Agenda Item # Page # nu TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

CHAIR AND MEMBERS - PLANNING COMMITTEE

R. W. PANZER GENERAL MANAGER OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

MEADOWLILY AREA PLANNING STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE

MEETING ON MAY 11,2009 AT 7:OO PM

RECOMMENDATION

BACKGROUND .

That, on the recommendation of the General Manager of Planning and Development, the attached Terms of Reference for the Meadowlily Area Planning Study BE APPROVED; IT BEING NOTED that the Meadowlily Area Plan may be adopted as a Secondary Plan.

PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER

February 9, 2009 - report to Planning Committee asking for circulation of the draft terms of reference.

September 30, 2008 - report to Planning Committee on file 02-7430 - regarding 168 Meadowlily Road South.

Overview In September of 2008, City Council considered a report from the General Manager of Planning and Development with respect to an application for commercial development at 1 68 Meadowlily Road South. The Council resolution arising from that report included the following direction:

the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to initiate a City-led Area Plan for all lands designated Urban Reserve located east of Highbury Avenue and surrounding Meadowlily Road South and to report back at a future meeting of the Planning Committee; it being noted the Terms of Reference for this Area Plan will include provision for an independent Environmental Impact Study and an update of the Meadowlily Conservation Master Plan;

consideration of this application BE DEFERRED until such time as the Area Plan noted in part (a) above is complete; it being noted that any other applications that are received by the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include an examination of the impact of the adjacent sports fields as part of the Environmental Impact Study noted in (a), above.

Feedback on Draft Terms of Reference a) Agency/Depattmental Feedback

Notice for the draft Terms of Reference was provided to solicit feedback from municipal departments, Advisory Committees and public review agencies that are normally involved in the development approvals process. Staff and agency input was also provided at a meeting (Initial Proposal Review) held March 12, 2009. The agency comments are provided below, with staff responses provided in italics:

1

Agenda Item # Page ##

UEI Planning Department

“It is recommended that this Area Plan be adopted as a Secondary Plan”.

Planning Response - A secondary plan will provide specific schedules and policies for the area. With any Area Plan process, an associated guideline document is adopted as part of the process; however, with a secondary plan, this document is adopted as part of the Official Plan. The details and policies encompassed in the report form a part of the Official Plan, and thus have greater standing than a guideline document.

Adopting the Area Plan as a Secondary Plan as opposed to the current practice of adopting the Area Plan as a guideline document could have the following benefits:

Provide a higher status - forms part of the Official Plan and carries the weight of policy; Allows for more detailed policy direction for an area; Allows for new and specific Official Plan designations which are to be applied to a specific area (e. g. mixed land use designations); Allows for more detailed mapping for a specific area; Generally allows a more effective delivery of the vision which is developed through the area plan process Adoption of Secondary Plan will be after the Area Plan process to meet the needs of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process.

Staff are currently reviewing the potential for Area Plans to be adopted as Secondary Plans in the future. An information report for circulation is scheduled for Planning Committee in fhe coming months. If Official Plan changes are adopted, than the Meadowlily Area Plan could be adopted as a Secondary Plan. Verbiage has been added to Section 7 7 of the Terms of Reference.

Environmental and Enaineerina Services (EESD) i) Wastewater and Drainage Engineering (WADE) - Sanitary

“Under Section 7.4 - Servicing Studies - Item i) “Water and Sanitary Servicing Study”, EESD recommends this section be divided into two sections, one for water servicing and the other for sanitary servicing. The following is EESD’s suggested wording for the revised sanitary section:

“This component study will review and document the sanitary sewer requirements and options for the study area.

Existing sewer infrastructure within the Study will be mapped, the current situation with respect to system capacities and constraints will be evaluated, and works that are already planned or proposed to service the Study Area will be compiled and mapped. The consultant will be required to determine the appropriate Class EA for this work and undertake the Class EA concurrently with the Area Plan Study.

In conjunction with the completion of alternative land use concepts, the Class EA will determine a sanitary servicing scheme. The scheme will identify: 0 The municipal sanitary outlet(s) which will serve the area; 0 A preliminary design of sanitary tributary areas and estimates of sewage

flows from these areas; 0 Proposed trunk and sub-trunk sanitary sewer alignments; 0 Options for resolving any downstream conveyance constraints that have

been identified; 0 Options for conveying sewage flows across the Thames River; 0 Phasing of the proposed works; 0 Preliminary estimates of the costs and cost sharing for required sanitary

infrastructure works.

It is noted that servicing for an area north of the Thames River will need to be considered and included in this sanitary servicing scheme.”

2

Agenda Item # Page #

1 With respect to the unserviced area north of the River, the Wastewater and Drainage Engineering Division will provide a map identifying the limits of this area directly to PI ann i ng ” .

Planning Response - Suggested wording changes and section changes have been incorporated into the text of the Terms of Reference. One major change will be the inclusion of the lands to the north of the Thames River into the servicing study area. Although this does not change the “study area” these lands will be reviewed from a servicing perspective. The lands to the north of the river are designated Low Density Residential and therefore no evaluation of a change in land use is proposed. These lands include the properties located along Norlan Avenue and Meadowlily Road North. This will be outlined in the Terms of Reference.

It should be noted that a concurrent Environmental Assessment for sanitary servicing will be completed. Additional information specific to the EA scope may be necessary. If so, than additional criteria will be brought forward for inclusion into the Request for Proposals (RFP) process. A new Section (7.5) has been added which discusses the Environmental Assessment process in greater detail.

ii) Wastewater and Drainage Engineering (WADE) - Stormwater “This area plan will be undertaken in the form of a ‘secondary plan’ which will also serve to meet the needs of the Municipal Class Assessment for stormwater. The following comments are intended to satisfy the needs for terms of reference for the double purpose of a Municipal Class EA/ secondary plan for stormwater.

The Municipal Class EA study (Schedule ’B’) for StormIDrainage and SWM Servicing Works will review applicable servicing options for the subject lands and recommend the preferred servicing alternative for these works. The recommended servicing alternative will identify the water resources management strategy that includes water quality and q u a n t i t y/f I ood con t ro I protection , and m ai n t a i n in g e ro s i o n/f I uv i a I g eo m or p h o I og i ca I functionality in coordination with ground water resources, environmental and ecological conditions of the system. The majority of the subject lands are tributary to the South Thames Subwatershed, with small portions tributary to the Dingman Creek and Central Thames Subwatersheds. The recommended servicing option is expected to meet the SWM criteria and environmental targets of the South Thames River, Dingman and Central Subwatershed Study, Official Plan and provincial policies statements (PPS), Ministry of the Environment (M0E)’s acts, regulations, water quality criteria and the SWM Planning and Design Manual (2003). This option will be required to meet the City of London’s Design Specification and Requirements and the Check List Requirements for Municipal Class EA study, as well as all applicable standards, by-laws and requirements. The proposed Storm/Drainage and SWM Servicing Works shall be coordinated with Parks and Natural Heritage System (NHS) Planning as part of an overall open space system that contributes to both sound environmental management and protection, and enhanced community urban design. A Municipal Class EA study (Schedule ’B’) for Storm/Drainage and SWM Servicing Works for Meadowlily Area Plan shall be completed as per the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA)’s Municipal Class EA process document for Water and Wastewater projects (2008). The objectives of this Municipal Class EA study are as follows:

> Review and incorporate the requirements of the relevant subwatershed studies including, but not limited to, South Thames River and Dingman Creek;

> Assess and review existing drainage conditions including catchment and subcatchment areas, available topographic mapping and photographs, survey data and information on soil conditions, the constraints and opportunities for NHS and water resources management;

P Develop applicable SWM modelling for the servicing options and identify the preferred a I ternat ive including the required hydrolog ical/h yd ra u lic eva I ua t ion modeling to simulate pre-and post-development storm conditions that incorporate the following:

3

Agenda Item # Page #

00 Confirmation of SWM system design criteria, including any Placemaking locational design requirements, Delineation of drainage sub-catchment areas, proposed trunk sewer and over flow routing, Preliminary review of floodlines, watercourse capacity and outlet requirements, Confirm/identify the storm/drainage conveyance system for each of the proposed SWM facilities, Confirm the drainagekatchment areas for each of the proposed SWM facilities, and Preliminary evaluation of fluvial geomorphological conditions, hydrogeological, water balance, and geotechnical conditions to identify water resources management requirements and minimize the potential impacts of development on surface and ground water resources.

P Complete an Environmental Impact Study (3 season inventory ) in accordance with City requirements;

P Recommend works in order to optimize performance of water resources management and incorporate the applicable SWM Criteria, environmental targets for the recommended implementation strategy and remediation work for the subject lands;

P Incorporate the Private Permanent System applications approach and evaluate any future impacts of resizing/revising SWM facilities for the proposed system; and

P Provide the required conceptual/ preliminary design and cost modifications for the recommended preferred option.

The storm/drainage and SWM EA study will be required to address: documentation and analysis of existing conditions; identification of opportunities and constraints; analysis of SWM options having regard for development viability and costs; and the preparation of a preliminary design and implementation plan for the preferred water resources management system. These tasks should be coordinated with the NHS evaluation to facilitate the identification of opportunities to incorporate SWM functions within natural areas and to establish appropriate watercourse protection and water resources enhancement criteria. Alternative SWM solutions including at-source, conveyance and end-of-pipe measures will be evaluated for compliance with applicable criteria and suitability for the Study Area. The preferred strategy will be identified through analysis including hydrologidhydraulic modeling, water balance investigations and the consideration of socio-economic and environmental factors. Within this overall strategy, the approximate size and location of required SWM facilities and/or online tributary works will be established for detailed design at later stages in the planning approval process. The expected outcome of this study is a stormldrainage and SWM servicing works option that identifies the optimal type and location of SWM facilities, overland conveyance and storm trunk sewers as well as best practices to achieve water resource management objectives. The strategy will also include guidelines for the design and implementation of more detailed SWM measures through the sub-area or subdivision planning process. One of the objectives of the Municipal Class EA study (Schedule ’B’) for Storm/Drainage and SWM Servicing Works for Meadowlily Area Plan is to integrate this Class EA requirements with the public consultation and analysis to be undertaken for this component study and the preparation of the area plan, should the Meadowlily Area Plan proceed as a Secondary Plan under the Planning Act. The consultation process will include consolidation with the major stakeholders that include the City’s departments, the UTRCA, the MOE, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other agencies as required, as well as landowners and the general public. The consultant’s Proposal Requirements for Municipal Class EA study (Schedule ’B’) for Storm/Drainage and SWM Servicing Works for Meadowlily Area Plan should include, but not limited to, the following topics:

4

Agenda Item ## Page #

1 Project approach, work program and research activities; Schedule of all activities, land mark dates, City staff involvement; Compliance with the City’s Class EA study Requirements and Design Specifications Requirements for stormldrainage and SWM servicing works; Key staff, their roles and rates; Knowledge and expertise to be employed; Experience with projects of a similar nature; Accountability for quality assurances and time commitments for submissions; and Estimate of services, including a breakdown by staff and disbursements”.

Planning Response - The above information has been included in the final terms of reference. The Drainage and Stormwater Management section of the Terms of Reference has been separated into two sub-sections. It should be noted that a concurrent Environmental Assessment for stormwater management will be completed. Additional information specific to the EA scope may be necessary. If so, than additional criteria will be brought forward for inclusion into the Request for Proposals (RFP) process. A new Section (7.5) has been added which discusses the Environmental Assessment process in greater detail.

It is also noted that the comments reflect the possibility of the Area Plan to be adopted as a “secondary plan”. This will be addressed later on in the report and reflected in the recommendation clause.

iii) Transportation “The draft terms of reference indicates that the transportation study will develop a multi- modal transit first transportation network and a placed based street classification system. These are proposed to be used for future development applications. This changes the character and function of all classifications of streets within this area. The function of the street would be based upon the abutting land use with all types of transportation (vehicle, walking, cycling, transit) given equal status. EESD supports concepts that promote less reliance on the automobile. However, without the benefit of transportation studies to verify transportation needs (including city wide needs), we would not support plans that have unknown and potentially negative impacts on the arterial roadway capacity. The Official Plan enshrines a functional street classification system. Other documents including the Transportation Master Plan and Long Term Corridor Protection Study exist or are underway and must be considered in the development of all parts of the arterial roads network including this area. The wording in the terms of reference should be adjusted to reflect the integration to the base line studies and explore the possibility of a transit first transportation network and placed based street characterization of different road classes. This is crucial to assess viability and feasible implementation of new transportation strategies. The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is being updated at the same time as this study. Co-ordination between the two studies regarding population and employment information for the Meadowlily area will be essential for the success of these studies. If Transit First is to be successful, establishing the population and employment forecasts for this area in conjunction with the TMP will be critical; this includes Transit First for trips leaving and returning to this area, not just local trips. The TMP will determine the arterial road requirements at a macro level throughout the City including this area. The focus for the transportation component of the Meadowlily study will be improvements needed within the area, intersection improvements and timing of improvements based on phasing of development. The estimated outcomes of the study include recommendations for any arterial road extension and/or re-alignments. Commissioners Rd and Highbury Ave are the only arterial roads inhear the area and it is unlikely any changes in alignment will occur. The second outcome included proposed collector road alignments and intersections with existing arterial roads. It is unlikely that any collector road will be required for this

5

Agenda Item #

3 Page #

1 development other than the possible reclassification of Meadowlily Rd. EESD is also interested in exploring access for this area through the parking lot of City Wide Sports Park to the traffic signal opposite Meadowgate Blvd. It is also unlikely that any new intersections or full access points onto Commissioners Rd will be supported. EESD has concerns regarding the use of a connectivity ratio to determine the number of accesses these lands require. The number and location of access should be based upon traffic generated by the site, intersection spacing for traffic control, infrastructure requirements, existing access and safety. If the transportation study determines that a new ramp at the Commissioners Rd/Highbury Ave interchange is necessary, an environmental assessment may be required. A road widening dedication to allow for 18.0 metres (59.1’) from the centerline of Commissioners Road East to the subject sites property line may be required”.

Planning Response - To address the Transportation concern about limiting options to a “transit first transportation network” and a “place based street classification system”, and the development of a “connectivity ratio”, it is recommended that the wording in Section 7.4 iv) should be revised to more clearly articulate that these transportation measures will be explored through the Area Planning process, but not to the exclusion of all other potential transportation options. The preferred plan may support a place based street classification system and transit first transportation network, but recognize that the character of certain corridors or alignments within the study area may reflect more traditional transportation systems.

Mention of a %ollector” road system will be removed from Section 7.4 iv), however, a possible road system will likely be developed as part of this planning exercise. The TMP and this Area planning process will be occurring at the same time, and input into each of the processes will be required to ensure both studies reflect the intended recommendations. It should be noted that a connectivity ratio will still be required as a component of urban design work to be undertaken. Changes to Section 7.4 iv) have been made to reflect the need for an Environmental Assessment should it be determined through the Area Plan process that a new ramp at the Commissioners Road and Highbury Avenue interchange is necessary. Such an EA would be outside fo the scope of this study. Any road widening required for this area will be noted through subsequent development applications.

iv) Water “A water servicing engineering analysis satisfactory to the City Engineer will be required for development within the area plan. The water supply may require the installation of a high pressure watermain. The water distribution plan for the area must be reviewed prior to any development. A Financial Impact Analysis must be provided for review by EESD”.

Planning Response - No changes are proposed through these comments; they will be noted for future applications.

Financial Plannina and Policv “Several technical wording modifications are recommended bv the Director of Development Finance to ensure that the language used in the Terms of Reference, particularly in Section 10 (Financial Impact Analysis) is accurate and clearly stated in reference to development financing and Development Charges”.

Planning Response - Wording modifications are being recommended to the Terms of Reference to more cleady articulate the requirements in Sections 70 relating to development financing and Development Charges.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority “It is recommended that the natural heritage protection strategies incorporate Low Impact Design methods for stormwater management. It is suggested that consideration be given to alternative design standards that promote innovation in

6

0

0

0

0

design, reduction of natural resources required, and can reduce the waste of resources (such as water and materials). It is recommended that the Terms of Reference include a provision that monitoring baselines and characterizations be developed and implemented as part of the area plan. This is particularly relevant for assessing geomorphic, geotechnical, and water quality conditions. Section 7 - additional studies that should be included are Species Recovery Strategies, UTRCA Policy Manual, OMNR Wetland files, and the City of London Guideline Documents for ESA’s Identification, Evaluation and Boundary Delineation. Section 7.1 .i - Inventory and evaluation should include terrestrial, aquatic and semi- aquatic habitats. Section 7.1.i makes reference to the need for a fluvial geomorphology study which should be complementary to both the natural heritage management as well as the geotechnical studies related to natural hazards (slopes). We therefore recommend that this reference also be included section 7.1 .ii) for geotechnical work. Section 7.3 - Natural heritage land use requirements should also be considered when determining the targeted allocation of land uses and housing. Section 7.4.ii - Drainage and SWM strategies recommendations should also be consistent with UTRCA policy. Section 7.4.iii - Traffic volume changes resulting from development of surrounding areas must also be included in the estimation. The UTRCA does not support cycling and pedestrian routes in the floodplain. Furthermore, the potential loss of trees resulting from the mitigation of hazards must be considered if pedestrian or cycling routes are located in wooded areas. Under the Study Objectives and Section 11 - it is recommended the Area Plan in addition to protection and enhancement also include strategies for the restoration of natural heritage features and functions. UTRCA staff would be pleased to assist with the compilation of relevant background information for the Planning Study. We also request that we be included in the circulation of the Natural Heritage study, the Hydrogeological, Geomorphology and Geotechnical Studies as well as Drainage & Stormwater Management Studies.”

Planning Response - The UTRCA is identified as a key review and approval agency in several sections of the Terms of Reference. It is recognized that regard will be given to the relevant UTRCA policies and regulatory mandate. The Authority will receive information on the Study and be represented at regular Proposal Review Meetings. No specific mention was given by the UTRCA as to where additional studies such Species Recovery Strategies, UTRCA Policy Manual, OMNR Wetland files, and the City of London Guideline Documents for ESA’s Identification, Evaluation and Boundary Delineation should be included; however, there is a general statement in the terms of reference that refers to all levels of government for existing sources of information. This will be maintained in the final Terms of Reference. The term “semi- aquatic’’ has been added to Section 7.7 i). Fluvial geomorphology is being examined as part of the natural heritage study, but is not proposed to be a separate study as part of the Area Plan. As such, a change has been made to 7.7 ii) to ensure the fluvial geomorphology is considered as part of the work being undertaken. Under the Study Objectives and Section 7 7 - it is recommended the Area Plan in addition to protection and enhancement also include strategies for the restoration of natural heritage features and functions. ”Restoration” has been added as a study objective under Section 4.

Ministrv of the Environment “MOE staff have reviewed the draft terms of reference and note that their primary interest stems from the location of the study area along the south side of the Thames River and their mandated interests in environmental protection and water resource management. Although not part of the draft terms of reference, MOE staff would like to comment upon a couple of points in the Background section of the Staff Report to Council: mainly the position on page 2 relating to the update of the Meadowlily Woods Conservation Master Plan and the EIS. It appears the Meadowlily Woods ESA

7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Agenda Item #

0 Page #

7 comprises something slightly less than half of the study area and therefore potential impacts upon it (as well as the Thames) ought to be central to this Area planning process. In MOE’s view a full and accurate assessment of the potential impacts of whatever developmentlland use activities which may be contemplated by this Area Plan can not be completed in the absence of an understanding of the valued public uses and resource values of the ESA (and indeed the Thames River Valley) so that it is understood what ecological features and processes must be sustained in order to achievelmaintain those valued public uses of the ESA. Also in the Background section of the Staff Report and at bottom of page 10 of the terms of reference there are references to Class EA for sanitary sewage and stormwater management. In MOE staff’s view these could proceed concurrently with the Area planning process - both processes require the identification of alternatives and the evaluation of them against specified criteria. The EA requirements can be fulfilled through integration with any OPA which implements the Area Plan. MOE staff believe the Area planning process should take the opportunity to explore energy efficient and green development approaches in the Study Objectives on page 5 and elsewhere throughout the document (e.g. Community Vision, Component Studies, Servicing Studies, Urban Design). The Community Vision section (page 6) mentions the possibility of some sort of strategic “planning” for a larger area. MOE staff would appreciate clarification regarding the larger area details. MOE staff wonder if this larger area includes the lands east of Jackson Road which were the subject of a previous development proposal or might this larger area link to the on-going Thames Valley Corridor Study and the Thames Valley Subwatershed Study (from the mid 199O’s)? MOE staff note that at the bottom of page 7 there is reference to determining levels of protection for natural heritage features based on sensitivity to impact. MOE staff believe it would be useful to understand what those “sensitivity values” are. It is noteworthy that the city’s 1990’s subwatershed studies took a “levels of protection” approach where three levels of protection were identified. Page 8 at the top describes various water studies to be undertaken. In MOE staffs opinion it would be useful if the document described the purpose(s) for the information generated. As expressed previously in this comment, MOE staffs view is that an understanding of ecological features and processes necessary to sustain valued public uses and resource values is vital if the objective of “a long term strategy to protect and sustain the Natural Heritage System” is to be achieved, bearing in mind that because the NHS is based on significance it may not include complete ecosystems. Therefore, MOE staff believe that the collection of information ought to be focused to this end and it should be expressly stated so that useful information is obtained. MOE staff note that it should be affirmed in the document that the water and sanitary servicing and drainage and stormwater management studies (pages 9/10) will be based upon and incorporate the findings and recommendations of the environmental studies. For instance the statement (page IO) that the “stormwater management strategy.. . achieve water resources management objectives” could specifically include environmental and natural heritage objectives. MOE staff find it curious that there is no mention of environmental or natural heritage objectives in Sections 7.5 and 8 of the document (page 12) and note that recognition of energy efficient and green development initiatives could appear here. MOE staff believe that the terms of reference should address Aboriginal Consultation in the Consultation section on pages 13/14. To the extent that developmentlland use activity put forward by the Area Plan may potentially impact aquatic and terrestrial features, processes and resources along the Thames, it is conceivable that existing and asserted Aboriginal and Treaty Rights may be affected”.

Planning Response - It has been recommended through this process that the two EA’s be held concurrently with the Area Plan process. This has been added to the terms of reference. The subsequent Terms of Reference for the EA’s will be developed in conjunction with the appropriate agencies and staff departments and brought back to Planning Committee and

8

Agenda Item #

0 Page #

1 Environment and Transportation Committee for approval prior to the RFP process. Opportunities to explore energy efficient and green development approaches have been added to Section 4, Section 6, and Section 7 7. Planning staff do note that aboriginal groups should be added to the circulation list for the subsequent Area Planning process, and welcome the Province’s input as to which group(s) should be notified.

Through the previous report on Meadowlily, it was identified that an update to the Meadowlily Conservation Master Plan is being undertaken, to commence in 2070. The Area Plan process will consider many elements of consewation and public use for the Meadowlily €SA, and this information and process will dovetail with the upcoming Master Plan update.

Ministry of Natural Resources “MNR staff have reviewed the information and provides the following comments: 4i) Planning Objectives (Page 5): MNR staff supports the objective to provide strategies for the protection and enhancement of the natural heritage system in the Meadowlily Planning Area. Given the ecological importance of the Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area within the City of London, future land use planning in the study area should incorporate the preservation of the existing natural heritage features as the highest priority. The second priority in the Meadowlily Planning Area should be enhancement of the natural heritage system. MNR recommends that any natural heritage studies undertaken in accordance with the Meadowlily Area Planning Study provide recommendations for priority restoration areas in order to promote diversity and connectivity of features, as well as increased interior habitat within the Meadowlily Woods ESA. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNRJ999) and “How Much Habitat Is Enough?” (2nd Ed. , Environment Canada, 2004) contain further information on prioritization of areas for restoration. 7.1) Natural Heritage (Page 7): This section recommends the application of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System to wetlands within the Meadowlily Planning Area. MNR, Aylmer District, would be open to a partnership with the City and/or its consultant to complete any wetland evaluations within the Meadowlily Planning Area. MNR also notes that wetland evaluations should be submitted to MNR for review and approval prior to being used for the purposes of the Planning Act.

Planning Response - “Restoration” has been added as per UTRCA comments. Any partnerships available between the City and MNR to complete any wetland evaluations will be explored by the consultants at the time of the Natural Heritage Study.

b) Public Comments Two meetings were held to discuss possible changes to the Terms of Reference. A meeting was held with landowners in the area on January 7, 2009, and a public open house was held with all interested patties on March 25, 2009.

The main points have been summarized below, with a response provided in italics: Please note comments on the process in terms of timing and cost have not been included in this list. Only comments which specifically detail a change to the terms of reference have been included. All correspondence has been attached in Appendix “B” for your review.

Add stronger neighbourhoods component Social Infrastructure - adequate schools, community facilities, libraries Add commercial study component and review how much available commercial space in London and current vacancy rates Ensure consistency with PPS Need for research adequacy in new studies and existing research reselected after “gap analysis” - studies to be reviewed must be determined to be unbiased and sound Consideration of the nature and extent of commercial uses within the study area include the lands at the northwest corner of Meadowlily and Commissioners Road Disagreement with inclusion of City Wide Sports Park into study area Completion seems uncertainhiming Should only review lands that are UR not all lands (including OS lands)

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Agenda item # c Page ##

1 An EIS for City Wide should be completed independently and not as part of this process by the City of London When will the other EIS’s be completed? As part of this? The Terms of Reference need to address and acknowledge the larger context of the area including nearby neighbourhoods, existing zoning and Official Plan, vacant land and other amenities nearby Include a bike transportation corridor as part of the study No proof that previous studies completed were biased - what proof that City-initiated studies will be unbiased? Include the bridge in the Terms of Reference and as consideration for a cultural heritage landscape Are further developable lands necessary? Air quality studies and investigations should be considered to investigate the impact on residents that development could bring Consideration for a Heritage District in the area - given Park Farm, Bridge and Mill Concepts “will” address variations to the possible location and extent of commercial land use allocations, and not merely to the amount of commercial floor space Add mention of the Thames Talbot Land Trust in Section 3: Study Area Would like to add Open Space and ESA designation to whole of the Thames Talbot Land Trust lands.

Inclusions - The following items have been added to the Terms of Reference: 7) Reference to the “stronger neighbourhoods” process has been made to Section 7 ; 2) The commercial analysis to be completed as part of the process will not specifically be part of the Area Plan, but key recommendations stemming from the commercial analysis may be adopted as part of the Area Plan. This has been noted in Section 7.3.; 3) A description of the Planning Area in the larger context of the area including nearby neighbourhoods, existing zoning and Official Plan, vacant land and other amenities nearby has been added to Section 77; 4) The Meadowlily Bridge and Mill will be included as part of the review under Section 7.2 - Cultural Heritage, as per the recommendation of Planning Commitfee and the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) stemming from the April 2Pt, 2009 Planning Committee meeting; 5) The Thames Talbot Land Trust Meadowlily Nature Presewe has been added to Section 3.

Planning Responses - The following are responses to the main points made above: 7) As a part of the consultant hiring process (request for proposals), each proponent will prepare a gap analysis to ensure existing information that is appropriate to use is not duplicated and to focus new information in areas where it is necessary. This will ensure that correct information is utilized and will help build upon what additional information will be required. This assessment will be reviewed by Planning Staff;. 2) At the request of Council, the City-Wide Sports Park will be part of the Planning Area; 3) A bicycle corridor/pathway will be explored as part of the Study Objectives under Section 4; 4) Information on the type of land uses that could locate in the area is not yet known, therefore an air quality study to determine potential impacts on residents is premature until a final land use study is completed; 5) A Heritage District is typically applied when there is a concentration of heritage buildings, a sense of visual cohesiveness, and distinctiveness in built form. While this area may not constitute a heritage district, a further review of the cultural heritage significance of the area will be conducted through the Area Planning process and a cultural heritage landscape designation will be considered.

Issues with Process, Cost and Timing Several comments have been made with respect to the cost and timing of the Area planning process. This City-initiated Area plan process is in response the direction Council. The timing of this process is no longer or shorter than any other Area plan process that has been initiated, including those that were initiated by the development community. The process for an Area Plan is set out under Official Plan policy, and will be followed regardless of the size or scope.

10

Agenda Item # Page # on Next Steps for the Meadowlily Area Planning Studx Comments have been reviewed and changedadditions to the draft Terms of Reference have been made accordingly. Once the Terms of Reference has been adopted, a Request for Proposals will be drafted and circulated to solicit possible consultants/proposals. Once the consultant selection process has occurred, a recommendation will be submitted to Board of Control. The first order of business with the consulting team will be to identify target areas for the visioning exercise to seek public input. Secondly, City staff together with the consulting team will review and prioritize the component studies that have been identified in the Terms of Reference.

L

PREPA- BY: SUBMITTED BY:

J. FLEMING, MCIP, RPP MANAGER - IMPLEMENTATION

RECOMMENDED BYL

- R. W. PANZER, MCIP, RPP

April 3, 2009 NP/np "Attach" Y:\Shared\lMPLEMEN\Meadowlily Area Plan\Terms of reference Mead owl i I y . doc

Refe rnce\Re po rt s\re po rt fin a I terms of

I 1

City of London Planning Q Development Department

May, 2009

1

.

Table of Contents c

1 . Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3

3 . Study Area ................................................................................................................... 4 2 . Study Purpose .............................................................................................................. 3

4 . Study Objectives .......................................................................................................... 5 5 . Planning Context - ........................................................................................................ 5

7.1 Natural Heritage .................................................................................................... 7

6 . Community Vision - ...................................................................................................... 6 7 . Component Studies ~ .................................................................................................... 6

Inventory and Evaluation of the Existing Natural Environment ................... 7 Groundwater. Soils and Slopes ....................................................................... 8

7.2 Cultural Heritagestudy ........................................................................................... 9 7.3 Land Use Allocation Study ........................................................................................ 9 7.4 Servicing Studies ................................................................................................... 10

i) Water Servicing Study .................................................................................. 10 ii) Sanitary Semcmg Study ............................................................................... 10 iii) Drainage and Stormwater Management ....................................................... 10 iv) Transportation .............................................................................................. 13

7.5 Environmental Assessments .................................................................................... 15 7.6 Urban Design ....................................................................................................... 15

9 . Alternative and Preferred Land Use Concepts - ...................................................... 16 10 . Financial Impact Analysis - ....................................................................................... 17 11 . Proposed Area Plan - ................................................................................................. 17 12 . Consultation Process - .............................................................................................. 18

i) City of London and Agency Input .................................................................... 18 ii) Public Consultation .......................................................................................... 18 iii) Area Study Schedule ......................................................................................... 19

Map No . 1 - Study Map .................................................................................................... 20 Map No . 2 - Existing Area Plans ...................................................................................... 21

i) ii)

. .

8 . Planning, Design and Servicing - Opportunities and Constraints Analysis - ........ 16

Map No . 3 - Current Land Use Designation .................................................................... 22 Map No . 4 - Environmental Features ............................................................................... 23 Map No. 5 - Transportation Corridors ............................................................................ 24 Map No. 6 - Recent and Active Planning Application ..................................................... 25 Map No. 7 - Existing Land Use ........................................................................................ 26 Map No . 8 - Aerial Photo .................................................................................................. 27 Map No . 9 - Zoning Map ................................................................................................. 28

2

1. Introduction - In September of 2008, City Council considered a report from the General Manager of Planning and Development with respect to an application for commercial development at 168 Meadowlily Road South. The Council resolution arising from that report included the following direction:

(a) the Civic Administration BEREQUESTEDto initiate a City-led Area Plan for all lands designated Urban Reserve located east of Highbury Avenue and surrounding Meadowlily Road South and to report back at a j t t u re meeting of the Planning Committee; it being noted the Tern~i of Reference for this Area Plan will include provision for an independent Environmental Impact Study and an update of the Meadowlily Conservation Master Plan;

consideration of this application BE DEFERRED until such time as the Area Plan noted in part (a) above is complete; it being noted that any other applications that are received for lands located in this area will be consideredpremature until the Area Plan is complete;

the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back with the Area Plan Terms of Reference noted in (a), above, by January 2009; and

the Civic Administration BEREQUBTED to include an examination of the impact of the adjacent sports fields aspart of theEnvironmenta1 Impact Study noted in (a), above;

(b)

(c)

(4

Rather than have individual landowners initiate planning applications on a piecemeal basis, it is proposed that the City initiate a comprehensive area-wide planning study. The area study will provide the basis for Official Plan amendments and provide direction for land uses, urban design and development within this area.

2. Study Purpose - The Meadowlily Area Planning Study is a City-initiated and funded project that will provide a comprehensive assessment of the opportunities and constraints for the planning and development of the study area. As set out in London's Official Plan (Sect. 2.6.8). an area study wiU provide the basis for an Official Plan amendment (and possibly a secondary plan) that will identlfy or refine environmental features, areas and natural resources; apply specific land use designations; and i d e n e collector road alignments. Area studies are also intended to provide for the co-ordination of development among multiple land owners and provide direction for: . .

=

. Housing mix and densities; . Municipal services; . The phasing of development;

. . =

Community vision and urban design The delineation, protection and management of natural heritage areas; The location and size of parks, schools and other community facilities that may be needed

Pedestrian and bicycle routes; Transit routing and supportive facilities; Site and subdivision design criteria; and Local road access to arterial and collector roads.

previous area studies in London, all of which have been developer-led and funded, have covered areas ranging from 130 hectares to 525 hectares in size. The Meadowlily Study Area is much smaller at only 95 hectares in size.

The location of new parks, schools, stormwater management facilities, etc. will be shown in an approximate or conceptual manner with exact site locations and configurations to be determined at a later date through the preparation of subdivision plans or zoning by- law amendment applications.

3

The Meadowlily Area Study will be based on background studies and community /landowner and agency consultation at a level of detail appropriate for the preparation of the intended Official Plan amendment.

3. StudvArea-

The study area for the project is shown on Map No. 1. The Location Map includes all of the lands south of the Thames River and north of Commissioners Road, between Highbury Avenue and the eastern boundary of the City Wide Sports Park. Recognizing that substantial tracts of land are held in public ownership and contain signhcant environmental features, the Area Study will focus on lands currently undeveloped and designated in the Official Plan as 'Urban Reserve" (Map No. 3).

Generally, the subject area is bounded by the Thames River to the north, Commissioners Road to the south, Highbury Avenue to the west and the eastern boundary of the City- Wide Sports Park to the east. The study area is approximately 95 hectares in size, with 65 hectares of land currently designated as "Open Space", the majority of which is being held in public ownership (either by the City or the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority). There is approximately 30 hectares currently within the "Urban Reserve, Community Growth" designation. Urban Reserve is a holding designation which sets out Council's intent to support further urban development in this area. The designation was established on these lands in 1996 through the Official Plan review process following City-wide annexation.

This area has approximately 1000 metres of frontage along Commissioners Road. The area is presently used for single family, open space and agricultural uses.

The subject area generally slopes in a south to north direction, as the elevation on Commissioners Road is higher than that towards the Thames River. Vegetation and tree cover across the subject area is substantial. An unopened road allowance (Baseline Road) is located along the southern edge of the ESA and contains some vegetation and tree cover.

Commissioners Road has recently been expanded to a three-lane urban cross section from a two lane rural cross section. The road reconstruction included the installation of sanitary sewers and storm water sewers within the Commissioners Road and Meadowlily Road South rights-of-way.

Bus route 24 Base Line travels along Commissioners Road, presently ending in the Summerside community, and has headways of 30 minutes on weekdays and 1 hour on Saturdays.

The City-wide Sports Park is located on the east side of the study area. The park contains ball diamonds and soccer fields on the majority of the land, with a parking area. An approved residential subdivision on the east side of the park consists of low and medium density blocks, and east of that subdivision there are plans for a higher density residential development. The Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Signhcant Area ('ESA'), approximately 135 hectares in total, is located in the northern section of the subject area. The City of London owns the heritage-designated Park Farm property within the ESA, an area of 46 hectares with a culturally significant house. There are currently 3 small fields within the Meadowlily Woods that are being leased to the farmer currently farming the subject area. A portion of the area adjacent to and within the ESA is owned by the Thames Talbot Land Trust and is maintained as the "Meadowlily Nature Preserve", approximately 5.8 hectares in size. The area also contains six single-detached houses that are located on the west side of Meadowlily Road South. The lands to the west and north of these dwellings are primarily vacant and/or undeveloped land that are designated Urban Reserve, Community Growth. A retail development, the Summerside Shopping Centre, with permissions for up to 30,000 square metres (325,000 square feet) of floor space is currently being constructed on the south side of Commissioners Road, between Meadowgate Boulevard and Highbury Avenue. A new residential neighbourhood, the Summerside Community, is currently under consmction immediately east and south of the Summerside Shopping Centre. The lands east of

4

Jackson Road are currently designated as Urban Reserve, Community Growth and further planning studies are necessary for these lands to develop in the future.

4. Study Objectives - i) Planning Objectives a) Recommend strategies for the protection, enhancement and restoration of the

natural heritage system; b) Provide a community structure plan, urban design concept and related urban

design guidelines for the preparation of sub-area plans, site plans and plans of subdivisions. Plan for the provision of required community facilities at a conceptual level recognizing that exact locations and site configurations will be determined through more detailed planning processes.

c) Recommend strategies for the protection and enhancement of cultural heritage resources in the area;

d) Explore and recommend energy efficient and green development approaches; e) Recommend strategies for the staging of municipal sewer, water, stormwater

management and transportation works together with the corresponding phasing of development approvals. These strategies may provide the basis for special Official Plan policies to guide the phasing of development;

f) Provide the basis for an Official Plan amendment to: refine the categorization and delineation of open space, natural heritage features and hazards; designate lands from "Urban Reservem to appropriate land use designations; identify bicycle and pedestrian systems and linkages; idendy any new arterial or collector road alignments that are required to accommodate the development of the area; establish a community vision from the area; provide for a community urban design plan to guide the structure of land use and linkages and guide the form of urban development and integration with the natural heritage area; possibly establish a secondary plan for the Meadowlily Area.

ii)

iii)

iv) v)

vi) vii)

viii)

ii) Process Objectives a) Consult landowners, agencies and the broader community throughout the

a visioning process to guide the preparation of broad planning, urban design and development concepts; the review of background studies; the review of alternative land use concepts; and the review of proposed servicing, phasing, natural heritage and urban design strategies.

b) Follow planning processes that minimize andor facilitate subsequent

planning process including: . - .

environmental assessment requirements.

5. Planning Context - The City's current Official Plan was adopted in 1989. Following annexation, an Official Plan amendment (OPA88) was adopted in 1996 to incorporate the annexed lands within the Official Plan.

The area fronting Commissioners Road (168 Meadowlily Road South) was the subject of an application for commercial uses which has been a primary driver of the decision to initiate this area study (02-7430 ' the application was to permit the development of 25,500 square metres (275,000 square feet) of retail commercial floor space, comprised of an anchor retail store of approximately 20,000 square metres (215,000 square feet) and five smaller buildings with a total of 5,500 square metres (60,000 square feet) of retail and service commercial space). This would have necessitated an Official Plan amendment from "Urban Reserve - Community Growth" designation to an 'Associated Shopping Area Commercial" designation, and a Zoning By-law amendment from a

5

Holding Urban Reserve (h-Z*UR) Zone to an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASAS( )) Zone which permits a wide range of retail, commercial and service uses, such as (but not limited to) convenience service establishments, dry cleaning and laundry plants, financial institutions, grocery stores, restaurants, retail store, pharmacies, and service and repair establishments, with a special provision to permit a maximum of 25,500 square metres of retail commercial floor space on the site.

Map No’s. 3.4, and 5 depict current Official Plan land use designations, environmental features and transportation corridors. Lands that are subject to active planning and development applications are shown on Map No. 6. Existing land use in the Study Area is shown in Map No. 7 and 8. Current zoning for the area is shown as Map No. 9.

6. Community Vision

The purpose of the visioning exercise is to engage area landowners, residents and interest groups in a process of determining the community values and design concepts that should influence the development of the area plan. The exercise will be undertaken at the outset of the program and will include the consideration of macro-design elements such as gateways, community focal points, open space comdms, cultural heritage landscapes, commercial nodes, employment areas, pedestrian opportunities and transit corridors. It is expected that the consultant will present and seek community feedback on key planning and design principles relating to matters such as placemaking, sustainability, healthy communities, transit-supportive planning, compact urban form, energy efficient and green development approaches, mixed-use and affordable housing.

The expected outcomes of the visioning process are: An urban design concept and design framework and, Community based planning and design principles. .

These outcomes will be considered in the later preparation of alternative land use concepts and the recommended area plan. They will also be used to establish more detailed community design guidelines for the area.

7. Component Studies - The following component studies will provide the necessary background for the Preparation of land use concepts and strategies for servicing, development phasing, urban design and natural heritage protection. To the extent possible, component studies will utilize upon information available from previously completed studies, such as the following - Master Servicing Plans,

- Development Charges By-law update, - Growth Management Implementation Strategy,

- Existing Subwatershed Studies,

- Long Term Transit Strategy, - Placemaking Guidelines,

- Previous Area Planning Studies (Summerside, Old Victoria),

Parks and Recreation Master Plan,

Archeological Master Plan and City of London Inventory of Heritage

City of London Official Plan 5 Year Review (2006), City of London Environmental Management Guidelines (2007). Environmental Review Lands Study and Inventory Q Evaluation of

- Environmental Assessments, Thames Valley Corridor Study (on-going),

- Long Term Transit Strategy, - Transportation Master Plan (on-going)

Meadowlily Woods Master Plan (1988), Topographic mapping, vegetation analysis and life science inventory

Meadowlily woods Ecological Restoration Plan,

-

- Resources, -

- -

Woodlands Report (October 2008).

-

- -

of Meadowlily Woods (1987), -

6

- Jackson District Servicing Project (1993). Meadowlily Subdivision Environmental Impact Study (ZOOZ), Environmental Impact Study for Sports Park (1993), Park Farm Landscape Plan (1998). Studies submitted in support of the application at 168 Meadowlily

- - - -

Road South (Planning Report, Commercial Analysis, Peer Review of Commercial Analysis, Transportation Study, EIS, etc.)

A substantial number of studies have been completed in conjunction with natural heritage planning (e.g. Life Science Inventory, Master Plan), previous development applications or uses (e.g. Jackson District Servicing Study, City-Wide Sports, Park Farm), and as a result of the recent planning application for 168 Meadowlily Road South, and also in conjunction with various uses in the area (i.e. Park Farm, Cityy-Wide Sports Park). A part of the consultant hiring process (request for proposals), each proponent should prepare a gap analysis to ensure existing information is not duplicated when this work is deemed to be appropriate, correct and rigorous and to focus new information in areas where it is necessary.

The strengthening neighborhoods strategy is on-going. This may result in additional considerations through the Area planning process. Specifically, the Consultant will utilize information and results from the strategy when considering the community vision and also when developing a means for engaging the public through the process.

7.1 Natural Heritage

i) Inventory and Evaluation of the Existing Natural Environment

This study wdl provide a detailed three-season inventory and analysis of natural heritage features and functions within the study area. I t will confirm the significance of the Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) consistent with Official Plan policies and will provide the basis for an Official Plan amendment to refine the delineation of the ESA boundary where needed. The study will include identification of environmental opportunities and constraints that will lead to the development of an Environmental Management Strategy for protecting this significant natural area and for strengthening linkages with the natural heritage system. The study will rely on existing sources of information available from the City of London, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources supplemented by detailed field inventory work required to apply Official Plan policies.

The scope of the inventory and evaluation work will be determined in consultation with City staff and the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee but, at a minimum, will include all lands designated as Open Space and Environmental Review on Schedule A" of the Official Plan; all components of the Natural Heritage System and hazard lands as shown on Schedule "B" of the Official Plan; and any other features present in the area that should be considered part of the Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Sigdicant Area. As well, baseline data, inventory and evaluation work will also be taken for the ESA lands to the north of the City Wide Sports Park.

The consultant will compile sufficient data to apply the Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) and Significant Woodland criteria and guidelines and the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System as required. The Study will complete Ecological Land Classification vegetation type descriptions and mapping, as well as assessment of wildlife habitat and populations, wildlife corridors and habitat linkages, natural landforms and features and aquatic resources. The linkages between terrestrial, aquatic and semi-aquatic resources will be examined, particularly as they pertain to the contributing watercourses that bisect the site in several locations and are contained in deeply incised and eroded ravines. The fluvial geomorphology and natural dynamic characteristics of these southhorth oriented ravines will be examined with respect to their contribution and importance to the protection of the ESA. The cultural importance of the Park Farm property and its contribution to the identification and protection of this area as an ESA will be examined. I t should be noted that the information gathered through this process will be used for any Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) and the Meadowlily Conservation Master Plan

7

update, which are scheduled to commence after the completion of the Area planning process.

The consultant will allocate areas for level of protection based on sensitivity to direct and indirect impacts that may arise through development on adjacent lands. Preliminary buffer areas and setbacks will be identified that may be refined through a more detailed analysis in a future Environmental Impact Study associated with specific development proposals.

ii) Groundwater, Soils and Slopes

A hydro-geological and geotechnical assessment will be required. The purpose of this work is to provide a description, assessment and mapping of surface water resources, ground water aquifers, potential surface to groundwater recharge areas and slope conditions. The following tasks will be completed

9 . .

identlfy significant aquifers and their attributes; identlfy areas having high, moderate and low recharge contributions to groundwater; prepare water budget calculations for existing and post-development conditions and determine measures to offset potential shortages from desired groundwater recharge contributions; . examination of the fluvial geomorphology and the natural dynamic characteristics of the southhorth oriented ravines; identlfy any subsurface linkages between the study area and the aquifers providing potable water to the subject area; and assess the stability of existing slopes and confirm or recommend revisions to erosion hazard limits and development setbacks.

Available information will be collected and examined for local soil and groundwater conditions. This information includes relevant documents from the City of London; aerial photos, geological mapping and reports; water well records maintained by the Ministry of the Environment; and records of boreholes and geotechnical reports prepared for the area.

The results of the information review will be included in a draft report together with a water budget analysis and recommendations for measures to maintain pre-development base flows following development. This report will include mapping of existing groundwater recharge/discharge areas.

Recommendations for more detailed fieldwork to assess groundwater and soil conditions to be undertaken in conjunction with sub-area plans, site plans or plans of subdivision will also be provided. The Official Plan does not idenufy any aggregate resources within the study area; therefore, an aggregate evaluation will not be required.

Expected outcomes of the Natural Heritage Study include: Recommendations for an Official Plan amendment to recognize andor refine the categorization and delineation of natural heritage system components. Areas currently designated as "Environmental Review' will be evaluated and, where warranted, recommended for re-designation as Open Space; and A Long-term Strategy to protect and sustain the Natural Heritage System within the Study Area and strengthen its linkages and corridors; and recommendations and guidelines for studies and measures to be undertaken at a more detailed level in conjunction with sub-area plans, site plans or plans of subdivision to implement the natural heritage strategy. This will also include preliminary buffer recommendations based on possible land uses in the area; Specific baseline data and information on the portion of the ESA adjacent to the City Wide Sports Park will be gathered, and a monitoring program will be developed to ensure appropriate on-going monitoring of the impacts of the Sports Park on the ESA.

-

.

8

7.2 Cultural HeritageStudy

A qualified consultant will undertake a review of available information to inventory and assess known archaeological and built heritage resources. These resources could occur outside of the defined study area, but may still be integral to the cultural sigmficance of Meadowlily, such as the remnants of the former Mill, located on the north side of the river, and the Meadowlily Bridge. This study will be prepared in accordance with provincial requirements for a Stage 1 archaeological assessment as set out in the 'Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines" and with regard for the City of London Archaeological Master Plan and Inventory of Heritage Resources. The study will include:

9 A review of the pre-settlement and post-settlement history within the study area, including any pertinent historic maps; . An examination of the Natural Site Registration Database to determine the presence of known archaeological sites within and nearby the Study Area;

9 A review of built heritage outside of the immediate study area that contribute to the overall cultural heritage of the planning area, such as the Meadowlily Bridge and the former Mill; . A review of past archaeological assessments conducted within the Study Area;

9 A review of the area as a possible Cultural Heritage Landscape, as per Official Plan policy.

Expected outcomes of the Cultural Heritage Study include: . Recommendations for conservation and/or designation, including a possible Conservation Heritage District; Guidelines for integrating new development with any significant cultural heritage. These guidelines will offer design considerations and evaluation criteria to ensure new development will conserve the heritage attributes of any protected properties and recommend mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches in order to conserve the heritage attributes of the protected heritage properties affected by the adjacent development.

The study will also provide recommendations for more detailed assessments to be undertaken in conjunction with sub-area plans, site plans or plans of subdivision.

7.3 Land Use Allocation Study

This component study will address, at a broad level, the targeted allocation of land uses and housing mix to meet Official Plan objectives for community growth, economic development and compact urban form. The consultant will review all applicable Official Plan policies and background studies and consult with City Planning staff, the London Economic Development Corporation, development proponents and community groups to determine appropriate targets for population and housing mix, commercial land use and emplopenthdustrial land use.

The need and locational requirements for district and regional-scale community facilities (schools, district parks, community centres, branch libraries, fire halls) will also be assessed through discussions with the appropriate departments and agencies and through review of the relevant documents such as the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

The determination of land use allocations will be coordinated with the visioning exercise and preparation of a macro urban design concept as set out in Section 6 of the Terms of Reference, so that there is congruence between these two component studies. Together these documents will provide a foundation for the preparation of alternative land use concepts, and ultimately, the preferred land use plan and Official Plan amendment. As well, the commercial analysis to be completed as part of the process will not specifically be part of the Area Plan, but key recommendations stemming from the commercial analysis may be adopted as part of the Area Plan.

The Land Use Allocation Study will also set targets for housing mix and densities for sub-areas within the Study Area as well as the approximate preferred locations for

9

community facilities, recognizing that the exact location, size and configuration of such facihties will be determined at a later stage in the planning process.

7.4 ServicingStudies

i) Water Servicing Study

This component study will review and document the water requirements and options for the study area.

Existing water infrastructure within the Study will be mapped, the current situation with respect to system capacities and constraints will be evaluated, and works that are already planned or proposed to service the Study Area will be compiled and mapped.

In conjunction with the completion of alternative land use concepts, water servicing schemes will be prepared. These schemes will idennfy:

= A forecast of water supply and pressure needs for service zones within the Study Area;

9 Preliminary sizing of trunk watermain and external service connections; and 9 Preliminary estimates of the costs and cost sharing for required water

infrastructure works.

The preliminary water servicing scheme will be refined and elaborated when a preferred land use concept has been prepared.

ii) Sanitary Servicing Study

This component study will review and document the sanitary sewer requirements and options for the study area.

Existing sewer infrastructure within the Study will be mapped, the current situation with respect to system capacities and constraints will be evaluated, and works that are already planned or proposed to service the Study Area will be compiled and mapped. The consultant will be required to determine the appropriate Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for this work and undertake the Class EA concurrently with the Area Plan Study.

In conjunction with the completion of alternative land use concepts, the Class EA will determine a sanitary servicing scheme. The scheme will identify

The municipal sanitary outlet(s) which will serve the area; A preliminary design of sanitary tributary areas and estimates of sewage flows from these areas; Proposed trunk and sub-trunk sanitary sewer alignments; Options for resolving any downstream conveyance constraints that have been identified; Options for conveying sewage flows across the Thames River; Phasing of the proposed works; Preliminary estimates of the costs and cost sharing for required sanitary infrastructure works.

It is noted that servicing for an area north of the Thames River will need to be considered and included in this sanitary servicing scheme.

iii) Jkainage and Stormwater Management

a) Servicing Study - The Drainage and Stormwater Management (SWM) component study will provide direction for the management of runoff and protection of the quantity and quality of surface and groundwater resources. The recommendations are expected to be consistent with the Official Plan and provincial (PPS) policies, Ministry of the Environment water quality criteria and City of London standards and guidelines. Stormwater management planning will be co-ordinated with the community vision to

10

... .... . .

integrate with parks and natural heritage planning as part of an overall open space system that contributes to both sound environmental management and protection and enhanced community design.

Tasks to be undertaken as part of this study include: . The review of relevant background data from previously completed studies including, but not limited to, any related documents, environmental assessment reports and area plan studies; An assessment of existing drainage conditions including a review of available topographic mapping and photographs, survey data and information on soil conditions; . Preliminary hydrological evaluation modeling to simulate pre-and post- development storm flows; . Confirmation of current SWM system design criteria; . Delineation of drainage sub-catchment areas and proposed trunk sewer routing; . Analysis of hydro-geological water balance estimates to identify suitable water resource management practices, to minimize the potential impacts of development on surface and ground water resources; An estimation of the costs and cost sharingfor required SWM works.

=

. The SWM component study will be undertaken in four phases:

i) documentation and analysis of existing conditions; ii) identification of opportunities and constraints; iii) analysis of SWM options having regard for development viability and costs; and iv) the preparation of a preliminary design and implementation plan for the preferred

water resources management system.

These tasks must be coordinated with the Natural Heritage - Study to establish appropriate erosion controls and watercourse protection and enhancement criteria.

Alternative SWM solutions including at-source, conveyance and end-of-pipe measures will be evaluated for compliance with applicable criteria and suitability for the Study Area. The preferred strategy will be identified through detailed analysis including hydrologic modeling, water balance investigations and the consideration of socio- economic and environmental factors. Within this overall strategy, the approximate size and location of required SWM facilities and/or online tributary works will be established for detailed design at later stages in the planning approval process.

The expected outcome of this study is a stormwater management strategy that identifies the optimal type and location of SWM facilities and trunk sewers as well as best practices to achieve water resource management objectives. The strategy will also include guidelines for the design and implementation of more detailed SWM measures through the subdivision or site planning process.

There may be oppormnities to minimize or facihtate future environmental assessment requirements. To this end, the consultant is expected to pursue opportunities to integrate Class EA requirements with the public consultation and analysis to be undertaken for this component study and the preparation of the area plan. The consultation process will include a dialogue with City staff, the UTRCA, the Minis- of Environment, and other agencies as required, as well as measures to seek out the views of major landowners and the general public.

b) Environmental Assessment ' The Municipal Class EA study (Schedule 'B) for StodDrainage and SWM Servicing Works will review applicable servicing options for the subject lands and recommend the preferred servicing alternative for these works. The recornended servicing alternative will identlfy the water resources management strategy that includes water quality and quantitylflood control protection, and maintaining erosion/fluvial geomorphological functionality in coordination with ground water resources, environmental and ecological conditions of the system.

The majority of the subject lands are tributary to the South Thames Subwatershed, with s m d portions dbutary to the Dingman Creek and Central Thames Subwatersheds. The recommended servicing option is expected to meet the SWM criteria and environmental

11

targets of the South Thames River, Dingman and Central Subwatershed Study, Official Plan and provincial policies statements (PPS), Ministry of the Environment (M0E)’s legislation and regulations, water quality criteria and the SWM Planning and Design Manual (2003). This option will be required to meet City of London’s Design Specification and Requirements and the checklist requirements for Municipal Class EA study, as well as all applicable standards, by-laws and requirements. The proposed StodDrainage and SWM Servicing Works shall be coordinated with Parks and Natural Heritage System (NHS) Planning as part of an overall open space system that contributes to both sound environmental management and protection, and enhanced community urban design.

A Municipal Class EA study (Schedule ’B) for Storm/Drainage and SWM Servicing Works for Meadowlily Area Plan shall be completed as per the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA)’s Municipal Class EA process document for Water and Wastewater projects (2008). The objectives of this Municipal Class EA study are as follows:

=

. Review and incorporate the requirements of the relevant subwatershed studies including, but not limited to, South Thames River and Dingman Creek Assess and review existing drainage conditions including catchment and subcatchment areas, available topographic mapping and photographs, survey data and information on soil conditions, the constraints and opportunities for NHS and water resources management; Develop applicable SWM modelling for the servicing options and identlfy the preferred alternative including the required hydro1ogicaL’hydraulic evaluation modeling to simulate pre-and post-development storm conditions that incorporate the following:

o Confirmation of SWM system design criteria, including any Placemaking locational design requirements,

o Delineation of drainage sub-catchment areas, proposed trunk sewer and over flow routing,

o Preliminary review of floodlines, watercourse capacity and outlet requirements,

o Confirmfidenufy the stoddrainage conveyance system for each of the proposed SWM facilities,

o Confirm the drainagekatchment areas for each of the proposed SWM facilities, and

o Preliminary evaluation of fluvial geomorphological conditions, hydrogeological, water balance, geotechnical conditions to identlfy water resources management requirements and minimize the potential impacts of development on surface and ground water resources;

9

*

9

Complete an Environmental Impact Study (including a 3 season inventory ) in accordance with City requirements; Recommend works in order to optimize performance of water resources management and incorporate the applicable SWM Criteria, environmental targets for the recommended implementation strategy and remediation work for the subject lands; Incorporate the Private Permanent System applications approach and evaluate any future impacts of resizinghevising SWM facilities for the proposed system; and Provide the required conceptual/ preliminary design and cost modifications for the recommended preferred option.

. The stoddrainage and SWM EA study will be required to address: documentation and analysis of existing conditions; identification of opportunities and constraints; analysis of SWM options having regard for development viability and costs; and the preparation of a preliminary design and implementation plan for the preferred water resources management system. These tasks should be coordinated with the NHS evaluation to facilitate the identification of opportunities to incorporate SWM functions within natural areas and to establish appropriate watercourse protection and water resources enhancement criteria.

12

Alternative SWM solutions including at-source, conveyance and end-of-pipe measures will be evaluated for compliance with applicable criteria and suitability for the Study Area. The preferred strategy will be identified through analysis including hydrologc/hydraulic modehg, water balance investigations and the consideration of socio-economic and environmental factors. Within this overall strategy, the approximate size and location of required SWM facilities and/or online tributary works will be established for detailed design at later stages in the planning approval process.

The expected outcome of this study is: A stoddrainage and SWM servicing works option that identifies the optimal type and location of SWM facilities, overland conveyance and storm trunk sewers as well as best practices to achieve water resource management objectives. The strategy will also include guidelines for the design and implementation of more detailed SWM measures through the sub-area or subdivision planning process, and consistency with the community vision and objectives.

One of the objectives of the Municipal Class EA study (Schedule 'B) for StodDrainage and SWM Servicing Works for Meadowlily Area Plan is to integrate t h s Class EA requirements with the public consultation and analysis to be undertaken for this component study and the preparation of the area plan, should the Meadowlily Area Plan proceed as a Secondary Plan under the Planning Act.. The consultation process will include consolidation with the major stakeholders that include the City's departments, the UTRCA, the MOE, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other agencies as required, as well as landowners and the general public.

The consultant's Proposal Requirements for Municipal Class EA study (Schedule 'E) for StodDrainage and SWM Servicing Works for Meadowlily Area Plan should include, but not limited to, the following topics: . . - . 9

9

.

Project approach, work program and research activities; Schedule of all activities, land mark dates, City staff involvement; Compliance with the City's Class EA study Requirements and Design Specifications Requirements for stoddrainage and SWM servicing works; Key staff, their roles and rates; Knowledge and expertise to be employed Experience with projects of a similar nature; Accountability for quality assurances and time commitments for submissions; and Estimate of services, including a breakdown by staff and disbursements.

iv) Transportation

This component study d address transportation related needs, opportunities and constraints associated with existing and future development within the Study Area.

This component study will include consideration and, to the extent feasible, implementation of the following transportation objectives to guide the Land Use Concept Plan and Community Structure Plan:

9

A comprehensive, multi-modal transit first transportation network and A place based street classification system that will assist in creating a hierarchy of urban places throughout the study area.

Where it is not possible to achieve these objectives based on existing land use constraints and City wide transportation objectives, other alternative options may be considered.

Current and projected traffic volumes along arterial roads will be examine4 estimated, and reported, and traffic volumes to be generated from the future development of the Study Area will be included. Estimated Vehicle and pedesnian movements, including transit and bicycle traffic, will be reviewed relative to preferred traffic circulation, safety, and access control measures within the Study Area. The objectives of the City's Transportation Master Plan will also be considered along with planned and future

13

improvements for arterial roads. London’s Official Plan Transportation policies, the London Transit Commission’s Long-Term Transit-Strategy and the City of London Bicycle Master Plan will also be considered.

This component study will consider the impacts of future development on the connecting arterial road system and develop a preferred plan for an appropriate internal road network to service the study area. The specific tasks to be undertaken include:

Review background transportation data and other information available from the City, e.g. related transportation studies, traffic counts and signal control plans, and the transportation studies undertaken for the four areas plans that have been completed within the Study Area; . Document existinghture transportation management requirements including existing traffic volumes, traffic control measures, levels of service at major intersections, transit service to the area, cycling and pedestrian network requirements, and other planned improvements; Identlfy existing and potential transportation and traffic opportunities and constraints: Analyze existing road and intersection conditions including existing levels of service, potential turning lane requirements, traffic signal warrants, and approximate development phasing; Review internal collector and local street options to assist with the development of the land use concept plans; Review land use alternatives from a trafficitransportation perspective and provide recommendations to assist with developmenthelection of the preferred land use concept; . Review LTC transit requirements and design criteria to facilitate transit service and use; - Review opportunities for cycling and pedestrian routes as alternate forms of transportation; - Calculate trip generation and projected traffic volumes for the preferred land use plan road network to determine requirements for boundary road intersection improvements; ldentlfy roadway improvements required to accommodate overall traffic growth in the City (background traffic volumes) and traffic generated by the preferred land use plan; Prepare draft and final reports and document the work completed including corresponding conclusions and recommendations: Identlfy the infrastructure requirements for existing and future roadways based on full build-out of the lands in the study area, including through lanes, auxiliary lanes and traffic control, measures. Queuing analysis wiU be used to determine the length of any auxiliary lanes and will be used to assist in the location and spacing of driveways; Estimate 24 hour traffic volumes on proposed collector roads within the Study Area.

Estimated outcomes of the transportation study component include: Recommendations for any arterial road extensions and/or re-alignments necessary to facilitate traffic flow within the Study Area; Proposed collector road alignments and intersection locations with existing arterial roads; A conceptual plan for pedesman and blke path systems within the Study Area: A plan to indicate the preferred routing for the extension of transit service to the Study Area; A schedule for proposed transportation infrastructure improvements based on the phasing of land development.

.

.

.

.

9

*

- Opportunities for developing a connectivity ratio for the area and a placed-based street classification system to establish a roads hierarchy that integrates the existing transportation network and alternative modes of travel with the Community Structure Plan will also be explored through the process.

14

An Environmental Assessment may be necessary if it is determined through the Area Plan process that a new ramp at the Commissioners Road and Highbury Avenue interchange is required.

I t is noted that the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update is being initiated a t this time. It is possible that through the TMP changes may be necessary to the scope of work and/or direction of the Transportation Study.

7.5 Environmental Assessments

Two preliminary Environmental Assessments (EA) have been identified as a requirement for the Area Plan process ~ a sanitary servicing EA and a stormwater management EA. These EA's will occur concurrent and integrated with the Area planning process. The preliminary terms of reference for the stormwater EA is provided in this terms of reference, however, the sanitary EA terms of reference will need to be developed prior to the Request for Proposal (RFP) process.

Addnional considerations for the EA's may include: * An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) may be required if any of the EA'S

preliminarily identlfy that a component of the infrastructure is to be located in a natural heritage feature. An EIS will ultimately determine if this is an appropriate option; Additional criteria may be necessary to further scope the required EA'S. These criteria will be determined through consultation with the appropriate municipal staff; It may be determined that further EA'S are required through the Area planning process (e.g. Transportation). These may be scoped at a later date. A preliminary terms of reference for the EA's will be brought to the Environment and Transportation Committee for adoption, prior to the RFP process.

.

. Through the study process, if any additional EA's, or significant changes to the scope of the identified EA's are identified, Staff will bring a report to Planning Committee and Council with respect to any changes that may affect timing and/or cost.

7.6 Urban Design

It is intended that this process will be a design-led Area Plan process, which will develop an overall design concept that will form the basis for the community structure plan. The community structure plan is intended to provide a "design-led' land use concept that incorporates land uses that are supportive of a multi-modal transit first transportation system, a vibrant pedestrian environment, the identification of a hierarchy of activity centres that provide both neighbourhood and community scale facilities, and strengthen and enhance the existing community fabric and create identifiable new communities. It is expected that urban design will be integrated throughout the various components of the Area Plan.

A qualified consultant will undertake a review of available information and provide an assessment of design, including the following:

A public space strategy to develop defined areas for public space, from urban squares to open space corridors. The strategy would also develop guidelines surrounding the interface between the public realm and development/surrounding land uses. A component of this will also look at the identification of areas for public art ; A City-wide context review to determine how this potential node integrates into the City's urban structure i.e. how is it connected from a transportation perspective, connections to the downtown, surrounding neighbourhoods, etc. A spatial analysis will review view corridors, edges, barriers, paths, landmarks, heritage areas, zones of sensitivity, gateways, focal points, surrounding land uses, major transportation corridors, and surrounding street patterns; and

- 9

-

15

. Develop a connectivity ratio for the area to respond to the spatial analysis - a connectivity ratio is the number of street segments divided by dead end streets +

cul-de-sacs + intersections. Ideally it will fall between 1-2.

Expected outcomes of the Urban Design Study include: A Community Structure Plan and Urban Design Concept Plan, in map form; and Urban Design Guidelines to be used in the review of any applications in the Meadowlily Area; Recommendations for design throughout all component studies of the Area Plan.

.

8. Planning. Design and Servicing - Opportunities and Constraints Analysis - The results of the various component studies, together with input from the landowner, agency and public consultation processes will be synthesized and analyzed to produce a summary of opportunities and constraints that should influence the preparation of alternative land use and servicing concepts for the study area. The analysis will also have regard for:

Official Plan growth management, land use and servicing policies; The City’s Growth Management Implementation Strategy Provincial policies (PPS);

Applicable Official Plan Guideline Documents and background studies.

= . . Economic development objectives; and .

Specific opportunities and constraints that will be considered include, but are not limited to, the following:

Compatibility and context with adjacent land use designations and expectations; Interface and connections between existing and proposed development along arterial roads; Servicing options for Transportation, Water, Stormwater Management, Q Sanitary Sewage; Phasing, costs and financial responsibility; Transportation corridors and requirements, including non-vehicular modes and multi-modal transit first transportation system;

Environmental featureslconidors and their potential integration into parkland and open space systems, trail Mages , stormwater management facilities, etc.; Identification of nodes or activitv centres and corridors: and

= 9

.

. . = Place-based road classification system; 9

* . Design concepts that implement LEED standards for neighbourhood design (LEED-ND).

9. Alternative and Preferred Land Use Concepts - The opportunities and constraints analysis will be used to generate three alternative land use concepts consistent with the urban design structure and vision for public and agency review. All of the concepts should provide for the implementation of natural heritage and servicing strategies idennfied through the component studies and should incorporate elements of the community visioning and urban design concept established at the outset of the Area Study process. The concepts may vary according to the location and extent of land use allocations but should be primarily differentiated according to the intensity of development (residential densities, amount of commercial development, etc) to be supported.

A report to accompany the land use concepts will provide the comparative land use statistics and development yields; any significant differences in the servicing requirements associated with the concepts and an evaluation of the concepts according to the identified constraints and opportunities. Each concept will also provide a preliminary financial impact analysis to determine the estimated cost of municipal services and infrastructure necessary to support the proposed development. The alternative concepts will be subject to a public, landowner and agency consultation process. The consultant will utilize input from this process and from discussions with

16

City staff to analyze the pros and cons of each proposal and to prepare a preferred land use concept.

10. Financial Impact Analvsis - Once a preferred land use concept has been proposed, a more detailed financial impact analysis will be undertaken to determine the estimated cost of municipal services and infrastructure necessary to support the proposed development. The study will focus on the implications of these works for the ‘City’s capital budget and Development ChargeiUrban Works Reserve Funds and will provide information on the splits between City and developer funded works and the growthhon-growth components of City funded works. The analysis will include a calculation of estimated DC revenues. The preparation of the Financial Impact Analysis will be concurrent with the development of a development phasing strategy. The recommended phasing strategy will be used to generate an estimated schedule of costs and revenues from project initiation to anticipated build-out state. The preliminary development phasing and cost schedules will be reviewed with City as necessary to fit with the City’s capital financing and Growth Management Implementation Strategies.

It is the policy of the City of London to require that each area that develops demonstrate that it does not place an undue burden on the City’s financial resources.

Key tasks to be undertaken as part of this study are outlined as follows: . 9

Review land uses and projected housing units and projected square footage of any non-residential uses; Calculate Development Charge revenue projections based on most likely development density for projected land uses or as otherwise determined during the course of the study; Review trunk sanitary and storm sewers and stormwater management facilities in the context of their claimability from Development Charges and estimate the cost of these works; Review water servicing needs in the context of their claimability from Development Charges and estimate the cost of these works; Review the recommended transportation infrastructure improvements and preparation of cost estimates for those works that are recoverable from Development Charges; Review the implications of the proposed development on the City’s most recently approved Capital Budget with a view to highlighting and reporting any shifts in timing or dollar cost estimates for projects needed to accommodate the most likely development schedule for the study area.

9

9

9

.

11. Proposed Area Plan - The consultant will prepare a proposed Area Plan which will include:

A description of the Study purpose and process; A summary of the findings from the component studies; A description of the process and results from the Community visioning and public/agency/landower consultation exercises; A description of the Planning Area in the larger context of the area including nearby neighbourhoods, existing zoning and Official Plan, vacant land and other amenities nearby;

= A summary of the opportunities and constraints analysis; . An Urban Design Study with component studies including a Community Structure Plan, an Urban Design Concept Plan, and Urban Design Guidelines; . The final preferred land use concept;

9 The requirements for water, sewer and stormwater management infrastructure to support the preferred land use concept; The transportation system improvements necessary to support growth and provide/maintain acceptable traffic and transit service levels;

. . 9

9

17

.

. 9

=

.

Strategies to guide natural heritage protection, servicing, urban design, pathway and trail systems, and development phasing; Opportunities to incorporate energy efficiencies and green development approaches in subsequent planning applications; A summary of the financial impact analysis; Guidelines for the preparation of sub-area plans, site plans and/or plans of subdivision; Recommended amendments to the Official Plan in the form of

o changes to Schedule "A' ~ Land Use o changes to Schedule "B" . Flood Plain and Environmental Features o changes to Schedule "C"- Transportation Corridors

m Any special policies that are appropriate to guide future development in the Study Area.

This proposed Area Plan could be adopted as a Secondary Plan. A Secondary Plan would provide specific schedules and policy for an area. With any Area Plan process, a subsequent guideline document is adopted as part of the process; however, with a Secondary Plan, this document is adopted as part of the Official Plan. The details and policies encompassed in the report form a part of the Official Plan, and thus have greater standing than a guideline document.

The successful consultant is to confirm, in consultation with municipal staff, the requirements for background studies. It is expected that study requirements will be confirmed at the initial proposal review meeting.

12. Consultation Process - i) City of London and Agency b u t

The process of consulting with City departments, external agencies, landowners and the community will be a shared responsibility of the consultant and City planning staff. The municipal review of all studies and plans will be coordinated through the Proposal Review Meetings (PRM). This regular meeting is comprised of representatives-from City departments (Planning and Development, Environmental and Engineering Services, Community Services, Corporate Services and Finance) and local agencies such as the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and London Transit Commission who are likely to have a sigdicant interest in the area study process. Key milestones to be brought to the PRM during the Study process include:

At the outset of the Study-to review the consultant's proposal and work program; Upon completion of the component studies to identfy any deficiencies or refinements to be addressed Following completion of the preliminary opportunities and constraints analysis and the alternative land use concepts; and Upon completion of the preferred land use concepts and .financial impact analysis, and natural, heritage, servicing, urban design and phasing strategies; Upon completion of the recommended area plan and Official Plan amendment.

=

. 9

9

9

ii) Public Consultation

The Terms of Reference for the Area Study will be subject to public review and a public participation meeting before Planning Committee prior to their approval by City Council. The study program will include many opportunities at key milestones for public information and/or open house sessions, including:

At the outset of the study process to review the adopted Terms of Reference and proposed work program and to initiate the community visioning process; Following completion of the component studies and opportunities and constraints analysis. The findings from these studies combined with the broad structural elements from the urban design concept will be used as the groundwork for a design charette where landowners, community residents

.

.

18

and other stakeholders will have the opportunity to participate in the development of alternative land use concepts; A third session will be held following the preparation of alternative land use concepts and preliminary natural heritage, servicing and urban design strategies; A fourth session WIU be held to review the preferred land use concept and preliminary financial impact analysis; The final step in the consultation process will be the formal public meeting of the Planning Committee to consider the adoption of the recommended Area Plan and Official Plan amendment.

.

. 9

Throughout the process, the consultant and City staff will pursue opportunities to inform the public of the study progress and scheduled meetings. Communication will be provided through: .

9

9

9

= Public notification signs.

iii) Area Study Schedule

"Living In The City" notices in the London Free Press; The City of London website -www.london.ca; A mailing list of community associations and local organizations known to have an interest in the Study Area; A mailing list of individuals and groups who have made recent submissions on planning, servicing and development issues in the Study Area;

The consultant will provide an estimated schedule of study tasks and target start-up and completion dates, It is recognized that while the schedule is to be realistic and viable in terms of the time frames allocated, it may be subject to change as the study progresses if unforeseen issues evolve. The target for completion of the study is approximately one year from project start-up.

19

..

/ ,: i i ,,_.... .."'

.... /_.... .'. ,.."

1 1 1 1

In London, Community Plans have focused on a campacfitkely small area, normally under the control of a limiterl number of land ownas. CuntWtihg this ate Area Plans such as the -3oOuth West Area Plan whkh covers a large area Indudln& &a establimed community of Lamb& and extensive partial& developed lands outside of the current developed community. Because of the scaie of the Area Plan, initiation by the Ciry is essential and assessment of costs utilizing Development Charges has been the basisfar uhs, fundtng of the Area Plan. In this way such m s t s are carried by development across drcr City,.,

No decision however

LO1 Is concerned that the Report potentfatly alters the City prbc%ss for the preparation of Community Plans to guide the develapment of small areas;

Anothercontern is that uncterthe Pxirting process the City Plenners function as unblgsad file mmgers whb appfy Cky titandilrds and guidelines to prepare EB’s and Area Plans, ensurtng that Ehhe interB&&a&Ison, committees and the public are being met.

Commissioners Centres Limited 700 Applewood Crescent, Suite 100

Vaughan Ontario LSK 5x3

8 April 2009

Sent via Email

City of London - Planning Division 300 Dufferin Avenue P.O. Box SO35 London, Ontario N6A 4L9 Attn: Messrs. Rob Panzer and John Fleming, Ms. Nancy Pasato

Dear Mr. Panzer, Mr. Fleming and Ms. Pasato,

Re:

Ref A -Commissioners Centres Limited (City of London File No. 02.7430)

In September 2007, Commissioners Centres Limited (“CCL”) filed applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment (Ref A) (the “Applications”) with respect to the property municipally known as 168 Meadowlily Road South (the “CCL. Site”). The CCL Site is located within the area identified in the subject Terms of Reference.

We would like to reiterate our major concerns with the process: an expanding scope; uncontrolled time frame; insignificance of the trigger for the studx and, the allocation of resources given the current economic climate.

The scope in Council’s direction on 20 Oct 08 is that al l lands designated Urban Reserve are to be studied; this is a relatively small area of 30 ha. The Study Area has sincc

and to the north of the Urban Reserve land. It appears that the City is holding applications in the Urban Reserve land in abeyance until such time as the City has determined what to do with land it has had in its possession for a number of years.

Due to the somewhat arbitrary Study Area boundary identified in the draft Terms of Reference, the Urban Reserve area loses significance in relation to the study area as a whole, especially when, on 25 Mar 09, staff stated the Open Space designation will not be altered. We contend that if the Study Area is to be expanded beyond the Urban Reserve lands, it should include the commercial land to the south to comprehensively address development centered on Commissioners Road.

With respect to timing of the Meadowlily Area Plan study, there is no commitment from the City that this timeliie will be met. In fact to date, milestone dates directed by Council have not been met, as staff were to report back to Council with Area Plan Terms of Reference by January 2009. The Area Study is estimated to take 1-2 years, an

Meadowlily Area plan Terms of Reference (City of London File No. 0-7614)

ea.*

Commissioners Centres Limited 700 Applewood Crescent, Suite 100

Vaughan Ontario L5K 5x3

indication that there is little appiat ion of time when the high estimate is double the low.

The Applications, which are the trigger for this study, only apply to 9 hectares of Urban Reserve land, less than 10% of the Study Area. There are no other active applications in the area so it raises the question of whether the City would continue with this study if the Applications were withdrawn.

Notwithstanding the validity of Council’s direction vis-&vis the Official Plan, the City is setting an ill-considered precedent with this process. There is no objective outline of when Area Studies are required and the precedent being set now is that all Area Plan Studies are to be City-led. There is no policy regarding how these plans will be funded - it appears that in this case the City will seek to use a blend of Development Charge and Budget funds. The DC Background Study is currently being updated and excludes the subject Area Plan Study so how any DC funds will be used is unclear. Similarly, a procedure will be necessary to project required City-led Area Plan Studies for inclusion as budget items.

Assuming this item is included in the budget, Council must consider if the scale of the Area Study justifies the funds required. If approved, the development that is the subject of the applications would immediately provide 650 construction jobs as part of a $46,000,000 investment in the community followed by 770 retail jobs and generate $2,400,000 in taxes annually. This large stimulus to the community, at a time when London, and s o u t h w e s ~ Ontario as a whole, is faced with serious fiscal and employment hardships for the next several years, is being eschewed for a $750,000 burden to taxpayers in order to study approximately 55Om of developable frontage along Commissioners Road East. $50.000 of this City expenditure is to conduct a peer review of the almady-completed, City-initiated peer review, of a professional Market Demand and Impact Analysis. -~

How is the City’able to justify spending $750,000 in studies to examine less than 30 hectares of land for appropriate development when in Southwest London $562,986 is the total cost approved by Board of Control to study over 2706.3 hectares of land - 120 times the cost per unit of subject land.

In addition to these concerns, CCL has previously submitted correspondence related to the above noted Applications and the proposed Area Study, which correspondence includes:

A letter to City Council, dated October 15,2008 outlining CCL’s concern with Planning Committee’s resolution of September 30,2008 deferring a decision on the Applications; and

Commissioners Centres Limited 700 Applewood Crescent, Suite 100

Vaughan Ontario W K 5x3

A letter to Planning Committee, dated February 6,2009, outlining CCL’s concerns with a Staff Report relating to the Draft Terms of Reference for the Meadowlily Area Plan Study (the “Meadowlily Terms of Reference”) and the proposed timetable for completion of the Area Study (the “Staff Report”). A letter to City Council, dated February 23,2009, outlining CCL’s concerned with Planning Committee’s recommendation to adopt Option #2, which included the Area Study, Environmental Assessments, a Market Impact Review, of the Peer Review, and a peer review of the Environmental Impact Study.

The above noted letters have been attached to this letter for your ease of reference.

As proposed, CCL faces a delayed decision for the Applications for at least another two years. This is unacceptable - CCL has cooperated fully with the City to facilitate the processing of the Applications since they were filed ova a year-and-a-half ago.

For the reasons stated above, CCL is concerned with the proposed Area Plan and Meadowlily Terms of Reference, particularly as they relate to the CCL Applkations.

Yours very truly, Commissioners Centres Limited

Brad Keast

cc. Eric Saulcsleja, Kevin MUir, Glenn Scheels, GSP Group

Man Scully, Joshua Kaufman, Peter Nikolakakos, Commissioners Centres Limited

1 J R _ _ - .-

. . .

Commissioners Centres Limited 700 Applewood Crescent, Suite 100

Vaughm Ontario WK5X3

23 February 2009

Mayor DeCicco-Best and Members of Council City of London 300 Dufferin Avenue P.O. Box 5035 London, Ontario N6A 4L.9

Dear M a w DeCicco-Best and Members of Council

Re: Commjssio- Centres Limited AppUcafions for Oficial Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment East side of Meadowlily Road South, north of commissioners Road East City of London File No. 027430

As yon how, Commissioners Centres Limited (“c(IL”) has filed applications for Official Plan Amendment and zonlng By-law Amendment (City of London Fie No. 0% 7430) (the “App~cations”) with respect to propaly located on the east side of Meadowlily Road South, noah of Commissioners Road East, which property is municipally known aa 168 Meadowlily Road South (the “OX Site”). The CCL Site is located witbin the area for which the City of London Planning Committee is now recommending that council adopt the Meadowlily Area Plan Study (the “Area Study”).

CCL has previously submitted correspondence related to the above noted Application which correspondence includes:

A letter to City Council, dated October 15.2008 outlining CCL’s concern with Planning Committee’s resolution of September 30.2008 defening a decision on the Applications: and A letter to manning Committee, dated February 6,2009, outUning CCL‘s concc~118 with a Staff Report dating to the Draft Terms of Reference for the Meadowlily Area Plan Study (the “Mcadowliy Terms of Reference”) and the proposed timetable for completion of the A m Study (the “Staff Report”).

Attached for ease of reference are copies of the noted October and February lettecs.

CCL is concerned with the February 9.2009 Planning Committee mlution recommending Option #k2 of the Staff Report regarding the proposed Meadowlily Tern of Refereme. It appears to CCL that the process, timing and budget for completion of the Area Plan Study have not been carefully considered. For example, in addition to Option #2, Planning Committee has elected to include J3nvimmental Assessments, proposed as

Commissioners Centres Limited 700 Applewood Crescent, Suite 100

Vaughan Ontario U K 5x3

part of Option #3, and a further peer review ofthe independeat peer review, prepared by nrbanMe.trics inc., of a comprehensive market impact study which study was prepared by Malone Given Parsons on behalf on C U in support of the Applications.

Option #2 as identified in the February 9,2009 Staff' Report suggests that the cost of this option is approximately $ 4 2 0 , 0 0 ~ , 0 0 0 . The addition of the Environmental Assessments would add approximately $240,000-$260,000 to the cost, and if a further peer review of the urbanMetria peer review wen prepad, an additional $50,000 would be added to the final cost estimate. The proposed final cost of the Area Study would be approximatcly$710,0070,~ of which approximately 68% would be paid for from Development Charges funds that have yet to be identitied or allocated. The remaining $225,0004245,000 would come from tax dollars. G h n the state of the. economy and the slow down in the development community, it can be argued that 10-15% of the proposed funds from Development Char= would not be available thereby incmasing the reliance on tax dollars to approximate.ly $350,000. CCL questions if this is an appmprhte use of public funds.

For the reasons stated above, and others detailed in the October and February letters attached, C U i S concamed with the proposed Area Plan and its Draft Terms of Reference, particularly as they relate to the CCL Applications.

Yours vay truly,

Commissioners centres Limited

Peter Nikolakakos

cc. Rd, Panzer, John Flemming, Nancy Pasato, City of London Planning Department Glenn Scheels, Bric Saulesleja, Kavin Muir, OSP Omup Dennis Wood, Wendy Ekins, Wood Bull LLP

Commissioners Centres Limited 700 Applewood Crescent, Suite 100

Vaughan Ontaio L5K 5x3

15 October 2008

Mayor DeCicco-Best and Members of Council City of London 300 Dufferin Avenue P.O. Box 5035 London. Ontario N6A 4L9

Dear Mayor DeCicco-Best and Members of Council,

Re: Commissioners Centres Limited Applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-Iaw Amendment East side of Meadowlily Road South north of Commissioners Road East City of London EPle No. 027430

,& you know, commissioners centres Limited (“CCL”) has fded applications for amendments to the Official Plan and zaning By-law with the City of London regarding a property on the east side of Meadowlily Road South, noah of Commissioners Road Bast The CCL applications were filed with the City in September 2007. CCLprovided a number of supporting studies and reports to the City in November 2007. CCL has also worked collaboriitivcly with City staff and has provided further informaton and studies, since November 2007, to assist the City in its considexation of the CCL applications.

Forther to discussions with City staff, CCL’s planning consultants, GSP Group hc.. also prepand draft terms of nference for a neighbowhood study to address land use and urban design matters for all the “Urban Reserve” lands on the north slde of Commissioners Road East in the vicinity of Meadowlily Road South. Consistent with CCL’s discussions with City staff, in a 30 September 2008 report to the Planning Committee, the Gentral Manager of Planning and Development mommended that staff’%ork with the applicant on a concept plan and guideline document for the entire Urban Reserve Ana with the intent of bringhg these documents and the _ _ subject application back to a public meeting of Planning Conunittee for consideration in January of 2009”.

Despite staft‘s recommendation, the Planning Committee. at its meeting of 30 September 2008, passed a resolution requesting that Council defer consideration of the CCL applications and any other development applications in the area un@ a City initiated a m plan has been completed for the “Urban Reserve” lands north of Commissioners Road.

CCL is concerned that the Planning Committee’s resolution of 30 September 2008 docs not provide any timetable for tho preparation of terms of reference for the area study or for the

Commissioners Centres Limited 700 Applewood Crescent, Suite 100

Vaughan Ontario LSK 5x3

-2-

completion of the study, particularly in the context of the length of time tbat has passed Sines the CCL applications were filed in Sepamber 2007. Accordingly, CCL mpectfuly requests that Council establish a firm timetable for the preparation and completion d t h e m a study, including arequiremat that draft terms of reference for the area study be prepared and provided to the Planning commiaec by 10 November 2008.

Yours m y truly,

Commissimers Centres United

Commissioners Centres Limited 700 Applewood Crescent, Suite 100

Vaughan Ontario L5K 5x3

6 February 2009

Sent via Email

City of London -Planning Division 300 Dufferin Avenue P.O. Box 5035 London, Ontario N6A4L9 do Rob Panzer, John Hemming, Nancy Pasato

Dear Mr. Panze.r, Mr. J. Hemming and Ms. N. Pasato,

Re: Meadowlily Area Plan Draft Terms oPRefcrence (City of London File 07614) Commtaroners Centres Limited (City of London File No. 027430)

Commisdoncrs Centres Limited (“3 is an applicant for a property located on the east side of Meadowlily Road South, north of Commissioners Road East, and mnnicipaUy known as 168 Meadowlily Road South (the “CCL Site”). The CCL Site is located within the area for which the City of Landon (the ‘‘Ciy) proposes to adopt an am plan study which includes the CCL Site (the “Area Plan”).

We have now had an opportunity to review the draft terms of reference (the “D& Terms of Reference”) prepared by the City’s Planning Department for the k e a Plan which we understand will be considered by the City Planning Committee at its meeting on February 9,2009. In so doing, we have identitied serious concerns with the Draft Terms of Refcreace, in particular as they relate to the processing of an aaplication by CCL for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments (City of London File 02-7430) for the CCL Site (the “CCL Applications”).

We have taken the opportunity below to more fully outline the basis for our concerns.

Background

As you are aware, the CCL Applications were fded with the City on Septambcr 4, zoo7, and supporting mattrial in November 2007 (the “CCL Studies”). The City has continned that the CCL Applications are complete.

For the past year-and-a-half, CCL has worked collaboratively with City staff in its processing of the CCL Applicatioas. Notwithstanding OX‘S efforts, the City has failed to make a decision with respect to the CCL Applications within the timeframe provided by the Phnning Act.

Commissioners Centres Limited 700 A m l e w d Crescent, Suite 100

Vaughan Ontario L5K 5x3

-2-

A full year after the CCL Applications were fied, the City h m h g Committee passed a ~ O ~ U t i O n , on September 30,2008, requesting that Councildefer consideration of the CCL Applications, and any other applications in the area, until a City-initiated area plan had been completed for the “Urban Reserve” lands north of Commissioners Road (the “September Resolution”).

In aletter to City Council dated October 15,2008 (the “October Letter”). CCL outlined its concern with the September Resolution. Attached for ease of reference is a copy of the Odober Letter. The October Letter clearly sets out CCL’s concerns related to the lack of a firm timetable for the preparation of Terms of Refennce and the proposed timing for the completion of the study.

Notwithstanding the concerns raised by CCL regarding the Area Plan or CCL‘s efforts to work cooperatively with the Cily, on October 20,2008, Council direded that:

a) the civic Administration BE REQUSSTBD to initiate a Civ-led Area Plan for all lands designated Urban Reserve located east ofHighbury Avenue andsurrounding Meadowlily Road South and to report badcat afuture meeting ofthe Planning Commirtee; it behg noted the Terms ofwerenee for this Area Plan Will include p d o n for an mdepmdmt Environmental Impact Study imd an up&te ofthe Meadowlily Conservation Mmer Plan;

b) consideration ofthis applicaiion [the CcLApplicationsJ Bl? DEFERRED until such time as the Area P h noted in part [a) above Is complete: it being noted that any other applications that are received for lanab located in this area will be conridcredpremature until the Area Plan is complete:

e) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back with ihe Area P h Terms of Rcfcrmce noted in (a), above, by January 200s: and

d) the Civic Adminisiration BE REQUESTED to include an examination of the impact o f the adjacent sporisfields as pari of the Environmental Impact Study noted in (a), above;

With the k t i o n for a clear study area and timing for the submission of a Terms of Reference to the Planning Committea, CCL, although not committed to the timing M purpose of the study, Wried wjlling to work with staff and review the Terms of Refemce for their preparation and submission to Planning Committee in January 2009.

SMmet with residents of the study area on Jarmary7,2009 to discuss and provide input into the preparation of the Terms of Rcfe.rence. CCL was advised at this meeting that the study 82e8 had increased substantially to include lands outside of the Urban Reserve area, including lands

Commissioners Centres Limited 700 Applmood Crescent, Suite 100

Vaughan Ontario L5K 5x3

- 3 -

owned by the City and already designated in the Official Plan. City staff also advised CCL at that meeting that: (i) the terms of reference would be prepared as a draft and would not be finalized until the spring of 2009; (i) the scope of the study had ballooned considering the scale of the intended study area; and @i) thc RFF’ proms to retain a consultant to prepare the area study would likely not occur until some uncertain time in the summer of 2009.

Recently, City staff have identifled April 27,2009 as the date upon which a pnblic meeting will be held and a revised “Draff’ Terms of Reference will be brought before. Planning Committee for consideration.

The Area Plan and Draft Terms of Reference nnpairly prolong the processing of the CCI, AppUcations

CCL reiterabs its position that the Area Plan is an unnecessary exercise as it relates to the. appropriateness of the CCL Applications. Should the City be concerned about the objectivity of studies preparrd by the developer proponent, as suggested, there are other means in which to seek independent opinions.

CCL is concerned tbat, nearly four months after Council’s direction of October 20,2008, the Terms of Reference are in draft form only and the timetable for the completion of the area study remains uncertain. The City’s Area Plan proms unfairly prolongs the processing of the CCL Applications, which applications have been with the City for approximately a year-and-a-half, considerably beyond the 180 day period pmvided by the Planning Aa.

The Draft Terms of Reference are inconsistent with Council’s directions

In addition to the above noted concerns, C U is concerned with the inconsistencies between the direction provided by Council on October 20, ux)8, the City’s Staff Report for presentation on February 9,2009 (the “StaffReport”) and the accompanying Draft Term of Reference. Specifically, CCL is concerned with the following:

Council directed that Tenns of Reference be delivered in January 2009. Conversely, the Staff Report provides Draft Tcrms of Reference and further indicates that revised Draft Terms of Reference be brought to Planning Committee for consideration on April 29. 2009. The Staff Repart provides no firm date by which final Terms of Reference are res* It is unclear how staff intends to draw from Development Charge funds to pay for approximately 65% of the costs associated with the p p e d a m study over the come of the next year(s). It is also unclear whether moneys have been set aside in this regard and how the Area Plan project is prioritized by the City h relation to other Development

Commissioners Centres Limited 700 Applewocd Crescent, Suite 100

Vaughan Ontario WE: 5x3

- 4 -

Charge funded projects? How will Council support a study where approximately 35% of funding will come from tax dollars (which in one scenario represents over $225,000)?

The W o n from Council on October 20, m8. clearly states that the m a study include,“ ... all kurdr designated Urban Reserve located east ofHighbwy Avenue and surrounding Meadowlily Road So&.. . ” . The Draft Terms of Reference proposes a siflcantly larger study am and includes up to 95 hectares of land, 66 hectares of which are already designated Open Space and owned by City.

Staff identified in the Draft Terms of Reference that a typical study area in London ranges from I30 to 525 hcctans. Of the 95 hectares now identified f o ~ this arm study, 29 hectares are already designated Urban Reserve. Of those 29 hectares, the CCL site represents approximately 30% of the actual study area.

CCL i s of the belief that the inclusion of the adjacent City-Wide sports fields as part of the Council requested, indapendent, Environments Impact Study would be inappropriate. CCL believe that should an BIS be reqnind for the City-Wide sports field, it be initiated by the City separately from the EIS proposed under the Area Plan.

Direction from Council clearly stated that only provisions for an independent EIS and an update of the Meadowlily Conservation Master Plan Update (“Conservation Update”) be included in the Terms of Reference for the Area Plan.

o The Staff Report suggests that direction from Council was to complete the ELS as part of the Area Plan exercise, but then recommends that the BIS be deferred until the Ana Plan and Natural Heritage study are completed. What will the BIS examine and when wiU the mS(s) be completed?

o The Staff Report identifies the completion of the EIS and Consmation Update 1- 2 years. As the staff report suggests, Parks Planning is intending on Mating the Conservation Update in 2010, independent of the Area Study. If the Conservation Update is not independent of the Area Plan, does the 1-2 time period apply to a start date in 2010?

Conclusion

Far the reasons stated above, CCL is concerned with the proposed Area Plan and its Draft Terms of Reference. particularly as they relate to tho CCL Applications. CCL has woperated fully with the City to facilitate the processing of the CQ. Applications since they were fded a year-and-a- half ago. CCL conducted 3 separate neighbourhood meetings, countless meeings with staff and

Commissioners Centres Limited 700 Applewood Cresceut, Suite 100

Vaughan Ontario L5K 5x3

- 5 -

consultants, and was prepared to undergo further studies to assist planning staff in finalizing their independent recommendation to Planning Committee.

Now that CCL is faced with a long and uncertain timetable, we are questioning our commitment to participating in this prccess.

Yours very mly,

Commissioners Centres Limited

Peter Nikolakakos

cc. Councillor Nancy Branscombe Councillor Bud Polhi Comcitlor Joni Baechler councillor Susan aagle Conncillor Walter Lonc Councillor Steve Orser Councillor Roger Caranci Lorelei Fisher, Planning Committee Secretary Bric Saulesleja, Kevin Muir, Glenn Scheels. OSP Group DeOnis Wood, Wendy Elkins. Wood Bull LLP Allan Scully, Joshua Kaufinan, Brad Kcast, Commissioners Centres Limited

Page 1 of 1

Pasato, Nancy

From: Stanley C a v e n e y m Sent: To: Pasato, Nancy Cc: nod.gordon@rogers.com Subject: Meadowlily Area Plan

Tuesday, April 07,2009 2:11 PM

Dear Nancy:

As you are probably aware, the Thames Talbot Land Trust, a London charity registered to protect natural heritage in southwestem Ontario, owns a parcel of conservation land in the area included within the Draft Terns of Reference of the Meadowlily Area Planning Study. The property is named the Meadowlily Nature Preserve and is 5.8 ha is size. It lies along the South Branch of the Thames River in the northwest comer of the study area.

The Land Trust would be grateful if the Draft Terms of Reference could be changed to include mention of this fact in Section 3: Study Area where a description is given of the 135-ha Meadowlily Woods ESA (bottom page 4 in the draft) and other properties nearby.

We would also l i e to confirm with the Planning Department that the entire Meadowlily Nature Preserve property is included within the largely City-owned Meadowlily Woods ESA, as delineated in OP Schedule B (2008). The future management of our property as a nature preserve open to the public suggests that an ESA designation for the entire property would be appropriate. If it is not so designated, we would appreciate advice on how to proceed in having the area zoned as entirely within the ESA.

Yours sincerely,

Stan Caveney, President, Thames Talbot Land Trust.

2009-04-07

April 2,2009

John Flemming and Nancy Pasato Planning Department

City o f London 300 Dufferin Avenue London, Ontario N6A 4L9

Dear Mr. Flemming and Ms. Pasato,

Re: Meadowlily Area Planning Study - Dra f t Terms o f Reference

We are owners of the lands subject t o an Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application (City File No. 02-7430), also known as 168 Meadowlily Road South. Further to an Open House hosted by the Planning Department on March 25,2009 regarding the draft Terms o f Reference fo r the Meadowlily Area Planning Study, we are providing our comments for your Consideration and input.

Information was provided during the meeting January 7,2009 that Commissioners Centres Limited who submitted an application to amend the official plan and zoning by-law had conducted various studies as per guidelines set out in the application process. The developer has adhered to or exceeded these guidelines. The city has now changed the process and wants to repeat the studies. Will the city keep the public informed o f events and costs? Why has the public not been informed that the process fo r a development application has been changed? (i.e., through TV, radio or newspaper announcement)

The city wants t o conduct i ts own studies. Some o f the studies will be repeat studies that the developer has already completed with one study, the €IS study, being repeated for the third time. Some of the studies wil l be new ones. The timeline given at the February 9,2009 meeting fo r these city studies was 1 to 2 years. This new timeline will exceed the deadline to process the original application. The developer could go t o the OMB as was pointed out by Councilor Roger Caranci a t the February 9,2009 meeting. The City o f London will have t o defend itself if the developer asks the OMB t o intervene. How much could this legal challenge cost the taxpayers? Will the taxpayers be informed?

e

e

e

e

b

Certain councilors, citizens/groups of London are assuming that the studies already completed by the developer are biased. Where is the proof that the studies are biased? The City of London staf f reviewed the studies and in some cases, Commissioners Centres Limited went above and beyond the requirements. Also, the companies hired t o do the studies were third party companies! If the city conducts their own studies, what proof wil l be provided that they are not biased? If the studies are repeated by the city and the conclusions are similar t o prior studies by the developer, the taxpayer's money is being wasted. Will taxpayer's be informed o f this waste?

A t the meeting on March 25,2009, John Flemming said that the city is in the process of writing new policies that will be implemented an all future development in London. Why is this "incomplete and unapproved policy" being implemented now on an application that was submitted in 20077

The cost of studies will be paid for by the C i t y of London instead of the by the developer as was the policy in the past. These studies are very expensive but the city hopes to recover the costs by taking money from Development Charges. Has the city actually identified where these monies are coming from? What if the money does not come from Development Charges? If they do come from Development Charges, does the cost o f building a new home or doing a renovation increase? Yet another tax hike fo r the London taxpayers in these tough economic times!

I n the draft terms o f reference, several other applications were listed. (eg. Terms of Ref Mat #6 - File 02-7240 - pending approval - east of the ESA). A t the March 25th meeting, it was mentioned that the ESA was along the river all the way to near Dorchester. The above mentioned application is well within this area, so will it also need these same city funded studies as well? Will the city be changing the process for those applications as well? Why change the process for one development but not any others?

A t the February 9,2009 city meeting, council chose option #2 costing approximately $420,00 - $460,000 with a time line of 1 to 2 years. The amounts were explained as being rough estimates as the city has never gone through this process before and the planning committee has no real idea as t o what the actual amounts would be. A t the. March 25,2009 meeting, Mr. Flemming said that an additional study may be warranted at a cost o f $250,000 that would be budgeted for in 2010. What is this additional study? Will there be more studies required? A t what cost? Will there be any more surprises? Will taxpayers be informed?

One of the studies suggested in the terms o f reference is the Cultural Heritage Study. If an archeological study is t o be done for the entire Study Area, then the language should clearly state that all residential properties along Meadowlily Road be included in this study. The residential properties are included in the Urban Reserve designation of the Study Area and digs may be needed on those properties as well.

A t the meeting on March 25,2009, updates t o the Farm Park were discussed (paved walkways, etc). How can this be approved when the city is already stating that it cannot afford upkeep on the prestigious Springbank Park and is threatening t o close Storybook Gardens? Taxpayers of London would sooner agree to spending money on Springbank Park, Storybook Gardens, Victoria Park, Gibbons Park and Fanshawe Pioneer Village than on the l i t t le known Farm Park that has no access nor parking. Will taxpayers be informed if money is spent on the Farm Park rather than on the other well known and well used parks mentioned above?

Why is the city even considering any o f the studies in the draf t Terms of Reference. For some unknown reason, the city is stalling. I n the current economic environment, the city is turning away a large development that will, in the short term, create construction jobs and in the long term, full and part time jobs in retail and financial businesses and create significant tax revenues for the city.

Thank you fo r the opportunity to provide our comments. We would like to be kept informed of any further meetings o r information regarding this process.

The Kovac and Golf Families.

flpr 01 OS llr07a Limetree Park

April I . 2009

2394994774

City of bndon 300 Duffrrin Avenue P.O. Box 5035 T.ondon, 011. N6A4LY

Attention: Planning Department F a (c 51 9-66 1-5397

RE: 1.58 Acrc Vacant sitc (N.W.C. commissioners & Madowlily)

P. 1

a) 1:urthcr to your noticc of March IO, 2009, wc are a long-tem city of London pmpcrty ownm nt this location (approx. 35 yeus). During this timc we had numcmus rncctings with various mcmbcrs oflhc planning staff‘through “Shepherd McKenzie Plaxton & Jenkens” to rcmnc subjcct for commercial u s s . During thew discussions we were advised that sewers wcrc rcquircd prior to development plans. Recently we gavc cntry approval to m engineering company to assist thcm to install scwm close to the intersedon.

b) This strategic location adjnmt 10 the Highhuv Avenue (#l26 Highway) Intmkmge creates a demand for cotnmwcial USCY to service existing and future highway .trafltic. A zoning changc conforms with the existing and proposcd comcrcial uscs on thc adjaccnt m e w o f the intersection.

c) Wc havc cntcrcd into an a m e n t with “North Amcrican Acquisis?ion Corp.” who is rcprcscntcd by “Zelinka Ptiamo” acting in both ow intmsk.

As a long-tnm property owner in this am. ’I’hank you rir your consideration in this mdllw.

Your truly,

Marlene Andrew owner

Page 1 of 2

Pasato, Nancy

From: - Sent: To: Pasato, Nancy Subject: Re: Terms of Reference for Meadowlily Area Study.

Tuesday, March 31.2009 3:27 PM

Nancy Pasato, MCIP. RPP, Planning Department, City of London, 300 Dufferin Ave., London, Ontario, N6A 4L9

Dear Nancy,

Unfortunately, we were absent from London the night of the Friday, March 25th, meeting regarding the Terms of Reference for the Area Study for Meadowlily Rd. South.

We own property at located at 25 Meadowlily Rd. South, and understand you will accept comments up until May 3rd regarding the Terms of Reference for the Area Study. We are also concerned citiuens of Condon who care about our City as a whole and we are sensitive to the needs of the East London community in particular, since that was where my husband grew up.

We have previously gifted a large portion of our properly fronting on the Thames River between Meadowlily Road and Highbury Ave., and heading south towards Commissioners' Rd., to the Thames Talbot Land Trust as a step towards preserving the natural character of the area.

We do not currently live at 25 Meadowlily Rd. South; we live on Riverside Drive in the far west end of London. However, we access the Meadowlily area often for its natural beauty and quietness -something becoming rare to find. Our home is near Springbank Park, but it is already considered "overused" by City of London reports. As was obvious from the public participation part of the Planning Committee Meeting held on 30th September, 2008, many citizens from all over the city of London are aware of the special qualities found in the Meadowlily area, and are concerned about the outcome of the planned rezoning.

Our main concern is that since the boundaries of the Area Study are quite limited, the Terms of Reference for the Area Study somehow need to acknowledge the larger context in which this Area is geographically located; Le., that the Summerside neighbourhood is located nearby -and that outside the boundary of the Area Study, there is extensive Commercial Zoning, much of which has been vacated along Commissioners' Rd. just west of the Highbury Bridge.

To complete an Area Study and not acknowledge the context in which the specific Area is located would be misleading to say the least. The Area Study, as we understand it, will eventually lead to a decision as to how the City of London plans to re-zone the land within the Urban Reserve designation that currently exists. This land doesn't exist in isolation; it is not a town within itself; it is a part of the City of London, the Jackson Neighbourhood, and a portion of the Urban Reserve (specifically 168 Meadowlily Rd. South) abuts directly against a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area.

Also, since there is existing parking on the soccer fields already, that parking would be a factor to consider when rezoning 168 Meadowlily Rd. South (again, in context, if 168 Meadowlily Rd. were to be designated Park or Open Space, there is already public parking available, so no additional new parking would be required.)

We am not professional planners by any means, but surely considering land to be rezoned must have some context applications regarding other areas surrounding it. Certainly, as it applies to Transportation, I believe the Transportation Study is to be included as an Appendix to this Area Study. At the public participation meeting, it was discovered quite a few people use Meadowlily Rd. as a bike conidor to travel from South to North to their places of work, using the pedestrian bridge to cross the Thames River. This directly affects the area in question, and we would request that this Bike Transwrtation Corridor be included as Dart of the Area

2009-04-01

Page 2 of 2

Studv. since it is well within the sDecific boundaries alreadv outlined for the Area Studv.

Please could you also consider somehow including in the Terms of Reference that: -this sDedfic Area Studv will take into consideration and will be Dresented "in context "with the sumundin neiahbourhoods. vacant lands. corn mercial SDace alreadv available close bv. Dublic Darkina alreadv availa%e nearbv. and other amenities alreadv available bevond those sDecific boundaries,

This would Ouly acknowledge that we live "in communities" - and that this rezoning will affect the whole Jackson Community. as well as the citizens of East London and, in fa* many citizens of the City of London as a whole, especially naturalists from all Over the City who travel there for its specific special qualities.

Thank you for considering our letter and considering the requests contained in it.

sincerely. Card 8 Rick Richardson.

2009-04-0 1

March 31-, 2009

e Q 8 b J W I - City of London ! 4%s/lra: DiVISIO[* Planning and Development Department

300 Dufferin Avenue, P.O. Box 5035 London, ON N6A 4L9

Attention: Nancy Pasato, Planner I I - Implementation

‘-” APR - I 2009 hem-+ ’ U t N l i‘Wq4r ~

’ 1

Dear Ms. Pasato: - - - _ - Re: Meadowlily Area Planning Study - Draft Terms of Reference

Meadowlily Area, North of Commissioners Road London, ON

Our File: CENILONI08-01

Zelinka Priamo Ltd. is pleased to provide comments relating to the Meadowlily Area Planning Study - Draft Terms of Reference on behalf of North American Acquisition Corporation. North American has an interest in 0.62 hectare (1 53 acres) of vacant land bcated at the northwest corner of Meadowlily Road and Cornmissioners Road. North American’s preparations, to submit Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendment applicatims to permit commercial use of these lands, were suspended to enable the City to pursue a comprehensive planning study for the Meadowlily Area.

By letter dated January 20, 2009, prior to the release of the proposed draft Terms of Reference, we requested that “consideration of the nature and extent of commercial uses within the study area include the northwest corner of Meadowlily Road and Commissioners Road”.

We have reviewed the proposed draft Terms of Reference in light of our request and we note that Section 9 - Alternative and Preferred Land Use Concepts states that “The concepts may vary according to the Iocation and extent of land use allocations but should be primarily differentiated according to the intensity of development (residential densities, amount of commercial development, etc.) to be supported”. We would request that the wording of the Terms of Reference be amended to clarify that the concepts will address variations to the possible location and extent of commercial land use allocations, and not merely to the amount of commercial floor space.

318 Wellington Rosd London, Ontario NBC 4P4

Tel: 619-474-7137 Fax: 619-474-2284 Emall: rp@zpplan.com Weboite: zpplan.com

March 31. 2009

We believe that given complementary commercial interests in this area and the comprehensive nature of the study, it would be inadequate if, under the existing wording of the Terms of Reference, the concepts were to consider commercial development at different scales only in one location.

Should you have any questions, or require further information, please do not hesitate to call.

Yours ver). trcly,

ZELINKA PRIAMO LTD.

Principal Planner

cc. Mr. John Fleming, Manager of Implementation Mr. Simon D. Smith, North American Acquisition Corporation

Zelinka Pnamo Ltd. Page 2

KEITH E. RISLER

5- 1 92 Elmwood Ave E London, ON N6C 1K2

Nancy Pasato. MCIP, RPP Planner II - Implementation Planning Division, Planning and Development City of London - 300 Dufferin Ave. P.O. Box 5053 London. ON N6A 4L9

30 March 2009

Dear Ms. Pasato:

Re: Meadowlily Area Plan Terms of Reference

I have two concerns regarding the proposed Terms of Reference for the Meadowlily Area Plan. I am sending you these comments as per the suggestion made at the recent Meadowlily Open House meeting that comments should be submitted to you by 3 April 2009. The inadequacy of documentation supplied as part of the original application to green light the Meadowlily big box development was subjected to well-grounded criticism at the Planning Commit- tee’s 30 September 2008 Meadowlily public meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Committee ini- tiated a move to handle the Meadowlily issue as a City-led process, as opposed to a developer-led process. In this context my concerns regarding the Area Plan Terms of Reference are:

1. The need for a new research-adequate commercial impact analysis; 2. The need for research adequacy in new studies and existing research reselected

after “gap analysis.”

1. The need for a new research-adequate commercial impact analysis. Given that the Planning Committee ordered more research before any application could be ap- proved, it is reasonable to presume that the quality of research will play a significant role in deter- mining the validity of the conclusions reached or advocated. In this context there is at least one area in which the proposed Terms of Reference is deficient. Page 3 of the Recommendation text as presented to Planning Committee on 9 February 2009, with respect to circulating the proposed Terms of Reference noted that:

Page 1 of 3

A request has been made by some members of the public to undertake a review re- garding commercial space in London. A commercial s t ~ & was submitted in support of the application for 168 Mendowlily RoadSouth. and apeer review was under- t h n for that study. It is not recommended that any further commercial analysis & done. ..

There has been a considerable decline in the economy since that original work was done. Given that the City-commissioned peer review of the original commercial study also found fault with as- pects of that study, it would in fact be appropriate to require a new fully adequate analysis. Such an analysis should specify that all relevant future developments be factored in, as was not the case with the applicant’s original commercial impact analysis. Among other cited faults in the developer-commissioned commercial impact analysis, the City- commissioned document entiled Peer Review: Malone Given Parsons, South East City of London Market Demand and Impact Analysis, November 2007 expresses doubt at the appli- cant document’s claim that the White Oaks Wal-Mart store will survive:

For the White Oaks Wal-Mart, the sales decline would be even grenter at 39.1% or to $278per square foot in 2009. Some recwety infuture years wouldbe realized, however. by 2015, sales declines are expected to average some ZO%fiom the cur- rent level of $4SSper square foot. Given the signifcant sales decline for the White Oaks Wal-Mart forecast, this store could be considered at risk. [Emphasis added]

Consequently, it would be wise to ensure that a Cty-monitored and commissioned commercial im- pact analysis reflecting all relevant future developments as well as current economic conditions be included as a requirement in the Terms of Reference for the Meadowlily Area Plan.

2. The need for research adequacy in new studies and existing research

The inadequacy of the applicant-submitted environmental impact analysis was the subject of public criticism at the 30 September 2008 public meeting of the City’s Planning committee. The critiques offered at the time detailed the need for a new more adequate environmental analysis, and offered good reasons why better and adequate information is required. Because of the time and expense being taken to do an Area Plan, as well as the fact that other studies will be undertaken at other levels in the time frame that the Area Plan will be underway, it is entirely reasonable that any extant reports and research considered as part of the proposed “gap analysis” should be subject to careful and valid assessment as to adequacy before being in- cluded as a data gap-filler. The Terms of Reference should explicitly specify the need for research- adequate results approved as such before any such material is relied upon for either new studies or as gap-filling content. There is no point in taking the trouble to do an Area Plan unless the information that such a study relies upon is up to a standard permitting valid unbiased conclusions to be drawn.

reselected after “gap analysis.”

Page 2 of 3

Finally, the choice by the London City Council and by the Planning Committee to proceed on a City-led basis reasonably implies that City-Commissioned research should be a quality prerequi- site for all admitted research, studies and reports that are used to justify the eventual results. Ide- ally, fairness to the public and to applicants now and long into the future is best assured through the neutral research approach implied by a City-led process. I heard the concerns as to precedent and cost that were expressed by some persons at the recent Terms of Reference Open House: it is reasonable to answer such concerns by ensuring both the quality as well as the neutrality of relied-upon research. Thanks for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed Terms of Reference for the Meadowlily Area Plan.

KEITH E. RISLER

Page 3 Of 3

Page 1 of 2

Pasato,

From: Sent: To:

Subject:

Vancy

Fleming, John M. Wednesday, Februaly 11,2009 659 AM Pasato, Nancy FW Drafl Terms of Reference, Meadowlily Area Planning Study

whether a hard copy is necessary.

Sincerely,

Anne Marie Mayor

From: Keith

From: DeCi co-Best, Anne Marie Sent: Tue ay, February 10,2009 9:53 AM To: Fleming John M.

Draft Terms of Reference, Meadowlily Area Planning Study 4

Subjeb: "y:

j

I DeCicco-Best

SI E. Risler (w) [ . ' 1

Hi John: I I . 1 am forwarding the attached emall from Keith E. Risler you for your information.

Page 2 of 2

RE: Draft erms of Reference, Meadowlily Area P1

Dear Mayo I DeCicco-Best:

I recently r ceived a letter from the City of London Meadowlil Area Planning Study will be brought b

I recollect at you attended the Planning Committ meeting on a proposed development in the Meado this time w ‘. th some comments relating to the Study. I

raft Terms of Reference for the c Committee on February 9th, 2009.

ept. 30,2008, which was a public rdingly I am also writing to you at

taken for the Meadowlily Area Planning

to me that the City has decided to & e k e initiative to lead the planning study for the as the chosen approach is consistent with Ontario‘s Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)

an official Province of Ontario guide entitled ”Applying the Provincial Policy

t

that the PPS “requires decision-makers to apply the policies and make with” PPS policies and stresses that the consistency requirement “is a strong

on achieving policy outcomes.“ Official Plans are also required to be

comment at the Planning Committee‘s public meeting on Meadowlily submission of mine on the Agenda for that meeting.

letter, for your reference I have attached an Adobe Acrobat PDF file comments from that Sept. 30,2008 meeting. These comments explain

with regard to development in the Meadowlily area.

direction, having decided to take the lead on a planning that the PPS intends that municipalities lead municipal

concern for me is that when I researched t it was evident that the PPS implicitly according to valid and thorough info

proposal. It may very well me; more on up-to-date City-in

the consistency requi

Sincerely, 1

London, ON N6C 1W Mobile: 519439.1296

2009-02-1

PPS last summer in preparation for my Sept. ies the bar for municipalities in terms of their rtion. That obligation it seems to me is not tied hat there will be a standing, continuing need ed studies, the cost of which may well be Lents of the PPS.

KEITH E

5-1 92 Elrnv London, C

w Re: P

I have be rej ning e

I woul plan n

The P sions

The P which envirc

The P

Rathe icy Sti cision

The P standi

In 1001 is, an( hensi!

- ’ The re

I

. RISLER TeleDhoneFAX: 15191 439-5413

.ood Ave E N N6C 1K2

. . Emoil: KeithRisler@grnail.com

RKS TO CITY OF LONDON PLANNING COMMI TTEE. 30 S EPT. 2008

oposed major commercial development at the top of Meadowlily Woods ESA

nothing to add to my written submission‘ which argued that this application should xted because it is inconsistent with Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement on Dlan- swell as London’s Official Plan.

j like to briefly say why consistency with the provincial policy statement and official latter.

.evince of Ontario created a requirement a few years back that all planning deci- md all official plans must be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

PS as it is known for short sets a number of policies that apply to land use and clearly direct development toward existing empty commercial space and away from nmentally sensitive areas.

PS is not a trivial document with an optional role in planning.

r, the Ontario Government says in its document called “Applying the Provincial Pol- itement” that the PPS “requires decision-makers to apply the policies and make de- ; that are consistent with” PPS policies.

*evince goes on to say that the consisten uirement “is a strong implementation ird focused on achieving policy outcomes.

.ing at the planning report it is evident th pplication could not be accepted as I the report among other references arg the PPS supports “a more compre- e analysis.”

” - erenced written submission follows on Page 3 of this PDF document.

I ,I

1 Page I of 9

My im ression is that the planner’s report pk guidin role of the PPS.

I would suggest however that the application consistency that it is already beyo

I non-public study process.

It wou policy

correct and strong emphasis on the

d be a good idea to reject this application considerations are relevant in a City-lead

may well be so far away from any pos- t range of acceptability relative to the

the PPS requires planning decisions and official plans to be

entitles a city to work that equation in reverse and allow

ssible interpretation of the referral proposal is that while it nominally claims to be a question of Official Plan policy, the referral on the terms proposed would re-

away from any context in which policy non-compliance could be used to nul-

of existing data in a non-public process would potentially exclude nix- the basis of more accurate and thorough information offered by the

info such as a badly needed valid EIS that could potentially final outcome, for example.

I leavi you with the thought that the planning game channed a lot with the intro of the 2005 PS, and that the PPS and its policies con 7

KEITI-~ E. RISLER

Page 2 of

beforedevelopment proposals.

wand then define whatever studies or blic process.

ne of a development proposal defining defines development.

Emuil: KeithRisier@gmuii.com

P.O. Bi)x 5035 Londo , ON N6A 4L9 P Dear P anning Committee Chair and Members:

The following comments are submitted with respect to the proposed large commercial development t

the Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area (ESA). I request that this on the agenda for the upcoming Public Partici ation Meeting to be held by the

which I understand is to be held on Sept. 8 ,2008 or on a later date if that is rescheduled. I have also emailed these comments to Planner Nancy Pasato, who is as- the application to amend the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

8

faxed my Ward Councillor Mr. Roger Caranci with my initial thoughts on this matter, these more refined comments at this time as my submission to your Committee.

I Severa weeks ago, while out on my daily cycling Road r ferencing a proposed development. I have sioner Rd E to Meadowlily Rd S , down the hill

noticed some signs along Meadowlily to enjoy a route that runs along Commis-

and back along the Thames River 1

I

bikew y to my residence in Old South.

I was ismayed to learn of the major commercial Wood ESA, to be perched a meager 30 metres fr

The de elopment mandates an amendment of the this de elopment, said to be comprised of a Wal- box" c nfiguration.

A webTite blurb posted by what appears to be

ust above the Meadowlily

Plan and a rezoning of the area to permit ore and a number of other stores in a "big 1.

scribes the proposed de-

". .

There deal:

by a large department store, This 2’70,000 square foot site stores.’ [Emphasis added

re problems associated with the evi

t wjll open in 2009. both pads and inline

mption that this project is a done- ii

erstanding is that at the provincial level there exists a policy expectation that already-in-use, sites be used up for commercial development prior to undeveloped

London suffers from a I

kowir(g blight of empty commercial space in malls and conventional large malls.

s all, for appears to have A selection of highquality images

of the Meadowlily Woods ESA are viewable online

via the following easily-reached web page: 1 httD://tmvurl.comdZeul I vast second floor store space empty Partially-occupied strip malls blot our neighborhood street-

the open space proposed for rezoning to serve the proposed stores sits in an area al-

close to the proposed development, is a largely vacant facility.

a tad over-developed in terms of commercial space. The Pond Mills Square mall Zellers@ and Food Basics@ stores west of Highbury Ave on Commissioners

I The Smartcentres website implies that the company showing statistics 8s to income levels Y

From the website, it would se of distance is the major sel

opportunities for into account el

of suitable I

Page 2 o

gets its locations on the basis of demograph- in certain distance ranges from each of its I that the demographic data showing the in- ; point aimed at potential site tenants. Noth-

’ Statement notes that “Planning authori- msification and redevelopment where ing building stock or areas, including sting or planned infrastructure and pub- cted needs.” (1.1.3.3, Queens Printer for

f

supportable. CCL's Proposed Developm 11 not compromise the

. , . . . -.

Mall”

Together, Pond Mills Square, S CCL’s Proposed Development

e Shopping Centre, and e a larger, new commer-

and that

cial focus for south east London, impi local residents and recapturing outfla

1 1

at report also asserts that

Qrowth in the market and the recap creased commercial uses in the no tional retail and service comme strengthen the performance of e Pond Mills Square.a

of expenditures due to in- not only support addi- but could serve to

mmercial centres, namely

Square has had many years to strengthen its performance, it is fair to ques- will benefit Pond Mills Square in terms of reducing vacant space. More-

is not necessarily the same as filling up the existing already- or more existing stores might do better, while the vacancy situa-

nor Food Basics-both housed at Pond Mills Square-are the is under an obligation to state whether they will keep their

assumption can be made that such stores will continue assume that Wal-Mart’s White Oaks “at risk” facility

a closure situation looms here in noting that

by 2009, which could put this store at

the developer’s analysis of market condi- already zoned for a food store, that if

in the context of the competition Basics store, which is already a

declining to some $280 per of some 40,000 square feet.”‘

“Zellers in the Pond Mills

City of London Market Demand and Impact Analysis, p. ix. City of London Market Demand and t Analysis, p. 63

Malone Given Parsons, South Ea of London Market Demand and Im- November 2007, pp. 23. Malone Given Parsons, South Ea of London Market Demand and Im- November 2007, p. 20.

P

e to distinguish between enterprises that s versus the empty commercial not survive. Since the loss of Wal-Mart comes to an area,

long-run e

y making a good go of it in the face of at may still go unfilled and the businesses ity-grown businesses is a well-established al net loss to the London tax base, the t, and other such damage still needs to be

the shadow of this proposed devel-

loyment engendered by big box locales.

performance at Pond e will be fully utilized. The South

Analysis report makes no effective claim that va- up by the project at hand, either before or after

Consequently this report fails to establish the policy via the Ontario Policy State-

are beyond question good things to encourage in any city; but these reasoned balance with the need to preserve the livability of a city,

ment.

and other equally important civic pri- and the City's Official Plan.

it would be as if the Offi- amount to exemptions

the geological and able to expect a

longer period of time, unless we presume interest and to applicants, perhaps there

d by independent public authorities.

ue in our city's landscape and why

'4

that makes Meadowlily engaging is the quiet rural approaches from both the along Meadowlily Rd S, and t that the area has a wide, comfortable un-

built b undary around it.

Apart om the defined issue of harmful runoff fr Mead lily Woods, (big) boxing in Meadow1 the cu ently gracious and elegant open space call M adowlily Woods.

Among many distinctions, Meadowlily is a rare surviving component of the Ingersol moraine,

big development that will sit at the top of will have the obvious effect of eliminating

y part of the green urban experience we '$ i

been largely obliterated elsewhere by encroaching developments.

important that the City of London not step into inconsistency with both its own stated expectations as to land use simply to permit this ill-advised development. Even effect on the Meadowlily landscape, the development by its presence will surrounding open context of Meadowlily Woods and detract from the livabil-

I had the opportunity to shoot a collection of high-resolution digital im-

2eul. We should wonder, if congested air around Meadowlily ages of Meadowlily, and I was struck by the environmental haze already present in some of the im- ages posted at http://tinyurl.com/6d Woods/ may be a problem now, what will be the effect of endless throngs of car-driven customers to this new facility?

classifications that limit such projects as this proposed development for a reason. any good reasons to alter the present zoning for this rather non-conforming pro-

posal.

I Page 1 of 3

Pasato,

From: Sent: To:

cc: Subject:

Ms. Nancy

Planning

300 Dufferin

P 0 Box

London,

6 January

Uancy

Gary Smith Friday, February 06, 2009 3:42 PM Pasato. Nancy 3ranscombe, Nancy: Eagle, Susan Health Considerations regarding the Terms of Reference for Meadowlily Area

Pasato

Division

Street

5035

3 N N6A 4L9

2009

MS. Pasdto,

eeting this Wednesday, January 7, 2009 to discuss the draft terms of the new Meadowlily Area Study directed by Council this past , I’d like to raise a couple of issues not raised to this point in terms dy and consideration, depending on whether or not Smart Centres, If are considering maintaining their application to rezone the Urban

unity Growth property known as 168 Meadowlily Road South. I uest that the following studies be added to the present concerns ntal impact, natural heri d heritage issues already

cument passed by the tainable Communifi land in question (n space north of the ar

Planning Institute, Healthy

tion that it is immediately a guideline for times when green

own as Meadowlily Woods-Park

. ..,, . . ,.. , . , ..,. , , .

Farm an and be thoroughly existing should be not only East Study th;

both according to the Healthy Communities, Sustainable document and the CLEAR Network Environmental initiative on the

and the municipal government of the city of London, that air investigations be held to determine what the impact will be on

in the neighbourhood in terms of the eight indicators the nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and carbon

will result from the traffic of a 275,000+ square foot

Sustainable Communities document proposals like this that: How do the

and workers making there way to these

affect air quality along heavily and higher densities? How do

affect air quality in effect that all of the will be a part of

5 Page 2 of 3 i a

1 to the east, City-Wide Sports Combplex) are proposed to be turned into developed into commercial spac

investigated and evalu lands in the area that a green

used this way before all 0th ':he area to the immediate West

commercial corridor, but also the fa t a commercial area is recomm

commercial infrastructure er it is necessary given eadowlily Road South

are eliminated. For example, the Pond Mills-Commissioners recent as the Old Victoria Area

for the corner of Hamilton-

to the CLEAR Network Environ ental Initiative of the city of London

2009-02-0

adequately question. other before a Meadow

close enough to the area sug substitute for the site in wnfield Incentives program and as that are already developed

This issue is also raised in th studies that raise the issue of dev

lowing areas further from the ily Area.

be developed like the

u:

h

and the Communities impact geographical developrient.

Respectfully

Gary Smith

Resident

141

London,

Page 3 of 3

Ontario Planning Institute’s Health Sustainable document, we would ask and health

studies and tests be done on such a tight area to determine the health d environmental impact of such a

Submitted,

Meadowlily Area

Meadowlily Road South

ON N6M IC3

Ask a queshon on any topic and get answers fiom real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

2009-02-1

_. .

Page 1 of 5

Pasato,

From: Sent:

Vancy

Gary Smith E,-l Friday, February 06,2009 3:36 PM

I'd like to suggest some bas Meadowlily Area, some o

ncerns with regard to heritage ch have already been mentioned in

2009-02-0

To: cc: Subject:

Ms. Nancy

Planning

300 Duff

P 0 Box

London,

7 January

Ms. Pas:

In your 23 invited us new

The

corn

ident mine)

Pasato, Nancy Branscornbe, Nancy; Eagle, Susan Heritage Concerns, Meadowlily Terms of Reference

Pasato

Division

2rin Street

5035

ION N6A 4L9

2009

to,

December 2008 letter to the residents of Meadowlily Road South you to start the process of developin

MeEdowlily Area Study. In your letter draft Terms of Reference for the

purpose and effect of the propos Reference is to set the parameters for the area study. It will ide t studies that need to be

aleted, necessary background for t f land use concepts and strategies for servicing, development ph I heritage protection and

fy timelines and opportunities for n and input. (Emphasis

Page 2 of 5

ember 2008 public meetin e to add for the attention

ning Committee and others nd this upcoming study.

mentioned before both by ocuments of the Planning such features as Park Farm Mill (c. 1840) and Meadowlily ng a Park Farm a heritag deserves to be recogniz

s recently as Phase 0

of Meadowlily Woods and also mental Divisions of the City of

e-designated building (c. 1849), e (c. 1906) suggest that not only

Meadowlily Area but that the district.” Note the Thames Valley Corridor

orth of Commissioners Road adjacent to Meadowlily Woods

on of historic dwellings

However Corridor

Park Farm’r

Thames. EstateiMasoniuy cultural and region. The

- 1817-1848

- 1849-1907 gave the

- 1907-1981

2009-02-09

this mention is repeated again at a later point in the Thames Valley Plan, Page 62:

Situated on 50 acre site within Meadowlily s ESA along the South Branch of the

Includes the main house, outbuildings and 5 House, it was built in 1848. Consi

heritage features. The Regency cottage :state had 4 distinct periods:

- Abel Sumner/William Gray

-William Bell and descendents const

en. Formerly known as Harrison Fraser of London’s most interesting and unique e of the hobby farms historically found in the

use and cleared the land for agriculture. They property its name.

- Fraser family - David Fraser used it

Page 3 of 5

The cultural include:

The Meadowlily element alorig

Commissioners patterns whi:h

Park Farm -

Meadowlily

And again

The Thames archaeologitally Meadowlily disturbed by

2009-02-0‘

influenced the siting and style of and to the surrounding lands Study recommended that the

There are many, impressive beautiful vistas rical rural landscape has been maintained. land use strategy to protect park F m and

have opportunities for educati d recreational resources/ features.

page, 63:

the river led to the devel identified in the

of numerous mill sites along the banks of the area**. The Meadowlily Mill area (1848)

of the old mill. The Thames Valley Areas Study noted that the ruins should the Corridor.

landscape and heritage features found along the South Branch were considered to be stronger. They

Mill Area (1 848) - the river crossing and the old mill ruins should be recognized as a valuable the Corridor.

Road - was an important settlement Road. It features intact natural and agricultural landscape contribute to the attractive landscape in

is one of the City’s most significant and uniq

Woods makes it one of London’s most i

es. Its situation within

1 and cultural heritage features.

on page 68:

Valley Areas Study identified the So significant. The South Thames Area w

Woods Area. Along the Main Channel (Do aggregate extraction and residential developm

n Channel of the Thames as being as rich in archaeological sites, especially the was indicated that numerous sites had been

e Warbler Woods area.

Page 4 of 5

Such lac< known a:; Archaeological preserved that several of Meadowlily both to importan: TCVP, P recommended plan importance:

of disturbance of the soils of th 168 Meadowlily Road South are

Plan. Noting this area has for historic and pre-historic inve

such archaeological sites are Road South and Commiss

understanding the Aboriginal Peo to understanding the early settl

lase 1, above. Further archaeo assessment of the area is

owlily Area including the land noted in the City’s Master ral aspects that suggest it be ion and research, it also shows immediate vicinity of the corner oad East and are significant

Ontario and Canada but also patterns of this area, noted in the

69. On that same page the ge and archaeological

again by the Corridor pla con:inues to mention Meadowlily a

Area An archaeological assessment was prepared as part of the Meadowlily Woods Master Plan process. It of 60 archaeological finds that span the entire 11,000 year pre-history of Southwestern Ontario. It

as spots, camps villages and special purpose sites. The area from Meadowlily Road to is considered to have high archaeological potential.

o evidence to the effect that some of these archaeologically vestigations have taken place on the property known as 168 oad South itself, both of a prehistoric and historic nature. I would Division’s attention to the study done by Nancy Tausky in 1993, on of the Historic Homestead: Site AfHh-92, South of Meadowlily

the Ron Koudys’ study known as Historical Assessment of the t Park Farm: The Harrison aser Estate, dated the same year.

the site mentioned in the title th e is one other side noted in the , and a host of other suggested studies to be done based on land

tural significance of the Meadowlily ependent archaeological and

investigations are dated and

$ ap studies and other evidence to suggest that the land in a part of the historical a hort of an entirely new a

in order here! Some o e time as incomplete and req

s South and North, Pa Meadowlily Bridge and the re already significant i f heritage and natural resources, oramic vista mention outh Thames Valley from the arm in the Thames dor Plan. This includes the land

under protected would be Statement Heritage 2.6.

What only combine relatively

that new archaeological, historical and cultural studies including the areas just north and east of the Meadowlily

area has operated both in settlement and pre-settlement that the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario and

questions about the encroachment of such heritage feature of Park Farm itself. Further whole issue is necessary and consistent

by the City of London itself as well Heritage Planning Land Usage Statement concerning heritage protection and conservation.

Page 5 of 5

South. The whole area needs to be Area is a heritage district and

cowideration at 168 Meadowlily and preserved as such. Th recognizable as such by the cri

under the special document Planning Land UsdCulfura

uggested in the Provincial Policy t Provincial guideline known as: e and Archaeological Policies,

makes the Meadowlily Area truly remaining relatively undisturbed d

natural, environmental, archa close locale.

this matter is that it is one of the outhwestern Ontario that d heritage resources all in a

Residen , Meadowlily Road South ! i’

Member, Meadowlily Woods Neighbourhoo Association I -

gift? Give the gift of Flickrl

2009-02-0

Bridge Name: Meadowlily Road Bridge Facility Carried: Meadowlily Road Over South Branch Thames River Feature Intersected: London: Middlesex County, Ontario Location: London: Middlesex County, Ontario Structure Type: Metal Riveted Double-Intersection Warren

Through Truss, Stationary Construction Date: 1910? Builder or Contractor By: Unknown

A Word From Your Host: Most recent visit to the bridge, Fall, 2007

This website considers any truss bridge older than 1970 to be historic because they utilize methods of construction no longer in use in modern construction. It is important to represent not only the rarest designs of old bridges, but also the more common ones. For in many senses, the more common bridges perhaps create a clearer picture of the period to which they date than the unusual bridges. This website views any old bridge that retains decent historic integrity to be historic at some level, even if a small one. For this reason, a wide variety of old bridges appear on the website,

with a description of the bridge discussing the level of historic value each structure has. Under these statements, clearly the Meadowlily Road Bridge deserves a place on Historic Bridges of Michigan and Elsewhere. But is it possible to clearly describe the level of historic value that the bridge has ... in other words, we can certainly say it "is" historic, but can we say "how" historic it is? A short discussion of this follows, along with a call to Canadians to ask their government to review their rich collection of historic bridges through a historic bridge inventory.

Consider the question: Is the Meadowlily Road Bridge historic? It does not appear in the Ontario Heritage Bridge List, and so one would assume that it is not, and indeed this bridge has been considered non-historic by i t s owner, the City of London. This website covers historic bridges in both the United States and Canada. In the United States, federal law mandates that all states conduct historic bridge inventories to review all bridges within the state and create a l is t of all bridges determined to be historic. In Canada, there does not appear to be such a requirement in place that mandates the evaluation of all bridges in the country. What is the result? In the United States, their may be an awareness of where all the old bridges in the country are located, but often the consulting engineers who perform these inventories only list a select few bridges as being historic, leaving others listed non- historic and unprotected from demolition. In Canada, it seems that

.... i..".

agencies like the Ministry of Culture do not even know about the bridges in the first place. If the local counties, townships, or municipalities want to consider their bridges historic and preserve them, or consider them non-historic and demolish them, that is their own decision. Neither of these plans seems to work well. For one thing, how does one define "historic" as a descriptive value? In the United States, where government agencies and consulting engineers with no genuine interest in preservation are making the decisions, it would seem appropriate to suggest that their historic bridge l i s ts are too conservative. In Canada, where it is unclear what the complete national, or even provincial inventory of old bridges looks like, it is actually impossible to determine the level of historic value that a bridge like the Meadowlily Bridge is. Without a complete l i s t of bridges in Ontario, how can one determine whether the Meadowlily bridge is a rare multi-span truss bridge in Ontario. How many other multi-span truss bridges remain in Ontario? Although I have found two other truss bridges with a similar design to this one, is this trio of bridges the last of i ts kind or are there 20 more like it out there waiting to be found?

The answer to these questions could be found, if either at the national or provincial level, a historic bridge inventory were conducted. A historic bridge inventory consists of first making a list of all bridges in the province or country older than 50 years. Then, the bridges in the l i s t are reviewed and researched and and evaluation of each bridge's significance is made. As a result, it would then be possible to see how rare a particular structure is, and thus make a decision on how much effort should be placed on preservation. In addition, the inventories can be used by people to aid in finding bridges to photograph. Currently the only way to get a complete l is t of old bridges for even a single county involves contacting a ton of people from counties, to MTO, to municipalities, down to even townships. A daunting task for an individual, but a task that government could certainly do.

The time has come to ask for a historic bridge inventory in Ontario, and hopefully all of Canada. With an inventory, locating historic bridges would be much easier, and also most likely, it would become much clearer how rare a bridge like the Meadowlily Bridge is, and perhaps i ts future would be a bit brighter. About The Meadowlily Road Bridge

This bridge is in a rather unusual location in terms of development. On Meadowlily Road, one would think they were out in the country in an area where no development was occurring. However, where Meadowlily Road ends south of the bridge at Commissioners Road, they are deposited at what appears to be one of the most rapidly developing areas in greater London. Quite a contrast!

This bridge’s through truss span utilizes the same truss configuration, as well as the overall design layout of the bridge as some other bridges in southwestern Ontario like the Cameron Road Bridge. It should be noted that despite multiple examples of this design in the area, the truss configuration present on these bridges, the double-intersection warren, is actually an unusual truss configuration. In addition, this bridge is noteworthy for having two pony truss approach spans at the southern end. Pony truss approach spans create a visually pleasing compliment to a through truss main span. Also, multi-span pony truss bridges are uncommon, although London has two other multi-span pony truss bridges. The beauty of the structure has been severely crippled by the addition of cyclone fencing that is so high that anyone crossing this bridge might feel like they are inside a high-security prison.

John Lucas, Transportation Planning and Design Manager for London provided the following information on the bridge:

The bridge sti l l stands after almost 100 years of service, but is in poor condition. It is maintained for pedestrian usage only. A high chain link walkway was erected down the middle of the bridge for safety reasons.

It consists of 3 spans over the South Branch of the Thames River. The north span is a simply supported through-truss, with the top chords of the truss braced across the roadway. This span accommodates, though constrains, river flows. The central and south spans are “pony trusses” spanning the floodplain. The top chords of these are situated about 6 feet above the deck level and are supported by knee braces to the bottom chord. All spans use longitudinal steel stringers over transverse floor beams to support an original 18-foot wide deck.

A thorough review of the bridge in 1990 revealed failure of stringers and floor beams. The bridge was closed until it could be improved for pedestrian use only.

Today, many truss components suffer from a significant loss of section. The concrete deck on the through truss is in poor condition, however the timber decking on the two pony truss spans is in good condition. Foundations are partially exposed and abutments have severe spalling in places. Given the condition, it has been on our “replacement l is t ” for many years. The low usage does not make it a high priority.

This bridge is indeed in extremely poor condition, particularly with the floor beams. However, if both citizenry and government really were dedicated to preserving this impressive structure it could be done. Floor beams and bottom chord connections would likely require significant repairs, but as long as the main trusses were retained, the general historic integrity of the bridge could be maintained. London has an amazingly rich assortment of historic truss bridges, and this bridge contributes greatly to this collection of truss bridges. It certainly isn’t as important as the Blackfriars Bridge, but it is st i l l important and beautiful as well, and worthy of preservation. Restoration of this bridge would create an attractive park experience and focal point for this developing area in the city of London. Any costs associated with restoration would likely pay off in future years. As a pedestrian-only bridge, their would not be a need to get the bridge to support a high weight limit, so restoration would really only need to be limited to repairing the areas of the bridge with critical section loss.

-_ .... .

6Feb . ary2009

Commissioners Centres Limited 700 Applewood Crescent, Suite 100

Vaughan Ontario L5K 5x3

-Planning Division

Flemming, Nancy Pasato

J. Flemming and Ms. N. Pasato,

rea Plan Draft Terms of Reference (City of London File 0-7614) Commissioners Centres Limited (City of London File No. 02-7430)

) is an applicant for a property located on the east side mmissioners Road East, and municipally known as 168 ’). The CCL Site is located within the area for which the

’) proposes to adopt an area plan study which includes the CCL Site

rtunity to review the draft terms of reference (the “Draft Terms of City’s Planning Department for the Area Plan which we understand

Planning Committee at its meeting on February 9,2009. In so s concerns with the Draft Terms of Reference, in particular as

application by CC4 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law 027430) for the OCL Site (the “CCL Applications”).

w to more fully outline the basis for our concerns.

D aware, the CCL Applications were fded with the City on September 4,2007, and

ng material in November 20M (the “CCL Sthdies’?. The City has confumed that the plications are complete.

as worked collab$ratively with City staff in its processing of ng CCL’s efforts, the City has failed to make a decision within the timeframe provided by the Planning Act.

& Is : i

, ... . . , .. ,

A fu res01

corn: Resc

h a conc Lettt for tl stud:

Not\ COO€

APP:

L

1

L

G

Witi to th rem subn

stafi the 1 had j

f Commissioners Ceptres Limited 700 Applewood Crescpt, Suite 100

Vaughan Ontario L5K 5x31

ear after the CCL Applications were filed, on, on September 30,2008, requesting that [dons, and any other applications in the ted for the “Urban Reserve” lands ion”).

er to City Council dated October 15,2008 (th~ “October Letter”), CCL outlined its with the September Resolution. Attached fOFeaSe of reference is a copy of the October The October Letter clearly sets aut CCL‘s concerns related to the lack of a firm timetable xepmtion of Terms of Reference and the proposed timing for the completion of the

Planning Committee passed a defer consideration of the CCL City-initiated area plan had been

Road (the “September

h

istanding the concerns raised by CCL regarding the Area Plan or CCL’s efforts to work tively with the City, on October 20,2008, Council directed that

the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to initiate a City-led Area Plan for all Ian& designated Urban Reserve located east of Highbury Avenue and surrounding Meadowlily Road South and to report back at a future meeting of the Planning Committee; it being noted the T e r n of Reference for this Area Plan will include provision for an independent Environmental Impact Study and an update of the Meadowlily Conservation Master Plan;

consideration ofthis application [the CCL Applications] BE DEFERRED until such time as the Area Plan noted in part (a) above is complete; it being noted that any other applications that are receivedfor lank located in this area will be considered premature until the Area Plan is complete;

the Civic Administration BE Reference noted in (a), above, by

the Civic Administration BE RE the adjacent sports fields as pa

e direction for a clear study area and lanning Committee, CCL, although n d willing to work with staff and revi ;ion to Planning Committee in January

rt back with the Area Plan Terms of

an examination of the impact of tal Impact Study noted in (a), above;

e submission of a Terms of Reference d to the timing or purpose of the study, s of Reference for their preparation and

et with residents of the study area on January i, 2009 to discuss and provide input into iaration of the Terms of Reference. CCL was Pdvised at this meeting that the study area reased substantially to include lands outside the Urban Reserve area, including lands

meeti until inten woub

Recei be he consi

The APPl

CCL aPPrc studil seek

CCL Tern rema AFPl cons.

The

In ad dim Febn SPW

g

Commissioners

ration.

ea Plan and Draft Term of Reference unfairly prolong the processing of the CCL ItiOnS

iterates its position that the Area Plan is an unnecessary exercise as it relates to the iateness of the CCL Applications. Should the City be concerned about the objectivity of prepared by the developer proponent, as suggested, there are other means in which to iependent opinions.

concerned that, nearly four months after Council’s direction of October 20,2008, the >f Reference are in draft form only and the timetable for the completion of the area study i uncertain. The City’s Area Plan process unfairly prolongs the processing of the CCL itions, which applications have been with the City for approximately a year-and-a-half, :rably beyond the 180 day period provided by the Planning Act.

-aft Terms of Reference are inconsistent with Council’s directions

tion to the above noted concerns, CCL is con in provided by Council on October 20,2008, y 9,2009 (the “Staff Report”) and the accon cally, CCL is concerned with the following:

Council directed that Terms of Reference be Staff Report provides Draft Terms of Refere Terms of Reference. be brought to Planning 1

2009. The Staff Report provides no firm dati required.

It is unclear how staff intends to draw from approximately 65% of the costs associated v of the next year@). It is also unclear whethei and how the Area Plan project is prioritized

ned with the inconsistencies between the :City’s StaffReport for presentation on nying Draft Terms of Reference.

livered in January 2009. Conversely, the : and further indicates that revised Draft nmittee for considemtion on April 29, y which final Terms of Reference are

dopment Charge funds to pay for I the proposed area study over the course oneys have been set aside in this regard the City in relation to other Development

,

Con

For of R the half

Commissioners

Charge funded projects? How funding will come fro

The direction from C

Terms of Reference proposes a hectares of land, 66 hectares of

Staff identified in the Draft Terms of Reference that a typical study area in London ranges from 130 to 525 hectares. Of the 95 hectares now identified for this area study, 29 hectares are already designated Urban Reserve. Of those 29 hectares, the CCL site represents approximately 30% of the actual study area.

CCL is of the belief that the inclusion of the adjacent City-Wide sports fields as part of the Council requested, independent, Environments Impact Study would be inappropriate. CCL believe that should an EIS be required for the City-Wide sports field, it be initiated by the City separately from the EIS proposed under the Area Plan.

Direction from Council clearly stated that onlyprovisions for an independent EIS and an update of the Meadowlily Conservation Master Plan Update (“Conservation Update”) be included in the Terms of Reference for the Area Plan.

o The Staff Report suggests that direction from Council was to complete the EIS as part of the Area Plan exercise, but then recommends that the EIS be deferred until the Area Plan and Natural Heritage Study are completed. What will the EIS examine and when will the EIS(s) be

o The Staff Report identifies the comp 2 years. As the staffreport suggests, Conservation Update in 2010, indepr Update is not independent of the Are start date in 2010?

lsion

reasons stated above, CCL is concerned wit: .rente, particularly as they relate to the CCL y to facilitate the processing of the CCL App J. CCL conducted 3 separate neighbourhnod

mpleted?

on of the EIS and Conservation Update 1- :ks Planning is intending on initiating the ent of the Area Study. If the Conservation Ian, does the 1-2 time period apply to a

le proposed Area Plan and its Draft Terms plications. CCL has cooperated fully with itions since they were filed a year-and-a- ztings, countless meetings with staff and

Page 1 of 1

From: Sent: To: Subject: Importancre:

HI Nancy

There is a 9th's meeting.

Would it be London?

How much the city o f

Thank you,

Andrew

Pasato, bancy

Andrew Stolarski m-4 Wednesday, February 04,2009 9:32 PM Pasato, Nancy FW: 168 Meadowlily Rd S High

correction to my submission, please have the amended copy of my questions at February

possible to include a study regarding how much commercial space is available in

of the commercial space/associated shopping centre is utilized in the area study as well as London as a whole?

Stolarski

From: asto arski@,hotmail.com To: npasat @london.ca Subject: 1 8 Meadowlily Rd S Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20: 17: 10 -0600

Hi Nancy I e possible to include a study regarding how commercial space is available in London and

is utilized for terms of Meadowlily development.

P The new W ndows Live Messenger. You don't want to miss this.

.I

I 2009-02-0 ji I*

di

TERMS OF REFERENCE MEETING City Hall Wed Jan 7,2009

My name is Jim Dwyer.

(and I am representing the owners of 168 Meadowlily Road.)

How t o address council

Normally all necessary studies are done by unbiased th i rd party

professionals and paid fo r by the purchaser.

As a tax payer, I am concerned about the costs o f the Meadowlily

Area Planning Study and any future studies tha t wil l be paid fo r by

London taxpayers.

This study is setting precedence fo r ALL future developments in the

City of London.

The tax payers of London should NOT be responsible fo r the cost of

ANY such studies.

We would like the planning committee t o re fe r t o the already

completed and thorough studies. No new studies are necessary,

especially a t taxpayers expense.

COPY January 20,2009

City of London Planning and Development Department 300 Dufferin Avenue,-P.O. Box 5035 London, ON N6A 4L9

Attention: Mr. John Fleming, Manager of IIY . Dear Mr. Fleming:

lem itatic I

Re: Draft Terms of Reference for City-led Area Study Meadowlily Area, North of Commissioners Road London, ON

Our File: CENILONl08-01 We are the planning consultants for North American Acquisition Corporation who have an interest in 0.62 hectares (1.53 acres) of vacant lands located at the northwest corner of Meadowlily Road and Commissioners Road.

By letter of September 30. 2008 to the Planning Committee, we requested to be kept informed and involved in the development of the area study for the Meadowlily area, north of Commissioners Road.

With regard to the preparation of the draft terms of reference for the area study, we request that consideration of the nature and extend of commercial uses within the study area include the lands at the northwest corner of Meadowlily Road and Commissioners Road.

Should you have any questions, or require further information, please do not hesitate to call.

Yours very truly,

ZELINKA PRIAMO LTD.

Richard Zelinka, MES, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner

cc. Ms. Nancy Pasato. City of London, Planner Mr. Simon D. Smith, North American Acquisition Corporation

318 Wellington Road London, Ontario N8C 4P4

Tel: 518-474-7137 Fax: 518474-2284 Email: zp@rpptsn.com Websit& rpplan.com

Page 1 of 1

Pasato, Nancy

From: Andrew Stolanki [astolanki@hotmail.com] Sent: To: Pasato, Nancy Subject: 168 Meadowlily Rd S

Monday, January 19.2009 9:17 PM

Hi Nancy

Would it be possible to include a study regarding how commercial space is available in London and how much of it is utilized for terms of reference on Meadowlily development.

Andy

2009-01-20 I .,..,,. .,".." ~.~ . .

Page 1 of 1

From: Dorothy Stolarski [dstolarski@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 4:03 PM To: Fleming, John M.; Pasato, Nancy; Baechler, loni; Branscombe, Nancy; Lonc, Walter; Eagle, Susan; Polhill, Bud; Oner, Stephen; DeCicco-Best, Anne Marie Subject: RE: Meadowlily- Wood Poppy

Importance: High Hi John and Nancy,

I was doing some research and came across some interesting information that needs to be included with the Meadowlily Area study.

Did you know that the Wood Poppy has been identified as officially being "endangered" species in the Meadowlilly ESA by the MNwProvince. Therefore, through the Province's new Endangered Species Act and its regulations, the developer is required to enter into an agreement with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in regards to the protection of the species and/or its habitat by lune 30, 2010.

h tQ;/hww'o.m, on. ca/onta rio/r is k. p~hp'doc-type =fact&id=rllhttp~: //

www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc~type=map&id=41

Could you please include this item in the draft terms of reference.

Thank you,

Di>or* S t i & Friends of Meadowlily Woods w..mAadowIilywoods.ca

So many new options, so little time. Windows Live Messenaer.

file://Y:\Shared\implemen\Meadowlily Area Plan\Terms of Refernce\Correspondence\R ... 2009-04-08 .. ... . ,....,_-- - . . . ~.

J 6u

I

11 Kintail Cres. London, ON N6E 154 (519) 686-4358

02 December 2008

Chair and Members of the Pla ning Committee c/o Ms. Lorelei Fisher PPRC Committee Secretary 3rd Floor 300 Dufferin Avenue London , Ontario N6A 4L9

Re: Public Consultation on Are Planning of 168 Meadowlily Road a I I Supporters of Friends of Mead Councils decision to adjacent to

Woods were very pleased to learn of planning process for property grateful for the leadership shown by

being fully engaged in the development priorities without

ESA.

Although we understand that te ms of reference for this process have not been finalized, we wish to register ou desire to at the table as the discussion is engaged. i Please contact me at (519) if there is anything that 1

or by email at dstolarski@.hotrnail.com

I

Sincerely, i

Dorothy Stolarski President Friends of Meadowlily Woods

4ERRlTOftJJMYII M e there is comnsua on the xl to spend our way out ofthe urentmession,thereisnoshort- ;e of opinion on how to do it The ie area that has captutetf fhe sup

ent in Canada's decades-old in- astruche, in dapperate need of pairandemrironmentalujgide. Chere are two m@t benelits to i k l s t n l - m immt ate creation ofjobs ibr so-ca8ed iovel-ready pro&& and long- 'rn economic and sodal gains at derive 6um mewing fie ek ~ntialhardwareofd3esandcom- lmities. Cheproblernisthatthediscwsion .inhstructurehasbeenfairly urow, focusing on roads, sewers, ater systems and basic dements iat form ita physical plant It is all H) easy to forget the other core imponents of hfrastmcture - af- )rdable housing. xhook, liiraries, :creation centres and museums

)rt ofbothleft and@ht is invest-

:t overlooired in the & The infmtmcture work should !gin - literally - at home. Q a r t o o ~ c L l a a d i a a s l i v e i n IbstandardhousingMsefiolnly

IS. government plum > weatherize the horns f 7 million four-incorn ouseholds per year reatens their physical andmental . a l ~ The most mmmon way to iprwe the availabiility of high- die, &o&le housing is to en- ulce its supply, which usually in- ilves increasing the number of asonu!~ly priced housing units in lY siwn - or mm- w. i r e l a t e d a p p l b & t b ~ le supplyofafhrdablehowingin- )lms the repair or rrtrodt cbthe m n t housing stock mi3 Option is inlportnnttorpro- cting herltage property and pn- wq-. Che United Staka has just a )lmced plans to math& the )mes of 1 million low-income ~ U S e h O l d s per year as part ofits !onomicstimdwpa&ge. Vrariow kdelal funds ht ad- )lehousingcnrrentIyanpmvided ider a setoffedaal-pminddac- wds known as the Affodible OUSingAfp2llleJltS. fiecatch isthatOtt&a'shdbg lr the measures that comprise lese agreements - ule A5dable