HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-198-86 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
-p REPORT File # � � d
Res.
�¢k)"• By-Law #
MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Tuesday, September 2, 1986
REPORT #: PD-198-86 FILE #: 86-3/ND (Revised)
SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO AMEND TOWN OF NEWCASTLE OFFICIAL PLAN -
COURTICE HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT
PART LOT 30, CONCESSION 3, Courtice Urban Area
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
I. THAT Report PD-198-86 be received; and
2. THAT Official Plan Amendment Application 86-3/ND as revised be considered; and
3. THAT a copy of Council 's decision on the revised application be forwarded to the
Region of Durham, the applicant and the interested parties indicated hereto.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
On July 24, 1986, the Town was advised by the Region of Durham that Courtice Heights
Developments had revised Official Plan Amendment Application 86-3/ND which seeks to
redesignate a 0.736 hectare parcel of land in Part Lot 30, Concession 3, Courtice Urban
Area to "Local Central Area". The original application proposed the development of a
. . .2
REPORT NO.: PD-198-86 Page 2
2,191 square metre (23,585 square foot) retail commercial plaza; the
recently submitted revisions proposes the development of a 2,000 square
metre (21,520 square foot) retail commercial plaza. The revised application
is accompanied by supporting letters from the applicant, the author of the
* original Retail Market Analysis, and a Planning Consultant (attached). Both
of these letters raise substantive questions which have not yet been
reported on by Staff.
A Public Meeting with respect to the original Official Plan Amendment
Application and the associated application to amend the Courtice North
Neighbourhood 3B Development Plan was held at the General Purpose and
Administration Committee meeting of May 20, 1986. Committee also considered
Staff Report PD-135-86 which dealt with the subject applications. The
Report noted the potential for impact on the designated Community Central
Area and identified a number of problems with respect to the proposed site
design. The Report recommended that the two applications be referred back
to Staff for further dialogue with the applicant.
Committee resolved (Resolution #GPA-480-86) that Official Plan Amendment
Application 86-3/ND and the Application to amend the Courtice North
Neighbourhood 3B Development Plan submitted by Courtice Heights Developments
Limited be denied without prejudice. Council subsequently approved this
decision (Resolution #C-412-86) at its meeting of May 26, 1986.
Given Council 's decision with respect to the original Official Plan
Amendment Application, Staff respectfully seek Council 's direction with
respect to the revised application submitted by Courtice Heights
Developments. We would however, suggest that a referral to Staff for report
would be an appropriate action.
Res p bmi ,
dwards, ICI. . I .P.
Director of Planning
JAS*TTE*bb
July 30, 1986
cc Mr. Don McKenna Mr. Ron Hennessy Mr. W. Manson
Box 22, Group 23 Group 23, Box 17 WDM Consultants
R.R. #3 R.R. #3 20 Clematis Road
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario BOWMANVILLE, Ontario WILLOWDALE, Ont.
L1C 3K4 L1C 3K4 N12J 4X2
LOT 30
? VIw
•w �
10.10 1 ,
' _ 1
''• Retail(Plaza S
'0FA 20001(1111510 SF
p
dl� ; 0
1 " _ � •�s 1 4 I I � I � 1� o
I (r S r
'•.+. �. ,.a 1'"% c•t tl Af,. Ala ... :
.IIwr1 rM
NA SH ROAD
=*SUBJECT SITE
LOT 31 LOT 30 LOT 29
I A 1 E? A
A : A
I
EP A-8 A
a "1 "Z (H)R4
A M
E�
(H)R4 EP Z
we¢I A s
J �
I12-L i (H)R3 Ep R1„ W
Ep f
` I )R4 (H R2-3 0
p
Ep RL2 I RI
a ,a Rl
"ASH ROAD
R�Rl i 1 (H)R4 1 Z
0
Rl ( E? N
4 c= I (H)R4 V
1wr Z
(HICI
0 q 100 ♦00.f00w
KEY MAP
3,Y
20 Clematis Road
W, Willowdale,Ontario
4b _zW Consultants
M2,14X2
Tel.(416)497-4500
July 21 , 1986
/< REGION
30
966
Mr. L . K-)tseff
Mana,7er
Strategic Planning �ranah
Planninq Department
The Regional Municinality of 7)urh-.-m
Box 623
105 Consumers Drive
tIhitby, Ontario
L i:\T 6:13
Dear Mr. Kotseff:
Re: Application submitted by
Courtice Hei7hts DeveloD^:ents
to amend the Official Plan of
the former Planning k.rei of the
Township of Darlington
Regional File P6-3/ND
On January 16, 1986 an application was made to the
Region of Durham to amend the Courtice Urban :,rea Plan
to permit a Local Central ilrea designation on a 0 .736
hectare ( 1 .86 acre) parcel at the north-east corner of
Trull' s and Nash Roads, more particularly described as
Part 1 Plan 10R-2042 . The original application requested
the approval of 27, 000 sq. ft. G .L.A . which request was
based on the results of a Retail Mlarket r.D-oraisal .
In order to rationalize development on this narcel ,
a site Dian was prepared for the Town which f'e-,�tured a
concept for a. 23, 5R5 sq. ft. retail n1,9za. sec-.use of
certain concerns exnressed by Toi,,n n1-anning staff, the
site plan was revised. The re-corfig:ured site -Dian now
features a retail plaza with a gross floor area of 21 , 520
sq. ft. In view of the site nla,-iin,- �,Tork done to 0a.te,
it would be aDnroDriate to amen(l. the CPA annlication to
nermit a Local Central Area of 21 , 520 sq. ft. Although
a copy of this revised site nlqn has alreRly been nrovided
to the Region and Town, f',-ve additional copies are
enclosed for your referei,ce.
')urha^1 Planninm '3rq.nch
Jul.v 21 , 19P6
Pace 2
In order to address cer. tair - rketing and planning
concerns raised by the Town, Co.:� Y_ce TleiQ-hts Developments
retained its retail rnarketinq; ar'4 -Manning; consT.0-tants to
do further invnsti.xations . Enc' _.ed for your consideration
is the July 11 , 1986 report of :Cott Morgan and the
July 19, 195'6 correspondence frc- :ohn '3ousfield Associates Limited. r3oth consultants are ~.he pro-'essional opinion
that the size and location of t nronosed Local Central
r. rea are anpronriate .
By this letter formal reau=s- is being made to the
He7ion to amend the annlicatior_ -. ..e by Courtice Hei*;hts
: evelonments . We hone that t',-I-:: _-eduction in the size of
rro-)osed. retail plaza and the - - - ` -i^nal siznnorting
infor-.ation wJ11 nerni.t a recor.�-414ergtion of our nronocal
'hy the Town of `fe`.acnstl.e and 9 decision by
the Re-zion.
You T Vr
Wil.1i- D . V.-).nson
ec
2 - enclosures
. -
n�
� N|
CoN SC[[A Nl
kind |),v,k,pv*x and M000i/«\
150m/a |ic, |,"x|v�l�.^xm`oom�.
m/S 2n* l6 116'7/ 2-638f
.
Res..116-762-6766
-- 1986
`
^ UiMAM
'-
' Mr. William D. Naoson
' W.D.M. Consultants,
'
20 Clematis Road, '
Willovdale' Ontocio
M2D 4X2 --
^
OF 7�111-1
--
�-
Dear Mr, Manson: - _ | P|AN�/N� - '-
_-___ -__------'
`
Re: Proposed Local Central Area, Courcice Urban Area, Municipal File
8
I have reviewed at your request the Io=n of Newcastle 's report dated
may ZO, 1986` regarding the proposed Local Central Area in t6 '
quadrant of Trull'u Road and Nash Doad, e north east
Of particular concern is the staff note on page 5 of that reyorc that'
�
"the allocation and distribution of commercial sites wicbi n
�
.
the CourLice Urban Area and respective Neighbourhoods was
based upon figures provided by the I.B. I. Consulting Group and
the Couccice Development Plan prepared in March 1979 The
study concludes that the per capita requirement 'in Cou^r c
�i
for Detail Commercial space was 10 square' feet, and allocate e
|
approximately 70% of this space to the Community Central Area.
The remainder, being equivalent to 3 square feet ycc capita
would u be located in specific Neighbourhoods and/or lo
Highway 0o. 2," � n�
On page 6 of the report, staff apply the 3 square foot per
—
capiLa ccquzzcmeot for retail commercial space outside the Community Central area against a design Population for Neighbourhood Development
Pl ana 3A
and of 2,300 and 5,000 persons respectively. According to staff this yzo lua a floorspace requirement of approximately 21 '500 square feet(2,000 square
meters)* in the two Ne i&6bouc600do^ Given three Neighbour-
hood commercial sites, two of which are assigned approximately 5,375
square teet (500 square meters) each, the balance available for the s«bjeot proposal, according to staff, amounts to 10, 750 square feet square
meters) of cecu i_
commercial space.
I have reviewed the derivation, based on the quoted Bowmanville
experience, of the 10 square foot and 3 square foot per capita space
requirements contained in the Courtice =eve.lopment Plan, I.B. I. Group,
March, 1979. This is summarized as follows:
Existing Retail Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210,000 sf
Design Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,000
Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 sf per capita
Assuming 30% is Local Convenience
Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 sf per capita
While I had utilized the 3 square foot =er capita space requirement for
the LCA's and Convenience Centres in the narket study submitted as part
of your application (Reference: Retail Market Appraisal, W. Scott
Morgan, M.C. I.P. , 1985, page 16) , I re _:;size that the use of the per
capita space ratios in any markei in subject to variable market
conditions.
The concern is that the stated p-r capita combined floorspace
requirements for Food, DSTM and Personal Service space in Bowmanville
are low in comparison to provincial averages. This can be illustrated as
follows:
1985 Ontario Per Cap DSTM Expenditure . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,008
1985 Av. DSTM Sales Per sf GFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 142
1985 Av. Ontario Per Cap DSTM Space Req ' = . . . . . . . . 14.1 sf GFA
1985 Ontario Per Cap FCTM Expenditure . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,313
1985 Av. FCTM Sales per sf GFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 345
1985 Av. Ontario Per Cap FCTM Space Req ' i. 3.8 A GFA
1985 Ontario Per Cap Personal Care Serv. Hp. . . . . $ 176.00
1985 Av. Personal Care Serv. Sales per s: 7FA . . . . $ 141
1985 Av. Ontario Per Cap Pers. Serv. Space Req ' t. . 1.25 A GFA
Total Ontario Per Capita Space Req 't. 19.2 A GFA
Statistics Canada Cat.# 63-210, =. _ail Chain & Dep' t. Stores,
1983, Table 8.
@ $131 per sf GFA (Gross Floor Area) in 1983
@ $142 per sf GFA updated to 145 by the year over year
increase in the CPI (Consumer Price Index) for Clothing.
Canadian Grocer, State of the Indus=ry Report, July, 1985
$462 per sf NSA (Net Selling Area) in 1983
$488 per sf NSA in 1984
$512 per sf NSA updated to 1985 by the year over year increase
in the CPI for Food Purchased From Stores
$344 per sf GFA in 1985 @ 33% s:;rage.
Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centres, Urban Land Institute, 1984
it
1983 median sales per sf GLA (Gross Leasable Area) :
Neighbourhood Supermarkets @ $251 ($278 updated to 1985$)
Community Supermarkets @ $304 ($337 updated to 1985$)
Regional Supermarkets @ $276 ($306 updated to 1985$)
The total estimated Ontario per capita space requirement of 19.2 square
feet CFA does not include equivalent space requirements for restaurants,
banks, liquor/beer/wine outlets, office space, or commercial establish-
ments that are not strictly retail (e.g. monument dealers, lawn and
garden centres, etc. ) .
Nor has the estimated Ontario per capita space requirement been adjusted
to reflect urban versus non=urban floorspace requirements. The attached
table entitled 1985 DSTM EXPENDITURE BY CATEGORY: ONTARIO, TORONTO, AND
REST OF ONTARIO, illustrates that the Toronto DSTM expenditure exceeds
the provincial average by 10.85%. This suggests that an approximate 10%
upwards adjustment can be made to increase the Ontario per capita DSTM
space requirement from 14. 1 sf GFA to 15.5 sf GFA, in order to reflect
the urban context of the application. This in turn raises the total per
capita space requirement to 20.6 sf GFA.
i
I would conclude that the distribution of future floorspace requirements
developed by staff on the basis of the I.B. I. Group 's per capita retail
space ratios requires more rigorous analysis. Given the per capita space
requirements for the retail uses specified (i.e. in the range of 19.2 sf
GFA to 20.6 sf GFA for Ontario and Toronto respectively) , the I.B.I.
Consulting Group's projection of retail space requirements is under-
stated by about half. This tentatively suggests a doubling of the
floorspace requirements identified by staff.
Hence, paralleling the staff calculations, retail requirement for the
proposed LCA would fall- in the range of 21 ,000 to 22,000 sf GFA, (i.e.
double the 10, 750 sf GFA calculated by staff) excluding the restaurant
or bank/trust facilities allocated within the proposal (i.e. 2,800 sf
GLA and 3,000 sf GLA respectively for a total of an additional 5,800
square feet) .
By way of comparison, I am attaching some aggregated per capita
floorspace ratios (Reference: Retailing In Regional Municipalities
-- Waterloo, Halton, Peel, York, Durham -- and Metropolitan Toronto,
1983).
For Metro Toronto and Durham Region, the Gross Floor Area space ratios
range from 26.6 to 26.8 square feet per capita (2.47 and 2.49 square
meters) , including restaurants, banks and office space within retail
strips and shopping centres, but excluding non-retail establishments
such as car dealerships and vehicle rental and equipment sales.
Use of these ratios would elevate the staff calculation of 10, 750 square
feet of warranted space at the subject site to between 28,600 and 28,800
square feet GFA, including restaurant a-.d bank space. This closely
approximates the upper end of square E_-c-ages originally proposed for
the subject LCA (i.e. 22,000 to 27,000 sc .:are feet GLA, Morgan, page 6) .
The foregoing not 'only supports the appliza=ion as originally submitted,
but attests to the need to use higher space ratios in assessing the
competitive effects of all applications =he Courtice Area.
One further matter remains to be discusse_ -- that of the proximity of
the Community Central Area and the prop_ se�_ LCA, and the potential for
impact when the CCA is developed on the 'as -s of future growth.
Some overlap in uses between LCA's and =C=.'s can be expected. However,
the latter is typically anchored by a Supermarket, which generates
sufficiently low rental returns to the :eloper as to require higher
rents from the balance of uses. For _ _.=.' s , this prescribes a fair
fashion component and high volume, high = _ a_Eic uses including fast food
chain restaurants, that can generate t .-_ =squired income. Fashion uses
are not typically represented in LCA's.
In addition, supermarket leases frequency- contain exclusionary clauses
which for example, preclude Confectioner (Jug Milk) , and competitive
specialty food operations in the same p:aza as the supermarket -- uses
that are quite compatible in LCA' s.
Hence, despite the proximity of the two _e-._res, the LCA is not expected
to diminish the leasing prospects imp_ r_ant to the CCA (i.e. super-
market, fashion, fast food restaurant , bank/trust facilities) , but
rather to be competitive through specia_t food offerings and a limited
array of card/gift/hobby/craft or other STM facilities. The personal
care service facilities typically find '-,' :,her representation in LCA' s
than CCA's, and if included in a CCA, w co.;ld generate lower rents than
equivalent amounts of higher order DSTM _pace.
Furthermore, the provision of highly con%aenient parking in excess of the
square footage requirements for the --;'_ject LCA would enhance its
competitive prospects upon market ent_r of the designated CCA, and
offset expectations for prolonged or de=r_mental competitive impacts on
the LCA at that time.
In conclusion, I reiterate my concern --r.at staff has understated the
available market potential through t^e use of the I.B.I. Group' s
tentative per capita space ratios. Use c` igher per capita retail space
ratios, consistent with other studies, in my opinion yields a more
realistic picture of warranted retail space, and would unquestionably
support the Courtice Heights application as submitted.
I also reiterate my opinion that differer.=es in the retail mix between
LCA's and CCA's would be the major offsetting factor that might
otherwise indicate future impact of the _-CA on the Courtice Heights LCA.
Hence, the LCA and CCA are different, though proximate, and their
proximity would be less a cause of future detrimental impact when both
facilities are developed, than a case of alternative shopping facilities
being provided at a reasonable distance separation.
I trust the foregoing is satisfactory.
Yours truly,
1 /
W. Scott Morgan, M. . I.P. ,
Encl.
1985 DSTM EXPENDITURE BY CATEGORY: ONTA.=12 D, TORONTO, AND REST OF ONTARIO
DSTM Category Onta::o Toronto Rest of Ontario
Department Store 4,480 ,627 1 ,811 ,445 2,669, 182
General Merchandise 1 , 11E ,c20 312, 122 806,698
General Stores 203 ,326 6,823 196,503
Variety Stores 40= ,320 77,617 327,703
Men' s Clothing 562 , 237 275, 109 287 , 128
Women's Clothing 1,06 ' ,:56 493 ,031 568,925
Family Clothing 425 , '99 184 ,842 240 ,357
Specialty Shoe Stores 83 ,,95 48,663 34 ,432
Family Shoe Stores 39- ,259 194,681 202 ,578
Hardware Stores 32: ,997 85,236 241 ,761
Household Furniture 66 ' ,397 239, 160 422,237
Household Appliances 21 : ,651 93,084 117 ,567
Furniture, TV, Radio & Appliances 22= ,3]7 134,594 91 ,713
Pharmacies 1,94-,757 713,508 1 ,234 ,249
Books & Stationery 254 , :91 116,935 137, 156
Florists 215 ,204 82, 177 133,027
Jewellery 37-= ,: 12 143, 260 231 ,752
Sporting Goods 55 : ,;84 250,603 300 ,381
Personal Accessories 755,779 426,790 328,989
Automotive Parts & Accessories 1 ,26'" ,:. 15 389,333 877,882
All Other DSTM Stores (44.69%) 2,677,331 995,760 1 ,681 ,571
I
TOTAL DSTM EXP. ($ 1985) 18,2C5 ,564 7,074,773 11 , 131 ,791
1985 POPULATION 910E: ,:00 3, 178,380 5,887,820
DSTM EXP. PER CAPITA ($19851 $2,C3E . 18 $2,225.91 $1 ,890 .65
Source: Retail Trade, Statistics Canada !2atalogue 63-005)
I
Table: 1
RETAIL FLOOR SPACE(IN 000'S)AND FLOOR SPACE PER PERSON,METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGIONS, 1983
INDIVIDUAL TOTAL POPULATION
STRIP RETAIL. SHOPPING CENTRES MALLS OUTLETS TOTAL RETAIL 1981 CENSUS- m2/CAPITA
M2 %� % m2 %� % m2 %1 % m2 %� % m2 %I %
Metropolitan Toronto 2,613.3 75.6 49.5 2,139.8 51.7 40.5 455.2 95.8 8.6 75.9 46.5 1.4 5,284.2 64.2 100.0 2,137,395 2.47
Durham 343.6 9.9 48.7 333.3 8.1 47.2 17.5 3.7 2.5 11.0 6.7 1.6 705.4 8.6 100.0 283,639 C"
York 156.6 4.5 27.9 392.5 9)5 70.1 - - - 11.1 6.8 2.0 560.2 6.8 100.0 252,053 2.22
Peel 133.4 3.9 13.4 812.5 19.6 81.6 - - - 50.3 30.8 5.0 996.2 12.1 100.0 490,731 2.03
Halton 210.2 6.1 30.5 461.2 11.1 67.0 2.3 0.5 0.3 15.1 9.2 2.2 688.8 8.3 100.0 253,883 2.71
Metropolitan Region 3,457.1 100.0 42.0 4,139.3 100.0 50.2 475.0 100.0 5.8 163.4 100.0 2.0 8,234.8 100.0 100.0 3,417,701 2.41
Waterloo 438.7 - 73.7 174.3 - 26.3 - - - - - - 663.5 - 100.0 305,496 2.17
TOTAL 3,945.8 - 44.4 4,314.1 - 48.5 475.0 - 5.3 163.4 - 1.8 8,898.3 - 100.0 3,723,197 2.39
Source: Statistics Canada(Cat.95-902)
Metropolitan Toronto Plaming Department
Research Division May 1933
W
t,fl
Table 3 RATIOS OF RETAIL FLOOR SPACE TO POPULATION BY MUNICIPALITY FOR METROPOLITAN TORONTO,1953,1966,1971,1976 AND 1983
1953(1) 1966 1971 1976 1983
Population m2/Capita Population m2/Capita Population m2/Capita Population m2/Capita population(3) m2/Capita
Toronto 698,000 1.98 697,422 2.04 712,786 2.04 682,000 2.71 599,217 4.53
York 117,000 0.98 145,721 1.00 147,301 0.99 145,000 2.13 134,617 2.30
East York 83,000 0.62 95,450 1.24 104,784 1.17 105,000 1.19 101,974 1.22
Etobicoke 107,000 1.20 1 265,187 1.21 232,686 1.49 320,000 .1.57 298,713 1.77
North York 119,000 0.88 399,534 1.35 504,I50 1.32 584,000 1.30 559,521 1.57
Scarborough(2) 89,000 0.33 278,377 1.13 334,310 1.15 420,000 1.27 443,353 1.64
METROPOLITAN
TORONTO 1,213,000 1.49 1,881,691 1.52 _ _2,086,017 1.53 2,256,000 1.81 2,137,395 2.47
(1) 1953 Population interpolated from 1951 and 1956 census figures.
(2) Excludes West Rouge in 1953, 1966 and 1971.
(3) Population from 1931 Census of Canada.
Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department
Research Division May 1983
w
r
John Bousfield Associates Limited
Consulting Town Planners
July 18th, 1986
�.__•r,..__.____• i J N.S} 4'S t�•�t,��A' t,,:r ar.s! !il,�..-...._..-._.....
Mr. William D. Manson
W.D.M. Consultants �� I "ore
20 Clematis Road -
Willowdale, Ontario M213 4X2
Dear Mr. Manson: f1F
Re: Proposed Local Central Area - Courtice Urban Area
O.P. 2.2.3 and 86-3/NC
This letter is in response to your request for an opinion on the
planning considerations which relate to the subject application, ie. a
proposal for a Local Central Area shopping centre on a 1.8 acre site
accommodating up to 27,000 square feet at the north-east corner of
Trull's Road and Nash Road.
In forming an opinion, we have reviewed the location of the site, the
nature of the surrounding uses, existing and proposed, the future
pattern of development, the relevant market reports, and the history of
the application to date.
It is patent that the Trull's Road/Nash Road intersection is the
preferred location for a local retail facility to serve (primarily)
Courtice Neighbourhoods 3a and 3b. Within Courtice, these roads
function as major collectors. The topography of the neighbourhoods
ensure that the local collector streets will feed neighbourhood traffic
directly to these main roads and hence to this focal intersection. As
well, the valley open space pattern suggests the possibility of a
further pedestrian/bicycle path system focussing on this same location.
At issue then is not the use or the location, but the matter of size.
In considering this aspect, we rely in the first instance on the analysis
by W. Scott Morgan, M.C.I.P. which unequivocally confirms future
market support for a Local Central Area in excess of 27,000 square
feet at this location. As well, we rely on our own planning
experience in new community design and development which has shown
that, notwithstanding a modest degree of overlap in certain specific
retail categories, local commercial centres in the 5-25,000 square foot
range do not impinge on the development potential of community-scale
shopping centres in the 100,000 square foot plus range. Centres of
the latter kind characteristically contain a sizeable food supermarket
and a large proportion of comparison shopping goods in the total
merchandise mix.
219 Front Street East, 2nd floor Toronto, Ontario M5A 1 E8 Telephone(416)947-9744
J my 18th, 1986 2. Project No. 80,i5
,Y
The Courtice Major Urban Area Plan recognizes the most appropriate
location for the community-scale facility at Highway 2 and Trull's
Road, the main intersection in the future Courtice community. The
proper location for Local Central Areas serving neighbourhood needs is
at the place of maximum convenience within the neighbourhoods. Once
identified, such a location should be permitted to develop to the
extent that the market for convenience purchases, and the physical
size and character of the site, permits.
In the instant circumstances, both the location and the size of the site
have been established and confirmed by a comprehensive zoning by-law.
The maximum potential convenience market has been determined by
authoritative study. Within the limits set by t`iat study, the scale of
the retail centre to be permitted.at Trull's Road and Nash Road should
therefore be established on the basis of a site plan which is properly
cognizant of the opportunities and constraints the property, the
surrounding land uses, and municipal standards overning urban design.
It is understood that a site plan for a centre the 21-23,000 square
foot range has been prepared and presented. subject to qualitative
review of its layout and design features, it is now wholly appropriate
for the Town to permit this Local Central Area facility to proceed.
We trust these observations will assist.
Yours very truly,
H n Associates Limited
J. ousf field, M.C.I.P.
J .sr