Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-249-86 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE / REPORT File # �c�. Res. # -- ¢ -�,• By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, October 20, 1986 REPOT #: PD-249-86 FILE #: OPA 86-3/ND SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO AMEND TOWN OF NEWCASTLE OFFICIAL PLAN (REVISED) COURTICE HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT PART LOT 30, CONCESSION 3, COURTICE URBAN AREA FILE: 86-3/ND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-249-86 be received; and 2. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle has no objection to the approval of Official Plan Amendment Application 86-3/ND as revised provided that the Local Central Area is limited to a maximum Gross Floor Area of 2000 square metres; and 3. THAT Staff be authorized to proceed with the associated amendment to the Neighbourhood Development Plan; and 4. THAT a copy of Council ' s decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham, the applicant and the interested parties indicated hereto. . . .2 REPORT NO. : PD-249-86 Page 2 BACKGROUND: On September 2, 1986, Committee considered Staff Report PD-198-86 which advised that Courtice Heights Developments Limited had submitted a revised application to amend the Town of Newcastle Official Plan to permit the development of a "Local Central Area" on a 0.736 hectare parcel of land in * Part Lot 30, Concession 3, Courtice (see Key Map attached). Committee resolved (Resolution #GPA-770-86) that the revised application be referred to Staff for review and subsequent report. This resolution was endorsed by Council on September 8, 1986. As noted by Staff Report PD-198-86, the application has been revised to indicate the development of a 2000 square metre (21,520 square foot) retail commercial plaza. j The proposed site design was also redesigned in response to concerns identified by Staff. As well , letters from the author of the original Retail Market Analysis, and a Planning Consultant were submitted in support of the revised application. Both of these letters raise substantive questions which Staff will address in this report. COMMENT: In his letter, the Market Consultant argues that the per capita requirement for retail commercial space provided by I .B.I . Consulting Group in the Courtice Development Plan and used by Staff to determine the amount and distribution of commercial space in Courtice was too low. I .B.I . 's calculation was based on the Bowmanville situation, which yielded a per capita requirement for retail commercial space of 0.93 square metres, 70% of which was allocated to the Community Central Area and the remainder, being equivalent to 0.28 square metres, being allocated to specific neighbourhoods and/or along Highway 2. Using these figures, Staff calculated that there would be sufficient demand in Neighbourhoods 3A & 3B to support 1,000 square metres of retail commercial space on the subject site without detrimental impact upon the other two convenience commercial sites designated in Courtice North. . . .3 REPORT NO.: PD-249-86 Page 3 The Market Consultant states that the Bowmanville requirements are too low in comparison to provincial averages. For Metro Toronto and Durham Region, the Gross Floor Area space ratio is in the range of 2.48 square metres per capita. This figure includes restuarants, banks and office space within retail strips and shopping centres, but excludes non-retail establishments such as car dealerships. Use of this higher ratio would indicate that approximately 2666 square metres gross floor area, including restaurant and bank space, could be supported on the subject site. Staff do not dispute the Market Consultant' s assertion with respect to per capita demand for retail commercial floor space. Research by Regional Planning Staff, who are currently reviewing the commercial floor space allocations in the Regional Official Plan, indicates that current commercial floor space requirements are in the range of 2.46 square metres per capita. However, Staff note that this demand figure encompasses total floor space within Main Central Areas such as downtown Oshawa. To apply this total figure to determine floor space requirements within the Courtice Urban Area in isolation is misleading. The Market Consultant, in discussions with Town Staff, has acknowledged this weakness in his analysis, but was unable to advise as to how the figure for per capita requirement could be revised to determine the amount of floor space which could be supported on the site subject of the development proposal . Regional Planning Staff have advised that, since the mid-1970's when the commercial floor space allocations in the Regional Official Plan were generated, the per capita requirement for commercial floorspace has increased by approximately 50%. This increase is apparently due to changes in consumer demand and in the structure of retailing. Staff note that I .B.I . 's calculations were based on the floor space data collected during this same period (i .e. 1977) and that this data reflected only commercial floor space located within Bowmanville. Therefore, it would be valid to use the per capita demand figures generated by I .B.I . , as modified to reflect the general increase in consumer demand, to determine the current commercial floor space requirements within Courtice. . . .4 REPORT NO.: PD-249-86 Page 4 Using an up-dated figure of 0.42 square metres per capita requirement for retail commercial space outside the Community Central Area, the demand for retail space with within Neighbourhoods 3A and 3B would be 3066 square metres. Assuming a maximum floor area of 500 square metres for each of the two other Neighbourhood Commercial sites designated within these neighbourhoods, it would appear that 2,066 square metres of retail commercial space could be supported on the subject site without a detrimental impact upon the other two commercial sites. Staff note that the revised application proposes the development of 2000 square metres of retail commercial space. Therefore, there appears to be sufficient market demand to support the development of the proposed Local Central Area on the subject site. The other major issue identified by both the Market Analyst and the Planning Consultant is the proximity of the proposed Local Central Area to the designated Community Central Area at the southeast corner of Highway 2 and Trull 's Road. The two sites are located 400 metres apart, which translates to approximately one (1) minute travelling time. Staff were concerned that the Local Central Area of the size proposed by the applicant, could be negatively impacted by the Community Central Area in the long term. The Market Consultant states that, although some overlap in uses can be expected between the two centres, this overlap tends to be limited inasmuch as different types of uses tend to be attracted to each centre. For example, personal care service uses and convenience stores would be attracted to the Local Central Area, while clothing retailers would be more likely to locate in the Community Central Area. The Consultant also notes that such features as highly convenient parking would make the Local Central Area more attractive to patrons. In his letter, the Planning Consultant supports the position of the Market Consultant. Staff have reviewed the arguments of the two consultants and agree with their conclusions with respect to the degree of overlap between the uses in . . .5 REPORT NO.: PD-249-86 Page 5 the Local Central Area and the Community Central Area. As well , research by Regional Planning Staff indicates that lower order centres such as the proposed development are thriving in comparison to mid=range centres such as would be developed in the Community Central Area. Staff, therefore, conclude that the impact of the Community Central Area on the proposed Local Central Area would be within tolerable limits. A number of area residents have objected to the proposed development. They note that the site is located within a residential area and note the location of three schools within 1.5 kms. of the subject site. They are also concerned with the increased traffic which would be generated by the proposed development. One letter in support of the application has been submitted. With respect to the location of the proposed development within a residential area, Staff note that the function of a Local Central Area as defined by the Town of Newcastle Official Plan (Section 6.5.2) is to serve the day to day needs of the residents of the surrounding residential areas. Staff note-further that-Trull-s -Road--and -Nash—Road east of-Trul-ls-are--- -- -- --- designated as Type "B" Arterials, while Nash Road to the west is designated as a Major Collector. The function of these roads is to carry large volumes of traffic and are intended to be the major carriers of traffic generated within Neighbourhoods 3A and 3B. The Planning Consultant notes in his letter that the Trull s Road/Nash Road intersection is the preferred location for a local retail facility to serve the Courtice North Neighbourhood. Given the considerations outlined above, Staff have no objection to the approval of the revised application. It is therefore recommended that the Region be advised that the Town has no objection to Official Plan Amendment application 86-3/ND (revised) to designate a Local Central Area on the subject site, provided that such Local Central Area is limited to a maximum Gross Floor Area of 2000 square metres. Specific site design matters can be addressed at such time as the applicant applies for rezoning and Site Plan approval . . . .6 REPORT NO.: PD-249-86 Page 6 Staff further note that the subject site -is designated as a Convenience Commercial Facility by the Neighbourhood Development Plan, and that the applicant's application to amend the Neighbourhood Development Plan was denied by Council on May 26, 1986. It is therefore further recommended that, should the subject Official Plan Amendment be approved by Council , that Staff be authorized to proceed with the necessary amendment to the Neighbourhood Development Plan without a further application being required of the applicant. Respectful s tted, T.T. Edwards, M.C.I .P. '� Director of Planning JAS*TTE*j i p *Attach. October 8, 1986 CC: Mrs. Joyce Gunn CC: Mr. Don McKenna - - -- ----R-.R-.--#3- -- - -- -- - - - ---- -- -B-ox 2-2; GY-o up--2 3— - --- ---------- BOWMANVILLE , Ontario R.R. #3 L1C 3K4 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K4 Mrs. Grace Howard R.R. #3 Mr. Ron Hennessy BOWivANVILLE, Ontario Box 17, Group 23 L1C 3K4 R.R. #3 BOWMANVILLE , Ontario Mr. W. Manson L1C 3K4 WDM Consultants 20 Clematis Road Mrs. Jane Rowe WILLOWDALE, Ontario Group 12, Box 59 M2J 4X2 R.R. #3 BOWMANVILLE , Ontario L1C 3K4 i LOT 30 _ r � u,n 1 — Re Hail Plaza b t RN Rn ffjS p 'OfA 20W%17lSp ION YI t 1 40 S I U) vA .., . — W Av a • it«, '� NASH ROAD =•SUBJECT SITE LOT 31 LOT 30 LOT 29 A I EP ;J I � A EP A-8 A - „2 no n2 (H)R4 1 n1 1 M E► A �nr2 i (H)R4 EP Zn nE Jl r A S nr: ( (H)R3 RIB W [w EP 0 k+4 (H)R2-3 Z �a I P ) 0 I E♦ � n>c2 I RI n: a j R1 HASH ROAD R1 a J — R1 (H)R4 I Z RI I EP °- 0 b 100 t00.100 KEY MAP W. ;I Re: Courtice Heights Development. I have , points I would lice to snake. 1 . Is such a facility needed? The consultant report and staff reports are trying; desperately to establish that the larger facility can be profitable, or even survive. Reading from staff report May 8-66, pale 6 - the fo_lowing: Given the problems identified by ,staff with respect to site design, and the potential for impact due to its proximity to the Community Central Area and other Neighbourhood Commercial sites designated within Neigh- bourhoods 3A and 3B, it is recommended that the subject official Plan Amendment application �h4 Neighbourhood Development Plan application be referred back. to Staff to permit further dialogue with the applicant. And from staff repott00ct. 8-86 , page 4 - the following: The other major issue identified by both the Market Analyst and the Planning Consultant is the proximity of the proposed Local Central Area to the des- ignated Community Central Area at the southeast corner of Highway 2 and Trull's Road. `.L'he two sites are located 400 metres apart, which translates to approximately one ( 1 ) Minute travelling time. ,staff were concerned that the Local Central Area of the size proposed by the applicant, could be negatively impacted by the Gommunity Central Area in the long term. The Market Consultant states that, although-,,some overlap in uses can be expected between the two centres, this overlap tends to he limited inasmuch as different types of uses tend to be attracted to each centre. I{'or example, personal care service uses and convenience stores would be attracted to the Local Central Area, while clothing retailers would be more likely to locate in the Community Central Area. "fhe Consultant also notes that such f°eature6as highly convenient parking would make the I continuation of point 1�:� Page 2 Local Central Area more attractive to patrons. In his letter, the Planning Consultant supports the position of the Market Consultant. END OF QU,4TEr The consultant and staff are trying to establish if the larger facility can survive, ie. : the highly convenient parking would make the Local Central Area more attractive to patrons. I would hope we don' t re-zone in a residential area so we can attract business away from the Community Uentral Area. 2. Does the consultant and staff reports give us confidence? The Consultant report is using the most favourable data base. they can and Planning staff, do not seem very convinced the data base is appropriate. On page 5 of staff report, dated Oct. 8-86, I quote: The Planning Consultant notes in his letter that the 1Trulls Road/Nash Rtiad intersection is the preferred loca- tion for a retail facility to serve the Courtice North Aeighbourhood. END OF QUOTE Why is this the preferred location, probably because the developer owns the land. If they owned land on highway 2 that would be the preferred location. The Consultant study supporting the change would have to be positive to be of any value to Uouttice Heights Devel- opment. On page 3 of staff repobt .dated Oct. 8-86, 1 quote: Staff do not dispute the Market Consultant's assertion with pespect to per capita demand for retail commercial floor space. However, Staff note that this demand figure encompasses total floor space within Main Central Areas such as downtown Oshawa. To apply this total figure to determine fl.?or space requirements within the Courtice Urban Area in isolation is misleading. The market Consult- ant, in discussions with Town Staff, has acknowledged this weakness in his analysis , but was unable to advise as to I I (continu&tion of point 2) Page 3 how the figure for per capita requirement could be re- vised to determine the amount of floor space which could be supported on the site subject of the development pro- posal. .END OF QUOTE So the base numbers we are using are misleading and the Consultant is unable to advise as to how to figure out the need for the amount of floor space on the sL�Jecb site. A stat4ment on page 4 of staff report states therefore, there appears to be sufficient market demand to support the development of the proposed local Central Area on the subject site. END OF QUOTE The other neighbourhood Commercial sites mentioned in May report are no longer being considered. It would seem to me that several small convenient stores woula better serve our day to day needs, than a single lar6er facility . I feel if we are going to change our area zoning we should have more positive consultant analysis. 3. The impact on existing convenience store and the development of a Gommunitly 1'­t­1 ­ea. As I have already stated, staff report acknowledges the competition the Local Ventral area will have vith the Community Central area. This could have the effect of delaying the development of the �,ommunity Ventral area, until long after a true need for such an area exists. Also the impact on the existing convenience store at Highway 2 and Trulls Rd. has not been considered. 4. The impact on the surrounding residettial area. 5 Staff report of uct. 8. 86, states that a re^taurant will be a part of the complex if the zone change is allowed. I would like to read a portion of an article from I The Times dated Oct. 16-86. Newcastle council has referred a 39-name petition (continuation of Point 4) Page 4 from residents complaining ab:)ut noise from a country and western bar on Waverly Rd. in Bowmanville to the clerk' s department for a report. Residents of the Wavely Road - Heatheri.Aon 1)rive- Quinn Dr. area, are angered by noise from the dozy Oourtry lestaurant at 96 Waverly Rd. Rousseau, wlio lived directly acros,,:; Lhe toad from the bar, added treat many people in the neighborhood feel that the restaurant is in the wrong location. "It would be much better in an inaustrialized zone where they could play their music as loud a,, they want, ', he said. END OP' QUOTE If the prpposed facility is looking for a profitable anchor, you can be sure that a licenced restaurant would meet that need, by drawing people from miles around. This is most certainly not the same as meeting the neighbourhood day to day needs, as was intended by the present zoning. 5. Has the traffic flow been adequately considered? The result of increased traffic through a R1 zoned residential area was'- mentioned at a previous meeting. Now the Planning Staff have justified their position by saying the road is designated to carry lar-e volumes of traffic. Ninety percent of those portions of Nash and Trulls Roads designated Type "B" Arterials border on R1 zoned property. Roads in Ushawa that are designed to carry this volume of traffic have set back areas between the road and property lines , or subdivisions back onto the road. We are now considering adding an unnecessary load to a situation that developed through the years without any planning. I feel-.'that if our elected representatives allow this facility to be constructed within 400 meters of Highway 2, we are again developing without planning. Page 5 In conclusion, I would like to summarize with these points. 1 . The consultants reporting on behalf of Courtice Heights Development agree that the data base they used is misleading and they cannot advise staff planning; how to calculate a per capita need. 2. Staff Planning report lacks confidence in that they use terms like tolerable limits, and there appears to be sufficient market demand to support the development. j. All reports attempt to justify a potential for the developments survival, but no atterppt is made to justify that -the community really needs it. Much of the population the facility is supposed to serve live closer to the T ownline shopping community , than they do to Trulls Road. 4. if the development is approved and does not obtain the community support it needs, a licensed restaurant and lounge would provide a sure winner by drawing people from outside the community. 5. The increaseudn traffic cannot be pushed aside by saying the roads are designated for it When they were not designed to carry a large volume of traffic . Thank You.