The URL can be used to link to this page

AGENDA - Special Council - 20100812Au�oRA SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA N0.10-11 isURS9AY, AUGUST 12, 2010 3:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AURORA TOWN NALL PUBLIC RELEASE August 10, 2010 AURORA TOWN OF AURORA SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA NO. 10-17 Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:30 p.m. Council Chambers I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST ll APPROVAL OF AGENDA RECOMMENDED: THAT the agenda as circulated by the Customer and Legislative Services Department be approved as presented. /if DELEGATIONS a) Mr. Jeff Davies of Davies Howe pg. 1 1623 Wellington Street Developments Re: Comments on Official Plan Update IV CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION V READING OF BY --LAWS RECOMMENDED: THAT the following listed by-law be given 1st, 2nd and 3rd readings, and enacted: 5271-10 BEING A BY-LAW to confirm actions by pg. 158 Council Resulting from Special Council Meeting 10-17 on August 12, 2010 VI ADJOURNMENT Special Council Meeting Thursday, August 12, 2010 Page 2 of 3 AGENDA ITEMS 1. PL10-052 — Five Year Official Plan Review and 2C Secondary pg. 2 Plan Update and Presentation RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive the report. 2. Town of Aurora Official Plan Review & Area 2C Secondary Plan pg. 6 Council Workshop, August 12, 2010 RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive the presentation and provide comments on the Draft Official Plan. 3. Town of Aurora Official Plan Review Correspondence Matrix pg. 48 ➢ Steering Committee Correspondence Matrix ➢ Staff/Agency Correspondence Matrix ➢ Public Correspondence Matrix RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive the Correspondence Matrix. 4. Memorandum from Al Downey, Director of Parks pg. 54 and Recreation Services Re: Official Plan Draft RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive the memorandum from the Director of Parks and Recreation Services. Special Council Meeting Thursday, August 12, 2010 Page 3 of 3 5. Town of Aurora 2C Secondary Plan Study — Draft Secondary Plan pg. 57 Overview, August 12, 2010 Workshop RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive the presentation and provide comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan. 6. Town of Aurora 2c Secondary Plan Study Correspondence Matrix pg. 99 ➢ Public Correspondence Matrix RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive the Correspondence Matrix. 7. Memorandum from AI Downey, Director of Parks pg. 105 and Recreation Services Re: 2C Secondary Plan RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive the memorandum from the Director of Parks and Recreation Services. 8. Correspondence from David Charezenko, Vice President, pg. 108 Planning & Design, iPLANcorp Re: Comments on the Draft 1 Aurora 2C Secondary Plan RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive the correspondence from David Charenko of iPLANcorp. 9. Correspondence from Don Given, President, pg. 116 Malone Given Parsons Ltd. Re: Comments on the 2C Draft Secondary Plan RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive the correspondence from Don Given of Malone Given Parsons Ltd. Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Delegation (a) - 1 .ydetr't & 40, C, 6014 EGtk�'JAs[f/ DELEGA QM REQUEST Customer and Legislative Services Town Clerk 905-727.3123 info0a-aurora.ca Town of Aurora 1 Municipal Drive, Box 1000. Aurora. ON L4Q 6,h Requests for delegation status, any written submissions and background information for consideration by Council or committees of council must be submitted to the Clerk's office by PLEASE PRINT COUNCIL(COMMITTEE/ADVISORY COMMITTEE DATE:, 1R Ake- SUBJJEC`C: OP 4V'CI W NAME: IF F F 0 4y/F3 -r. A 0Al PHONE: HOME: BUSINESS: q6, 177, ?198$ FAX NO.: E-MAIL ADDRESS: DrvzAE°esh�tl -C' DO YOU REQUIRE ANY ACCESSIBILITY ACCOMMODATION NAME OF GROUP OR PERSON(S) BEING F:IEPRESENTED (if applicable) f 623 W 2u,ta 7OA" ��-i �'r D v r aP,•� ��rs BRIEF STATEMENT OF ISSUE OR PURPOSE OF DEPUTATION C0ti,41CT 'T5IqM± oAJ or f-tr mnal information on this form Is eolleated under Map legal authotlty of the Municipal Ac4 as emended. The information Is soled and maintained for the purpose of creating a r-,eaord that is available, to the general public, pursuant to Section 27 of Municipal Preodom of Information and Protection sf prisracy Act. Quesdona about this collection should be directed to Town Clan, Town of Aurora 1-Municlpal Ddw Box T 4700 Aurora, ON L4G 6Jt Telephone 905727-3123. _a r r Cor munaty -1- Special Council Agenda Item 1 - 1 August 12, 2010 TOWN OF AURORA Au —ORA SPECIAL COUNCIL No. PL10-052 SUBJECT: Five Year Official Plan Review and 2C Secondary Plan Update and Presentation FROM: Marco Ramunno, Director of Planning and Development Services. DATE: August 12, 2010 RECOMMENDATION THAT the report be received for information. PURPOSE To update Council on the status of the Five Year Official Plan Review Update (including the policies pertaining to the Aurora Promenade being the Yonge Wellington Corridor areas) and the 2C Secondary Plan; and To present the draft copies of the "Town, of Aurora Official Plan — Draft 2" dated July 19, 2010 and the "2C Secondary Plan Draft 1" dated July 9, 2010 to Council for discussion purposes. BACKGROUND Five Year Official Plan Review Council adopted a Terms of Reference for the Five Year Official Plan Review on May 12, 2009 and subsequently appointed a steering committee made up of Mayor Morris, Councillor Gaertner, Councillor Gallo and Councillor MacEachern. In addition, the Town retained the consulting firm of The Planning Partnership, supported by a team of expert advisors from URS Canada Inc. (transportation and civil engineers), Millier Dickinson Blais Inc. (economic development) and Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (natural heritage), to assist with the completion of the study. The draft Five Year Official plan contains draft secondary plan polices to implement the draft Aurora Promenade — Concept plan within Chapter #11. 2C Secondary Plan Council adopted a Terms of Reference for the Five Year Official Plan Review on April 14, 2009 and subsequently appointed a steering committee made up of Mayor Morris, Councillor Gaertner, Councillor Gallo and Councillor MacEachern. In addition, the Town retained the consulting firm of The Planning Partnership, in association with URS Canada Inc. (transportation and municipal servicing engineers and heritage. -2- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 1 - 2 August 12, 2010 -2- Report No. PL10-052 consultants), NRSI (environmental consultants) and CB Richard Ellis (real estate & . market consultants) to assist with the completion of the study. In addition, URS Canada Inc. will be coordinating the Environmental Assessment process for the Secondary Plan Study Area. Five Year Official Plan Review A Public Open House was held on January 12, 2010 for the purpose of establishing a vision for the Town's new Official Plan. The Official Plan is required to be reviewed every five years in accordance with the Planning Act. The purpose of the update is to include any new Town of Aurora policies/studies and to conform to new provincial policies such as "Places to Grow: The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe" and the new Draft York Region Official Plan. Several steering committee meetings have been .held since that time to review the revised chapters of the new Official Plan as drafted, The chapters as revised have been consolidated into. the draft "Town of Aurora — Official Plan — Draft 2" dated July 19, 2010. This consolidated draft has been circulated to internal departments, external agencies and placed on, the Town's website. Subsequent to the Special Council meeting and based on comments received and further review by the steering committee the Town will hold another public open house and a statutory public meeting in September. The Official Plan — Draft 2, Chapter 11 contains secondary planning policies based on the draft Aurora Promenade — Concept Plan (Yonge and Wellington Corridor Study).: 2C Secondary Plan The 2C Secondary Plan will establish land use policies for the last remaining "Greenfield" development area in Aurora. A Landowner Group representing the majority of the landowners west of Leslie have already submitted applications pertaining to the policy framework in which they would like to see the area developed. In addition one application has been submitted for lands east of Leslie Street. Both these applications have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, however the landowner groups are working with the Town and the Steering Committee towards the development of a Secondary Plan for the area. Furthermore, representatives of the remaining lands east of Leslie have been participating in the process and have made presentations to the steering committee. A three day workshop was,held at the end of May Town Staff, external agencies such as the Region, Boards, landowners and developers and members Newmarket. 2010 with the Steering Committee, Conservation Authority and School of the public from both Aurora and -3- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 1 - 3 August 12, 2010 -3- Report No. PL10-052 The purpose of the workshop was to establish the objectives of the plan and to identify issues that need to be addressed. During the workshop four land use options were prepared for the secondary planning area. At their meeting of July 5, 2010, the Steering Committee began to choose the elements that will make up the preferred plan for the secondary planning area and directed the Consultants to prepare the first draft of the 2C Secondary Plan. The "2C Secondary Plan — Draft V dated July 14, 2010 has been circulated to internal departments, external agencies and placed on the website. Subsequent to the Special Council meeting and based on comments received and further review by the steering committee the Town will hold another public open house and a statutory public meeting in September. Public Consultation As mentioned above, several public meetings such as Public Open Houses, Workshops and Steering Committee meetings have been held to date. The following is a chronology of the meetings that were held for the Official Plan Review (inclusive of the Aurora Promenade Study) and 2C Secondary Plan. • Apr. 20, 2009: • May 13, 2009: • May 28, 2009: • June 15, 2009: • June 16, 2009: • June 17, 2009: • Nov. 2, 2009: • Nov. 18, 2009: • Nov. 25, 2009: • Dec. 14, 2009: • Jan. 12, 2010: • Feb. 3, 2010: • Feb. 10, 2010: • Feb. 17, 2010. • Mar. 3, 2010: • Mar. 29, 2010: • Apr. 7, 2010: • Apr. 26, 2010: • May 19, 2010: • May 26, 2010: Aurora Promenade Steering Committee Meeting Aurora Promenade Community Workshop/Open House #1 Aurora Promenade Steering Committee Meeting Joint EDAC-Aurora Promenade Steering Committee Meeting Aurora Promenade Workshop/Open House # 2 (Day 1 of 3) Aurora Promenade Workshop/Open House # 2 (Day 2 of 3) Aurora Promenade Steering Committee Meeting Aurora Promenade Workshop/Open House # 2 (Day 3 of 3) Aurora Promenade Steering Committee Meeting Aurora Promenade Public Open House # 3 OP Reiview/2C Secondary Plan Steering Committee Meeting Aurora Promenade Steering Committee Meeting Public Open House for Official Plan Review OP Reiview/2C Secondary Plan Steering Committee Meeting Aurora Promenade Steering Committee Meeting OP Reiview/2C Secondary Plan Steering Committee Meeting OP Reiview/2C Secondary Plan Steering Committee Meeting Workshop (Advisory Committee Forum) for the Town's Advisory Committees Regarding the Official Plan Review OP Reiview/2C Secondary Plan Steering Committee Meeting OP Reiview/2C Secondary Plan Steering Committee Meeting OP Reiview/2C Secondary Plan Steering Committee Meeting 2C Secondary Plan Workshop -4. Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 1 - 4 August 12, 2010 -4- Report No. PL10-052 • May 27, 2010: • May 31, 2010: • June 4, 2010: • June 7, 2010: • June 14, 2010: • June 21, 2010: • June 23, 2010: • June 28, 2010: • July 5, 2010: • July 12, 2010: • July 14, 2010: 2C Secondary Plan Workshop 2C Secondary Plan Workshop Aurora Promenade Steering Committee Meeting OP Reiview/2C Secondary Plan Steering Committee Meeting Aurora Promenade Steering Committee Meeting ' OP Reiview/2C Secondary Plan Steering Committee Meeting Aurora Promenade Public Open House # 4 OP Reiview/2C Secondary Plan Steering Committee Meeting OP Reiview/2C Secondary Plan Steering Committee Meeting Aurora Promenade Steering Committee Meeting OP Reiview/2C Secondary Plan Steering Committee Meeting ALTERNATIVES TO THE RECOMMENDATION FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications associated with this report. The costs of implementing the programs and initiatives cited in this report have been managed by Council in its administration of annual budgets and longer -term financial planning. CONCLUSION The draft Official Plan and 2C Secondary Plan being presented have evolved through public open houses and steering committee meetings which have been open to the Council members, landowners and other interested parties. Additional Steering Committee meetings, a further public open house and a statutory public planning meeting will be held for both projects prior to the documents being be forwarded to Council for consideration in September 2010. PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW CAO and Director of Planning and Development Services. Marco a nno, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director of Planning and Development Services eil Ga e Chief Administrative Officer -5- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2-1 C cc c� 0 Q CD N t� Cn (n all w CO U U) 0 0 U L O ^O W Ir L Jcu L U) w ry W C O CL C U (1) Cr Q L U] Q) C �C C d N H -6- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 2 C (LS ® C C c0 Z U C W o Q }- CL m � O>o T N r i) CV C a C o -a0 c� CO rVOO � N U) Cz ® U) (� m Cn N � RS ,� p .> C J OC U) ® OC Un Z O ® M Cfl O , M O O U C'7 CC) r�- .7. Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2-3 a w z CL a 0 z 0 U w U N CL 0 s U L (1) L Cz d} .V N C s Cz U - QQ> U E'i c�U E0�� 0�� C a� U . u 'I °' w L L L �a000 •L s L U .0 U UUU O E 0 a� a) 0 'E C O 'c CZ C L ME N ,�-- O a- C U p CU L) ( L O O �CZCZ 4-1 E :2 (D 0 o o U�� Cz ECz 4-0 C) E C o 4-0 FL m a C O i O N O U = CU LJJ (D 0 — (n CA - U U CV Uv Ez.� U o c , a }, O U LJJ U C J p Q Q U 0 CO c +4 Zn N H— Ui M O _CO O Co Gi m CU C �m C o-le }+ C .0 Cn L C U �' CO CU _ �(n L W 0 C) �D2zv -8- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 4 N O E E O U >, L O U] Q Q� Q� 0-V 0 E W 0 4-1 O U -0 O O E Q <> z C: (1) p U O� U w U '— .N W > O 4— O L V) < Q _U L N o O Ln E L` � � LO M N L) J U EL U) L 0 � � =5 Q Ce O m �.J N c o-L�-0>� LL �L +-, 4� J O cn c L >1 -c-- >, L c U VJ U �z Q -� Q� Q o 75 N o + CL M .C: O C CU �7 _U ❑ _ .E 03 U) U ,� N +j co c O E M �' U c p O c O O (n = U W " O U _ O `~ L O J _aj� N V U O O L M L 0 v C�ya� O L 2 U Cn Cz O H C� �O U c M O Lcc C Mc U c C c Ot7 o0Q = ciQ o QML z2: -=; r—w0 _g- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 5 z 0 w N Os 4-1 -6--j X O ►i 1 -10- Special Council Agenda August 1%210 Item 2.e C: §/ / m®� § . Q' t m �. ° /2 \ f 2 f § 2 £ ƒ 0 0 2 CL £\2 @ 2 > a / f E � 2 ƒ § ° / k a) 2=m "E y B > ¥ f h/ E E ° / M cm2 / 2 ° L / / / 2 \ 0 \ 0 E @ s § 2 in 222 2 COOL /� U\/ k_ / fE t E§ F & 2 e 0 9 0 2 < & Q E f e . E$$ o o 2 ¢ 'E \ / of � » / / E 2 � o E / $ § ƒ ) A E / .$ 7 E E f k 2 / g E % .a) CL § C.) 5 0- kk% O Special Council Ag_da August 12, 2010 It m2.7 3: m = W \� 2 % . > / / W 5 5 r > Cie j\ 2 C)� � e » k\ / �/ C a) a) .\¥ .2 Of ° / E2 .»E C:2 0 7.. c3 CO§ �m 3 /CO LL /[ 2 _: e LL g/ P > 2 EB §� 2 k /\ / 0 LU / kƒ / % E / � �22 C �¥ /f� \f ƒE 0 2 ) @ C 2 $ FL /. 0.0 C /20 /7 a) 0) CL . . $ k. \ ƒ / / \ ƒ ( k / � \ 3 0- / k LO N ƒ / [ ® \ > . 0 5 \.E q = m / 0) a % \ f e 2 f R � o 3 % ƒ % E t % " � / : 0. 0 b E 'O 0 @ ƒ 0 § / J .22. Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2-8 a 0 0 O U z w 0 w U O cc CL c�- _ L a. Q d o L V a � IR � Y CA H w Y v V O 0 O 2 U o m 0 CL m 1�c �aa o -13- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 item 2 - 9 W z a U W LL 0 C 0 CD C� N �+ U U Q Co a. C O — _ � O � C .Fj C � a) W �YE(D �c E (6 O O 0 L) r N cl7 o CO 04 a) � Q � a CL C •U 7+ 0, w C • 0) C: EL (D to C FL N �" — (A C O : U E m C O O •— C O 7 C 3 C N to U U O.. w C U E 3 ai 7+ Ca 3 O C/) U +_� 2 C � � N C) (� {!� O C d- ;Z CO C C t„ D �, O O �- U w MU) U) >C��QLi 4 L6 N O N (0 U E 3 L Q O > � C E C O O' "M o n w C/) D Cn o r NCM4L6COf`wM,- -14- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 10 C 0 4-0 C N E— UC� V? U C _ E 0 0 o c -� -1 & (D W � ow U > z L 0) (1) � CU (D (U 0) C _ 0 000 N .� ao O M N� w s U N E U 0 O a) a)LL 0 C: CU 4-4 CL C/) -o 0 E C: C 07 0 U a ca o ° CO cn a)� j a) V 0 O U •U C (Z .N x LL I..L Q CO W 0 }' z:) r -15- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 11 w U z a U W LL 0 N V N + Ox Lv n O U }' .O oQ O �4-0 O N E q: -16- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2-12 N � � o O N M��- C�) � U z (6 CO `� � w 0 0 2 W - Q CO Q '� a Ez ° Z0MrL C/) _04-oo= ��aDo �O°'�a,� Z o ° =� — CO� to LU CO 0)0�.� O O CO 0 E� Q3 -� LL �6-10 �� O •��CO oo�o.�,0) �`� U � � M � o U N -� oroCO �fi U z O N N CO CCU ��0M 0 E Q (� U � -z -17- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 13 N �YJ Z4-0 QE tf Cn _0 a) N U 0 U U T. U 'tn LL � a� o � -0 � _ � °o = •—E o z LL o a, .v' z o = a� U a� C a1 -0 O � c w �} •M z o � L CO 0 CD-CU U N - c CM L Qs o LCn .� -a O � o O � o O O N� •� N O O 0_ W 00 0- 0- 0- ❑ Q 00 W U LL D o �-� N () LL N C`7 4 L6 C6 t� 00 d� r r � -18- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 14 -� - a) a _0 -F- O S 4-0 O N L fn _ L E Cn . yL-- � C � C O U N X U O U C C a 70 O �' M C W �, ' C: Q •Cz (6 O � -0 U C -0 E C -0 � 3: CU (0 L (II _ E Co O L N C Z -0.O O O .> •1--+ L y+ O (D 4J C + E O Q U3: E �E C CO a E U) }? aai C O O(D O U C O E-0 O O M (n W Co O O C-0 V O N O L)'V p c N C N LL C O - N C 'V •C 0) N C O - 0) 0 0- O E � �-0 C +_ N _0 W U a E Cn 1..{r� .. E (� a) p - U c� M o N N C -N m - p)., C O 'C C Q V Y c�,2�°a a°�a -19 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 15 0 Ln 4-0 A c� ui c j > 0 }' U U N += .a? W o LLJ c N W c 0 L � E U v o V- o a -0 Z�+ 0 CL }' C C S1 E 0 a) U v W E cn L � ! W a) 0 0 C a) -0 UU O (3) -n 0 0 c O >— U cn .cA w a 0 CD O N - 0 (' C] Q) {D a) s a� C N � (D co O a) 0�- a) 0 E Ca- ►� E4-0 O N 0 0a)0 Qo y V n w LO IJ� O) U Q : CD C CD O a) in C (C� W a a) VVI ^LO 7� -20- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 16 W z a U M I 4- 0 En m U N #, N C N Q (D N i N cn N (n O N0 j M O N LO � o � o _0 qqt M 0 T C O z N M C N Q? L 0 O N 0) O 0) O f!) = w O OL CM � � d N 4-0N -0 � C7 0 o c p E OO cU 0a- OU+ O O O U ¢ - 4-0 U) Z3 Q CO � N {p O O O E E N f Q Q J -21- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 17 W s 3 o L.L Q 3 0 N }, _O CL U E w O � — 1Z u E .� O Un W � M T M O N T N 0 N T O N 0 0 N CO CD 0 N Q] N 0 0 O CD O N N N O N M N r C co N r C ai CO 0 N 0 0 S O CD C a) O w C� 0 N 0 d O N N N .0 L .0 O 3 N�� rM 0 .0 3 0 3 Ln d i� C O C 2 o OCOCO p ¢ ED et C M �p a 0 � O a)L N (� N E o N a" LO CO a) a- ca LU U M M N 0 O'�M Q Q 0 Q -22- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2-18 s 2 co Ca ° 0) �� os ) !E r- O N L L CU O a] c N CO s M U) a 7 SG U O _ aj O Co c � F 0 E -0 M o W M� p U 0-0 O� O v O L C O }' O -+-- 0 CU -0 .U! O C a)Ca -0 Q U) L C E O X r O O O C t!) U o) E N U CSC �E �� Oc E Q — o Q M M �c Cu v, O L.L Mcc❑ xC �o� Qm-P O C M N 4-0 o Q T M I G O sn O(� .... C (�i) ` O O N CII }, LL y " � Q C V V n N O ''-' CA 2� p} i L O O ZM L Z3 CU O N O O •� _ +� V C O M U _ _ Z 4? +) 0-0 C N O in (� CO C7 W 0� u} 4-0 "a- = C7 W 0 .!=: 0- -23. Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 19 0 a) -I-, C: C N O 4-0 O 0 -0 C Cn a)V) /� cn N E co . _ O W •— C ON U +� 0 `. Ca _ O O C O C: O C 0 U .X a� aa)i a) M O 4-0 Ca C4 +� +� CO = O cU O — a) - 4-0 C -0C Oa) a) N c� U �_ Z C� En(� C a) U J U E_ •� Cn U s C CU C:C N O _ O O O N cn COc4 .II +r U U a) C N (D O — a) U in --. � �`� o -0 1 +'' � N 0 0 � N N CO VC"i OU 07'CCU Q LU - C a) COM C � C M s W n�0� +� Ca M0Q C En cU Cn X O ��0 V O C O � � " � .. to 1 � Q Qa) 1 OM•� � 1 0o �.0N c o �� c� +� N -0x C (D � � o� N y O O� �0 ) C:M O L a O o Q L C0 a)C: U) -02)� O � o N C > () d C O �� M •� L N C a) Q3 M CO O O �, C 0 W O �� C M E -0 M 0) M C }, C O = H C O U V _ Q }, 0 a E a) C: o o s a' °? L E En C- N O O }' O O 4 J E � Oa _ a- a) U6. CnIL .o 0 �' ". }' U C a) O c E V) w CO M C 4C•- w Q 0 N Q .24. Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2-20 z - - Lo 166 _ 22 MIT ffJN: 17f 3 (f- .T f lit titi {I1.\• KI1.1 � .r,{,�„ � •� P a _ _ 1 i l i _ I IIXt`" IIltill �I I • � y _ f� •f •�f,t�l {-If ;� i4•f • .�je .E y -i r + S 6 F rJr 33 f. �•y J DRAFT FOR REVIEW .,5111 f.(fNygrSX7}(r ew_ - Y . 25 - Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 21 u g �m C aa N a 3 U a a a O - --� Z W i x •• N O O O yw `.. -- x - 77i ;fi )IlffN flf N.51UJ. r F . i i I tN I� rl f 4 f I f E�•y >'Ere Tnk�'I r x F . • SC • d + t3 � f► W • • 137M13LSHfi]i1 8~�~•"+•�. ■ �• a ■ .4 M•M.�..y • • • t i 1 I DRAFT FOR REVIEW ",I'rll^,�I I YL'[I xl.ti -26- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 22 Z■ 4 •7 W W ON I D I INS Q a r rrr tittaru s.lr �x - _ — r ts37 .i . l.r S /f I . - n d O d II ` ?Ug 3r[. MAWR Fe rA I }y� x P L3377i.ti IS7ir11[I.YFI ~ � � � � y . DRAFT FOR REVIEW "N °rr„ 1i1)i .t:C1 i11.S LS77,7F ii 1`fi _ -27- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 23 LA 10 LO N 3 3 } IV D7 06 O M #, N CO c� c 4-0 �W C 0 Cn 4- O C O L C O C CV CQ 0 C6 C O U Q T I -28. Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 24 Co i 11.0 E o O v .� o E in w IMMA Imo.._. O� C _0 O �., C ❑ cv c� O d L O Q N CD O s a)N N L N •F U L � � a X 0. O N U . 2g - Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 25 C in -0 C V� W C M N (a Q d C M 0) C O 0) o C tZ � C ° O- _ O � L CU o .LD E C C tq D) .0 C O -1ma 9 M v .N Ca 3 = N L U CO C Q� �n0 Q� Co �o CO 0).0 .0) C C L :) IM 1 C 4- o ^ o a o I F- o N oo Q) CD .� CU N q� N a o M ° M ° ° ca,a 7, C: W W � W � O � L-i DI 0 C U O CO � n Z 0 CL s � U .� .� - M �, ° ° r N N CO) d' ❑ — a 4D 0- C. C CL 1 -0 C � > C L O Q L O L ,� L ._ � .� fn 0 CL O a 0 M 0 (n C .� CU • • • • E cz &- o o L L Ca -30- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 26 j o' U (nn U a) 0 U) ��06 (n CCnQ o��U)CY' 0 -0 CU J L N L C CO _ I L ii0 o iL ' _ c c U) O I v = V- � 3 N CO �( a (Da) � CO oc a� N N0 � _ a� t9 (1) 0 x E o U G G} X U) � �CU c_006 � 4' E N L v is O � r— N OC: C: • p Ff L !L tL Z a a- -31 - Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 27 a � d � G ; Z v „ m 3 Q [V v ac E T n U b O 60 a. • O = d rr, •� o N t a 7 L D C7 Wa U Q C v� a E �° .W cn b wC1 caif�cnU0.c - 32 - Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 .28 0 9 m � �i V] • f rCa .-- _ y G E- 3 i°r aTi p v�, "' o. C 4O c3 d Y E •� E O c •o o �. �� a 4. o E c V to � '� � ae c � E � � = o •� :c � � v G '� r •� v C O U v O tw O E w- c :: •� v .= -- E E rn E 3wA 9FU�iUUvEia.wari d Oil oil -33- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 29 � w o .b .. o a c� U GJ tfJ y F. L a o kpp C Y b C V7 � � c46 O G - ° pq bi N o y :a �A Uo a C N F y v o U o G E ;7a O c3 61 Cd CR U.4UO04 URA, W 5 -34- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 30 c o a a µ ° � V c F °' ti U y • cis E U m r� U a E, N N N 0➢ � UaU004 Uaa v �F -� �► _; ilglo, -35- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 31 C 0 > C 0- 0 C > C: cn ° v c O M —o - _C > C N 4-0 C -0 1 U _ nN `a a -a �M C O o C O L C O ( N a-0 I W L � �� oo Of 0 0-0 v N 0�� z a)C N E � O {� C: C C O O a) U4M.> CO � C -� N � s `� a) a 0 M (I1 W _ C a) L a C (� Z O ". 5 (D a) C ], (0 N 7 C E C O O 7 • N cll Z7 N N � U ' C 0 U L N C 0 J 0- 0 }— a0i a� d C O C 6 � cn o C cn 0 L` O U ' CU C N N 0 �_ L) O @ Q C� N � C a -a 4—C 'C N W O O O O � E N ai _ VC -0 �.+ m C O 0 Q 4-0 O }' Q O N C CO O - O Q C +� _ (� Z C a) Z }' M� {� NN W W M CO Q -36- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 32 Na N j C O c o I'I •� U � O O � O O CL N En E O =5 O (B O O � C rr ^^ OU •� U3 V1 W a)_O C Cn C � O O : -0 • C +� (1) En L (U `V N • L .i-- � U U QO (Nt5 C L E O NP 1a) E a) ( z cOp U (D-r- > O W �% _d CO W`4-1 U O Dl E C _� S O 'Q M C O V O C j U }, C O i M C a)a O=3 O E O oLL +W O C o C }, O LS a) >.. a) ❑ CO C >� U 0 W C Q) E E E In -O N O (� s O ��0 C O {� a� � 4-0 N W o n�i C7 O O O C• O U a 0 O C O cn _ N C X W O_ 0 0 12! C U W O Z O W U W W V! U .� .� -37- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 33 U) (/} L O O a) U) C M +� (D NU) E o CO N L O > L._ (� 0 a) L CU 1 I U L C L O _ W (� o a) _0 o�Q 111 C C O L U .� L E c E •N C v •T � O N �_ O Un U �+ z •- cn . U � a) -0 d � C_ L O M (D O CU c6CO a) O {4 4-0 = U X O ) CL -SeC O � O 0 a a} CO O (� Cr r a 'O Q L � C : LU .N > 4-0a M LL Q CL � En � � N 0 c� ate; 0 �� o a) o�� CO 0 cn Q.>.0 'v� 'Napo ��(D �� C�a) �C: (Da� �� UO� �� .+ 0 CD Q aai� ��,` N�'� �� E o� wU� a W o CO � co •��o v� �- 0+ 'a a N r o E O Q c� L Q� E a� UCU .v 0 a) vi i C a0) E 2 (%) W �� Ui W L C7 �� 0 (D U o •E J x -, cc 42 o ._ _ N N -38- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 34 ti A713HLSaJAUA I 0� o. r:r.gbrL, i o � 3 � '+••. t3 ant w• . " a Mti•Yy cfi41il-jil, "•..,..... Hru, I Ivil .y4.y DRAFT FOR REVIEW - 39 - Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 35 �*:': 0 C: O O 0 O M i U i> P 0 N � x (D C L � '] O O N O a— °o mLU 0CL2 (D �V fJ) cn a� o c (� U -0 U O O N U _0 U COcn C 0 O f6 N N N C N 0 a)O� U) U O 0 '&- M a)4-0 W �' N U U) O a) O � � U C � C v L C -� a) U rn (p o LL a) a)Q� n N�O c 00) ooa)D-E�� sr- '`—'��o r1 N N Cn O 0 O C gib) � oan.00 .o�Q en Q� ��Na V a � C)- o C En ++ 0 U -N O 0> a} O C 5 T (D p C� -40- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 36 C. CC Q CA m U � W L66 i. Y 3 u � f-hi. Ifl lliii 44 qq � l;t1aJ.S 7i1SEE � a f :7 Pe y i 1 if 1 I •• _ � ••Yaar fY S• • 46 t .:� +} • IMFP F 0 r, fi i o w f � � J.i a,�yE E 8 M ��. M .�. a.. •f. is •'tea •., � �-•M MaM-p � : •. � � a DRAFT FOR REVIEW �xE�S -41- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 37 C C O — N a_ w M QCr C 0 C 0 N � N E U V U a)U O _ N Gt p C C� O N E }' Q _ o_ LL U W U O 0) CO UCo4-1 � C U C cc U N ,�N 0 O+ N O 2 0-O O s E O C O U U @� � � E O L M •� O O � E M O U -0 [A LiJ N Q � cn c` O cn L a)N� — N o U L 0 a)i 0. D1 � cr1 Q � O •U Q3 0 CL : M O) }, a) -a CLQ Cn E O E O C U � "-• a. j — E �O C16` L L)CL �,� T) a(n U C j C CM N �� U O .0 Mai E CL m 'N E T5 C: C— C N U C S S E O CU C _ (Q (� N O (� s O p3 L V � N C c"J!) 0 U u) IS M z v w '� w Q w -42- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 38 C O) O C C M U • — _0 ^, Vl ` 4_r_J ^ p C C; —0 O L cn = C M U Q M L O O L O C N +� O F4-1 — r— U W C �C 0)" ° C ~ a �� U E (R E O a� C 4 G � Q CCi _CU O C C C O E E E � CO ca _ .0 O N C N U p U � N CO N C � u� � — C CL o �� M �o c� , C a] C },CU C N U cn L U) Oi O' O C C 0? L) N fB f0 }CO = N O M Q = O O N (a E O n O E (%) Z cv W E W Z W= - 43 - Special Council Agenda August- 12, 2010 Item 2 - 39 6W 66 Al II Q I JT 7VP jo 4y J.'rius. -I- .:( Qr J. HAAV[F + -J.I.Inv 4aawjs owl , IM -J 0 DRAFT FOR REVIEW LVg -44- Special Co_d,Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2.40 $ 2 . C / O /0r �./ @ c ca Eo¥ ° o W $ /22� Mk§ z. 3 m e f _ 0)= o 0 0 ° $ 0) ) \ 3 2 § 2 \LU \U� � 7 $E§Z. k a r ) W 27§« 77 >_ o §F§■ c � E ■ ■ U o cc � o C*-- CO § LL 2 G— in% C:2=- § W La<5 // k � �� ¢O ca 2 � 0) ¢ § % V c o § ■ kk cf2 =2m o ■ a) : -0 v § © § E / r 0 > E 2 _ CL a 2 s x a) © 2 § \g c V ■ o r c f\ eta CO G 0 � 0 ( 9 - 0 o E c 2.\g\ °§ o E § 2 a § U v ■ - M § t / r.� $ E7� 2 f \ 2 .E a)o t 2 u _ 0 . CL E E G ■ . ° o 7 ■ = % 0 2 E—=o U _ o > u / 0 E g / v v Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 41 c o IL 0 (0 a� O E O N c U n o a� Q -°c .� c O m O Q � c o _ M N O EF N N E !� N CO N CL N cn (A (� a U i O iF C .. O U � V / O CL cn c O W N N N -0 C (6 Q p U �� U X o M a W U =) U O C Z �' U (n LL -46. Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 2 - 42 V) Z LU 37 37 O U V) Z O V) Uj D a -47- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 e a E E q° 5 • w �YYn mE = g iARM @ ��. y 6�8� CIF 11 NAM 8'E `ag Ie. gill ''ova$ i§ u 11 8`0w.s+ 8 a5wI8 s°�.8 �•� rim g1I .3pg aE�I'm a� I11- �2sa - w@ 19011.H. $ 1, 1 a= ggyy 1111361 y � I � ° pp �a gq g $ ,,$3$ � . d° ^ BIER a Will� gEg . •§ p $� �Q cnP PdWy�� F.6 .Fw��B�€ y @�Sf�j,{ pB �aryS SKY $1Y Fa'Zaa3 VS gy�. 95 ffia 64n3 UC 6 N V Gfi -Ali yS��QS @c M$ y W g 91 A� $• S'F n $ai §il- yy .3 I Is l ljs� AB S, "1 1 W yy °gym - r O At a a: sy 9- aE caa� tl= Sd aY a�iyRg3p}p t°$ W3� $, n Ad$ ��` �y m8 56� lot I RIM 2m All, CI W P g @ 9 !OW J NirY wyyg �de Item 3 - 1 0 -48- Item 3 - 2 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 s E c $ 3 w gg s ry g Sad $ Y O g Is eegggs B y5 I jig gasp. E bLB ca WISH�ti 10 1 �� Daly, $cP c$E$ t $ I § IN d. ¢M €J"aa�8 yy .4$ l g a111;11 �_� Ali! i ® ,€n {{ ik 5 f 81 9 �813 u 11 m 1$Silk It $8 fAEI $F KKF $� WLL.S SILO op^ • • ICES yg�yq YmY �LL Ii oil ; al b b sr N' N 0 -49- Item 3 - 3 Special.Council Agenda August 120 2010 Y a 6 ° u - Ri g y • :U S 9 b IN V,o S .1.D Ile Is I M. fflmo e �2 � ° 2 K-2 Eli ffi �on 383�•.� R� Sn r�r ;a N P 4, P'l6°ST9 11 rcIoI s �nF$a 3sI � is 0'r °%'SFR m '8 ,5g O.E,Ac 9gpgp g8 E955 Ogg. a�. g i gi3-¢9Q g�QyS g3�€s of yF 2Sg$E ®®382•�09e1EE8 p3 $�4a_ggF wi.�Sm 'Ea �' d`ad a.€ms ��'�' W01.2 sBS��aI�N '�yg��• gmg9Y�£b 3�pQ•��a @a $8a gx$g� .�� ¢_5�g o�NY�v �•m9 ��0 if "'ffi� �'��p ��•CCJ'45 $9- bs i�'$vN13Ei ;.Afi8� F i ..�p33pgpg.B d3M39H•y �.. 66 .�g�� dd@ ..; m�.a• .y. C ..... p.�ptl... ! 3 S- Inds d'9'b>Nm9�8� � �m Cg 8 pgE $p 2'i g F let°pp$ 1� 0 0 d Zn N J. . -so-. Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010. Item 3 - 4 i E U y� tl mo yr ®a � pp a m . 8 �4 Is Iell at Ate ab g JOINT; 23 �an R• °le sd .11 Ry,Faa ��1111 o 1a�'# app �g 3ima$�$ v � s a. gg 'Q - m� 1.R9 I q yyF99# 6 -lit $ $ 9 " 3 ' p A TLehill M Ilk � _ ;� � gge9 i _� �� gilt ¢ JIM H ......�y��1..�. Im3.a�@'gale.. if�E� E'App @.B�g.Ev Nall m` IN $r�3 s JosF `, n srRe#e�. R$ '�§ 8 Si $� e � Eea '�$9§ a5 a A` QWS��. cU€^ iy HIM H. N N • pp,, gg e aP- w-S C F`E -51- Item 3 - 5 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 i V wwL N�,gm5 ' raj �p`g yygf R� @•tg 8a m 5 N$ VA 8m E q ! y@ 3p ]o . 5le 9 S 8tl •�" m' �g .gB@ � ^� U 1 3 Q 1$3. 2' mg�s g'' co. 'g sk fig 11 `� n 0r''2 3€ ,g m$m b`. � � � ea�.w2 m�.�A'a 2 '� SW ��•� S'�'$F �� SS lip • Q}va@ �• g 3 g�F@. 3a •. a w 3 QeI mta�L� �5§ BSA —!IN 8 $3 $ $ .B.gs..� _� _� Alp tgRl6�.9�$'5 9 ee$m3§j g g,@@Y�g9C�$Im HIM HIM 'S QQ @4C @�•yg �, 3 0@@0.3 p3 pe ygm @ by b•mL 5�bE3].��i i bsg¢gOaC p� �S•5m� if63$ gig IL/W 95tl O 3•��8mp� S W 4U y O j` !Sol a�rbe ^ $QTTjj pEpa Y 1303 o 9�m$iamrc s� R N N -52- Special Council Agenda August•12, 2010 Item 3 - 6 0 0 -53- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 4-1 yow'i*i*goadroWPOV MEMORANDUM I Department of Parks and Dater August 6, 2010 To:: Jim Kyle, Policy Planning From: Allan D. Downey, Director of Parks and Recreation Services Re: Official Plan -Draft Comments Please be advised that we have reviewed the Draft Official. Plan. and Promenade Plan arid provide.the following comments: Section 7.4 discusses Secondary and Elementary Schools and suggests that school sues be configured in a campus type layout with emphasis on smaller sites with reduced. open space. We find this policy in direct conflict with the latest trends and fccias on aeafmg a healthy lifestyle for. the youth in the community,_ many of whom are leading a sedentary lifestyle. Reducing school yard open space and ilia sports field faalities.that occupy this.open space is completely counterproductive to the schools physical fitness programs. We would be interested in knowing what is driving this given the importance of health and wellness dour youth. Reduced school sites have also placer a heavy burden on the neighbouring municipal parks and i# jfieies that they enjoy. As noted in our comments with the 2C Secondary Plan, we do hot support the school park campus layout as a result of the programming conflicts and overuse of Town facilities. Years of operational experience has. dearly demonstrated that the school partscampus does not work- The problem is further exaggerated by the reduction in the schools associated open space.. Section 7.3 Munigpal Community Facilities indicates that Community ,Darks shall not be permitted in the EP lands. We will creed to clarify this policy as we have proposed a. number of passive community activities in all the EP land in 2C for exampie. Perhaps wo can describe the intent of this. policy nrore definlGvely. Section 11 Aurora Promenade repeatedly speaks to the needs and encourage additional public green spaces and. parks yet further on in section 11.10.1, it is suggested that the _rE9uirements for parkland dedication under The Planning Act be waived for all Qew development. This appeajs to be a'direct conflict wkh the intent of the previous poides and 6qunter productive to creating the necessary features that will do much to attract and sustain life in the downtown core. We do not.concurthat the parkland dedication be so easily dismissed. Perhaps this could be revisited with a view to providing financial relief in other areas such as the waiving of building permit fees, site plan fees or other means. Several opportunities exist.in the downtown core area to "in and develop a focal park/pleka feature area which meet.the criteria and policies in the Promenade Plan and Parldand related levies would greatly assist in this process. We generally conga. that cash4n-lieu of parkland collected from the downtown core area should be reinvested in the core where possible; however, we would suggest that this be a best efforts policy and not -54- Special Council Agenda Item 4 - 2 August 12, 2010 Au ®Rid yaovoi,t, god, COMPAKY 2 completely restricted as is currently. written.as it may not always be possible to reinvest all funds collected in this specific area of Ihe munilcipality. policy: 6 Section 12.3,3 PoWes fteM b) appears..nr. OeSSary. ibbeiang, is and somewhat overstated p Uff.are ' unaware of any previous incidents or occurrences that have lead to a security threat or intrusion on arty private lands originating.frorn municipal parkland. In factquite the opposite appears to be the case as home builders have had the benefit of charging purchasers large Ore,miums ai-ed (eise, values remain higher and more sought after by subsequent pur6hiserw Wesugge6t ttial: this policy be reworded to reflect the cupnt situppop as there are no security Impacts.evidert. Section 12.3.3 item c) needs to be corrected to reflect the town standards e.g. 2.5 h2 pet 1000 for GP, 1.5 ha. per 1OOOfor NP Section =&Ilem h).add, at the end of the Paragraph, lacwssgalOs are pivhlbW Section 12.3.4 Parldand Components item d) revise to "Conmunly Parks may range in size from B,ha, to 8688ii 12 3 4 kt6nd Components �.and revise �p em adj'arnifior IM/ j§WO bo&d W .. : Marks" " "Afe gh"W In, P.a. n?qY1w* 48W , fth 249. t65her secaon!:ftl 06,11d6i h9lin kp add 9166 eho'b(paragraph , Oas.:MdOWWU�die IrgernagohalSocial ff: Arbaftffure Vpgetafion�:�Mualbh titters or6therfiefiWaly 7, While .'W6have not idiitLiMd6ni'oppbonttyt6ldi6(*#e.en"content 4thepromenad6study We provide tie kowirg pretkiniry comments. W noten"e vacantlands situated on.Yonge Street iinmediatelp north of Park Place Manor on the east side of e d riota ipearto hade beerrtncludeif iri the focus area `These lands IYaiie n in a state �:rftn lands end as will, ch I a . nge- Holes? Atetne rm Oicu stands there' , as well as the adjacent municipal lands, not been addressed in the w have a land it there any action steps suggested i- to ekehd 'Machell Avenue, t this e6oii�*riy 1r, 1. � located I considered thro9ditespedgc shady promo entrenching his recommenda66rv,, plan It should also be noted that the Trails. CoMM666 has suggeibiid that a tag route conH6611ng YONO S!NiErt to Fleury Park has been.proposed. This tail would traverse in a westerly direction through t1V Hillery H64 bhtliib."dbd66miss�io'n"s'ewagetd6tm6hiS'Oan:d ='necttoFf0uryPa6v[aab*6 . d6seing of Tgn'nery Creek Again we disagreeand with waiving of Parts Dedication requirements of The RanningAd, t -55- Special Council Agenda August,12, 2010 ' AURORA yam ik,rro��,.�«y 3 QukkWns We note that a number of more operational type items have been listed In die Implementation sectors entitled 'Quick Wins° and we would make the following comments in this regard as the title of this section would indicate that these recommendations should be implemented in die near term Item 4.3 Beauddcadon - We ooncur that these recommendations are warranted and staff have some major concerns with the existing Historic Style light poles; Miles and associated annual plant /banner hardware. This equipment Is reaching the aid of its functional He and there are concerns that these poles could begin to fail as a result of over loading and corrosion. In addifion they are extremely dUfiwft to replace when damaged, several are currently missing due to this situation. There is also an due associated, with plating bylaw signage on, the same, poles, and our plants covering . . .. these signs, separate poles should be considered for this signage. Staff would recommend that this item be treated as a priority in the plan and in the 2011 Capital Budget Thesuggestion to double the landscaping efforts, provide new permanent planters etc. will also come with a substantial increase In operational costs on an annual basis, as our ability to provide an additional level of . horticultural maintenance is not possible with our current resources. FINITIALS WN OF AURORA EVELOPMENT SERVICES KEPT. . DEIVED UG 9.` 2010 -56- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Items-1 MO 0 c� CD Ch N -57- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 2 Q W N � E (D W Q W Cf') O_ L v O N Z > Co rn � O ❑ � C 2 cU LiJ c6 CL CY) U Z L O f..I� - L LL N N ,C U D U a) � �- O O .2 — N {� Q � > LJJ E O a r c O� U U a � Z O L � \V .. W � L o��.c CM0�� U UN0�> ��(aU r-0)�0� LU -0U) W = ''o 0 0 ��- = E M m � _ � M I- � U 0 0 0 : E 0 0 m N 000 <�LL t)�ZU -58- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 3 O _ a) E Q O N CL ® °' t O 15 LL � a) o N U O CL V) ai 2 � � o ) 0 L.L ® O LJJ o M O) -0 �= ® U O O U Q a) A LL O O A ' N C a a) U N C 4] .L U CL O _ � Q O U) p O W a) N = g O = C E O F- N f6 (n U a aS E- c E L a) E Q. N O =q U O = o a rn O > _ aa) n) CO -a C oU) CL C 0 L adi in a) U) o L N O L N "O a)a) .> r = a) Cr) f0 +' 06 O a) = Y N = L N E CL �, o N CL c N N O a) ;_ CL _ N a) a)C (6 o 2 tL MJ -59- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 4 06 r%*11. N �O N Q r- t— N z CL a Q Z O uJ col U N O 0= Q E a 3 gig] �Yr�1 s � OkT. 'es f� IIIIIIII 3IDL its G 01 c p 3 pp a } s - ry a o �� v M 9 4a c Ch.~ $�a a av w� N V rnrn C r S < ca N N � OC 0 4' Q O N Q U a) � r E C O C > (� O 'C: Q O Q) O C U � 00 0 00 G c z V a Pn�' IME Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 5 a) N LU N CL _0 c U C CL 0 zd) +- U EnU CL Y� O � N NCL + # •� UTt U •Q 4 O .L � C CL o E L v �E_�� C O L -D C W � x a) U CD — c a)CD -� a) a) o _� U O �, C- E C) L U c— U C:O c M LU C a) oO � h + = N 1 +r m N = O 4 L- (6 N L N O a) U U) O U G a z N j U (� +, C (II � O C� N � � a) V E o = o U x ' D- N U Q U —j w W W m N c6 4 6 6 0 r -61 - Items-6 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 _0 (D 0)N N N E L -a O' �. c o E N •U 0) O X OU E U N O O O L O1YiV a. O N 06 N z O F- a. O L M C E E O U N U C M C W N CO - 62 - Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 7 r o � o � O c A- N O U +, a)a7 N O rn N O M Z N C i O O �_ {6 O� L U p (� U li a I— O N O � U O N (D C O � E iD U - a) a >% O L CL N E U U N C C cn N O W W 2� H a O r N C6 -63- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 6 {� N O U 0 O U Q N N �' 3 UN1 a U 4"' E W�•N CL C'� U C N O U O L o 0-0 Q W v,= � 0 N E �°' C�' � LU �� O C (L) L O VJ W O = L (� 4? C � O � O E Q N C) U r- O M Q C O -a = Q N N O C� N Q U) -0 7E5 N fn CL 0 O N cU {� M �" U � r O }, O N O '� UO Q N J +- O j Q (� Cr }• L C +, N O U L L N CL U C U O ;� C O N +_� 7 V) � 1 O N U � N N [� L O N 0 Q N a){� ` _ -�--� L J Qy L L a... O f-' N E o O o X o O E O 0 Cow N °� N'o� (D Q- W oN M N cn C C �� : U a QU Q �� O a)E a� rr� N O N • hl . 64 - Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 9 N C C (D (U us o a) m U m Q N C E N _ C O7 •N O7 N _ N W N c0i L 4-0ca C7 O N C � O Q O O) z N N N �C N N _C N J Cw ° �J N o LU O rn a_ o Q U (a C _0 + -C + C [� W O C � E N 4} Q N CO ,� _0 N 4, CON o 0 0 N C o M U 3 � ZE +� — Q} o a O C V N N 0 C � C (U O L C +r a� o � L �' o � �, L o L CrC:) (D L N W }' A)N C U . 0 • D O M O U 0 O "t3 ` C 0 +' U -C 0 N C Q LJJ O +r N C M-w C +� N -0 N O� �° C � z 0L' �-0 �`� +-� N 0 o CO� c� N� O L - U 60) 3 N V 3 O_ " O W C N 2 +, M N (DN � �+ �� O C N (,/) -j-0in z� -0 QQ CU o U L6 (6 ti oo 0) -65- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5-10 z CL 0 z 0 U W N r_i f"—] AEIL M a W a z a J CL a z O V W to U N Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 11 M W +i -0 E O O >, z Q U of Q U °� U N o O o0 o � � � N C M CL d c� M -- o CCDM 0 • N C C U O +1 J M 'N N I � E -0 N �O U O -o LLa L M C N M C N M N N (1) L > Z; f/J E C 0 LLJ O O C O o 4-1 o CL QL a-L) 0- > M o 0 Un o M -67- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 12 E C E (D _V :3 O7 C 0- 06 7 n N N N U a)a)C4 C N N C N C � � O O CL O � U C L C CD V l r�rr .«:3.. O n- O Z > 0 0 C O z 4-0 N (� � 4-- O CU {6 N o-0 o CLo L I U OU U N C (j O _ 4-0M N �tS C N CL N = N N>1Q N C W N -0 N L (� U C CL L- O U C N L M O O C C N � O ± Cn � L- N L W C O � N O a) -0 c� L E E (� +-' O N > >Z c ,� U � 0 • E I I 1 M Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 13 W U J CL 0 0 z g C) M N W W .O M V* � U U) O > -0 O a) C - U C � Cn C a) �U) a�Ei C: cU a) O >, CU � O o E N a) 0.U_ j O as CL O� (0 0 4-0 c� CL O M U) in C a) E 'C C E O i 4� (U C -0 D E o � aa) T)U) -r- U U N M (D N I 4-0 L C O 7 � o Q a) O U N - 69 . Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5.14 � � � z LU 37 z 0 � � z LU | � LU � F. LU � >. V) z 0 z 0 � .j U Z LU LU �— Uj 0 93� O� (D CL 1Wj §¥ 2 6 0 3 2± y § � 2 2 2 2 / cL CL �.0 � � �CD �§ �P CL> § Cn C 2 ) 5 a) m (0 2 %•� £ ° k @ a) k R ® OL ® k / 2 » ) ' > (D .- :& E E a k § E E aƒ fƒ 0% q K e a U E m e \?@ •� n 2 § k / � UJ E 2 E s 2 & E 2 2� @° 2 m§� m 2 ' 2 7� E ■ U� E§ � a)Q -- M j � . CL k a I . . . Special Council Agenda Item 5.15 August 12, 2010 � (? LU [ \ � 1<\ LU \ v C11.0 �.:.. � CL 0 z � � v M � CL 37 LU � V) � V) Ul ❑ z ■ � � w z LLI LU � 2 J £ m -, / CO � \� E _ E cc k � E 0 ± !EM % o /UM 0- f 0 -0 R 0 -0ƒ£ m E .2 �E2 $ ■ D � 2 k ■ a k'02- E § 2 E % § E £ 2252 �20A U § g 2 2 _ ® P 0 CL b (D P f 2 = k E W k k M Q@ M CL @.E @ § « > -0 o $ 0 a. "GrIftY404 I to � � d M / q E 7 a o U - ®- E -� @ > -a § ƒ a_ U 7 E c ° 2 o.¢ @ @ o E E( 2 M» A q = . a o m ® E E / k J (D 2 .g U @ CL - 'Q - L) o (n _0_' E � 70 ? R . E � (DF k� 2 M 0) a) 0 2 @ R & 2 2 a ko @ E E 2�& o Bayv'BW#... -71- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item s-16 w a 3 F 0 wN w r 0 z g z w W M Q z 0 a z W F W a z 37 U) a),� �.a,o E U C Zi += 0.0 a CM CO 4.1 C(S 3 L a) C: U a) Q +-' C M Cn (D E O C CO O C E C O O O E 2 CM u7 �' O N O S ,2 N Q C — N O- � CO O� A� CO 0 C O N C O U L C M O d) ++ "a O C M N C 3i � � E O a) = a) �' O M C a) MM U cn M -0 a- � o a aaAvenue -72- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5.17 � � z LU Q V) LU Q� z � � C11.0 D � � z LU Q V) LU 13� 1w, 5 � 2 r& P 70 •@ 0)E o f3�R §-0 ƒ2 03 0k \ 7 0 0 6 2 0 2 k 2% o q m m 3■ a L)� n ® L) �C -0 a \k k E M § a p Q 2 n E k -07 CA 2 k}® 0 @ a% 2) M ° § 2 S 7 a o % E 2 � � k• R§ 7 d / C§ c k 2 r E 2§ o§ 7 0%(D-0 E 5 7 y d ƒ W p k E_ E a_¢ C Q 2 0 0 v k\ E 0 o �' 2 6 2 2/ \ 2 § En o ■ k: 'xM rn @ 7@ 2 o R 2 7@ 2 �§ 3 2 7 En E@@ 2 - 2❑ e£_ , a . a . ©ywe-&m_ .33. Special Council agenda Augusl12,2010 Item 5.18 C*14 � � z LU Q E/) LU 0� z � � � D � � z LU � � LU rroo CV) � � 2 E2 22� �7k .u) 70Rof § E£ R M 2 w _ (D \ L) E E E g E E 0 o k E 2 \ E g � 0 a �� f CL > CO CL \ 0 k , jC: m c £ i E o -5 £ Q E o . f- k k E§ o ff§ z & 0 0 w @ � a k k o § k En 0 k k — o 0 P , E 6 2 a 0-0 Q o(D § a d m - n @ a e o C.g ? � k 0 $ m 2 § : Cn -CL 0 2 2 E _ E E � E (n n k % @ :3 •� @ 2 'g E E F 7= 5 t 'e Q o (D m . � -0 @ -0 2 E 7ƒ 2 g§ E k 2 CL k � � ��.•: -- 8a444,,,& § . 2 a �2 2 2 cn o ¢ : (: = m ) _ m O / 0 E E CO mop -r / 2 m E C \ 'R32 mmp � � @ .44. Special Council Agenda August12 2010 Item 5.19 FEW � � � z LU 0 V) LU rVOO z � � rV100 D � � z LU � � LU 131� 1Wj (D 7E6w�2 ® m R 1 § [ § C \ £ Q i E t 1 3& § CD k �. k E� 7 / k 2 7 c® » (D G 0 _ M R2 .$ = / � _ E R 0 o f§ cL _0_ m §En0./ � 2 2 E [ k 2 R o cn kk2 2 D 0 2 §\0 £ R E.§ § o E n En -0 CL o 0 E R V) ■ $ o(-0 = E 2 ®� m _ @ & k0 :tf E k E �E E E E M 0 •� 5 2 cn (U % 2 7 = =- ® § 7 3 = k R g k( a'O e 0 C 3 � , ( . 0- NFI-� Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5-20 0 � � � � z LU Q (A LU 13� z � � MOO � | � � z LU � � LU cl� q%�ja6&®C § rE� 2 § � k \ @ M 2: a) _ � E o 2 § �" 2 2E § IM 8 d k) k _0 E_ E Q o o ° CL cn@ Z E E 0 E_ _0 - - k 7 / E 7 2 § a § @ 2 ƒ a. cc M§'� §2n m CLLD 2 (3 2 - E @ § E � ® J = / 2 § a D R= 2 0 Q » = C: _E o @ 2- nJ�_0 o £ 2 03 k k : / CL / ■ 2 k E 6 o £ 2 k § m E k ®M k k / CL a E M- § 2 )§� $ k ¢ / 2 2 <%(n� k k_0 a 2% E 2� k . � . a , I 7ftyWmA, Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 21 J Q U w F F 0 C U) cn '} nD COo •� U c6 fB C U C C N (� C +. (0 �Cc- p U L E' L(D •� N C a� L g'w a) (U �L-0 o r -� "'N_ 0E X�,�M OU f4 C '' V +L' O X O O C o C7 m 3 � o U : p _ N C 3 C o E " a L o� u,� Q� o-o 0�_ C +� U C O V cn OE E 0N CD2 O E C O lU d N O � .tM CO pj O' .0 E U! = O 6 �' M d] Q M .` L7 ca C d ❑ Q C E C - 0 QO a O,a C E r ca -O a y x ca Q� o o o-r o o- o C) C Z3 cn = o °�' H cn L c� v ` Q L M N M o D — 0 v = a, a o a . 77 - Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 22 J Q Z w 0 cC DC w 0 U LL oC w z L) � v 'CcpE M(D c �� c (U 0 a) c c � � 0 E 00 i -Z A, Q Q -0U) C q) O + O U 0N M U1 C O ID N — C C M > -r— a)M -0 E Qi COO C N M O �_ C U O D1 O c x o Mc (D N c N c cc MU �+ w C Q p D L dJ C O O +—. O ~ N 7 O C � 0 di O O N E rn tlJ Q! OU - Q .0 E 5 0 C1 �! AmL� -78- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 23 J Q z W W M U) Q? •O a a) a) c U a O O a) N U U C a) to C aO O N O L E > 0 U L N Q C "- O M O p ;=-r � M >= U a) :� CO J -0 O FjaYvlew Avenue -79- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 24 -0 O � U _O N N 7 N � O Q � � (� fa V I Y cq uj a 00.0 a C: i 0 CD N 0 CO X U G a w _. U CL z W N W ce -80- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 25 W z Z) M } N N O L Q1 a) O C= O 0 O U Cl �� E O] O U Q Q OE N C4 N O � Q'"� a)?3 � N m N 3 a m -v N o cn j fG OCO +. CD fl} O N N C 0 CV �cy ' en>' ,� IE a N N Ll i 3 O 0 N CV :3 O a) � -0 U 10 N _ U rN-. 61 li3 O C O O Q7 C_ U N= L Q-o C L ❑] 0 N C4 C O Cp (U C E (D (O Q C U M y 7, C C a) O a) LZ O cA 0 m C O N Cr j C UCD _ C N .0 dJ 'O O tlJ +� N U = MC I!1 _� -02 CT C O d Q7 (U L L L m C� N CCS C .O — C= U CV CO C� i C4 V m a L C -81- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item s-26 I � m C*k4 v � � CL � � LU z 22 q &§_2 \��a2� CL q° (D '0 2 a 2§§ 0 2 @ � � � Q m = 4- e E a CL k\ ¥ @ S o 2 @& % E@@ F ® m 2 E m p E q 0 2 En ©� 2 n \ § 7 � 7 J 0 e&= g 2£ c E 5@£ E 2/ k 7 2 D-a A»% � � � 2 o � m •- � 2 7 ] c 2°@ 2 7 o E E © CL ■ § ® k-0 2 CL§ 2 2§ 2 2$ 7 .§ 0' n � 2 a§ E & k 7 E 2 . : 2 ■ $ o q$§ E d 3 § \n m: 2 0 2 ■' 0C m% P% k 0 2 £ , a . M , -82. Special Council Agenda Item 5 - 27 August 12, 2010 (D O)w ui Ui Ui M L N Ul C-= C N' C 0 0 O Q 0 v1 U) 0 U U O 0 Ul U 0) O U Q O C d - 0 0 O 0 -0� C U) CO U C C L a-' O-0 O -aC C d] C O O O O W C-0 U) + = O I6 Q1 -0 cv 0 0 �('F ��oa,`��EU,�u,� C to -O C O C O C '� 3 0 f� t� - Q U) Z C U M +� N M Uf _ U co U �. Q) C " O C 0 C O ,� M U U a` A U3 0 OS a) cG S� ~ OL 0-0 O U) M O N C O Y 03 O U RS N a3 0 U C C N �� ,t� L [] N UC1 Ua c� U N O E L C C O o 7 N fC +N UL) 3 C- O- Cn C N U]FU C '- 0 0 0 N a 0. 0 U� � C �� 'E y C 0 Ui E ,V U fd E 0 N La '� 0 O -0 Gf m N M E— O 4 U ` f4 O U O C 0 M N L ++ a).O M z m M -83- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 28 J DC w 0 w U Q w z CL rVOO M U) c U 0 «- N 0 Q1 7 U C O O U +. CL Q} iii -C N C - C E ca C N Q 6 U O N E i M�Q0 Ea m U VC} N 7 C M c o E H-0(/3 Z 0 � a - C[S L U N O a C N = -0 t v C +� fB N M N +' U? -o E C N O C L Q D G C O O N E H CL-0 -D 6 U C N t4 a 0 U f4 0 C O f9 N w Bayvlew Avenue -84- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 29 (n E N {� (� N > 06 ^^- D L O C C . �. N 1. m _ V z L C N U0-0 M C U r n V 1 (n C O LJJ 0) Q V Q O� U c c Cn N O > -0 O 0 N ❑ N 7 N Z En W L L M E O O> 2 U Q06 Q m W � q? �u U � c� � o N :d C . _ C � N U(� -0 O O (n 4-- U (1) J E M O C CU (U N — U � o � �� -0-0x M CU a) �_ M �L-� -� L � L' -0 N o Q LLJ a)n �1 L +-' • � C:L N V -93 rn N a U o � C a rVOO zo U � aa) " }, O CU fl} > Cr0 o a) -0 0 C7 0-a� w E a Oa . 1 1 1 1 -85- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 30 C/) W U C7 � Z 0 > V) a� w w Ce. z LU O� U � o � Lri w 2 SE W r c N N U L O N �L+ W 0) CU D U O L O AN L CU CL V O N �U CL �- _M� U (� O L 0 0 (DU) 0 N L CL-C Q. C} M (1} U cU L N L O C N N {p -86- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 31 M o N N F- a) W CO O � C N V - N D> N M M v p N M MLL (0 Z °' N Cn N M C C) o N }, 4-0 TNS �� WU) CL �"�" : U -D N 0) M -0 > U N OL- z N ?, E � -r n` ^�' ✓ L L � Q }' J 3 ��r N m �� N (mod O -0 +, (D U m N O _ N z U) N CA > 0 F > O p N N N N > 0 1 ::) oLn 19:YAE Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5-32 to y r DC w Z O Q H Z w F. w J d • N as o U _0 cn a) N t C C (D C C N a?4-0 N N � N o � o � az 0 o E o�ao - E_ a X E O 0CL a) Q M M cn C L }, O M � M Q. O N CU (CU (U U C N a)OU C N 0 U? E W a) 0 a--r a- O U a) (6 N :3 N Uf (n Q] C 'a C Cc O 4' +, O Cn iII C CU a) a O W N s o N C � O f� > U � N a }' a C Q W 4-0 N N Q C O N U � o N 'o U O Q N O C ca Cn : O •L � j U L ) Cn ffnVJ U � p C O C O L O (� C C C C N E Q� a N . C En L 0 Cr LD I— C [a N a) C9 O a) Co L O O a) a) a)U) 0 N 0 a) a � N a--j L- O cc as -C a U ^N^l L L (U 1 -88- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 33 l a ° Ij Q w J W U N M 1P9ht"q 1l4 j 8"Yvlew Aveni e W O T -89- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 34 ON m W J w 2 U M Lj rnghw, 404 I' Ln�4r�� ' L- 8 "yview Aven., -90- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 35 Vk U w J w 2 U YWE -91- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 36 z g z Z) F 0 x 0 z w a a Q w a = - P P 3 E I1 p = c c = r 1 s 0 I j"i Ff'ghway 4D4 8ayvrew AV@nu. w i -92- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 37 LJJ _� M o N +� z (n ca (D N U) N ` N N C_0 CL �} '� LU C CO � U N O - M _0 U N Ua Q om} M 0 cn (� N p N � O N U O E U N -�e }, ` p O C O O_ z D7� E M Cn 0--0O E }' N C _ �C E C0 � [A N 0 O E N D M a)C N "+'r C_ O N L (e a)Co 0C� QO� 0_ w c O_N-a 00.0 I. It h W aZ C L uJ a x 0 � � H uJ z 13 LU Q CCL m - 0 C4 a a -93- Special Council Agenda August 12s 2010 Item 5 - 38 W 0C N O N -0 W moo_ �o� ca N U '� N E N E p O C , '� L O 0 ` Q} 4-07 N= N(n M 0- EN Q L O �C O M V {a � - N N 21 N N N O NN W .i � � ` � M O ❑ a 0. CL +-' N - i W • CL CL M Q z On -94- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 .39 W Q d w S J C J U x 0 z w a d Q M i i -95- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 40 a Q F C5 r�� F'A TF rev r.1 M � � +o a v a m c r Li $ ° V Z C m ww`o a -a L axa -96- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 41 N CL w II 1T 71 71 M N cvCL C m ] G N c O y C O O N N rG m O U d N N O 'f CL U 14 i N N O N N P LU • ... r a yL Q } Q -97- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 5 - 42 1P L O J U � N E N O �U Ui E E .L Q U N N =O � � N N � I� O N M W C O = CL (0 O CL a N O 0 O C U U a� (n o 0� CL rn a m 0 aS 0 d w E c �' U 0 U O O N U U) O O '' C X N U Q N O N U N N W z . -98- Special Council Agenda Item 6. 1 August 12, 2010 � y gr Nq �aa ES[a. v�yp�$9C U @@pp as x g 5 S fig�g++ JE t l sp•�ag- 3 sag � 'g.2Iz �Y" m am c 'G R o I � $ gg gig E 8 3 pp a gillS 1y� €8 s I, g s IE S6§4 S1 £i Big.og $ 9E Y Ulm �b .' � ay'. G pp ro yyGEGp'�6t�j 4�•h'• bb-- 0 o�glp p `By q8, R $w S S 53 is � 6 S YQYQ Juggv B IRA a- ' I '$}}I € �Bq}$ 89$ S Es °s. Ea8'�s $� �e 'v c 2 W. mtffi..s3811 aMO mile e ia�l'G S�i S83i �g 9¢� a �g.�"� 5�@m i$ 1e gg O� � �� a2-2k �E �'e. w �BSS V$pp %%RRe SSgg dim fi �.§s�g�4$644�03§ will o N ' O QO u 15 O N . 99 - Item 6 - 2 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 f S S 8 U - a g 9 � E E�g 3 5MP- M9S F2 ,g $ 9 $ yA 58 g 3 $a8 L.. Yng g81�X.�Sm �gggRc z9 LO P Loa %3 EB y 2 �8�b g �gE �mR� �d,9 9 31 RB & RyyS I,„ § t m am n 8 k-#Eo As! $8 94 - a 9 oil 8 �.is aE4 �_88_�Uyp d8cg U Sj yK~Sp-�gN� 8 12 3 pq �Np N b yN[ fgT3 pp N N aq N !qI q A . W V N p h 0 i -100- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 6�3 S 4 pall, i ip8 p� a8 .il E$�a5�6 �9 ef_.E 3 ag3$�g� M31441 E7n �8 $ g d aS S m $5 fi doaba R.a$S_1, yew ae $^-S6''g't`xa g@gang J_R'$all �2 E 84 sa$ ��$¢ $�$Oh` �grg°pA $ ' e "s8 e 8 a. g g Pi 59.'m ngS�S' @'g&g� P22 i§1'kdEH�E; ns $E �' kIN B '�� d�gg9' $ It BUR IS i ® Iijjj Hn5 9� 1 DS .ySS' �m 5 HIM iH:Ss$&Leo. $o°.�pd '2��3� � 6F �2�zhfi� ��4! �$pp� s?ji @$$ 8$ 11a$a�E$ _ 1 g.1 Rc^8 a €s s g 4 av� eg�3R $ g�5��••�y93� H3sm� �k a �'vE 1-91 - §SC m'�C t 1�9•g �'3'Safl i@ ��e� ,yy{Ua �•y0'gg$pp'6 � N§§'9�m� Egg M$$E�i a - 101 - Item 6 - 4 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 .§ EE 5 $"33 #pp@@k s$ 1?1 egge 9 9 all I- $g�_ .°5e5e�a9g9q@-ag r39@.� Cofer.§9'y bQ cM,4 HI fizz fm W Sg i gtAll m it 1S3a9.a�$I F9�¢g 8 ~ p.4 u4y b a $V Oa 9 ,yNg,G 3 A P@pg I559 E"�i �•8'Su b:@b .Is' g bggyp a ggi� p 6 c yi E � -sell ell � a gas � sA1 1-1117111 s€a }�� 9� WAll,81, 28. 9,111 nji Iga, 4I,t ilia -21 P P w a - 102 - Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 6 - 5 n Sac �A g iEll ig� &a gg� 5 d dgw t� a "Lyy W3� y ,,gg y_&!E HB E.E2 P.�. O'I!S'E�S� A .fi � �i .Q�$ 3y rsY Ey 0.39 BS m�$p p_g 93 p .1111 DmvaS -(r$5 KQQ �E6.pyi'9e9 3$9w1 gym QVa�Siq'� gDE gp@V E.5e 8g C{3C P �g�0� 9$_ 1'y.s`12�'��@sue qm C60,. F 9jj} gn ataa 9 g 48 a'^d 2f $' -gypF�33ggc tQ,¢ 4�"�8y�.ey€ 'Bg '��e 95 � YS 38�;'9ffi eFBa 'gg8 m44 �Yd2 iag3 5ENi �bb3cues .E aS $C �E 3� 56aB$g� wa}y€{ 8 �g s Eli �g pp � gy a, $ova"s`e s8118 $$$yy .5 ¢BB j�'$ 8 , 1$ .1g18y @U$g¢¢5-'.pEaca @Egg hi pia UO Meg .� A gppg$ r88's �s y yg3�V.8 n$g S��M nmaci @g( Sa,S�xdffi o&'AsIM wAg U .S IZK B w $ o &Ir w w -103-. Item 6 - 6 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 b .y3 G ES gg HE $p • pgg 2 g�g�S .5 .6 �� 9n �� IH $ ga. k V Uri_ 11a" s a $E& kit � �figg�9egye 2 Mel ¢p $�5 �mi. Ufa$ pRpg 18 st i 11 44 Ot 4 . o g' N R ■ -104- Special Council Agenda Item 7 - 1 August 12, 2010 AUR„®RA. ynx3x.ur,eoodCn�parry MEMORANDUM. Department of Parks and Recreation Date: August 5, 2010 _ To: dim Kyle,, Policy Planning From: _ Arlan D. Downey, Director of Parks and Recreation Services Red 2C Secondary Plan Jim, we trove reviewed the 2C Secondary Plan Drag Documentand provide the fbbMng comments Pmvjs1onofPaddandlYW4odbkW . section 3.32 item (e) -This section outlines several methods of park land dedication, this is somewhatconfusing to the Mader in that the Town has adopted a single methodology for pads land ded cauprr as outlined in the new Parks and Recreation Master Phan (e.g. Community Pafks.2,5 he. per 10.00 population, Neighbourhood Parks 1 he. par 1000 populaton, commercial and Industrial 2°10 of the gross plan area). We:would .suggest revisiting this section for the purposes ofda*ngthe standards Section 3.2.2 item (g) (ID - The section refers to the Urban Wildlife Park as a Neighbourhood Park. This is not omect. The Urban.Wkffe Park is c1assiW as Open Space EP. Park m.Woris In reference to Schedule A, we do not concur with the proposed location and configuration of pads lands, them attached a revised schedule outlining our pterla ed Parldaid oonfigurdm and hierarchy. The current configuration does not represent the maximum or best use of the park lands. The main concern being the location of the most central Community Park We are suggesfing to relocate the school blook.on the main •east west arterial road to the north side of the road and flip the dommunity park block to south side of the road to boarder the EP lards to the south This effectively brings this entire central section into public ommiship and offers a much improved approach to environmental protection, improved access and support kmc5ons of the Urban Wikdkfe Park as Weil as a larger and more diverse Community._._ ._ _......_..__:__..._ .__. Pan dand ABacaBon Appendix 1 Land Use Area Calculations appearsto be miscalculated. Parkland dedication by our calcutafions, using' the current town standards, we fund that that neighbourhood park land has been under-dedbated as Wk7ws: Conwngq ParkTownRequinernent 2C Secondary Plan bmedan8000msMenb' 25haPer10N flak20ha. N hhoudhoodPark uirments ha Pak' S:94ha Bzedan0000resfdmis lbha 10D0 !=20ha. ToblTowm teawt 2ha. Tofa2C Prqxs W 25.94ha. rm*4 am ha TOWN OF AURORA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT, RECEIVED JUL 6 2010 INITIALS / ACTION -105- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 AuR(:)RA YW,&1 gwd,Cowpucy 2 We assume that all EP designated lands, as outlined on Schedule Ai, stialp fmamrced fly to the municipality or other appropriate public agency. Item 7 - 2 Section 3.3.8 item (d) - discussing. the ..elementary sdrool; sift Wk " ' the schools and community parks in a campus style ariangemensiismot suppnrtW By IPtnilln; aard Recreation and, Staff certainly do not support smaller school sites. Opem*WM.ezpssiiaraeltar$a rlly dainionsitall0d that parks;_ management, programming and ongoing mainteaaaimoffa lllauslh poft sidbad eampnts.anangernents has. led to the advanced deterioration of local pattiksramillft ffsrrn avewt m iaod banillictirig use. all at.the expense of our local sports user groups and IdaGftitestdikriiwflaiaultrail)gifumdl fliro operation of these parks. Promotion of smaller school sites.andreduced iftm##itttst!maidkvs Ioaggravatethisproblem. This comment will also apply to the Official 'Plawwaview✓amnm sift. Stonn Water Management Sustainable Infraserosturm Section 4A.2 Green Building and Design Policictssosafttbino*,miwand ilivarse,opportunilles on how storm water is managed and harvested. This :!$, also mend in section 6 of the Dlan; however, we believe that a very important consideration warrants sericus;atllaatibn dealing wee Stoun Water generated in the entire planning area and how this resource can eordibAp eir enhance the function of Urban.Wlidlife Park. We have had previous discussions with the stakeholders inyofaad in the planning and development of the Wildlife Parkwhere this issue has been -raised and identified as an Important potential resource. We question the logic of locating Welve individual Storm . Water Management. Ponds throughout the development when the policies seem to indicate that storm water should be. viewed as a valuable, resource. We suggest that•the plan incorporate language and poilcles that re4ulre•.the inclusion of the WildUfe,Park aquatic needs and how, through technology, the storm water generated in.the planning area can be treated, diverted and utilized in the ongoing management ofthe Urban Wildlife Park. Active Transportation Polfgles Section 6.2.7ftem b) (III) second bullet should.read "where .possible and feasible have grade separated intersections with major transportation channels such as provincial highways, regional roads, arterial roads and railways." Section 6.2.2. Policies for Roads - there are references. throughout the section,on Sidewalk with shade trees 1.wherp possible" on all. Municipal and Regional, Roads; We request that both this policy docpmeriy and the Urban 4esigh Guidelines place a strong emphasis on the pravlsion of appropriately sized street boulevards #hat rarerve a minirnum'tree planting area wfth. a preferred width of 3 meters and certainly not less than 2.5 moom in width on all streets. In addition, all boulevards shall contain a minimum continuous depth of 400mm of amended planting soil. In our view, this level of detail is appropriate at the secondary planning stage as this is a vital consideration in the long-term sustainability, and overall health of •our urban forestry resource. Over the years, we have seen the steady reduction in the.width of. municipal boulevards due to.a number of encroachment issues to the point where the health and wellbeing of our trees -is being compromised resultingfrom loss of soil volume. With the increased environmental awareness and susta"inability fgbus in 2C this matter must be addressed. Tree By --Law Section 7.2.6 (a) indicates that Council shall co-operate with the Region of Yoriein preparing-a4ree by-law. This is may be unnecessary as both the Region and the Town have existing tree protectionby-laws in •force. currently that apply to the 2C planning area. r - 106 - ........ r Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item7-3 Special Council Agenda Item 8 - 1 August 12, 2010 °�o��°n ►ofOr'�ia August 4, 2010 c 0 Delivered by Email 'k le@e-aurora.ca and Regular Mail c ° 2C Secondary Plan Steering Committee Town o ora 1 Municipal Drive, 3rd Floor Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 iPLANcorp 211 Main Street South ATTN: Jim Kyle, MCIP, RPP Newmarket, ON Manager of Policy Planning L3Y 3Y9 Re: Comments on the Draft 1 Aurora 2C Secondary Plan V:905.695.0011 ext.324 F:9D5.a95.0070 Dear Steering Committee Members: E: david.charezenkotaalplancorp.com a»rx,f—ywWr rlol-Ur9,—.1 On behalf of our clients, John Carlisle and Glenn Sikura, owners of 1588 and whrnarance r99! 1756 St. John's Sideroad respectively, we are pleased to provide the Steering Committee with the following comments on Draft 1 Aurora 2C Prolaasianal Awards: York Region Character Buslness Secondary Plan Area, dated July 9, 2010, prepared by The Planning OPPI Outstanding Planning Achievement Award for Ballantrae Golf and Country Partnership. p . Club CIP Outstanding Planning Achievement Award for BallarnracGulf and Country We continue to be actively engaged in the 2C Secondary Planning process Club Outstanding Environmental Planning and appreciate the opportunity to provide the following comments in the Achievement OPPI Professional Merit Award - Province spirit of clarifying and improving upon the first draft Secondary Plan. of Ontario for'New Directions' Newmarket Chamber of Commerce Hall of Distinction: Technology Award Town of Aurora Clambene Commerce Hall of Newmarket of the Year Distinction: Enireprenetu Aurora 2C Secondary Plan Area - DRAFT 1 `na1151 Section 3.2 - The Greenlands System ft°arioPi"`iional lan" In Draft 1 Aurora 2C Secondary Plan Area, according to Schedule A - Land Ontario Professional Planners Institute Canadian Urban Imlitwe Use, the north western portion of 1588 and 1756 St. John's Sideroad is Canadian Institute of Planners Building Industry and Land Tlewtopment designated Environmental Protection Area. According to Policy 3.2.1 - American PfanningAssoclation Environmental Protection Area Designation on page 11 of the Draft 1 Aurora Geomaiks IndusiryAssociatiun of Canada Urban and Regional Information Sysients 2C Secondary Plan Area: Association Municipal Information Systems Association f) Key natural heritage features, key hydrologic feature and CEOGlobal Network TEC Canada hazard lands including their associated typical buffer areas, York Technical Association are designated as Environmental Protection Area on Schedule A. The boundaries and extent of the Environmental Prosrd Btrpwl*rr off Protection Area designation shown on Schedule A are iiesurgense Theatre Company Lake Simroe Conservatinn Foundation approximate. Minor adjustments or refinements to these 50tnhlake Regional Health Cenbe boundaries may occur through an Environmental Impact Statement that demonstrates the appropriateness of the adjustment to the satisfaction of Council, in consultation with the Region, the Conservation Authority and any other agency having jurisdiction. Such major adjustments or refinements will not require an Amendment to this Plan. Vslonury planning services for the world -108- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 8 - Comment: We understand the boundaries of the EPA designation are approximate and are subject to further definition, minor adjustment and refinements. We support the above policy whereby the actual extent of the EPA is established through detailed and site specifc Environmental Impact Studies. In our opinion this approach to delineating the actual extent of the EPA is preferred as it offers reliance on ground-truthing by experts to identify the presence and significance of key natural heritage features, key hydrologic features, and hazardous lands. n) The minimum vegetation protection zone for all key natural heritage features, key hydrologic features and woodlots shall be established by an Environmental Impact Statement, subject to the approval of Council, in consultation with the Region, the Conservation Authority and any other agency having jurisdiction. Comment: We support the above policy whereby the minimum vegetation protection zone for all key natural heritage features, key hydrologic features and woodlots shall be established by an Environmental Impact Statement, as this policy recognizes that certain features require different levels of protection in order to preserve function. It is difficult to rely on hard and fast buffers when protecting diverse natural environment present in the 2C Area. According to Policy 3.2.2 - Parks Symbol on page 16 of the Draft 1 Aurora 2C Secondary Plan Area: e) Public parkland shall be dedicated to the municipality on the basis of: 1) for residential uses, 5 percent of the gross land area, inclusive of natural heritage features, of the lands west of Leslie Street within the boundaries of the 2C Secondary Plan Area; and, ii) for non-residential uses, 2 percent of the gross land area inclusive of natural heritage features, of the lands east of Leslie Street within the boundaries of the 2C Secondary Plan Area. Comment: The distinction between i) ifi ii), the lands east that the distinction be removed and the policy the municipality on the basis of 5 percent gross gross land area for non-residential land area. Section 3.3 - The Residential Neighbourhoods and west of Leslie Street is arbitrary. We request simply state that public parkland be dedicated to land area for residential land area and 2 percent According to Section 3.3 - The Residential Neighbourhoods on page 20 of the Draft 1 Aurora 2C Secondary Plan Area: b) The Secondary Plan, based on the Community Plan, provided in Appendix 1, includes the distribution of housing by house form and density and identifies, in detail, the composition and distribution of the anticipated housing stock and its relationship to the achievement of the Provincial and Regional requirement to the achievement of the Provincial and Regional requirement to achieve a minimum gross density of 50 residents and/or jobs per hectare. d) Objectives for the Residential Neighbourhoods include: www.iplancorp.com Special Council Agenda 4ugust 12, 2010 Item 8 - 3 fit) to ensure that the Residential Neighbourhoods are designed to achieve a minimum net density of 50 residents and/or jobs per hectare. Comment: We are aware the 2C Secondary Plan Area is required to achieve a minimum gross density of 50 residents and/or jobs per hectare by Place to Grow however, it appears there is a lack of clarity with respect to the net residential density targeted for the Residential Neighbourhoods, While Section 3.3, policy d) iii) targets a net density of 50 residents and/or jobs per hectare Appendix I: The Residential Neighbourhoods - Density calculates net residential density of 94 residents and/or jobs per hectare. The reason why there appears to be a substantial variation between draft policy 3.3.d) iii) minimum net density of 50 residents and/or jobs per hectare and Appendix 1's 94 residents and/or jobs per net hectare is unclear. We respectfully request clarification on the Residential Neighbourhoods net density target achievable in the 2C Secondary Plan Area. According to Policy 3.3.5 - Mixed -Use Residential/Commerciat Designation on page 30 of the Draft 1 Aurora 2C Secondary Plan Area: a) It is the intent of the Mixed -Use Residential/Commercial Designation to promote well - designed and transit supportive high density housing in combination with small scale convenience and service commercial uses that serve the surrounding residential community. Comment: We recommend that the provisioning for residential/commercial mixed uses should be provided to the Business Park 3 designation, as in our opinion mixed uses should be given more prominence in the land use programming of the 2C Secondary Plan Area. In our opinion Residential/commercial mixed uses provides a built form fundamental to the achievement of Policy 3.3 d) iv) "to ensure a minimum requirement of 35% of new housing units be affordable, offering a range of compact housing forms and tenures, and intrinsically affordable units for low and moderate income households." Section 3.4 - The Business Park According to Section 3.4 - The Business Park on page 42 of the Draft 1 Aurora 2C Secondary Plan Area: b) The structure of the Business Park, based on the Community Plan provided as Appendix 1, takes advantage of the accessibility and visibility afforded by Highway 404 and the existing and proposed interchanges at Wellington Street to the south and St John's Sideroad, The Business Park component of the 2C Secondary Plan Area is planned to accommodate a range of employment opportunities including prestigious office uses to warehousing and light manufacturing. in addition, an array of small to moderately scaled retail and personal service uses will be permitted that are ancillary to the primary employment focus of the Business Park. Comment: We support the 2C Secondary Plan Area - Draft 1 identification of a future interchange at Highway 404 and St. John's Sideroad, but from our perspective there is a lack of clarity on the interchange's planning status at all level of government. We request that the Town clarify the intent of the www.iplancorp.com Special Council Agenda Item 8 - ugust 12, 2010 Highway 404 and St. John's Sideroad interchange with The Regional Municipality of York to secure the 2C Secondary Plan Area's stated position. d) Objectives of the Business Park include: Iv) to utilize the Town's Economic Development Strategy as on important tool to Implement key policy goals and objectives; Comment: According to the Town of Aurora's Economic Development Strategy 2003, "the Highway 404 lands between Wellington Street and St. John's Sideroad offer the premier potential for the Town to attract various types of prestige office development." While the Town's 2003 Economic Development Goal is reasonable, our clients lands appear to be excluded from the "highway 404 lands", and in particular the northern portion of our clients lands is not an appropriate location for prestige office development considering access to the area is proposed through a residential subdivision in the Town of Newmarket and the opportunity to cross the watercourse on site appears to be unsupported by Aurora Planning Staff. In Draft 1 Aurora 2C Secondary Plan Area, according the Schedule A - Land Use, the north half of 1756 St. John's Sideroad is designated Business Park 1 with a Business Park Interface Overlay. According to Section 3.3.4 - Business Park Interface Overly Designation (should be revised to section 3.4.4) on page 42: a) It Is the intent of the Business Park Interface Designation to ensure that a compatible interface condition can be developed between new development within the 2C Secondary Plan Area, and approved residential development in the Town of Newmarket. Comment; The intent of the Business Park Interface overlay policy is to ensure a compatible interface condition with residential development in the Town of Newmarket irrespective of the designations position east or west of Leslie Street. The residential development approved in Newmarket had a reasonable expectation of like development (i.e. low density residential) along its boundary with the Town of Aurora. Unlike the interface condition west of Leslie Street an approved direct road connection to the residential subdivision in the Town of Newmarket has been provided at the request of the Town of Aurora Planning Staff (Municipal Planning Application comment letter dated October 28, 2008, to Dave Rugg(e, from Marco Ramunno, regarding the application for draft plan approval and zoning by-law amendment by Cedar Manor/Trinison). We refer you to the attached Plan of Subdivision which clearly highlights the direct road connection to 1756 St. John's Sideroad. We request Town of Aurora Planning Staff provide Aurora Council with the reasonably intended land use for the northern portion of 1756 St. John's Sideroad when Aurora Planning Staff requested the Town of Newmarket secure a road connection into this portion of the 2C Secondary Plan Area ' through a condition of draft plan approval and future planning mechanisms. We are aware of Aurora Planning Staff concerns with crossing the watercourse that runs through our clients lands which appears to create an isolated development pocket on the northern portion of of our clients' lands, save and except for the road connection to the Town of Newmarket. In our opinion, the proposed Business Park 1 designation of this specific area is inconsistent with the Town's previous <, planning position is not a reasonable planning position to take considering the area is accessed through an residential subdivision in the Town of Newmarket. In our opinion, the northern portion of our clients' lands should be designated Urban Residential 1 in the Aurora 2C Secondary Plan. www.iplancorp.com Special Council Agenda Item 8.5 August 12, 2010 1 b) The uses permitted within the Business Park Interface Overlay Designation shall reflect the list of permitted uses from the land use designation that underlies this overlay designation. Comment: Despite the underlying Business Park 1 designation on the northern portion of our clients' lands (approximately 10.45 acres) there has been a consistent planning position adopted by the Town of Aurora to this point that identified the subject area for residential use. The Planning Partnership's Issues and Recommendations Memorandum explains that "The allocation of Greenfield residential development potential, as identified in the current growth management work, is limited in the Town of Aurora, and there does not appear to be a need to designate residential lands east of Leslie Street." However, the approximately 8,000 residents the 2C Lands are anticipated to accommodate by The Planning Partnership's Growing Aurora report (January 2010) is identical to the residential growth forecasted by Hemson Consulting Ltd. Specifically, Hemson Consulting Ltd. Planning Justification for Urban Designation of the 2C Lands (June 14, 2006), which was preferred by Town of Aurora Council Resolution (June 27, 2006 Council Meeting No. 06-19 (item 12 PL06-081) and the Region of York approval of ROPA No.54 (February 2008) clearly identifies the subject area as "2C Residential Land" (please find attached the report's 112C Area -Preferred Land Use Option"). Based on the previous planning position adopted by the Town of Aurora, we respectfully request the northern portion of our clients' lands be designated Urban Residential 1 with the Urban Residential Interface Overlay. c) The lands subject to this overlay designation shall be developed in a manner that creates a compatible interface condition with the properties to the north in Newmarket. The compatible interface condition shall be established by the developer, and shall be satisfactory to the Council of the Town of Aurora. Implementation methods may include, but not be limited to: I. Requirements in the zoning by-law related to land use, building types and setbacks; H. Site plan agreements related to fencing and/or other landscape treatments; and/or iii. Provisions registered on title as they may affect the establishment and maintenance of required fencing and/or other landscape treatments. Comment: In our opinion the "Permitted Uses" of the Business Park 1 designation (i.e. office buildings, hotels/convention centres, institutional buildings, etc.) will not achieve a compatible interface condition with the residential development in the Town of Newmarket considering the previously stated preference to directly connect this area to the residential subdivision in Newmarket. www.iplancorp.com Special Council Agenda *ugust 12, 2010 Item 8-6 We respectfully request these comments be provided, In their entirety (including attachments), to Aurora Council at their Update Session on August 12t". We eagerly anticipate a response from Planning Staff through the 2C Steering Committee and look forward to working with the Steering Committee, Staff and The Planning Partnership on resolving these planning concerns. Should you have any questions or concerns pertaining to our comments, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully, David Charezenko, MCIP, RPP Vice President, Planning £r Design iPLANcorp cc: Marco Ramunno, Director of Planning Et Development Services Fausto Filipetto, Policy Planner Ron Palmer, The Planning Partnership John and Madiana Carlisle, 1588 St. John's Sideroad R. Glenn Sikura, 1756 St. John's Sideroad -113- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 8 - 7 C y C z -Q ,p V Z =� a' a '[7 O G C O 6 - O t o Y 1 g V .w °6 O a ii U v C c ti O 'O y O O Z a 5 41 A D� D t2 � O C m 0. O O oa cL QV7 7 N O U rVr ccO O J C ❑ ❑ .� n y a m lL llJ j c 0 N N N< N H `� z 'O U / W 2 - 114 - Special Council Agenda August 12,.2010 Item 8 - 8 -2A IIJJ LL 0 LJ _j V) U) LLJ y < ry a- — LL- (L < In LLJ az LLJ 0 a- L.L. U5 0 (,r) (L Y -j C < LLJ (3 z z 0 < Z3�: �0 0MU 0 LLJ I-- 0� §0 6 Pot, 'ON 'k", N 1'>'f� 3HI elf, 3 zl ON ov68 00 ................ I . .... ... .. .... . .. .... -.1-.1- Item 9 - 1 Special CouncilAgenda August 12, 2010 August 6, 2010 �nnnW* GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 140 Renfrew Drive, Sulte 201 Ma(kham, Onforlo L3R 6113 Tel: 905.513-0170 Fax: 905-513.0177 www'mgp.co Town of Aurora MGP Pile: 1 Municipal Drive,3rd Floor Your File: Aurora, Ontario, L4G 6JI VIA Email: mrarrmimo@e-aurora.ca Attention: Marco Ramunno, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Development Services Dear Mr. Ramunho: RE: Comments on the 2C Draft Secondary Plan. OS-1496 Following' preliminary comments expressed in my July 14, 2010 letter regarding the Aurora 2C Landowners Groups concerns with the Committee's direction for parkland in the 2C Secondary Plan, we have now reviewed the entirety of the Draft 2C Secondary Plan (July 9; 2010) prepared by the Town's consultant and offer the following comments and requests listed in the table below. �• ay mna.w w n+u+++++ densi of 50 residents and/or jobs per hectare. 2.2 d) lip 4 "The orotection of woodlands. the density target Is to be achieved on a net or gross basis as this policy is in conflict with policy 2.3 b) which references 'gross density". It Is our understanding that the 50 people and jobs per hectare density target defined in the Growth Plan and in the Region of York Offlcial.Plan is to be calculated on the land area exclusive of environmental features and Infrastructure in accordance with the Region of York's exclusions listed In Appendix of their January.2009 Land Budget report. This nottcv should be revised to dadfv what is maani watercourses and wetland is paramount.. by woodlands, watercourses, wetlands, and natural Developmentalall take an approach that landscapes and be consistent with the terminology minimizes road crossings, reinforces the used. in Section 3.2 of this Plan and the Region of protection of the rtaturei tghltscaoe.. " York Offidal Plan December 2009. It is a'requirement of this Secondary Plan Similar to comments above on policy 2.2 a), please that fire restdenW community west of define "gross density' and clarify whether net or Ladle Street achieve a minimurn opm gross density is to be used to calculate the density den tvs of 50 residents andlorjobs per target hectare. 2.3 d) iii 6 Numbering in this section is not consecutive. Appears a policy missing, please clarify. - 116 - Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9.2 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 modified, rectilinear grid. grid. 31 c) 9 ...in order to ensure that the density The policy should be revise to read as follows: requirements of thls plan are achieved and that individual property owners contribute "in addrtlon to Development Charges, the Town, their proportionate share towards the where and as appropriate, shall require the use of provision of community and infrastructure . area-speciAc development charge by-laws or front- _. facilities. such as schools, parks, roads and ending agreements under The Development road improvements, external services and Charges Act Developer Cost Sharing Agreements or stormwater management facilities, property other suitable arrangements, among landowners, in owners will be required to enter into one or order to implement development of the secondary more agreements as a condition of plan area and fairly allocate related costs of approval of development for their lards, development. Developer Cost Sharing Agreements providing for the equitable distribution of may encompass the whole or part of the secondary the costs, including that of land, of the plan area and may only deal with: aforementioned community and common . focal services as permitted in Section 59(2) of the public facilities. The execution of a Development Charges Act, 1997,• or, baeValope?Group Agreement, or . matters to which the parties voluntarily agree; or, Agreements shall be required prior to . other matters permitted by law. submission of a Zoning Bylaw Amendment or Plan of Subdivision/Condominium. The Town will not negotiate or be a party to Developer Cost Sharing Agreements but must be assured and ascertain, that the document assigns cost sharing In a reasonable manner. Subject to the appeal mechanisms noted below, the issuance of... final approvals or the release of lands for development shall, where appropriate; be subject to the finalization and execution of such cost sharing. agreements or other arrangements as permitted by law, In this context, the City will continue.to process. applications for development approvals, notwithstanding that an applicant has trot entered into a Developer Cost Sharing Agreement. It is recognized that to the extent that landowners enter Into a Developer Cost Sharing Agreement that Is In some aspects beyond the jurisdiction of the City to impose, those aspects of the agreement may not be imposed on an Involuntary basis on other. landowners, by draft plan or consent condition, or otherwise. Ina situation where agreement is not reached regarding a Developer Cost Sharing Agreement, this provision is not intended to interfere with the holding of a hearing by the Ontario Municipal Board, or to fetter the discretion of the Board in any way whatsoever respecting the merits of consent or subdivision, or the conditions of approval thereof, including cost sharing conditions, brought before it in accordance with the Planning Act." 3.1 e) and 9 ...any application to convert lands Please revise this policy to reflect the terminology 7.1.3 c) and designated BPI, BP2 or BP3.... shall be used in the Region of York Official Plan of 91 assessed on the basis of Municipal "REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW by Comprehensive Review... deleting "Municipal" and replacing with "Regional° In addition, part of the criteria for a Regional . Comprehensive Review should include a review of the Regional job numbers and allocation, as any MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. -117- Page 2 of 20 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 '- 3 TO: Me= Ramunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 (EPA) need to be clearly distinguished from parklands as EPA lands require more restrictive protection measures and ongoing management It is somewhat confusing placing parkland and public open space in the "Greenland System": This approach is in conflict with what the Region of York Official Plan which defines the "Regional Greenlands System" as only containing "key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features and the adjacent lands necessary to maintain these features in a linked system". There Is an incredible amount of inconsistency in the terminology used to describe natural heritage system and features in this Plan. It is suggested that this Plan use terminology which is consistent with the Region of York December 2009 Official Plan and include defined terms in the Interpretation section of this Plan. This would help to clarify what constitutes a natural heritage feature worthy of designation within the EPA. Particularly problematic Is the use of Greenbelt Plan Oak Ridge's Moraine Conservation Plan terminology, considering the site is on neither GB nor ORM. Natural heritage features are variously referred to as "significant existing natural features", "existing natural heritage features°, "natural heritage features", "environmental features", "environmentally significant areas".and "key natural heritage features"; and not . Beady defined anywhere Jn the Secondary Plan. in addition, terms used. to.describe.the natural heritage features and their level of significance should be clearly defined in a dlossary andlor in the policies and be consistent terms should be used throughout the OPA, The draft documents makes independent references to 'Woodlands', °WoodloW, "Forests", "Watercourses", "Streams", and "Wetlands" in . addition to "Natural Heritage Features", 'Key natural heritage features", "Key Hydrologic Features", Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) should be distinguished from other watlands.as they are subject to different policies. Other wetlands, particularly low function wetlands should be developable provided their functions can be replaced elsewhere as determined and evaluated through an EIS. Provincial and Federal Species at Risk are Jumped together throughout the OPA and special conoem species are given the some level of protection as provincially endangered and threatened species. They should be separately referenced. The same is confused for "butlers" where sometimes "buffers" is used and other times "minimum vegetation protection zons". Please revise to use consistent terminology throughout U40NE GIVEN PARSONS LTD.. Page 3 of 20 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 4 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 201.0 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 and woodlots, including their associated of this Plan do not illustrate the correct extent of the typical buffer areas... Detailed mapping of environmental features in 2C west of Leslie Street as key environmental features is provided in . determined in the field with LSRCA, MNR, Town staff Appendix IV, and the Town's consultant through a staking and surveying exercise. In addition, the environmental mapping not consistent with the woodlands and greenlands mapping in the Region of York Official Plan December 2009. It was understanding from Town of Aurora staff that this mapping was incorrect and would be modified to be consistent with the Region of York's mapping. The mapping should be revised to reflect the correct limits of the identified environmental features. 3.2.1 it), 12 Uses permitted in EPA iv), and vi) 3.2.9 k) 13 Infrastructure and road design and . construction shall be sensitive to, the . features and functions of the EPA designation and chap ItLq uiAsensitive design and Innovative technologies to minimize impacts and enhance the ovemfl greenlandssystem. 3.2.1 p) 14 Development of site alteretion on ionds outside of the EPA designation containing key natural features or key hydrologic features Identified through an.&S, will be subject to the EPA designation penmYted uses and policies. It is our understanding that "infrastructure" as stated under iv) includes public and private utilities. Permitted Uses in the EPA should also Include -hew Stormwater Madagement ponds and facilities subject to an EIS demonstrating no adverse impact on the Natural Heritage Feature. This would be consistent with policy 3.1 d) which states'...siomrwater management facilities shall be permitted on lands in any land use designation. Where any of these facilities are to be located within the Environmental Protection Area Designation, an Environmental Impact Statement shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Town, in consultation with the CA, and any other agency havingJurisdiction." Please provide clarification for what is meant by a "sensitive design' and °innovative technologies"? Examples of what the Town is looking for would be helpful. Additionally the policy should be reworded to read: "Infrastructure, road design and construction shell be sensitive to the features and functions of the EPA designation. Sensitive design and Innovative technologies to minimize impacts and enhance the overall greenlands system are ancouraced. where feasible A policy should be provided which acknowledges that isolated and additional natural features beyond the EPA designation can be compensation for by providing additional land that is more contiguous with the EPA or the recreation or enhancement of similar features and/or functions within the EPA. The opportunity should be provided for parkland dedication credits of other forms of equitable compensation when table lands are recommended to be added to the EPA for enhancement purposes. This. policy should be revised to clarify and recognize these conditions. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD, - - Page 4 of 20 -119- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9-5 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July g, 2010 protection zone -An particular where this feature... has been identfed as a wildlife corridor to ensure that the area will continue to effectively act and function as a wildlife corridor." 3.2.13) 15 in the review of development or site alteration applications on adjacent lands to tributaries of Lake Simcos, Council shad considor, in consultation with the appropriate agencies, the restoration of watercourses to their natural state. A buffer for VPZ as it is referred to here) should not be used to ensure wildlife corridor functions. The policy also assumes that such functions have been demonstrated through an. EIS or other study. Request that this policy be revised by deleting the following: "Otis acting as orhas been identified as a wildlife corridor to ensure that the area will continue to effectively act and function as a wildlife corridor. This policy is too broad and does not provide a clear understanding of what will be expected by the Conservation Authority. As such, we request that it be removed and the opportunity to have dialogue With the Town and the Conservation Authority on this issue and the associated requirements which are to be included in the Secondary Plan. It is our position that the test'ahould be no adverse impacts on significant Natural Heritage features in their current condition. 3.2.1 v) . 15 Any development proposal on land which This policy should be revised to take into contains trees maybe required to consideration that not all vegetation within the undertake a Tree Preservation Plan development plan will be preserved based on prepared.by a.qualffied professional, which influence of community design objectives, quality of shall inventory and assess the present vegetation and grading requirements. conditions of the trees on the sole and shad make recommendations on. tract The following statement should be added to the end preservation with the objective.of of this policy'subject to grading requirements, maximizing the number of tress that can be community design objectives and quality of conserved on.sfte. vegetation". 3.2.1 w) 16 In the case of development applications The Aurora 2C Landowners Group has concern with that result In a net loss of trees; the this.policy.and other policies throughout the OPA developer shall compensate this loss on which refer to Council as the decision maker. the development site or in another suitable Uploading all the authority to Council will cause location as determined by Council. In significant delays and hurdles in the development determining appropriate compensation, approvals process. The'document should refer -to consideration should be given to the. the Town as the decision maker.. signdtcence and value of the ecological function the trees provided. There is not a standard method to value "ecological functions" of trees and, where applied, a dear and fair approach to compensation should be developed in consultation with stakeholders. Net loss of "significant trees` should be determined by a qualified arbodst The Aurora 2C.Landowners Group request further dialogue on this policy before adoption of the Plan. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group will not support this policy as it is currengy written. 3.2.2 a) 16 ...Land identified by a Parks Symbol on Schedule A, and in more detail on Schedule 8, shall include lands within the following categories: i) Community Parks d) Neighbourhood Parks 111) Linear Parks iv) Parketfes v) Small scale open space The Parkland designations should be more dearly linked to the designation actually illustrated on Schedule A and B. Schedule A does not Identify any Linear Parks or Small scale open space. There are parks on Schedule A and S that have not been given a designation as defined in the policy document. "ONE CNN PARSONS LTD. -120- Page 5 of 20 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 6 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 110116 Parkland shall be dedicated to the As previously mentioned in our July 14, 2010 and muhldpallty on the basis of., for residential June 7, 2010 letters (Attached to this letter as uses, 5 percent of the gross land area, Appendix 1 and Appendix 2), the Aurora 2C Inclusive of the natural hedtagal0atures, of Landowners Group will not support a secondary plan the lands west of Leslie Street. for 2C that calculates parkland dedication based on the gross land area of the secondary plan inclusive of environmental lands. It is the Aurora 2C Landowners Group position that the municipality -does not have the authority to impose such an excessive requirement for dedicating parkland. The Planning Act does not entitle a municipality to take 5 percent of the land area but rather provides a permission to take up to 2 percent or 5 percent depending upon the intended use. It is my experience and opinion that such takings must be. responsive to the specific needs of the planned community. It is my understanding that most municipalities generally calculate this.requirement based on the land area which is to be developed and where future residents will be housedrather then on agross land area basis inclusive of natural heritage lands. Parkland is meant to service the future residents of a community and therefore, in -principle, it should be calculated based on the land area where residential development will occur, Including lands that are going to not be developed but rather protected for environmental purposesin the parkland requirement . calculation is not consistent with generally accepted. municipal practices and essentially double counts the open space dedications already being made in a community. Respectfully, on behalf of the Aurora 2C Landowners Group, we strongly request the 2C Steering Committee reconsider their recommendations regarding parkland for the reasons listed in my letters dated July 14, 2010 and June 7, 2010. ill be provided on the This policy should be deleted as the standard is per 1,000 residents. unreasonably high for Community Parkland. Most other municipalities in the GTA identify a Community Park service ratio in.the range of 0.8 to 1.2 hectares per 1,000 residents. The Town's Parks and Recreation Master Plan even advised that the amount of active parkland currently provided in the Town of Aurora today is appropriate In comparisons to the level of service.in other communities in the GTA (page 44). It is my understanding that the Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan actually recommended the Town's reduced its standard for Community Parkland to 1.5 hectares per 1,000 residents and recognized the need for more flexibility. Designating over20 hectares of additional parkland with 2C west of Leslie Street has a significant impact MALONE GIVEN PARSONS. LTD, - 121 - Page 6 of 20 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 7 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 2010 RE: Comments on'the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 on the density and housing and community form that can accommodate 6,000 persons in 2C. This results . In the need to plan for much higher density housing forms, such as apartments. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group is concerned that this higher density product is not a marketable product in this location and will compete with the infill and regeneration objectives plan for the Aurora Promenade. Additionally, distributing the Community Parks in three separate parkland parcels, as illustrated in Draft Schedule A of the 2C Secondary Plan, contradicts the Town's need to provide for large, consolidated active playing fields that can service the active recreation needs of the entire Town of Aurora. The distribution of 3 smaller Community Parks blurs the lines between - - the functional differences of Neighbourhood Parks and Community Parks. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group is concerned that facility fits have not been provided for the Community Parks which illustrate how the Towns active playing field needs will be functional meet through the parkland distribution provided. Parks, and Parkettes shall be accepted by the Town as contributing to the paddand dedication requirements of the Planning Act. Linear Parks and other smaller components of the public parks system shall be considered on a cas"y-ease basis as fu1611ing parkland dedication requirements, subject to a review of their . Individual function within the neighbourhood. Community Parks tend to generate undesirable amounts of traffic, packing requirements, noise, dust. and lights.' Designating three separate community park only increases the opportunity furcon0ict with adjacent land uses. It is a generally accepted municipal practice to locate packs away from, residential areas for these very reasons. Please also reference my comments with regards to this standard in our July 14, 2010 Letter to the Town of Aurora. Other Open are eligible for parkland dedication credit Both Linear Parks'and Other Open Spaces should not be designated on a statutory schedule. and their locations are determined through the detailed draft plan of subdivision stage. Linear Parks and Other Open Spaces should be permitted in all land use designations. The Community Plan and memo from the Town's Consultants Identities 20 hectares of Community Parkland, 5.6 hectares of Neighbourhood Parkland and approximately 15 hectares of Linear Parks as being proposed to serve approximately 8,000 people. This results in 40.6 he of parkland for 8,000 people or 5 hectares per 1,000 residents. This greatly exceeds any reasonable level of service and Is approximately 5 times the amount that can be acquired using the alternative standard permitted by the Planning Act of 1 he per 300 units. Any.parkland in addition to the approximately 8 to 10 he required under the Planning Act must be acquired by a fair and reasonable acquisition program. The parkland MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. Page 7 of 20 -122- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item9 - 8 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora August6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 3.3 b) 20 ...requirement to achieve a minimum g o= d s' of 50 residents and/or jobs per hectare. 3.3 d) iii 21 ...to ensure that the Residential Neighbourhoods are designed to achieved a minimum net density of 50 residents and/orjobs perheafare 3.3.1 b) 21 The permitted uses within the Urban Residential 1 Designation are as follows... 3.3.1 d) The Maximum height of any building Whin the Urban Residential t Designation shalt be 2.5 storeys or7.5 metres, whichever is less. ideminec in me uran seconoary rian is wen aoove what the Town will be able to acquire under the Planning Act for the development of 2C and note that parkland above and beyond what the Planning Act allows through dedication must be acquired through purchase or other fair and reasonable means. The Community Park identified adjacent to the Town's parkland and community cantre in the south of the Secondary Plan designates the entire property owned by MI Development as Community Park and as a result removes all development rights from this property. If this Plan is adapted by Council, MI Development will not have the opportunity to submit a development application given its permitted land use designations and therefore there will be no opportunity for the Town to actually acquire these lands for parkland purposes under the Planning Act This is very cdnbeming for the landbwrier who has no understanding of how the Town then plans to acquire these lands. I understand that Aurora has recently authorized the Town Manager to report on a parkland acquisition strategy. I again requestthat the Town of Aurora revise it position on parkland requirements and consult with the 2C Landowners during the preparation of this acquisition strategy. Please clarify how cross density is defined and whether the density target is to be achieved on a net or gross basis asthis 'policy is in conflict with policy 2.2 b) and 8.3 d) iii) which reference "not density'. It is our understanding that the 50 people and jobs . per hectare density target defined in the Growth Plan and in the Region of York.Official Plan Is a calculated on the land area exclusions of environmental features and infrastructure in accordance with the Region of York's exclusions listed in Appendix.3 of their January 2009 Land Budget report. Similar to comments above on policy 3:3 b) please define "net density' and clarify whether net or gross density is to be used to calculate the density target All predominately at -grade housing, including triplexes, quadruplexes, and townhouses, should be permitted in the Urban Residential 1 designation to be consistent with the permissions defined in the 26 Secondary Plan for Low Density Housing and to allow for more flexibility and opportunity to provide an appropriate and marketable mix of housing. The Aurora 2B Secondary Plan permits low density housing forms up to 3 Storays. At the very least the same permissions should be available in the 2C Secondary Plan, however, given the more dense land use forms needed in 2C to accommodate the orolecded population, the maximum height should be MALONE GNEN PARSONS LTD. -123- Page 8 of 20 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9-9 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 3.3.1 e) Density within the Urban Residential 1 Designation shag range from between 17 and 30 units per net residential hectare for singla-detached dwellings and between 30 and 40 units per net residential hectare far semi-detached dwellings. same volume of space per residential home as available in 2B. Additionally, it is our understanding that up to 3.5 storeys is permitted under the Building Code. Policies regarding maximum height of buildings should clarify how height is to be measured. - This policy should be revised to a single maximum density for URI designations of 30 units per net residential hectares rather that two separate density ranges. One single density is consistent with the approach in 26 and provides for more flexibility to provide a greater mix of housing and determine an the housing mix will be defined. 3.3.1 g), 22, All development within the Urban This policy is not necessary in a Secondary Plan 3.3,2 0, 24, Residential 1, 2, 3 or and the Mixed Use document and is more appropriate for a parent 3.3.3 h), 27, Designation shall be within a walking Official Plan given that the land use pattern is 3.3.4 f) 29, distance of 5 minutes (400 metres) to an already defined. This policy should be removed or at and 3.3.5 and identified component of the public park the very least revised to read "shall GENERALLYbe k) 32 system and from local commercial uses. within a walking distance of.. 3.3.11), 22, All development within Urban Residential 1 Please revise to state "shall instead of 'be 3421), 25, (2, 3, and 4) shall be coasfsteni.with the consistent with". 3.3.3 k) 27, Urban Design Guidelines attached to this and and Sacondery plan as Appendix It. 3.3.41) 30 ad uses within One Urban Please clarify If 'back-to-back!' style townhouses are 2 Designation are as follows... be permitted in Urban Residential 2 designation. It is the Aurora 2C Landowners Group position that this typology should be permitted in U112. 3.3.2 d) 23 The Maximum height of any building within Please revise policy to allow for up to 4 storeys the Urban Residential 2 Designation shall which would support a stacked townhouse product be 3.5 storeys, or 10.5 matras, whichever and up to 8 storeys for a low-rise apartment product. is less. Policies regarding maximum height of buildings should clarify how height is to be measured. 0.4.4 97, Zs, uevenopment racanareo mrougn a firer This requirement is a new Step in the approvals 3.3.3 g), 26, Plan of Condominium she#require a process that is a non -statutory requirement. These 3.3.4 g) . 28 Comprehensive Design Plan to be requirements are redundant and will be satisfied by and and approved by Council, The Comprehensive the complete application requirements of a Site Plan 3.3.5 j) 31 Design Plan may include the following Application or Draft Plan of Condominium components... Application. The Group request this policy requirement be removed. 3.3.2 h), 24, Revenue frontage development shall not be There may be locations in which reverse frontage is 3.3.3 j) 27 permitted within the Urban Residential2, 3 useful or appropriate it the community has been and 3.3.4 and and 4 Designation& design in a comprehensive manner. As such, this 1) 30 policy should be revised to read: "Reverse frontage development shall be discouraged within Urban Residential 2, 3 and 4 Designations." MALONE GMN PARSONS LTD. -124- Page 9 of 20 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 10 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 and f) the Mixed Use Residenhal/Commerr Designation shall be 8 storeys or 18 metres, whichever is less. Density within the Mired Use Residential / Commercial Designation shall be up to 100 Permitted uses are encouraged to dee in mixed use buildings. Permitted.. residential uses are not permitted In a stand-alone condition. If the Town maintains the Mixed Use designation, at the very least, the maximum allowable height should be 8 storeys and maximum density should be 150 units per net residential hectare as the current height resirlotions are too low to allow for a FBI and density that is responsive to market realities. land use is permitted. This policy does not provide enough flexibility to encourage mixed use scenarios and should be revised. The Landowners Group would not be supportive of this policy arid, request that it be revised to allow mixed use to be provided in separate buildings. The Group understands thatthis is an architectural form that Urban Designers would like but note that it Is ready impossible to Implement in the current market realities of today. The Group requests a more flexible approach to providing convenience retail uses. Permitted convenience stores & personal This policy is more appropriate for a Zoning Bylaw serylce uses shall not exceed 500 sqm and maximum GFA should not be stipulated in the (5,400 SF) of GFA. perindividual business Secondary Plan., At the very least, this policy should establishment and no Individual site shall be revised to allow for an individual business GFA up accommodate more than 2,000 sq.m. to 35,000 square feet. The current restrictions are, (21,5W SF) of convenience commercial too onerous and will be dlf lcult to find a tenant in the and/or personal service GFA. retail market of today. 3.3.6. .33 Residential Interlace ovsnay Designation It may be determined that the most. appropriate. Interface condition for the pocket of development between the woodlot and the creek is a low density housing'fonn. Permitted uses should Include both those UR1 or UR2 to allow for the flexibility for this to be reviewed and determined without Amendment to this plan. 3.3.6 c) 33 "...Implementation methods may include, This policy should be revised to read: "The but not Arri ted to:..:' implementation methods could include any one or more of the following, but not be limlied to". Please include a clarification policy that states "Where additional rear yard lot depth is considered as an option to create an appropriate Interface coadfdon the additional lot depth shall not exceed 3.0 metres." 3.3.6 c)1) 33 Where the interface condition results in additional land for buffer or setback purposes, this additional land shauld'be part of the private residential lot and not put into, public ownership. Therefore we request the reference please delete reference to the "land use. 3.3.8 a) 34 Elementary Schools A policy should be included which indicates the maximum allowable size for an elementary school site. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LID. 125 - - Page 11 of 20 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 11 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 the Urban Residential designation shall be 3.5 storeys or 10.5 metres, whichever is less, fortownhouse dwellings and small plex type (e.g qualmplex) multiple unit type buildings; and 6 storeys, or 18,0 metres, whichever is less, for apartments. 3.3.3 e) 26 Density within the Urban Residential Designation shall range from between 35 and 50 units pernet residential hectare for townhouse dwellings and up to 100 units pernet residential hectare forapartments. a) 27 It is the intent of the Urban Residential Designation to promote well -designed and transit supportive mediumdensity, and' higher density housing forms that will be marketed to senior citizens. multiple unit type 4 storeys. Policies regarding maximum height of buildings should clarify how height is to be measured. up to This policy does not recognize that Seniors Apartment developments generally have smaller unit types than other apartment developments. As such additional density up to 125 units per residential hectare should be provided to recognize that within the same amount of floor area more units will be provided. Policies that discriminate vino the housing product will be marketed are not permissible and should not be Included. The UR4 designation is too restrictive and does not allow for a truly marketable product. The Aurora 2C Landowners are not supportive of the UR4 designations as it currently is defined. The Group realizes that a higherresidential designation is needed as a result of the excessive requirement for parkland but request further discussion with the Town on this matter and the most appropriate manner in which to accommodate the necessary population. The Group would be more amicable to a designation that blends the permissions of UR2 and UR4. 3.3:4. b) 28 Permitted uses within Urban Residential 4, If the Town maintains the-UR4 designation, at the very least, uses permitted within Urban Residential 4 should include townhouses, back-to-back townhouses, and staked townhouses to allow for more flaxibility in the block design and provide appropriate transitional opportunities to the lower density designations. and e) the Urban Residential Designation shaft be 8 storeys, or 18 metres, whichever is less. Densfly within the Urban Residential Designation shall be up to 100 units per net residential hectare. If the Town maintains the UR4 designation, at the very least, the maximum allowable height should be 8 storeys and maximum density should be 150 units per net residential hectare as the current height . restrictions are too low to allow for a FSI and density that is responsive to market realities. Policies regarding maximum height of buildings should clarify how height Is to be measured. 3.3.5 b) 30 Permitted uses in the Mixed Use The Mixed Use designation is too restrictive and and c) designation include: does not allow for a truly marketable product. The 0 Apartment dwelOgs Aurora 2C Landowners Group is not supportive of ft) Local commercial uses including this Mixed Use designations. Similar to comments convenience stores and personal above on the policy 3.3.4 a), the Mixed Use service uses,, designation should be blended with the recommended UR2 UR4 designation and allow for strategic opportunities for convenience retail at grade or in standalone buildings in appropriate locations. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. Page 10 of 20 -126- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9-12 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Daft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 3.3.8 d) 35 In the event that all or part Ora scnoa atfa is not requirement by a School Board, the following alternative uses shaft be permitted without an Amendment to this Secondary Plan, in order of prionty: 1) Coimpatible institutional uses as Identified In the implementing zoning by- law, or based on specific evaluation of each site, and which may include religious Institutions, government buildings, community and recreational facilities, housing for seniors and/or cultural buildings (eg museum, art gallery); and/or ii) The Council of the Town of Aurora shall have first right of refusal to acquire all or part of the school site; government agencies and community groups with . identifted heads shall have the second right of refusal. 4.D 44 Urban Design and Amenity Policies 4.1 a) v) 45 'The..Secondary Plan is promised on high quality urban design, including measure to ensure: v) Achievement of an overall density within each neighbourhood of at least 50 residents and employees per net hectare; I ins policy snoura ue revises as ue consromisk wain the policy in 26 Secondary Plan as provided below. din the event that all or part of a Secondary School or Public Elementary School site is not required by a School Boats, the site maybe developed forLow- Medium Density housing, in contormity with. all policies of this Secondary Plan. An amendment to . this secondary Plan, to reflect the approved change in land use shall not be required." There appears to be much duplication between the urban design policies in the Secondary Plan and the Urban Design Guidelines. Where there is this duplication the policy should be removed and only referenced In the Guidelines to eliminate redundancy and confusion. Individual neighbourhoods are not defined in the Secondary Plan. The requirement -of 50 people and . jobs per hectare should be ineasiired over the entire community and not based on each neighborhood. Please clarify how net density is defined and how it is different from cross density as used in policy 2.2, 2.3, and 3.3. 4.2.1 a)1i) 48 /t is intended that roads and lanes will: Please clarify +whether It is the Town's intent to All Be subject to comprehensive require landscaping / streetscaping in the lanes and streelscape requirements, including if ad, to what extent. It is the Group's position that landscaping, that will ensure that the landscaping/stnsetscaping requirements, apart from public realm Is consistent in quality necessary lighting, is not necessary within the lanes and design; and, and therefore this policy should clarify such. 4.4.2 a) 53 Council shall develop Green Development Development or a careen ueveropmem ana uesrgn and Design Standards to ensure that the Standards are not supportive by the Landowners ' vision and policies of the, Plan era achieved Group. The current Building Standards are prepared through the development process. through the Ontario Building Code which sets out the . provincial requirements and builders cannot be requires to achieved two sets of standards. 4.42 j) 54 Council will require the following etfidemy See comment above on 4.4.2.a). standards for all new buildings. 4.4.2 m) 55 Council shall require the installation of This is just one of many Low Impact Development rainwaterharvest(ng and re- (LID) techniques that may be employed in 2C, where circulation/reuse systems on all new feasible. Given the hWherdensityofthis oommudiry, residential buildings for outdoor irrigation certain housing forms, specifically freehold and outdoor water use, townhouses, and the resulting higher coverage will actually be very limited opportunities to implement MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. Page 12 of 20 - - 127 - Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 . Item 9-13 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 5.2 e) 61 Landowner cost share agreements should be used wherever possible to spread the cost.of heritage preservation over a block plan,.. 5.20 61 Financial securities from the owner may be required as part of the conditions of site plan or other development approvals to ensure the retention and protection of we coniem or ti, anu me policy snouid oe revised to encourage LIDs strategies, where applicable, rather than mandate them. Heritage preservation is not a Group issue. Each landowner should deal with their individual requirements for heritage preservation. This policy should be deleted.or revised. The Act already provides both statutory restrictions and obligations on owners of heritage properties, as well as penalties for breaching the Act. A second level of requirements should not be imposed and this sumcrent funding end resources shall be This policy is very ambiguous / open ended and does committed to implement a communication not stated who will provide'funding' and what is and education program to foster 'sufficient. The policy should clarify that this funding awareness, appreciation and enjoyment of will be the responsibility of the Town. cultural heritage conservation. Y.Y Pr VJ . l IIG IuuOuvri VI VeWYlle(eV d"Wor significant Heritage Buildings within. the 2C Secondary Plan Area ate tAustrated.in Appendix ill. 5.3.p) and 65 The Town's Guidetines for Secudng q) Vacant and Derelict Heritage Buildings" shall be compiled with to ensure proper protection of these buildings, and the stability and integrity of their heritage attributes and character defining elements. Adoption of the Guidelines may be stipulated as a condition for approval of planning applications and draft plans, if warranted. 6.2.2 b) 70 b) All road improvements and now road and d) iv) projects shall be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal i ngineers Association's Municipal Gass „nemage Duncmg is incorrectly illustrated on the. Veluew Property was not identified as a cultural heritage resource,for preservation through the Cultural Heritage Study completed by Wayne Morgan on behalf of the Aurora 2C Landowners Group. Mr. Morgan's report concluded that in Lot-23 west of Leslie Street a circa 1910 farm house (the Graham Farm House) and the remains of a ham structure were examined. In Mr. Morgan's opinion, neither of -these strictures have sufficient design, associative or contextual value to merit retention and designation under the Ontario Heritage AcL Mr. Morgan recommended that prior to demolition the owner be required to provide a photographic record of the building, both exterior and interior, to the satisfaction of the Town. The peer review of this work completed by the Town's consulting team from URS concurred with Mr. Morgan's report and did not provide an alternate recommendation for the Graham Farm House. Based on the study by Mr. Morgan and the peer review by URS, the Graham Farm House should not be included as a Cultural Heritage Resource in any options or the final preferred land use plan. The Landowners Group note that this document is currently not prepared nor have they have the opportunity to review such document and therefore do not support it as a condition of approval of planning applications. The Landowners Group requests the opportunity to review and comment on a draft of this document prior to endorsement by Council. Not ALL road Improvements or new road projects am subject toe Municipal Class EA. The Municipal Class EA states that collector roads over 2.2 million dollars are subject to the EA requirements. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. -128- Page 13 of 20 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 14 TO: Marro Ramunno, Town of Aurora August6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 Environmental Assessment (Municipal Class EA). di Municipal Collector Roads are identified on Schedule C. 6.2.2 d) v) 71 The munldpa*may approve exceptions to this policy based on an - evaluation of the physical circumstances of the road, and on consideration of the principles fora pedestrian -friendly and walkable community. Local Roads are identified on Schedule C and the Community Plan, attached to this Secondary Plan as Appendix L The details of the Local Road network are to be confirmed through the Draft plan of Subdivision process. Minoradjustmentsto the Local Road Network fdentffied on Schedule C'and In Appendix 1, may be permitted by Council without Amendment to this Secondary Plan, subject to the principles of greanlands visibHo, connectivity and neighbourhood penaeability being achieved. 6.2.7 76 General Policies for the Aurora Trail Network. Schedule C indicates a Municipal Collector Road in the lands north of St. John's Sideroad and a Municipal Collector Road collecting to Leslie Street north of the McLeod Wcodlbt that should be designated as local'roads and not subject to the requirements of a'Municipai Class EA. . It should be noted that the final. alignment of all Municipal Collector Roads will be Settle through the EA process. Please add to this policy the following: The munkipahly may approve exceptions to this policy based on an evaluation of the physical circumstances of the road, and on consideration of Me principles for a padestrian-Blandly and walkable communftyAND BASED ON APPROVED ADS. It should be clarified that the local road patter shown in Schedule C and Appendix I are for illustrative purposes only. The policy should be revised to state that: "Local Roads are idenBfiedon Schedule C and the Community Plan, attached to this Secondary Plan as Appendix 1 forlUUSTRATiVE PURPOSES ONLY. The details and final pattern of the local road network are to be confirmed through the Draft plan of Subdivision process. Where the local road pattern it vanes from this Plan an amendment to the Plan will not be required." The Aurora Landowners Group note that a draft copy of the Aurora Master Trails Plan has not been made available to the public for review and comment. The Group requests the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Master Trails Plan and associated policies. The Secondary Plan does not. provide clarification regarding whether the trails in 2C will be Neighbourhood Trails, Aurora Trail or Trail Grid and the associated design standards for the various trail types. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group requests the opportunity to review and comment on the design standards for the trails in 2C. The amount of trails conceptually illustrated in Schedule B appears excessive. Construction of the Trails Is a Development Charge item and it is the Groul's understanding that they are not responsible for the construction of these trails. Where construction of the trails is to be the responsibility of the developer, a credit for OC should be applied. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group requests the opportunity to discuss the location and implementation of these trails and who will be responsible for their construction and costs. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. Page 14 of 20 -129- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 15 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora Augu'st6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 .... Allowance Mr me [reeds or wllarrm snail i ne Landowners uroup nas senous concerns about be incorporated whereverpossible, this policy. As it is currently written It is very ambiguous and the Group requests more clarification with regards to where such crossing are necessary and under what conditions. The opportunity to identify and respond to the need for wildlife connections will be identified in the Environmental Impact Statements prepared with each development application. 6.3.2 82 Sewage and Water Allocation Policies This section should be deleted in its entirely as It is not appropriate for a Secondary Plan but rather a iiarent Official Plan. 6.50) 85 The location, configuration and boundaries The SWM pond indicated to the east of the Ducks of the Stormwater Management Facilities Unlimited property on the York Region Christian identified on Schedule A and S shall be Seniors Home property is not plan for a Stormwater confirmed through the required Stormwater Management facility. The SWM symbol in Schedule Management Plan.... A should -be removed. i ne nst or nems proviaea are very genera[ town-wia items and some are not specifically related to nor applicable to the 2C lands. Discussion should be had and consideration should be given to removing entirely. Item iq: should have the following text added "in accordance with current Town, LSRCA and MOE design sfandarde. Item ill): It Is our understanding that ditches are not . proposed in the road designs? Item v).. this is not related at all to the 2C Secondary Plan area and request that it be removed. Item vii) Please add'where possible" to this policy. important terms used throughout the Secondary Plan and provides clarity for readers. defined in OPA 69 Complete Applications. Since OPA 69 was recently approved and sets a town wide standard, it should be the standard for 2C. Policy 7.2.1 should be included in the Parent OP and. is therefore redundant and unnecessary In a Secondary Plan. 7.2.1 c) 94 'Council shall determine the need for the See comment above. and d) listed studies, plans and assessments, and when in the approvals process they may be required on a sit"y-slle basis. Additional study requirements may be idenlified by Council as development application proceeds through the approval process. MALONE GNEN PARSONS LTD. -30- Page 15 of 20 1' Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 16 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 PolicyPolicy 7,2 ' 94, Implementation Please note that many subseWns in 8e5cfion 7.2 . are not numbered. 7.2.? 95 Holding Zone Please note this section is not numbered. The first policy appears to be incomplete and should most likely read: 'where allrelavantgoals, objectives and policies of the Secondary Plan have NOT been met INCLUDING..." 7.2.13. a) 106 Phasing Please revised the policy to read: Approval of development applications shall be conditional upon commitments from the appropriate authorities and the proponents of development to the timing and fulto mg of the required road and transportation facilities, where identified as required in order for development to proceed underan approved Traffic Impact Study... 7.2.14 d) 106 Prior to any development approvals, Council shalt be satisfied that a Developer's Group Agreement that allocates all the costs associated with the implementation of this Secondary Plan has been executed. The Secondary Plan may be subdivided into smaller components of facilitate such agreements, subject to the approval of Council. Please revise the policy to as follows: Prior to any development approvals, Council shall be satisfied that a Developer's Group Agreement has been executed. The Secondary Plan maybe subdividedlnto:smalfercomponents TO facilitate such agreements." The Cost Sharing Agreement is not subject to' the Approval of Council. The Town needs a policy that solely requires confirmation from the Trustee that a' Cost Sharing Agreement has been executed_pdor to registration and that all parties are in good standing. A revisions be made to Schedule A as illustrated in Appendix 2 of this letter: 1. Remove parkland designations In the locations indicated. It is notcdearwhat park type designation has been given to these locations, nonetheless, Linear Parks and Other Small Open Space should not be designated on statutory schedules, like Schedule A and Schedule S. Such parkland uses should be permitted in all designations and to be determined during Draft Plan of Subdivision. 2. Remove Municipal Collector Road from north of St. John's Sideroad and the Collector Road to Leslie Street north of the McLeod WoodlDt and South of St, John's Sideroad. These roads are not needed for Collector Roads in accordance with the Transportation Study and therefore do not need to fulfill the requirements of the P.A.. 3. Remove the hatched area in the locations indicated from the EPA designations as it does not correspond with the limit of a woodlot or greenlands as illustrated in the Region of York Official Plan December 2009 nor was an MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. Page 16 of 20 -131- Special. Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 17 TO: Marco hamunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 2010 RE.: Comments on the Draft2C Secondary Plan, July-9, 2010 in these locations during the field survey with the Conservation Authority, the Town and MNR. 4. Remove the hatched area from the EPA as it does not correspond with the limit of woodlote or greenlands illustrated in the Region of York Official Plan December 2000 nor was an - environmental features of significance Identified in this location during the field survey with the Conservation Authority, the Town and MNR. 5. Remove Community Park designation indicated south of St. Johns Sideroad and Immediate west of Leslie Street and replace with modified UR. 6. Revise the underlying designation in the locations - indiclated to permit the allowable uses in either--.. ........ . UR1 or UR2. Low density uses should not be prohibited as it may be determined such uses are more compatible. with existing residential uses to. the north and allow for maximum innovation. 7. Realign road crossing so to minimize the extent In which the EPA is crossed and to provide more greenlands visibility. Establish a'T' intersection with the Collector Road from Hartwell Way to discourage through traffic movement B. Revise UR4 designation in the locations indicated to the suggested UR2IUR4 designation as modified. ' 9. The Collector Road (Hartwell Way) crossing should align with the lands which have already been conveyed to the Town of Aurora for this anticipated crossing during the 28 Draft Plan of Subdivision stage. 10. Decrease the size of the park in this location and designate as a Neighbourhood Park. 11. Revise Mixed Use designation in the locations indicated to the suggested UR21UR4/Mixed Use designation as modified. 12. Remove the hatched area from EPA as it does not comespond with the limit of the greenlands Illustrated in the Region of York Official Plan December 2009 nor was an environmental features of significance Identified in this location during the field survey with the Conservation Authority, the Town and MNR. Realign collector road adjacent to EPA for maximum greenlands visibility. 13.Align Collector Road to intersect with Leslie Street further to the north to correspond with property boundaries and to allow for a more substantive land parcel to accommodate Seniors Housing (UR3). 14 Delete SWM designation from this pond MALONE GNEN PARSONS ITO. Page 17 of 20 -132- Special Council Agenda Item 9 - 18 August 12, 2010 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aumra August 6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 and replace with modified UR1. 16. Realign crossing. of the Collector Road so to cross the EPA between the separation of the two wetlands which have been surveyed and staked and agreed upon with MNR. 17. Extent of the Neighbourhood Park should be revised to correspond with the extent of the wildlife park as agreed in the field with the Town and Dave Tomlinson through a staking exercise. 18. Delete Community Park designation from the majority of these lands and replace with modified UR1 designation. 19.The Town should continue to considers -community plan based on separate stand alone schools rather than in a campus setting that places the entire burden on one landowner. revisions to Schedule B: 1. Reduce parkland amount and distribution per comments on Schedule A and outlined in this letter. Linear and Other small open spaces should not be indicated on any of the Secondary Plan schedules. These uses should be permitted In 611 designations and to be determined through draft plan stage. 2. it Is our understanding that the trails illustrated on Schedule B are conceptual. However we note that the amount of trails. litustrated `appears extremely excessive for the community and request further dialogue with the Town on the location of future trails and how these trails will be funded. Schedule Road Network The Landowners Group request the following C revisions to Schedule C as illustrated in Appendix 4 . attached to this letter. 1. Remove Municipal Collector Road from north of St. John's Sideroad and the Collector Road to Leslie Street north of the McLeod Woodlot and South of St. John's Sid'eroad. These roads are not needed for Collector Roads in accordance with the Transportation Study and therefore do not need to fulNll the requirements of the EA. 2. Realign road crossing so to minimize the extent in which the EPA. is crossed and to provide more greenlands visibility. Establish a'P intersection with the Collector Road from Hartwell Way to discourage through traffic movement. 3. The Collector. Road (Hartwell Way) crossing should align with the lands which have already been conveyed to the Town of Aurora for this anticipated crossing during the 28 Draft Plan of Subdivision stage. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LID. Page 18 of 20 Special Council Agenda Item 9 - 19 August 12, 2010 TO: Me= Ramunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C Secondary Plan, July 9, 2010 PolicyPolicy P9 4. Align Collector Road to intersect with I. alie Street further to the north to correspond with property boundaries and to allow for a more substantive land parcel to accommodate Seniors Housing (UR3). 5. Realign crossing of the Collector Road so to cross the EPA between the separation of the two - wetlands which have been.surveyed and staked and agreed upon with NINR. Roads and should not be designed to with right angle turns. The Residential Neighbourhood — Density Please revise the density calculate to reflect the number of units under UR3 to 400 units for seniors. The Gross Calculation concludes that the development plan will result in 48 persons per hectare.. If an estimate for total jobs was included in this calculation the result would be on target to meet the Provincial Growth Plan requirement of 50 people and jobs combined per hectare. Appendix The Aurora 2C Landowners Group note that many of 2 the guidelines defined in the Urban,Design Urban Guidelines are different from Regional Standards Design , and the standards listed in the Draft Secondary Plan. Guidelines The Aurora 2C Landowners Group;requests.the opportunity to review these Guidelines more fully and review comments from the Region and the Town. prior to endorsement by Council. The, Urban Design Guidelines are not a part of the Secondary Plan and therefore the Secondary Plan should proceed without this Appendix. The Urban Design Appendix can be brought along at a later date once they have been fully vetted and reviewed by the Region, Town' and Stakeholders. Finalization of the Urban Design Guidelines should not delay adoption of the 2C Secondary Plan by Council in accordance with the Town's schedule. Specifically, the road standards do not correspond with those in the Secondary Plan and all should be Identified as "approximately to allow for flexibility . and the opportunity.ta development ADS. Appendix Cultural Heritage Resources Cultural Heritage Recourses identified adjacent to 3 Leslie St. just north of the east west collector road is not a cultural resource and should be removed from the Appendix. See comments on policy 5.3 a).. Appendix Key Environmental Features The mapping for woodlands Is not consistent with the 4 feature identified in Map 5 of the Region of York Official Plan nor the environmental feature limits as . they were Identified, staked and surveyed in the field with the Town of Aurora staff, LSRCA and the Town's consultants. This mapping should be revised to property reflect the features identified. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. Page 19 of 20 -134- Special Council Agenda Item 9 - 20 August 12, 2010 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora August 6, 2010 RE: Comments on the Draft 2C SecondaryPlan, July 9, 2010 In closing, I reiterate that the Aurora, 2C Landowners Group will not support a secondary plan for 2C that calculatesparkland dedication based on the gross land area of the secondary plan inclusive of environmental lands and includes 20 hectares of Community Parkland -within the lands west of Leslie. Street. I strongly request that the Committee reconsider their direction to include 20 hectares of Community Parkland in the 2C Secondary Plan west of Leslie Street and follow the normal municipal practice of calculating parkland dedication requirements based on the land area _ exclusive of environmental protection lands and associated buffers. It is our understanding that based on the decisions made in 2C aspects in the Aurora 2B Secondary Plan will also have to be amended and request information from the Town on how it plans to proceed with such amendments to the 2B Secondary Plan. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group wishes to thank the Town and their consultants for the, opportunities to participate and comment on the 2C Secondary Plan to this point and note that over the course of the past several months many of the concerns and requests expressed by the Aurora 2C Landowners Group regarding the 2C Secondary Plan have been rectified. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group reserves the right to comment further on this and any subsequent drafts of the 2C Secondary Plan. We ate currently in the process of reviewing and commenting on the'town's Draft Official Plan which may necessitate additional comments on the draft 2C Secondary Plan document. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group urges the Town to move forward with adopting the-2C Secondary Plan within their scheduled timing. I appreciate your.time in considering my comments and concerns. I would appreciate it if you would continue to notify the Aurora 2C Landowners Group through myself of all future meetings and reports relevant to the Town's 2C Secondary Plan Process and the Town's Official Plan Review process. Please fee( free to contact me at 905.513,0170 ext. 109 if you would like to discuss any aspect of this letter or if you have any further questions regarding my submission. Yours very truly, PARSONS LTA. Don Given, MCIP, RPP President dgiven@mgp.ca Attachments cc: Aurora 2C Landowners Group C. Barnett, Davis LLP . Jim Kyle, Town of Aurora Ron Palmer, ThaPlanning Partnership . MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. Page 20 of 20 135 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 21 Appendix 1 July 14, 2010 Town of Aurora I Municipal Drive, 3rd Floor Aurora, Ontario, L4G 6A VIA Email: mmmunno@e-aurora.ca Attention: Marco Ramunno, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Development Services Dear Mr. Ramunno: U FJMALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 201 Markham, Ontario 1.311 6B$ Tel: 905-s13-0170 Fox; 905-513-0177 www.mgp.co MGP File: OS-1496 Your File: RE: Comments and Requests regarding the Committees direction for Parkland in 2C I am writing with regards to the recommendations carried by the 2C Steering Committee on July 5, 2010 regarding the issues and components the 2C Draft Preferred Plan, particularly Committee's decision to include 20 hectares (50 acre) of community parkland in the lands west of Leslie Street and to calculate parkland dedication on a gross land area. We have now received the Draft 2C Secondary Plan prepared by the Town's consultant based on the Committee's directions and note that it proposes to distribute the 20 hectares of Community Parks in three separate parcels. As previously mentioned in our June 7, 2010 letter, the Aurora 2C Landowners Group will not support a secondary plan for 2C that calculates parkland dedication based on the gross land area of the secondary plan inclusive of environmental lands and includes 20-hectares of Community Parkland within the lauds west of Leslie Street regardless of the distribution. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group contest that the municipality does not have the authority nor the mechanisms to impose such an excessive designation of parkland and essentially remove development permissions from respective landowners. Respectfully, on behalf of the Aurora 2C Landowners Group, I strongly request the 2C Steering Committee reconsider their recommendations regarding parkland for the reasons addressed in this letter. Parkland Dedication Calculation The Planning Act guides what municipalities can acquire for parkland dedication through the development approvals process. Section 51.1 (1) of the Act states that: "The approval authority may impose as a condition of the approval of a plan of subdivision that land in an amount not exceeding in the case of the a subdivision proposal for commercial or industrial purposes, 2 percent and in all other cases 5 percent of the land included in the plan shall be conveyed to the local municipality for park or other public recreational purposes or, if the land is not in a municipality, shall be dedicated for park or other public recreational purposes. " -136- Special Council Agenda Item 9 - 22 August 12, 2010 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora July U, 2010 RE: Comments and Requests regarding the Committees direction for Parkland in 2C The Act does not entitle a municipality to take 5 percent of the land area but rather provides a permission to take un to 2 percent or 5 percent depending upon the intended use. It is my experience and opinion that such takings must be responsive to the specific needs of the planned community. It is my understanding. that most municipalities generally calculate this requirement based on the land area which is to be developed and where future residents will be housed rather than on a gross land area basis inclusive of natural heritage lands. Parkland is meant to service the. future residents of a community and therefore, hi principle, it should be calculated based on the land area where residential development will occur. . Including lands that are going to not be developed but rather protected for environmental purposes in the parkland requirement calculation is not consistent with generally accepted municipal practices and essentially double counts the open space dedications already being made in a community. For example, the City of Vaughan Official Plan Draft April 2010 states that it is a policy of Council "To require the provision of new parkland for all new residential development at the rate of 5% of the total .. Voss land area or one hectare of parkland per 300 dwelling units, or a combination, whichever is the greatest." (Policy 7.3.3.2) where "gross land area" is defined in policy 7.3.3.4 as not including "Core Features" for the purposes of calculating parkland dedication requirements. Core Features are defined in policy 3.2.3.4 and consist of natural heritage components and their minimum vegetation protection zones. Town Staff have stated that it is the Town of Aurora's usual practice to calculate parkland dedication based on the gross land area inclusive of the. environmental protection areas. However, I would like to . note,that in the Town of Aurora Official Plan June 1991 (March 2008.Office Consolidation) there are no policies that would give the Town the authority to calculate parkland dedication on a gross, area basis over a net or developable area basis. Additionally, the current draft Otiieial.Plan being prepared by The Planning Partnership does not include a policy which would give the Town such authority. Furthermore, the Town of Aurora Parkland Dedication / Cash -in -Lieu of Parkland Dedication Policy (By- law Number 4291-01.F) does not provide this authority and rather it clarifies that the calculation should be based on the "land to be developed". Item 2 of the By-law is referenced following. "As a condition of development, land is required to be conveyed to the Town for park or other public recreation purposes as follows: a) In the case of lands proposed for development for Commercial or Industrial purposes, land in the amount of two per cent (2%) aI the land to be developed and b) In the case of lands proposed for development residential or any purpose other than those mentioned in 2(1)(a) above, at the rate of either five percent (5%) of the !and to be developed or, for lands proposed for development for residential purposes, one hectare far each 300 dwelling units proposed, whichever is greater. " Requirement for a 20 Hectare Community Park in 2C in addition to providing for Neighbourhood Parks acquired through the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act, the Committee carried a motion requiring the 2C Secondary Plan to include an MALONE GWEN PARSONS LTD. Page 2 of 5 -137- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 23 TO: Mareo Ramunno, Town of Aurora July 14, 2010 RE: Comments.and Requests regarding the Committees direction for Parkland in 2C additional 20 hectares of Community Park in order to fulfill the service requirements as defined in the current Aurora Official Plan and the Council adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Draft Land Use Schedule for 2C distributes this parkland in three separate community park parcels. It is my understanding that the Town has determined that 20 hectares of Community Parkland is required in 2C based. on its current Community Parkland ratio of 2.5 hectares per 1000 people and a population projection of 8,000 people which is from my experience an extremely high standard compared to.standard municipal practices. The Town's current standards for active parkland in the Official Plan and in the Council adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 4.0 hectares total for active parkland per 1',000 residents is well above the standards set in other municipalities in the GTA. The Town's Parks and Recreation Master Plan even advised that. the current amount of active parkland actually provided in the Town of Aurora today of approximately 2.5 hectares per 1,000 residents, is appropriate in comparisons to other communities in the GTA (page 44). It is my understanding that the Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan actually recommended the Town's reduced its standard for Community Parkland. to 1.5 hectares per 1,000 residents.. For reference, the table below provides a comparison of parkland service' ratios in other GTA municipalities to the Town of Aurora. Aurora Official Plan 4.0 ,. East Gwillimbury Official Plan 1.2 1.0 2:2 Vaughan Active Together Master Plan 2.5 Markham Official Plan 0.8 1.2 . 2.0 Brampton Official Plan & Recreation Master Plan 0.8 0.5 1.3 The Aurora 2C Landowners Group acknowledges that the parkland standards set in the Town's Official Plan are well above what they will be able to acquire under the Planning Act for the development of 2C and note that parkland above and beyond what the Planning Act allows through dedication must be acquired through purchase or other fair and reasonable means. Based, on 5% of the net land area or I hectare per 300 residents, I estimate that the Town will b- able to acquire approximately 8.4 to 10.3 hectares of parkland through the Planning Act. This amount of parkland will satisfy the Town's service requirements for Neighbourhood Parkland; therefore, the majority of the additional lands required for Community Parkland will have to be purchased by the municipality. This could be a significant burden on the municipality and I would encourage the municipality to look elsewhere for the lands required for a Community Park where large amounts of rural land can be acquired at less cost than urban land. The recently completed Parks and Recreation Master Plan, while identifying the need for additional parkland also recognized that this will be challenging because of the price of land (Town of Aurora Parks and Recreation Master Plan, page 45). MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. Page 3 of 5 -.138 - Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9-24 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora July 14, 2010 RE: Comments and Requests regarding the Committees direction for Parkland in 20 Community Parks tend to generate undesirable amounts of traffic, parking requirements, noise, dust, and lights. It is a generally accepted municipal practice to locate parks away from residential areas for these very reasons. In addition, a Community Park may not be the best use to locate next to the proposed Wildlife Park. A Community Park could undermine the intent of the Wildlife Park and its ability to provide undisturbed meadow lands conducive for breeding birds and other wildlife. Designating over 20 hectares of additional land with 2C west of Leslie Street will have significant impacts on the density and housing form that will be needed in the rest of 2C in order to accommodate 8,000 persons by 2031. For reference, the Aurora 2B Secondary Plan had a maximum residential density of 25 units per net 'residential hectares (10 units per net residential acre). If the Town designates 20 hectares of parkland within 2C, in order to accommodate 8,000 residents/3,100 units in accordance with the Growth Plan and Regional requirements, a minimum residential density of approximately 37 units per net residential hectare (15 units per net residential acre) would be needed. I remind the Committee and Town staff that the Town has already acquired approximately 12 hectares of land on the north side of Wellington Street that now houses the Strooaeh Aurora Recreation Complex and Stewart Barnett Park, which approximately half (6 hectares) is located in the 2C Secondary Plan Area. In addition -the Town.anticipates the -conveyance of approximately 'l hectares of land from MI Development for parkland dedidation purposes immediately .West of -the theselands. Thiswtli restil in a total. of.8 hectares of Community Park provided for within the 2C lands. Lastly, distributing the Community Parks in three separate parkland parcels, as illustrated in, Drab. Schedule A of the 2C Secondary Plan, contradicts the Town's need to. provide for large, consolidated active playing fields that can service the active. recreation needs of the entire •Town of Aurora. The distribution of 3 smaller Community Parks blurs the lines between the functional differences of Neighbourhood Parks and Community Parks. Alternative Development Standards The Committee carried a recommendation made by the Town's consultant, Ron Palmer, that the 2C Secondary Plan propose within its policies and associated Urban Design Guidelines, Alternative Design Standards (ADS) for review and discussion with the Steering Committee and Town •staff. Although Aurora 2C Landowners Group is supportive of the use of ADS, we recommend that the details of these standards be worked out in the Draft Plan of Subdivision stage where the appropriate level of detail will be available. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group'requests that policies be included in the 2C Secondary Plan that encourage the use of ADS such as that contained in policy 3.10.1 i) in the Area 2B Secondary Plan and referenced below: "Alternative road development standards are encouraged where such. reduced standards complement the policies of this Plan and are acceptable to the Town of Aurora and the Region of York" MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD, -139- Page 4 of 5 Special Council Agenda Item 9 - 25 August 12, 2010 TO: Marco Ramunno, Town of Aurora July 14, 2010 RE: Comments and Requests regarding the Committees direction for Paiicland in 2C in closing, I reiterate that the Aurora 2C Landowners Group will not support a secondary plan for 2C that. calculates parkland dedication based on the gross land area of the secondary plan inclusive of environmental lands and includes 20 hectares of Community Parkland within the lands west of Leslie Street. I strongly request that the Committee reconsider their direction to include 20 hectares of _ Community Parkland in the 2C Secondary Plan west of Leslie Street and follow the normal municipal practice of calculating parkland dedication requirements based on the land area exclusive of environmental protection lands aad'associated buffers. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group wishes to thank the Town and their consultants for the. opportunities to participate and comment on the 2C Secondary Plan to this point and note that over the course of the past several months. many of.the concerns and requests expressed by the Aurora 2C Landowners Group --- - - -- regarding the 2C Secondary Plan have been rectified. We are supportive of the -recommendation as carried by the Committee which provides fora more flexible approach to determine buffers for natural heritage through the detailed Environmental Impact Study. I appreciate your time in considering my comments and concerns with regard to the Committee recommendations and the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan. Please note that this letter does not constitute a comprehensive review of the Draft 2C Secondary Plan including all schedules and appendices as circulated on July 12, 2010. The Aurora 2C, Landowners Group will submit to the. Town in the coming, weeks.a complete response to the Draft tC Secondary Plan. I would appreciate it if you would eontinue to notify the Aurora 2C Landowners Group through myself of all future meetings and reports relevant to. the Town's 2C Secondary Plan Process. Please feel free to contact me at 905.513,0170 ext. 109 if you would like to discuss any aspect of this letter or if you have any further questions regarding my submission. Yours very truly, MA NE 5,WEN PARSONS LTD. Do !Irt,CIP, RPP President dgiven@mgp.ca CC;. Aurora 24C Landowners Group C. Barneit, Davis LLP Jim Kyle, Town of Aurora MALONE GIVEN PAOSONS LTD. Page 5 of 5 140 - Item 9 - 26 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 June 7, 2010 Marco Ramunno, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Development Services Town of Aurora 1 Municipal Drive, 3rd Floor Aurora, Ontario, L40 6JI . VIA EMAIL:'MRammmo@e•nurora.ca Appendix 2 140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 201 Marldiam, Ontario, Canada L3R 683 Tel:905-513-0170 Fak:905-513.0177 www.mgp.ca Dear Mr, Ramunno; RE: Comments on the Area 2C Design Charrette Issues and Options MGP fob No: 05-1496 The Aurora 2C Landowners Group would like to thank the Town for the opportunity to participate in the Area 2C Design Charrette held on May 26, 27 and 31. On behalf of the. Aurora 2C Landowners Group, I am pleased to provide to you with the following comments on the issues identified as outstanding and on the four options which resulted from the Charrette. I trust you find these helpful in your considerations. I would also request that our Landowners be allowed to meet with Mr. Palmer to discuss the comments in this letter prior, to any decision by your Committee. Outstanding Issues from Design Charrette By 5pm at the May3l' Charrette, fiveissues were identified by the Town's consultant, Ron Palmer, as items which require discussion with and directive from the Steering.Committee. I offer the following comments on each of these five issues in order to assist the Town and Committee in understanding and making decisions as they relate to the 2C Secondary Plan. I understand that additional issues were raised in the evening session; however, these have not been posted on the Town's website. When they are available I may, make additional comments. 1. Designating Residential Uses East of Leslie Street: It is my understanding that the lands east of Leslie Street have been identified as a future strategic employment area for Aurora and the lands west of Leslie Street are to accommodate. any residential growth. This approach to organizing the 2C lands has been endorsed by Aurora Council, as illustrated in previous growth management work, and by Regional Council, as indicated in Figure 2 as a "strategic employment area" in the Regional Official Plan adopted by Council December 2009. This Official Plan requires municipalities to "give priority to the strategic employment land identified when considering additional employment land designations" (Policy'4.3.7). - 141 Special. Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 27 MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD, RE: Comments on the Area 2C Deslgn Charrette Issues and Opllons . June 7, 2010 (05:1496) In addition, this approach provided the basis for approval of the Regional Urban Boundary Expansion for the 2C lands in 2008. The Region's Official Plan has allocated a population of 70,400 to 2031 to Aurora. It is my understanding that this population allocation is being used as the basis for the Town's current growth management work being prepared as part of the Town's Official Plan Review. The draft growth management work illustrates that this - population forecast represents a growth of approximately 20,700 people between 2006 and 2031. A minimum of approximately 33% of this population growth (approximately 6,600 people) must be accommodated through intensification in accordance with the Region's Official. The remaining 14,100 people therefore need to be accommodated within the designated greenfield areas in Aurora. It is my understanding from the. Town's draft growth management work that between 2006 and 2009 approximately 2,236 units (or 6,082 people) have been built, approved or planned for in existing greenfield areas within the Town. As a result, the total remaining amount of residential growth that will need to be accommodated within Area 2C between 2010 and 2031 is estimated at 8,024 people. This population forecast was used as the basis for the Aurora 2C Landowners Group OPA submission and it is my understanding it is the basis for the 2C Secondary Plan work being prepared by The Planning Partnership, This amount of -residential growth (8,024 people) can be accommodated in its entirety in the 2C lands.west of Leslie Street and is required in the 2C lands west of Leslie Street in order to achieve the minimum density target of 50 people and jobs combined per hectare as required by the Growth Plan. Not only is this density target required by the Growth Plan, it is a characteristic of good planning and transit -supportive, land efficient communities. Any reduction in this population. would jeopardize the west of Leslie Street land's ability to achieve this density target. This density is reflective of the densities planned 1br.in other new communities in Aurora such as Area 2B and the community west of Bayview Ave. Any reduction in the amount of population to be accommodated within the lands west of Leslie Street would not be supported by the Aurora 2C Landowners Group. 2. Secondary Plan versus Block Plan level ofdetail requirements.. The Peer Review comments received on the Aurora 2C Landowners Group technical submissions would lead one to believe that the level of study being requested would be akin to a Block Plan level of study. However, I understand from Town Staff and the Town's consultants that the terms. of reference for the 2C. Secondary Plan process were crafted to focus on a high-level policy formulation and establishment of the general land uses. As such, the Aurora 2C Landowners Group continues to request clarity on the Town's process and what level of detail is expected of technical submissions. Further, it is not clear if the Town's Secondary Plan will result in a Preliminary Block Plan that would allow. Draft Plans to be processed.' This should also be clarified. 3. Buffersonnaturalfeatures. The OPA secondary plan application and natural heritage system submitted by the Aurora 2C Landowners Group was based on the features identified through_ staking and surveying with the Town, their consultant and the conservation authorities. and generally.follows the recommendations of the Natural heritage Evaluation, with a few minor exceptions. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group continues to suggest that the quality of the woodland and the nature of the land uses proposed adjacent to that woodland should be considered when determining an appropriate buffer. The Group is supportive of an approach in the Secondary Plan that would allow for the appropriate buffers for woodland features to be determined through the Environmental Impact Study when more detailed information is available. A variable approach to woodland buffers would be consistent with the approach used by the Natural Heritage 9valuation which defined variable buffers for wetlands based on the quality of the Page 2 of 9 -142- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 28 MALONE GIVEN PARsONS LTD. RE: Comments on the Area 2C Design Chaeette Issues and Options June 7. 2010 (05:1496) wetland. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group appreciate the opportunities they have been given to discuss a more flexible approach to the buffers with the Town and their consultants. I expect that I will hear from the Town or their consultants once it has been determined exactly how they plan to address this. matter. 4. Development interface with Newmarket Mattamy and Malone Given Parsons Ltd. have on several occasions, including at the Charrette's public open house, had the opportunity to meet with and discuss the concerns raised by the Newmarket residents. Many of the concerns raised by these residents (setback, privacy, lotting size, and drainage) can and will be thoroughly addressed through detailed design. Mattamy offer to notify the Newmarket residents of their development plans when they are prepared to submit a draft plan of subdivision to Aurora. 5. Parkland location and dedication requirements (net or developable land' versus gross and the Master Plan requirement for additional Community Parkland). The Planning, Act guides what municipalities can acquire for parkland dedication through the development approvals process. Section 51.1 of the Act states that municipalities may "impose a condition in the approval of the plan of subdivision that land in an amount not exceedint{... [in the case of residential purposes] 5 per cent of the land ... for park or other public recreational purposes...". Most municipalities generally calculate this requirement based on the land area where future residents and development will be rather than a gross land area basis. Parkland is meant to service the future residents of a community and therefore in principle it should be calculated based on the land area where development'will occur. Including environmental protection lands in the parkland requirement calculation not only goes against standard planning practices and essentially double counts the open space dedications already being made in a community. Also I would like to note that in the Town of Aurora Official Plan June 1991 (March 2008 Office Consolidation) there are no policies that would give the Town the authority to calculate parkland dedication on a gross area basis over a net or developable area basis. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group acknowledges that the parkland standards set in the.Town's Official Plan are well above what can be acquired under. the Planning Act. Parkland above and beyond what the Planning Act allows through dedication must be acquired through purchase or other fair and reasonable means. I understand that the Town' staff have expressed an interest in obtaining a Community scale park of 30 to 40 ha. in the 2C lands. I remind the staff that when. planning for Area 2B Council identified the need to provide for an expanded Neighbourhood Park within the Area 2C lands that would fulfill the needs of larger -scale, active, outdoor recreation for 2B residents and 2C residents over the longer term. However, since this'time the Town acquired approximately 12 hectares of land on the north side of Wellington Street that now houses the Stronach Aurora Recreation Complex and future outdoor recreation fields, which would fulfill this requirement. If the Town has determined through their recently completed Parks and Recreation Master Plan that additional Community Park land is required to fulfill the Town's deficiencies on a whole, I would recommend that the Town look elsewhere where large amounts of rural land can be acquired at less cost than urban land. Community Parks tend to generate undesirable amounts of traffic, parking requirements, noise, dust, and lights. Most municipalities, following the current school of thought, prefer and recommend locating such parks away from residential areas for these very reasons. In addition, a Community Park may not be the best use to locate next to the proposed Wildlife Park. A Community Park could undermine the intent of the Wildlife Park and its ability to provide undisturbed meadow lands conducive for breeding birds and other wildlife.. page 3 of 9. -143- Special .Council Agenda Item 9 - 29 August 12, 2010 MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. RE: Comments on the Area 2C Design Charfette Issues and Options June 1, 2010 (05:14161 b. The use ofAlternative Design Standards Although the submission by the Group did not depend on Alternative Design Standards (ADS), I would strongly support the use of ADS in the 2C lands and promote that it is in keeping with the PPS and the Growth Plan to use land efficiently and to development complete, compact, transit supportive and walkable communities. It is my understanding that Policy 3.10 1) in the Area 2B Secondary Plan even encourages the use. of ADS. Such - standards, if appropriate can be introduced through the development approval process and should not delay the completion of the Secondary Plan. Comments on the Options It is my understanding that the four options as produced at the Charrette will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria distributed during the May 31 Charrette session. Does the Town and its consultants plan to Weigh each of these criteria equally or will each criterion be Weighted? The following provides general comments as they relate to all of the options, followed by comments specific to each option. All options indicate three "Cultural Heritage Resources" along the west side of Leslie Street, it should be noted that the most northern cultural heritage resource identified (located just south of the collector road). was not identified. as a cultural heritage resource for preservation through the Cultural Heritage Study completed by Wayne Morgan on behalf of the Aurora 2C Landowners Group. 'Mr. Morgan's report concluded that in Lot 23 west of Leslie Street a circa 1910 farm house (the Graham Farm.House) and the remains of a bar structure were examined. In Mr. Morgan's opinion, neither of these structures have sufficient design, assoclative•or contextual value to merit retention'and designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Mr. Morgan recommended that prior to demolition the owner be required to provide a photographic record of the building, both exterior and interior, to the satisfaction of the Town. The. peer review of this work completed. by the Town's consulting team from URS concurred with Mr. Morgan's report and did not provide an alternate recommendation for the Graham Farm House. Based on the study by Mr. Morgan and the peer. review by UPS, the Graham Farm House should not be included as a Cultural Heritage Resource in any options or the final preferred land use plan. All options propose implementation of the Town's trail system, however, I understand that the trail locations are conceptual and the Trails Master Plan is generally illustrated. It is my understanding that this trail system is therefore conceptual and has no status and the location of trails will be finalized once the general land uses and community organization is settled. As a general comment, the Aurora 2C Landowners Group suggest that the Secondary Plan land use schedule follow a similar level of detail as the Area 2B land use schedule and only conceptually indicate the location of the collector road system. The location of local roads should be determined through a block plan or draft plans of subdivision. As such, a collector road is not necessary to service the lands north of St. John's Sideroad and west of Leslie Street and therefore on the final preferred land use plan only a general indication of where necessary local roads should intersect with St John's, Sideroad'' hould be shown. Option I (Developers Submission as modified bv'Planning Partnership) • Transportation; It is my understanding having worked through the 2B Secondary Plan that an east -west collector road from Bayview Street to Leslie Street would be necessary for traffic capacity and accessibility., Page 4 of 9 - 144 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 30 MALONE GNEN PARSONS LTD.. RE: Comments on the Area 2C Design Charrette Issues and Opflons June 7, 2010 - (05:14961 In order to minimize any negative impacts on the East Aurora Wetland Complex, however, only one crossing of the East Holland River Valley, designed to function as a collector road, was allowed in accordance with policy 3.10.1 Q of the 2B Secondary Plan. This east west collector road is now reflected in the approved plan of subdivision and the land needed for this valley crossing has been secured by the Town, As such, the proposal by the Aurora 2C Landowners Group includes this east west collector as an important component of the community from a traffic and connectivity perspective. Furthermore, I would like to clarify that the submission by the Group is not dependant on this collector road system being connected by a roundabout and the Group would be open to discussing the merits and need for roundabouts in Area 2C with the Town. I note that Option I appears to illustrate lands north of St. John's Sideroad with numerous local roads connecting to St. John's Sideroad whereas the MOP concept has window streets running parallel rather than accessing St. John's directly. It is my understanding that the manner in which Option I depicts the local roads directly accessing. St, John's Sideroad would not meet Regional standards for intersection spacing along arterial roads. • 'Environment: I understand that Option I illustrates the environmental limits as proposed by the. Aurora 2C Landowners Group submission. + Public Open Space/Parks: With regards.to parkland and open space, I request clarification from the Town on the minimum size of parkettes that will be.accepted for. parkland.dedication. I note that Option 1 omits parkland In the southwest corner that was included in the Group's proposal and identified as part of the Wildlife Park land concept identified by David Tomlinson. • Schools: The Aurora 2C Landowners Group recognizes that each 'school board. has indicated the need for an elementary school within the 2C lands to service the projected population of approximately 8,624 people for the west side of Leslie. I note that Option 1 shows a second elementary school site campused next to a park. It is my understanding that the school boards would also be amicable to separate school sites with a second site located north of the collector road and the NHS crossing. I would also like to note that any school and park option under consideration should be in accordance with, the school board's location criteria to provide frontage on two sides. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group reserve the right to comment on the final location of the schools. . • Land Use: Reiterating my sentiments expressed earlier in this letter, the Aurora 2C Landowners Group have concerns about Option 1 which indicates residential uses on the east side of Leslie Street and the impact this would have on the residential population available for the lands on the west side of Leslie Street and the ability to achieve the density target of 50 people and jobs combined per hectare. I note that contrary to the MGP concept, residential uses have been illustrated in the northern portion of the Town's park in the south of the planning area. -Density Distribution: The submission by the Aurora 2C Landowners Group proposed medium density residential uses focused along the arterial roads to support transit service and walkability in accordance with the Region of York Official Plan (Council adopted. December 2009). In addition, I would like to clarify that the. Group's proposal also includes larger pockets of medium density residential uses in appropriate locations in order to help achieve the density requirement of 50 people and jobs/ha. . Page 5 of 9 -145- Special Council Agenda Item 9 - 31 August 12, 2010 WONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. K: COMMents on the Area 2C Deslgn Chattefte Issues ohd Options June 7, 2010 (05:1496) Option 2(PPlanning Partnership) Transportation: Option 2 illustrates an east -west focused collector with a connection centrally located along Leslie Street. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group are generally open to discussing alternative alignments for the east west.collector road system provided it contributes to the efficient use of land. The Group reserves the tight to comment and refine the exact alignment of collector road and where they ultimately intersect with '- arterial roads. Environmental: The development program for Option 2 indicates that the cnv'ironmentai limits are based "North -South consultant line". The Aurora 2C Landowners Group, as previously stated, have submitted their OPA secondary planapplication and natural heritage system based on the features identified through a staking and surveying exercise with the Town and Conservation Authorities and continue to promote buffers that are based on that the quality of the feature and the nature of the land uses proposed adjacent to that feature to be determined through the Environmental Impact Study when more detailed 'information is available. The Option 2 plan appears to include some additional NHS lands or enhancement areas that are not identified or supported by the North South study. However, I note this may just be a result of the "hand drawn" nature of of the plan and request clarification. on the specifics on the environmental line illustrated in Option I Public Open Space/Parks: Option 2 proposes a total of 35 hectares for Community Park that would consist of 'the 12 hectares presently owned by the Town housing the Stronach Aurora Recreation Complex which will be expanded by 2 hectares when. Magna conveys a portion of their adjoining lands plus an additional 21 hectares as shown in 2C on Option 2. The Landowner's calculation of their parkland obligation under the Planning Act ranges from 9A to 10.3 hectares. With the Neighbourhood Parks and the, Wildlife Park expansion shown in Option 2 the municipality will receive approximately 7 hectares of parkland. Clearly the vast majority of the additional.lands required for a Comtmunity Park must be purchased by the municipality. This could be a significant burden on the municipality and I would again encourage the municipality to look elsewhere for the lands required for a Community Park to avoid paying urban land prices. The recently completed Parks and Recreation Master Plan, while identifying the need for additional parkland recognized that this will be challenging.because of the price of land: (page 45, Parks and Recreation Master Plan) The Aurora 2C Landowners Group has concerns regarding the location of the neighbourhood parks illustrated in Option 2 west of Leslie Street. It is my understanding that neighbourhood parks should not be located.next to the woodlot as it would encourage undesirable public use and access into this woodlot which the Town has identified for protection. The park location illustrated in the lands north of St. John's Sideroad does not have any consideration for the difficult topography of these lands and it should be noted that it would be difficult to provide a relatively flat park site in this location. Option 2 has no indication whether dedication for parkettes would be accepted. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group promote the use of parkette dedications as important components of this community. Given the extensive size. and organic nature of the natural heritage system and its impact on the community form, parkettes will prove to be strategic opportunities to provide visibility to the Natural Heritage System and a finer grain of more accessible public open spaces. Schools: Option 2 plans for 2 elementay schools campused with a Neighbourhood Park and adjacent to the woodlot. It is my understanding that the school boards generally prefer to not locate adjacent to woodlots. In addition, please reference my comments on school locations under Option 1. Page b of 9 -146- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 32 MALONE GNEN PARSONS LTD. RE: Comments on the Area 2C Deslgn Chaaette Issues and Options - June 7, 2010 (05:106) • Land Use: Option 2 proposes service commercial designations which would result in a ratio of 2 square metres of floor space per person which greatly exceeds normal market requirements. While some commercial may be justified in appropriate locations, the consultants must determine the scale, form and function of the retail that they are contemplating before land use designations are proposed. The proposal by the Aurora 2C Landowners Group concludedthat the community would be well serviced by the commercial uses at ._ Highway 404 and Wellington and west of Bayview Ave. • Density Distribution: Option 2 provides for medium density residential uses focused along the arterial roads; however, it is unclear from the Option 2 development program how much area has been provided. It should be pointed out to the Steering Committee that if 20 hectares of developable land is designated for a Community Park it will increase the residential density in order to be able to accommodate the projected population for these lands. Option 3 (Planning Partnershio) • Transportation: Option 3 illustrates an east -west focused collector with a more northern connection to Leslie Street (generally north of the McLeod Woodlot). The Aurora 2C Landowners Group are generally open to discussing alternative alignments for the east west collector road system provided it contributes to the efficient use .of land. There is some concern about the traffic impacts of a discontinuous north -south collector road from a traffic service and capacity perspective. The Group reserves the right to comment and refine the. exact alignment of collector road and where it intersectiou with arterial roads. A collector road system as generally indicated for the lands north of St. John's Sideroad is not necessary. Please see my general comments on the options mentioned earlier in this lettcr. • Environmental: Option 3 is characterized in the development program as the "NRSI consultants Line". Comments were made during the Charrette that as a starting point the NRSI Line is basod on 30 m buffers from Provincially Significant Wetlands, '15 m buffers on other wetlands, 30 in buffers on cold water creeks, 15 in buffers on warm water creeks, and 10 m buffers on woodlands.' I agree with the position stated by the Town's consultants that creeks in the south should be treated'as warm water. I am of the understanding that the NRSI line is still to be determined and that the Town and its consultants are considering a more flexible approach to the buffers. The Group is encouraged by discussion with the Town and their consultants and look forward to the opportunity to review and comment on how this matter will ultimately be addressed. • Public Open Space/Parks: This option is providing more parks of a Neighbourhood/Parkette size than Option 1. I. question the need for and the role of these small parldparkettes as they do not appear to have sufficient land to serve the normal active play requirements of Neighbourhood Parks identified as being needed by the Town's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. • Schools: Option 3 proposes the 2 elementary schools in separate locations adjacent to woodlots, one of which does not appear to have the depth required for a school site. It is my understanding that the school boards generally prefer to not locate adjacent to woodlots. Both Boards have also advised me that they require their site be bounded by 2 roads. Neither of the sites in this plan provide for that access. In addition, this option Page 7 of 9 -147- Special Council Agenda Item 9 - 33 August 12, 2010 MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. RE: Comments on the Area 2C Design Chavette Issues and Options June 7. 2010 - (05:1496) focuses medium density residential uses internally. My understanding is that the school board's generally prefer to be located next to low density residential areas where the majority of their student yield is generated. Land Use: Option 3 proposes service commercial at a ratio of 1 square metres/person (I I sgft(person) in one central, internal location. The Aurora 2C Landowners Group have concern about the viability of internally focused service/commercial uses. Generally, it is my understanding that retail and commercial uses prefer - locations that are visible and accessible from arterial roads and transit service. In addition, recent trends in retailing are witnessing many supermarkets evolving from small neighbourhood focused, convenience/grocery stores to large format, regional servicing stores that are not appropriate for neighbourhood convenience commercial centres. As such, there are limited retailers or service commercial uses that prefer to locate in convenience sized commercial centres, making such options difficult to implement. • Density Distribution: The amount of medium density proposed would appear to generate a higher population and yield than is possible within the Town's population limitations, as discussed in my" comments on Issue # 1. I note that in this option and all options that the.Senior's housing is shown as Medium Density. There should be a separate designation to distinguish this type of housing from other medium density forms. Option 4 (David Tomlinson's Plan) I understand that Mr. Tomlinson, a citizen of Aurora, has offered this fourth option for consideration. This is outside the normal planning and EA processes. My comments on Mr. Tomlinson's plan am as follows. Transportation: Option 4 proposes a discontinuous road system with no provision for an east -west collector road from Bayview Avenue to Leslie Street. Although there may be certain merits to this option, as stated in my comments on Option 1, it Is my understanding having worked through the 2B Secondary Plan that an cast - west collector road connecting from Bayview Street to Leslie Street is necessary for traffic capacity and accessibility purposes and was contemplated by the Area 2B Secondary Plan (Section 2.2 e) and Section 3.11 t) ). Mr. Tomlinson's road pattern does not appear to accommodate normal regional spacing requirements nor does it reflect the Region's Official Plan requirements for mid block collectors. • Environmental: It is my understanding that Option 4 is based on the NRSI line, however, Option 4 also appears to propose a number of Greenland enhancements that have not been supported by a study and differ from the NRSI line proposed in Option 3. The enhancements include additional environmental land along the east side of the East Holland River Valley (southwest of the secondary plan area), environmental lands along the east side of the East Aurora Wetland Complex (north of the Ducks Unlimited properties), and several environmental land linkages between features. I assume that such connections will be considered as parkland and qualify as part of the Landowners obligation for parkland dedication should they be provided as there is no compelling environmental logic for providing these linkages through tableland where the current environmental linkages are weak or non-existent. These 2 corridors would also reduce the efficiency of the use of the lands which is inconsistent with Provincial Policy and not acceptable to the Landowners. Public Open Space/Parks: The development program for Option 4 proposes that parkland be provided based on a gross land area, as expressed in my comments under Issue #5 this does not reflect the generally acceptable municipal practice for calculation of parkland dedications and the Aurora 2C Landowners Group would not be supportive of this approach. Page a of 9 -148- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9-34 MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LID, RE: Comments m the Area 2C Design Chaaefte issues and Options June 7; 2010 (06:14961 o Schools: Option 4 plans for the two elementary schools to be separately located. It is my understanding that the school boards generally prefer to not. locate adjacent to woodlots. The discontinuous road system does not provide, good pedestrian or vehicular accessibility to the schools for the entire 2C community and would require the majority of students to be bussed. I may be reading too much into the layout but I do notice that the 2 school sites have no road frontage. This would be quite unique. I appreciate your time in reviewing and considering my comments and concerns with each of the four options and the outstanding issues. 'I look forward to opportunities to provide further input and again request to meet with Mr. Palmer to provide input on the preferred land use plan for Aurora 2C. I would appreciate it if you would continue to notify the Aurora 2C Landowners Group through myself of all future meetings and reports relevant to the Town's 2C Secondary Plan Process. Please feel free to contact meat 905.513.0170 ext. 109 if you would like to discuss any aspect of this letter or if you have any further questions regarding my submission.. Yours very truly, MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD.. Don Given, MCIP, RPP President dgiven@mgp.ca w: Jun Kyle, Town of Aurora, Email:jkyle&-surom ea Ron Palmer, The Planning ParMership, Email: rpalmcr@planpmt.ca . Chris Barnett, Davis & Co., Email: ebamelt@davis.oa Aurora 2C Landowners Group via Email Attachments: 5 .-149- Page 9 of 9 Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 35 CO Q3 N CCi d -150- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 36 -151- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 37 -152- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 38 - 153 - Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 39 -154- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 40 I"NVIRoNMENTAL MOpIuM DONS" 1i1614 1ANSiTY �� StNao1.S MtAAJoxjw&jor%nj"j. �5PEt1At.. %MPLoiMENT WtV K FICoMMElyuAL -155- Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 41 L -E EE 44 p C LQ (m) U N 2 Y V a R 0.v N '� 3 5 n N a 11n 4 J a)to 0. a z' n° vn r o a a r7j ro S dJ U) (%I c a; �55 K J e a N a 1l ➢ W N SP z a" w N a 5 rc u1 tC �, m m o' a C oCD y x all ginV d .i f d d � � r .+ elf IICE V� .1 +rim TZ ,.Fir ~R w /Nf11111}1NlNI! "-� -- �^ �'-" ��,�```�55111i►►� 51►►� i ��+IIIIIiIIl111NN1��? _� -= E? IIRIMIIUUFrUlllll U►5H+55uN a 1111111lIII�11111 _`" o La nIN 1�IHINIIIIi rw� �� }�tnn�l rkk,k,- ,iHk,lr� IIIIIfA III 1 Illkll_ li►1 a- _ H I I kI1I111FNN11 = ■ u urrj2 , ,Iuunl,u■ kusnuru■ Ma i_ uulrat s� Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 Item 9 - 42 - 157 - Special Council Agenda August 12, 2010 By-law 5271-10 - 1 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA Bylaw Number 5271-10 BEING A BY --LAW to Confirm Actions by Council Resulting From Special Council Meeting 10-17 on August 12, 2010 THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the actions of the Council at its special meeting held on August 12, 2010 in respect to each motion, resolution and other action passed and taken by the Council at the said meeting is, except where prior approval of the Ontario Municipal Board is required, hereby adopted ratified and confirmed. 2. THAT the Mayor and the proper officers of the Town are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said action or to obtain approvals where required and to execute all documents as may be necessary in that behalf and the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the corporate seal to all such documents. READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 12"' DAY OF AUGUST, 2010. READ A THIRD TIMEAND FINALLYPASSED THIS 12' DAYOFAUGUST, 2010. PHYLLIS M. MORRIS, MAYOR JOHN 0. LEACH, TOWN CLERK -158- ADDITIONAL ITEMS TABLED FOR SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 12, 2010 ➢ Delegation (b) Mr. Claudio Brutto, representing Aurora Leslie Landowner's Group, East of Leslie Re: 2C Secondary Plan ➢ Correspondence from Ms. Wendy Nott, FCIP, RPP, Senior Principal Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited Re: Draft Town of Aurora Official Plan (July 2010) ➢ Correspondence from Mr. Mark Emery, BES, MCIP, RPP, President Weston Consulting Group Inc. Re: P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc. -Aurora Wellness Village Yonge Street & Elderberry Trail, Aurora ➢ Correspondence from Ms. Helen Lepek, MCIP, RPP Lepek Consulting Re: 15278 Yonge Street Limited Mixed Use Residential Proposal Former "Price Chopper" site N.W. Corner Yonge Street and Wellington Street Draft Aurora umciai Pian and Promenade Secondary Pian ➢ Correspondence from Mr. Don Given, MCIP, RPP, President Malone Given Parsons Ltd. Re: Response to Comments from AI Downey on the Parkland Provisions of the Draft 2C Secondary Plan and Draft Official Plan IOU tk Town pfAorqfg 1.MUnTdpAJ,DdVO, Bb)ZI60b AuP,ORA Phone; 006-727-al Z$ ext. 4217 Delegation Reques . t; p I Oaod, 000 0 leitothOotlawJ6 Of b rm. -You may submit to i K0. Town of Aurora by: WTH ER, Pdntmg a6d, fogms,a copy, fa,005-726AM of P4 ifi*,, 0 1410, Y40 t 0 Wv VY& and 060 M;qlg If, 0,,O�U LI gj [W rpjor! afttaff@_QtMj rM cM OfidA YOO 001,6000�q vost Is vioelvdO; (110 C'UOWM 0 ON LbO(WAfjvQ Setv'146$ tYbp4AMo6t�W01 contact vou, to 00"firmr000lpt. sutireet RON ?,korpho Oorsonal Prblecqcm of Prt )x 1000, Aurori, looms dow FI PoWPQO,do r No toO umuent to Section 27 of the Municipal cfbo dfrottedio tho Town Olork, Towhof VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL August 11, 2010 Town of Aurora 1 Municipal Drive Box 1000 Aurora, Ontario L4G 6,11 Attention: Mayor and Members of Council Clerk Department Attention: Mr. J. Kyle, MCIP, RPP Manager of Policy Planning Planning and Development Services Dear Madam/Sir: Re: Draft Town of Aurora Official Plan (July 2010) Our File 10-591 We are planning consultants to 1623 Wellington Street Developments Limited and Whitwell Developments Limited, Calloway Real Estate Investment Trust Inc., and Calloway REIT (Aurora North) Inc. (herein referred to as SmartCentres) primarily with respect to lands on the south side of Wellington Street, between Hwy. 404 and Leslie Street. In this regard, we have reviewed the above -noted draft Official Plan and are providing the following comments. Proposed Designation The southerly SmartCentres lands are proposed to be designated 'Greenfield Employment Area', which designation permits primarily prestige employment, office, research and development and manufacturing uses and is subject to the policies of existing Official Plan Amendment No. 30 (wherein the subject lands are designated Business Park). We request an opportunity to discuss the details of this designation with you. In particular, SmartCentres would like to explore the potential for a mix of non-residential uses on the southerly lands that would be complementary to the approved development in the immediate area. Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited Planning Urban Design 90 Eglinton Avenue East Suite 701 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2Y3 Tel. 416/968-3511 Fax. 416/960-0172 e-mail: admin@wndplan.com web: www.wndolan.com Peter R. Walker, FCIP, RPP Wendy Nog, FCIP, RPP Robert & Draglcevio, MCIP, RPP Sanlor Nnrlpale Martha Coffey Conlrollar Town of Aurora August 11, 2010 Page 2 Regional Commercial Centre Designation We have reviewed this designation as it applies to the SmartCentres lands located on the north side of Wellington Street. In particular, we note that Section 10.10.3d) limits the range of permitted retail uses based on whether such uses exist in the 'Yonge Street retail area'. We have a number of concerns with respect to this section as currently drafted: • Are the retail commercial use restrictions limited only to liquor and beer stores or are there other uses that would be restricted as implied by the use of the term'such as'? • Given the new framework for addressing the Town's Yonge Street downtown area through the establishment of the 'Aurora Promenade' designation, we suggest clarification of the term 'Yonge Street retail area' would be appropriate in order to provide a clear interpretation of this policy. A re -drafting of this section would be useful in providing clarity. Sustainability Policies SmartCentres supports the advancement of sustainable development and has considerable experience in the development and construction of sustainable buildings. Section 5 of the draft document advances a policy framework for the achievement of a 'greener community', in response to which we offer the following comments: 1. Where the Official Plan proposes standards to which compliance is required, then these standards (if appropriate) should be specifically defined (including, where relevant, a reference date on a specific document) in order to ensure that the benchmark for such compliance is clearly understood and not a'moving target'. 2. Rather than mandating prescribed sustainability measures, Official Plan policy should advance an incentive -based system for encouraging sustainable development including, for example, the establishment of Community Improvement Areas to provide that financial or other incentives can be conferred where the sustainability elements of a development will exceed standards that are in force at the time. Examples of such incentives may include development charge credits, relief from building permit fees, temporary property tax relief, and grants for energy modelling. 3. It is our understanding that the 'Green Development and Design Standards' to which the draft Official Plan refers, have not been developed and are not currently available for review. Further, there is no specified timeframe within which such standards will become available (Sections 5.2a) and d)). Notwithstanding, the draft document requires .all development" (including potentially renovations, expansions, etc.) to meet the minimum standards contained therein (Section 5.2c). It is inappropriate to establish requirements in the Official Plan in the absence of the document to which conformity is required. Further, the Town of Aurora August 11, 2010 Page 3 draft Official Plan allows Council to amend the standards (Section 5.2g) without amending the Official Plan and thus not providing a prescribed public process for review and comment. Finally, clarification is required on the following matters under Section 5.2: • The reference in Section 5.2d) should be to Section 5.2f) and not to Section 5.2e). • Are the minimum standards for energy efficiency referred to in sub- section f)(i) the same as those referenced in Section 5.2j)? • Is the reference to maximizing solar gain (sub -section f)(iii)) directed toward building orientation? If so, this should be clarified. • Is there an intended difference in the use of the term 'standards' (sub- section f)(iii)) and 'measures' (sub -section f)(iv))? If so, clarification should be provided. • A municipality's ability to control sustainable design is limited by Section 41(4)2d) of the Planning Act to exterior design only. This should be clarified in sub -section f)(vi). Complete Application Policies Section 15.2.1 proposes policies with respect to complete applications. Section 15.2.1a) sets out a lengthy list of potential studies, plans or assessments that, at the sole discretion of the Town, are to be determined as being needed to support an application. This list is overly extensive and therefore, determination of the relevant study requirements which would apply to a development application is too uncertain. We suggest further consultation to review and refine this list would be appropriate. Section 15.2.1b) then Identifies the mandatory application pre -submission consultation meeting where the list of required studies will be scoped depending on the nature of the application. An application which submits the identified list of required materials would then be considered 'complete' and the relevant time -frames established by the Planning Act would be in effect. However, Section 15.2.1d) then suggests that, during the approvals process, the Town may identify additional studies to be submitted. We would note that once the Town has determined that the application is complete under the relevant section(s) of the Planning Act, a request for a further study does not change the status of that application (i.e. to 'incomplete'). We recommend that this section be amended to specifically acknowledge that this would not be the case in order to ensure certainty in the process once an application is considered complete under the Planning Act. Town of Aurora August 11, 2010 Page 4 In addition, clarification is required as to whether the references to 'Town' in this section are to be interpreted to be Council, as various sub -sections make reference to 'Town staff and 'Town'. Where the references are to 'Town staff, will this require reporting to Council? Finally, we note that Section 15.2.1a) correctly identifies the types of applications that are subject to the mandatory application pre -submission consultation and complete application requirements under the Planning Act. However, Section 15.2.1b) inappropriately includes reference site plan applications. Provision of Services Section 14.3.1 establishes policies regarding the provision of municipal services in greenfield-designated areas. We suggest further consultation to review and refine these policies would be appropriate. We request an opportunity to meet with you to discuss these concerns at your convenient. Yours very truly, WALKER, NOTT, DRAGICEVIC ASSOCIATES LIMITED Planning - Urban Design CC. B. Keast, SmartCentres J. Kaufman, SmartCentres J. Davies, Davies, Howe Partners Since 1981 WESTON CONSULTING GROUP INC. 'Land Use Planning Through Experience and Innovation' Planning and Development Services Town of Aurora 1 Municipal Drive, Box 1000 Aurora, Ontario, L4G 6J1 ATTENTION: Members of the Official Plan Review Steering Committee Dear Committee Members: Re: P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc: Aurora Wellness Village Yonge Street & Elderberry Trail, Aurora July 9, 2010 File No. 3945 Weston Consulting Group Inc. is the planning consultant representing P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc., the owner of the subject property located at the southwest corner of Yonge Street and Elderberry Trail in the Town of Aurora. The property comprises approximately 3.47 hectares (8.6 acres) and is currently vacant. The purpose of this submission is to express the concern of P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc. with the Steering Committee's proposed direction to leave OPA 34 Yonge Street South Area unchanged. On July 315t, 2008, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications were submitted to the Town along with several support justification studies to facilitate the development of the "Aurora Wellness Village" consisting of a health and wellness centre in conjunction with a senior's residential condominium containing 45 units, a recreational facilities building, and an on -site doctor's residence. In January, 2009, a Staff report was issued by the Town of Aurora. The staff report identified no significant issues with the proposed development and recommended, in part, that "staff continue working with the applicant in processing and evaluation of the applications". On January 28th, 2009, a public meeting was held and the application was "refused" by Council. On March 2nd, 2009, P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc. referred the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board. Following this, a "without prejudice" discussion took place between WCGI, P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc., Mayor Morris and Mr. Ramunno, Town of Aurora, where it was indicated that the Town would Main Office: 201 Millway Avenue, Unit 19, Oakville Office: 1660 North Service Road East, Suite 114, Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 51<8 Oakville, Ontario, L6H 7G3 Tel. 905-738-8080 Tel. 905-844-8749 1-800-363-3558 Fax.905-738-6637 www.westonconsulting.com 9, 2010 be prepared to work with P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc. on an alternative, smaller scale proposal. P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc. was also encouraged to meet with area ratepayers. Over the months from March, 2009 to May, 2010, a series of discussions were held between P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc. and various members of the ratepayers organization. As a result of these discussions, revised drawings were produced that significantly diminished the scope of the development. The amendments resulted in the development being reduced from a total of 4 buildings to 2 buildings, from 35% site disturbance to 20% site disturbance, and proposed an approximate 100% increase in the set back from existing residential and from Yonge Street. A copy of the revised plans is attached. At the advice of the Town, considerable time and effort has been spent in negotiating and developing the revised plans. These drawings were presented to area ratepayers. Recently, the P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc. team was advised that the ratepayers group were not prepared to support any variance to the current zoning (Rural — Oak Ridges Moraine) on the subject property. In light of the substantially revised site plan concept attached, and the staff recommendation contained within the January, 2009 staff report, it is requested that the Official Plan Steering Committee consider modification to OPA 34 which would permit medical, institutional, related offices, and residential uses, to allow for the implementation of the Aurora Wellness Village development at this location. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Weston Consulting up Inc. Per: c> Mark N. E President Cc: M. Ramunn , i ector of Planning, Town of Aurora Q. Annibale, Loopstra Nixon B. Pardis, P.A.R.C.E.L. Inc. i €. ij. i 1338 IS 39NOA a Git JQa' � 6 g e $F dj x fop gh9d�k$ je �" e F 4� al- �jyyeS 5# a a°e3= W A W R C a a; 033 99 ay O wF w �"d^ Zo 6 ^ ass �A (A d 6 z Lu �e