people would Pike to see a People were advised that the site plan neighbourhood centre in the sense of was an evolving product and were public spaces (benches) and services shown proposed public spaces. The (Coffee, etc.) most recent revised site plan prepared after this meeting redesigned the originally proposed public square and added an additional public gathering area near buildin 13. Concern over the Eength of the lease Those concerned were advised of the term Eength of the lease for the major tenant is 20 years and an indication was given the likely term leases for tenants in buildin f3 would be 90 ears. How high are the proposed light poles in No you won't see them from your the parking lot? Will I be able to see them house. The light standards will be from my house 3 blocks away? approximately 7.3 metres high and it is a municipal requirement that all illumination from any fight sources be contained within-the property lines in a residential settin such as this. Who is the Food Store tenant? The Food Store tenant is FreshCo Is it a Price Chopper? which is a new banner for Sobeys. Some residents where looking fora (wuv4v.freshco.com} FreshCo is higher end food store and others considered to be in the middle-range preferred a more affordable store like Na in terms of affordability Frills. How will food waste be managed by the There are provisions for a Self food stare? Contained Compactor with Cardboard Bailer in the Loadin Dock. How are we going fo deal with the A traffic study as required by the increased traffic and the hundreds of children #hat walk #a school or are picked up 1 dropped off by school buses in the area? Concern regarding children having to walk across new accesses proposed on Longworth Ave. and Scugog St. vvna~ are store? the How-are the trucks going to circulate through the site? Who is going to maintain a[I the landscaping? What Types of tenants will be occ the smaller building to the north? Concern over the location of noise receptors used in the noise study. What about the noise that will now be bouncing off the sides of the buildings? municipality was prepared by a'#raffic consultant. The study concludes the site as designed will operate safely and would not negatively affect the traffic in the area. Residential development on this site would likely create more traffic in the morning when people are leaving their homes for work than a rieighbourhood centre that would not draw traffic until later in the morning. Based on the concerns raised by residents we asked that the traffic study be specifically updated to address these issues. See attached traf#ic addendum letter. Further, we consulted Sobeys to ask how many 53 foot trucks a day will be coming to the site. They stated on a regular day 1 #ruck will come to the site. On the days leading up to holidays and long weekends 2 trucks a day will be coming to the site. Other smaller trucks, such as bakery trucks, will be coming to the site on a daily basis. Atypical FreshCo operates from 8AM to 'l OPM Monday to Friday and 8AM to 9PM on Sunday. Through the use of computer program the site has been designed fo allow for safe truck movements through the site. The site plan has been. redesigned to ensure proper and safe truck manoeuvring as well as access and egress to the site. Goldmanco will be the landowner responsible for maintaining the site. They are long term landowners and ldealiy the proponent would like to see a coffeelbistro shop with an outdoor patio as one of the tenants. Others might be doctors offices, hair salon, and other personal service types of uses. These uses will be determined after the land uses are approved and The noise consultant has specifiic standards that they must follow as to where they place noise receptors. The report has been reviewed by the municipality. We will clarify your goes#ions with our noise consultant. Attachment 4 To Report PSD-119-10 G~OiL -. J, x ,~ E fi3 Q ~ z 3 ~ , ; ~ r ~ t' ~~~ Ff-- r t-xr yr - `lG. 1. ~ l ~v FT - K 4_ }~ T _ F fti ti 7 '. ~(3`iF I A ? - 3, ', - ~ 4 -- ~ ~ Xc f; -> ?arKr- ° f ~ --rsl} rtLa. v } lT r r ~~ ~z~ r a t- try` t Th1 - ~ Z ~ t t l ~ a - - w`V r ~ ~. ,N P L O •n~ --F 3 ~ - 3 - - rr Ui Wt~. __ ~- t = - 1 lF ~' I f~ 2 7-- y x Tz ,, 4 ~' ~ Y MN ,} ~! -~-,,11 ,n , r V, ~ , - ,~- T a - .iii z 1 t~ E i3- t-- 1 .t j ~ J 1 3 fJ ; ~ //~ ~~ 1 i - t _ _ „+ x -- 4 ~ t - ` ~ '' O } - YFF.r ~ i 3~~ `t - s ~ 1 ~ .'rid r - '` (~ ~ ' r 6 ~ ~' -- 680 '' oNG ' ~} f4r fF )~T1T. ~ f f, ,~ ~~, Longworth ~~ f . , ~ , ,, 4t , ~ `~{ - Avenue ~; ~ 'f - ~,~. ~_. _ - - DA g i' ~C :~ ~ VES A GT - ~ _T,.. 4 :` Y --- _' P~~ ~ G~1C¢-(1-~ ~ ~oN Q 0 J ~ 00 gptlLEVARD ~o~' oo~ c-~,~~so Year Built N ~ 2004 and Earlier ® 2005 and Later I±OURTH S`f SAWMILL C~f ~gCkM ~, Attachment 5 To Report PS©-111-10 r-~ _ __ _ ~ s~ ._~ __, ~ ~ ,r i Tyr rr ` rr i i i rrr r / rr it ~ ro r r ~ l ~ rr ~ r {r 79grr t ~ ~ r \ ~~D ~ 'r m '~ _1 I b Y6 ~~ n~ \ ~ 666 ~ y 1 I T "~ ~~ 8 ~ „ ---------------------~ ~~ i~ ~ ry~ ~ m ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ r -------------------- l jI • / / / ~ brim o~ ~ ~ ~ ;q ~ ~ . 9 y / ~ ______~__T _?9d_____~. • ~ ~~~ ` / /`` J ._ - ---------------------- ~ h l f \~ 1 1 ~~~ ~~ ~ I '~ ~\ ~ ~~g~ w~nD gg~ g ~~ I€ ~ it / 0 3; ~ arc { E L1 ~I t€ ~, I~~~ LONGWORTH AV~NU~ ~~ a ~.~.® /r ~' ,~: -•~ 3~~-_298 .y' ~~ ° a $ o 3 ~.e.~•~....~.s .- a~~ o`~ .,,; - B~~C~Y ~~ ~~~ 9 r ~ H y ~~~~#5 ~ °o yy ~~~~o~ ~j ig' d e~ P '~~ ig~~~~F ~gp ~~~~~~~~ ~s 5 ° • ~ ~3 ~3 3 1 b r ~~~y ~~ ~~~~~~~!~~~ e~~~~~ ' ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ €~k~ ~ ~ ~ i< ~ r$~~ ~i ~ __ ,ti~ ~ ' /, 7g9 _ ~ ~- • ,-~ , / ~ ~. B`oc~ / /, i' ~~ 'S 3D~ 1 T y / ~ f, C.~ •~•J ~°,S a~$~ st a t o < ~ ~: ~ ~~' ~ Wo3 Asa°O =~ ~': I~ o -i ~ f~ gg ~z~~ ~~~~~ ~_~ ~ ~'~ 3~p m j~n ~Y~~Qr +` l'] ~ ~ ~ 1 °Y~ p ~Oq ~~ ~S ~ ~ z0 ~ ~ ~~9 !(~~ ~ ~. ~~ J~3 R s~ y 1~ 0 oy~ 07 „;~~ ~ ~ r n~' ~~y~~~ s~ ~~~ ~ o ~ ~a~ i W Z Q to m t*1 4 y •~, ~ s ~~fg--~ ~ Q sa ~ Q o ~~ Q~ ~. a > z a `~ r' t '- _ ~ Q O t o .~ ~. z ~~ , o -~ . #~~ = o x~ ~ = ~ = ~~ op o ~ ~~. _ ,. o ~ ~- ~ z coo f,~ ~ v f~ ii ~~~[ ~ ~ st ~;~,, ~s ~~ ,; 4 ~- f 4 ~ F 0 i ~ E~_ } ~~ i C ~~ $- - ~~ ~f z~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ Pg , ~~ ~~ ~ ~ i s ~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ F 3~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s . ~ ~ - ~, 1 =~ k =T~ ~ G `~' ,= ~ i ~ ~ _ t ~ ~~ - i - _f -. - ~gg~p ~ ~`~. j ~ ~ i a` =L ~ ~~ i ~ zr ~.. ~ ~ _ ~~o 1 5i a . o -- dq w? t x C ~ ~~ _ ~ z°i 7] z k ~. t ~ •F ~ f ~ gE -- g f 'Sg't ~3 I ~' Y ~~ t ~~` ~~ ~ E _ ~ ' a a~ v _ _ R t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~6 ~~~5 ~_ ~~ v ~"~~ y~ s~~! I ~~ L`- #f} 0.r f ~''J Q~ Q q) ~ ~ ~-- ~~ o ~~ ~~ o ~ .VA 3 O,G ~ ~ ~ [- p~ 1 1 1 . ~ i ~ h J db 1~1 1 ~ ~` a r ~ yy,, ~NE1 ' v ~ rTJt`i^ 3 Yp ~i 2 x. ~ c ~ - ~g ~ryUy p U .F~ I, e '~r'~' a~ 3L A airy' pC ~ I ', t '_ ~ F~: -' .~ ~ 6 k ~ EE 55 - g ro ~ \ ~ j ~: 3 '? ~ ' ~ ~ ~' _ _ ~ ~ (~-~3 s ~ °~ 3 .. F _ ~ F -. ~.S ~ ~ ~ `F»x. 0 ~~~~ ~ z~ e ;, g `i ~ { @ } a+ ~ ~ ~i s. -. ~~ ~ X _ 4 ~~ 3 -~ '~ ~ ~ i a.c } d .."..C ~ .O-A .PA ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~~ ~ , - T~1 -,~ 6 h pry _ ~.~ ` -~ : ~` ; ~~ s: 1g ~ ; ~: ~ i R 't ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ e ~ V~ ._ ~` ~ ~~ U ~ ~~ F8 ~~ 2~ r i ~g ~c 'i Q ~i Attachment 6 To Report F'SD-111-90 AMHNDMENT NO. 79 TO THE MUNIC[PALITY OF CLAR[NGTON OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: The purpose of this amendment is to introduce a Neighbourhood Centre designation on the north-east corner of Longworth Avenue and Scugog Street to permit a grocery store and amulti-tenant building for retail and service commercial uses. BASIS: The application is based on an Official Plan Amendment application (COPA 20010-0004} submitted by 1804603 Ontario Inc. ACTUAL AMENDMENT: The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: 1. By including an exception to Section 23,14 to create Sub- section 23.14.14 as follows; "23.94.14 Notwithstanding Sections 10.6.1 and 10.6.4 c), the lands located at 680 Longworth Avenue and described by assessment roll number 181702002015000 shall be developed with; • A grocery store having a maximum gross floor area of 3100m2 with the main pedestrian access within 10 metres of Scugog Street; • A public square in accordance with the policies of Section 10.6.5, which shall be located adjacent to the intersection of Scugog Street and Longworth Avenue; • A use intended to complement and interact with the public square having a maximum grass floor area of 200m2, either as part of the .food store or as an independent business establishment. Said use shall face Scugog Street and have the main pedestrian access at the Longworth Avenue and Scugog Street intersection; • Amufti-tenant building for retail, personal service and business, professional and or administrative offices, with a minimum gross floor area of 700m2 and a maximum grass floor area of 790m2. The maximum size of an individual business establishment shall not ~ exceed 250m2; and • Residential dwelling units are encouraged as an accessory use either as stand atone or part of a mixed use building. The site specific Zoning By-law associated with the development of this site shall only be considered after site plan and elevation drawings for this Neighbourhood Centre have been prepared to the satisfaction of the Municipality. The site plan and elevation drawings shall address the following urban design principles: a) Compatibility: The commercial development shall be compatible with the established neighbourhood. b) Focal Point: The commercial buildings located at the intersection of Scugog Street and l_ongworth Avenue should be treated as a focal point. It shall include articulated building elements that emphasize the focal paint nature of these buildings, c) Building Design: The commercia! development should incorporate high quality architectural treatments, building materials that provide visual interest at the scale of pedestrians, reduces building mass impacts, and respects the character of the established neighbourhaod. d) Landscaping: Landscaping will be integrated in the development to visually enhance the site, to soften hard edges, to screen parking and loading areas, to mitigate potential conflicts arising from noise, emissions and visual impacts and to contribute towards environmental sustainability. e} Active Street Life: The commercial building located at the intersection of Scugog Street and l_ongworth Avenue shall include a specific area dedicated to contribute to an active street life and public square. f) Pedestrian Network: Interior walkways and private connections will be designed to complement and extend, but not replace, the role of the street as the main place for pedestrian activity. They should be accessible, comfortable, safe and integrated into the local pattern of pedestrian movement with direct, universal physical and visual access from the public sidewalk and clear path-finding within the site. The developer will be required to provide off-site landscape buffering to address compatibility with the adjacent residential neighbourhoods. The implementing Zoning By-law will contain performance standards to ensure that the new development will be compatible with the physical character of the established residential neighbourhood. IMPLEMENTATION -The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this amendment. INTERPRETATION The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this amendment. Exhibit "A", Amendment No. 79 To the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map A3, Land Use, Bowmanville Urban Area f M NR ~~ ..,~ ~~~~~, NP ~ ~, ~ y o ~~~~ ~~ `'J M - -:~~'/~~ ~ ~ ~/ o ~~ -_ r ~~ ~0 0 0 0 0 0 ~olv~~~s~o~ I~~AO ~-.,~- ~~ 0 0 0 M 0 ~P ~ NP O /~ ``~ / a O NP / ~ ~ `~.4 _ Delete "Medium Density Residential" symbol and replace wi#h "Neighbourhood Cen#re" symbol ~: ' E A _- ( 1 1V P ~~ - . ~_ = M i-- w M ~ ~ o ~ _ N~ r, ~ ~ o Z ~; ~~ ~ o ' ,~ ~' M ,~ ~ ~ m ~ S.r ~ ~ NP o o ~~ o M s` v SPECIAL ~;f ~ N POLICY ~~ ~ R ^ AREA E M ~~~ - _ E ~ - E,. ; o ~..~ ~* ~ ~; f ~ ~ CONCESSION STREET` ^