Minutes Continued

4099 Development Focus Group

Meeting with Developers from Queenscorp (Erin Mills) Inc.

Date: May 3, 2023.

Time: 6:30pm – 10pm

Place: Missississauga City Hall

Attendees

Mark Bozzo, President and CEO – Queenscorp (Erin Mills) Inc.

Ida Assogna, VP of Development – Queenscorp (Erin Mills) Inc.

Tomislav Saric, Development Coordinator -Queenscorp (Erin Mills) Inc.

Glen Broll – Partner, GSAI

Matt Mahoney – Councillor Ward 8

Focus Group (FG) Eleven members present, 2 absent.

Agenda Items Identified by Focus Group:

Density
Traffic
Entrance/ Exits
Retail
Other Business

No Agenda was presented by Queenscorp (QC) however a slide show presentation was prepared that re-introduced the current proposal as well as five sequential iterations of alternative proposals based on concerns Queenscorp had heard to date.

The FG Chair noted that a tenant of the current Retail Plaza was present in the meeting. This person was not present in the first meeting with the Developer at the request of QC stating concerns for conflict of interest
The FG Group expressed the importance of this FG member as part of our community and the tenant’s ability to provide further feedback of the Retail concerns from a different angle and that conversation during the meeting would not include discussion of tenant agreements, sensitive owner/ tenant information, rent, etc.
Mark Bozzo (MB) expressed continued concern for conflict of interest and that he did not believe we could continue with the meeting with this FG Member’s presence requesting advise from Councillor Matt Mahoney (MM)
MM advised that the meeting should continue with all FG Members currently present and that the meeting would be redirected accordingly should the discussion move into a direction that would pose a conflict of interest.
MB Agreed to the terms

MB stated the following:
- The Objective of the presentation Queenscorp has prepared is to create visuals and a creative exercise

MB wants to explain how and why we ended up with the current design, re-present the various objectives of the FG and discuss how the concerns can be addressed
The intention is not to come up with an actual immediate solution

Slide Show Presentation by Queenscorp:

Arial photo is shown. MB indicates the concerns he has heard:
- Connectivity of park
- Relationship to townhouses & privacy of overlook to existing rear yards of Farrier Court
- Vehicular Access into the proposed development

MB notes that the architecture of the proposal is not yet crystallized and that he would like to provide a pallet of images to showcase an idea of texture of the emotions, colour & pallets of interest

MB intends to:
- Show the design direction
- Treatment of retails spaces (image shown)
- Not look at specifics, but rather a feeling

Image of interior emotion shown:
- Liberty village townhouse concept with depressed lower level
- MB explains the intent of the image is to show the Sawmill Valley residence how the townhouses will feel

Image of Façade Design:
- MB explains that the image shows the delineation of fins, windows and building materials

Image of an existing development that shows the interior cohabitation of neighbors:
- MB explains the intent not to turn the new residences away from the community, but rather turn them to be part of the community

MB reiterates his standpoint that height and density is not a number, it’s the way you package it, it is not units per acre or FSI (Floor Space Index)

MB re-introduces the current proposal and notes received as feedback from the previous meetings indicating the following:
- Retail node
- Townhouses
- Access points

MB notes that massing images he will show in the following sketches are meant to show an isometric view of the property and act like Lego blocks showing the positions of the different proposed heights of various building elements

Sketch A:

First of five progressive design iterations is presented building off of the previous sketch shown
MB expresses that he is not the fan of this sketch

Images shows:

Massing:

A small building is shown at the corner of Folkway Drive & Sawmill Valley
A total of four taller buildings are depicted with one anchoring the corner Folkway & Sawmill Valley at 15 stories in building height
Townhouses
- Height reduced down from four to 3.5 stories
- MB explains that townhouses will read as a 3 story building as half a story is below grade
- Proposed townhouses to south backing onto Ferrier Court is shown moved up by one metre further north

Access:

Entrance at Erin Mills Parkway is opened up mid-way through the north and south boundaries of the site
MB explains that cueing is a problem in this sketch due to traffic as a result of the close proximity just south of the Folkway & Erin Mills intersection
Corner at Folkway Drive and Sawmill opened up for pedestrian access
MB explains that the sketch is a massing exercise and not to look at colours

Sketch B:

Second of five progressive design iterations is presented building off of the previous sketch shown

Massing:

Townhouses on Sawmill Valley are shown in a sawtooth type of formation at 3.5 stories in height
Higher density buildings that are taller in height are shown aligned along Erin Mills Parkway
One midrise building is shown in centre of development
MB explains that he doesn’t like ‘wall affect’ created in this sketch along Sawmill & Folkway with townhouses

Access:

A road is added to the south limit of the site to add further set-back of the four story townhouses backing onto Ferrier Court
Road located in the current location of the existing fire route for the plaza remains a fire route exit/entrance only

Sketch C:

Third of five progressive design iterations are presented building off of the previous sketch shown

Massing:

Continues to show 3.5 story townhouses along Sawmill Valley and the South Boundary looking towards Ferrier Court
A view corridor is created between buildings between Sawmill & Erin Mills Parkway in the centre of the development in the east west direction
MB explains focus on how to create a great pedestrian experience within the site

Access:

A paved courtyard is shown that MB explains can function as a roundabout: ie. Unit pavers that can be used with bollards to stop cars from driving through, allowing the centre access point to only be used as a fire route
East-west laneway at south edge of development separating the built development and Ferrier Court hones is maintained, linking Sawmill Valley and Erin Mills Parkway

Sketch D:

Fourth of five progressive design iterations is presented building off of the previous sketch shown

Massing:

MB explains the creation of mews
Additional townhouses within the centre of the development are shown
MB explains the use of townhouse blocks to separate taller buildings within the development from each other
Taller buildings are shown more scattered on the site
MB explains that the sketches shown illustrates the design progression
MB advises “not to get caught up in height”
Distance between bldg. townhouses & southern property line is 15m

Access:

East-west running laneway connecting Erin Mills Parkway to Sawmill Valley continues to be shown
MB notes that sidewalks are shown running through the development in various locations offering multiple access points, thus taking advantage of the proposed landscape
MB explains that each building will have access ramps to the underground (potentially up to five ramps in total)
FG member asks if there is any way we can prevent any flow of traffic onto Sawmill Valley and inquires if there has been a traffic study on this
MB explains that access to Sawmill Valley is absolutely needed from a fire perspective and that the traffic consultant has advised that, “we need that relief,” and that the access proposed will not generate any significant impacts
MB explains that traffic calming techniques will be required along the new road connecting Erin Mills & Sawmill Valley
MB explains that the entrance at Erin Mills along the newly proposed road will be “right in, right out only”
FG member asks if a designated turning lane into the property similar to that at the retirement community across the street can be introduced with a designated lane to turn left off of Erin Mills Parkway for south-bound traffic
MB explains that he thinks it’s a bad thing and that he doesn’t think the Region would buy into it
Glen Broll (GB), Planner for Queenscorp explains that it is possible that the retirement community was built before restrictions onto regional roads (such as Erin Mills Parkway) were imposed

MB notes that the updated traffic study complete and that a third day was added to collect data even though his traffic consultant did not think it was a good idea; all intersections were canvased as requested at Erin Mills Parkway and Folkway Drive, as well as at Sawmill Valley and Burnhamthorpe Road

MB states that it is important that a third access point into the site is needed
FG explains that we want to try to avoid traffic going south on Sawmill Valley to ensure traffic related safety in front of the schools
MM explains that a right in, right out vehicular access solution is a typical thing done on other roads and that he receives a lot of complaints regarding vehicles speeding south on Sawmill Valley
MB explains that the roadway at the current fire exit is STRICTLY for fire, with bollards and that the roadway will look more like a path than a road
MM: Indicates that the fire access only doesn’t make a difference if a road at the southern boundary connecting Erin Mills Parkway and Sawmill Valley is still there.
MM goes on to explain that there should be no traffic for vehicles going south on Sawmill Valley, only allowance for emergency vehicles
MB notes that he understands this concern, but doesn’t see this suggestion as possible
FG explains that we wanted less cars going down Sawmill, and that instead, the newer proposal opens this access up even more
MB explains:
- The approach to the newly proposed road at the south of the site is to add traffic calming measures
- The development doesn’t want people to use this road as a short cut speeding through and will make it as uncomfortable as possible to prevent this from happening
- Queenscorp has sat down with their traffic consultants who say access to Sawmill Valley is needed

FG asks, why put the pressure on the community that is already there and not the community moving in and the concern that Sawmill Valley will be inundated by traffic

MB recognizes that this is absolutely a valid concern and that the point noted. MB notes that we are not going to solve this concern tonight and that he does not doubt that there are buses that stop at the intersection at Sawmill Valley and Folkway, but notes that through talking to the school boards, “if there was a safety concern today, it would have been flagged”
MB notes that, “There are a lot of observations provided but from our perspective, we have to look at the data”

Density

FG member notes that, “The main concern of the FG today is density. What (density) can the development support, without having queuing issues exiting onto Folkway and queuing. Can it (the development) function, with the units they are proposing, without another access point?”
MB explains that “there are no queuing issues with the present development design; it is a question of queuing, it’s a function of use”
FG asks, “If two access points were provided, one on Erin Mills and one on Folkway, would this be enough to support the density proposed?”
MB responds by saying he “has to look into that”
FG member notes that gas stations have short distances away from intersections and if we can have the same condition?
GB notes that the minimum distance for queuing is 300m from an intersection
FG member asks if we can close off the entrance onto Sawmill at the newly proposed south road?
MB responds by saying: no, it’s needed to support the general circulation of the development

FG recalls MB’s belief that “Density is not a number”, and requests further explanation
MB explains that “Even if half the number of units where there, from a design and general circulation perspective, we would still insist on a third entrance at Sawmill Valley
MB continues to explain, “The exercise of massing is to look at the physical built form; once you master the box, you look at oversight, shadows, etc.”
FG asks if there will be 500 or 100 cars added into the community and asks how many people will be added by the development

MB explains:
- The average unit size will be between 625-750 square feet
- There is no hard statistics on number of occupants per unit
- “What you put them in, the box, this is why the box is important”
- “Out of 200 people, how many will have cars, how many will ride share, how many will use public transit”

FG refers to a previous analogy of the development design to molding of clay and notes, “You are going to move the clay and re-mold, but not remove any chunks of that clay”

MB explains:
- “The object is to mold that clay and perfect the design. Its not about the number. Less people does not make it better or worse planning. We’re not going to get into an argument, but he wants to get to 99.9%”
- “This is an opportunity for smart densification”
- “I get its not what’s there and its overwhelming, but our communities will grow”
- “I am committed to soften the impact” and explains that he has made his peace that he will not be able to win us over

FG member asks if MB would be willing to have more larger units; use city of Toronto by-law for 3-bedroom units for example. The FG member continues to note that, “The reality will be that more families will be moving into condos. We have a significant increase for families. This community is great for families, where you wouldn’t need to depend on a car; can you take this into consideration?”
MB responds by saying, “We have an affordability issue; there is not one culprit to this problem” and notes the areas that affect the affordability of development:
- Construction costs
- Levies
- Property costs
- Pro forma

MB goes on to say “In order to deliver a unit, it doesn’t matter if it’s a 1, 1.5 or 2 bedroom units, to make units livable and the cost of development is $1,300 - $1,400 per square foot
- MB explains, “The truth is, no one can afford this” and that the only way is to design it, so that the space is livable, and affordable, and that’s why you see units that are shrinking; it’s unfortunate, but it’s simple economics of cost vs. retail; we are struggling as an industry because of this problem”

MM responds with the following:
- “What you’re missing, is the community”
- “You can’t have six people living in a one bedroom (apartment)”
- “As an industry, you’re losing sight of the real problem”
- “Toronto has it (in reference to the 3-bedroom by-law) and it works; we’re working on it”
- “This is not what the community wants; its not what the city wants”

MM cautions Queenscorp with the topic of an affordability crisis and housing crisis. MM notes that he understands the industry is doing this; but this is an opportunity to build for the community, something that will be there for a 100 years
MM expresses his frustration talking about affordability and developers saying we’re trying to fix it and notes that “This is a family neighborhood; not something where one-bedroom units are created and rented out to UTM students” and that “the single-family unit is not what the community wants”.
MB responds by clarifying that he “is not saying that the province wants to densify, so this is what we’re doing” and apologizes if it was interpreted that way

MB continues by saying “If you say, let’s build three-bedroom units, I will say no problem. But if I say that that unit will cost $1.4 Million per unit, what do you say to that? How would you react to that?”
GB explains that he has been in this exact situation with another project and had to go back and sever those larger suites

Sketch E:

Fifth and final sketch is shown, building off of the previous sketch

Massing:

Image is shown with the following buildings proposed on site:
- Two 16 story buildings
- Two eight story buildings
- 4 story townhouses along the south end of the site
- 3.5 story townhouses along Sawmill Valley and sprinkled throughout the site

FG remarks that, “We thought it was monstrosity at 8 and 10 stories, and now you’re doubling it. Take that away. You can’t walk away from the number 700 units”
MB responds by saying “this is about using best practice and good planning; gentle intensification that has minimal impact to the community. The negotiation is not the number. The negotiation is what it looks like: shadows, all the pushes and pulls that may occur (in the building massing), but what we believe is that that density belongs along Erin Mills Parkway”.
MB explains that their focus is on transition and the general emotion created by the development
MB confirms that, “If we remove buildings, we have to replace it somewhere”

FG responds by stating that, “Mark is right in one aspect, it will be an assessment of what is acceptable to the city in terms of density; is it too dense for the traffic? Is it too dense for the shadows? For the adjacent units?”
FG continues to note that if the clay is being pushed one way, it’s impacting something else; we will wait for the studies, but if there is no give on the number of units… It’s great that you’re looking at different concepts, but all of this will end up with one or more of these issues being significant to the community, and I believe to the city”.
FG member asks again if there is any give on the number of units (currently at 700)?
MB responds by saying that “If you believe I want 10 units, you want 6, I can’t agree with that logic”
FG notes that there are issues with traffic, access with queuing. FG member suggests that if you remove some of the constraints with having high buildings next to adjacent existing residences, shadows will become an issue. FG member goes on to explain that at some level of density, there are problems that cannot be solved and that our concern is that this level of density is problematic

MB explains, “You have my commitment to address technical matters; we have the experts to ensure that what we’re doing is appropriate. At this point of time, we have data and a report that says otherwise, we’re going to add supplementary information, we’re happy to do that… What I cannot commit to today, is to pick an arbitrary number to agree upon”.
FG: responds by saying that it is the city staff and council that will have the call
MB notes that this is a second meeting and summarizes the concerns he is hearing:
- Too many units
- No Access to Sawmill Valley

MB notes that “The message is clear, how do we address it? Chop it in half? Reduce by 50%? The project has to be viable”
FG member responds, “I get it, it’s a business. We get it. How did ‘they’ get to the number of 400 units at College Way and Ridgeway for a igger site, and we get 700? The justification of it being almost double, just doesn’t make any sense. Shape the mold, put a tower in the middle, but that still means more people, more traffic. Can you be very mindful of the number?”
MB: “I can’t verify that about College Way and Ridgeway. Since you have the data, what is the size? Is there a different built form. Why you end up with this? I don’t know what the story is behind the College and Ridgeway development; I need to analyze the site”.
FG asks if MB would you be willing to look at that development and explains that it is the most comparable, most recent development in terms of size of the site. The FG member goes on to ask, “How do you get away with 300 more units then they did?”
MB responds by saying, “I can’t speak to that. I don’t know about the economics to that. There was a time where back to back townhouses was big; it was expensive to build; maybe it was a bad decision.
GB: “I don’t think we have any more applications like that at the moment. What they’re finding is the stairs is a challenge, there are building code issues, it’s not as desirable as they were at one point”.
MM: explains that the FG is talking more about the unit count and not the mold
MB responds by saying that the comment is noted
FG member asks again if Queenscorp would consider lowering the number of units and taking a piece of the clay out?
FG member notes that the group likes what Queenscorp has done in the past and asks if this community can get something that looks and feels nice and is still profitable?
MB: notes that 1.5 density is not a viable project and that if this was the case, the development would remain a plaza
MB continue to note that he is not sure a proposal with 4-6 story buildings scattered throughout the site is viable after all the associated costs
MB states that “We believe that we can have gentle densification with confidence. We cannot reduce (the density) by 50%”

Retail

FG asks that “If the alternative is to leave it as is, can you not add some residential units and leave a lot of the retail as an option?”
MB responds by saying, “What was built then is not viable today. The existing retails spaces are too long and too narrow”.
MB adds that he is concerned that the addition of more retail combined with residential will require 5-6 parking spaces per thousand square feet.
MB mentions that Queenscorp also considered adding pad buildings such as McDonalds, etc.
FG states that with a 15 story high building, retail could be built around it and underground parking would be available. What the community wants is to not remove any retail
MB asks “Will the Community underwrite the economics?”
FG states, “A true mixed-use development, is that not a viable option?”
MB responds by saying “No”
FG member expresses that “We don’t want to lose our Retail”
GB responds by saying that “You can’t dictate that”
FG responds by saying, “We want meaningful Retail on site”
MB answers by saying “We heard you”

MB shows a slide on the presentation of Potential Retailers. The list indicates all the types of retails currently existing in the current Plaza with the exception of a grocery store. MB explains:
- With a “best-case scenario, he can provide 20,000 square feet of retail”
- “If we build 11,000-15,000 square feet or 20,000 square feet I’ll do it, but not 65,000 square feet”
An FG member suggests having retail along Folkway as work/live units
MB responds by saying, it’s “cute when first built, but it doesn’t work when neon signs start going up”
MB states that current proposal shows 8,000 square feet. With his new proposal, he suggests increasing that to 11,800- 20,000 square feet, dependent on retail tenants paying market rents

FG member explains the issue with the current retail space is that there is no good anchor store and references the Alderwood Plaza in Etobicoke that has been revitalized with the introduction of Farm Boy
FG member states that “We are asking to revitalize the Plaza. If a good anchor store was put in, everyone would follow”
MB responds by thanking the FG member and stating that Queenscorp already knows this
MB states that the problem with the current Plaza is that:
- It is too tucked away
- There is no critical mass
FG member notes that if the retail proposal is being doubled, can it be made flexible

GB answers by saying that is how it will be written in the zoning and MB adds that it can be done, but it’s tricky

FG member provides an analogy to the developer’s approach to massing of the proposed building to toothpaste, where if we want more open space, the developer proposes to squeeze the mass, like a toothpaste container, resulting in a taller mass (toothpaste extending out of the container)

MB summarizes the FG concerns:
- Density
- Sawmill Valley Entrance
- MB expresses his commitment to report back on the recently collected traffic information and notes that a revised traffic report will be submitted to the city upon request

FG member expresses that they appreciate the setback at the southern site boundary but notes that the termination of the road at Sawmill Valley is important
FG member adds to the previous comment noting that additional traffic will be added with the introduction of the road that connects Erin Mills Parkway and Sawmill Valley, not just those from the development, but form those going through and past the development as a short cut

FG member expresses their appreciation for Queenscorp meeting with the group
MB states that, “We want to get it done, and we want to get it right. If we end up that we agree to disagree, I’m okay with that” and goes on to say that he is listening to the FG

MB states, “My dream is to build houses that people will come to”
FG member responds by saying that they are “concerned about a 16 Story dream becoming our nightmare. I hope you hear that clearly”

Open Space

FG member suggests the creation of a community hub at the corner of Sawmill Valley and Folkway Drive such as a place for community gathering, and asks if a Piazza is still possible
MB agrees and adds that that is exactly what they are dreaming up and adds that he wants to encourage the ability to meander through the proposed community
MB continues by stating that, Community is built as a group, the new residence will bring a more powerful community together

Next Steps

FG member refers to the May 29th council meeting and asks if MB is planning to present the current submitted proposal as is, despite what Queenscorp has been working on with the FG group and asks what the point of presenting is
MB explains that there is a statutory meeting required, but explains that there is no stopping them form presenting alternative developments based on what they’ve heard and that the city planning staff must write a report based on the current application
MB continues by stating that “doing a dual parallel process is a good news story. Listening to comments from the city, listening to comments from the community, yes, it is redundant, but it is a very good process to develop a good result”
FG member asks if one has to go through the same process again with a revised proposal
MB replies if a resubmission is made and recirculated, it does not require a council meeting again
MM explains further that reports will need to be completed, city staff will need to review the documents and perhaps there will be an opportunity to work with the FG again in this lengthy process

Final Questions from FG

FG: How long do you think the construction will take?
MB: three to four years depending on the market

FG: Will the retail spaces be for lease or sale?
MB: Lease

FG: Can Existing retail have priority?
MB: Existing retail will be provided with opportunity to lease first

FG: Are all retail units the same size?
MB: The retail will be built as one large space and is further subdivided

FG: Will retail staff have access to below grade parking?
MB: Tenants and staff of the retail stores will be prohibited from parking at grade. Visitors and retail parking is also below grade. Only short-term parking is above grade

End.

Between May11th and May 29th, three meetings took place in preparation for the Statutory Meeting at City Hall.