Recommendation: That, the application
of the PenEquity Realty Corporation, relating to the properties located at
3130 and 3260 Dingman Drive and the rear portion of 4397/4407 Wellington Road
South, BE REFERRED to the June 20, 2013 meeting of the Planning and
Environment Committee for further consideration; it being noted that the
Civic Administration is to report back with an amended By-law to reflect the
applicant’s request as outlined in the attached communication;
it being noted that the Planning and
Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication, dated January
14, 2013, from K. Patpatia, 1787996 Ontario Inc., and J. Manocha, Flexion
Properties Inc., with respect to this matter;
it
being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with
this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection
therewith:
·
David Johnson, CEO and President, PenEquity Realty
Corporation – advising that PenEquity has a long standing track record for
recognizing properties that have special qualities and developing them to
their full potential; indicating that this has resulted in successful quality
developments that interested stakeholders are proud to be a part of; advising
that, at the 2011 Mayor’s Breakfast, he was given the privilege of saying a
few words about this proposed development; expressing appreciation to the
staff for recognizing that the lands be given the New Format Regional
Commercial Node designation; advising that the development cannot proceed
with any part of the woodlot remaining on the property in its current
location; indicating that the lands are currently zoned for Commercial and
Light Industrial uses with no Open Space designations; advising that they are
not here asking to rezone Open Space lands or to remove a designation
protecting the woodlot; indicating that a key factor for entering into the
development was because the lands are zoned for development; advising that
the current process is to refine the use of the lands; noting that it is not
to establish the principal of development; indicating that their goal is to
achieve a balance between economics for the City and the development, the
environment and civic responsibility; indicating that, while they are fully
within their rights to cut down the woodlot, good stewardship and the manner
in which PenEquity conducts business led them down the road of public process
and good corporate citizenship; indicating that they did not abandon their
rights, but, in good faith, they agreed to review the woodlot with AECOM as
recommended by city staff; indicating that the woodlot hit some of the City’s
markers; indicating that AECOM concluded that given the planned function of
this node under the City’s Official Plan, the long-term viability of the
patch as a functioning woodlot is dubious due to the disconnective nature of
the natural heritage features within the immediate surrounding landscape and
the disturbance from existing and future land uses; indicating that the
woodlot does not contain any species at risk; indicating that the ecological
feature is not considered unique within the City of London; advising that the
woodlot areas have a high invasive plant cover that compromises the patch;
advising that the patch is severed by a sewer easement that has and will be
maintained as a clear area; indicating that the woodlot is isolated from
other patches; indicating that they are willing to compensate the City by
donating land and contributing to the City’s million tree challenge; advising
that their offer is on public record with both staff and the Investment and
Economic Prosperity Committee; advising that they have offered a gift of land
of 6 acres in the southeast corner of the property to be either reforested
and available to the public or to serve as a fourplex arena complex, which is
included in the City’s Capital Budget; advising that they also offered a
major contribution to the City’s million tree challenge, which has a definite
need given the City’s emerald ash borer problem; indicating that this package
has an approximate value of $3,500,000; advising that the current value of
the woodlot is approximately $5,500 an acre; noting that the property is not
available and is not accessible; however, if it was it would garner about 600
acres of land; advising that their goal is to produce a special development
which takes advantage of the unique 401 location that promotes the City and
other stakeholders while acting as an anchor; indicating that this will
promote economic opportunity and prosperity; advising that this is an
approximately $200,000,000 investment in the City of London, excluding spin
offs; advising that it will result in approximately 681 person years in
employment in construction; advising that it will also create approximately
323 person years of employment regarding materials and services; advising
that approximately 1,200 jobs will be created in retail; advising that it
will produce approximately $9,400,000 in development charge revenue for the
City; advising that it will create building permit revenue in excess of $440,000
and annual property taxes in excess of $2,800,000; and, indicating that the
removal of the woodlot is both permitted and essential to move forward,
balanced by the gateway and economic benefits to the City, including a
significant compensation package which promotes both sustainability and
accessibility to all stakeholders.
·
Leger Xavier, Vice-President, Development and Leasing,
PenEquity Realty Corporation – indicating that they have spent a lot of time
trying to outline a plan that resonated with the community and met the terms
and conditions that they were scoped and tasked with; indicating that
Wellington Road South and Highway 401 is a gateway for the City of London;
indicating that this is a great opportunity to create branding and a sense of
awareness that you are in the City of London at one of London’s key entrance
points; noting that it is the only entrance point to the Downtown; advising
that 30,000,000 people a year drive by this interchange; indicating that this
is an amazing opportunity to do something really special; advising that it
has already been identified as a major gateway into the City and the
Downtown; advising that it is part of an existing retail node; reiterating
that the lands are already zoned New Format Regional Commercial Node and
zoned for development; indicating that there are a lot of great complimentary
uses in the area; advising that the site is 80 acres in size; indicating that
the development has to be meaningful in a variety of ways, including size,
development and design; indicating that they have come up with themed
neighbourhoods that are accessible and connected to the core area within a
three to five minute walk; noting that the themes are fashion, retail and goods
and sports and entertainment; indicating that this creates a strong
designation for South London where you do not have to get back in your car; looking
for a way to establish and sell through the gateway idea; noting that the
gateway would be a way to brand the community; advising that London has an
opportunity to do something really special along its 401 highway; and,
expressing belief in this unique opportunity to not only establish a major
development at the interchange but to also bring branding and presence to
London.
·
Dean Sheppard, Chair, Environmental and Ecological Planning
Advisory Committee (EEPAC) – advising that the EEPAC reviewed the subject
lands status report in January, 2013; indicating that the EEPAC made
recommendations about the significance of the woodland and the boundary of
the woodland as marked; indicating that the EEPAC advised of technical
deficiencies that they found in the report, including the protection of
uncommon communities and the need for an Environmental Impact Study to determine
the impacts from development and what the fate of the woodland would be once
the impacts were specified; indicating that the woodland was evaluated based
on eight evaluation factors; advising that one high score in one of those
evaluation factors is sufficient for a woodland to be considered a significant
part of a natural heritage system; advising that five evaluation criteria
were marked as high; indicating that this is a high quality woodland and is
clearly a significant part of our natural heritage system; indicating that
AECOM, who prepared the subject lands status report, agrees that the woodland
is significant; advising that there is less than eight percent woodland cover
in London; indicating that there are only two ways to increase that number,
those being to naturalize a lot more land and to stop cutting down existing
woodlands; indicating that woodlands are not clear cut because it is short
sighted, natural areas are community assets, natural areas do pay us back,
there’s a lot of ecological goods and services and community value in an
existing, healthy, natural, mature, natural area; advising that, in his view,
it is the City’s responsibility to ensure that the public good is achieved; indicating
that woodlands are being cut faster than we are planting; indicating that
there is a clear policy mandate in the Provincial Policy Statement and
London’s Official Plan; advising that the public expects the City to be good
stewards of our natural assets; noting that there is a really good example in
tonight’s agenda in the comments from the Glanworth Community Association;
advising that staff have done a really good job of explaining what a land
status report is; indicating that no one knows if a woodland is in a healthy
state until an Environmental Impact Study has been completed; advising that
the proponent is talking about some circumstances in an attempt to clear cut
the woodland; reiterating that the scoring still showed five high scores;
indicating that the circumstances outlined can be easily individually
challenged; noting that in EEPAC’s review of the report, the EEPAC made
comments specifically challenging, refuting or questioning some of the
circumstances that were going to lead to the non-viability of the woodland; advising
that the EEPAC does not agree with the predictions of the doom of the
woodland; incorporating the woodland into this proposed development is a
perfect example of how we can have both economic development and a build out
and still protect our existing woodland; seeing no reason why both cannot
occur; advising that the preservation of the woodland is funded through
parkland dedication; noting that it will function as part of the stormwater
management facility on site; and, requesting that the woodland be preserved.
·
Steve Gammon, Senior Project Manager, Senior Planner, MMM
Group, on behalf of Costco Wholesale – advising that Costco’s legal and
consultant team have reviewed the transportation study, planning
justification report and urban design brief as submitted in support of the
Zoning By-law and Official Plan amendments; indicating that they feel this
application is premature, as outlined in the communication, dated June 17,
2013, submitted by Goodman’s, LLP, on behalf of Costco; expressing
significant concerns with the traffic on Roxborough Road and the anticipated
impact that this will have on Costco members, as well as the function of
Roxborough Road, and the existing Costco warehouse site, including access to
the site, egress from the site and on-site movement; indicating that the
transportation work completed to date has not demonstrated that the uses
permitted by the by-law can be accommodated with acceptable impacts to the
neighbours, particularly Costco; noting that this is a requirement under Section
4.5 of the Official Plan; understanding that city staff have requested an
additional transportation study be undertaken; noting that city staff have
recommended the protection of the existing woodland that will precipitate the
redesign of the conceptual site plan; advising that the redesign of the
proposed development will alter the traffic patterns; indicating that Costco
has been in touch with PenEquity; understanding that there is an agreement to
involve Costco in discussions with the City with respect to the redesign of
the proposed development and resolution of the transportation issues with the
City; advising that it is their opinion that the additional studies be
undertaken so that the transportation impacts can be understood and that all
transportation issues can be resolved prior to any amendments to zoning
by-laws being considered; advising that if the transportation issues are left
until the site plan stage, Costco will have no status under the Planning
Act and will have no right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; and,
advising that, in their opinion, it would be a mistake to pass the zoning
by-law amendment at this point as it will force Costco to appeal the decision
in order to protect the impact on their business.
·
Gary Brown, 35A-59 Ridout Street – agreeing with the
comments made by Mr. Sheppard, on behalf of the EEPAC; advising that every
city that he drives into has glorified strip malls in the corners; and,
advising that he does not think this development will distinguish London.
·
Stewart Kernohan, Lumberteria Home Hardware – advising that
his property backs onto the proposed development; indicating that he has been
at this location for 49 years; indicating that there has been a decided lack
of development in this area; advising that the last development was Costco
which is over 25 years ago; indicating that the vision that PenEquity has is
not the standard that other cities have, by proposing a gateway development,
not just a standard strip mall development; advising that the wetland area
was created by digging out the gravel for the overpass on Highway 401 and
Wellington Road when it was part of Westminster Township; advising that
Westminster Township originally zoned this area as a commercial development
area; recommending development of this area; and advising that this
development will greatly enhance this area.
·
Victoria White, President, Glanworth Community Association
– advising that she has very little sympathy for the applicant bemoaning the
fact that they purchased commercial property with woodland on it; advising
that they should have done their research better before purchasing the
property; expressing support for Mr. Sheppard’s comments; believing that a
full environmental study should be completed for the property; indicating
that the current study is not complete; expressing concern with the
compensation package; noting that a couple of trees planted somewhere does
not make a forest; and, advising that there is no compensation for a woodland
that has been identified as a significant woodland.
·
Barbara Shore, Vice-President, Glanworth Community
Association – indicating that she has specific ideas for the downtown
intensification; advising that she believes that we should be going up and
not out; advising that nothing can compare to the salvation of these key
ecological woodlands in the area; indicating that if we let one woodland and
one wetland go to development, a precedent is being set; indicating that
there are over 250 commercial buildings for lease, 141 commercial industrial
buildings for sale and 42 vacant parcels for sale in London; advising that
she has back problems and was excited at the prospect of not having to walk
far, but all she saw was cement which did not coincide with the vision she
had for this development; expressing disappointment; and, expressing concern
about retail saturation in London.
·
Jug Manocha, Flexion Properties Inc. – expressing
appreciation to the applicant; advising that they are encouraged to see
people building along the 401 corridor; and, advising that we should respect
the wishes of Westminster Township, who zoned this area commercial.
·
Mark Lisbon, CRL Developments, 3330 Dingman Drive – indicating
that they have owned their property since 2004; advising that what people see
from Wellington Road/401 does not reflect London because of the uninviting industrial
buildings along the 401; advising that he is a business person and
concentrates on numbers; advising that the biggest one for him is the 1,200
jobs that will be created on an ongoing basis; noting that you also have the
$200,000,000 construction project that creates jobs; and expressing support
for the application.
·
Sandy Levin, 59 Longbow Road – expressing appreciation to
the owner for their stewardship over the years; expressing excitement upon
reading the staff recommendation as it would show the world that development
and an environmental feature can co-exist; indicating that you have to deal
with Provincial Policies and the City of London’s Official Plan policies;
noting that the Official Plan policies have been successfully defended at the
Ontario Municipal Board and one that went to the Supreme Court of Canada;
pointing out that planting individual trees does not replace a woodland;
noting that it takes a lot of time, if you plant it as a woodland; further noting
that if you scatter the trees around the city, it is not a replacement of the
woodland; indicating that the parallel that he draws is to the significant
woodland on the east side of Hyde Park Road, north of Gainsborough Road, as
it coexists with residential and commercial development; advising that this
is an amenity for that neighbourhood; expressing concern that, if this
woodland is removed, it would be the second time that a significant woodland
would be lost if the Planning and Environment Committee and the Municipal Council
adopt a contrary recommendation to the staff recommendation; advising that
there is a message that gets sent to Londoners based on the actions that the
Municipal Council undertakes, whether or not the Policies mean something,
that they are more than just words; and, requesting that the Municipal
Council adopt the staff recommendation, with all of the holding provisions or
refer the recommendation back to staff for additional discussions with the
proponent to come up with something that does make London stand out, both on
the environmental side and the development side.
·
Scott Snider, Turkstra Mazza Shirehoft
Associates, on behalf of PenEquity Realty Corporation – indicating
that the principal issue is the woodlot; advising that this is where the disconnect
with staff is; referencing the modified recommendation that was provided to
the Council Members at the meeting; expressing interest in the EEPAC representatives
comments that we can have it all; advising that his client agrees, but not in
the same way that EEPAC sees having it all; advising that he has done a fair
bit of looking at the policies and there has been some suggestion that they
should be complying with the policies of the City of London; revealing that what
they are proposing complies in every way with the policies of the City of
London and the Official Plan; indicating that they are quite happy to rely on
the existing land use permissions that they have; looking at the forestry
position, one of the policies in London is the right tree in the right place;
advising that their own consultant said yes, it meets some of the criteria, but
the location for these trees is not in the right place, you cannot have both;
advising that the trees in the current location and the development proposed
by his client is not going to work; advising that they cannot give you the
project that they want to give you with the trees in that location; advising
that what his client has indicated, and the City policies permit this, is a
compensation proposal; indicating that that is why it was right for one of
the speakers to talk about that; noting that she was not happy with the
compensation program, but that is really the issue, because as it stands
today, my client has purchased lands that are designated for a commercial
node in your Official Plan and it is zoned for development; advising that that
is what they purchased and that is what they intend to do; noting that that
is what is reflected in the good planning documents and policies of this
City; indicating that the question whether or not they have the right
compensation package; noting that the City of London policy regime does not
require the preservation of this woodlot in its current location; indicating
that it does not require his client to compensate, either because of the
nature of the land use approvals but his client has said forget that and the
compensation package that they have offered is the one that has already been
described to you, six acres of serviced development land that you can use to
replant into a woodlot if you wish or you can use the equivalent funds to buy
woodlots wherever you want; advising that that is something specifically
permitted in the City’s policy regime and he heard one of the speakers say
that it has been done before; noting that staff has mentioned that it has
been done before; indicating that the example was the Sovereign Road example;
noting that the speaker mentioned that in a negative light, but in fact, what
happened there was that a significant area of land was preserved long term in
a woodlot which is accessible to the public and can be preserved and
maintained as a woodlot; noting that one woodlot was taken down and a
significant area was preserved, and that is what we are proposing here as
well; advising that he takes issue with the staff analysis of their program
because they are not comparing apples to apples, in that case the woodlot
was designated Open Space and therefore protected in your policy regime;
indicating that, as he understands it, it was city owned; indicating that it
is not the case here, nevertheless, his client gets it, wants to be good
corporate citizens, they get that there is some significance to this woodlot
even though it is not protected, they are prepared to provide this
compensation; indicating that that has to be the focus of the discussion
otherwise you are not going to get the best of both worlds; indicating that
the City will be stuck with a situation where they are not going to get this
development and will have a woodlot that is not accessible and is not
protected; reiterating that the property is already zoned for development;
reiterating that the woodlot is the major disconnect with staff; advising
that they have been trying to engage Costco in this application; indicating
that Costco had originally wanted part of the lands for something that they
had wanted to do; advising that they could not come to an agreement;
indicating that Costco would then not speak to them because they were looking
at other things to do; indicating that at the end of the day the speaker talked
about access, egress and on-site movement; noting that is what a site plan is
for; advising that what they are really saying is that they do not want you
to approve the zoning because they want to keep a hammer and appeal your
choice on the site plan and the lifting of the “h” provision which
would include a further traffic impact study; indicating that, had they been
engaged earlier, if they had had an opportunity, he does not think that they
would even be here, but to come at the 11th hour and to say please defer this
so that we can maintain a hammer over what you do is just not acceptable;
indicating that the City will deal with this through site plan and the
removal of the “h”, which is completely appropriate; advising that if Costco
threatens to appeal and they want to appeal, so be it; indicating that that
should not drive the decision of this Committee; indicating that one of the comments
made relates to their recommendation and was the issue of what if they are
not given any compensation; advising that one of the conditions that we are
suggesting as part of the “h” is that an agreement be entered
into addressing the removal of that unevaluated patch, the dedication of the
six acres of land and the further financial contribution towards the City’s
million tree challenge of $250,000; reiterating that that will all be done in
the form of an agreement before the “h” is lifted; advising that it will be completely
enforceable, there will be no doubt that the compensation will occur; indicating
that you will not find that there are not many changes to what staff
recommended and are encouraging the Planning and Environment Committee to
approve. (2013-D14A)
|