Agenda - Special Council - 20040226TOWN OF AVIONA
PUBLIC PLARNNING,
AGENDA
N0.04-07
THURSBAY, FEBRUARY 2612004
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AURORA TOWN NALL
PUBLIC RELEASE
20/02/04
TOWN OFAURORA
SPECIAL COUNCIL - PUBLIC PLANNING MEETING
AGENDA
NO. 04-07
Thursday, February 26, 2004
I DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
II APPROVAL OFAGENDA
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the content of the Agenda be approved as presented.
II/ PLANNING APPLICATIONS
IV ADJOURNMENT
V READING OF BYLAWS
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the following listed by-laws be given 1st, 2nd and 3rd readings, and
enacted:
4503-04.0 BEING A BY-LAW to (pg. 44)
Confirm Actions by
Council Resulting From
This Special Council
Meeting of Thursday,
February 26, 2004.
Aurora Special Council — Public Planning Agenda No. 04-07 Page 2
Thursday, February 26, 2004
AGENDA ITEMS
1. PL04-023 - Zoning By-law Amendment Application (pg. 1)
Bayview Business Park Inc.
Part of Lot 1, Registered Plan 65M-3074
108-224 Hollidge Boulevard
File: D14-31-03
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL04-023 be received as information and that Council
determine their position with respect to the application, subject to public
comments received.
PL04-024 - Zoning By-law Amendment Application (pg. 24)
Silverhill Equities Inc.
Part of Lot 21, Plan 246
29 George Street
File: D14-30-03
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL04-024 be received as information and that Council
determine their position with respect to the application, subject to public
comments received.
3. PL04-025 - Zoning By-law Amendment Application (pg. 35)
Estate of David Lenard Smith
Part of Lot 79, Concession 1 W.Y.S.
268 Kennedy Street West
File: D14-35-03
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL04-025 be received and that Council determine its position
with respect to the application, subject to the public comments received.
AGENDA ITEM # I
TOWN OF AURORA
PUBLIC PLANNING REPORT No. PL04-023-
SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application
Bayview Business Park Inc.
Part of Lot 1, Registered Plan 65114-3074
108-224 Hollidge Boulevard
File: D14-31-03
FROM: Sue Seibert, Director of Planning
DATE: February 26, 2004
RECOMMENDATION
THAT report PL04-023 be received as information and that Council determine
their position with respect to the application, subject to public comments
received.
BACKGROUND/PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
At the Public Planning Meeting of January 28th, 2004, Council had before them a Zoning
Amendment application, Report Number PL04-004, dated January 28, 2004 respecting
the development of the subject lands located at the northwest corner of Bayview
Avenue and Hollidge Boulevard.
Council deferred the application to Thursday February 26, 2004 to allow for the re -
notification process to be property executed.
Given the amount of public concern that has been expressed to staff respecting the
drive -through restaurant aspect of the subject application (see Attachment 1) and in
view of the recent release of an Ontario Municipal Board Decision concerning drive -
through restaurants in the City of Toronto, staff have prepared an addendum to our
previous report dealing with this aspect of the proposed zoning by-law amendment. It is
noted that this report should be read in conjunction with report PL04-004.
As part of our investigation, we carried out an informal review of municipalities in the
Region of York and determined that no municipality in the Region has conducted any
studies nor have they developed any policies or design guidelines for drive -through
facilities. In discussing this with the municipalities contacted, they indicated that they
were in the process of reviewing drive -through facilities in their municipalities. Other
municipalities such as City of Mississauga, City of Toronto and Town of Oakville have
completed studies regarding this issue.
The Town of Oakville commissioned a very useful study entitled; "Drive -through
000001
February 26 2004 - 2 - Report No. PL04-023
Facilities -Urban Design Study and Guidelines" dated June 2003, which we have
reviewed in some detail. This study proposes guidelines and recommendations for new
drive -through developments. We have identified below the guidelines that may assist in
creating a desirable development and attempting to minimize the impacts on adjacent
residents. A copy of the entire guideline is available in the Planning Department. The
guideline is broken into sections dealing with Site Access, vehicular and pedestrian;
Stacking Lanes; Site Size; Relationship with Adjacent Uses and Building and Site
Organization. It is noted that we are currently reviewing a site plan submission on this
property and some of the matters reviewed relate to the site plan rather than strictly to
the zoning by-law amendment currently under consideration. The following are the
guidelines that staff thought were most pertinent to the current application:
Guideline 25-
Place the building at or near the street frontage of the site. Avoid locating
parking and/or stacking lands between the building and the street line.
(Town of oakville-Drive-through Facilities, urban Design Study and Guideline, page 18)
The Town's urban design architect reviewed the subject application and has suggested
that the proposed Tim Hortons building (Building "D"), should be sited closer to the
Bayview Avenue and Hollidge Boulevard edge. While Staff agrees that moving the
building to the east could potentially reduce conflicts with the residential uses to the
north and that it is desirable to provide prominent buildings along the Bayview Avenue
streetscape, we do not want to compromise the integrity of the traffic pattern on the site.
Locating the building closer to the roads would relocate the drive -through restaurant
further from the residential development to the northwest. Therefore, Staff would like to
investigate this further with the applicant.
Guideline 19:
Avoid placing drive -through facilities adjacent to residential properties. Where
this cannot be achieved, locate all parts of drive -through facilities as far away
from residential property line as possible. (Town of Oakville -Drive -through Faculties, urban. Design study
and Guideline, page 16)
The applicant has proposed two drive -through facilities adjacent to residential
properties. The proposed Tim Horton's building (Building "D") is located approximately
10.5 m (34.4 ft.) from the closest residential property and the vehicles will pass adjacent
residential properties when leaving the drive -though lane.
There is an existing 2.4 m acoustic fence along Block 48, specifically 71, 73, 75, 77 and
79 Baywell Crescent, which may aid in reducing noise from the use. Noise generated
from the order box appears minimal, as it is located away from residential dwellings.
As noted in Guideline #25, moving the Tim Horton's building (Building "D") closer to
Bayview Avenue could potentially reduce conflicts with the residential uses to the north;
however we do not want to compromise the integrity of the traffic pattern in the site.
Therefore, we would like to investigate this further and determine if moving this
proposed building and reconfiguring the drive -through lane is feasible.
600002
February 26. 2004 - 3 - Report No. PL04-023
The applicant has proposed a second drive -through facility (Building "A") adjacent to
residential properties, located at the westerly end of the site. A number of neighbouring
residences may be affected by the proposed use. The dwelling at 21 McMaster Avenue
is located 7.5 m from the McMaster Avenue entrance and exit, 18.0 m (43 ft.) from the
proposed drive -through building (this number has been corrected since Report PL04-
004) and 15.0 m from the proposed drive -through lane. The Building Department has
noted a concern with the location of the outdoor speakers and suggests they be located
closer to Hollidge Boulevard, so they do not impact the residential dwellings on
McMaster Avenue.
Guideline 26:
Where a building is setback from the street, provide ample landscaping in the
front yard using coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs. Also use low
decorative fences and masonry walls and other landscape features as required.
(Town of Oakville -Drive -through Facilities, Urban Design Study and Guideline, page 18)
The corner of Bayview Avenue and Hollidge Boulevard is one of the entrances to the
"Bayview Wellington Community" and high standard of landscaping is required. It has
been suggested by our landscape architect and urban design architect that masonry
elements and decorative metal fencing be coordinated with the existing corner feature
of the main entrance on Hollidge Boulevard. It has also been suggested that expanding
and enhancing the landscape features at the building (at the driveway between Building
"B" and "C") be included to reinforce the main entrance.
Guideline 20:
Where appropriate, provide a landscape buffer zone, minimum 7.5 m (25.0 ft.)
wide, along each yard adjoining residential uses.
(Town of Oakville -Drive -through Facilities, Urban Design Study and Guideline, page 16)
The applicant is currently providing a landscape buffer zone of 3.0 m (9.84 ft.) wide
along the residential property line. The 7.5 m strip may be difficult to achieve being that
the site is narrow.
In our review, it appears that eliminating the driveway between the residential property
line and Buildings "A" and "B", and providing a landscape strip would satisfy this
guideline. Eliminating the driveway between the residential property line and Building
"B" and "C" could possibly address some resident concerns regarding the potential
noise from delivery trucks behind the Buildings and decreasing the possibility of loitering
between behind the two buildings. This would need to be reviewed through the site
plan process.
ON1003
February 26 2004 4 Report No PL04-023
Guideline 21:
Build a 1.8 high screen fence along the property line of adjacent properties where
appropriate, complemented with landscaping. Where the adjacent uses are
residential, as required by the (Town of Oakville), provide a sound attenuation
study, which certifies measures to minimize noise impact.
(Town of oakville-Drive-through Facilities, Urban Design Study and Guideline, page 17)
There is an existing 2.4 m high acoustic fence along Block 48, specifically 71, 73, 75, 77
and 79 Baywell Crescent (easterly part of the site), which may aid in decreasing noise
from the proposed Tim Horton's use. An existing 1.8 m decorative wood privacy fence
is located along the entire residential property line. A portion of the property at 21
McMaster Avenue has a decorative fence and a chain -link fence. In order to ensure all
measures are taken to reduce noise from the proposed uses, it may be appropriate for
the applicant to provide a sound attenuation study addressing this matter.
Guideline 23:
Place garbage collection areas internal to the drive -through building, and locate
loading areas away from residential properties.
(Town of Oakville -Drive -through Facilities, Urban Design Study and Guideline, page 17)
Garbage collection areas are shown as internal to the drive -through buildings. Given
that the rear of the buildings are located facing the residential dwellings, this is an item
that will be examined through the site plan review and revised if possible. (see item 20
above)
Guideline 24:
Direct lighting sources away from adjacent residential properties and provide
screening as necessary. Where required by the Town, supply light distribution
information to demonstrate minimal impacts on adjacent residential properties.
(Town of Oakville -Drive -through Facilities, Urban Design Study and Guideline, page 17)
The Public Works Department has identified in their review of this application that the
applicant must submit confirmation of the illumination level, pole height etc. prior to Site
Plan Approval. Furthermore, the Town's site plan agreement contains a standard
clause requiring that light be directed away from adjacent properties. Careful
consideration needs to be given to this issue in the site plan review.
City of Toronto Ontario Municipal Board Decision:
On January 23, 2004, the Ontario Municipal Board issued a decision dealing with a
series of appeals in respect of zoning by-law amendments relating to the regulation of
Drive -through facilities. The amendments define and regulate the use, prohibiting drive -
through in residential zones and in certain commercial areas. The amendments permit
the use in commercial and industrial zones as long as there is a 30 metre (approx. 100
ft) separation between the drive though and any abutting residential zone. According to
the decision, the City of Toronto staff in evaluating the impacts of Drive -through facilities
identified the following elements that generate public concern; noise; traffic; urban
design; air quality; odours; hours of operation; landscaping; illumination ,and signage;
visual impact; and land utilization. Generally, staff concur with this list and previously
000604
February 26. 2004 - 5 - Report No. PL04- 23
commented on most of these issues, (see report PL04-04).
In the OMB decision, the Board went on to say, "Toronto is recognized as a diverse,
urban community. It is recognized as one that is heterogeneous and not
homogeneous.... The Board finds what is appropriate for the former City of Toronto,
York and East York, the Centres and certain Avenues may not be appropriate in other
areas of the City, in particular the "outlying" areas of Etobicoke, Scarborough or North
York. Accordingly the Board fully expects that there will be applications seeking
amendments to the applicable By-law to permit drive -through uses and, based on an
evaluation of the location in question, site specific exceptions will be made." The
Decision further observed however that "as a basis for determining an appropriate
separation from residential zones, 30 metres provides protection and is not unduly
restrictive".
Some caution must be used in assuming that the principles accepted by the OMB in
Toronto are directly applicable to Aurora. It is also relevant the while the City of Toronto
enacted an Official Plan Amendment to regulate Drive -through uses, Aurora does not
have one. Official Plan Amendment # 6, the Bayview Wellington Centre Secondary
Plan specially permits restaurants in neighbourhood commercial centres. The
Residential Policies of OPA # 6, (3.2.1.o) however provide that buffer screening be used
to avoid conflicts between developments of different uses and densities. The sections
goes on to say "Where non-residential uses abut residential development and land use
conflicts are anticipated, appropriate measures will be provided to protect the character
of the residential area." In 1994 a By-law was passed to zone this site Shopping Centre
Commercial (C4-9) Exception Zone implementing OPA#6 and did not permit such uses.
Although staff cannot locate a specific rationale described on the file, it is reasonable to
suggest that this was done to provide the opportunity for site -specific evaluation of
proposals for restaurants of all sorts. The Oakville Guidelines cited above provide a
useful tool to determine the "appropriate measures" to protect the residential area
suggested by OPA # 6. To this end it is important that the applicant demonstrate
through the site plan the extent to which adverse impacts of the development on the
residential neighbourhood can be mitigated or eliminated.
It is also noted that a site specific By-law was passed in 2001 within this neighbourhood
respecting the commercial site at the northwest corner of Bayview Avenue and
Hollandview Trail. In this particular By-law, a clause was included which restricted all
restaurants including drive -through and take-out, to be set back a minimum 60 m (197
ft.) from the south property line (which is adjacent to residential dwellings). This was
done to ensure compatibility with the residential dwellings to the south.
Additional Staff Comments
The Public Works Department has reviewed the Traffic Study provided by the applicant.
They have provided the applicant with technical comments, which will have to be
addressed by the applicant's traffic consultant prior to final consideration of the site
access assessment.
000005
February23
. 2004 -6- Report No._141
Hours of Operation
A concern that was raised by the residents was the hours of operation for restaurants.
The Municipal Act 2001 provides that the Town may license restaurants and as a
condition of holding a license restrict the hours of operation of the business. The Town
does not currently license restaurants. The Planning Act does not permit hours of
operation to be addressed through zoning or site plan control.
OPTIONS
As stated in Report Number PL04-004, Council has the option of approving the
applications in principle, subject to the resolution of outstanding issues. They also have
the option of resolving that the application is brought back to a further public meeting
upon resolution of the major outstanding issues, or they have the option of denying the
applications outright. Should Council determine there is merit in the subject application,
approval of the Implementing Zoning By-law shall be subject to site plan approval. This
would ensure the proper function of the site and compliance with the Implementing By-
law. This process should involve both the Town's urban design consultants and the
applicant's architects.
CONCLUSIONS
As stated in Report Number PL04-004, dated January 28, 2004, an application has
been submitted for a Zoning By-law Amendment, which would permit for the
development of four commercial buildings on the subject lands. Staff have identified a
number of issues pertaining to the proposal including the compatibility of the proposed
uses with adjacent residential uses, the proximity of the drive -through facilities in
relation to adjacent uses, the requested percentages of clinics and restaurants and the
internal traffic circulation on the site. Neighbouring residents have expressed concern
to staff with the proposed addition of the restaurants as a permitted use. Staff have
reviewed documentation on drive -through facilities including the Town of Oakville Study
and a recent OMB Decision. In our review of these documents, we have attempted to
take from them information that may assist in creating a desirable development and
attempting to minimize the impacts on adjacent residents. It is suggested that a more
complete evaluation all options for implementing buffers and screening, distance
separation between the residential buildings and drive though restaurant, attention to
noise attenuation needs to be explored through the site plan.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Not applicable.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The Strategic Plan contains objectives to ensure high quality,
community planning to protect the overall investment of citizens in
Critical review of the subject applications through their respective
comprehensive
the community.
processes will
6661606
objective.facilitate this
ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1 — Location Plan
.Figure 2 — Survey
Figure 3 — Bayview Avenue (North) Corridor Plan
Figure 4 — Bayview Business Park Inc. Map
Figure 5 — Site Plan
Figure 6 — Landscape Plan
Figure 7 — Building "A" Elevation Plan
Figure 8 — Building "B" Elevation Plan
Figure 9 — Building "C" Elevation Plan
Figure 10 —Tim Horton's Elevation Plan
Attachment 1 — Resident Letters
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW:
Management Team Meeting — February 18, 2004
Prepared by: Cristina Celebre, Planner
Extension 4343
S Sei , M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director f Planning
W W
\
` cc
}
2
7
/
� �
\
BnNa4y 4444k�§
/
LO
�
\
; $
}
~ �
d
OAVSE)I!IE; d
.
n < 7
2
)
Q ? { s
%
CO
k
�)
a V JmSp/O/
C
¥
§�
z§
gaga
QM tL
�$ §§
avuapu@
Z> Z�
Om$§a
ƒ ¥ �
Qk}LU
% k
0
.
0 / M aem u� r
wcc
j U-< 0
i b(y8�y 'ory lENi cy : bmsQ.jd IT1 I
MY'kfi-.l9 l.9
r
i31Y.•1:.2.3 I _,-I
I
r-
3fIN3/rY M31A,iY9 I
L. II
LLI
I 5N9u.'%3 '4•d '1SN! I I; TjI
" ��. !-Y:adoadrg I Ipal
I II 6
Iwtdll ,.
-`1- _ rr
r—
I 1
II
� �g Iy iS
M.x.o
s,emu a'
I
O
Ln
7_ r,r Z
EL
z
d
CD
J C1 �
J
O O
O N
T
J LJ Li
Q
z w c~
O
.. 0
I
Q
LO
Lv
(.7 Z
1
. -i
- - —
O
`1
1
U O 0
<
j
L1
LD
m m
L-
1
1 1, ..
�z
<
�;:
1
LI
3 f I N3ny
I
'd IS`✓Vi0W
g v
C I
—lr- -Ir —�
6 O
a_
pII.
Ir;allr-'rc llyc'a
e
u
LITJEjLtI1.:j�tT12.� ..
y �
�
I i
a
30
lZ VNY 1 SN05c3VNV;,
� �
I
kK N3iM3JNYMOTY i l
_ I lY. 'oN ]VVy Yt tl 'IYNI.'J1ill i
ii < y
•
S lV
I J rl nNt�:J3a:
o
rn
4¢I
t.RIaN3+1LM `:{JatSi
d}y 7 tt h
:Sil
Z:f5I_
III
_III
IT
�- J
-
'9Sd�
I :• I
�
_
I;wl :y
n
14
M.CZ 691N
1
1
;.
, 1
L1_
p
w
aW
.z
�I Li LYE
1'
I LL_ I Ll+ 11f•
1
2 ma
n1
z1
I.: ;I
Luz) I i
1
l o
M.o1,oLsi%�• - I; s; ;� I
'
g
— —
a;u..-ass.
y—
NY-b l
laY.
re
�o