Agenda - Special Council - 20040929TOWN OF AURORA
PUBLIC PLANNING
AGENDA
NO.04-30
MEMBER 29, 2004
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CNAMBERS
AURORA TOWN NALL
PUBLIC RELEASE tit
24/09/04
TOWN OF AURORA
SPECIAL COUNCIL - PUBLIC PLANNING MEETING
AGENDA
NO. 04-31
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
I DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
II APPROVAL OF AGENDA
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the content of the Agenda be approved as presented.
Ill PLANNING APPLICATIONS
IV READING OF BYLAWS
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the following listed by-law be given 1st, 2nd and 3rd
readings, and enacted:
4600-04.0 BEING A BY-LAW to (pg.112)
Confirm Actions by
Council Resulting
From This Meeting -
Wednesday,
September 29, 2004.
V ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA ITEMS
PL04-109 - Zoning By-law Amendment Application (pg. 1)
Andrew Weber and Neal Santin
74 Wellington Street East
Lot 13, RP 107
File D14-09-04
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL04-109 be received as information and that Council
determine their position with respect to the application, subject to public
comments received.
2. PL04-111 - Official Plan Amendment, Rezoning and (pg. 10)
Subdivision Applications
Ballymore Homes and Fred Rankel (Conseil Scolaire de District
Catholique Centre-Sud)
Part of Lot 71, Concession 1, E.Y.S., 65M-2767
Northeast corner of Bathurst Street and Bloomington Road
Files D09-04-04, D14-04-04 and D12-04-1A
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council receive as information the following overview of Official
Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Subdivision applications D09-04-04,
D14-04-04 and D12-04-1A scheduled for the September 291h, 2004 Public
Planning Meeting. Further staff input be received and considered in
concert with the public input prior to Council finalizing its position
respecting the application.
3. PL04-112 - Whitwell Developments Limited (First Professional) (pg. 26)
Part of Lot 21, Concession 3
Wellington Street and Leslie Street
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Applications
Files D09-10-03 & D14-28-03 respectively
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council receive as information the following overview of the final
peer reviews completed for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law
Amendment applications D09-10-03 and D14-28-03 respectively regarding
Whitwell Developments Limited, and;
THAT in view of the completed peer reviews that Council provide direction
to staff respecting any further information it requires to enable it to address
the proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments.
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
AGENDA ITEM # _1
TOWN OF AURORA
PUBLIC PLANNING REPORT No. PL04-109
SUBJECT: Zoning By4aw Amendment Application
Andrew Weber and Neal Santin
74 Wellington Street East
Lot 13, RP 107
File Number D14-09-04
FROM: Sue Seibert, Director of Planning
DATE: September 29, 2004
RECOMMENDATION
THAT report PL04-109 be received as information and that Council determine their
position with respect to the application, subject to public comments received.
BACKGROUND
Location/Land Use
As illustrated on the attached Figures 1 and 2, the subject lands are located at 74
Wellington Street East, and legally identified as Lot 13, Registered Plan 107. The lands
front onto Wellington Street and backs onto Centre Street. The property is approximately
1035 sq. m. (11,141.0 sq. ft.) in size and has a frontage of 18.7 m (61.35 ft.) on Wellington
Street East. This house is listed in the "Town of Aurora List of Heritage Properties", known
as "The Morrison House" and built in 1886. This property has been plaqued by the Aurora
Heritage Committee (AHC) and designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHC) in 1989.
Surrounding Uses
To the North: Residential;
South: Residential properties and properties zoned for medical, business and
professional offices;
East: Residential dwellings (fronting Wellington Street East and Centre
Street);
West: Residential dwellings (fronting Wellington Street East and Centre
Street).
—1—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 2 - Report No. PL04-109
Official Plan
The subject lands are designated "Urban Residential" by the Official Plan (OP) and are
located within the Town's "Heritage Resource Area". To support the viability of Aurora's
heritage, limited commercial uses, such as small scale professional or business offices,
and studios which are compatible with residential uses, are permitted along arterial streets
in the "Heritage Resource Area". Such uses are subject to a site plan agreement and the
availability of sufficient on -site parking which is screened to protect adjacent residential
areas. The owner has filed a concurrent site plan application underfile D11-10-04 which is
currently under review. The proposed rezoning to allow the lands to be used for business
and professional offices, excluding medical offices is therefore in keeping with the policies
of the Official Plan.
Zoninq By-law
The subject lands are currently zoned "Special Mixed Density Residential (R5) Zone." The
proposed use of the lands is not permitted in the By-law.
The owner has applied to the Town to rezone the property from "Special Mixed Density
Residential (R5) Zone' to "Special Mixed Density Residential (R5-X) Exception Zone" to
allow the lands to be used as a professional office to be located in the existing heritage
building. The list below outlines the proposed zoning requests:
■ A minimum side yard setback of 1.2 m (3.93 ft.) to the existing dwelling
■ A minimum side yard setback of 1.0 m to the existing garage
• Amend Section 6.27.8 (a) Ingress and Egress to and from required parking spaces
shall be provided by means of a driveway or passage way at 3.95 m (less than 4m)
■ Delete Section 6.31.2 (ii) for a 1.5 m grassed buffer strip
As shown on the site plan (Figure 3), the applicant is proposing to construct a parking lot
providing 8 parking spaces, located in the rear yard of the property and two parking spaces
within the existing garage. The entrance to the site is from Wellington Street East, and a
second entrance is proposed from the rear yard of the property off of Centre Street. In our
review of the application, it was determined that a one-way driveway is appropriate for this
site, which would allow entrance to the site off of Wellington Street, and to exit would be
from Centre Street. The applicant agrees with this change. Landscaping is proposed
along the property lines adjacent to the parking lot and fronting Centre Street and a 1.8 m
high wood fence is proposed along the property lines. The applicant has indicated that
there will be no changes to the exterior of the building. The owner has also filed a
concurrent site plan application under file D11-10-04 forthe subject lands which is currently
under review.
—2—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 3 - Report No. PL04-109
COMMENTS
Planning Considerations
As noted, the lands are designated "Urban Residential" by the OP and located within the
Town's "Heritage Resource Area". The proposed rezoning from "Special Mixed Density
Residential (R5) Zone" to "Special Mixed Density Residential (R5-X) Exception Zone" is in
keeping with the policies of the OP. The proposal to allow for business and professional
offices, specifically a computer software development company, is consistent with the
existing built form located in the surrounding neighborhood, as a number of site specific R5
Exception Zones have been created along arterial streets in the "Heritage Resource Area".
This property fronts onto Wellington Street, and backs onto Centre Street, with a proposed
additional access driveway off of Centre Street. Planning Staff have been sensitive to this,
and have worked with the applicant and the Town Departments, specifically the Leisure
Services Department to ensure that the parking lot is screened/buffered to protect the
adjacent residential area. Also, the applicant has excluding the medical offices and only
permitting professional offices, which we feel is appropriate in this area. Staff are of the
opinion that the one-way only proposal will decrease the traffic impacts, as vehicles will
enter the site from Wellington Street and exit from Centre Street. The applicant has stated
that the predominate users of the parking lot will be staff members of the professional
office. Staff would like to note, that the applicant has restored and preserved a significant
heritage property as encouraged in the OP.
Staff have reviewed the zoning requests and offer the following comments:
• Permission to allow a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 m (3.93 ft.) to the existing
dwelling.
■ Permission to allow a minimum side yard setback of 1.0 m (3.28 ft.) to the existing
garage.
■ Amend Section 6.27.8 (a) Ingress and Egress to and from required parking spaces
shall be provided by means of a driveway or passage way at 3.95 m (less than 4m)
Staff have no issue with these requests. The requests are existing situations.
■ Permission to delete Section 6.31.2 (ii) 1.5 m grassed strip requirement
In our review of the application, the Building Administration Department identified that the
proposed angled parking layout did not conform to Town standards and was notfunctional.
In order to achieve this, the 1.5 m buffer strip would have to be reduced or eliminated. The
Leisure Services Department proposed a compromise which would allow for a functional
parking lot, and still provide a buffer from the adjacent residential lots. The Landscape
Architect proposes the edge of paving/curbing be realigned to follow the shape of the
parking stall in order to provide triangular areas of landscaping suitable for canopy tree
planting and landscaping (see Figure 4) . A 1.8 m solid wood high fence is proposed and
the Town's Landscape Architect recommends additional decorative detailing on the fence
including vine planting. To ensure further buffering, planting for the Centre Street frontage
shall include street trees, shrub screen or hedge (approximately 0.9 m) in height which will
buffer the parking lot. The Planning Department concurs with the Leisure Services
—3—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 4 - Report No. PL04-109
Department and is of the opinion that the compromise is acceptable and therefore deleting
the requirement under Section 6.31.2 (ii) for a grassed strip is appropriate in this instance.
Department Comments
Staff have reviewed the application and have offered the following comments. The Public
Works Department have no concern with the rezoning application. They have offered
comments in relation to the site plan application currently under review. The Public Works
Department has also stated that they do not anticipate increased levels of traffic on Centre
Street from the proposed professional office use, and the proposal of an additional eight
(8) parking spaces. For Council's information, the Public Works Department is in the
process of preparing a traffic calming study which would look at the entire neighbourhood
and create a traffic calming design for the area. The Building Administration Department
noted some deficiencies with the original parking layout proposal and itwas recommended
that the required 1.5 m buffer strip requirement be deleted in this instance. To ensure
adequate buffering, the Building Administration Department and the Leisure Services
Department recommended the redesign of the parking lot to ensure the parking lot was
functional and would provide adequate landscaping. Therefore, the applicant redesigned
the parking lot, provided a new angle parking layout and proposes to provide the
recommended landscaping. The Heritage Committee has reviewed the application and
have no objection to the proposal and have requested that the Director of Corporate
Services review the final landscape drawings. The Region of York also has no objection
to the proposal and they have stated that they are in concurrence with a one-way access
proposal provided that appropriate signage is posted on the site. Aurora Hydro has no
objection to the rezoning, and has offered comments regarding the site plan application.
The Central York Fire Services Department also has no comment on the application.
Resident Concerns
Residents in the neighbourhood have expressed a concern with the possibility of
increased traffic from this business. As noted above, the Public Works Department has
stated that they do not anticipate an increase in traffic levels on Centre Street do to this
type of small business. The applicant has informed us that the parking lot is predominately
for staff members of the company.
CONCLUSIONS
An application has been submitted for a Zoning By-law Amendment application to rezone
the property from "Special Mixed Density Residential (R5) Zone" to "Special Mixed Density
Residential (R5-X) Exception Zone" to allow the lands to be used for business and
professional offices, excluding medical offices. Should Council determine there is merit in
the proposal, it is suggested it be referred back to staff to resolve matters identified, as well
as those that may be raised by the public and members of Council and that a further report
detailing how such matters have been addressed be prepared.
—4—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 5 - Report No. PL04-109
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Not applicable.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The Strategic Plan contains objectives to ensure high quality, comprehensive community
planning to protect the overall investment of citizens in the community. Critical review of
the subject application through the Zoning By-law Amendment process will facilitate this
objective.
ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1 - Location Plan
Figure 2 - Survey
Figure 3 - Proposed Site Plan
Figure 4 - Leisure Services Recommendation Plan
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Management Team Meeting — September 22, 2004
Prepared by: Cristina Celebre, Planner
Extension 4343
Sei er , M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
recto Planning
—5—
Ll
cc
uj
� � �
s
§\
E\.
lu
m en¥] \
co
\
�
$
Q
{
\
�
f
a
w
LU
m
;
w
2
.
w
�
C
j
Cl)
Z
{
#
IS m%d %
\
m m%d 2
)
M
« LU
m �
�
z
\
�
k
)
«
t
\
�
)
z
�
/
} §
C °C
\
§ z w
,
a
O_ ka�§
)
§k)IL
Q «$�@
IJa§1S
q°06i
CLwWw
2220
�1
F
1�
q
---ZtYTEMbtK ZU, ZUU4
:g 4
w 6
Y NY
lo
ggr y
�IaY ep p fi a
i1:�� � �� 9 d>18saRys:uy6rtR@e *0 ePs Y
Ya
oY ��
k N i Q 19y IY
64
s y.
O t
R k 4 Y
n p O
a
-tyaws 57ZW
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
4h
t,aeu ¢aXou � ff
�it
^eh
II �W-N�lr
a� �� cIs s8■
9C' — ll q,
0
k
SON
R 3 tl F s91a
ISo �a p
g0 n
C
a~
a
tl
uwl�
�9999��9
'gg
9d
pEE�k9€Egpg
1%6 Mn
N g
A
s
a
�ggy¢
1€kgjb H
g
oGlqm!m
9�t
g.9
3� W! g 3 ,
C
1! I I
K Gu I
y
^qq
0�
4
r�
VQ
Fog&
F
Z
9
n
J
W
3
O
a
i
O
t
I
—8—
V*
Zr1% � q r V Ae l A L.! abp
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
6i;
TOWN OF AURORA
PUBLIC PLANNING REPORT No. PL04-111-
SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Subdivision Applications
Ballymore Homes and Fred Rankel (Conseil Scolaire de District
Catholigue Centre-Sud)
Part of Lot 71, Concession 1, E.Y.S., 65114-2767
Northeast corner of Bathurst Street and Bloomington Road
Files D09-04-04, D14-04-04 and D12-04-1A
FROM: Sue Seibert, Director of Planning
DATE: September 29, 2004
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council receive as information the following overview of Official Plan
Amendment, Rezoning and Subdivision applications D09-04-04, D14-04-04 and D12-
04-1A scheduled for the September29th, 2004 Public Planning Meeting. Furtherstaff
input be received and considered in concert with the public input prior to Council
finalizing its position respecting the application.
BACKGROUND
Location/Land Use
The subject lands are located on the northeast corner of Bathurst Street and Bloomington
Road. The application is made up of two parcels in separate ownership, the northerly
parcel is identified legally as Block 31, Registered Plan 65M-2767 and approximately 24
acres in size, and the southerly parcel is identified legally as Part of Lot 71, Concession 1
approximately 22 acres in size, illustrated on the attached Figures 1 and 2. The total
vacant lands are 18.92 ha (46.75 ac.) in size and have a frontage of 501.4 m (1645.01 ft.)
on Bathurst Street, and a frontage of 397.2 m (1303.1 ft.) on Bloomington Road.
Surrounding Uses
To the North: GO Transit rail line;
South:
Residential;
East:
Residential; and
West:
Residential.
-10-
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29 2004 -2- Report No. PL04-111
Official Plan
The site is within the Yonge Street South Secondary Plan (OPA 34) (see Figure 3). The
lands are designated "Transitional Residential', "Low Density Suburban Residential" and
"Suburban Residential". The easterly part of the site is designated "Transitional
Residential', which permits detached dwellings having a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares
(1 acre) and a minimum lot frontage of 30 metres (100 ft.). The southerly and westerly part
of the site (fronting Bloomington Road and Bathurst Street) is designated "Suburban
Residential' which permits detached dwellings having a minimum lot area of 0.2 hectares
(0.5 acres). The internal portion of the site is designated "Low Density Suburban
Residential' which permits single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplex
dwellings and linked housing having no more than 5 units per hectare (2 units per acre) of
gross residential land. In all residential designations, minor institutional facilities are
permitted. The lands are also located within the "Settlement Area" of the Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) as implemented through OPA 48.
Zoning By-law
The subject lands are currently zoned "Rural (RU-ORM) Zone", which does not permit the
proposed use of the lands.
PROPOSAL
The application is a joint venture between Ballymore Homes and Conseil Scolaire de
District Catholique Centre-Sud. The applicants have applied for a Draft Plan of Subdivision
along with an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan
Amendment. As illustrated on Figure 2, the applicants are proposing the development of
the subject lands for 59 detached dwelling units on 10.46 ha (25.8 acres) of the site, and a
French Separate Secondary School on 5.56 ha (13.73 acres) of the site. The proposed
entrances to the site are from Bathurst Street and from Bloomington Road. Sidewalks are
also proposed along Bloomington Road. All the lots will front onto internal roads and are
proposed to be serviced with municipal water and sewage supply. The following is a
breakdown of the proposal:
Single Detached
# of
Lot Area (min)
Lot
OPA 34
Residential
Lots
Frontage
Designation
Lots
min
Lots 1-3, 25, 45
5
2000 sq.m. (0.5 acre)
24.0 m
Suburban
Residential
Lots16 to 23
8
4000 sq.m (1 acre)
30.0 m
Transitional
Residential
Lots 4-15, 24, 26-44
46
1000 sq.m
24.0 m
Low Density
46-59
No more than (2 units/ac.)
Suburban
Residential
—11—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 3 - Report No. PL04-111
School Site
Lot Area -�
_
Block 60
5.56 ha (13.73 acres)
Other
Lot Area
Stormwater Management Pond
Block 61
5.56 ha (13.73 acres)
Roads Streets A, B, C
2.18 ha 5.38 acres
An Official Plan Amendment application has been submitted to redesignate the school site
lands from "Suburban Residential" and "Low Density Suburban Residential" to a "Major
Institution" designation to permit the use of the lands for a French Separate Secondary
School.
As noted, the site is zoned "Rural (RU-ORM) Zone". The applicant is proposing site -specific
exception zones for the residential lots and school site. This includes the French School
Site to be zoned to an "Institutional (1) Exception Zone". The residential lots are to be
zoned to "Detached Dwelling Suburban Residential (RI-XX) Exception Zone", "Detached
Dwelling Low Density Suburban Residential (R1-XX) Exception Zone" and "Detached
Dwelling Transitional Residential (RI-XX) Exception Zone".
Official Plan
As noted previously, the subject lands are within the Yonge Street South Secondary Plan
(OPA 34) and are located within the "Settlement Area" designation of OPA 48. The subject
lands are also identified in OPA 34 by Schedule "CC' as Block A. Prior to the approval of
any development within a Block Plan on Schedule "CC", a Block Plan is required as well as
supporting studies. The lands are also identified on Schedule "AK and designated
"Transitional Residential", "Low Density Suburban Residential" and "Suburban Residential".
There are specific policies that shall apply to the development of the subject lands, and the
proposal generally conforms with the policies of OPA 34. The gross residential density
average over the constrained and unconstrained lands is less than 5 units per hectare (2
units/acre) as required by OPA 34. (Specific density is 4.4units per hectare). Within the
three specific residential designations Transitional, Suburban Residential and Low -Density
Suburban Residential, the proposal conforms to the standards identified for minimum lot
area, minimum lot frontage, also requirements including minimum building setbacks and
the preservation of a land in a landscaped and or natural condition, which the applicant has
identified. Also, Urban Design Guidelines are required for this development. The
applicant has provided an example of Design Guidelines for the Ballymore Development at
St. John's Sideroad and Bathurst Street and will submit specific guidelines for this
development in the future.
-12-
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 4 - Report No. PL04-111
In regards to the request for an Official Plan Amendment to redesignate the school site
lands from "Suburban Residential' and "Low Density Suburban Residential' to a "Major
Institution" designation to permit the use of the lands for a French Separate Secondary
School appears appropriate. The applicant has identified that the size and scale of the
proposed school is similar to an elementary school. There is not the capacity to expand,
and is limited to the French community (see Attachment 1).
Approval of the proposal is reliant on background studies which must be prepared to the
satisfaction of the Town and any appropriate agency or Authority. These studies have
been submitted and have been reviewed by applicable departments, agencies and have
been peer -reviewed. The studies have been evaluated to ensure compliance with the
requirements of OPA 34 and OPA 48. An overview of the studies submitted is below,
under "Supporting Studies" Section. The studies were also reviewed to ensure compliance
with the requirements in Section 11.2 (Supporting Studies) in OPA 34.
Oak Ridaes Moraine (ORM
As noted previously, the lands are located with the "Settlement Designation" of the Oak
Ridges Moriane Conservation Plan (ORMCP) implemented through OPA 48. This
designation permits all uses approved within the Official Plan for the subject lands being
OPA 34. However, the ORMCP policies must also be addressed along with the policies of
OPA34 in the review of the application. The applicant has submitted studies and reports to
address the requirements of the ORMCP. It should be noted that for the most part these
studies/reports overlap with the requirements of OPA 34. Upon completion of the peer -
review and resolution of all outstanding items the applicant will be required to demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of the ORMCP as implemented through OPA 48. The
requirements are for the most part set out within Section 19(3) and 31(4) of the ORMCP.
Supporting Studies
As noted earlier, approval of the proposal is reliant on background studies which must be
prepared to the satisfaction of the Town and any appropriate agency or Authority. It is also
a requirement within OPA 34, that a peer review of any supporting documentation be
completed The peer -review was undertaken by North -South Environmental Inc., who
completed the background work on OPA 34.
The following are summary conclusions provided by North -South Environmental for the
individual supporting studies provided by the applicant in support of the proposal.
Natural Heritage Evaluation
Conclusion: ELC mapping on the site omits cultural meadow, however, this is unlikely to
change the conclusion: that significant species will not be affected by the development.
Vegetation Preservation Study
Conclusion: The reports needs to be clarified with regard to specific recommendations for
—13—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 5 - Report No. PL04-111
long-term tree protection and maintenance. All areas of trees and other vegetation
considered for removal should be clearly mapped along with characterization of tree
species, condition and vegetation communities affected
Breeding Bird Survey and Wildlife Habitat Analysis
Conclusion: Our review concurs with the conclusion that the field should not be considered
Significant Wildlife Habitat under the Oak Ridges Moraine Technical guidelines
Landform Conservation Report
Conclusion:
(1)The proponent should prepare a grading map (i.e 'cut and fill' map) showing the post -
development land surface including the amount of change and locations where elevations
have increased, have decreased, and remain the same. This would be useful both in
terms of site planning and municipal servicing.
(2) The applicant must demonstrate to the extent possible, that adequate planning, design
and construction practices will be utilized to keep the disturbance to the landform character
a minimum.
(3) The Town will need more information and options from the applicant prior to the final
determination pertaining to compliance with the Landform policies of OPA 34 and 48.
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments (CSDCCS and Ballymore Homes)
Conclusion:
(1) The Stantec report should include copies of all correspondence received from
contacts pertaining to the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment.
(2) Both reports should clearly illustrate the location of the one regulated waste
generator site and describe the nature of the materials and any implications for the
developments.
Hydrogeological Study
Conclusion: The hydrogeological Assessment provides sufficient information to provide a
clear understanding of shallow sub -surface conditions beneath the property. The report is
deficient in the following areas:
(1) There is no characterization of the groundwater quality.
(2) The groundwater flow system has been only partially described.
(3) The hydrogeological setting descriptions focus on the shallow groundwater system
and little information is provided on the deeper aquifers especially the regional
municipal aquifer that supplies the Town of Aurora.
(4) The significance of the internally drained areas with respect to groundwater
recharge has not been adequately recognized.
—14—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 6 - Report No. PL04-111
(5) The impact of the proposed development has been assessed qualitatively with little
supporting documentation or reference materials to support the conclusions.
(6) The report does not provide sufficient supporting information to conclude that `the
resulting change in recharge, as a result of the development will be limited'.
(7) The report provides an incomplete discussion of recharge enhancement opportunities
on the property.
(8) The report is lacking a discussion of the potential for impact on local private and
municipal wells.
(9) No details are provided on the discharge area to the south of the property nor how it is
being protected by the development plan
Compliance with Supporting Studies in OPA 34
As mentioned earlier, there are specific requirements within OPA 34 under Section 11.2.
Compliance with OPA 34, was reviewed by North -South Environmental and they have
identified outstanding issues that must be addressed. Firstly, they have determined that an
Environmental Impact Study was note prepared, as required. They have stated that some
form of an overall statement or summary combining the results of the various studies and
examining the project holistically would be useful. In general, North -South concur that the
site consists of former agricultural lands and contains no significant woodlands orwetlands
nor any Key Natural Heritage Features or Significant Hydrological Areas as defined in the
ORMCP. North -South does not fully concur with the results of the Landform Conservation
Study, in particular there were no design alternatives to protect and enhance landform
should have been prepared. Further, requirements in OPA 34 for assessments of soils,
offsite impacts and potential well interference have not been met in the supporting
documentation.
Conclusion of Peer -Review
North -South Environmental through its evaluation has identified the most critical
deficiencies in the information. The first is the need for alternative lotting/road design along
with their corresponding grading plans, in order to properly evaluate the potential impacts
to the east -west ridge on the Ballymore Homes property. The second is the need for a
detailed water budget in order to properly evaluate post -development recharge conditions.
The third is groundwater quality sampling of the shallow groundwater zone in order to
establish current conditions and likely impacts due to the development. In the Town's
evaluation, the Town will need more information and options from the applicant to final
determination pertaining to compliance with the Landform polices of OPA 34 and 48.
In conclusion, North -South Environmental have stated that "the information provided to
—15—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 7 - Report No. PL04-111
date, the planning framework, and their knowledge of the site, they believe that the area
can be developed for residential and institutional uses without resulting in significant
environmental impact. North -South Environmental and their consultants are prepared to
work with the Town and the applicant to ensure deficiencies can be resolved and a suitable
proposal is developed".
Departmental and Agency Comments
The applications were circulated internally and externally and to date the following
comments were obtained:
Building Administration Department
The Building Administration Department has stated that the By-law shall include specific
definitions and elements that will protect the intent of maintaining specific percentages of
landscaped areas. The Department also suggests that warning clauses should be included
in the offer of purchase and sale detailing site specific restrictions, which may be necessary
to ensure landscaped areas remain intact. Also, setback restrictions are required to the
GO Transit line. Other technical issues such as drainage and building code related items
will be addressed at the time of building design.
Leisure Services Department
The Leisure Services Department have identified some issues which require review and
clarification specifically the trail system, woodland clarification, buffering and parkland
dedication. The Department have offered draft comments offering standard conditions
including providing a Vegetation Preservation and Restoration plan and to provide
landscape design plans including the installation of street tree planting, landscape
structures, subdivision entry features, buffer planting or any other landscape features
required by Urban Design Guidelines. Also, the owner shall provide landscape design
plans and implement landscape works on -site for the stormwater management facility in
accordance with the MOEE Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design
manual and in accordance with Town standards.
The Regional Municipality of York
The Region's Planning and Development Services Department has no objection to the land
use change to permit a French Separate School Board, and offer the comment that access
to the school site be limited to local streets and that mitigation measures shall be
considered regarding noise/and or environmental impacts from CN Rail/Go Transit. In
regards to the draft approval of the plan of subdivision, the Region does not support the
plan at this time. The Region has stated that the Town of Aurora does not have the
servicing capacity available to supply this development. Additional capacity will be
available upon the completion of the 16th Avenue portion of the YDSS extension and the
Southeast Collector Trunk Sewers. The anticipated completion of the 16th Avenue portion
—16—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 8 - Report No. PL04-111
of the YDSS extension will increase capacity for the northern municipalities of the Region
by mid-2008. In accordance to the Regional policy, draft approval may proceed 2 years
from the anticipated availability of water and sewer infrastructure needed to service a
particular development. The Region anticipates providing comments on the plan in 2006,
and provide conditions at that time.
GO Transit
GO Transit has provided comments on the subject proposal. The development is located
adjacent to the GO Bradford rail corridor, and have provided Draft conditions to be cleared
by GO Transit. They have also reviewed the Noise Control Feasibility Study and have
provided comments.
Town of Richmond Hill
The Town of Richmond Hill has provided comments, and do not have an objection to the
Official Plan Amendment to permit a French Separate Secondary School. The applicant
has advised the Town of Richmond Hill Engineering staff of the potential for the subject
lands to be serviced through the Town of Richmond Hill, however any connection would
require approval from Town of Richmond Hill Council. The have stated that until the Town
of Richmond Hill Council has an opportunity to review the potential impact of these lands
on servicing capacity downstream in Richmond Hill, the Town is not in support of the
Zoning Amendment or Draft Plan of Subdivision.
Other External Agencies
Aurora Hydro has indicated that they have no objections to the Official Plan Amendment to
permit a French School Board. They have stated however, that Aurora's Hydro's system
capacity, reliability and servicing will be dependant on Hydro One providing additional
transmission and transformation capacity by the winter of 2006 and the electrical
requirements of the subdivision.
The Public Works Department have not submitted a comment, however will have
comments prepared for the Public Planning Meeting. Planning staff would like to note that
the Public Works Department will have to ensure that the Stormwater Management Pond
conforms to the requirements of the ORMCP as identified with OPA 48. The Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority has not submitted a comment. For Council's information,
the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority requested that the Toronto Region
Conservation Authority be the lead agency to deal with review, as only a small portion of
the subject property is located within their jurisdiction. The Central York Fire Services
Department, York Region District School Board and Ministry of Transportation have
indicated that they have no objection to the proposed applications.
—17—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 9 - Report No. PL04-111
Servicing Allocation
As noted above in the Regions comments, no additional servicing capacity is available at
the present time that would allow this development to proceed. While the School, being an
institutional use does not require capacity, the residential development can not proceed
without the allocation of servicing capacity. We are advised that the business agreement
between the two owners of the property is that Ballymore will service both the residential
and school parts of the site. The School Board will need approximately 12 acres of the 25
in the south part of the site and will sell the residual to Ballymore, the residential developer.
This will provide some cash return to the School Board. As noted however this part of the
site would not be able to proceed until 2008 when servicing become available.
The only unallocated capacity currently available is the 200 units that have been held by
Council for Core Area infill. Should Council wish to provide capacity from this reserve, it
can do so, however there are a series of core area developers vying for the 200 unit
allocation. In that respect however, it is noted that this capacity has been held in reserve
since 2001.
Community Response
Staff have received correspondence from people in support of the proposed French
Separate School Board.
OPTIONS
At the Public Planning Meeting, Council has the option of approving the applications in
principle, subject to the resolution of outstanding issues, orthey have the option of denying
the applications outright.
If Council are generally in support of the proposal, there are three approaches it could take
in dealing with application:
• approve the school proposal but none of the residential given the servicing
allocation constraints;
• approve a small portion of the residential development; or,
• reserve a decision on all of the residential development until servicing capacity is
available.
Notwithstanding the above, given the outstanding issues and in concert with any "in
principle" decision Council might make, it is recommended that Staff report back as to the
resolution of outstanding issues, as identified in this report those raised by community
member and others at the Public Planning Meeting. Should Council decide to deny the
applications, they should be cognizant of the Departmental and Agency comments and
OPA # 34.
�-C
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 10 - Report No. PL04-111
CONCLUSIONS
The application is a joint venture between Ballymore Homes and Conseil Scolaire de
District Catholique Centre-Sud. The applicants have applied for a Draft Plan of Subdivision
along with an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan
Amendment. As illustrated on Figure 2, the applicants are proposing the development of
the subject lands for 59 detached dwelling units on 10.46 ha (25.8 acres) of the site, and a
French Separate Secondary School on 5.56 ha (13.73 acres) of the site.
Staff are not in a position to recommend draft approval of the plan of subdivision at this
time given servicing constraints and other outstanding technical issues. We do however
suggest that the School building has merit, in that it can form a desirable architectural
gateway feature to the community in concert with appropriate landscaping. It will also
provide both a local and regional service that has the support of the community it serves.
Insofar as the residential development is concerned the proposal also appears generally to
meet the provisions of OPA # 34 and a high quality large lot residential development would
be compatible with the existing estate lot development within the area surrounding to the
west. The peer review finds the various supporting studies required by OPA # 34 are
generally acceptable however additional work is required particularly in the area of
Hydrogeology. Given the outstanding issues and comments that are outstanding it is
recommended that Staff report back as to the resolution of the issues, as identified in this
report and those raised at the Public Planning Meeting. This will also allow Staff to work
with the applicant and the community to try and obtain the best possible form of
development on the subject lands.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The proposed residential development will be high quality given the large lot nature of the
development, thus providing tax revenue.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The Strategic Plan contains objectives to ensure high quality, comprehensive community
planning to protect the overall investment of citizens in the community. Critical review of
the subject applications through their respective processes will facilitate this objective.
ATTACHMENTS
Figures
Figure 1 - Location Plan
Figure 2 - Survey
Figure 3 - Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision
Figure 4 - OPA Plan
—19—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 11 - Report No. PL04-111
Attachment 1 — Correspondence from Conseil Scholaire de District Catholique Centre-
Sud
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Management Team Meeting - September 22, 2004
Prepared by: Cristina Celebre, Planner
Extension 4343
SS e eib , M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
ector f Planning
-20-
2,> W
0
x
i 4
'
('
a
)
��
lL
b
0
O
Q
$
�
m
a
G�
N
m
N
Z
J
U
x
W
�
a
m
o
'off �l
o
aaq�apl3
9p
j�
w
:
2
!/
o
m
!Its.
o
�
zb
LU
m
J
m
�
N
i:i;S`,-'.'�iii':'
0 ❑
(„) ❑
c
m
:EfrrE:.�:::;:ii::r:i:";<ii��+:'i
J W
�
m
R:C
:
W F
vi Z
c+
0
i
I
Z W
0 c.i
i
V
W a
z
o
W T' W
h-
Q ad F-
X V e1
0
a
w 0 i-- � a
N
1.1.
U) N
J Z
Z-
J V LU
Z CO
LU
®
m❑�}
13
w
,gCL
---
_�w
Qz
W
o
c$u�xao
aigsuloy
a o
J
a u.
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
N
a •
" I I ci � •s gr`b� �i sa
'1 \
1 \
1 11 '------ 10
I
s
0
all
c
IPA
IP�
r
-allNOVI
p
I/
I
I
11
/
11
__tt—_--
a
b
6 I
= I I
1
I eilao
I
I
I I
\
I
�
I _—awe"uumala�.
nax.v
d
I I
•
9E �, NI�Mxn)1='M I' —I
tis�v.
'.
-�-- r
a-----
JYJO
—
msav°axs
•wvo •
�i �=s='�'.�'S_r7a"'4
�^
•'."
I
_� �
— ——_-,—fOF'Ob
ltT'0103tl1 133yyg••1'SbnN1VB
— �
�1I
_TI
�� ��
-22-
° P11cy��1BL Ij PL MN I NG SEP EMBE 29, 2 Op 4.11
° y1UJIN
p o OYLIIPQ � I>LL¢y`� 3�OZW
o 2.9notlx3o l g(.:i S
• •� .�. tI /: , �. I ill � ��; �1' II ....
%��/ 1 l
, I:
I1911II
�
N�1 _1
•I/,'� , \ 'I
1 >• I r
(/ q ,• \ i1.
t I <'
Ifq�'I/II ..
:\',1 1: \1i�illlj I`R, (�:: 1l11 i.\\`�,•I '1.9/�tr lei
`,\` �\ ` � II" 1 , } •1 ) I
1
''tI (—�
! 'll,,l 1,\�\``r�1.•,`'t �;} IIIII �III1I t `I
� i '�' l� { 11'(Ii1 /i , / 1i, �i r�_( I� i ._I L.. / 1 y, ,- � • rl w .._ rl . I i l• : j' � \ � II ` II 1�) /
IldtlCtJ •I ...
' �,•�;,'ht,1: (�� .I 1.1.�1 1 , ( it �,, , ry;�� \\, ��,! ;'•` ; ,/ ,I If,+6 ,�. I�'',.I
/ /! 1 1 I r it � {1 / r� % I i k I '•' I
!l1 ('+// .�/�1)�/1� � I I� �1 L,i I ( ,�`,^,' �l� hll 1 •''Ij .� •': ��` � � a /• I �k'Ip`l , I)
I '/�'` r / � I �. ...::. I ,44 %}. �,>�zi �I ( I i�l�ll�ptl�•1 �(i
�;!Ia l�ffil lll( �` �t J, II" � � ; \ .'I�I:tI 1 \, ( 1�!"""`l�' �I. I \ •I i , l� I 111I� _(T.
1�\I�11t11. •\\ •1 � �. ,�'^."" II'�-,.�`*j .�ll�ll 11t,11� � • ^S'�j Ir ,. �: fl 9� �� +I � I\'` � Illi�ll `1l�ll'...... �YI1
l 1 r ref 1
/ %' I 11I� � �. e`"�' I I 1 ;... °'rv'.d`" ' wu,� um ry 4a: 1 \• ih ��_. nvw� w,Werd�a
//� /� t ... \ ` 1t ,il $- t. � •'��i 1 ` R ,° � �Q��ff %Q RI "�q s ` ., R` R �I vl��,:.rL � .•,.
fff.. i
I p ;
�� I it {;' ,6 1 I � �;ti't � :. I �-•' .`
r
r l' fe f1
• 1 �. �aa •• Y 4-1
/-l ..... r P'AT�� ,f �..; C-
1 •,1��
I � � � / � .�-:"n; � - �� � (f({I. j'r,•. C . I� ! S �yt( �� , _., II (I I 1 '1 y...... ..
C1
iz
R _ .i. •'`
_
y k�
4¢
L
1,1 III ('\\
. '.. r 12 l5 tSN�Nly9 • --'FL
.. � 1 , /\ 1 � .. r�ry - �`.7�N S, 19tlh N1 VC? \ __—r \• s 11.!:::.,...
End I
�;l�.i//ai✓�I ♦J11e \•�L�\•�Pr\�� ♦�� a\J\ •�:.r ✓�nl+�� ..`LLLL\Iw•\/�1� r�l..\ear♦` \1♦J i�l�`��P
/\r d/�♦1.!/ ; �/! ;� // ;`I/. `;/ �'`r�/.Inr/r♦ rI � Ir /. \I i^ 1 /1` `,f. l.. r�l. I,Aq(
`♦`r\\`l it\Ir�r 1r� IJ� Ir ♦ IIJr rl/ 1 1/�r l/ !\�� I♦\.f `..r/. 1/ .I/
n l.lr \ .1��\. !�^\ !'\\ rl \! ` 11 \ rl; II `\ ! \/ I I.,.♦ +I `\ I ^ \^I/\`r/
\Alur ✓�I%.`f nr \I/rI ♦l..r .l`, ;/ 1`;/.!l\ l `I r'/.I` y+ //\I��/ I \ ly ^♦\I+ \J
�•�r ♦ /n Jl. \�yi\:♦ \.l-\lud nrl^I\I^!\I
'1/.. "tr\•\%r ♦!�%r✓v ♦•1N /\Lr✓.r✓\%\ _! l; lu�hl�\\..`Jnl..e \I
` rrr� ;1./�♦I.i � .,�` `/ ♦Ir//.Ir//� i�/^I I� `�SLf •r �,i`I `�♦r���^II �'�/�\��I./\:♦I�/„�I
-\`I. �1�`�`l.., rl. .r /1.'ur lid Iru/rliu/rli ur \Jr I/�Lr \�`\.'. I.. .r .� .♦1�`nli rl;
/n LI .jl^♦.lit;' is♦v II 11^\'111�`r'J��r l��\r♦ll err „l Z/ I;J�.�J �'^♦.1�' �rvr
rr-\:.l!•Ir\1::I♦I/1�.1:;..:;J.lir.-lrl,l/,/./J'r./.r` \ (•'/\i`"`r.ly /rl`♦J..\.1
"'I t
Z
r�l"✓fin/ \✓vir ✓r`: Zr;•v.r
u,r i'`r�'.`r.i� 1.-ifs/`r/♦1 i�li/ul �rl�wi�/u`I/�f il'\'
\I/IJl�l l\!I\I♦1!\!\\I♦I!\r`li\I`lit\I\�Q1,1�\I\1�\\111
' .In1♦I /.` `.IJ`/♦!n/+l u•1 \!n1 ^l+'`� 1!'}{•1' :/\/♦ I,Y/nlu I
i'll� r♦��! ♦/�Lr /} ♦''r.r\/. a\r\r \I/�r ♦•♦/.r♦J\ n;/ 1; hl�\
1 \r. .r. rf\ `/f� \l�//♦1 /�/` '.'. ii w/l�lrr r./.`r rlrY\ •`/ \` .�\ �. \I 11+.��♦I/1♦/♦I♦r./\1
� �l:v`aur./ 1 .r/U/ 1/y .IJ.r. \J J U IJ ♦ f♦I` \ ^W +i\�♦If• '`♦r 1'�. �^�^I r .1 /
.Ir \ 1^\ li`\•♦I`\♦l���r♦!i`\r li♦\I♦��!'I�♦\I♦1�\\J !/! /I .�\rrl �`I` u.. �/�I+^/�!J`/J
\\. .. r.ln; "'!n/� .l w./`!r`/`.l wr \!/`r `I /r Y\t/` /_.I`1 \rl ud �\1�1•\ I\�r ^I•NI
-ri.,ii Jii'�ii\i.;• ✓��`r.�i ', w.-/� �`i i. sir`.: �(.i^``ra:\nl♦.. �,\,`n �
yKyL '\r\Ir\ I%�ri
Il��i^fr\1/^\,I'T'v `1\�1/i��1i i♦yi�r'1 i �IJ �`Vl�i\`I^\\'.\W �. /,�. r•,♦ ,r^ 1
♦l.•r\l!\i r'\i I'1(� \1♦lu\!♦lu\irl Ql�l`'\•!V` ♦♦� l�•�y�l���r^L��I�r1\�1+♦��1. J1%u/
/.. ii lr`r ♦IJrJ.IV.f f``r_`1 J•r../w'` L ! `/ IJ'r ♦/\P ! .LI \1� � rl. `! j Ntn l\J
'Ir✓\:J;/�M;/\v/YPq/✓\��r`;��%r;f�'`.';r�td✓�/e'1��.\I•^I�/�tau`if:l♦,rr.l�.l \I:`r:�l��i:�l
♦r%�\I r;/� r`/� �./� r/I ;r/I♦ �;V/I�/\';/� ����\r�r Jt �i�� /. 1/h.�r'^I./11�I�h I�1
�rl/irinrlrv\./`/I�\;byR.�\11.. \.1/I J♦I�r1/w ♦!�r\r♦l�\�Irl^� �\\�I 'I\\.I �i�\�I�:r \:`IJ1^r/�, r•Ir
'♦I`li�I'`l%/I./r;r'l.(V`y''r%r; ir♦/\\: ul♦��♦/♦� wr�lr�♦/♦lJt�lr'.ul./. +1 ''�/\/1^Jr.11 `!\./..;;�1
Ir//^ ///� rr :\ �r/� \I �•/� �ll� I.1 ^//w/\ 1//-r\';!/i,/\♦1 /I�'\I !I/..`JI/r\+\I`rrhl
1 +/u
I `I
^Ir i.�,l�i^\.1/Lp'fri.\�1 y\. �^\'♦ I \ I \ I \,♦l r.�. .1 .I♦\�In� ./ �.^ t �rvr .'n
r r\)n\I\l..\r`I't 1\l,\1 f \I Ir \1 /.l �!/•./i1�1♦I���,; ./n L�nl�'�/\.♦\.I .r♦\J� \Jnj\J
r ♦lnr.1/�/.l u./.l J•r.ir'r !nr ♦_ ,y.♦ r / \lu.//\I� ♦ /\1\ 1 ;r
`iai//:` �•'.� i•�` i/:i/. /:r rrf.`r'a;i r`,, -0^^ oar^4 I \/\I /. ♦q1`
a )aJ OOOOPya� OPO°4r
Jlli♦\1/I\�;il♦�;r lv�.;/'.`\.;r it \.\r'^\.;•I'.\1JJ\ 4Q0 �``ir,I�r.♦;//`✓/nII . .I'+r /♦l^v_r\rll.\'..�.rr.r♦\l/-/`♦ /�II../ �If\l♦Vr\rl/\�..�r i /-/�; /!I•./.�I�!!\V/\ rlJ\`•`.. rrJ`f_/u; J_!r\l. �„�l/�\\lr//�•.iI\.I♦I/;i//� .\.1 r.. t�r.1/\ \r\!/J%\'..r` r;.`r_ /♦ /-♦ /.! 1.♦./�r . !�\`\ \\rIr+/\•..'! ;!\♦1r_ r• /-✓./! l.\\ //+l^/..\ \/./l/\`.'1I.�//` //. Il,./ !r,I!\!r ;r\\ 1rrl\`''II"rr '�/_ /^ .`,/l !\'(r./r'I l ♦! `� 0°aPa0CLOJLr�V//�P7�0))))1Y- Pui��I• S'•r•ppdpo0600app0C80
0p000 od0o°0Oo00aOdPo000d °0a006°p'0p°°p
00P 0P0:0°6".•1rorl.O0-04.Ar°-0Og.00O00°00'0
°0°0ao00.44444c4'+L4:
P°p°0a6op0
°0OPad0a6d0P0°04dV°0-0oP4p0PdoOPa
oO°00oP°00oOo0dMoo0.w.1lad0PONpPp0O
.SO0i d00 04O.0
P0001p0
.0
LU pp4001.0
:o0o00
Z
0
Z
0
0
W
0
2
N
M�
V
w
w
0
LL
L
LEI
w
J
00
UD
yN
J LU
W
F
NZ
ZW
OV
oLU
Zc=Jv
fANZ
W=�W
Z
oa�s�
O
xUv�o
�c�ivaN
a
~ N
;�
Ei ZLLJ
--
,Z
V
—i
coin
w
Z d)gW
�
o
ZI WWI -
a
a
a — =)
p
It LLao
094TU --TC PtANN I NG69Q7F&EPTEMBER 29,
2084D PLANIF TRF
CONSIML $COLAARE
PE P19tk14T CATMOLPOUR
CENTRE -SUP
110, ov mine Orea'rY
Toronto ON M2M 1C8
TdWphone: 1416) 3e7-65e4
Sang fraig: 1 800 274.3764
September 23, 2004
Ms. Sue Siebert
Director of Planning, Planning .Department
The Towri of ,Aurora
100 John West Way, Box 1000
Aurora, ON 1,406J1
Dear Ms. Seibert,
ATTACHMENT 9
TOWN OF AURORA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIALS
SEP 2 4 2004
Re: Official Pisa Amendment, .Rezoning and :Draft Plan of Subdivision
Ballymore Homes and Conseil scolalre de district catbolique Centre-Sud
D-09-04.04, D-14-04-04 and D12-04-1 A, Part of Lot 71, Concession 1, E.YS,
Tl,e Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre -Sod along with Ballymore Homes will bt appearing at
the upcoming Public Meeting on 29 September 2004 to support our application(s). We understand that the
findings of the required reports and the Poor Reviews generally conih-tn that the proposals are satisfactory
(subjact to further specific, detailed site analysis). The Board is very pleased to see that tho experts seem. to
agree that the site characteristics lend themselves to the construction of a school and estate homes.
We would like to raise a matter with you that was not considered in the background reports: the matter of
servicing allooatiom It is our understanding that residential Draft Plan Approval and Zoning cannot be
given unless water and sanitary sewer allocation for each house is given by the Tow, You are probably
aware that we are purchasing approximately 23 acres of land in total. Approximately 13 acres of land is
required for the school. The residual land will be acquired by Ballymore Homes, out site development and
approvals partner. Ballymore has been extremely helpful to us in managing the applications, report
preparation and agency follow up. Ballymore is also taking responsibility for our site servicing and access.
As part of our arrangement with Ballyn3orc, they have agreed to acquire purchase rights to the residual land
from us at such time as it is Draft Plan Approved, subj Oct to final approval by our board of trustees.
Our land purchase is to close early in the new year. it is an all cash closing. 7t would be of si ntg 'frcant
financial assiMnce to the Board for us to be able to dispose of residual land to Ballymore as soon as
possible. This could be facilitated by the Town as we understand that the Town has a.re3wve of unit
allocations. There are 13 units shown on our residual land. We are requesting that the Town consider
allowing us to have 13 units of all9cat on, This would. enable Ballymore to acquire the land immediately,
and, greatlyreduce our overall costs for the project. The Town's cooperation and assistance in this way
would be greatly appreciated -
Thank you for your cooperation. We look forwardto the Public Mooting on September. 29, 2004.
Sincerely,,
Conseil scoloire de ddii_st—r_i_cttceatholique Centre-Sud
is Francc i
Chief of Plant, Planning and Transportation
e,c. BallymereHomes -Attn: GerardGervais
f'$iGC
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
AGENDA fTE�q #
ta6 TOWN OF AURORA
PUBLIC PLANNING MEETING
SUBJECT: Whitwell Developments Limited (First Professional)
Part of Lot 21, Concession 3
Wellington Street and Leslie Street
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Applications
File Nos. D09-10-03 & D14-28-03 respectively
FROM: Susan Seibert, Director of Planning
DATE: September 29, 2004
RECOMMENDATIONS
No. PL04-112-
THAT Council receive as information the following overview of the final peer reviews
completed for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications
D09-10-03 and D14-28-03 respectively regarding Whitwell developments Limited,
and,
THAT in view of the completed peer reviews that Council provide direction to staff
respecting any further information it requires to enable it to address the proposed
official plan and zoning by-law amendments.
BACKGROUND
On September 9, 2003 Council authorized staff to engage a consulting team to undertake
an independent peer review of the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment
justification reports filed by Whitwell Developments Limited for a large format, Regional -
serving Retail Commercial development. The Town has retained The Butler Group
(Consultants) Inc. as the lead planning peer review consultants for the project and to co-
ordinate the reviews of the following consultants:
• Retail Market and Impact Analysis —Scott Morgan & Associates Limited
■ Economic Analysis — Gartner Lee Limited.
■ Urban Design — Brook Mcilroy Inc./Pace Architects
■ Traffic— Earth Tech Canada
In order to ensure that all issues have been identified and addressed a Public Information
meeting -was held on April 28, 2004 and a Public Planning meeting was held on June 23,
2004. A further Council meeting was held on August 17, 2004, to provide an update on the
status of the peer reviews of the applications and provide Council with the draft findings of
-26-
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 2 - Report No. PL04-112
the peer reviews.
Since the August 17, 2004, public meeting, additional consultation has occurred between
the Whitwell consultants and Town staff and the peer review team. Specifically, the
Whitwell consultants have submitted additional information regarding planning, market, .
traffic, and urban design issues. In addition, a revised Concept Plan has been submitted
that caps the total amount of retail floor space to 540,000 sq. ft. This report provides an
update of the August 17, 2004 Council report and also provides additional details
pertaining to the revised concept plans.
In addition to the applications being considered by the Town the applicants have also
submitted applications to the Region of York who are reviewing the applications based on
the policies of the Regional Official Plan and have retained John Winter and Associates to
complete a peer review of the applications. Mr. Morgan has met with Mr. Winter and Mr.
Jaque (MGP) to address concerns arising from Mr. Winter's review. A summary of this
discussion and resolution of most market issues is attached to Mr. Morgan's final peer
review. It should be noted that Mr. Winter has still not signed off on the proposal and that
he requires further information from the applicant. Mr. Morgan has prepared an addendum
response to Winter's concerns that is attached to his peer review.
PROPOSAL
Whitwell Developments Limited has submitted applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-
law Amendments to permit "Regional -serving Commercial Uses" on the south part of the
draft plan area accompanied by the required supporting studies. The original application
proposed 561,775 square feet of Regional -serving commercial development on the site
including a discount warehouse, warehouse membership club, either a large format
supermarket or a home improvement outlet, ancillary retail uses, a ten screen cinema,
service commercial uses (restaurants, personal services) and office commercial. The
office commercial would be in addition to the retail, comprised of 175,000 square feet and
be developed after the retail. The total development is 732,075 square feet, in addition to
the State Farm holding to the north. The State Farm application for their Canadian Head
Office (321,794 square feet) and other buildings that may be constructed on the State
Farm part of the property are not subject to this application and are to remain as "Business
Park".
On July 26, 2004, after preliminary discussions with staff and the peer review team,
Whitwell submitted revised four concept options, which decreased the total retail
component to 540,000 square feet and increased the office component to 366,000 square
feet. Since the August 17, 2004, public meeting, Whitwell has submitted a preferred
revised Concept Plan that is attached to this report as Figure 3.
Official Plan Amendment # 30, the 2B Secondary Plan provides that:
"The development of the lands at Highway 404 have been identified by Council as a
—27—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 3 - Report No. PL04-112
high development priority and are designated Business Park to encourage high
quality building and site design in the near to long term. Regional -serving Retail
Commercial uses are contemplated by this Plan because of the high visibility and
accessibility of lands between Leslie Street and Highway 404 and the attractiveness
of this location for uses serving not only the growing population of Aurora but also
the surrounding urban and rural areas. However, the general nature and scale of
future uses cannot be predicated at this time. Regional -serving Retail Commercial
uses shall be considered by the Town subject to a public process and amendment
to this Plan on lands designated Business Park on the north side of Wellington
Street between Leslie Street and Highway 404, if the following conditions are met:
1. pre-eminent site, building and landscape design;
2. comprehensive planning to ensure consistent high quality image as
described in Section 3.5 Business Park and 3.9 Urban Design of this
Plan; (i.e. OPA # 30)
3. a traffic study prepared by a qualified traffic consultant which
demonstrates that traffic impacts associated with the proposed
development can be accommodated without adversely affecting the
capacity of the road system or adjacent land uses and is acceptable
to the Town and Region;
4. a market study acceptable to the Town;
5. impacts on surrounding existing and planned land uses are
acceptable to the Town."
As previously indicated a public information session was held on April 28, 2004, however
there was concern expressed at the meeting that the notice for the applications was
inadequate. Therefore due to the proposed size and scale of the applications the notice for
the June 23, 2004 Public Meeting was enhanced to include the following:
• Notice to all members of the Chamber of Commerce (This would be in addition to
the original notice circulated by the chamber).
• Notice in two sequential issues of the Newspaper.
■ Mailed notice to properties with commercial zoning in Town
■ Notice to all known ratepayer associations in Town.
■ Notice to all parties who requested notice.
■ Notice to the Town of East Gwillimbury, Town of Newmarket, Town of Richmond Hill
and Region of York.
• New sign notices on the property.
■ Notice mailed to all property owners within 120 metres (400 feet) of the site.
Comments were received from Aird & Berlis on behalf of Loblaws Properties Limited and
from Fogler, Rubinoff on behalf of Riotrin Properties and these comments have been
forwarded to the peer consulting team for consideration. Aird & Berlis on behalf of Loblaws
Properties Limited have subsequently indicated that they no longer have concerns with the
proposal.
1214-M
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 4 - Report No. PL04-112
DRAFT PEER REVIEWS
Revised Options
On July 28, 2004, the applicant provided the Town with four revised concept plans (see
attached) as well as additional documentation regarding the issue of the impact of the
proposed power centre on the business park function. All are based on a revised floor
area concept as noted above, with retail comprising 540,000 square feet and increased
office floor area to 366,000 square feet. Since the August 17, 2004, public meeting
Whitwell has submitted a revised Concept Plan in an attempt to address Town and peer
review consultant concerns.
The main purpose of the revised Concept Plan is to respond to staff and peer review team
concerns that the original Concept Site Plan did not provide for a proper entranceway to
the office component and that the mixing of retail with office uses would diminish the
attractiveness of the office use and not provide for successful integration with the State
Farm office complex located to the north.
The proposed office component is grouped in a campus -style layout along Highway 404,
and the main traffic system has been slightly revised to try to accommodate access to the
office block without having to drive in front of the Wal-Mart Store. While staff and the peer
review team are still assessing this Concept Plan, it is noted that this Concept Plan still
requires that office workers and visitors must travel through the retail component (from
west to east) to enter the office area. It is recommended that Whitwell explore other options
which either link the office area directly to the State Farm Complex or shift the location of
the proposed Wal-Mart department store southerly in order to provide an access from
Street A (the main north/south collector road).
It is felt that the revised Concept Plan is generally an improvement to the original
application in that:
• it provides for a larger component of office space to match the retail space;
• the land area devoted to office space use has been increased to 22 acres;
• the layout of the office campus is more functional and efficient;
• the orientation of the primary retail stores is improved with two anchor stores now
located west of Street A:
• improved urban design with the gateway feature and more stores located closer to
Wellington Street.
It is expected that additional fine-tuning of this issue can occur as part of the site plan
approval, if Council approves the proposed development.
Whitwell's consultants have also provided information regarding examples of other
regional -scale retail centres, which are integrated with office/business park elements
including some "new format" retail uses. These examples include Square One/Mississauga
—29—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 5 - Report No. PL04-112
City Centre, Scarborough Town Centre, Yorkdale, St. Laurent (Ottawa), Sherway Gardens,
Fairview Mall, Bramalea City Centre, Vaughan Corporate Centre, and Winston Park
(Oakville/Mississauga). Staff and the peer review team are acquainted with all of these
developments. It is noted that most of these examples involve some office component that
has developed surrounding an existing enclosed shopping centre or is part of a planned
City Centre. To our knowledge, there are no examples of a power centre being developed
concurrently with a modern business park in Ontario. The main concern is that the power
centre does not overwhelm the business park use orjeopardise in anyway the success of
this important employment centre.
Whitwell consultants have submitted additional traffic and urban design improvements that
they consider will embellish the office component as well as the overall quality of the retail
power centre development. We will continue to discuss this issue with Whitwell's
consultants.
Market Stud
Issues which were raised initially for discussion purposes regarding the Malone Given
Parsons (referred to as MGP) market study are now largely resolved.
The peer review has looked at a wide range of issues, including market support for the
development, development scale, and timing.
A finalized market peer review has been included as Appendix "A" to this report.
The First Pro site was proposed for a large scale power centre to be built in two phases
(first full years in 2005 and 2007 per MGP) to serve a broad regional trade area centered
on Aurora. Revised market forecasts now under review expect first full years in 2006 and
2007, and the size of the retail component in the options presented would be less than the
from 561,775 square feet originally proposed as a result of revisions to the concept plan.
(see discussion of options above)
The following outlines the conclusions of the Market Study Peer Review:
(Please note that the following has been taken directly from the consultant report and as such
1.111, "MY" and "Me" and other similar terms refer to W. Scott Morgan the Market Peer Review
Consultant)
The process of obtaining additional input and comments from MGP leads me to conclude
that:
• Aurora has now matured to the extent that an additional retail commercial node with a
strong regional orientation is warranted to attract regional trade and to reduce outflow;
• Aurora has also matured to the extent that the community commercial node focused on
Bayview and Wellington is well positioned to expand with "baby box" new format retail
—30—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 6 - Report No. PL04-112
outlets to complement the existing anchor stores; and
Aurora will require commercial space at both the Bayview/Wellington node and the First
Pro site, as well as at locations elsewhere in the community in future years. This is
borne out by the MGP revised analyses and the market tests attached to this peer
review.
As in other markets, I would recommend protecting the smaller scale retail uses in Aurora's
historic core area and in the Bayview Wellington node. In this regard, Council might consider
imposing a size restriction on the "baby box" new format retail units in the First Pro
development, such as a 5,000 square foot minimum for First Pro's specialty DSTM stores,
perhaps in combination with a specified number of units and/or a specified percentage of the
total specialty DSTM space to be made up of units less than 5,000 square feet.
Council might also consider imposing a use restriction that would prevent a beer store or a
liquor store or both from relocating to the First Pro development. Such a use restriction would
prevent Aurora's historic core area (which has the LCBO) and the Aurora Shopping Centre
(which has the Beer Store) from losing important anchors that attract shoppers to the Yonge
Street corridor. Council could revisit this use restriction in the future once First Pro's actual
impacts are known.
I do not see the need to restrict banks and other financial institutions from locating at the First
Pro site given that eight banks are located on Yonge Street (six in Aurora's historic core area,
one in the Aurora Shopping Centre, and one in the Canadian Tire Plaza).
It is important for new format retail tenants seeking to enter the Aurora market to be able to
choose between existing sites and the First Pro site. Such choice has the potential to keep
rents competitive and prevent artificial restrictions on where new retailers might locate. The
choice might prompt certain of these retailers to hasten their entry into the market.
My peer review has not specifically assessed the impact of a 50,000 square feet expansion of
Wal-Mart at the First Pro site. However, I would not object to the designation of this space
subject to a subsequent market evaluation if a rezoning for this expansion is sought at a future
date. This would provide flexibility in the event that existing or proposed zoning elsewhere in
Aurora is not taken up.
In conclusion, our overall recommendation from a market perspective is for Council to approve
the First Pro proposal with appropriate size and use restrictions.
Economic Impact
(Please note that the following section is taken directly from the consultant report and as such
and as such "WE" and other similar terms refer to Clayton Research the Economic Peer
Review Consultants)
—31—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 7 - Report No. PL04-112
The basic methodology used in the Clayton Report to determine the economic impacts of
the proposed development is considered appropriate. Our review of the subject report
examined the assumptions and background data incorporated in the analysis, as well as
the various calculations.
While we initially reported that the methods of calculation used by Clayton framed the
proposed development in very optimistic terms with respect to potential economic impacts,
we have since met with Clayton Research and agree that utilizing a sensitivity analysis
examining a wider range of alternative assumptions is a more appropriate way to approach
this analysis.
The issue of most significance in the Clayton Report was the potential impact of the
proposed development on employment lands within the Town of Aurora. It is noted that the
original Clayton Study (July 2003) does not reflect the most recent (2004) Hemson
assessment of Employment Lands and the value of this designation to Aurora's planning
and development process. The Clayton Study initiates its analysis of employment lands
with the assumption that vacant employment lands in the municipality total 378 net acres.
By contrast, Hemson estimate in their report (2004) that with adjustments the current
inventory is actually 330 net acres. Together with Clayton we have reached an agreement
to base the sensitivity analysis on the employment land supply determined by Hemson
Consulting.
Previously we had concerns with the fact that the Clayton Report makes a conservative
assumption in adopting the York Region employment forecast. Together with Clayton we
have agreed to incorporate the possible implications for employment land requirements if
the Town were to pursue stronger employment growth targets.
The Clayton Report states that "the Town's share of future employment growth on
"employment lands" is likely to be similar to that of other GTA municipalities" and therefore
uses 55% as the basis for future employment land requirements. There is no allowance for
the fact that if Aurora continues to attract office and prestige industrial uses to its
employment lands, the percentage of employment on employment lands will continue to be
higher than the GTA average. In order to address this concern, Clayton has agreed to
allow an examination of the implications of higher employment land capture rates into the
sensitivity analysis.
While the Study's range of possible employment densities from 16-25 employees/net acre
for the newly absorbed employment lands in Aurora is reasonable for consideration, the
Study's assumption of using 10% for future contingencies is conservative and a range of
between 10% and 20% seems to be a more reasonable consideration. Clayton has also
agreed to this point.
—32—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 8 - Report No. PL04-112
Based on the preceding assumptions, Gartner Lee's sensitivity analysis indicates that the
implications of the proposed development on the employment land supply in the Town of
Aurora may be more pronounced than contemplated in the original Clayton Report. With
the agreement of Clayton Research to adopt the sensitivity analysis performed by Gartner
Lee, we now agree that the initial site development concept may result in an employment
land supply insufficient to accommodate planned employment growth to 2016. The revised
site concept for the Whitwell proposal preserves an additional 22.5 acres of the site strictly
for business park purposes, thus supplementing the planned employment function on
adjoining lands to the north and south within this broader business park.
Not withstanding all of the above however, potential longer -term impacts of the proposal
are less of a concern. Even in the worst case of the sensitivity analysis, impacts are not
such as to cause undo concern about the long-term adequacy of the employment land
supply in Aurora. The potential deficit of employment lands may further be reduced with the
relocation of the recreation centre that was to be placed on employment lands in the
Wellington/404 area, resulting in a possible 29 acres of additional employment land supply.
The release of 2C lands for development towards the middle of the next decade (i.e., 2013
— 2016) will reconcile the long-term employment land supply/demand balance.
In terms of municipal finance, the Clayton analysis indicates thatthe development proposal
may cause development related revenue to be realized sooner than would otherwise be
the case in the absence of this proposal. Over the medium term however, Aurora and the
Region can expect these lands to generate additional municipal revenue (above current
revenue generated from vacant lands). While the Town, Region and School revenue
generated through the proposal is significant, these one-time and ongoing annual revenues
serve to support related municipal expenditures. As a result, no significant net fiscal
benefit to the Town is anticipated. This is confirmed in Clayton's supplemental report
which estimates the annual net operating and maintenance expenditures in providing
service to non-residential uses compared to estimated property tax generation.
The complete report on the economic peer review is attached as Appendix "B".
Traffic
The submitted Traffic Report is generally based on the assumptions used within the traffic
analysis for the overall business park. The traffic report for the overall business park is
currently under review as part of the registration of the subdivision. The Town's traffic
consultants have provided detailed technical comments to Whitwell for their review and
consideration. Whitwell is currently remodeling the traffic analysis based on the Town's
background development potential and other factor raised by the peer review consultant.
In summary, additional information and clarification of the above -noted issues is required
by the applicant's traffic consultants in order to resolve the outstanding traffic and parking
—33—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 9 - Report No. PL04-112
concerns. As noted previously the revised Concept Plan still does not fully address the
internal circulation issues and both the peer review team and staff feel that this issue must
be addressed prior to the site plan stage.
Urban Design Guidelines
The applicants have revised the guidelines in order to be consistent with the approved
overall guidelines for the subdivision. The Town's peer review consultant is presently
reviewing a submission made by Whitwell on July 14, 2004, as well as additional
information provided since the August 17, 2004, public meeting. Urban Design issues are
extremely important for this site due to its Gateway location at the entrance of the Town.
The urban design guidelines which have been incorporated on the revised Concept Plan
are still under discussion. It would be preferable if the guidelines could be approved priorto
the adoption of the Official Plan Amendment and as such they could form an Appendix to
the document.
Planning
The Butler Group have reviewed the applications by Whitwell Developments Limited and
First Pro Shopping Centres for a proposed Aurora Gateway Centre retail commercial
development in the Town of Aurora. The planning analysis of this application includes an
examination of all supporting documentation prepared by consultants for the applicants as
well as the draft comments of the Town's peer review consultants as set out in this report.
A limited number of comments from the public that were made at the information meeting
held on April 28, 2004, and the public meeting held on June 23, 2004.
The following comments are intended to proffer planning opinions based upon the interim
review of the above -noted documentation as well as the Provincial Policy Statement,
Region of York and Town Official Plans, Town zoning by-law and other relevant materials.
Given the amount of detailed information contained in the independent "Planning Report:
Aurora Gateway Centre, Town of Aurora" (July 2003) submitted by Macaulay Shiomi
Howson Ltd, we have not repeated factual information. Instead, we have attempted to
provide an overview and independent planning assessment of what we believe are the
principal planning issues before Town Council.
Existing Retail Structure
The existing historic retail commercial structure is primarily located on Yonge Street, which
forms a "main street" for the Town. A second major node is under development on various
parcels of land located on the west side of Bayview Avenue, north of Wellington Street.
There are limited smaller scale retail services located on Wellington Street.
This historic evolution of commercial uses on Yonge Street has resulted in a mature central
place commercial function composed of a variety of retail forms including pedestrian-
-34—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 10 - Report No. PL04-112
oriented downtown, strip plazas, several smaller shopping centres, and free-standing retail
stores of all types and sizes. There are a number of anchor stores including Canadian Tire,
Price Chopper, and Winners. While these different commercial forms provide a range of
commercial functions, they are presently linked geographically as essentially one large
linear commercial concentration.
The emerging node on Bayview Avenue consists of a combination of big box uses and
supermarkets including Sobeys, Zellers, Home Depot, and a new Loblaws is under
construction at BayviewlSt. John's Sideroad. An application has been submitted to expand
the Aurora Centre with an additional 88,000 square feet of retail space and a major cinema
complex. It is expected that the total amount of gross floor area for this combination of
retail activity along all of Bayview Avenue could be as high as 690,000 square feet.
The commercial structure is generally deemed to be healthy and successful, and there are
no significant vacancies.
Proposed Commercial Application
The application by Whitwell Developments Limited proposes to add approximately 540,000
square feet of retail/commercial power centre development located at the northwest
quadrant of Highway 404 and Wellington Street East. The subject application proposes to
redesignate and rezone the lands as a new format retail centre consisting of three anchor
stores (Wal-Mart, membership warehouse club and home improvement centre or
supermarket) and approximately sixteen free-standing smaller buildings (restaurants and
specialty dstm retailers), and five free-standing office buildings. It is noted that the 10
screen multi-plex cinema complex is no longer part of the revised Concept Plan. The
original concept for the centre proposed that it be developed in two phases with the first
phase consisting of a total of 415,700 square feet and a second phase that would add a
total of 171,900 square feet to the two anchor tenants (Wal-Mart and warehouse
membership club, for an ultimate total of 587,600 square feet (subject to current
discussions on the four revised options).
The total site areas is 32.7 ha (81 acres). The site breakdown would be approximately 20.0
ha (49 acres) for the retail/commercial power center and 9.0 ha (23 acres) to be used as
office/business park uses. The remaining area consists of roads and a storm water
management pond. The option plans contemplate 540,000 square feet of retail/commercial
and 366,000 square feet of office/business park uses.
To the north of the subject lands is the State Farm site consisting of approximately 36 ha
(90 acres) where the State Farm Office building consisting of 321,794 square feet is to be
located. The State Farm lands are designated Business Park and have future potential for
additional uses as permitted within the Business Park designation. To the south of the
subject lands are additional business park lands for which some development applications
are currently under consideration.
—35—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 11 - Report No. PL04-112
Town of Aurora Official Plan
It is observed that the Town has been very careful with respect to its commercial planning
over the years and as a priority has attempted to maintain a healthy retail node along
Yonge Street. Generally, new commercial growth has occurred incrementally and within the
last number of years along Bayview Avenue. It is noted that the original approval of the
Aurora Centre contemplated an enclosed shopping centre. The enclosure has not occurred
and the present plan is to add additional retail floor area as free-standing developments.
It is acknowledged that the Whitwell site has the only Official Plan designation that permits
regional -serving commercial uses subject to a number of important qualifications. The key
concern is the timing and phasing of development so as to ensure that there are no
adverse impacts on the planned function of other commercial facilities located throughout
the Town. Some consideration also needs to be given to the 18-20 acre Community
Commercial site located at the south—east corner of Bayview and Wellington Street. This
site is intended to serve both the needs of the immediate residents and the broader
community in concert with the Morguard REIT and Home Depot/Trinity/Riocan lands
discussed below. Its role in this function appears to be absent from the current
submissions.
The text of Official Plan Amendment No. 30 (213 Secondary Plan) has been set out in the
Proposal section of this report. The onus is on Whitwell to prove that the various criteria set
out in the Official Plan have been met including public input. While regional -serving retail
uses are permitted subject to conditions, an Official Plan Amendment is still required and
approval is not automatic. The Town has the ability to delay this proposed centre if it
considers that the pre -conditions have not been met, or it can reduce the scale and design
of the centre, if it considers that it will harm other retail centres in the Town or the Business
Park use itself.
It is apparent that there are no other future large scale commercial sites pre -designated in
the Official Plan. Therefore, any other expansion to the current retail inventory would likely
require a site specific approval including an amendment to the Official Plan and zoning by-
law. It is noted that the approval of 540,000 square feet of retail development on the
Whitwell site would likely preclude any other significant retail developments based on the
current Official Plan and population growth estimates.
The Whitwell application is the largest proposal for commercial development in the Town
and when completed should become a true regional centre for both the Town and beyond.
In terms of the commercial hierarchy it would be expected that the largest anchors and a
wide range of DSTM merchandise would be provided that may not be available in other
commercial centres of the Town. It would be expected that the other commercial centres
as set out in the Official Plan including convenience commercial, community commercial,
service commercial, and campus commercial would continue to provide other forms of
retail service and a variety of other planned functions. However, in practical terms, the
anchor stores that have located within these above -noted designations are also regional-
-36—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 12 - Report No. PL04-112
serving.
It is noted that the majority of new retail growth in the Province over the past five years has
been in the form of the new format or big box retail. In larger urban municipalities, these
retailers have tended to locate in larger power centers. The Aurora Centre which was
originally intended to be an enclosed shopping centre is now developing as a smaller form
of a power centre and most of the other development in the BayviewANellington corrider is
stand-alone retail.
The traditional key test is that the establishment of a regional power centre does not impair
the planned function of these other retail centres so that they cannot perform their planned
function and/or there is resulting urban blight. Neither of these latter outcomes is deemed
to be in the public interest or representative of good planning. The Town's peer review
market consultant has carefully assessed the impact of the Whitwell proposal on the
existing retail centres in the Town. It is his conclusion that there will be no adverse impact
on the long term planned function of these centres.
The Official Plan designates the Whitwell site for Business Park uses. It is an objective of
the Town to promote high quality office uses with exposure to Highway 404. The State
Farm Insurance development is an example of the type of high quality office development
that the Town is seeking. Generally, in the Greater Toronto Area retail power centres have
not been combined with modern office business parks. There is a general concern that that
the retail power centre not impair the expansion or future growth of this business park. It is
considered essential that the jobs and assessment created by this type of development are
maintained and enhanced. Revisions to the revised Concept Plan may need to be
considered.
Historically, once power centres are developed, there is in many cases pressures to allow
additional retail uses on abutting lands. The lands south of Wellington Street are also
designated for Business Park uses. It should be made clear that no additional retail uses
should be permitted on adjacent lands in the future and that all of the retail uses be limited
to the Whitwell site.
Region of York Official Plan
The Region of York Official Plan contains land use policies that effect the development of
significant retail facilities and in particular developments in excess of 323,000 sq. ft. Policy
3.3.6 of the Plan requires the preparation of Region -wide impact analysis that address
transportation requirements, the impact on existing and approved future retail facilities,
transit access to the facilities, and the manner in which the proposal is supportive of the
centre and corridor policies of the Plan.
Policy 3.3.7 also requires more micro -based assessment including the meshing of the
proposal's street grid and pedestrian system into the community; the mix of residential and
office commercial land uses on each part of the proposal; the integration of the parks,
—37—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 13 - Report No. PL04-112
natural areas, and other public spaces into the community; the relationship of the proposed
buildings to the street; the distribution of floor space densities across the site and the
avoidance of large expanses of parking areas.
The Region has retained John Winter and Associates to conduct an independent peer
review of the market study and impact evaluation report submitted by Malone Givens
Parsons Ltd. on behalf of Whitwell Developments Limited. Mr. Winter has initially raised a
number of concerns with respect to this report. The most significant conclusion of the
Winter report is that the Wal-Mart, supermarket, and home improvement centre are not
needed at this time, and should be delayed for three to five years after a 200,000 sq.ft. first
phase proceeds with a cinema, warehouse membership club, restaurants, and ancillary
stores and services. As previously indicated, Mr. Winter is not in a position to support the
market study submitted by the applicant at this time and has indicated that due to the
application for the cinema on Bayview Ave that he can only support 150,000 within phase
one of the development. Notwithstanding Mr. Winter's concerns, Mr. Morgan is
recommending approval of the Whitwell application subject to a number of restrictions. An
addendum to Mr. Morgan's final peer review in which he addresses Mr. Winter's concerns
is attached to his final report (please see Appendix "A").
Provincial Policy Statement
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of Provincial
Interest, and all Official Plans and amendments shall have regard to the PPS. Generally,
the main concerns that are applicable to these commercial applications, involve issues
related to efficient, cost-effective development and land use patterns, development on full
municipal services, maintaining the well-being of downtowns and main streets, and the
preservation of significant environmental areas.
Based on further review and analysis, it is our opinion that the application has had
appropriate regard to the Provincial Policy Statement.
OPTIONS
The requested peer reviews have now been completed and vetted by all embers of both
the Town's team and those of the applicants. Should Council wish further analysis based
on input received at the public meeting or resulting from peer review presentation,
instructions for such further information should be included in Council's resolution. In the
alternative, if Council is satisfied with the peer review conclusions, it can direct that draft
that official plan official plan and zoning by-law amendments be presented for its
consideration upon the resolution of the outstanding issues outlined within this report.
con
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 14 - Report No. PL04-112
CONCLUSIONS
• The existing Official Plan provides for a regional -scale commercial facility on the
Whitwell site subject to meeting a variety of tests. In this context, the Official Plan
ultimately envisions three distinct major commercial nodes for the Town including
the Yonge Street node, Bayview /Wellington node, and the Whitwell node.
• The planning analysis indicates that the planned function of both the Yonge Street
node and Bayview/Wellington node should not be impaired or significantly
weakened by the Whitwell development. While the lands at the south east corner of
Bayview and Wellington have been designated Community Commercial for a
number of years, it is apparent that no recent applications have been submitted for
retail use for this vacant parcel and the owner is not objecting to the Whitwell
proposal. It is probable that this will be a long term Community Commercial
development or it may be converted to another use. Therefore, we have no
concerns with respect to the potential delay the Whitwell development may have on
this property.
• It is evident that the full approval of the Whitwell node at this time will not have
adverse impacts particularly on the Bayview /Wellington node. In our opinion, no
time delay of the Whitwell application is required in order to allow the proposed
expansion and maturation of the Bayview/Wellington node. It is our
recommendation that the Aurora Gateway Centre be given the first opportunity to
secure a cinema complex for the Town.
• The market justification for the entire Whitwell application has now been completed.
Based on Mr. Morgan's recommendations, it is appropriate to approve the
applications as revised. Mr. Morgan recommends that the zoning by-law have a
provision that requires that there be a minimum unit size of 5,000 sq. ft. for a portion
of the "baby box" component of the centre in order to attract larger stores that will
not directly compete with the Bayview/Wellington centres or the downtown.
Furthermore, Mr. Morgan recommends that the zoning by-law not permit a liquor
store or beer store in order that the existing facilities located respectively in the
downtown and the Aurora Centre not re -locate. These issues as well as restricting
the overall size of the retail component can be appropriately addressed in the
zoning by-law.
• Concerns were initially raised with respect to the loss of employment land and the
compatibility of a power centre with a successful office business park. Every effort
should be made to achieve as much office development and full employment jobs
on the Whitwell site as possible. Mr. Keir, the Town's economic peer review
consultant is now satisfied that there will be an adequate supply of employment land
to the year 2016. Future employment land beyond this period will ultimately be
satisfied with the development of the 2C lands to the north.
—39—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 15 - Report No. PL04-112
• Notwithstanding the above, it is imperative that the highest priority be given to the
development of the Whitwell lands as a modern business park. The subject
application for a regional power centre should not prejudice or impair the planned
function of this area as a major employment node. The proposed implementing
Official Plan Amendment should contain policies that emphasize this important role
and protect for the office component located along Highway 404.
The revised Concept Plan that reserves lands adjacent to Highway 404 for office
development only in a campus format should be approved as it maintains a
continuous business park use along Highway 404 both north and south of
Wellington Street.
It is probable that all of the urban design issues can be satisfactorily resolved over
the next few months, and the completed policies may form part of the Implementing
Official Plan Amendment and will be implemented as part of the site plan approval
process.
Additional work on several technical traffic issues will be required. Staff and the peer
review team among other things have requested that Whitwell explore a direct
access to the office campus area (that is not through the retail area) and/or a
potential connection to the State Farm office complex.
Additional discussions and negotiations should occur with the representatives of Whitwell
Developments Inc. to resolve outstanding traffic, urban design and site plan issues.
It is recommended that Council provide direction to staff and the peer reviewteam detailing
any further information it requires to enable it to make a decision respecting the proposed
official plan and zoning by-law amendments.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The cost of the Peer Reviews is being charged back to the applicants. The applicants have
submitted a Letter of Credit to cover the total upset costs of the peer reviews.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The Strategic Plan has goals of well -planned growth and fiscal responsibility; efforts to
balance these goals are pursued to the extent possible in dealing with development
applications.
ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1 — Location Plan
—40—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
September 29, 2004 - 16 - Report No. PL04-112
Figure 2 — Concept Plan
Figures 3 — Revised Concept Plan
Appendix A — Market Peer Review
Appendix B — Economic Peer Review
Appendix C - Draft Minutes from Peer Review Meeting
Appendix D — John Winters comments on meeting minutes
Appendix E — Draft Official Plan Amendment Document
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Management Team Meeting — September 22, 2004
Prepared by. David A. Butler, MCIP, RPP,
Consulting Planner to the Town of Aurora
ZA-
eu an i art, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
rector of Planning
—41—
LOCATION PLAN
APPLICANT: WHITWELL DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
(FIRST PROFESSIONAL)
FILE: D09-10-03 & D14-28-03
AURORA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
00
SUBJECT LANDS
FIGURE 1
Location Plan created by the Town of Aurora Planning Department, MorclL4i22004. Modified September 22nd, 2004. Base data provided by York Region.
PLANNING
- SEPTEMBER
29, 2004
-PUBLIC
t'o'
D
OM
q III
-----------
-------
-- --
-oiltl
RED
CD
A=
201 412 a UI
(D m
W w
z
zi
z
<> 0_3 W.
gn
LOU-
CLOD
9
W0 u- 0
-J Wo C' Cit
4 LU
_j
er Lu G.c'q
Z Lwu
tu-
M IL
LU
U)
0 Lii
W W
0 j
3LIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
cn
w W
O U)
LL D
Q �d.
W
Q a
cl N
W N.
Z W
Z
H U)
W 0
wm
z
r
z
J
M
W
w
D
C9
u.
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
-45-
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Appendix "A"
W. SCOTT MORGAN, MCIP, RPP,
W. Scott Morgan & Associates Limited,
Consultant, Land Development and Planning,
15 Grenadier Heights,
Toronto, Ontario
M6S 2W5
Tel: (416) 762-6384 Fax: (416) 766-6503
September 10, 2004
Ms. Susan Seibert, MCIP, RPP,
Director of Planning,
The Town of Aurora,
100 John West Way,
Box No. 1000,
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
Dear Ms. Seibert:
Re: FINAL PEER REVIEW of Malone Given Parsons Ltd.'s (MGP's) July, 2003 "Market
Study & Impact Evaluation, Aurora Gateway Centre, Wellington Street East &
Highway 404, Town of Aurora, Ontario", Prepared for Whitwell Development Limited,
(c/o First Pro Shopping Centres), Aurora, Ontario
Acronyms:
WMC:
Warehouse Membership Club
FCTM:
Food & Convenience Type Merchandise
DSTM:
Department Store Type Merchandise
OSC:
Office Supplies & Computers
TBA/HAAS:
Tires, Batteries & Accessories and Home & Auto Supply
HIRM:
Home Improvement Related Merchandise
GLA:
Gross Leasable Area
Introduction:
Further to your authorization, I have finalized my peer review of the Malone Given Parsons
Ltd.'s (MGP's) market study and subsequent revisions submitted in support of Whitwell
Development Limited's (First Pro's) proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning
applications.
The most recently revised applications seek permissions for a retail/commercial power centre
development of up to 540,000 square feet (potentially up to 590,000 square feet with a future
50,000 square foot expansion of the Wal-Mart) located on 57.84 acres (excluding the 11.6
sum
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
acre office/hotel component) in the northwest quadrant of Highway 404 and Wellington
Street East.
The original component phasing was reported in MGP's study (page iv) as follows:
Phase 1— 2005
Wal-Mart
132,600 Sq. Ft.
WMC
129,700 Sq. Ft.
Specialty DSTM
92,700 Sq. Ft.
Service & Restaurant
23,200 Sq. Ft.
10-plex Movie Theatre
37,500 Sq. Ft.
Subtotal Phase 1
415,700 Sq. Ft.
Phase 2 — 2007
Supermarket or Home hnprovement Centre 114,000 Sq. Ft.
Specialty DSTM 46,300 Sq. Ft.
Service & Ancillary 11,600 Sq. Ft.
Subtotal Phase 2 171,900 Sq. Ft.
Total Phases 1 & 2 587,600 Sq. Ft.
The revised component phasing now anticipates first full years of operation in 2006 and 2007
rather than 2005 and 2007.
The revised component phasing also might not include a movie theatre as originally
proposed depending on whether the Aurora Centre secures a cinema (there is only room for
one cinema), and the supermarket might proceed as one of two modules (i.e. a 114,000
square foot module as originally proposed with 75,240 square feet of conventional
supermarket space, or more likely a 55,000 square foot module with 49,500 square feet of
conventional supermarket space).
The tables in MGP's original study were subsequently revised to include consumer telephone
survey shares that are now weighted by zonal population levels. As a result, I make reference
to MGP's original text but revised tables, as well as to MGP's textual and tabular responses
to questions or issues that I raised during the peer review process.
MGP has provided good assistance to me in the course of the peer review. In response to my
draft peer review tables, MGP reproduced my tables and prepared alternative tests for each
category of space investigated (a series of memorandum reports consolidated under a
covering letter of July 23, 2004 from MGP to Scott Morgan).
As a result of detailed discussions of my draft peer review tables and MGP's written
responses, I have prepared final revised peer review tables. These incorporate various
assumptions that test the outside margins of risk to the planned function of existing and
approved retail commercial developments elsewhere in Town. The assumptions underlying
these tables differ in some respects from alternatives that MGP has suggested, and hence, my
tabulations should be regarded as somewhat more conservative than MGP's.
-47-
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
John Winter Associates Limited's Peer Review:
The MGP study was peer reviewed by John Winter Associates Limited (JWAL) in February
23, 2004 for York Region. MGP has prepared a full and acceptable point by point response
which I was able to discuss in detail with MGP and John Winter at a market analysts'
meeting at John Winter's office on August 23, 2004.
Key concerns raised by JWAL included the following:
1. MGP's consumer telephone survey was conducted from March 11 to March 31, 2003
(including the March break). JWAL suggested that skewing of the results may have
resulted from respondents being distracted by the Iraq war, and that the results may
not be random because over 20,000 calls were required to obtain a quota sample of
1,100.
In response, MGP states that Mr. Paul Gauthier of Network Research has confirmed
that the Aurora survey was conducted in accordance with that firm's professional
procedures and standards of the Professional Marketing Research Society (PMRS).
The ratio of 23 calls per completed survey is typical of the regional scale suburban
surveys that Network Research has undertaken in other markets during different
months, and the response and refusal rates in the Aurora survey are not related to the
March break or respondents' preoccupation with TV coverage of the Iraq war. In Mr.
Gauthier's experience, the ratio of calls to completions is higher in large urban
centres where the public is frequently surveyed (respondent fatigue) and potential
respondents have access to call identifier and call screening devices. The ratio of
calls to completions is also higher in rural sub -areas where inconsistencies between
postal codes and Zone boundaries lead to extra calls to ensure the integrity of the
sample. Moreover, the longer the survey, the higher the refusal rates. hi addition, Mr.
John Smart of SM Research (who as a specialist in survey sampling serves on
PMRS's Response Rate Committee) has provided an opinion letter stating that his
review of the Aurora survey finds it to have been a random sampling that is
representative of shopping patterns in the Aurora market.
2. MGP used 2001 census income data for Zones 1 & 2, but 1996 census income data
for Zones 3, 4 & 5. JWAL suggested that the 2001 census data should have been used
in all zones.
MGP has since corrected this in the revised MGP tables using more current data that
was not available when the MGP report was originally drafted.
3. JWAL questioned why MGP did not explicitly factor in the Vaughan Mills
development at Major Mackenzie and Highway 400, or the Wal-Mart development in
Keswick.
MGP's response is that the competitive environment in each Zone was considered in
deriving future estimates of local capture from each Zone. Also taken into account
were the effects of a potential Wal-Mart in Stouffville.
4. JWAL also questioned the survey shares for individual supermarkets (e.g. Sobeys).
own
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
4
In my experience, the consumer telephone survey is a reliable instrument for
estimating the aggregate supermarket shares by survey Zone. However, consumer
telephone surveys do not typically provide a reliable basis for estimating the shares
obtained from each Zone by individual supermarkets. For example, the random
geographic distribution of respondents may lead to the understatement of the support
(survey shares) for supermarkets having strong close -quarter draws, and the
overstatement of the support for supermarkets with broader draws. MGP has used
consultant judgment to derive the market shares of individual supermarkets based on
the aggregate and individual shares derived by survey, as well as the size, age, and
banner of individual supermarkets, the location and strength of competing facilities,
and in-store inspections.
5. JWAL asked MGP to weight the survey data by population (the proportion of surveys
did not match the proportion of the residents in certain zones).
The revised MGP tables are now weighted appropriately.
6. JWAL was concerned that the extension of Highway 404 may not proceed quickly
enough to permit Phase 1 to have the extensive reach attributed to it by MGP.
The MGP analysis is based on the existing road patterns, and is not reliant on future
highway improvements.
7. JWAL noted that the proposed cinema is not supported by any market information,
although JWAL was of the opinion that Aurora has no alternative cinema locations.
MGP is of the opinion that the market should decide the preferred location, either at
the Aurora Gateway site or the Morguard site (Aurora Centre).
8. JWAL took issue with the high local capture rates attributed to the proposed Wal-
Mart, particularly from affluent Zone 1 residents (40%), noting that the shares
projected for a peripherally located Wal-Mart in Aurora are almost double those
obtained by the more centralized Wal-Mart in Newmarket (22.3%).
MGP's response is that the local capture rate is determined principally by the local
competitive market. In Newmarket, the competitive environment includes multiple
promotional and major department store choices and a substantial array of big box
retail. In comparison, Aurora will have only two promotional department stores
(Zellers and Wal-Mart). Hence, MGP assumed 50% outflow from Zone 1 and 50%
local capture (39.5% to Wal-Mart and 10.5% to Zellers). MGP recognizes that the
higher sales implied by the higher local capture rate from Zone 1 accruing to Wal-
Mart accentuate Wal-Mart's impacts. Conversely, JWAL's suggestion that Wal-
Mart's local capture rate is too high in Zone 1 implies that Wal-Mart would
otherwise have lower sales and lower impacts than tested by MGP.
9. JWAL was concerned that with
addition to the new Loblaws, th
square feet per capita in 2007)
e
the introduction of the First Pro supermarket in
provision of supermarket
would greatly exceed the
space in Aurora (6.8
average provision of
—49—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
supermarket space in most other markets (3.0 to 3.5 square feet per capita). JWAL
suggested that this would be sufficient to cause closure(s).
With the reduction in size of the First Pro supermarket to 75,240 square feet of
conventional supermarket space (exclusive of non-food "plus departments"), or more
likely, to 49,500 square feet of conventional supermarket space, plus the inclusion of
70,000 square feet of conventional supermarket space at Loblaws on St. John's
Sideroad, the future per capita space ratio declines to 4.34 to 3.96 square feet in 2006
(i.e. 295,890 to 270,150 square feet divided by 68,160 persons in Zone 1). Although
such per capita space ratios might appear to suggest moderate short-term supermarket
over -storing, this simplistic arithmetic calculation does not take into account the
service areas of certain individual supermarkets that extend to populations beyond
Zone 1 (e.g. Loblaws will serve a portion of Newmarket's population and hence
would cause the per capita space ratio to decline).
10. JWAL stated that the Home Depot was seen as a partial assist to resuscitate the
Aurora Centre (Zellers and Sobeys), and that the market support was not particularly
favourable for two home improvement centres.
The proposed Rona and the existing Home Depot will tend to split the home
improvement market. The home improvement market continues to grow through real
expenditure growth that as yet does not appear to have peaked. The two chains
compete directly, and frequently locate near each other and in the same communities.
Although MGP agrees that the home improvement market in Aurora will be very
competitive over the short term, MGP sees no indication of impacts leading to the
closure of Home Depot or attendant risks for the existing Home Hardware.
11. JWAL was concerned that the First Pro site would duplicate existing anchor stores in
and proximate to Aurora Centre (Zellers/Sobeys/Home Depot) and act as an
intervening opportunity to any trade now coming to the Aurora Centre from the east.
JWAL suggested that the Aurora Centre has not yet settled into its market, and hence,
the First Pro development may be premature and may undermine the Aurora Centre's
planned function.
MGP finds that the strength of the Bayview Wellington Area has increased over time.
MGP also suggests that the change in timing of the first phase to 2006 rather than
2005 as originally proposed, together with continued growth in market potential and
good prospects for outflow recovery, help to reduce or eliminate JWAL's concerns
about prematurity.
JWAL concluded that beyond the 2003 base year, the Wal-Mart, supermarket, and home
improvement centre should be delayed for three to five years (to 2006 to 2008) after a
200,000 square foot first phase proceeds with a cinema, WMC, restaurants, and ancillary
stores and services.
MGP has tested for phased development between 2006 and 2007. Hence, there is only one
year's difference between MGP's timing and the outside margin of John Winter's suggested
delay.
—50—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
At the market analysts' meeting at John Winter's office on August 23, 2004, JWAL, MGP,
and Morgan agreed that a one year difference in first full year of operation should not present
serious problems.
JWAL advised that if the Town were to approve a first full year of operation of Phase 1 in
2006, he would not oppose such a decision.
A copy of the sign -off letter summarizing the technical discussions of the August 23, 2004
market analysts' meeting is attached as Appendix B.
Other Planned Retail Commercial Developments:
My peer review is conducted in the market context of other planned retail commercial
developments within Aurora and Richmond Hill.
Within Aurora, about 130,000 square feet are designated commercial but are unbuilt (per
MGP page 21 overleaf revised as reproduced in attached Appendix C), excluding 115,012
square feet within the "Future Bayview Wellington Cluster Expansion (NW)" which requires
a rezoning and the submission of supporting market and traffic studies:
Trinity Development (NW Wellington East & Bayview) 38,689 Sq. Ft.
Aurora Centre Expansion Area (Morguard) 39,505 Sq. Ft.
Sobeys Expansion Area (Morguard) 50,000 Sq. Ft.
Subtotal 128,194 Sq. Ft.
The currently approved caps on the Community Commercial designations on the Morguard
REIT and the Home Depot/Trinity sites (375,000 square feet) and the adjacent Campus
Commercial designation (100,000 square feet where Sobeys is located) together total
475,000 square feet. An application to delete the Campus Commercial designation and
extend the Community Commercial designation over the combined site area would result in
the same total amount of space (475,000 square feet) but without the requirement for an
enclosed mall. This 475,000 square foot cap could be increased to 590,000 square feet
subject to market and traffic justification.
Hence, the lands comprising the Morguard REIT and the Home Depot/Trinity sites could
support somewhat more space (590,000 square feet) than is proposed on the First Pro site
(540,000 square feet) without any subsequent expansion of the proposed Wal-Mart.
Including the 106,685 square foot Loblaws store now being built at Bayview and St. John's
Sideroad, plus about 160,000 square feet at other locations along Bayview north of
Wellington (reference: attached Appendix C), the total potential space along Bayview
Avenue would approximate 850,000 square feet, or over 300,000 square feet more than First
Pro without an expanded Wal-Mart.
Within Richmond Hill, the First Pro proposal would also be competitive with Riotrin
Properties (Richmond Hill) Inc.'s proposed 475,000 square foot power centre in the northeast
quadrant of Leslie Street and Elgin Mills Road that is now before the Ontario Municipal
Board. First Pro is opposing Riotrin's proposal.
—51—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Scope of Peer Review:
I have reviewed the empirical inputs into MGP's revised analysis and am generally satisfied
that these inputs conform to standard practice.
As a matter of record, I accept the following parameters in MGP's revised tables:
• base year of 2003, and test years in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011, assuming a
first full year of operation of Phase I in 2006, and a first full year of operation of
Phase 2 in 2007,
• 2002 value of the dollar, updated by one year of real growth to 2003 to correspond to
the 2003 base year population levels,
• current and future population levels unadjusted for the Census undercount,
• 2000 per capita household income indexes for Zones 1 to 5 (MGP pages 34-35),
• regression equations for indexing incomes to expenditures (MGP page 36),
• real per capita expenditure growth for the DSTM (department store type
merchandise), TBA/HAAS (tires/batteries/accessories and home & auto supply),
HIRM (home improvement related merchandise), and FCTM (food & convenience
type merchandise) categories,
• current (base year) local capture rates derived from the consumer telephone survey,
• inflow estimates based on the licence plate surveys conducted in February, 2003 at
nine locations (3,276 plates in total),
• Wal-Mart sales performance levels (including in its first full year of operation), and
• Sales per square foot tests for the identified residuals.
Because MGP has not adjusted the population forecasts for the census undercount, I have
recast the analysis to incorporate the final revised undercount for 1996 (the 2001 figures are
preliminary). By 2011, this adjustment increases the trade area population by 8,515 persons.
Unlike MGP, which includes TBA/HAAS spending in their definition of DSTM, I have
chosen to exclude TBA/HAAS expenditures from DSTM expenditures, and instead do a
separate run for this category. My reason for doing so is to separate out spending in such
stores as Canadian Tire to gauge whether any expansion potential exists, and whether a
closure/relocation is possible. Consequently, the specialty DSTM residuals that I identify are
necessarily lower than MGP's.
Sensitivity Testing:
In the accompanying sensitivity tests, I have employed certain inputs that are modestly at
variance with MGP's, although such variance would only marginally affect the outcomes.
These inputs include the following:
• Ontario per capita 2002 DSTM expenditures excluding TBA/HAAS (MGP at $3,522,
versus Morgan at $3,511),
• Ontario per capita 2002 TBAMAAS expenditures (MGP at $259, versus Morgan at
$281),
-52-
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Ontario per capita 2002 HIRM expenditures (MGP at $280 retail and $241
wholesale, versus Morgan at $271 retail and $217 wholesale), and
• Ontario per capita 2002 food expenditures (MGP at $1,846, versus Morgan at
$1,900).
I have employed my independent judgment on the future local capture rates that Aurora
would attract assuming that the First Pro site is developed at the scale proposed. The most
noticeable differences occur in Zone 5 (area west of Leslie Street in the Town of East
Gwillimbury and area east of Highway 400 in the Township of King) where I think that
draws from the westerly portions of this zone will be weaker than originally estimated by
MGP. The shares that I apply are compromise shares after deliberations with MGP.
I have also applied inflow factors that generally correspond to MGP's estimates. However, I
have applied the percentage inflow factors only to 2006. This maintains the dollar inflow at
the 2006 level over the balance of the forecast period.
In my view, MGP's alternative of maintaining the percentage inflow over the entire forecast
period could have the effect of exaggerating the dollar inflow potential. For example, MGP's
department store inflow would increase by $21.6 million from a 2003 base year level of $5.0
million (page 82) to $26.6 million by 2011 (facing page 83). This compares to Morgan's
increase in department store inflow of $15.4 million from a 2003 base year level of $5.1
million to $20.5 million by 2011 (attached Table 6).
The inflow effects are much more pronounced for the specialty DSTM category.
Although I understand MGP's argument that my treatment of inflow in this manner is
probably conservative, it at least helps define the outside risks of sales transfer if inflow is
more constrained than estimated by MGP.
Principal Findings of Peer Review:
The accompanying tables summarize in tabular form the principal findings of my peer
review. The tables in large measure parallel the format used in the MGP analyses.
Tables Ila) & (b): Population Forecasts Unadjusted & Adjusted for Census Undercount
Table 1(a) reproduces the population forecasts used in the MGP study, whereas Table l(b)
adjusts the population forecasts by the 3.24% undercount for York Region as footnoted.
The populations for 2001 correspond to those in attached Appendix A-1 where per capita
household income indexes are calculated for the year 2000 from the 2001 census. The
income indexes are translated by means of the footnoted regression equations into per capita
expenditures for the FCTM, DSTM, TBA/HAAS, and HIRM categories.
My per capita household income indexes differ modestly from MGP's revised tables:
—53—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
MGP
Morgan
Zone 1
132.5
132.0
Zone 2
109.7
110.3
Zone 3
157.3
155.8
Zone 4
98.7
94.4
Zone 5
132.4
138.4
Tables 2-5: Study Area DSTM, TBA/HAAS, HIRM, and FCTM Expenditure Potentials
Tables 2-5 multiply the populations in attached Table 1(b) by their corresponding per capita
expenditures in Appendix A-1. Real growth of 1.5% per annum compounded to 2011 is
applied to all expenditure categories except FCTM, which is increased by real growth of
1.0% per annum compounded to 2011.
Table 6: Study Area Department Store DSTM Demands & Residual Space
In attached Table 6, my department store shares of DSTM spending are higher than MGP's
because of the exclusion of TBA/HAAS spending in my DSTM definition.
The base year local capture is from MGP's consumer telephone survey.
Future local capture rates are not greatly dissimilar to MGP's estimates except in Zone 5
where in my view the First Pro site on the eastern periphery of Aurora will not draw as
strongly as MGP estimates from as far west as Highway 400 (17% by 2007 increasing to
19% by 2009). For purposes of this peer review, I have adopted a future local capture rate of
8.0% (a compromise share after discussions with MGP).
Table 6 includes rounded estimates of Wal-Mart's performance, but these are not dissimilar
to MGP's (actually estimated under separate cover by The Climans Group hic. for MGP). In
my opinion, these estimated sales volumes and their subsequent ramping -up appear to be
reasonable expectations at least until 2007 (i.e. when Wal-Mart's sales reach $77.6 million or
$585 per square foot). I have discounted the first full year of operation in 2005 below $500
per square foot (to $485 per square foot), as did Climans/MGP (to $486 per square foot).
The resulting residual potentials can support the proposed Wal-Mart without significant sales
transfers directed against Zellers. If Wal-Mart were to achieve such ramped -up sales ($77.6
million by 2007, $86.2 million by 2008, and $96.8 million by 2011), Zellers would lose only
about $0.1 million by 2007 before regaining its base year sales levels or more by 2011. The
modest impact in 2007 would cause Zellers sales performance to drop from $172 per square
foot in 2003 to $171 per square foot in 2007 (minus 0.5% impact). By 2011, the proposed
Wal-Mart would achieve about 5 times the sales of Zellers.
One difference between my estimates and those of MGP is in the amount of inflow that Wal-
Mart could attract. With a Wal-Mart store in Uxbridge, another slated for Keswick, and
another proposed in Stouffville, I am not confident that inflow would increase in dollar terms
over the entire projection period. MGP's additional inflow (over and above what I would
expect) would be sufficient to eliminate the modest sales transfers in 2007 and contribute to
future sales gains by both stores.
—54—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
to
The future local capture from Aurora residents ranges from 50% to 60% in Table 6
(compared to MGP's maximum share of 58%). This would still yield a significant amount of
outflow to support major department stores in Newmarket and Richmond Hill. This would
not be out of line with the split between major and discount department store shares across
the province (roughly 50% to 60% in favour of discount department stores), but represents a
shift from current shares (roughly 70% in favour of major department stores for Zone 1
residents per MGP Appendix C-2).
One other concern is that Zone 1 residents (from Aurora and northern Richmond Hill), with
very high per capita household incomes, now spend only 15.3% of their department store
dollars in Wal-Mart stores (per MGP Appendix C-1).
This is much lower than in any other Zone, and may in part reflect the congestion affecting
trips from Aurora principally to the Wal-Mart in Newmarket (Woodland Hills Shopping
Centre) and to a lesser extent to the Wal-Marts in Markham (Markville Shopping Centre) and
Richmond Hill (Bayview & Major MacKenzie).
In Table 6, assuming that Zellers maintains its $10.0 million share from Zone 1, Zone 1
residents would spend almost:
• 40% of their department store dollars in Wal-Mart stores in 2006 (i.e. $38.1 million
in Wal-Mart sales compared to $96.2 million in Zone l's department store potential),
and
45% of their department store dollars in Wal-Mart stores in 2007 (Le. $44.0 million
in Wal-Mart sales compared to $98.2 million in Zone 1's department store potential).
In my opinion, there is a risk that Zone 1 residents may not shift their spending away from
major department stores to this extent. This is important because Zone 1 contributes about
55% of Wal-Mart's projected sales in 2007, and even more in subsequent years.
The overall implication is that if high income earners in Zone 1 are not induced to spend
such proportions of their department store dollars in Wal-Mart, then the First Pro Wal-Mart
will not perform as well as projected by Climans/MGP beyond 2007 or tested by myself.
The principle cited by MGP is that lower Wal-Mart shares translate into lower Wal-Mart
sales and in turn lower impacts. My acceptance of this principle helps support my conclusion
that the proposed Wal-Mart will not have significant adverse competitive effects on Zellers
in Aurora Centre.
Table 7: Study Area Specialty DSTM Demands & Residual Space
Table 7 contains specialty DSTM shares that are net of the department store share of DSTM
spending and net of the WMC share of DSTM spending.
The base year Aurora capture estimates are derived from the consumer survey results
adjusted to net out TBA/HAAS spending based on data supplied to me by MGP.
—55—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
tt
In Table 7, Aurora's future local capture rate from Zone 1 residents rises to 60% (compared
to an initial 60% and an ultimate 67% in MGP's table facing Page 66). The future local
capture rates for residents of all other Zones are not dissimilar to MGP's estimates.
A key finding of Table 7 is that the specialty DSTM residuals would support between:
• 250,000 square feet (rounded) and 300,000 square feet (rounded) by 2007, and
• 340,000 square feet (rounded) and 400,000 square feet (rounded) by 2011.
This compares with 242,000 square feet (rounded) of specialty DSTM space that could
proceed along Bayview north of Wellington, excluding the First Pro site, but including
98,000 square feet (rounded) for a "Potential Future Bayview & Wellington Cluster
Expansion" (MGP's wording) that would require rezoning supported by market and traffic
impact studies and a site plan acceptable to the Town (see Table 7 overleaf and MGP page
21 overleaf).
This also compares with 381,000 square feet (rounded) of specialty DSTM space that could
proceed along Bayview north of Wellington and at the First Pro site.
This also compares with 283,000 square feet (rounded) of specialty DSTM space that could
proceed along Bayview north of Wellington and at the First Pro site if the 98,000 square feet
requiring rezoning for the "Potential Future Bayview & Wellington Cluster Expansion" does
not proceed.
The implication is that there would be a significant shortfall in residual potential and
unacceptable impacts only if all of the 381,000 square feet of specialty DSTM proceeded by
2007. However, this is an unrealistic expectation given that the rezoning required for the
"Potential Future Bayview & Wellington Cluster Expansion" will likely be delayed until
2011 at which time the available residual potential (340,000 square feet to 400,000 square
feet) would be sufficient to support all such space.
The 283,000 square feet (rounded) of specialty DSTM space that could proceed along
Bayview north of Wellington and at the First Pro site (assuming that the 98,000 square feet
requiring rezoning for the "Potential Future Bayview & Wellington Cluster Expansion" does
not proceed in the short to medium term) would fall fully within the margins of the identified
residual space by 2007. This finding fully supports the specialty DSTM component sought by
First Pro with phasing over two years to 2007.
This 283,000 square feet (rounded) of specialty DSTM space would represent an 80%
increase in the existing 349,400 square feet of specialty DSTM space in Aurora (per MGP's
DSTM inventory of 549,900 square feet in Appendix A-5 adjusted to net out Zeller's
114,400 square feet and 66,100 square feet of TBA/HAAS space).
I agree with MGP that there is no need to give, or advantage to giving, preferential treatment
to any other proposed addition of commercial space since all can be fully phased into this
market in the period 2006 to 2007.
—56—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
12
The Aurora Gateway Centre can proceed over the same time frame as the other potential
developments without adverse competitive effects, including undue competition for available
tenants.
Table 8: Study Area TBA/HAAS (Canadian Tire) Demands & Residual Space
The key finding of Table 8 is that only about 15,000 square feet (rounded) of Home & Auto
Supply space could enter this market by 2007, and 30,000 square feet (rounded) by 2011.
The market implication is that the existing Canadian Tire store is unlikely to undergo a
closure/relocation from its current site.
Table 9: Study Area HIRM Demands & Residual Space
The key finding of Table 9 is that that First Pro's proposed second phase development of a
Home Improvement Centre such as Rona (Building Box) at 114,000 square feet could enter
this market by 2007 without significant or prolonged directional sales transfers against Home
Depot which will have had about four years to settle into the market.
This assumes high levels of future inflow (30%) and high levels of contractor sales (35%).
This also assumes a future 65% local capture rate from Zone 1 residents (up from 27.5% in
the base year). This means that despite the presence of Home Depot, significant amounts of
HIRM expenditure potential currently flow out of Aurora, and will continue to do so (but to a
lesser extent) even after a second new format Home Improvement Centre enters the market.
By 2007, Home Depot could face transfers of up to $3.9 million (the short -fall in residual
potential in 2007), although the more realistic expectation is for the new First Pro Home
Improvement Centre to split the short -fall in residual potential with Home Depot (i.e. both
stores would face declines of roughly $2 million or 5% of Home Depot's base year sales).
Full recovery and potential sales gains would emerge by 2008.
Assuming "like competes with like", the expectation is that First Pro's Home Improvement
Centre will not compete as directly with the smaller 23,800 square foot Home Hardware
operation at 289 Wellington Street East as it will with Home Depot.
The market implication is that both new format Home Improvement Centres can effectively
serve this market with mutual benefits flowing from having regional and community -oriented
sites. Both stores will achieve more or less the same sales volume in 2007 and 2008 before
sales increases are achievable after 2008.
As a final note, it is not uncommon for there to be two new format Home Improvement
Centres operating in the same market, or even a short distance away in the same street
quadrant without the first entrant being placed at risk or made vulnerable to competition
from the newest entrant.
Table 10: Study Area Supermarket Demands & Residual Space
Table 10 incorporates a number of assumptions on the scale of new space entering the
market:
—57—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
13
• The new Loblaws store under construction at Bayview and St. John's Sideroad is
assumed to have a first full year of operation in 2005 and to contain 70,000 square
feet of conventional supermarket space (66% supermarket), net of other "plus
departments" and mezzanine space in an overall building area of 125,277 square
feet (per site plan), and
• The proposed supermarket on the First Pro site is assumed to have a first full year
of operation in 2006 and to contain either 49,500 square feet of conventional
supermarket space (90% supermarket) within an overall building area of 55,000
square feet, or 75,240 square feet of conventional supermarket space (66%
supermarket) within an overall building area of 114,000 square feet.
These assumptions are in contrast to my draft peer review tables, which assumed 90%
conventional supermarket space in Loblaws (tested at 88,830 square feet) and First Pro
(tested at 102,600 square feet).
Table 10 assumes a significant reduction in the amount of conventional supermarket space to
be added to the market, testing 66,430 fewer square feet with the 55,000 square foot module,
(compared to 46,190 fewer square feet with the 114,000 square foot module).
In Table 10, I have assumed that the supermarket share of FCTM spending would not
increase as a result of a 55,000 square foot supermarket proceeding at the First Pro site plus
the new Loblaws on St. John's Sideroad. This is in contrast to MGP's assumptions (i.e. 2.5%
increases in Zones 1 & 2, and 5.0% increases in Zones 3, 4 & 5).
With many intervening supermarket shopping opportunities all over the Study Area, I am not
lead to believe that two additional supermarkets in Aurora (new Loblaws plus First Pro)
would alter supermarket shopping patterns across great distances to the degree assumed by
MGP.
I have otherwise paralleled MGP's assumed local capture rates.
Given that I assume a higher per capita FCTM expenditure for Ontario than MGP, I calculate
about 6% more dollars available to Aurora supermarkets than MGP.
In Table 10 overleaf, I apply the. same survey -based base year and fixture supermarket shares
as MGP. While 1 have doubts about a telephone survey's ability to accurately predict the
sales of individual supermarkets, and suspect that the predicted base year sales of Sobeys
(Aurora Centre) and IGA (St. Andrews) are too low, I have none -the -less applied MGP's
survey shares. These two stores are the lowest performers on a square foot basis in the base
year ($463 and $470 per square foot respectively), but such performances are well within
industry averages. All other supermarkets perform well above industry averages, particularly
No Frills at the Aurora Shopping Centre.
The opening of supermarkets on the Loblaws and First Pro sites represents an 80% to 100%
increase in the amount of existing supermarket space depending on which module First Pro
selects.
The directional impacts are expected to be greatest against No Frills (Aurora Shopping
Centre) and Dominion (Aurora Village). While the directional impacts cause the sales
Im
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
14
performance levels of both of these stores to fall significantly, these stores start from very
high base year performances, and even with impacts, remain well above industry averages.
The Sobeys store and the IGA (St. Andrews) are assumed to gradually increase their sales
volumes to levels well above their base year performances.
The Price Chopper (Yonge Street) experiences large declines in sales initially from a high
base year performance, with the result that it remains well above industry averages over the
projection period.
The overall average performance per square foot of Aurora supermarkets remains high
throughout the projection period, thereby supporting the notion of adding new supermarket
space to better serve the community.
MGP also tested the larger 114,000 square foot module, which is patterned on a Loblaw
Properties Limited's new format concept, and found that it could proceed on First Pro's site
without adverse competitive effects. Although the larger module appears to fit based on
MGP's assumed tenant (a new format Loblaws banner) and market share assumptions, I have
focused on the smaller module as the most likely and practical tenant option. My finding is
that the larger module does yield higher impacts, but these all fall within acceptable
tolerances.
Table 11: Study Area Specialty Food Demands & Residual Space
In Table 11, the consequences of approving the First Pro supermarket are for a declining
market support base for the specialty food sector. Initial sales transfers will dissipate by
2009. Thereafter, sales gains emerge.
Table 12: Study Area Warehouse Membership Club (WMC) Demands
In Table 12, I have paralleled MGP's assumed shares of DSTM and FCTM spending, as well
as the local capture rates.
I have modestly altered the inflow assumptions (Morgan at 25% versus MGP at 35%) and the
proportion of wholesale sales to businesses and institutions (Morgan at 33% versus MGP at
25%).
The analysis supports the introduction of a WMC into Aurora, although whether it is a
Costco or Sam's Club has yet to be determined.
Costco is differentiated from Sam's Club by appealing to the more affluent who seek the low
prices typically offered on high quality consumer goods. As analysts, we do not yet have the
collective knowledge of how a Sam's Club functions in the Ontario market since so few have
been open for so little time.
New Format 10-Plex Cinema
MGP did not conduct a quantitative analysis of First Pro's prospective new format cinema,
and a cinema use has tentatively been dropped from First Pro's site plan application.
—59—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEP.TEMBER 29, 2004
15
Typically, a quantitative analysis would necessitate obtaining for the Toronto TVM gross
box office receipts, theatre rankings, numbers of screens, and market shares for Famous
Players Inc., Loews Cineplex Entertainment, and various independent operators. This
information can be purchased from ACNielsen EDI, 8350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 210,
Beverly Hills, CA 90211.It might also involve consulting such Statistics Canada publications
as Catalogue No. 87-211 Annual (Canada's Culture, Heritage and Identity: A Statistical
Perspective).
Aurora has sought to attract a cinema for some time. An application has been submitted for a
cinema on the Morguard site on Bayview north of Wellington.
A cinema in the vicinity of Aurora Centre would help strengthen the community level
commercial functions that have been built or are planned for this area. However, this is a use
that might also benefit from a regional location such as offered by the First Pro site.
Market forces will ultimately determine the best location based on the available options
Additional Issues Arising From Peer Review Process:
The First Pro site is being proposed for a large scale power centre to be built in two phases
(first fill years in 2006 and 2007 per MGP's most recent submission) to serve a broad
regional trade area centered on Aurora.
At this scale, it has been argued that the First Pro power centre could have strong competitive
effects on certain anchor stores on Bayview Avenue north of Wellington Street East,
including Zellers, the Home Depot, and Sobeys, as well as the Loblaws store now under
construction one -and -a half miles to the north on St. John's Sideroad (opening November
2004). The key concern was that reduced shopping traffic to any of these anchors would
weaken the nodes or centres in which they operate.
Response:
It is stressed that the concentration of retail space at Bayview and Wellington at the Aurora
Centre and the Trinity site has improved this node's market positioning since Zellers began
operation in 1997, and the expectation is that it will continue to do so. The addition of Home
Depot and the development of adjacent retail on the Trinity site, together with Morguard's
further development of vacant retail lands around Zellers and Sobeys will help this node to
further strengthen and consolidate into a unique and diversified commercial complex. With
the ongoing expansions of and improvements to this node, it is expected that existing and
new tenants will benefit from mutually reinforcing draws, and will be better able to
withstand competition from the Aurora Gateway Centre. Moreover, existing and new tenants
in the Bayview and Wellington node have the opportunity to benefit fiom the regional draws
of the First Pro site by potentially accessing a customer base that is too far removed for this
node to attract by itself.
On the department store side, Zellers has not been able to significantly improve its market
share, as evidenced by Zone l's 85% (rounded) outflow of department store spending as
confirmed by MGP's consumer telephone survey. It is expected that Wal-Mart can improve
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
16
the local capture rate while still leaving significant expenditure outflow available for the
support of major department stores in particular in Newmarket and Richmond Hill.
It has also been argued that the First Pro site has the potential to duplicate the regional scale
and tenant mix of retail facilities anticipated on Bayview Avenue north of Wellington Street
East.
Response:
The scale and type of retail facilities on Bayview Avenue north of Wellington Street East are
differentiated from the First Pro power centre for the following reasons:
• First Pro's Aurora Gateway Centre is a new format regional power centre by virtue of
its location, highway exposure, regional access, size, tenant composition, and market
function, all of which will contribute to its anticipated regional drawing power;
• Certain new format tenancies in the Bayview-Wellington node might overlap with
others at the First Pro site, although such overlap is a common occurrence between
regional shopping centres and community shopping centres in Ontario, and would not
detract from their respective planned functions within the Town's commercial
hierarchical structure;
• The linear commercial development along Bayview Avenue north of Wellington
does not comprise a single regional node like the proposed Aurora Gateway Centre
with an integrated design under one management; and
• the Bayview-Wellington node is not functionally linked to other commercial sites
extending along Bayview Avenue about one -and -a -half miles to the north to the new
Loblaws store under construction on St. John's Sideroad, where intervening
commercial sites fall under different ownerships and management, and will have
different site sizes, tenancies, functions, store formats, designs, trade or service areas,
and locations.
The argument has also been made that existing anchor uses on Bayview Avenue (Zellers,
Sobeys, and Home Depot) would be vulnerable to impact from certain new format anchor
uses at the First Pro power centre.
Response:
The recent addition of Home Depot, the adjacent development underway at the Trinity site,
ongoing development of vacant lands around Zellers and Sobeys, the expectation for a
cinema complex to locate at the Aurora Centre, plus additional population growth in the
immediate vicinity, are expected to allay any such vulnerability to impact.
At this stage of its evolution, the Bayview-Wellington node will continue to gain strength
with ongoing expansions and improvements that will better enable existing and prospective
tenants to compete effectively with the Aurora Gateway Centre.
Anchor tenants such as Zellers, Sobeys, and Home Depot can and do co -exist with like -
competitors in the same market, and tend to settle into their markets faster and more easily
when market demands are increasing, as is the case in Aurora.
—61—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
17
The investigations in this peer review reveal that sufficient short to medium term market
potential exists to support not only the First Pro development, but also other planned sites
enumerated in Table 7 overleaf. Under these market conditions, the Bayview Wellington
community commercial area can be expected to successfully emerge as a unique and
attractive shopping node. The same can be said for designated sites to the north on Bayview
Avenue.
MGP has advanced the argument that timing is a significant factor in the ability to introduce
the Aurora Gateway Centre into this market successfully, and that it is important that the
initial phases be implemented as soon as possible. At the same time, MGP expects it may be
a number of years before development is completed at Aurora Centre, although the ultimate
phases of expansion of the "Future Bayview Wellington Cluster Expansion (NW)" and First
Pro's Wal-Mart, for which there are no current applications, will involve increasing the
capacity of both nodes through rezoning and submission of appropriate market and traffic
studies.
I accept MGP's position that the most appropriate solution is to encourage the phased
development of both the Aurora Centre and the Aurora Gateway Centre concurrently. The
MGP and peer review analyses of the market support for the major tenant categories
demonstrate that phasing of development along the Bayview corridor and at the Fast Pro site
can proceed in the same time frame without risk of significant adverse competitive effects.
Conclusions & Recommendations:
The process of obtaining additional input and comments from MGP leads me to conclude
that:
Aurora has now matured to the extent that an additional retail commercial node with a
strong regional orientation is warranted to attract regional trade and to reduce outflow;
Aurora has also matured to the extent that the community commercial node focused on
Bayview and Wellington is well positioned to expand with "baby box" new format retail
outlets to complement the existing anchor stores; and
• Aurora will require commercial space at both the Bayview/Wellington node and the First
Pro site, as well as at locations elsewhere in the community in future years. This is borne
out by the MGP revised analyses and the market tests attached to this peer review.
As in other markets, I would recommend protecting the smaller scale retail uses in Aurora's
historic core area and in the Bayview Wellington node. In this regard, Council might consider
imposing a size restriction on the "baby box" new format retail units in the First Pro
development, such as a 5,000 square foot minimum for First Pro's specialty DSTM stores,
perhaps in combination with a specified number of units and/or a specified percentage of the
total specialty DSTM space to be made up of units less than 5,000 square feet.
-62-
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
18
Council might also consider imposing a use restriction that would prevent a beer store or a liquor
store or both from relocating to the First Pro development. Such a use restriction would prevent
Aurora's historic core area (which has the LOBO) and the Aurora Shopping Centre (which has
the Beer Store) from losing important anchors that attract shoppers to the Yonge Street corridor.
Council could revisit this use restriction in the future once First Pro's actual impacts are known.
I do not see the need to restrict banks and other financial institutions from locating at the First
Pro site given that eight banks are located on Yonge Street (six in Aurora's historic core area,
one in the Aurora Shopping Centre, and one in the Canadian Tire Plaza).
I also do not see the need to restrict a cinema use at the First Pro site since the market will
ultimately determine the optimal location between two available options (Morguard or First Pro).
It is important for new format retail tenants seeking to enter the Aurora market to be able to
choose between existing sites and the First Pro site. Such choice has the potential to keep rents
competitive and prevent artificial restrictions on where new retailers might locate. The choice
might prompt certain of these retailers to hasten their entry into the market.
My peer review has not specifically assessed the impact of a 50,000 square feet expansion of
Wal-Mart at the First Pro site. However, I would not object to the designation of this space
subject to a subsequent market evaluation if a rezoning for this expansion is sought at a future
date. This would provide flexibility in the event that existing or proposed zoning elsewhere in
Aurora is not taken up.
In conclusion, my overall recommendation from a market perspective is for Council to
approve the First Pro proposal with appropriate size and use restrictions.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Scott Morgan, MCIP, RPP
(W. Scott Morgan & Associates Limited)
Original Sent By FAX (416) 926-0045 to the attention of Mr. David Butler
—63—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
W. SCOTT MORGAN, MCIP, RPP,
W. Scott Morgan & Associates Limited,
Consultant, Land Development and Planning,
15 Grenadier Heights,
Toronto, Ontario
M6S 2W5
Tel: (416) 762-6384 Fax: (416) 766-6503
September 21, 2004
Ms. Susan Seibert, MCIP, RPP,
Director of Planning,
The Town of Aurora,
100 John West Way,
Box No. 1000,
Aurora, Ontario
LAG 6J1
Dear Ms. Seibert:
Re: Response to John Winter & Associates Limited's (JWAL's) Peer Review
Comments of September 17, 2004 for York Region Regarding Malone Given
Parsons' (MGP's) Retail Market & Impact Analysis, Proposed Large Format Retail
Centre, Aurora, Ontario
As a culmination of the market consultants' meeting and on -going discussions, John
Winter (JWAL) has submitted a subsequent memorandum (JWAL to Jeryl Jaque and
Scott Morgan, September 17, 2004) re -iterating concerns that he feels are as yet
unresolved.
Most of the issues raised by JWAL are covered in my Peer Review dated September 10,
2004 (i.e. Issues 1-11 on pages 3-6).
Two issues that apparently are still unresolved to JWAL's satisfaction relate to Issues 4
and 8. The issue of Sobeys' market share is resolved in my mind by my comments under
Issue 4.I can provide no further elaboration other than my stated opinion.
The issue of Wal-Mart's site share of 40% (originally raised in Section 6.3, page 6 of 14,
JWAL to James E. Stiver, Senior Planner, York Region, February 23, 2004 and re-
iterated in JWAL's September 17, 2004 memo) is covered in my comments under Issue
8. Rather than repeating those comments, I will expand on them as follows:
In the first place, JWAL insists that MGP's estimated Wal-Mart site share of 40%
obtained from Zone 1 residents is too high compared to the Newmarket Wal-Mart's site
shares obtained from Aurora residents as confirmed by surveys conducted by JWAL in
—64—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
1997 and 2000, and by MGP in 2003 (JWAL implies these are site shares — Scott Morgan
has not reviewed those studies to confirm this).
I contend that the Newmarket Wal-Mart's site shares obtained from Aurora residents are
not relevant to the Aurora market except as a matter of potential outflow recovery, and
provide a poor proxy for what site shares the Aurora Wal-Mart might obtain from Aurora
residents. The reasons are several:
The Newmarket Wal-Mart obtains a low site share from all Aurora residents (regardless
of distance separation, whereby conceivably higher site shares are obtained from Aurora
residents living closest to the Newmarket Wal-Mart). MGP's Zone 1 consists of
populations resident in Aurora and the northern part of Richmond Hill. To apply the
Newmarket Wal-Mart site share obtained from Aurora residents to Zone I would ignore
the fact that Zone 1 (Aurora and the northern part of Richmond Hill) is essentially one
city removed from Newmarket. One simply cannot equate the Newmarket Wal-Mart site
share obtained from Aurora residents with a proposed Aurora Wal-Mart site share also
obtained from Aurora residents (plus north Richmond Hill residents) because the Wal-
Mart is proposed in Aurora (same city) as opposed to being one city removed.
JWAL also argues that the Aurora Wal-Mart cannot obtain 40% + site shares at 5 km.
distance (presumably measured from Yonge Street) if the Newmarket Wal-Mart (4 km.
distant at Mulock) and its relocated successor Wal-Mart (7 km. distant at Woodland) do
not exceed a site share from Aurora residents of 12.5%.
My response is that distance by itself is not the major determinant of the Newmarket Wal-
Mart's site share obtained from Aurora residents. JWAL's assertion ignores travel time
and congestion, and the broad competitive array of other stores in the intervening
distance. hi my opinion, a Wal-Mart site closer to home in Aurora would overcome some
of the impediments to a higher Newmarket Wal-Mart site share obtained from Aurora
residents.
In my opinion, the Local Capture of department store potential is the preferred alternative
to the site share analysis. MGP tested the market using both the site share analysis and
market share (local capture) analysis. I adopted the latter approach in my Peer Review.
With the Aurora Wal-Mart, the intuitive market expectation is for the split between major
department stores and promotional department stores to go from a current level strongly
in favour of major department stores to a future equilibrium moderately in favour of
promotional department stores.
From my reading of JWAL, the starting point is Wal-Mart's sales estimates (supplied to
MGP by The Climans Group Inc.). I agree with MGP that the Guelph precedent sets the
tone for testing the outside risk of the proposed Wal-Mart in Aurora. If the site share is
lower than 40%, then the consequently lower Wal-Mart sales would translate into lower
impacts. I also agree that since no examples of an affluent community having a low Wal-
Mart site share could be identified, it would then be appropriate to test a lower range of
site shares. JWAL appears to disagree with the test of a range of site shares.
—65—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
In summary, I would characterize JWAL's concern about the Aurora Wal-Mart site share
as a technical issue that is being blurred by an insistence that a site share from Aurora
residents accruing to a city once removed (Newmarket) should be representative of a site
share from Aurora residents accruing to the same city (Aurora).
Moreover, I do not see the relevance of this technical matter to any regional planned
function implications.
It does not appear that JWAL has linked any of these technical issues to any regional
interest matter.
I trust this further clarifies my sign -off on the minutes of the market consultants' meeting.
Yours truly,
W. Scott Morgan, MCIP, RPP
(W. Scott Morgan & Associates Limited)
Original Sent By FAX (416) 926-0045 to the attention of Mr. David A. Butler
Original Also Sent By E-mail: dabnabutlerconsultants.com: sseibertna town.aurora on ca•
and jkyle(a),,town.aurora.on.ca
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
-67-
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
APPENDIX "B"
Peer Review of the Economic
Implications of the Aurora Gateway
Centre, Clayton Research Associates,
July 3, 2003
prepared for:
Town of Aurora
prepared by:
Gartner Lee Limited
reference: date:
GLL 40-201 September, 2004
distribution:
2 Town of Aurora
1 Butler Group
1 Gartner Lee Limited
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Table of Contents
Letter of Transmittal
Addendum
Correspondence — Clayton Research Associates / Gartner Lee Limited
Page
1. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background.........................................................................................................................1
2. Study Scope, Findings and Conclusions.......................................................................... 2
2.1 Study Data Sources.............................................................................................................3
3. Peer Review....................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Methodology and Key Assumption Review.......................................................................3
3.1.1 Adequacy of Employment Land Supply................................................................3
3.1.2 Employment Land Inventory (Supply)..................................................................4
3.1.3 Employment Land Requirements...........................................................................6
3.1.4 Share of Employment Growth on Employment Lands..........................................7
3.1.5 Employment Density..............................................................................................
9
3.1.6 Contingency Factor ............................. :................................................................
11
3.1.7 Comparison of Employment Land Needs and Supply.........................................11
3.2 Employment Impact of Development Proposal................................................................15
3.3 Municipal Finance Impact of Development Proposal.......................................................15
4. Review Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................18
List of Tables
Table 1.
Estimated Share of Total Employment Accommodated on Employment Lands ......................8
Table 2.
Employment Density on Employment Lands..........................................................................10
Table 3.
Calculation of Employment Land Needs, Town of Aurora, 2001-2016 (Peer Review
SensitivityAnalysis).................................................................................................................12
Table 4.
Sensitivity Analysis on Employment Lands............................................................................14
Table 5.
Town of Aurora Development Charge Summary Non-residential Charges - 2004.................16
Table 6.
Region of York Non-residential DC Rae per sq. ft. Phase-in..................................................16
Appendices
A. Municipal Revenues to be Generated by the Proposed Development
(2.0921/40201-n.rrsiO4) ® —69-
Gartner Lee
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
1. Introduction
The Town of Aurora retained Gartner Lee Limited to provide a peer review of Economic Implications of
the Aurora Gateway Centre, Clayton Research Associates July 3, 2003 (hereafter referred to as the
Study). The purpose of the Peer review exercise is to:
a) examine the Study research and analysis methodology;
b) confirm the Study sources and interpretation of secondary source data;
c) examine the reasonableness of the Study assumptions;
d) identify outdated data incorporated in the Study and provide data updates where
readily available;
e) examine the reasonableness of the Study conclusions given the analysis provided;
and
f) identify data or information gaps and areas of investigation where further study is
warranted.
1.1 Background
The Town of Aurora has received applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to allow
retail commercial development on lands designated Business Park in the Secondary Plan, Official Plan
Amendment #30. Whitwell Developments Limited, a company in the First Pro Shopping Centres
corporate group, proposes the Aurora Gateway Centre as the commercial component of a large mixed -use
development, the Aurora Gateway Business Park.
The site lands are situated at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Wellington Street East and
Highway 404 in the Town of Aurora. The Business Park concept includes the State Farm Head Offices
and a multi -tenant campus style business park. The commercial centre is a regional scale
retail/service/hospitality facility in an open unenclosed campus style format.
At full development the Aurora Gateway Centre proposal would include 637,575 sq. ft. of space
incorporating the following elements:
a) large format retail department store (Wal-Mart is anticipated primary tenant);
b) warehouse style, club membership retail (such as Costco or Sams Club);
c) offices;
d) service and ancillary retail;
e) hotel; and
f) multi screen Cinema complex.
(ZM0921140201-YMtY04) -70-
® Gartner Lee
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
2. Study Scope, Findings and Conclusions
The Study was commissioned by Whitwell Developments Limited to examine the potential implications
of the proposed Aurora Gateway Centre "for the adequacy of the Town's employment land and the
potential implications for the local economy"(p.l ).
The Study concludes that:
a) the Town of Aurora's supply of vacant employment land is sufficient to
accommodate projected employment growth to 2016, with or without the Aurora
Gateway development;
b) the supply of vacant employment land is sufficient to accommodate projected
employment growth over the longer term to 2021, assuming implementation of the
Town of Aurora's Five Year Official Plan Review recommendations for expansion
of the Town's urban boundary;
c) the proposed Centre can complement and support economic development in the
Aurora Gateway Business Park by:
• acting as an initiator for future office development in Aurora's Highway
404 employment lands;
• helping to establish an urban profile on Highway 404, creating
opportunity for development of a Gateway feature at the entrance of the
Town of Aurora; and
• providing services for future business tenants.
d) with regard to implications for the local economy, the Centre will:
• provide accessibility and exposure required to attract shoppers from
other municipalities;
• permit the municipality to maximize potential commercial employment
and taxable assessment by providing a hierarchy of retail uses and
reversing the outflow or retail spending from the Town;
• employ more than 2,100 persons at full development;
• generate approximately $1.4 million in development charges for the
Town and $327,000 in building permit fees; and
• contribute approximately $350,000 in property taxes for Town purposes
annually.
(2ra0921/40201-OTtd04) —71—
2 ® Gartner Lee
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
e) subsequent data and analysis provided concluded that the Aurora Gateway Centre
will generate a net annual surplus of approximately $85,083 per year for the Town
of Aurora.
2.1 Study Data Sources
No original data was developed for the Study. References throughout the Study indicate Town of Aurora
and York Region reports as data sources. These sources are listed in Appendix A and referred to in this
Review.
3. Peer Review
The Study focused on the impact of the proposed development on employment land requirements in the
Town of Aurora and the potential of the proposed development to generate employment and municipal
revenue. This Peer Review examines the Study methodology, assumptions for each of the analysis and the
Study conclusions.
3.1 Methodology and Key Assumption Review
3.1.1 Adequacy of Employment Land Supply
The Study employs a standard methodology to consider the adequacy of the available and planned
inventory of land to meet planning requirements. The Study's approach follows the approach used in the
Town of Aurora Five Year Official Plan Review Strategic Directions for Aurora April 2003, and York
Region Vacant Employment Lands Inventory, 2001. The Town of Aurora Employment Land Retention
Strategy May 2004 was released by Hemson Consulting after the Study was released, and was thus this
report was not included in the Study.
The methodology involves the following steps:
a) consider the forecast of employment growth for the forecast period;
b) assume a share of employment growth that will be generated on employment lands;
c) assume an employment density per net acre of employment lands;
(24921/4020I-fhpts/04) 3 ® Gartner Lee
—72—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
d) calculate the net employment land requirement given the above;
e) gross up the net requirement to the total land requirement by applying a net/gross
ratio assumption;
f) consider the current inventory of vacant employment lands;
g) consider planned new employment land designations and other adjustments
including current applications for re -designation and exclusions for environmental
or other purposes; and
h) compare adjusted vacant employment lands supply to estimated employment land
requirement to identify adequacy of supply.
The basic methodology used in the Study is accurate, however, the key assumptions either made
specifically in the Study or implied, require examination and comment. The internal logic and consistency
of the set of assumptions were examined and where available a range of assumptions that were applied in
other recent Town of Aurora studies are shown and sensitivity analysis provided.
3.1.2 Employment Land Inventory (Supply)
The Study notes that according to the York Region inventory, York Region Inventory of Vacant
Employment Lands 2001 Aurora had a total vacant employment land supply of 430 net acres in 2001.
A downward adjustment is then made to take into account lands within the Bayview Northeast (2C) area,
which are planned for recreational uses by the Town of Aurora (the noted source for the adjustment is
Hemson, April 2003, Appendix 2).
The Study estimate of 378 net acres of vacant employment land is carried forward in the analysis.
Peer Review Comments
The York Region Vacant Employment Land Inventory 2001 referenced in the Study was considered
current to May 31, 2001. This inventory generally includes vacant land parcels greater than 0.25 net acres
in.size that are located within employment land designations in Aurora's Official Plan and Zoning by-
laws.
York Region's updated inventory as of April 2002 estimates vacant employment land in Aurora at 512.81
acres. The 2002 information is used as the starting point from which Hemson calculated employment
lands inventory for use in Evaluation of Growth Options January 2003.
(2mo921/4020 44/muI04) - 4 - ® Gartner Lee
—73—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
In addition to an adjustment for Town of Aurora recreational uses in Wellington/404 area, as noted in the
Study, Hemson made several other adjustments to the 2002 York Region inventory to refine the estimate,
including:
a) adjustments within The Wellington/404 area;
b) exclusion of 20 gross acres for woodlot protection;
c) gross to net adjustment reducing lands by 20 %;
d) addition of 35 net acres of the Town of Aurora parcel for employment use;
e) 20% reduction in inventoried vacant Magna lands to reflect a gross to net
conversion; and
f) overall net inventory reduction of 10% to allow for anticipated long term vacancy.
With these adjustments Hemson estimated net vacant employment lands in Aurora to be 340 acres, not
378 net acres as stated by the Study (p.13). Further updates of vacant land inventory was provided by
Hemson in their most recent report, the Town of Aurora Employment Land Retention Strategy, May
2004. Here the current designated net supply of employment land is estimated at 330 net acres, after long
term vacancy is taken into account, with 240 of these net acres recently being designated in the
Wellington -Highway 404 business park area. The application to redesignate 80 acres of this employment
land to commercial for this project has already been submitted to the Town.
Discussion with Hemson Consultants and the Town of Aurora indicate that the available inventory in the
near and longer term may be further reduced when the following factors are considered:
a) survey information for 2003 may indicate further land absorption;
b) applications for site plan approval for retail development in the Town of Aurora;
c) it is difficult to predict the future development of the Magna lands and whether they
will contribute to employment growth. Together the Magna parcels amount to 45
net acres, approximately 13% of the estimated inventory;
d) the boundaries of the Oak Ridges Moraine lands south of Wellington Street, on the
east side of Leslie, within OPA 30 (the 213 area), have yet to be determined; and
e) a 42 acre parcel in the Bayview East area is held by the Ministry of Transportation
for Highway 404 interchange improvements; it is not clear if any of these lands will
be available for development.
Given these factors, the 378 net acres of employment land assumed in the Study is considered to be an
overestimate of available supply in the near term.
(2mo92114020i-OpW04) - —74-
S ® Gartner Lee
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3,2003
3.1.3 Employment Land Requirements
There are four components to the estimate of employment land requirements:
1. Employment projections over the forecast period.
2. Allocation of Employment Growth to Employment Lands.
3. Employment density on employment lands.
4. Contingency requirements.
Employment Projections
The Study adopts the York Region Official Plan employment forecast for Aurora of 26,000 employees in
2016 and 30,000 employees in 2021. This implies employment growth of 12,239 employees by 2021,
from a 2001 employment base of 17,761.
Peer Review Comments
The Study correctly interprets the York Region Official Plan employment estimates for the Town of
Aurora and the 2001 employment base correctly reflects Statistics Canada Employment by Place of Work
data for 2001.
No discussion is provided however on the reasonableness of the employment forecast, the underlying
activity rates implied by this forecast or the implications for employment land requirements should the
Town pursue stronger employment growth targets.
Hemson Consultants have examined York Region's Employment forecast in the context of Aurora's
Growth Options and notes that the York Region forecast implies an activity rate of 40% to 43% over the
forecast period. If the Town of Aurora wished to move closer to the average York Region activity rate of
approximately 50%, higher future employment would be required and the requirement for available
employment lands would be stronger.
The Study makes an overly conservative assumption in adopting the York Region employment forecast.
Consideration should be given to the requirement for employment lands should Aurora pursue
employment growth targets which serve to improve the Town's employment/population ratio (i.e.,
activity rate).
(2mO921/40201-vmts/04) 7 —75—
6 ® Gartner Lee
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
3.1.4 Share of Employment Growth on Employment Lands
The Study assumes that 55% of Aurora's employment growth would occur on Aurora's employment
lands.
The Study points to Hemson's work (January 2003) that indicates that employment land employment
comprises on average approximately 55% of total employment in major municipalities in the Greater
Toronto Area. Hemson also concludes that in Aurora the share of employment on employment lands are
likely closer to 65%.
The Study offers the following explanation regarding the current discrepancy between allocation rates in
Aurora and the GTA:
"A higher share of employment on employment lands in Aurora today might reflect a
relatively small amount of major office employment (not included in Hemson's definition
of employment lands) or Aurora's relatively weak retail commercial sector" (p. 7).
The Study further states that:
"If Aurora continues to be successful in attracting office and prestige industrial uses to
its business parks and if it can reverse the ouOow of commercial expenditures to other
municipalities, the Town's share offuture employment growth on "employment lands" is
likely to be similar to that of other GTA municipalities" (p. 8).
Peer Review Comments
With an estimated 65% of employment accommodated on its employment lands, Aurora appears to be an
anomaly amongst GTA and other Ontario municipalities. As noted in Table 1, shares of employment on
employment lands range from 52% to 61 % in the GTA Regional municipalities. Limited data for a range
of local municipalities in Peel Region and outside the GTA show a range of employment allocation from
35% on employment lands in Ottawa to a 60% allocation in Brampton. Note that data on York's area
municipalities would be helpful but is not provided by Hemson Consultants.
(2,e0921/4020 1-f/,ps/04) 7 ® Gartner Lee
-76-
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
Table 1. Estimated Share of Total Employment Accommodated on Employment Lands
Year Share
1986
44%
1991
41 %
1996
42%
2001
2001 Estimate By
Peel calMunicipality
Toronto '
43%
,
31%
Peel
56%
York
56%
Durham
52%
Halton
61 %
Mississauga
55%
Brampton
60%
Caledon
1996 Estimate
Selected Regional'Municipalities
Hamilton -Wentworth
Ottawa Carlton
58%
Outside the GTA
43%
35%
Niagara
41%
Waterloo
49%
Essex
49%
Source: Hemson Consultants Employment Database, 2001
Caution must be applied in inferring too much information from a data set such as this. Municipalities
differ in terms of the development permitted on employment lands and past patterns of development will
be reflected in the data set. As the Study correctly notes, York Region has a trend that, "in addition to
industrial and warehousing activity, non-traditional employment activities such as business and industrial
support services, commercial (e.g., theaters, restaurants etc.), and retail warehouse operations have
become more common in employment parks" (p.7, York Region 2002).
The only reasonable approach to assessing the potential allocation of employment to employment lands in
Aurora over the next 10-15 years is to examine the available lands within the Towns planning structure
together with the objectives and targets the Town has established.
The Study correctly notes that Aurora's relatively high share of employment in employment lands is
reflective in part to the relatively small amount of major office employment in the community. In 2002,
84.9% of employment in Aurora was generated by small business with 1-19 employees (York Region
Employment and Industry 2002).
(2.0921140201 VrpW04) - 8 15 Gartner Lee
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
Aurora's major employers in 2002 included:
• Quebecor World;
• Sinclair Technologies;
• York Region Catholic School Board;
• Canada Law Book;
• Rebook Canada; and
• Magna International.
With the exception of the York Region Catholic School Board, which has its offices West of Yonge
Street, all of these major employers are located on employment lands in Aurora (York Region Planning
and Services Department Employment and Industry, 2002).
No evidence is provided to support the Study conclusion that "the Town's share of future employment
growth on "employment lands" is likely to be similar to that of other GTA municipalities" or to use 55%
as the basis for future employment land requirements. If Aurora were successful in continuing to attract
office and prestige industrial uses to its business parks, this (employment land) development would
strengthen the contribution of employment lands to the employment base and the percentage of
employment on employment lands would continue to be stronger than the Regional average.
Increasing the strength of Aurora's retail/commercial development on non -employment lands would tend
to bring the allocation share down but a dramatic shift is not a reasonable expectation. It is unlikely that
Aurora's allocation of employment to employment lands would approach 55% without a significant
change in the structure and location of economic activity in the Town. With the planning structure in
Aurora, the share of employment that can be expected to be accommodated on employment lands is not
expected to change significantly from the current 65% share.
Moreover, in the Study methodology to determine employment land requirements, the employment
allocation of 55% is applied to employment growth over the forecast period. When the allocation is
applied to growth, the 55% assumption is considered to be extremely conservative. It is expected that at
least 65% of employment growth will be attributable to development on employment lands, consistent
with the current pattern in the community.
3.1.5 Employment Density
The Study presents data from the CB/Madison Economic Development Strategy Background Study,
which determined that the average employment density in Aurora's business parks was approximately
12 employees per gross acre, or 15 employees per net acre using a net to gross ratio of 80 percent. It also
notes that York Region's Official Plan promotes compact development with a higher ratio of workers per
acre with an overall minimum of 20 employees per gross acre (25 employees per net acre).
(&a0921/4020141T[./04) 9. ® Gartner Lee
--/'B-
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
Peer Review Comments
While the CB/Madison 1996 data reflects the existing infrastructure and employment base at that time,
York Region's Official Plan refers to the type of new development envisioned for the Region
(i.e., compact, higher employment density on employment lands).
As illustrated in Table 1, employment densities vary significantly across York Region's area
municipalities and the GTA depending on the nature of employment activities in an area. The current
figures reflect all employment lands in each community and the average density reflects the historic
pattern of business activity. Older employment lands which reflect traditional uses such as warehousing
and industrial activities tend to require large tracts of land and result in relatively lower employment
density per acre. Office/high tech buildings tend to have a higher worker/floor space ratio than factories
typically resulting in higher employment density per acre.
Employment densities can be expected to change gradually with emerging employment trends. In York
Region's Vacant Employment Land Inventory 2001, the Region argues that over the planning horizon of
25 years there will be opportunities for intensification and more efficient use of lands, resulting in higher
densities. The Region's analysis assumes that employment land densities within each of the area
municipalities will increase over the next 25 years as noted in Table 2.
Similarly, Hemson data indicates a significant range in net employment land densities. Hemson notes
that densities in new areas of Whitby and Hamilton are likely higher than the average share included in
their database.
Table 2. Employment Density on Employment Lands
York Region Vacant Employment Lands
Hemson Employment Database
Inventory 2001
Values, 2001
Vaughan:
Vaughan:
• manufacturing is dominant sector with 15/net acre
• 14/net acre
• 16/net acre used for future employment land use
Markham:
Markham:
• concentration of high-tech and business service related employment
• 24/net acre
with 23/net acre
• 25/net acre used for future employment land use
Richmond Hill:
Whitby:
• computer Finance insurance and business services sectors with 25/net
• 11/net acre
acre
• overall, new areas are likely higher
• higher in areas of Beaver Creek Business Park
• 25/ net acre used for future employment land use
Rural Municipalities:
Hamilton:
• employment typically on private services with 5-8/net acre
15/net acre
• 12/net acre used for future employment land use
• new areas — Ancaster and Flamborou
(2m092I/40201-6tpWa4) to ® Gartner Lee
—79—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
The Study's range in possible employment densities of 16-25 employees/net acre for the newly absorbed
employment lands in Aurora is reasonable for consideration. The upper end would be reflective of the
target prestige office/industrial development envisioned by the Town for new development while the
lower end of the range would represent more traditional manufacturing activity. The likely pattern of
development will be a combination of these activities. The closer the Town is able to keep to the stated
intentions for the newly developing employment lands, the higher the employment density that will be
achieved.
3.1.6 Contingency Factor
The Study applies a "Contingency Factor" of 10% to the estimate of net employment land to determine
total net acres required.
Peer Review Comments
a) York Region's Vacant Employment Land Inventory, 2001 incorporates a 30% "vacancy factor"
recognizing that uncertainty in short to medium prospects for the economy indicate that a flexible
and diverse supply of vacant lands is required in order to respond quickly to changing economic
circumstances and demand (p.17).
b) Hemson's Strategic Directions for Aurora, April 2003 makes no adjustment to the land requirement
calculation for contingencies. Hemson includes a 10% long term vacancy adjustment to the current
inventory (land supply) recognizing that full tenancy of a business park is unlikely (as parcels
remaining in the park get smaller during development and it can be difficult to develop the
remaining parcels).
Based on the above information, the Study's assumption of 10% for future contingencies is conservative.
3.1.7 Comparison of Employment Land Needs and Supply
The Study compares estimated supply of employment lands to estimated Town requirements. Based on
the Study analysis, the 2016 land surplus amounts to 66 to 179 net acres. The conclusion is that the
current inventory is sufficient in the short term to accommodate projected growth as well as this proposed
commercial development (57.8 acres from the minimum surplus of 66 acres).
In the longer term, projected growth to 2021 cannot be accommodated by the current land inventory,
however with the proposed designation of new employment lands as recommended in the Hemson
Strategic Directions for Aurora, supply would increase to 576 acres. This amount of land would be
sufficient for projected growth as well as this proposed development.
(u.0021140201-v.,ndo4) - 11 - ® Gartner Lee
—80—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3,2003
Peer Review Comments
The Whitwell Developments proposal includes not only 57.8 acres for regional commercial use but also
another 11.6 acres for office/hotel use; this would require a total of 69.8 acres to be converted from
employment lands designation. Using the Study's analysis of supply and demand, there would thus not
be sufficient lands by 2016 to accommodate both projected requirements for employment lands and the
land requirements of this proposal based on the conservative lowest density assumption. Adjusting
various assumptions to test the sensitivity of the analysis, it is apparent that the gap between supply and
requirements for employment lands may be considerably wider.
Assuming an activity rate of 46% and an allocation of employment from employment lands to be 65%
with a density range of 16-25 employees/acre, the employment land requirement to meet the employment
forecast ranges from 318 to 497 net acres. If Aurora had a more aggressive target of achieving a 50%
activity rate in the future, with an allocation of employment from employment lands at 65%, with a
density range of 16-25 employees, the employment land requirement to meet the employment forecast
ranges from 383 to 599 net acres. With an estimated available inventory of 340 net acres, in all but one
scenario there is a net shortfall of employment lands available to meet planning targets. Sensitivity
analysis conducted is provided in Tables 3 & 4.
If a market contingency were included (10% to 30%) to ensure that the variety of supply is available to
meet changing needs, this would require further land inventory across all of these scenarios.
The following table shows a calculation of the land needs to 2016 based on an allocation of employment
from employment lands at 65%.
Table 3. Calculation of Employment Land Needs, Town of Aurora, 2001-2016
(Peer Review Sensitivity Analysis)
Employment
Growth on
Employees
Vacant
Net Land
Employment
Employment
Per Net
Net Acres
Supply (net
Need
2001 Employment
2016 Em to
ent 2001-2016
Land Share
Lands
Acre
Required
acres)
(acres
17,761
26,000
8,239
65%
5355
25
214
340
-126
17,761
26,000
8,239
65%
5355
18
298
340
-42
17,761
26,000
8,239
65%
5355
16
335
340
-5
17,761
26,000
8,239
650%
5355
15
357
340
17
The sensitivity analysis indicates that Aurora's vacant land inventory is adequate to accommodate future
employment projections to 2016 as long as the employee density is greater than 15 employees per net
acre. This proposed development converting 69.4 acres from employment lands would absorb all of
Aurora's flexibility for future employment land growth in every scenario except when there are 25
employees per net acre. No contingency factor is built into this calculation either, which would further
exacerbate the land shortfall.
(2mO921140201-apcy04) 12 ® Gartner Lee
—81—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3,2003
Based on the information shown in Table 4, it can be seen that based on an allocation of employment
from employment lands at 65% when utilizing an activity rate of either 46% or 50% there will be a net
land shortfall in every scenario except one by the year 2021. If lands are redesignated as employment
lands this shortfall may be managed. Designation of new lands, as recommended by the Strategic
Directions for Growth, would significantly increase supply, however the Town has not yet adopted this.
Town of Aurora Employment Land Retention ,Strategy
The most recent Hemson Consulting report, Town of Aurora Employment Land Retention Strategy, May
2004, stresses the importance of employment land within the community and how important it is to
preserve. It is stated that "redesignating employment land to non employment -generating uses is neither
in the best interests of the Town of Aurora nor the Region of York" (p.3). Hemson describes how strong
policies regarding the retention of the employment land supply is required in order for the Town of
Aurora and York Region to maintain their competitive position within the GTA employment market.
This analysis reiterates sentiments from the Town of Aurora Economic Development Strategy 2003 that
the employment land in the Wellington -Highway 404 area represents an opportunity for Aurora to
diversify and enhance the current business park structure and attract significant new economic
development opportunities.
Hemson Consulting recommended that the Town approve future employment land designations in the
following way:
1. The Town should only approve changes to the total amount of employment land
designated within a comprehensive planning process (such as a five year official
plan review).
2. Otherwise the Town should only approve designation changes because of
compelling, site -specific reasons, such as site configuration, access, or surrounding
land uses.
3. The proponent should also be required to prove that the proposed development
would provide benefits to the Town. The proponent would need to demonstrate
that the proposed development is compatible with all permitted uses on surrounding
and nearby lands and will not cause a destabilizing of existing and prospective
employment uses.
4. All studies submitted in support of the redesignation of employment land are
subject to a full peer review.
5. In order to ensure that this approach is implemented, specific policies need to be
incorporated into the official plan.
(2rW92114020I-vrpts/04) 13 ® Gartner Lee
—82—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
N
a
�Cp OnN N
W O
0
D
OM
m—
— WIT
� �
m r
��M
N MNm�,
-
N
N E
00,
�
Z Z —
ooc
C_ ,O
d d M M M M
M M M M
M M M
M M M M
M M M
M M M M
U
U
Z K!�
m �
U' U M O M o
N f0 DO VJ
� (D M N
M O W O
c O N In
lU O W Yl
� E
m
L
M M
N N�DM
V d' V' V'
0000
O Nh h
V V V V
M M
mmm
E aQnnnn
n
mmmm
rnrnrnm
ao mcom
w w 0
N_ N In lU M o
0 0 0 0
M o In N
IU O O
O O O O
� O m O
��co to to
�m m<o
in u, ins
m<o coro
mco com
� in m in
E
.c
mw�
ornrnrnrn
rnrnrnrn
mrnrnrn
rnrnrnrn
rnmmrn
mrnrnm
N M M M M
M M M M
M M M M
M M M M
M M M M
M M M M
N N N N
N N N
N N N
r r r n
n n r n
n n n n
NN N"
.N .N--N—
Qa' N
c
0 0 0 0 0
O O O o
O O O O
N N N N
N N N N
N N N N
ry p,M M M M
M M M M
M M M M
M M M M
M M M M
M M M M
N i W
c
N
fO�n�ro
^^nano
iomm^
m^m�
rolomn
�,
neon
o n
N W
N
IL
N
N
�
O
o
E
E
`o
w
o
m
0
S
0
}
Q
Ol
�
Q
m
N
J
—83—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
Hemson concludes that protecting the employment land supply will be a significant planning challenge
for the Town of Aurora over the next decade. The Aurora Gateway proposal should be reviewed in the
context of this recent study and incorporated into the Clayton Research report.
3.2 Employment Impact of Development Proposal
The Study makes an assumption of the average number of square feet per commercial and office/hotel
employee. From these assumptions, and the number of square feet of commercial and office/hotel space
in the preliminary concept plan, the Study makes an approximation of the number of retail/service and
office jobs produced.
Peer Review Comments
The study refers to permanent jobs but makes no reference to part time positions or Full Time Equivalents
(FTEs). The Study does not look at the proportion of minimum wage employment associated with
commercial development nor does it examine the long-term desirability of trading potential permanent
office jobs with part-time retail jobs in the community. Reduced potential to attract prestige office to the
business park and associated quality employment after such commercial development is in place should
also be addressed. The marketability of the reminder of land in the business park after big box retailers
establish should also be examined. While jobs will be created in this commercial/office development, the
Study does not acknowledge potential job losses in other areas of Aurora due to commercial competition
and potential store closures.
3.3 Municipal Finance Impact of Development Proposal
The Study presents estimated Development Charges, building permit revenue and property tax revenue
based on Aurora's 2002 development charges for non-residential properties, 2002 permit rates, and 2002
tax rates of $110/sq.ft. for retail assessment and $100/sq.ft. for office assessment.
Clayton Research provided an update of the fiscal benefits in a supplementary report entitled Fiscal
Benefits of the Aurora Gateway Study, May 7, 2004. This report provides an estimate of the property tax
revenue and Town expenditures related to the Aurora Gateway Centre when compared to an alternative
scenario under which the lands are developed for employment uses excluding retail. Assumptions in this
supplementary report include 562,000 sq. ft. retail space and 171,000 sq. ft. office/hotel space on a 69.4
net acre site for the Centre project and average lot coverage for the alternative. All estimates of property
tax and incremental expenditure estimates are bases on 2002 data.
(2mO921/40201-t7msd04) 15 ® Gartner Lee
-84-
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
Peer Review Comments
The Study estimates are based on 2002 data and rates and therefore require updating to reflect the current
development charge and tax structure in Aurora and the Region
The table below summarizes the Town of Aurora 2004 Non-residential Development Charges approved
June 8, 2004. As detailed in The Town of Aurora Development Charges Background Study, 2004, an
average cost approach is used to support Town growth -related services, resulting in uniform charges
throughout the Town. The non-residential charges are applied to all development on a square foot of gross
floor area (GFA) basis.
Table 5. Town of Aurora Development Charge Summary
Non-residential Charges - 2004
Service
Charge Per Square Foot
of Gross Floor Area
Library Services
-
Fire and Rescue Services
$0.22
Indoor recreation
-
Park Development and Related
-
Public Works- Building, Fleets Parking
$0.19
General Government
$0.13
Subtotal General Services
$0.54
Roads and Related
$0.83
Sanitary Sewers
$0.35
Watermains
$0.42
Sub -total Hard Services
$1.60
Total Non-residential Charges ($/sq. ft.)
$2.14 ($23.03/sq.m.)
The following table summarizes the phased approach to development charges for non-residential
development in the Region of York.
Table 6. Region of York Non-residential DC Rae per sq. ft. Phase -in
Non-
Retail
Retail
Ste 1-12 months
$2.75
$3.85
Ste 2 —13 to 24 months
$3.05
$4.55
Ste 3 — 25 to 36 months
$3.35
$5.95
Ste 4 — 37 to 48 months
$3.50
$8.05
(2ra0921/40201-VMW04) /6 ® Gartner Lee
—85—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
Table A-11 in Appendix A summarizes the municipal revenues to be generated by the proposed
development with rates and charges updated to those applicable as of 2003 and 2004 (where available).
Applying the 2004 Town rate to 782,575 sq. ft. GFA for the proposed Centre yields $1,674,710
development charge revenue for the Town. This estimate is not dependent on the mix of
office/retail/hotel development.
Regional Development Charges amount to $3,343,216 based on the second step of the phased
development charge rate schedule and the proposed office/retail mix. The Regional rate does depend on
the mix of retail and office development, with higher DC revenue associated with retail floor space. As
noted in the Study, the Regional DC schedule will result in substantially higher rates for retail
development in the future. Furthermore this phased -in schedule will depend on a number of factors
including indexing and the actual transit expenditures.
Development Charges for Regional Schools are estimated at $281,727 based on 2003 charges.
Building permit revenues have been updated to the Town 2003 rates, yielding $363,506 in revenue for all
components of the development proposal,
The updated Property Tax revenue estimate presented in Table 1 in the Appendix maintains the Clayton
assessment assumptions of $110/sq.ft. for retail space and $100/sq.ft. for office space. Actual assessment
for the property will depend on the specific characteristics of the development. No further refinement of
the estimate is available at this time. The property tax rates have been updated, however, to reflect 2004
rates. Given these inputs, the Town property tax revenue is estimated at $348,081 annually, the Regional
revenue is estimated at $507,911 annually, and the School revenue is estimated at $1,451,876 annually.
Net Fiscal Impact
As the Study correctly points out, the proposed development may cause municipal revenue streams to be
realized sooner than would be the case in the absence of this proposal. Over the medium term however,
Aurora and the Region can expect these lands to develop and additional municipal revenue (above current
revenue generated from vacant lands) to be generated.
Clayton's supplemental report provides an estimate of the annual net operating and maintenance
expenditures in providing service to non-residential uses compared to estimate property tax generation in
order to estimate the net fiscal impact of the proposal to Aurora. This demonstrates that the net annual
surplus to the Town may be in the order of $85,000, marginally higher than other employment use
alternatives. Similarly, development charge revenue is directly related to growth —related municipal costs,
therefore the development proposal is not expected to result in a significant net fiscal benefit to the Town
and Region.
(2.0921/40201.vpWW04) 17 ® Gartner Lee
-86-
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
4. Review Conclusions and Recommendations
The basic methodology used in the Study to determine the economic impacts of the proposed
development is considered appropriate. This review has examined the assumptions and background data
incorporated in the analysis and notes a number of updates and corrections that are required to provide a
current estimate of the potential economic impacts of this development.
In particular, the discussion on vacant employment lands in the Study indicates that there are 378 net
acres vacant, however Hemson estimated that with adjustments there are 340 net acres (and more recently
330 net acres) of net vacant employment lands in Aurora. The 378 net acres of employment land
assumed in the Study is an overestimate of available supply in the near term.
The Study does not take activity rates into consideration or the reasonableness of the employment forecast
used. The Study makes an overly conservative assumption in adopting the York Region employment
forecast. The underlying activity rates for employment forecasts and the implications for employment
land requirements if the Town were to pursue stronger employment growth targets should be examined.
There is no evidence to support the Study conclusion that "the Town's share of future employment
growth on "employment lands" is likely to be similar to that of other GTA municipalities" or to use 55%
as the basis for future employment land requirements. If Aurora continues to attract office and prestige
industrial uses to its employment lands, the percentage of employment on employment lands would
continue to be higher than the Regional average. An examination of the rationale for using the 55%
employment on employment lands should be examined further in the Study.
While the Study's range of possible employment densities from 16 to 25 employees/net acre for the newly
absorbed employment lands in Aurora is reasonable for consideration, the Study's assumption of using
10% for future contingencies is conservative and should be reexamined.
Based on sensitivity analysis, this review has shown that the availability of land for this potential
development is less than what is indicated in the Study. The Study conclusions on the availability of land
in the short and longer terms for development on employment lands should be revisited and updates
should be included.
Furthermore, the Study does not incorporate the most recent (2004) Hemson assessment of Employment
Lands and the value of this designation to Aurora's planning and development process.
(2m0921/40201-VrptdD4) 18 ® Gartner Lee
—87—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway Centre,
Clayton Research Associates, July 3, 2003
In terms of municipal finance, the Clayton analysis indicates that the development proposal may cause
development related revenue to be realized sooner than would be the case in the absence of this proposal.
Over the medium term however, Aurora and the Region can expect these lands to develop additional
municipal revenue (above current revenue generated from vacant lands) to be generated. While the
Town, Region and School revenue generated through the proposal is significant, the one-time and
ongoing annual revenue serve to support related municipal expenditures. As a result, no significant net
fiscal benefit to the Town is anticipated. This is confirmed in Clayton's supplemental report providing an
estimate of the annual net operating and maintenance expenditures in providing service to non-residential
uses compared to estimated property tax generation.
Report Prepared By:
Michelle L. Joliat, M.Sc., MCIP, RPP, P.Biol.
Consultant
Catherine L. Dowling, B.E.S., M.A.
Senior Environmental Economist
Report Reviewed By:
Andy W. Keir, M.Sc., MCIP, RPP
Principal
�2re0921140201-ffip./04) 19 ® Gartner Lee
-88-
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Appendices
(2rb0921/402014/r W04)
-89-
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Appendix A
Municipal Revenues to be Generated by the Proposed Development
(2,b0921/402014ptOM)
-90-
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
m
lk
mr
W It n
M
O
O
O N
N
N
N W
m M
1-
M
O o] It
- N
r'
co
M
M
M
p
M
GMD_
(MO
X
F
N
6
co
N
0
f9 E9 EFT
E9
EA
EA E9 6ET
N
O O to
0 0 0
N
O
O
O
ti 0 W
N
m
O O
co
M
`I.
NLd
M a0 N
O
O
O N
O W(
U
O m O
O
W
O
t0 O V; O
W W m
r
N M
O
O O N M
N
9 w
O
a o
a
@ M
64 E9 E9
E9 KT NT
ER
E9
VT
F9
EA E9 E9
� O
O
O N W
W I�
N
O
O
ti It W LO
CD
VO O
N NG
1`W M
ti N
M
NO
m
A cp
^- M O
v N NW-,
N .0.
M
^ M
(p
M
O N
O 4 V'
N
N
V
O
N
cl)v
(O O O
V
C O
O O N M
N 'r
�
�
�
U
64 f9 EFT
f9 f9 E9
6?
EA
fFT
E9
E9 E9 E9
U Z
c
N
0 cci
0
F n
co M N
M
M
�to
M
W
f9 f9 E9
E9
EA
H} H3 E9
O
0
O W
O O O
M co O
0
O O O
V'
O
O
O
0)M
O VN
u
M N N
V
�m
W
M I. IT
NU It
O
v u�
o
I
W
O
o
v
co W
m
f0 W
W m l�
M y
O
,
0
0
N
N
O
v
CO E9 E9
EFT E9 E9
E9
09.
W.
E9
EA fA E9
LO r
M
N
7
O
I`
O v
co O
m
W
O
tW0
V: O
r
i0
N
t`
M
n It
— r
.R
N V O
m
V
W
co
W
N
�
o (m(�
co m N
O
N
N
co
't
0
Lq g
0
q
(V
W— W
N v
12
CL
*- N
`'"
M
O
E9 f9 ER
f9 E9 E9
E9
F9
E9
E9
EIT E9 E9
N
O
�v
�M. d:
« « «
v
«
m
m
rorn�
* * *
y
m
U
v
� 61
N
N
.N..��
.0..
II
W
a
U
C
m
m
^
�°
M
u
o
C
0
N
co6
t
C
7
N
^
m
O
U
N
w
c
�-
ft m
N
OCD
N
N
a
m
F
m a
m
s
EL
a
m c
c
c
Im
ma
om' '0
o '�
a v
v
o
m'
o m'
aO1i
0aNi
a'
U
C
U U
I-
O
w
E
K W
H K W
N
N
(Ao0
o
mm
m
a¢
¢�
a
m
m
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Addendum
Peer Review of the Economic Implications of the Aurora Gateway
Centre, Clayton Research Associates July 3, 2003
Introduction
The peer review prepared by Gartner Lee Limited, August 2004 was discussed with Clayton Research
Associates in order to clarify methodology and data sources for both reports and draw final peer review
comments. The following Addendum represents the result of those discussions and summarizes Gartner
Lee's review comments.
Attached to this document is correspondence prepared by Clayton Research Associates clarifying their
position and reflecting the outcome of discussions.
Peer Review Findings
The basic methodology used in the Clayton Report to determine the economic impacts of the proposed
development is considered appropriate. Our review of the subject report examined the assumptions and
background data incorporated in the analysis, as well as the various calculations.
While we initially reported that the methods of calculation used by Clayton framed the proposed
development in very optimistic terms with respect to potential economic impacts, we have since met with
Clayton Research and agree that utilizing a sensitivity analysis examining a wider range of alternative
assumptions is a more appropriate way to approach this analysis.
The issue of most significance in the Clayton Report was the potential impact of the proposed
development on employment lands within the Town of Aurora. It is noted that the original Clayton Study
(July 2003) does not reflect the most recent (2004) Hemson assessment of Employment Lands and the
value of this designation to Aurora's planning and development process. The Clayton Study initiates its
analysis of employment lands with the assumption that vacant employment lands in the municipality total
378 net acres. By contrast, Hemson estimate in their report (2004) that with adjustments the current
inventory is actually 330 net acres. Together with Clayton we have reached an agreement to base the
sensitivity analysis on the employment land supply determined by Hemson Consulting.
Previously we had concerns with the fact that the Clayton Report makes a conservative assumption in
adopting the York Region employment forecast. Together with Clayton we have agreed to incorporate
the possible implications for employment land requirements if the Town were to pursue stronger
employment growth targets.
(2-add.&d 40201-V WO92I M) —92—
I ® Gartner Lee
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
The Clayton Report states that "the Town's share of future employment growth on "employment lands" is
likely to be similar to that of other GTA municipalities" and therefore uses 55% as the basis for future
employment land requirements. There is no allowance for the fact that if Aurora continues to attract office
and prestige industrial uses to its employment lands, the percentage of employment on employment lands
will continue to be higher than the GTA average. In order to address this concern, Clayton has agreed to
allow an examination of the implications of higher employment land capture rates into the sensitivity
analysis.
While the Study's range of possible employment densities from 16-25 employees/net acre for the newly
absorbed employment lands in Aurora is reasonable for consideration, the Study's assumption of using
10% for future contingencies is conservative and a range of between 10% and 20% seems to be a more
reasonable consideration. Clayton has also agreed to this point.
Based on the preceding assumptions, Gartner Lee's sensitivity analysis indicates that the implications of
the proposed development on the employment land supply in the Town of Aurora may be more
pronounced than contemplated in the original Clayton Report. With the agreement of Clayton Research
to adopt the sensitivity analysis performed by Gartner Lee, we now agree that the initial site development
concept may result in an employment land supply insufficient to accommodate planned employment
growth to 2016. The revised site concept for the Whitwell proposal preserves an additional 22.5 acres of
the site strictly for business park purposes, thus supplementing the planned employment function on
adjoining lands to the north and south within this broader business park.
Not withstanding all of the above however, potential longer -term impacts of the proposal are less of a
concern. Even in the worst case of the sensitivity analysis, impacts are not such as to cause undo concern
about the long-term adequacy of the employment land supply in Aurora. The potential deficit of
employment lands may further be reduced with the relocation of the recreation centre that was to be
placed on employment lands in the Wellington/404 area, resulting in a possible 29 acres of additional
employment land supply. The release of 2C lands for development towards the middle of the next decade
(i.e., 2013 — 2016) will reconcile the long-term employment land supply/demand balance.
In terms of municipal finance, the Clayton analysis indicates that the development proposal may cause
development related revenue to be realized sooner than would otherwise be the case in the absence of this
proposal. Over the medium term however, Aurora and the Region can expect these lands to generate
additional municipal revenue (above current revenue generated from vacant lands). While the Town,
Region and School revenue generated through the proposal is significant, these one-time and ongoing
annual revenues serve to support related municipal expenditures. As a result, no significant net fiscal
benefit to the Town is anticipated. This is confirmed in Clayton's supplemental report which estimates
the annual net operating and maintenance expenditures in providing service to non-residential uses
compared to estimated property tax generation.
(2-add=duM4020I-flrptdO92104) 2 ® Gartner Lee
—93—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBERAMEIRMA "C"
MALONE GIVEN PARSONS
MEMORANDUM
140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 201, Phone: 905 513-0170
Markham, Ontario, Canada L3R 6133 Fax: 905 513-0177
TO: Scott Morgan & John Winter
FROM: Jeryl Jaque
DATE. August 31, 2004
CC: Elaine Wong
SUBJECT: Draft Minutes Summarizing August 23�d Meeting With Peer Review
Consultants re Aurora Gateway Centre Market Study & Impact
Evaluation
A Meeting of Consultants was held Monday, August 23, 2004: 1:00 pm at John Winter's
office.
Attendees: John Winter John Winter Associates (JWA) [Peer Review Consultants
for the Region of York]
Scott Morgan W. Scott Morgan & Associates [Peer Review Consultant
for'the Town of Aurora]
Jeryl Jaque Malone Given Parsons [Consultant for Aurora Gateway
Centre]
Elaine Wong Malone Given Parsons [Consultant for Aurora Gateway
Centre]
The purpose of the meeting was to share information between the Region of York Peer
Review Consultant, the Town of Aurora Peer Review Consultant and the consultants for
Aurora Gateway Centre regarding the outcome of the Region's and Town's Peer
Reviews of the 2003 MGP Aurora Gateway Centre Market Study & Impact Evaluation.
Mr. Winter had recently been provided with a report prepared by MGP responding to his
February Peer Review report to the Region. He had also been provided with a full set
of the, documentation developed by MGP for Mr. Morgan during the recently conducted
Town of Aurora Peer Review process.
The meeting was intended to give the three consultants an opportunity to exchange
information about the two Peer Review processes, discuss any questions raised by the
Response material, discuss any remaining issues and identify similarities and
differences in findings.
Mr. Winter and Mr. Jaque discussed some of issues raised in the JWA Peer Review
report and addressed in the MGP Response Report such as technical questions
regarding the household telephone survey's March, 2003 timing, whether events such
as the Iraq War affected response or refusal rates and whether low response rates
-94-
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
indicated poor methodology, etc.
Mr. Winter stated that his Peer Review findings and report should be regarded as quite
favourable since they support the development of the planned Aurora Gateway Centre,
excepting only the recommendation that anchor tenants in certain retail categories ( the
Wal-Mart department store, Supermarket and Home Improvement Outlet) be deferred
for 3-5 years.
There was a discussion of the fact that the main purpose of the JWA recommendation
was to defer the primary tenants which directly overlapped the Town of Aurora's Zellers,
Sobeys and Home Depot at the Aurora Centre & vicinity, to give that area several more
years to mature and benefit from local residential population growth. Mr Jaque
suggested that it is also important to meet the demand for additional Aurora commercial
space and to get the Town's regional centre facilities started.
Mr. Jaque expressed concern about delaying entry of the Wal-Mart store because it is
the pivotal primary tenant for Phase I of the Aurora Gateway Centre and would be the
initial tenant needed to attract others. He noted that the further testing and materials
developed while preparing the Response to the JWA Peer Review and during the Town
of Aurora Peer Review process with Mr. Morgan showed that the Wal-Mart,
Supermarket and Home Improvement Outlet could be accommodated earlier (about
2006) without any significant adverse impacts and that deferral was not necessary for
any of these tenant types.
Mr. Morgan confirmed that his findings showed that these tenant types could be
accommodated by 2006 (2007 in the case of Home Improvement) without adverse
impacts on Aurora commercial areas. He pointed out several factors that had made a
difference during his Peer Review including the amendment of proposed first full year of
operation for Phase I from 2005 to 2006 and the testing of a smaller supermarket
tenant.
There was a discussion of the increased strength of the Aurora Centre & vicinity with
the presence of Home Depot, the advancement of the adjacent Trinity development with
smaller box tenants such as Marks Work Warehouse and the Morguard application to
the Town for Aurora Centre zoning changes which would permit additions, including a
cinema complex.
Mr. Jaque asked Mr. Winter whether the change to a first full year of operation for
Phase I of the Aurora Gateway Centre to 2006, along with the progress being made in
strengthening the Aurora Centre area and the additional tests and information provided
in the Response Report and the Morgan Peer Review materials had relieved some of
the concerns expressed in the original JWA Peer Review.
Mr. Winter said that they had to a certain degree but that if he were to write a follow up
statement to the Peer Review Response report he would likely repeat his
recommendation that anchor tenants in certain retail categories (particularly the Wal-
Mart department store, Supermarket and Home Improvement Outlet) be deferred for 3-
-95-
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
5 years. He advised that if Mr. Jaque were to provide him with satisfactory answers to
several items that he still considered outstanding, he would remove that caveat.
There was then some discussion of the items Mr. Winter considered still outstanding.
Mr. Winter explained his request to be given examples of markets where Wal-Mart
achieved shares of resident department store expenditure as high as the 40% Zone 1
capture used in the analysis of the Aurora Gateway Wal-Mart. There was discussion of
whether Wal-Mart has been able to capture high market shares in other markets. Mr.
Jaque commented that the consultants were all in agreement that the feasibility or
viable level of performance of an Aurora Wal-Mart store were not in question so
potential impact effects are the issue that must be tested. In his view it is appropriate to
analyse high levels of shares and/or sales to conduct rigorous testing of potential
impacts. He noted, and Mr Morgan confirmed, that the recent OMB proceedings in
Guelph had set a precedent for testing Wal-Mart at high levels. Mr. Jaque added that
they had searched further for examples such as those requested by Winter but found no
appropriate examples available and, as an alternative, had run a test in the Response
Report at the 30% level suggested in the JWA Peer Review. Mr. Jaque's opinion was
that, in the absence of helpful examples, tests of a range of share capture levels should
be regarded as a reasonable alternative. Mr Winter suggested that even lower shares
might be achieved in the store's first years and he simply wanted to see tests based on
realistic estimated 'numbers rather than a range of numbers.
There was then discussion of the timing for the potential supermarket tenant and the
more favourable analysis numbers calculated by MGP and Morgan during Mr Morgan's
Peer Review process. Mr Winter said he remained unsatisfied regarding the decision in
MGP's original study to adjust the Study Area share capture indicated by the Household
Telephone Survey for the Bayview & Wellington Sobeys supermarket. Mr. Jaque
advised that the adjustment had been made based on judgement and experience
following an examination of the store and its relative size and indications of its market
draw such as the licence plate surveys. He commented that subsequent conversations
with supermarket industry contacts confirmed that this store has been doing better than
the survey indicated and that adjustment was appropriate. Mr. Morgan advised that he
does not rely on survey shares to provide exact readings of individual store
performance. There was discussion of the improved position of the Aurora Centre
Sobeys store and that chain's capacity to compete with a new store operated by
another chain such as A&P. Mr. Winter suggested that it would only take a few days to
run a "mini -survey" to test the adjusted telephone survey responses for Sobeys share of
Aurora supermarket expenditures but there was disagreement as to how easy and
inexpensive or practical this would be for MGP at this point in the process.
There was discussion of the timing of the potential Home Improvement Warehouse
Outlet tenant. Mr Morgan advised that his analysis shows that the entry of a Home
Improvement Outlet similar in nature to a Rona Building Box can be accommodated by
2007 with both Home Depot and the new outlet achieving annual sales of about $40
million with all established stores maintaining their current estimated sales levels. Mr
Winter commented that he had not been provided with additional survey results or
sum
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
information relating to the Home Hardware store on Wellington St E as originally
suggested. Mr Jaque advised that a large Home Improvement Outlet would be most
similar to and would compete most directly with Home Depot. He expressed the view
that Home Depot has the capacity to withstand competition from a similar operator like
Building Box and pointed to locations where the two operators had deliberately position
stores near each other. He referred to markets where Home Hardware was located
near a Home Depot or Building Box and competing successfully because sufficient
expenditure potential was available for all operators.
There was discussion of whether Mr Winter expected to prepare a written Peer Review
Comment as a follow up to the MGP Response to his original Peer Review and the
further materials produced during the Town of Aurora Peer Review. This brought up the
question of whether MGP planned to submit further research that might change the
JWA Peer Review recommendations.
Mr. Jaque commented that there would not likely be enough time for MGP to undertake
a new round of work on these subjects at this late stage in the Town's consideration of
the proposal. He expressed his view that the information on hand should be satisfactory
and that additional evidence on the specific technical points that Mr Winter considered
outstanding would not have a direct effect on the differences of opinion about timing for
individual tenant types. He thought that the time, cost and delay of process of additional
research on these points would be difficult to justify, therefore.
Mr. Morgan pointed out that in any event, the three consultants positions were not far
apart since the beginning of Mr. Winter's 3-5 period was 2007 and the first full year
identified by MGP's recent analysis tests and the Town's Peer Review analysis is 2006 -
only one year earlier. The consultants discussed the fact that a one year difference in
first year of operation should not present serious problems. Mr. Winter advised Mr.
Morgan that if the Town decided to approve a 2006 start date based on the information
before it, he would not oppose that decision.
The meeting ended on this positive note.
-97-
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
APPENDIX "D"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Morgan and Jeryl Jaque
FROM: John Winter
RE: Draft Minutes of August 23rd Meeting, Received on September 16, 2004
DATE: September 17, 2004
I have referred to the copious notes I took during the above meeting and have a number of
concerns about the write up done by Malone Given Parsons.
1. 1130 percent level suggested in the TWAL Peer Review'
The minutes should note that I disagreed entirely with the treatment of the comment: the
first year share in an affluent community, Kanata, in a central place, was 15 percent. The scenario
was prepared without any contact with me and the scenario prepared by Mr. Jaque was not
suggested by my peer review.
2. Sobey's share
Mr. Jaque indicated that he thought the Sobey's share was below that used in the report.
How much below? The large change made in the report to the Sobey's share is entirely in favour of
his client. He needs some independent justification.
This "mini survey' would take just a few hours of his survey company's time (who
averaged 1,500 phone calls per day). The absolute minimum number of surveys in Aurora +
northern Richmond Hill would be 100. Two simple questions: how much money spent in
supermarkets in the past two weeks, and which ones, would take approximately a minute. $5 max
per survey. Justification of his factor in a few hours for $500.
Mr. Jaque said he hadn t had the time in the previous six months to do this (though he had
time to re -jiggle the numbers in a 60 page report). And would not have time in the coming month
or so.
Impact (with the new Loblaws about to be built) is a serious planning matter, and should not
be treated as impossible at "this point in the process". Just because Mr. Jaque says "there would
not likely be enough time for MGP to undertake a new round of work on these subjects at this late
state in the Towns consideration of the proposal" is not an acceptable excuse to a public body.
3. Wal-Mart share
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
The same comment may be made about the Wal-Mart share. There is no market that I am
aware of that has an easy choice of all four department chains, with Wal-Mart at a share of 40
percent. If he thinks Oakville a good analogy, some $500 expenditure and a few hours on the
phones, should confirm the utilized shares. Otherwise, Aurora has virtually identical department
store shares as Newmarket, according to his data. If Newmarket's Wal-Mart share after a number
of years of operation is 23 percent to Wal-Mart (in a central location), I cannot conceive how the
store can do 40 percent in a peripheral Aurora location.
Mr. Jaque relies on another consultant who apparently has access to all Wal-Mart data. It
should surely be possible, with the resources available to him, to justify the shares he recommends
in his report.
4. Impact on Auroras Home Hardware
This matter is still outstanding.
5. 2007
Yes 2007 is three years from the date of Mr. Jaque's report. But my February, 2004 peer
recommendation was as follows:
Phase I
200,000 square feet approximately (consisting of a MWC, a cinema complex, restaurants
and ancillary stores and services);
Should Loblaws revoke their approved Aurora location, then an expansion of the Phase I
total by approximately the size of one of their contemporary big -box stores; and,
Phase II
Either (a) when appropriate and correct research material is presented that demonstrates
no detrimental impact on any store or service concentration in Aurora, or (b) when three to
five years have elapsed since the initial construction of phase I.
Phase one is not yet complete.
I will restate my concerns: Aurora has taken a long and considerable effort to develop Bayview
with commercial near to its Town Centre. It has not entirely been successful, with some stores at
low or very low market shares. This situation is improving with the population finally growing to
the east of Bayview. A few more years packing this market in close to the stores should ensure
that they perform in the planned manner. The danger with the proposed Whitwell development is
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
that it overlaps in almost all important respects with that of Bayview Avenue. If the retail there
has not been very strong, it is unwise to exacerbate the situation with a larger centre further away.
The only store type that does not overlap with the Bayview retailing is the membership
warehouse club, and that would make a good start of the proposed Whitwell development. After
a short delay —to ensure the full functioning of the Bayview retailing, or until the outstanding
questions are answered —is in the public interest. Apparently the retailing may be beginning to
revive (as it is no longer peripheral, but beginning to be encircled with people). Let that process
continue for a very short period before the full impact of a duplicate centre is felt. The imminent
development of the big Loblaws indicates that Aurora is not under -served in food and common
convenience items for the short-term future, at least.
In the face of the long term planning process, that has been going on here for over a decade,
I believe the opinions of Mr. Jaque so eloquently reflected in his minutes of the meeting, are
irrelevant: particularly "He f JJJ thought that the time, cost and delay of process of additional
research on these points would be difficult to justify, therefore." That comment is just self-serving.
If there are gaps, if he has not provided the requested material, if he cannot justify key factors,
then he should have done something in the past six months.
Subsequent to the meeting, I have changed my advice to the Region of Peel. Due to the
apparent overlap with the proposed cinema on Bayview:
Phase I
150,000 square feet approximately (consisting of a MWC, restaurants and ancillary stores
and services); and,
Phase II
Either (a) when appropriate and correct research material is presented that demonstrates
no detrimental impact on any store or service concentration in Aurora, or (b) when three to
five years have elapsed since the initial construction of phase I.
I do agree with the comment: "He UM advised that if Mr. Jaque were to provide him with
satisfactory answers to several items that he still considered outstanding, he would remove that
caveat (deferred for three to five years)."
I have not seen any answers yet. And of course, I would remove the caveat if the answers showed
that the impacts were acceptable.
—100—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
-101-
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
APPENDIX "E"
Revised Draft for Discussion Purposes
(August 31, 2004)
AMENDMENT NO. XX
TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
FOR THE TOWN OF AURORA
-102-
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
AMENDMENT NO. XX
TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF AURORA
STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS
PAGE
PART I — THE PREAMBLE
1.
Introduction 2
2.
Purpose of The Amendment 2
3.
Location 2
4.
Basis of The Amendment 2
PART II — THE AMENDMENT
1. Introduction 5
2. Details of The Amendment 5
3. Implementation and Interpretation 7
—103—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
PART 1— THE PREAMBLE
1. Introduction
This part of the Amendment, entitled Part I — The Preamble, explains the purpose and
location of this Amendment, and provides an overview of the reasons for it. It is for
explanatory purposes only and does not form part of the Amendment.
2. Purpose of The Amendment
The purpose of this Amendment is to establish a combined land use designation of
"Business Park -Regional Commercial Centre" and related site -specific policies for the
subject lands, which are located on the north side of Wellington Street East, west of
Highway 404, as shown on Schedule "A" attached hereto and forming part of this
Amendment.
This combined designation is intended to permit regional -serving retail commercial uses,
in addition to those uses already permitted by the underlying "Business Park" designation
previously approved forthe subject lands in Official Plan Amendment No. 30, the Bayview
Northeast Area 2B Secondary Plan. In tandem with planned business park uses on the
easterly balance of the lands currently under the same ownership, the resultant integrated
development is to be known as the "Aurora Gateway Centre", which will form a component
of the larger "Aurora Gateway Business Park."
3. Location
The lands which are affected by this Amendment are located within Part of Lot 21,
Concession 3, in the Town of Aurora, as schematically shown on Schedule "A". The
subject lands are generally bounded to the east by vacant lands planned for business park
uses (fronting Highway 404) on lands currently under the same ownership, Wellington
Street East to the south, Leslie Street to the west, and the future corporate office complex
(and associated business park uses) of State Farm Insurance to the north.
4. Basis of The Amendment
A regional retail centre has been anticipated by the Aurora Official Plan since the early
1990's, in a location to be focused somewhere along the Wellington Street East corridor.
The 1991 Plan called for the exact location to be determined through a secondary planning
study for that area.
The ensuing secondary planning and market studies that were contemplated by Section
3.2.6 of the 1991 Plan were completed for Aurora in 1993, largely prompted by three
parallel applications for major retail facilities in the Wellington Street East area.
2
—104—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
It was concluded that there was indeed longer -term potential for a regional retail centre in
Aurora — preferably in the vicinity of Highway 404 — but it was also recognized that such
a facility would not likely be warranted for a period of 10 years or more.
Accordingly, no specific site was designated for regional retail purposes at that time, in
anticipation of a future proposal appropriately supported by the requisite studies, when
warranted by market conditions and other planning considerations.
Locating a regional retail centre in the Wellington Street East corridor is consistent with
the planned commercial structure and hierarchy of Aurora and consistent with the Plan's
commercial goal (in Section 3.2) to provide "A full and viable range of commercial centres,
at the regional, community and neighbourhood levels ... (to meet)...the material, social and
employment needs of the people in Aurora."
This broader policy intent was re -affirmed through the adoption and approval of Aurora
Official Plan Amendment No. 30, the Secondary Plan for the Bayview Northeast Area 2B
planning precinct, which includes the subject lands.
OPA 30 provides, among other things, that:
"Regional -serving Retail Commercial uses shall be considered by the Town subject to a
public process and amendment to this Plan on lands designated Business Park on the
north side of Wellington Street between Leslie Street and Highway 404..." (S. 3.4.1(b))
The subject lands are on the north side of Wellington Street East between Leslie Street
and Highway 404, and thus, are at the location contemplated for a regional -serving retail
commercial centre in Aurora.
The policies of that secondary plan, Section 3.4,1(b), expressly contemplate the
submission and consideration of a proposal (by Official Plan amendment) for a regional -
serving retail commercial centre, within the broader business park context planned for the
lands adjacent to Highway 404.
At the same time, the addition of this major retail component is not to be accommodated
at the expense of the long-term viability, functionality and attractiveness of that planned
business park, given the prominence of its location at this strategic gateway to urban
Aurora.
Before approval of the regional commercial designation can be obtained, a number of
requirements must be satisfied — including pre-eminent design, comprehensive planning,
acceptable impacts on surrounding uses, and the provision of acceptable market and
traffic studies.
k]
—105—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
The Aurora Gateway Centre development proposal has been supported by a
comprehensive range of appropriate studies, to address Official Plan requirements and
other matters, including market feasibility and impact, traffic impact, economic impact,
functional servicing, urban design and land use planning considerations.
These studies have provided a foundation for this Amendment, which is seen to be
appropriate on the following land use planning grounds:
♦ all of the relevant site location and other suitability factors indicate that the subject
lands are very well -suited to the proposed regional -serving commercial uses;
♦ the development proposal reflects due regard for the relevant aspects of the
Provincial Policy Statement;
♦ the proposal accords with all of the relevant considerations and requirements in the
York Region Official Plan;
♦ the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan does not impinge on the development
potential of the site;
♦ the subject proposal will provide a viable complement to the Town's existing and
planned commercial structure and hierarchy, and thereby notably improve current
and future levels of retail service to Aurora's residents;
♦ the proposed development will benefit both the Town's economy and sense of
community;
♦ the Town's market study (feasibility and impact) requirements have been
appropriately met, with a particular focus on relevant public interest concerns — the
results of the market study support the appropriateness of the proposed region -
serving retail centre, from market feasibility and impact perspectives;
♦ the Plan's various policy requirements which relate to the consideration of a
regional commercial development on the subject lands have all been appropriately
addressed bythis proposal; furthermore, the current proposal seeks to fulfill a long -
recognized potential to serve a regional retail market from this strategic location;
♦ the supporting economic analysis shows that the Town's longer -term supply of
employment lands will be adequate to meet projected needs, in the context of the
prospective region -serving retail/service commercial facility on the subject lands,
at the scale proposed; and,
♦ the subject development proposal reflects due regard for the symbolic importance
and related urban design emphasis placed on the site and vicinity by the Town's
planning policy regime.
4
—106—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
PART II — THE AMENDMENT
a) Introduction
All of this part of the document entitled Part II — The Amendment, consisting of the
following text and attached map designated as Schedule "A" (Land Use Plan), constitutes
Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan for the Town of Aurora.
b) Details of The Amendment
The Official Plan of the Town of Aurora is hereby amended as follows:
Item (1): Schedule "AX Land Use Plan, being part of the Bayview Northeast Area 2B
SecondaryPlan (Official Plan Amendment No. 30), is amended bychanging the
land use designation for the lands described as Part of Lot 21, Concession 3
EYS, from "Business Park" to "Business Park - Regional Commercial Centre,
See OPA XX", as shown on Schedule "A" attached hereto and forming part of
this amendment.
Item (2): Section 3.4 Commercial Policies of the Bayview Northeast Area 2B Secondary
Plan (Official Plan Amendment No. 30) is hereby amended as follows:
1) subsection 3.4.1 b) is deleted in its' entirety and replaced with the following:
"The development oflands at Highway404 has been identified by Council as
a high priority, with an intent to encourage high quality building and site
design in the near to long term. These lands are designated for a
combination of Business Park and Business Park - Regional Commercial
Centre uses, in recognition of the high visibility and accessibility of lands
between Leslie Street and Highway 404, and the attractiveness of this
location for uses serving not only the growing population of Aurora but also
the surrounding urban and rural areas."
ii) subsection 3.4.1.c) is amended by the addition of the words "Yi Business
Park- Regional Commercial Centre "as a third classification in the list of
commercial categories established by this Secondary Plan, and by the
deletion of the subsequent sentence which reads, "A Regional -serving Retail
Commercial designation may be added by amendment to this Plan subject
to Section 3.4.1 b) of this Plan."
iii) a new Section 3.4.4 "Business Park - Regional Commercial Centre" is
added, with site -specific policies as follows:
N
—107—
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
a) The Business Park -Regional Commercial Centre designation applies to
certain lands along the north side of Wellington Street East between
Highway 404 and Leslie Street. As detailed in subsections b), c) and d)
below, this designation shall maintain underlying policy permissions for
Business Park uses, while also enabling major, regional -serving
retail/service commercial uses on the subject ian ds. This mix of permitted
uses shall be designed and developed in a manner compatible with and
complementary to the planned business park uses on adjacent lands to
the east, as well as other planned business park development to the
north and south. A key design objective shall be a cohesive overall
development scheme which exhibits a high standard of urban design,
commensurate with the prominent regional location of the site at this
important gateway to urban Aurora. Development of the subject lands
shall also reflect due regard for the Urban Design Guidelines of the
Wellington Street East Corridor.
b) The underlying use and developmentpolicies applicable to Business Park
uses on the subject lands, as set out in Section a of this Secondary
Plan, shall continue to apply.
c) in addition to the Business Park uses permitted in Section 3.5 of this
Secondary Plan, also permitted on the subject lands are Regional
Commercial uses as per Section 3.2.6 of the Aurora Official Plan,
including a full range of complementary retail and service commercial,
recreational, cultural, office, entertainment, institutional and hospitality
service uses. Commercial uses are anticipated to include a mix of large-
floorplate, mid -size and smaller operators.
d) Furthermore, the Regional Commercial uses contemplated for the subject
lands shall be subject to the following site -specific policies:
I) Notwithstanding Section 3.2.6 of the Aurora Official Plan:
the permitted commercial (retail and service) uses are not required
to be in an enclosed mall format, but rather, maybe developed as
free-standing, multiple -tenant or mixed -use buildings;
a first -line department store is not a required component of this
development, but there shall be a minimum of two (2) primary
(large-floorplate) retail operators each having a minimum
commercial floor area of 9,300 sq. m; and,
the maximum aggregate commercial floor area for the Regional
Retail Centre component shall be approximately 50,200 sq. m.
0
110
PUBLIC PLANNING — SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
li) Development of regional -serving retail commercial uses shall occur
on a phased basis, with the first full year of operation of the initial
development phase not to occur before 2006. Appropriate phasing
details shall be established on a site -specific basis through
implementing zoning provisions.
iv) Subsection 3.5.2 e) is deleted in its' entirety, and the subsequent
subsections f , g) and h) are re -labelled e), f) and g), respectively.
3. Implementation and Interpretation
The implementation and interpretation of this Amendment shall be in accordance with the
respective policies of the Aurora Official Plan and the Bayview Northeast Area 2B
Secondary Plan (Official Plan No. 30.)
7
—109—
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
-111-
PUBLIC PLANNING - SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA
By-law Number 4600-04.0
BEING A BY-LAW to
Confirm Actions by
Council Resulting from
the Meeting of September
29, 2004.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA
HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the action of the Council at its meeting held on September 29, 2004 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 29rH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2004.
READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 29rH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
2004.
T. JONES, MAYOR
K. EWART, DEPUTY CLERK
-112-
ADDITIONAL ITEM TABLED FOR
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING - PUBLIC PLANNING
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
➢ Letter from Aurora residents
Re: Item 1 - PL04-109 — Zoning By-law Amendment Application
74 Wellington Street East
➢ Letter from Kirsten Kontor & Dave Walker and Theresa & Quinn
Bingham
Re: Item 1 - PL04-109 — Zoning By-law Amendment Application
74 Wellington Street East
➢ Memorandum from the Economic Development Officer
Re: Item 3 - PL04-112 - Whitwell Developments Limited (First
Professional)
5EP 29-2004 00:46 W 5 I A T
F.01
Mr R Panizza
Clerk
Town of Aurora
100 John West ,Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
September 28, 2004
Re: Re -zoning I,Applicatio_n_ on Centre Street, Fiie
Number 014-09-'04
Please be advised that the undersigned do not
support the above re -zoning application insofar as
it permits traffic to exit on to Centre Street, for
the following reasons.
1. The proposed one-way drive -through from
Wellington Sheet to Centre Street would increase
the traffic flow tc Centre Street.
Traffic in this area is already:acknowledged to be
a serious problem. Residents are concerned about
the potential for increased traffic on this
residential street.
The Planning Report states that,the Public Works
Department does "not anticipate increased levels of
traffic on Centre Street" from the proposed one-way
drive -through, This conclusion seems surprising --
ie that it will be a business with no customers.
But even if there will be little additional traffic
from the present owners, future owners may well
have different businesses which -will generate
significant traffic flow_ Further, residents are
concerned that this one-way drive -through could be
used as a short-cut from Wellington to Centre for
'traffic not related to the business.
A
{
ON
SEP-29-2004 08:46 W S I A T
2
M
Traffic calming measures are currently being
examined by the Town and local residents, The One-
way drive -through part of this application should
be deferred urytil after the traffic calming
recommendations have been made.
2. The creation of a parking lot exit in the middle
of the street ;between existing residential homes
will significantly change the character of this
part of Centre Street.
Residents in this older area take pride in their
homes. The Historical House Tour, which took place
only weeks agq, included two homes on Centre Street
which are in (3lose proximity to this proposed
parking lot exit. Unfortunately, being close to
Wellington makes this neighbourhood vulnerable to
encroaching commercial development.
We do not have confidence that the recommendations
of constructirq a fence with "decorative detailing"
and some shrubs and vines will ever effectively
disguise a parking lot exit to Centre Street.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
cc Aurora Planing Department
Signed by ths�following Aurora residents:
��Name y�
Cam--
4�5+
8
qI
�u
SEP-2S-2004 08:47 W 5 I A T
41, ..y.. -
10:&,/,�
Da4 0.✓ /S-
P.03
�L,
C41
I
0
0
3
TOTAL P.03
September 29, 2004
BY PAX AND MAIL
Mr. Bob Ponizza
Clerk
Town of Aurora
100 John West Way
Box 1000
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6Z1
Dear Ms. Celebre:
Re: Opposition to Rezoning Application D14-0904
74 Wellington Street
Town of Aurora
This letter has been prepared on behalf of residents of Centre Street in order to document
our opposition to the above noted rezoning application to allow a change in use at 74
Wellington Street. It is our understanding that the proposed change in use would require a
parking lot to be constructed at the rear of the existing building, thus providing 10 new
parking spaces in accordance with the current by-law, as well as an exit onto Centre Street.
As residents of Centre Street, we have a number of concerns related to the proposed
parking lot and exit onto Centre Street. Firstly, Centre Street is one of a handful of streets
that comprise the north-east quadrant of the residential section of historic Aurora. The
oldest house on the street dates back to the mid 1800s, while a number were constructed
around the turn of and into the first quarter of the 20fh century. Since then, there has been a
significant amount of infill development, resulting in the establishment of a residential
community on the north side of Wellington Street. It should be noted that the parking lot at
the rear of 74 Wellington Street is proposed in between two existing historical single family
dwellings, both of which date back to the early 1900s. While the rear of the subject property
is currently fenced and well -vegetated, the proposed paved parking lot would result in a
drastic change to the character of this section of the street. Instead of being a self-
contained residential street along this section of Centre, a through -way to Wellington Street
would be established and the residential character interrupted by an incompatible parking
lot. Though we note that some fencing and landscaping is proposed along the property
boundary, we do not feel that the proposed screening measures would mitigate the
change in character that would result from the introduction of a parking lot between
historical houses in the middle of our residential street.
Secondly, Centre Street is currently under significant traffic pressure due to the increased
volume of cars travelling through the downtown core of Aurora from both the east and the
west as development on the outskirts of town continues to progress. As Centre Street is one
street north of Wellington, connecting Industrial Parkway to Yonge Street, it has become an
alternate route for those attempting to bypass the often congested intersection of Yonge
and Wellington. It should be noted that the volume and speed of cars travelling along this
C:\WINNT\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK3\WELLINGTON ST_REZONING.WPD
Mr. Bob Panizza - 2 - September 29, 2004
residential street is a continuing safety concern for residents and compromises the
residential character of the street. A quadrant -wide traffic calming initiative is currently
underway for the north-east quadrant of historic Aurora to determine what sort of traffic
calming measures can be implemented across the quadrant to control the speed and
volume of cars using these residential streets as through -ways. As a result of this initiative
and the reality of the existing traffic pressures on Centre Street, we find it counter -intuitive for
the Town to be considering an application that will result in not only increased traffic
emptying onto Centre Street from the commercial property, but also in the creation of yet
another cut -through alternative from Wellington to Centre Street for those seeking to bypass
the intersection of Yonge and Wellington. While the applicant may argue that the current
use of the property will not result in any noticeable increase in traffic due to commercial
customers, once the parking lot is established, any future owners of the property will have
access to an established parking lot and the potential for future increases in use may rise
considerably.
Finally, we would like to raise a concern regarding potential loitering and use of the
proposed parking lot by those who are not customers of the business at 74 Wellington Street.
In the past, the parking lot at the corner of Centre Street and Wells Street has been used
frequently during evenings and weekends as a local hangout, with parties often extending
into the early morning hours. The owners of the business at Centre and Wells eventually put
chains up to restrict vehicular access to the parking lot during off hours, but the opportunity
to use such areas as hangout spots continues to exist. While the use of the parking lot on this
corner for these purposes is an annoyance to neighbours living in close proximity to this
intersection, the impact would be much greater if the parking lot were sandwiched
between two residential dwellings, as is proposed behind 74 Wellington Street.
In light of the above, as residents of Centre Street, we have a strong opposition to the
approval of any application that requires a parking lot to be constructed behind the existing
building with an exit onto Centre Street. We are advocates of the historical, residential
community of downtown Aurora and wish to see the atmosphere in this neighbourhood
improved, rather than diminished through the introduction of incompatible uses. Centre
Street is home to a growing number of young families, many of whom are restoring historical
homes to their previous condition, attempting to foster an improved sense of community
and quality of life on this historic street. While we do not object to the conversion of
historical buildings on Wellington Street from residential to commercial properties, we feel
that the impacts on neighbouring residential communities should be carefully considered by
Town staff. We are of the position that the parking needs of the commercial properties on
Wellington Street should be satisfied within the commercial section of downtown Aurora,
without impacting the surrounding residential streets. As such, parking lot entrances and
exits should be restricted to Wellington Street only, with fencing and landscape buffers
promoted at the rear of these properties to reduce the impacts of any incompatible uses
proposed adjacent to residential properties.
Primarily, we wish to maintain the residential quality of our street and foster opportunities to
improve the quaint, historic character of the north-east quadrant of Aurora and hope that
Town staff and Town council understand how this current proposal may negatively impact
C:\WINNT\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK3\WELLINGTON ST_REZONING.WPD
Mr. Bob Paniaa - 3 - September 29 2004
the residential quality of life on Centre Street.
Yours truly,
Klrsten Kantor & Dave Walker Theresa & Quinn Bingham
Mentre Street Wentre Street
c.c.: Sue Siebert, Director of Planning
C:\WINNT\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK3\WELLINGTONST REZONING.WPD
W_W=6
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Dino Lombardi, Economic Development Officer
Date: September 29, 2004
Re: Additional Information re Agenda Item #3 (PL04-112) September
29, 2004 Public Planning Meeting — Whitwell Developments
Limited (First Professional) File Nos. D09-10-03 & D14-28-03 —
Economic Development Division Comments
As per the direction from Council at the September 28, 2004 Council Meeting, I offer
my comments regarding the applications referenced above.
The Economic Development Division has reviewed the subject applications for the
Whitwell Developments' property at the north east corner of Wellington Street East
and Leslie Street, and is generally in support of the revised proposal as submitted by
the applicant. The revised Concept Plan represents a distinct improvement to the
original application and attempts to address various issues previously raised by Town
staff, such as:
• Providing a larger office/business park component that allows a more
functional, efficient, and marketable office campus;
• Orienting the office campus layout to the north, by massing office uses
adjacent to the State Farm development;
• Redesigning the retail component by concentrating the major retail space in
the west quadrant of the site; and
• Addressing the streetscape by locating retail spaces in proximity to
Wellington Street.
There are, however, issues that have been identified by the Town's peer reviewers,
as well as the Economic Development Division, which may require further clarification
by the applicant. These include the following:
• Page 1
1. It is recommended that Whitwell explore other options to providing access to
the proposed business park lands. The EDO concurs with Planning
Department staff that other access options that either link the office area
directly to the State Farm Complex or provide access from Street A (the main
north/south collector road) should be explored in order to make these lands
more marketable. Forcing officer workers to access these lands by traversing
the internal retail road grid and parking areas is unorthodox, impractical and
will result in congestion and user frustration. Any success in marketing the
business park lands and securing future tenants may depend on the provision
of direct and unambiguous access from a main street or non-commercial
entrance point.
2. The Town must be confident that the integration of office/business park
elements within a regional -scale 'new format' retail centre as the proposed by
the applicant will be successful and not impact the importance of this
employment centre. Staff is unaware of any example of a 'retail power centre'
in Ontario being developed concurrently with an office/business park element
as an integral component.
Typically, in examples of existing retail centres such as the Scarborough
Town Centre and Square One/Mississauga, retail uses existed prior to the
development of office/business uses. Further, these office components
developed in distinct business precincts that were adjacent to, but physically
separated from the enclosed shopping centre by main roadways or other land
uses.
The main concern with this proposed development is that the power centre
does not overwhelm the business park use or jeopardize its planned function
as a major employment node. Any impact on the importance of this node
could result in a lack of interest for businesses as a corporate address.
3. The Town's economic peer reviewer is now satisfied that the revised Concept
Plan submitted with this application, which increases the business park
component to approximately 22.5 acres, will result in an adequate supply of
employment land for the Town to the year 2016. The long term viability of the
business park component within this development must be assured by the
applicant in order that these lands develop as a modern business park.
4. Historically, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that municipalities
experience an increase in applications to redesignate employment lands that
abut successful retail power centres. As a result, staff is concerned with the
issue of employment land retention within the remainder of the Highway 404
Business Park. The lands south of Wellington Street East, adjacent to
Highway 404, are well positioned and strategically located within Aurora and
enjoy high exposure to the Highway. The Town should continue to view these
lands as high priority development and they must be retained as employment
lands for the future. As such, staff concurs with the Town's planning peer
• Page 2
reviewer that the Official Plan Amendment should contain policies that
emphasize the importance of this employment node and wording that restricts
additional retail uses to the Whitwell site.
Economic Development Officer
Ext. 4742
• Page 3