Loading...
AGENDA - Public Planning - 20190130 Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 7 p.m. Council Chambers Aurora Town Hall Public Release January 23, 2019 Town of Aurora Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 7 p.m., Council Chambers 1. Approval of the Agenda Recommended: That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. 2. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 3. Planning Applications 1. PDS19-010 – Stable Neighbourhoods Study Recommended: 1. That Report No. PDS19-010 be received; and 2. That Council provide direction to staff regarding next steps for the Stable Neighbourhoods Study. 4. Confirming By-law Recommended: That the following confirming by-law be enacted: XXXX-19 Being a By-law to Confirm Actions by Council Resulting from a Council Public Planning Meeting on January 30, 2019. 5. Adjournment Town of Aurora Public Planning Report No. PDS19-010 Subject: Stable Neighbourhood Study Prepared by: Lawrence Kuk, Manager of Development Planning Department: Planning and Development Services Date: January 30, 2019 Recommendations 1.That Report No. PDS19-010 be received; and 2.That Council provide direction to Staff regarding next steps for the Stable Neighbourhood Study. Executive Summary The purpose of this information report is to provide Council with the Planning Consultant’s review of the Stable Neighbourhood Study and seek Council direction with respect to implementing the Planning Consultant’s recommendations. •The Planning Partnership reviewed the process to date, reviewed the background work completed by Staff and Ratepayers, evaluated potential implications and recommended a number of planning approaches. •The Planning Partnership interviewed experts in the relevant fields of law, real estate, heritage and urban design. •The Planning Partnership has 6 recommendations for Council’s consideration. Background On June 27, 2018, Council defeated Staff’s recommendation to present a proposed draft Zoning By-law Amendment to a future General Committee meeting related to Stable Neighbourhoods. At that meeting Council passed the following motion: 1.“That Report No. PDS18-084 be received; and 2.That staff be directed to report back regarding amendments to the Site Plan Control By-law.” Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 1 of 35 January 30, 2019 Page 2 of 7 Report No. PDS19-010 On July 24, 2018, Council approved updates to the Site Plan Control By-law. At that meeting Council passed the following motion: 1. “That Report No. PDS18-089 be received; and 2. That a by-law to include Site Plan approval for new development, redevelopment and large additions within the Stable Neighbourhood Study Area as identified in Figure 1 be enacted at a future Council meeting; and 3. That the Aurora Heights neighbourhood be included in the Site Plan Control By-law; and 4. That a by-law to amend By-law No. 6031-17 to include a “basic” site plan application fee of $1,000 be enacted at a future Council meeting.” On September 18, 2018, Council directed Staff to hire a consultant to review the existing Stable Neighbourhood Study and provide an information report for a future Public Planning Meeting. At that meeting Council passed the following motion: 1. “Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That a consultant, expert and experienced in development in mature residential neighbourhoods, be hired to provide an information report for the Public Planning meeting.” As a result, the Planning Partnership was retained to conduct a Peer Review of the Aurora Stable Neighourhood Study. Analysis The Planning Partnership reviewed the process to date, reviewed the background work completed by Staff and Ratepayers, evaluated potential implications and recommended a number of planning approaches. The Planning Partnership was retained to conduct a Peer Review of the Aurora Stable Neighourhood Study. As the peer reviewer, The Planning Partnership conducted the following: • Reviewed and identified Public comments and opinions; • Analyzed the Town’s existing policies and zoning provisions related to Stable Neighbourhood; Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 2 of 35 January 30, 2019 Page 3 of 7 Report No. PDS19-010 • Conducted multiple site visits and provided character observations of the three neighbourhood areas; • Arranged several interviews with experts in the relevant fields of law, real estate, heritage and urban design; • A supplemented review of the best practices from other municipalities such as: City of Brampton, Town of Halton Hills, Town of Newmarket, Town of Richmond Hill and City of Burlington; • Peer reviewed the proposed amendments to zoning by-law from the June 27, 2018 Staff report; • Reviewed and summarized the proposed changes to the zoning by-law and other inputs from the three Ratepayers Associations (Regency Acres, Aurora Heights and Town Park Ratepayers Associations); • Provided conclusion statements and recommendations to guide the Town in moving forward towards the appropriate protection of its Stable Neighbourhood. The Planning Partnership interviewed experts in the relevant fields of law, real estate, heritage and urban design. The following is a summary of insights obtained from relevant fields of expertise to understand the effects of “downzoning” and identify any unforeseen impacts to Council’s decision. Legal – Experts interviewed Michael Foderick, McCarthy Tetrault + Paul Chronis and Barnet Kussner, Weirfoulds • Limited risk of liability of downzoning to the municipality; • Any new zoning by-law passed for the Stable Neighbourhood would result in many existing buildings to become “legal non-complying” buildings; • The current definition of “compatible development” in the Official Plan may be adjusted; • Site Plan Review process is an excellent tool to review design detail and to ensure compatibility as long as the Town has appropriate Design Guidelines that specify what is required; • Individual landowners may apply restrictive covenants on their properties to set restrictions outside of the Planning Act. Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 3 of 35 January 30, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Report No. PDS19-010 Real Estate– Expert interviewed Michael Kaukonen and Andrew Browning, Cushman & Wakefield; Mark Conway, NBLC • A balance between control and flexibility is crucial; • Redevelopment represents investment in the community; • “Downzoning” has impacts on property values; • “Downzoning” has impacts on the market Heritage – Expert interviewed Carl Bray, Bray Heritage • A Heritage Conservation District (“HCD”) process that was previously proposed to conserve the overarching character was ultimately unsuccessful; • At the time, significant concerns were received regarding impacts an HCD could have on marketability, loss of property value and loss of development potential; • At that time, Council did not approve the Heritage Conservation District Urban Design – Expert interviewed Rick Merrill and Wai Ying DiGiorgio, The Planning Partnership • Neighbourhood character is comprised of multiple elements: scale of streets, the public realm and building design; • Resident concerns can be addressed through detail review of density, height, housing type and design details; • Contemporary design can be done correctly and fit into the existing neighbourhood; • Design guidelines are an appropriate tool to accompany the existing site plan review process The Planning Partnership has 6 recommendations for Council’s considerations. The following is a summary of The Planning Partnership’s recommendations: • The Town should proceed with the approval of a new Zoning By-law regime as proposed from the July 17, 2018 with the following considerations: − Lot coverage should be replaced with a maximum floor area requirement; Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 4 of 35 January 30, 2019 Page 5 of 7 Report No. PDS19-010 − Height limit should be 9m and lower limits could be considered where appropriate; − Consider limitations to the number, width and/or placement of garage doors to better reflect their current modest impact on the streetscape. • The Town could proceed with the preparation of Council approved Design Guidelines for the Stable Neighbourhood; • Should the Town wish to consider additional changes to the existing planning regime, each Stable Neighbourhood needs to be fully and individually studied; • The Town could consider amending the Official Plan to redefine the word “compatible” to “ consistent with” or “similar to” within the policies related to Stable Neighbourhood • All existing properties that do not conform with the new regulations be given appropriate site-specific zoning to recognize its status; • Should the Town consider additional changes, a substantive public outreach program should be undertaken to ensure all affected landowners understand and have the opportunity to respond to the proposed changes. Advisory Committee Review N/A Legal Considerations There are no legal considerations as a result of the Peer Reviewer’s report. Depending on how Council directs staff to proceed, various sections of the Planning Act may apply and Planning Act requirements, including notice, may need to be adhered to and satisfied. Financial Implications There is no financial impact as a result of the Peer Reviewer’s report. Depending on how Council directs staff to proceed, additional funding and resources maybe requested by Staff to complete said studies. Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 5 of 35 January 30, 2019 Page 6 of 7 Report No. PDS19-010 Communications Considerations On January 10, 2019, a Notice of Public Planning Meeting was published in the Aurora Banner and Auroran newspaper and given by mail to all addressed property owners within the Study Area. The Planning Partnership’s report was also published on the Town’s website and forwarded to the relevant Ratepayers Association. Link to Strategic Plan Supporting an exceptional quality of life for all through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objective within this goal statement: Objective 5: Strengthening the fabric of our community • Collaborate with the development community to ensure future growth includes housing opprotunities for everyone; and • Prepare and regularly update the Town’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council direct staff to proceed with a report to a future Public Planning meeting to consider specific changes to the Zoning By-law including (insert zoning provisions i.e. height, lot coverage and setbacks); 2. That Council direct staff not to proceed further with the Stable Neighbourhood Study and not pursue making amendments to the existing Zoning by-law and other Town policies. Conclusions As directed by Council, The Planning Partnership conducted a peer review of the Town’s current zoning standards and best practices to address the redevelopment of homes within the Stable Neighbourhood study area. The comments and recommendations outlined in the Planning Partnership’s final report provide Council with the opportunity to consider next steps for the Stable Neighbourhood Study. Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 6 of 35 Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019Item 1 Page 7 of 35 Town of Aurora Stable Neighbourhoods Study | PEER REVIEW Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Prepared by: The Planning Partnership Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 8 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction + Purpose 2.0 What Has Been Done 2.1 Process Summary 2.2 Key Issues Identified by the Public 3.0 Policy Context 3.1 Town of Aurora Official Plan (2010) 3.2 Zoning Bylaw (6000-17) 3.3 Site Plan Control 4.0 Peer Review Methodology 4.1 Site Visits Regency Acres Aurora Heights Town Park 4.2 Expert Interviews Legal Analysis Real Estate Market/Fiscal Analysis Heritage Urban Design 5.0 Approaches from Other Municipalities 5.1 Summary of Town Staff’s Review 5.2 Supplemental Municipal Approaches 6.0 Peer Review of Staff Report Recommendations 6.1 Peer Review of Staff Recommendations 6.2 Review of Ratepayer Associations’ Input 7.0 Conclusions/Recommendations Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 9 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 1 The Planning Partnership 1.0 Introduction + Purpose Over the past several years, the Town of Aurora has experienced significant housing demand and growth pres- sures, as has much of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. While new growth often results in benefits for municipal- ities, there has been increasing concern by some residents that demand for new housing is having a detrimental impact on the character of Aurora’s Stable Neighbourhoods. In these areas, there has been a trend of older, smaller dwellings on large lots being demolished and replaced, or significantly enlarged, with the resulting dwell- ings being larger, and with different site design and built form characteristics than the original houses in the neighbourhood. Part of the concern by the local residents is that these new dwellings are often permitted "as- of-right" - constructed without the need for a rezoning or minor variances to the existing Zoning By-law, due to what is perceived as relatively permissive standards. To properly evaluate these concerns, and propose solutions, Council directed Town Staff to undertake a Stable Neighbourhoods Study, which concluded with Staff recommendations for amendments to the existing Zoning By-law applicable to the Stable Neighbourhoods. However, as a result of a Council non-decision on these amend- ments, on September 18, 2018, Staff was directed that a consultant “experienced in development in mature resi- dential neighbourhoods, be hired to provide an information report for the Public Planning meeting”. The Planning Partnership was subsequently retained to conduct a Peer Review of the Aurora Stable Neighbourhoods Study. The purpose of this Information Report is to outline the process to date, describe the background work under- taken as part of this Peer Review, and to identify appropriate next steps. This Information Report will also review the work already completed by Town Staff and evaluate potential implications or risks. The recommendations will identify a number of planning approaches available to the municipality that can help to find a balance be- tween protecting those character-giving elements that make these neighbourhoods attractive places to live, and providing the flexibility needed to support innovation and ongoing investment as these neighbourhoods con- tinue to evolve. 2.0 What Has Been Done 2.1 Process Summary In the fall of 2017, Council considered a motion to have a study conducted of the By-laws governing development in Stable Neighbourhoods to ensure that the intent of the Town’s Official Plan was being realized. To this end, Council directed Staff to prepare an Interim Control By-law to restrict new residential development or additions that exceed the provisions of the existing Zoning By-law for a period of one year. This permitted Staff to carry out the Stable Neighbourhoods Study, applicable to three Aurora neighbourhoods: Regency Acres, Aurora Heights and Town Park. The Interim Control By-law was enacted on January 30, 2018. In accordance with the approved Terms of Reference, Town Staff undertook a Stable Neighbourhoods Study over the course of the first half of 2018: Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 10 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 2 The Planning Partnership >On February 28, 2018, the Town held a Public Open House to obtain public feedback on the existing Offi- cial Plan and Zoning By-law provisions with respect to protecting Stable Neighbourhoods; >On May 29, 2018 Staff presented a compilation of feedback received from the public as well as a review of municipal best practices drawn from comparable municipalities to Council, as part of a Special Council Meeting. At this meeting, two areas along Temperance Street and Tyler Street were added to the Study Area and Staff was directed to proceed to a Public Planning Meeting to consider specific options for amending the Zoning By-law and other planning tools; >On June 27, 2018 a Public Planning Meeting was held to consider potential Zoning By-law Amendment options, as well as other potential strategies. At this meeting, Council directed Staff to address public comments received in a further report which would present a proposed DRAFT Zoning By-law Amend- ment, as well as report back on an Amendment to the Site Plan Control By-law; >On July 17, 2018, Council recommended that a "a By-law to include Site Plan approval for new development, redevelopment and large additions within the Stable Neighbourhood Study Area as identified in Figure 1 be enacted at a future Council Meeting”. For the purposes of this By-law, the Stable Neighbourhoods Study Area was amended to exclude the Tyler Street area due to the existing volume of redevelopment. Aurora Heights was also proposed to be excluded, but was ultimately included at Council’s request. The pro- posed DRAFT Zoning By-law Amendment was referred back to Staff after a Council non-decision; and, > As a result of this non-decision, on September 18, 2018, Staff was directed to retain a consultant with significant experience in development in mature residential neighbourhoods to provide an information report for a future Public Planning Meeting. 2.2 Key Issues Identified by the Public Over the course of the Stable Neighbourhoods Study, the Town received hundreds of comments from members of the public, which represent diverse views on the need for the protection of these Stable Neighbourhoods, and the need to balance that protection with flexibility for innovation and opportunities for new investment. The following lists the key issues identified through these comments (no specific order of importance): > Concern with the impacts on community character caused by new out-of-scale "monster houses", includ- ing the risk of losing the uniqueness of these Neighbourhoods, built at certain times; > Need specific rules for each Neighbourhood (not a one-size-fits-all character study) and need to imple- ment policies of the OP; > Should implement zoning changes which better match existing houses, or permit only incremental size increases compared to the original houses; > Maintaining the beauty of a heritage or older neighbourhood can attract new tax-paying residents; Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 11 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 3 The Planning Partnership > Allowing monster houses increases the property values such that the children of current residents will never be able to afford to live here; > Want better public notification/information/consultation for infill development; > Concern with the impacts of new large houses, with respect to sunlight, privacy, aesthetics, loss of mature trees and natural airflow, and should implement specific requirements/tests to eliminate these impacts; > Concern that proposed changes to current zoning permissions and/or other added barriers to redevelop- ment may negatively impact property values, which can have a serious impact on a family’s largest invest- ment (their house); > Concern that proposed changes hurt new residents who bought at height of prices and planned to ex- pand. Some residents are depending on the value of their property for their retirement/children’s futures; > Concern that the proposed changes will hinder a property owner’s ability to replace or expand their house to meet changing needs/desires. The houses built in the 60s and 70s are no longer appropriate for today’s needs, it is the lot that has value; > Concern that the proposed changes will deter new investment/residents and negatively impact the tax base; > Concern that the proposed changes may cause the neighbourhoods to stagnate, with no added diversity and a transition to increasingly rental tenure and/or multi-family housing with poor upkeep, since new families do not want to be trapped with the existing small houses.; > Concern that the proposed changes may disincentivize younger people from moving/buying in these Neighbourhoods. > Appreciate the new beautiful houses and how they improve/enhance the Neighbourhood; > Could implement additional restrictions to protect character, but which are flexible enough to permit di- versity, find balance to permit new replacement houses while still protecting the scale and character of the area; > Concern that the proposed changes could push prospective residents to greenfield/new subdivisions be- cause they want newer houses – however, some residents want a larger house in an established neigh- bourhood; > Changes within these Neighbourhoods are already occurring so there is no point in trying to stop subse- quent ones – that will only cause those new houses that are already built to stand out more; Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 12 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 4 The Planning Partnership > Could implement Urban Design Guidelines and/or Architectural Control to mitigate negative impacts, ra- ther than restricting development and impacting property values; > There is no architectural value in the 60s and 70s track housing and they are very poorly insulated with poor energy-efficiency; and, > Would like to maintain the same development rights as elsewhere in the Town. 3.0 Policy Context 3.1 Town of Aurora Official Plan (2010) The Study Areas identified in the Town’s Study are designated Stable Neighbourhood on Schedule A of the Offi- cial Plan, with the exception of several minor areas included in the Greenlands System. Schedule D identifies that the Town Park Neighbourhood is located within the Heritage Resource Areas and includes a number of properties that are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Parts of the Town Park Neighbourhood is within the Aurora Promenade (Downtown Core) Secondary Plan and Community Improvement Area. A small portion of Aurora Heights is located within the Special Policy Area 20. The Aurora Official Plan is guided by a number of fundamental principles. The following is considered most rel- evant: >Protecting Stable Neighbourhoods - It is the intent of the Official Plan to ensure that Aurora’s Stable Neighbourhoods are protected. Aurora’s existing Neighbourhoods, both older and newer, are not only a defining element of Aurora’s character and urban structure, but also a tremendous asset and attractor for new residents and investment interests. The Official Plan seeks to ensure that the stability and vi- brancy of these existing neighbourhoods is protected from the negative impacts of potential incompati- ble development and growth pressures. Any infill that occurs must be compatible with the established community character. In Section 3.2 Community Structure, Stable Neighbourhoods are identified as consisting of “existing residential neighbourhoods that, through the policies of this Plan, will be largely protected from the impacts of new develop- ment. Infill development and other forms of intensification will be restricted within Stable Neighbourhoods”. The Stable Neighbourhoods are specifically identified as anticipated to accommodate additional residential growth through the introduction of secondary suites. In Section 6.5 Ground-Related Residential Uses, it states that particular attention could be given to ensure that the frontage and size of any new lots shall maintain the character of the existing streetscape and be compatible with the neighbourhood within the Stable Residential Area designation. Further, ground-related residential is defined to include single-detached, semi-detached and townhouse forms of development. Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 13 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 5 The Planning Partnership Section 8.0 Protecting Stable Neighbourhoods includes the policies guiding the Stable Neighbourhoods desig- nation. The intent of the designation is to protect Stable Neighbourhoods from incompatible forms of develop- ment, while still permitting them to evolve and be enhanced over time. All new development must be compati- ble with the surrounding context. Permitted uses include a full range of ground-related housing, including spe- cialized housing, as well as several non-residential neighbourhood supportive uses. The Stable Neighbourhoods development policies guide new development to ensure that it is sympathetic to the form and character of the area and is compatible in scale and design. To this end, the Stable Neighbourhoods designation may be subject to Site Plan Review. Development in the Stable Neighbourhoods shall have a maximum height of three storeys or 9 metres (which- ever is less) and no new apartment buildings are permitted. Specific criteria are provided for all types of devel- opment, with the exception of single-detached and semi-detached dwellings, to ensure compatibility. Further, a specific design policy requires that new development respects and reinforces the existing physical character, including with respect to lot, street and block patterns, size and configuration of lots, building type, height and scale, front yard, side and rear-yard setback patterns and the conservation and enhancement of cul- tural heritage resources. Of particular relevance to the consideration of new development within Stable Neighbourhoods is the concept of compatible development. In the Official Plan’s Glossary, compatible development is defined as “development that may not necessarily be the same or similar to the existing buildings in the vicinity, but, nonetheless, enhances an established community and coexists with existing development without causing any undue adverse impact on surrounding properties”. 3.2 Zoning By-Law (6000-17) A new Zoning By-law was approved by Council on June 27, 2017 to implement the Town’s Official Plan. As part of this process, Council approved directions to staff which outlined proposed amendments to the By-law, as well as proposed sections that would remain unchanged. The sections which were to be unchanged included the low density provisions R1 to R7. >Aurora Heights Neighbourhood – The Aurora Heights Study Area is zoned Detached Third Density Resi- dential (R3) which permits a detached dwelling, second suite and home occupation. A number of streets within this neighbourhood are subject to Exception 37 which reduces the minimum exterior side yard set- back from 6 metres to 4.5 metres. These streets consist of Hill Drive, Orchard Heights Boulevard, Devins Drive, Banff Drive and Bigwin Drive; >Regency Acres Neighbourhood – The Regency Acres Study Area is zoned Detached Third Density Resi- dential (R3) which permits a detached dwelling, second suite and home occupation; and, Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 14 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 6 The Planning Partnership >Town Park Neighbourhood – The Town Park Study Area is mostly zoned Detached Third Density Residen- tial (R3) south of Metcalfe Street, which permits a detached dwelling, second suite and home occupation. North of Metcalfe Street, it is zoned Special Mixed Density Residential (R7) which permits detached, semi- detached and duplex dwellings, a second unit, home occupation, double duplex or triplex dwellings and converted dwellings, although there are a few properties subject to Exceptions 474 (additional permis- sion for office uses and associated development standards), 272 (additional permission for 2 apartment units above first storey, a drugless practitioner’s office and offices in existing building and associated de- velopment standards) and 85 (additional permission for 8 dwelling units and associated development standards). In addition to these principal zones, there are a number of properties along the south side of Metcalfe Street which are zoned Semi-Detached and Duplex Dwelling Residential (R6), which permits semi-de- tached or duplex dwellings, a second suite, home occupation and linked dwellings, and subject to Excep- tion 229 which provides alternate development standards. There are further two properties zoned De- tached Fourth Density Residential (R4), which permits a detached dwelling, second suite and home occu- pation, with one property subject to Exception 230 which provides alternate development standards. Fi- nally, there is one property zoned Detached Fifth Density Residential (R5) which permits a detached dwell- ing, second suite and home occupation. Considering the above, the pre-dominant zone is Detached Third Density Residential (R3), with Special Mixed Density Residential (R7) as the secondary zone. The following table outlines the development standards associ- ated with these two zones. Minimum Requirements Detached Third Density Resi- dential (R3) Special Mixed Density Residential (R7) Dwelling Type Single Single Semi/Duplex Tri- plex Double Duplex Lot Area 460 m2 Same as R3 Zone 650 m2 835 m2 1,110 m2 Lot Frontage 15 m 20 m 21 m 22 m Front Yard Setback 6 m 6 m 6 m 6 m Rear Yard Setback 7.5 m 7.5 m 7.5 m 7.5 m Interior Side Yard Setback 1.2 m (one storey) 1.5 (greater than one storey) 1.2 m (one) 1.5 (one+) 2.5 m 2.5 m Exterior Side Yard Setback 6 m 6 m 6 m 6 m Lot Coverage (maximum) 35% 35% 35% 35% Height (maximum) 10 m 10 m 10 m 10 m 3.3 Site Plan Review Site Plan Review allows the Town to review the detailed aspects of proposed development as a key component of implementing the Town’s policies, and considers a wide range of elements, including site and building design, scale, mobility networks/access and landscaping. Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 15 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 7 The Planning Partnership Until recently, the Town of Aurora’s Site Plan By-law 3604-95.D exempted all single and semi-detached dwellings from Site Plan Approval, and therefore much of the development in Aurora’s Stable Neighbourhoods did not go through this process. However, the Town’s Official Plan states that all development within the Stable Neigh- bourhoods may be subject to Site Plan Approval. To this end, on July 24th, 2018, Council directed that a By-law be enacted to require a "Basic" Site Plan Review (a scoped version of typical Site Plan Review) for new/replace- ment single or semi-detached dwellings, additions equal to or greater than 50 m2, or new/replacement detached garages within the Stable Neighbourhoods Study Area, (with the exception of the Tyler Street neighbourhood), This new requirement will allow staff to review matters such as site design as well as architectural design to ensure the proposed dwelling proportions, massing and architectural details are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding area. Approval authority is delegated to Staff. 4.0 Peer Review Methodology As part of the Peer Review work for the Stable Neighbourhoods Study, The Planning Partnership conducted several site visits and interviews with experts in related fields to gain a comprehensive understanding of the neighbourhood contexts and the potential implications of changes to the current planning framework. 4.1 Site Visits The Planning Partnership conducted comprehensive site visits of the three neighbourhoods of Regency Acres, Aurora Heights and Town Park on the following days: December 4th, 5th, 6th and 27th. Over the course of these site visits, every street within the Stable Neighbourhoods Study Areas was visited, and detailed photographic records with supplemental notes were taken. As an overview, it was clear from these site visits that the Town Park Neighbourhood, which has been evolving for many years, includes a range of architectural styles and built forms, including both heritage houses and new construction. In contrast, the Regency Acres and Aurora Heights Neighbourhoods both demonstrate a much higher level of consistency in age of buildings, architectural styles, lot characteristics and building scale. These two Neighbour- hoods encompass smaller houses with lower profile architectural styles and a building placement on lots which create a strong sense of openness. The following is a preliminary description of the neighbourhood characteristics based on our site visits: Regency Acres Neighbourhood Overview > Neighbourhood feel: Regency Acres is characterized by large lots within a curvilinear street pattern. Houses are generally well spaced with a low profile architectural style, and are relatively consistent along Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 16 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 8 The Planning Partnership each street. With large setbacks, limited landscaping and wide streets, there is a strong sense of open- ness. Sidewalks with a grassed boulevard are provided on one side of most streets, with the more prominent streets having a treed boulevard. Other streets have a more rural character with swales and no sidewalks. The street widths are significant, which when combined with the large setbacks of the houses, contribute to a sense of openness. There is a significant amount of green space and trees tend to be mid-age; > Lot features: Lots in the neighbourhood tend to be large and spacious, permitting significant front and side yard setbacks. Landscaping tends to be dominated by grassy front lawns with some mid-age trees and access to the lots is exclusively via the driveway; and, > Housing/building types: The built form is primarily characterized by well-spaced, modest 1 to 2 storey houses with shallow pitched roofs with a range of shapes/directions, low profile front entrances with little or no front porch and use a variety of brick, stucco, siding and stone. The built-form is very homogenous throughout this Neighbourhood. Properties have a mixture of small attached garages, carports, detached garages in the backyard or drive- way parking. The architectural style and colour palette of the houses are relatively consistent along each street. Summary Observations: While a number of the newer houses fit relatively well within the neighbourhood, several newly built houses, or houses currently under construction appear to be generally much larger in scale, both in terms of height and in floor area. These houses tend to have a bulkier mass which can appear to overwhelm adjacent houses and loom in adjacent rear yards, demonstrate a much grander or ornate architectural style, and have steeply pitched roofs and prominent entryways. Further, these houses include a combination of smaller side yard setbacks, different pattern of stone façades, little to no stepping down of height to the sides, rears or front to break up massing, imposing unbroken front façades, and raised basements which contribute to a taller building. Aurora Heights Neighbourhood Overview >Neighbourhood feel: Aurora Heights is characterized by large lots within a curvilinear street pattern with some variation in topography. Houses are generally well spaced with low profile rooflines and front doors. A strong sense of space is created with large setbacks and wide streets and boulevards. Sidewalks with a grassed and/or treed boulevard are provided on one side of most streets, with the more prominent streets having a sidewalk on both sides. The street widths are significant, especially at curves and turning circles in cul-de-sacs. The width of the streets and the large setbacks of the houses contribute to a strong sense of openness. There is a significant amount of greenery and shrubs with trees tending to be mid-age; Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 17 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 9 The Planning Partnership >Lot features: Lots in the neighbourhood tend to be large and spacious, permitting significant front and side yard setbacks. Landscaping tends to include significant grassy front lawns with shrubbery and some mid-age trees; access to the lots is exclusively via the driveway; and, >Housing/building types: The built form is primarily characterized by well-spaced, modest 1 to 2 storey houses, with many split-level houses. The built-form is very homogenous throughout this Neighbour- hood. The shallow pitched roofs general have the peak towards the centre of the house, or extending parallel to the street, creating a less visibly striking feature. Front entrances are low profile, often flush with the front façade or set back to create a small porch. Some front entrances are also located to the side of the house. The houses use a combination of brick, stucco and siding. The housing generally has a mixture of small attached garages, carports, detached garages in the back- yard or driveway parking. The architectural style and colour palette of the houses are relatively consistent along each street. Summary Observations: While a number of the newer houses fit relatively well within the neighbourhood, several newly built houses, or houses currently under construction appear to be generally much larger in scale, both in terms of height and in floor area. These houses tend to have a bulkier mass compared with adjacent houses, and demonstrate modern architectural styles, with contrasting roof lines. They also tend to have smaller side yard setbacks and little to no stepping down of height to the sides or front to break up massing. Town Park Neighbourhood Overview >Neighbourhood feel: Town Park is a distinctive urban neighbourhood with an eclectic mix of building forms and architectural styles set within a modified grid street network. This neighbourhood demon- strates the evolution of housing from the historic houses to the north to the late 20th century houses in the south and is well integrated with its surroundings. The neighbourhood is structured around a modified grid street network, interrupted by a watercourse corridor which crosses Town Park from north-west to south-east. Sidewalks are provided on at least one side of almost all streets, some with a boulevard. The streets and intersections are narrower that in the newer neighbourhoods, helping to create a more comfortable pedestrian environment. This neighbour- hood is located between a traditional main street and an older industrial area and therefore there are a mix of adjacent land uses, adding to the diverse building forms; Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 18 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 10 The Planning Partnership >Lot features: Lots are relatively large, and contain significant mature trees and landscaping. Houses have variable side yard setbacks and are either accessed via a driveway or walkway and, >Housing/building types: The housing in this neighbourhood is eclectic, with a significant number of older houses to the north, including semi-detached houses, and newer construction further south. There are a variety of front yard setbacks, although most of the older housing stock is located relatively close to the street. This smaller setback combined with a large concentration of 1.5 to 2.5 storey houses creates a strong sense of enclosure to the streetscape. Front doors are generally prominent and the front façade is frequently softened with significant front porches. Garages are not prominent. Where they are provided, they are generally set back from the front façade or are detached and to the rear of the property, with the exception of many of the newer houses. There is a wide range of roof lines and pitches, with a steeper pitch dominating older built forms, located generally to the north of the Neighbourhood. Summary Observations: While the diverse housing styles in this neighbourhood mean that many new houses are easily integrated, several houses given their landscape treatments, modern design and scale, stand out along the streetscape. These houses tend to display a combination of more prominent and larger garages, a large and imposing front façade with only a minimal or no front porch, large massing with little to no stepping down to adjacent properties and a raised first floor which can exaggerate the overall height. 4.2 Expert Interviews In response to some of the comments from the public and as an integral part of our peer review work, The Planning Partnership arranged several interviews with experts in the relevant fields of real estate market, fiscal impact, law, heritage and urban design. The purpose of these interviews was to obtain insight with respect to managing change through "downzoning" and the implications of any changes to existing permissions and/or development approval processes for affected properties. It is our opinion that understanding the effects of "downzoning" and identifying any unforeseen impacts is a crucial element for Council's consideration. The fol- lowing is a summary of the results from these various conversations: Legal Discussion Experts Interviewed: Michael Foderick, McCarthy Tetrault + Paul Chronis and Barnet Kussner, WeirFoulds As part of this interview, a number of topics were covered which could have relevance for Aurora’s Stable Neigh- bourhoods. The first topic centred around the issue of legal jeopardy should the Town move forward with "downzoning" within these Stable Neighbourhoods: Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 19 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 11 The Planning Partnership >The concept of "injurious affection" - "Injurious affection" addresses circumstances where there is a loss of property value that is linked to expropriation law. "Downzoning" is not equivalent to expropriation. Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to preserve neighbourhood character would not likely trig- ger a claim of injurious affection. It was concluded that "downzoning" within Stable Neighbourhoods would come with an extremely lim- ited exposure of legal liability to the Town. Property rights are not "absolute" in Canada, and can be adjusted without compensation, except in extreme situations that typically, as noted, involve expropria- tion; >The concept of "legal non-compliance" - Creating a "legal non-complying" building does not significantly jeopardize the legal rights of the property owner in the short-term. However, creating a circumstance where a legally constructed building is made to be "legal non-complying" does create a stigma, and has implications on selling, rebuilding or enlarging the building in the future. It is a reasonable expectation that, should the Town move forward with a "downzoning" regime, all ex- isting buildings that do not conform with the new rules be given appropriate recognition through site- specific zoning. Alternatively, legal non-compliance can be ameliorated more generically if the concept of a use or building legally authorized before a more restrictive By-law applied is appropriately defined in the Official Plan/Zoning By-law. It is important to note that the issue of legal non-compliance is likely to apply to a number of houses that have been renovated and/or expanded over time, not just the new builds that are the current focus of public concern; >The Official Plan: To date, much of the discussion has focused on the regulations for development within the existing Zoning By-law. It is crucial to note that the Zoning By-law must conform to the Official Plan, and importantly, applications for rezoning, or for minor variances, must conform to the Official Plan. In that regard the Town could consider replacing the concept of "compatible development" to a test that better meets the intent of the Town and community, as all development evaluations will be based on the terminology included in the Stable Neighbourhoods policies. It was, however, felt that the current definition of "compatible development" was useful in that it does provide some flexibility for innovation and ongoing investment. Official Plan policy could be adjusted to identify how community character is to be defined. The key is to ensure a balance between control and flexibility to ensure that community character is enhanced and impacts are minimized as a neighbourhood evolves over time. It was suggested that City of Toronto OPA 320 was a good example of how to better define community character; >The "Basic" Site Plan Review Process: This approach has already been implemented by the Town and is seen as an excellent way to ensure that new development is made to be more compatible with existing development. Site Plan Review is a tool that may include much more design detail that the Official Plan Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 20 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 12 The Planning Partnership or Zoning By-law. Site Plan Review may include architectural detail, colour and building materials, among other details, as long as the Town has prepared and approved appropriate Design Guidelines that specify what is required. >Restrictive Covenants: It was agreed that Restrictive Covenants are a powerful regulatory tool that pro- hibits defined actions and provides the highest level of control to the benefit of the land owners. The municipality would have no involvement, with the onus being on land owners to establish the regulatory elements and to gather those property owners together to sign the agreement and register the agree- ment on title. Restrictive covenants are outside of the Planning Act, and there are no appeal rights. The residents would require legal advice to establish the appropriate documentation. >Recognizing "Uniqueness": Overall, it was felt that it is very important to understand and regulate char- acter giving elements that are unique to any given neighbourhood, and potentially even specific districts within neighbourhoods such that character is adequately captured by the Zoning By-law provisions and any associated Design Guidelines. It is recognized that it is always difficult to use broad based Zoning to recognize unique character-giving attributes. There is a need to identify and articulate what is being reg- ulated, and what the metrics of the regulation should be. Real Estate Market/Fiscal Discussion Experts interviewed: Michael Kaukonen and Andrew Browning, Cushman & Wakefield; Mark Conway, NBLC >A balance between control and flexibility is crucial: The appropriate management of a Stable Neighbour- hood through changes to the existing planning regime - regulatory elements as well as process require- ments - must ensure that there is an appropriate balance between protecting those character-giving ele- ments that make these neighbourhoods attractive places to live, and providing the flexibility needed to support ongoing innovation and ongoing investment as these neighbourhoods continue to evolve. >Redevelopment represents investment in the community: More modern and/or larger scale redevelop- ment represents a larger than typical investment, and has the impact of enhancing property values in proximity. Generally, the construction of modern, larger houses raises the land values of the surrounding lots as more people become interested in buying properties with the intention to redevelop. Risks asso- ciated with development approvals decreases for subsequent buyers and therefore they are willing to pay more for nearby properties or properties with "as-of-right" permissions, than for those properties where development potential is substantially limited to existing built-forms and existing scales. >"Downzoning" has impacts on property values: If development potential is substantially limited to existing built-forms and existing scales, property values will eventually stagnate relative to other areas in the Town that have more liberal planning rules. Where development potential is substantially restricted, the rules/processes are effectively exerting a downward pressure on land value. There is the additional risk that families, who are critical to supporting neighbourhood functions, may stop relocating to these neigh- bourhoods since the older, smaller scale housing stock may not meet their long-term needs or aspirations. Over time, "stable" without investment may facilitate a loss of character through neglect. Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 21 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 13 The Planning Partnership >"Downzoning" has impacts on the market: "Downzoning" hinders the ability of prospective buyers to tear down and rebuild a larger, more modern house, and that could cause the "redeveloper" market to disap- pear, thereby limiting the market to only those purchasers who are willing to live in the existing house – with little opportunity for future rebuilding potential. It is important to consider the amount of demand for large modern houses on large properties in Stable Neighbourhoods compared to large modern houses in new subdivisions with modern public amenities, and determine if there a strong enough demand to overcome increased restrictions. Heritage Discussion Expert Interviewed: Carl Bray, Bray Heritage The Planning Partnership was part of the team, led by Carl Bray, working toward the establishment of a Heritage Conservation District (HCD) that included the Town Park Neighbourhood. An HCD identifies heritage character- istics that are worthy of preservation, defines the area where those characteristics are predominant and then promotes a planning regime that conserves that overarching character. An HCD is approved under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, and is partly implemented through the Town's Official Plan, Zoning By-law and Site Plan Control processes. Typically, the HCD study includes the preparation of detailed Design Guidelines that inform all of the other planning tools and processes. The HCD process that included the Town Park Neighbourhood was ultimately unsuccessful. As part of the pro- cess, it was clear that there was significant concern regarding the impacts an HCD could have on marketability, loss of property value and the loss of development potential, issues which are also relevant to the Stable Neigh- bourhoods Study (and identified by the public). In particular there was a vocal group of community members opposed to increased municipal regulation over their properties. However, it was equally clear that there was a very mixed response to the potential for an HCD, and it was difficult to understand the real community consensus rather than the more extreme positions as presented by ratepayers. As a result, Council did not approve the HCD. Urban Design Discussion Experts Interviewed: Rick Merrill and Wai Ying DiGiorgio, The Planning Partnership >Neighbourhood character is comprised of multiple elements: The elements that establish neighbourhood character generally have to do with the scale of streets, the public realm (streetscapes and parks) and building design. Neighbourhood character is primarily related to the visual impact of development on the adjacent streetscape - the streetscape itself, the rhythm and style of buildings and the spaces between them. These elements encompass the walkability of streets, proximity to open space and/or parkland, street trees, public walkways and location of schools, which are frequently addressed in Design Guide- lines. More specific building design controls focus more on the built form elements of the neighbourhood, in- cluding the basic style of housing, the front and side yard setbacks, building materials on the exterior of Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 22 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 14 The Planning Partnership the house, the relationship between houses related to height and roof type and the size and location of garages. >Resident concerns can be addressed: Those character-giving elements that are most frequently raised as issues by neighbourhood residents are related to density, height, type (i.e. single-detached dwelling or townhouses) and design (i.e. should be the same style and scale as existing houses). Where new houses do not reflect the same architectural style as the existing neighbourhood, it is important to include similar or common characteristics such as height, width, massing, and/or detailing (windows, building articula- tion, materials). >Introducing contemporary design can be done correctly: In considering contemporary design, the key el- ements that need to be addressed must always relate back to the existing context of the neighbourhood. This context can include the existing front yard setback of the adjacent houses, the overall height of ad- jacent houses, the massing, the horizontal and vertical modulation of the windows and doors and the building materials used in the neighbourhood. Extending design principles and basic building patterns can help to blend contemporary and traditional architectural expressions. >Design Guidelines are a valuable tool: In order to appropriately consider a full spectrum of changes to the existing planning regime - regulatory tools and processes, it is necessary to understand in detail just what the character giving elements of each of the individual Neighbourhood are, how they might be quantified and regulated and which planning tool or process is the most appropriate mechanism for control. That work is typically done through the preparation of Design Guidelines, which, in turn, inform the use of the other available planning tools or processes (Zoning By-law, Minor Variances and Site Plan Review). 5.0 Approaches from Other Municipalities As part of their work on the Stable Neighbourhoods Study, Town Staff undertook a review of the approaches taken by other municipalities to guide new development in older residential neighbourhoods. The following outlines the approach taken by those municipalities reviewed by the Town, supplemented by further review conducted by The Planning Partnership. 5.1 Summary of Town Staff’s Review City of Brampton Beginning with the passing of an Interim Control By-law in 2013, the City of Brampton undertook a study which involved reviewing the policies for building additions and replacements in the City’s mature neighbourhoods. This study focused on single detached dwellings only. As a result of this study, the Brampton passed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments in the fall of 2014. The Official Plan Amendment introduced a policy framework for infill development in older, mature neighbourhoods which directs that new or replacement dwellings and building additions equal to or greater than 50 m2 shall be compatible with the host community and that these Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 23 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 15 The Planning Partnership forms of development may be subject to a scoped site plan control process. The Zoning By-law Amendment introduced a new mature neighbourhood overlay zone, to which the following are applicable: Minimum Requirements Rear Yard Setback Equal to 25% of the depth of the lot, or the minimum rear yard depth required by the zone designation of the lot, whichever is greater Interior Side Yard Setback 1.2 m for the first storey, plus 0.6 m for each additional sto- rey, or part thereof, where the lot width is less than or equal to, 16 m 1.8 m where the lot width is 16 m to <21m 2.8 m where the lot width is 21 m to <30 m 3.0 m where the lot width is 30 m or greater Lot Coverage (maximum) 30%, excluding permitted accessory structures Building Height (maximum) 8.5 m An Amendment to the Site Plan Control By-law was further passed to implement the new Site Plan Control pow- ers for replacement buildings and additions in the mature neighbourhoods. A subsequent Zoning By-law Amend- ment in 2017 added detached garages as requiring Site Plan Approval. Supporting these policy and regulatory changes, Brampton also produced a Guide for Infill Housing in Mature Neighbourhoods to help support compliance with the new policy requirements. The Planning Partnership is currently updating the Design Guidelines for Infill Housing, and is part of the team preparing the City's new Com- prehensive Zoning By-law. Summary: In summary, the key actions of the City of Brampton that could be considered by the Town of Aurora include: > In the Official Plan, state that new or replacement dwellings and additions equal or greater to 50 m2 shall be compatible with community and be subject to scoped site plan approval; > Minimum rear yard setback to be based on a percentage of the lot depth, or the minimum rear yard set- back required by the original zone, whichever is greater; > Interior side yard setback to be based both on number of storeys and on lot width; and, > Development of Design Guidelines for Infill Housing in Mature Neighbourhoods. Town of Halton Hills The Town of Halton Hills passed an Interim Control By-law in February 2016, and extended it in February 2017, to permit the preparation of a Mature Neighbourhoods Character Study. The objective of this study was to deter- mine whether the Town’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law are effective in maintaining the character of the mature neighbourhoods of Georgetown and Acton, and to propose any recommendations. As a result of this Study, Halton Hills Council approved an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in May 2017. Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 24 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 16 The Planning Partnership The Official Plan Amendment provides stronger policy direction, including requiring that new housing, replace- ment housing, additions and alterations be compatible and sensitive to the existing character of the Mature Neighbourhood Areas, providing additional considerations for minor variance applications within Mature Neigh- bourhood Areas and adding/amending three key definitions: Mature Neighbourhood Area, Character and Com- patible. The Zoning By-law Amendment provided some clarity with respect to several definitions and the minimum drive- way length, and introduced Mature Neighbourhood provisions for single detached dwellings in the Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) zones, addressing the minimum interior side yard setback, exterior side yard setback, maxi- mum height and maximum lot coverage. Further, for any two storey dwelling, a balcony or deck shall not be permitted on a second storey in the interior side yard. The Halton Hills zoning provisions are as follows: Minimum Re- quirements LDR1-1(MN) LDR1-2(MN) LDR1-3(MN) LDR1-4(MN) Lot Frontage 18.0 m 15.0 m 12.0 m 9.0 m Front Yard Set- back 6.0 m 6.0 m 4.5 m, however a garage fac- ing this lot line must be set- back 6.0 m and may project no further than 2.0 m beyond the first storey of the main build- ing 4.5 m, however a garage fac- ing this lot line must be set- back 6.0 m and may project no further than 2.0 m beyond the first storey of the main build- ing Rear Yard Set- back 7.5 m 7.5 m 7.5 m 7.5 m Interior Side Yard 1.2 m, plus 0.6 m for each full storey above the first storey 1.2 m, plus 0.6 m for each full storey above the first storey 0.6 m on one side and 1.0 m on the other side, 0.6 m on each side for each full storey above the first storey. 0.6 m on one side and 1.0 m on the other side, 0.6 m on each side for each full storey above the first storey. Exterior Side Yard 4.5 m 4.5 m 3.0, however a garage facing this lot line must be setback 6.0 m and may project no fur- ther than 2.0 m beyond the first storey of the main build- ing 3.0, however a garage facing this lot line must be setback 6.0 m and may project no fur- ther than 2.0 m beyond the first storey of the main build- ing Height (maxi- mum) 10.0 m (2.5 sto- reys) 10.0 m (2.5 sto- reys) 11.0 m 11.0 m Lot Coverage (maximum) 40% for 1 & 1.5 storeys 35% for 2 & 2.5 storeys 40% for 1 & 1.5 storeys 35% for 2 & 2.5 storeys 40% 40% Summary: In summary, the key actions of the Town of Halton Hills that could be considered by the Town of Aurora include: > In the Official Plan, provides additional considerations in evaluating minor variance applications within Mature Neighbourhood Areas, and include definitions for Mature (Stable) Neighbourhood Areas and Character; Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 25 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 17 The Planning Partnership > Specifically articulates the front and exterior side yard setback for a garage as well as limits how much it can project beyond the main façade; and, > Don't permit a balcony or deck on a second storey in the interior side yard. Town of Newmarket In 2013, the Town of Newmarket amended its Zoning By-law to better address the compatibility of infill develop- ment in older, established neighbourhoods. This Amendment modified three requirements affecting the siting of a dwelling on a lot – the maximum height, the maximum lot coverage and how to measure the front yard setback. The modified development standards for the established areas apply to three existing zones, R1-B, R1- C and R1-D, indicated by the suffix ‘119’, and are as follows: Minimum Requirements R1-B-119, R1-c-119 and R1-D-119 Front Yard Setback Notwithstanding any other provision of this by-law, struc- tures built between existing buildings shall be built with a setback which is within the range of existing front yard setbacks for the abutting buildings, but this depth shall not be less than 3 metres from the front lot line. Rear Yard Setback 7.5 m Exterior Side Yard Setback 6.0 m Interior Side Yard Setback 1.2 m for 1 storey 1.5 m for 1.5 storeys 1.8 m for 2 storeys Lot Coverage (maximum) 35% for 1 storey 25% for 2 storeys Height (maximum) 7.5 m for 1 storey 8.5 m for 1.5 storeys 10 m for 2 storeys For the purposes of this exception, height shall be meas- ured from the front grade of the dwelling to the highest portion of the roof. Driveway Width (maximum) 6.0 m The Town of Newmarket recently accepted proposals to carry out a detailed study of its stable neighbourhoods, with the product being Design Guidelines and recommendations for potential amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Summary: In summary, the key actions of the Town of Newmarket that could be considered by the Town of Aurora include: > Front yard setback based on the front yard setback range of the adjacent buildings; and, > Height measured to the highest portion of the roof. Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 26 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 18 The Planning Partnership 5.2 Supplemental Municipal Approaches To supplement the review undertaken by Town Staff, The Planning Partnership also reviewed the approaches taken by the Town of Richmond Hill and the City of Burlington as part of this Peer Review exercise. These addi- tional approaches help provide additional context for how municipalities are addressing the challenges of ac- commodating new development within older residential neighbourhoods, while also maintaining neighbour- hood character. Town of Richmond Hill Rather than addressing new development in older neighbourhoods as a whole, the Town of Richmond Hill has conducted a number of area-specific Infill Studies and Design Guidelines to better consider the specific contexts of new development. In particular, the Village Core Neighbourhood Design Guidelines were developed in 2001 to address concerns that new development was occurring which was not compatible with the special character of the Village Core Neighbourhood. This Neighbourhood contains number of heritage dwellings and a diverse range of dwelling styles, similar to Aurora’s Town Park neighbourhood. Following a detailed examination of the existing community characteristics, including architecture, land use, her- itage, building age, lot size and frontage, street design and trees, as well as exploring the definition of “compat- ible development”, the work completed determined what contributed to community character and what could be required of new development. The resulting Design Guidelines, which are used in evaluating planning applications, aim to strike a balance be- tween supporting new development and ensuring compatibility, by providing guidance for colour and material, front doors and porches, garage doors, windows, roofs, signage, building/lot relationships, and landscape fea- tures. In addition to developing Design Guidelines for the Village Core Neighbourhood, this study also provided Official Plan Amendment recommendations, including that the Official Plan identify the role of Site Plan Control, the use of Design Guidelines and visual impact analysis for relevant neighbourhoods, as well as outlining the definition of “community character” and its key indicators for the Village Core Neighbourhood. City of Burlington Starting in 2013, the City of Burlington undertook the preparation of three Character Area Studies to understand what contributed to each neighbourhood’s character, articulate the concerns related to potentially incompatible infill development and propose recommendations for better regulating new development. The Character Area Studies resulted in a number of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment recommendations for consideration and final approval by Council. To the Official Plan, the City added Neighbourhood Character Area policies for the three neighbourhoods, addi- tional policies for evaluating minor variance applications involving single-detached dwellings or new lot creation Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 27 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 19 The Planning Partnership in the Neighbourhood Character Areas and definitions for Scale, Neighbourhood Character and Neighbourhood Character Area. The Zoning By-law was amended to provide more location-specific zoning provisions addressing driveways, side yard setbacks, front yard setbacks, specific maximum lot coverages for one and a half storey dwellings, maxi- mum floor area ratios, maximum dwelling depths, regulations mitigating the impacts of garage doors and adding a definition for Floor Area Ratio – Low Density Residential (see below). As part of the Zoning By-law Amend- ments, the City further prepared a number of supporting graphics to help to illustrate the key concepts relating to the neighbourhood character. Also coming out of these detailed neighbourhood studies, the City decided to eliminate Site Plan Approval in low density residential areas, which was replaced with the more restrictive zoning provisions and a zoning clearance certificate and grading and drainage approvals process. In summary, the key actions of the City of Burlington that could be considered by the Town of Aurora include: > Preparation of neighbourhood-specific Character Area Studies; > Inclusion of a Character Area policy section in the Official Plan, including Character Area statements and policies with respect to objectives, compatible development, permitted uses, how new development could respect existing character and the protection of mature trees; > Inclusion of additional policies for evaluating minor variance applications in the Neighbourhood Character Areas and definitions for Scale, Neighbourhood Character and Neighbourhood Character Area; > Minimum interior side yard setback based on property width and whether there is an attached or de- tached garage; > Articulate a maximum dwelling depth; > Articulate the maximum width of a front-loading garage based on percentage of building elevation width; > Regulate whether decks can be permitted above the first storey in the side or rear yard; > Specify number of permitted driveways, minimum length and maximum width; and, > Provide a maximum Floor Area Ratio and add definition for Floor Area Ratio – Low Density Residential; Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 28 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 20 The Planning Partnership 6.0 Review of Staff Report Recommendations 6.1 Peer Review of Staff Recommendations Recommendation Commentary/Assessment Introduce a new suffix to identify properties within the proposed Zon- ing By-law Amendment Area May not be appropriate. This is an administrative change needed to implement Stable Neighbourhood- specific zoning provisions. However, this approach could consider the oppor- tunity to create more than one Neighbourhood specific zone, either to recognize differences between the Neighbourhoods and/or to recognize differences within the Neighbourhoods. Reduce the maximum building height from 10m to 9m Appropriate. This is an appropriate change which conforms to, and implements the Stable Neighbourhoods Development Policies in the Official Plan. It could be noted that as the Official Plan states that the maximum permitted height in the Stable Neighbourhoods is 9 metres, the Zoning By-law could establish a lower height limit, where appropriate. Building height will remain to be measured between the average fin- ished grade and the mid-point of the roof (sloped roof) and to the peak (flat roof) Appropriate. This approach to measuring building height where sloped roofs are proposed is appropriate, as it reduces the incentive to construct flat roofs, which often result in a greater vertical massing. However, there is nothing to say that where a flat roof is proposed, the maximum height could be different. Provide a sliding scale for the maxi- mum lot coverage from 40% (single storey) to 30% (2-storeys) May not be appropriate. This may not be an appropriate tool in Aurora’s Stable Neighbourhoods due to a wide variety of lot sizes. The variety of lot sizes include some very large lots, which means that the maximum size of a new house can vary widely and be sig- nificantly larger than the existing built form. The proposed sliding scale is an im- provement; however, it is questioned as to whether this regulatory tool actually achieves the desired objective. Reduce the lot coverage for accessory structures from 15% to 10% for lots greater than 460 m2 and from 7.5% to 5% for lots less than 460m2 May not be appropriate. As above, this may not be an appropriate tool in Aurora’s Stable Neighbourhoods due to a wide variety of lot sizes. While the proposed maximum lot coverage for accessory structures accounts for some variance in lot size, it is questioned as to whether this regulatory tool actually achieves the desired objective. Limit the driveway width in select neighbourhoods within the Study Area to a maximum of 3.5m (single car driveway) Appropriate. This is an appropriate limitation, considering that most existing houses have modest parking facilities which contribute the neighbourhood character, coupled with the associated benefits of a higher quality public realm. Introduction of a ‘basic’ site plan pro- cess, with approval authority dele- gated to Staff, for new or replace- ment single or semi-detached houses, additions greater than 50 m2 or new or replacement detached garages of any size Appropriate. This is an appropriate process that has been implemented by the Town. It allows the Town to have a greater ability to ensure that new houses are compatible with the existing neighbourhood, to a greater extent that what can be achieved by zoning alone. In particular, the Town’s Official Plan specifies that Site Plan Agreements shall provide controls over “siting, massing, access, public areas and exterior design, including without limitation the character, scale, appearance and design features of buildings, and their sustainable design”. It is important to note that if the Town wishes to utilize Site Plan Control to ad- dress architectural detail, building materials and colour, Council approved Design Guidelines will need to be prepared to fully articulate municipal requirements. Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 29 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 21 The Planning Partnership Town Staff have proposed a number of adjustments to the current Zoning By-law that would have the effect of moderating the scale of new development within the three Stable Neighbourhoods. The proposed changes are an attempt to achieve a balance between encouraging innovation and ongoing investment, while also protecting key character-giving elements. The changes proposed are considered to be "downzoning", such that current flexibility to expand existing dwell- ings and/or build new, larger dwellings is constrained in comparison to existing regulations. While the Town's approach would have a moderating effect on the scale of development within the Stable Neighbourhoods, the approach could be improved. The implementation of the "Basic" Site Plan Review is considered an excellent addition to the Town's toolbox within the Stable Neighbourhoods. 6.2 Review of Ratepayer Associations’ Input Recommen- dations Height (maxi- mum) Lot Coverage (maximum) Setbacks (mini- mum) Driveways/ Gar- ages Other Town of Au- rora 9m (no change to measure- ment ap- proach) 30% 2-storey 40% 1-storey (reduced cover- age for acces- sory buildings) No change Max width of 3.5m Introduction of ‘basic’ site plan Regency Acres Rate- payers Associ- ation Measured to peak of roof 9m 2-storeys 7.5m 2-storey with flat roof 7.5m 1-storey 25% 2-storeys 30% 1-storey Side yard 2m 2-storeys 1.5m 1-storey Discourage exces- sive hardscaping in front yard Require a hydrologic study for replacement houses Max first floor height, in- clude attic in floor space measures, restrict 2nd floor balconies/decks, lighting, drainage, con- struction impacts, mature tree preservation Aurora Heights Rate- payers Associ- ation Measured to peak of roof 8.5m (max 2 storeys) - No flat roofs - Basement may be a max of 1m above grade Max of 25% (max- imum square footage of 2,000) Front yard: 8m Rear yard: 8m Interior side yard: 2m Exterior side yard: 6m Single car garage/ driveway only – at grade No 2nd floor balconies Town Park Area Resident Rate Payers Association Measured to peak of roof 9m 2-storey 6.5 1-storey Sliding scale from 20% or 2500 ft2 GFA Side yard: 1.5m (max eave projec- tion 0.5m beyond setback) Only single at- tached garages, setback 2.5m from main façade Detached garages encouraged Control width of driveway Update tree protection Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 30 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 22 The Planning Partnership The approach by the various ratepayers groups indicates that some of the residents would like to propose even more restrictive regulations than those proposed by Town Staff. The metrics of the ratepayers approaches for their individual Neighbourhoods may have merit, and most have been dealt with in other municipal jurisdictions. The range of ideas, and the metrics that go along with them, could be considered as part of a complete applica- tion, as part of additional Zoning By-law regulations, or as part of a Site Plan Control Manual. It is important to note that the less flexible the regulations get, the greater the impacts on property value and marketability. In addition, it is likely that the amount "legal non-compliance" within each Stable Neighbourhood will increase. The key issue is finding the correct balance between control and flexibility, in order to conserve character, while still promoting innovation and ongoing investment. 7.0 Conclusions/Recommendations The following conclusions summarize the key findings and observations resulting from this Peer Review exercise. The intention is that these findings help to support and guide the City in moving forward towards the appropriate protection of its Stable Neighbourhoods. 1. Many municipalities across the Greater Golden Horseshoe are grappling with similar issues within their mature, stable neighbourhoods. The redevelopment of more modest house forms with more modern, and larger dwellings is seen by some as having a negative impact on community character, and by others a positive investment in an ever evolving neighbourhood. Notwithstanding the broad range of public opinion on the issue, almost every Official Plan includes clear principles and policies that are aimed at "protecting stable neighbourhoods", while promoting a "compatible" evolution. 2. There is a variety of approaches to "protecting stable neighbourhoods" within the municipal context. Some approaches are relatively straightforward, while others become quite complex. There are some similarities: > Recognition that every Stable Neighbourhood is unique and that specific Character Area Studies and associated Design Guidelines are necessary to identify the key character-giving elements and metrics; > Reliance on the Official Plan, the Zoning By-law and Site Plan Review to articulate and regulate development; > Focus on building height, setbacks and lot coverage as key character defining elements of built form; and, > Most reflect "downzoning" where the new regulatory framework reduces the flexibility and amount of redevelopment potential than the pre-existing regulatory framework. Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 31 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 23 The Planning Partnership 3. There is no "correct" approach in planning terms that will work in every circumstance. More complex approaches from the other municipalities canvassed tend to rely upon detailed studies that determine the metrics for the elements of site and building design that are determined to be character-giving elements of each individual Stable Neighbourhood. Those Character Area Studies and associated Design Guidelines inform both the Zoning By-law and Site Plan Review processes, and are specific to each individual Stable Neighbourhood. 4. Town Staff have proposed a number of adjustments to the current Zoning By-law that would have the effect of moderating the scale of new development within the three Stable Neighbourhoods. The pro- posed changes are an attempt to achieve a balance between encouraging innovation and ongoing invest- ment, while also protecting key character-giving elements. The changes proposed are considered to be "downzoning", such that current flexibility to expand existing dwellings and/or build new, larger dwell- ings is constrained in comparison to existing regulations. While the Town's approach would have a mod- erating effect on the scale of development within the Stable Neighbourhoods, the approach could be improved. RECOMMENDATION 1: The Town should proceed with the approval of a new Zoning By-law regime, as pro- posed by Town Staff, with the following considerations: > Given the variety of lot sizes within each of the Stable Neighbourhoods, lot coverage restrictions would be a relatively ineffective regulatory tool, and could be replaced with a maximum floor area requirement. The maximum floor area would provide some flexibility to accommodate larger new houses, as well as additions to existing dwellings, while appropriately managing the scale of devel- opment; > The maximum height permitted should be 9 metres, as per the Official Plan, and lower height limits could be considered for each of the Stable Neighbourhoods, where appropriate; and, > The Town could also consider limitations to the number, width and/or placement of garage doors to better reflect their current modest impact on the streetscape. 5. The Town has introduced a "Basic" Site Plan Review process which provides the Town with a greater level of control over ensuring the compatibility of new or replacement houses, additions and detached gar- ages. RECOMMENDATION 2: To better articulate the requirements for the "Basic" Site Plan Review Process the Town could proceed with the preparation of Council approved Design Guidelines that fully articulate the Town's expectations with respect to site and building design within the Stable Neighbourhoods. Further, the Design Guidelines could articulate specific guidance for colour, building materials and architectural de- tail, in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 32 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 24 The Planning Partnership 6. Correspondence from the ratepayers indicates that some of the residents would like to propose even more strict regulations than those proposed by Town Staff (and as modified by the recommendations of this Report). The key ideas expressed by the ratepayers include: > Provide different maximum heights for both peaked and flat roofs; > Establish a maximum first floor height; > Prohibit flat roofs; > Restrict how much of the basement can be above grade; > Specify maximum floor area of the dwelling; > Include attic in floor space measurements; > Restrict second floor balconies/decks; > Specify maximum eave projection beyond setback; > Consider regulations for lighting, drainage, construction impacts, mature tree preservation; > Discourage excessive hardscaping in front yard; > Require hydrologic study for replacement houses; > Permit only a single care garage/driveway, must be at grade; > Require attached garage to be setback from façade (specify setback); and, > Encourage detached garages Many of these ideas may have merit for application within one or more of the Stable Neighbourhoods, and most have been dealt with in other municipal jurisdictions. The range of ideas could be considered as part of a complete application, as part of additional Zoning By-law regulations, or as part of a Design Guideline or a Site Plan Review Manual. It is important to note that the less flexible the regulations get, the greater the impacts on property value and marketability. In addition, it is likely that the amount "legal non-compliance" within each Stable Neighbourhood will increase as stricter regulations are imposed. 7. The three Stable Neighbourhoods are different, particularly the Town Park Neighbourhood in comparison to the newer Aurora Heights and Regency Acres Neighbourhoods. There are several built-form elements which appear to contribute most to new houses not "fitting in" within the existing context, which vary depending on the individual Stable Neighbourhood. In particular, these elements can include contrasting roof lines, different building materials/palette, larger or more prominent garages, size and/or design of porches, grander/more ornate architectural style, as well as significant height and massing with little tran- sition to adjacent houses. RECOMMENDATION 3: Should the Town wish to consider additional changes to the existing planning re- gime, beyond Recommendations 1 and 2, each Stable Neighbourhood needs to be fully and individually studied to determine: > The array of character-giving elements that are important within each individual Stable Neighbour- hood and that best reference the existing unique site design and built form attributes; Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 33 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 25 The Planning Partnership > The metrics for the identified character-giving elements of site and building design; and, > The identification of the appropriate planning tool or process for the regulation/management of each of the character-giving elements. Each individual Character Area Study will produce Neighbourhood-specific Design Guidelines that will in- form both the Zoning By-law and Site Plan Control processes. The Neighbourhood-specific Design Guide- lines should focus on the provisions that are related to the character-giving elements, which might include setbacks, floorplates, height, location/size of garages, floor area, landscaping and building materials. Some of these elements are more appropriately dealt with in the Official Plan, the Zoning By-Law, or through Site Plan Control. The objective of the Town should be a comprehensive package of policies, regulations and requirements. 8. It is important to note that regardless of what any Zoning By-law actually regulates, there is always the potential that a property owner will apply for a minor variance or rezoning that facilitates the form of development that they desire. The key is that the minor variance or rezoning must conform with the Official Plan, so it is important that the Official Plan provides the appropriate overarching framework within which development applications will be evaluated by Staff, and voted on by Council. It is the Official Plan that establishes the principles and policies for "protecting stable neighbourhoods", and the key issue here is the definition of "compatible" development. It is clear, based on the submissions by some of the ratepayers to date, that the concept of "compatible" development does not reflect what they are looking for with respect to their expectations for "protection". Again, it is important to note that the less flexible the policies of the Official Plan get, the greater the impacts on property value and mar- ketability. RECOMMENDATION 4: Should the Town wish to consider additional changes to the existing planning re- gime, beyond Recommendations 1 and 2, they could consider amending the Official Plan to replace the word "compatible" within the policies related to Stable Neighbourhoods with a more specific phrase, such as "consistent with", or "similar to". 9. The Town can proceed with "downzoning" properties with extremely limited risk of legal consequences. Notwithstanding the low risk of legal exposure, "downzoning" does have negative impacts on the long- term property value and marketability. Property value is reduced because future development potential is limited, and marketability is reduced because potential buyers looking for redevelopment opportunities will now look elsewhere. Further, the overall pool of buyers will be reduced in Stable Neighbourhoods with a restrictive planning regime because there is little opportunity for future property investment/en- hancement, either for themselves, or as a resale proposition. In addition, should the Town proceed with "downzoning", a number of existing properties will become "legal non-complying". Creating a "legal non-complying" property does not significantly jeopardize the Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 34 of 35 Town of AURORA - Stable Neighbourhoods Peer Review Information Report January 16, 2019 Page | 26 The Planning Partnership legal rights of the property owner in the short-term. However, creating a circumstance where a legally constructed building is made to be "legal non-complying" does create a stigma, and has implications on selling, rebuilding or enlarging the building in the future, with the ultimate intention that the existing building will be made to conform at some point in the future. RECOMMENDATION 5: Should the Town wish to consider additional changes to the existing planning re- gime, beyond Recommendations 1 and 2, all existing properties that do not conform with the new regula- tions could be given appropriate recognition through site-specific zoning. Alternatively, legal non-compli- ance could be ameliorated more generically if the concept of a use or building legally authorized before a more restrictive By-law applied is appropriately defined in the Official Plan/Zoning By-law. It is important to note that the issue of legal non-compliance is likely to apply to a number of houses that have been renovated and/or expanded over time, not just the new builds that are the current focus of public concern. 10. The issue of "downzoning" is an obviously controversial one. There will always be those members of the community that are in favour of the approach, as well as those who are opposed. It is extremely im- portant that the Town understand the appetite for "downzoning", within each of the Stable Neighbour- hoods because it fundamentally affects the development rights that are currently enshrined in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Further the extent of the "downzoning" (more or less restrictive) will also be a controversial discussion, with likely little consensus. The Town needs to hear from everyone that will be affected by these planning policy/regulatory changes. RECOMMENDATION 6: Should the Town wish to consider additional changes to the existing planning re- gime, beyond Recommendations 1 and 2, a substantive public outreach program should be undertaken to ensure that all affected landowners have a chance to understand and respond to the proposed changes to their current "as-of-right" development permissions. Public consultation is a fundamental component of any planning activity, particularly when municipal action may have wide-spread impacts. Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Item 1 Page 35 of 35 The Corporation of The Town of Aurora By-law Number XXXX-19 Being a By-law to Confirm Actions by Council Resulting from a Council Public Planning Meeting on January 30, 2019. The Council of the Corporation of The Town of Aurora hereby enacts as follows: 1. That the actions by Council at its Council Public Planning meeting held on January 30, 2019, in respect of each motion, resolution and other action passed and taken by the Council at the said meeting is hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed. 2. That the Mayor and the proper officers of the Town are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said action or to obtain approvals where required and to execute all documents as may be necessary in that behalf and the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the corporate seal to all such documents. Enacted by Town of Aurora Council this 30th day of January, 2019. Tom Mrakas, Mayor Michael de Rond, Town Clerk Council Public Planning Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 30, 2019 Confirming By-law Page 1 of 1