Common use of Designation and Zoning Clause in Contracts

Designation and Zoning. The subject properties are located within Area 6 of the South End SMPS, which was adopted in 1983, and are: • designated Medium Density Residential (MDR) as shown on Map 1. The designation is intended to support a mixed residential environment with both family-oriented units and smaller housing units in buildings not exceeding four storeys. Family units are defined as those with more than 800 square feet of floor area, and 50% of units in any building must be of this form. There are no density limits established within this designation; • zoned R-2A (General Residential Conversion Zone) under the LUB as shown on Map 2. This zone seeks to implement the MPS intent by establishing limits on lot coverage, setbacks, building height, unit mix and size, and a cap of 14 units per building. There are no density limits established within this zone; and • within the 35 foot height precinct as shown on Map 3. This height limit is established within the MPS for much of the nearby district. Regional Council’s initiation of the MPS amendment process for this application was satisfied through the previously proposed Case 18565 which proposed 12 and 10 storey towers atop of a shared podium. Staff recommended refusal of this application at the initiation stage. Council instead decided to approve initiation, requesting that feedback of the community and planning advisory committee be gathered to fully assess the appropriateness of the development. Through discussions with the applicant, feedback received from the community, and site analysis, staff previously recommended new planning policy which would allow development of a building with a maximum height of 23.0 metres (75.46 feet) and a maximum of 95,000 square feet of gross floor area. Council indicated that these limitations would satisfy neither the community nor the applicant and as such passed a motion cancelling the public hearing. In light of the previous case never reaching a public hearing, a new case number was assigned to this new application which proposes the development of 8 and 10 storey residential towers atop a shared main floor. Amendments to an MPS are generally not considered unless it can be shown that circumstances have changed since the document was adopted to the extent that the original land use policy is no longer appropriate. Site specific MPS amendment requests, in particular, require significant justification to be considered. To support the request to amend the MPS in this case, the applicant submits that conditions have changed considerably in the 30 years since the existing Medium Density Residential designation and 35 foot height limit were applied to the properties. The following reasons are given by the applicant: • The properties are no longer used as single family homes and can be extensively redeveloped as high density housing under existing policy; • That larger scale high density development has since taken place on the opposite side of Wellington Street; • The context of the properties relative to the HDR designation, the presence of existing taller buildings of 13 and 15 storeys, the abutting park, and relative isolation from Low Density Residential properties justifies greater height and density; • That regulation of urban design and architecture through use of a site specific development agreement policy is a better approach than simply limiting height as a means of ensuring quality development and protecting neighbourhoods; • Although the 23 units which are permitted as of right meet the LUB definition of “family type units”, it is more likely that these units will be student housing, and that allowing a single larger building would better enable the “family type” goal to be met; and • Allowing an MPS change will result in assurances through the development agreement process of a better quality of development than can be achieved otherwise. The subject site has been evaluated as an appropriate place to develop a transitional size of building between the high density residential buildings located to the immediate north and the low density homes to the south. The development of Wellington Street could be described as eclectic with no dominant form or scale. As such, a number of built forms could fit into the existing context without being identified as incongruent with the streetscape. With this said, following an evaluation of the proposed building, staff have concluded that the application would not be an appropriate and contextually sensitive addition to the street. Concerns have focused on the following: • Staff advise that the building being proposed is excessive relative to the size of the site to be developed. The buildings are measured as covering 75 % of the lot with building, in addition to the underground parking garage being constructed flush to the property lines on all sides below grade. Limited provision of setbacks, which range between 4 and 9 feet, add to this concern; • The blocky massing of the buildings is inconsistent with the context and reflective of a more intensively urban context. In comparison, the Downtown Halifax Land Use By-law would consider this development a mid-rise form and as such require the building to be setback 10% of the lot width or 5.5 metres from an interior lot line, whichever is less, above a height of 60 feet. The proposed building reaches 80 feet on its lower building, and 100 feet in height on its taller building with no additional setback provided in either case above the 60 foot mark. The proposed setback at this height is half, on the north side, and one quarter, on the south side, of what would be required for a building of this size in the denser downtown setting; • The two towers are proposed to be separated by a distance of 26 feet. In towers of this height, a common and appropriate urban design standard would suggest that separation distances between these buildings be closer to three times this distance. This presents not only an urban design concern with regard to consistency of the street and light penetration, but also a livability concern from the perspective of eventual building inhabitants; and • The overall proposed height of the two towers does not represent an appropriate transition to the lower density homes located to the south of the property. The combination of a height more than double what exists adjacent, in addition to limited setback or articulation of this southern wall further adds to this concern. Adding population to the Regional Centre of Halifax is undoubtedly a central goal of the Regional Plan. The objective behind this goal is to develop and grow areas of the municipality which are already well serviced with existing civic amenities inclusive of transit, roads, sewers, parks, community centres, and other core services of HRM. Indeed, it is the existence of this full complement of amenities that tends to attract residents to these types of communities in the first place. By adding population to these already developed areas, growth can be facilitated without the significant costs associated with constructing brand new services in a previously undeveloped area. As such, added density in the Regional Centre can be seen as a means to an end, and not an end in and of itself. If buildings are constructed which are overly dense and/or poorly designed, this could result in the development of a less livable Regional Centre. A careful balance must be struck between adding density to existing communities and not disturbing the elements of the community which make it livable and desirable to residents. While broadly speaking, increasing density within the Regional Centre is a central objective to the Regional Plan, it is adding density in a sensitive manner that is the more difficult but most important task facing Council. More specifically, the Regional Plan speaks to accommodating low to medium density development within established neighbourhoods without altering the local character of these places. This can often mean development on the edges of these established neighbourhoods, or infill development within these neighbourhoods that is compatible with the existing built form. In assessing this application, staff advise that the development proposed within this application is overly aggressive in the density being sought, and does not meet the test of sensitivity discussed above. The above notwithstanding, Regional Council has the authority to establish its own planning policy. To enable this course of action, amendments to both the MPS and LUB have been provided in this report (Attachments A and B) which would allow Council to consider approving the proposed development through the Development Agreement process. Given that the purpose of this policy is to enable the applicant’s proposed building contrary to the recommendation of staff, this policy does not contain evaluative criteria that would require Council to consider several factors that would typically be included within a site specific policy, and which were included within the previously recommended policy considered under Case 18565. Such elements of policy not included within Attachment A include consideration of how the development would impact the surrounding public realm with regard to wind or shadow, in addition to considering the appropriateness of the massing of the building inclusive of setbacks and tower spacing. Concern for the impact that these building / design elements could have on adjacent lands were factors in the staff recommendation of refusal. A public information meeting hosted by the Districts 7 & 8 Planning Advisory Committee was held for this application on September 3, 2014. This application was also reviewed by the Districts 7 & 8 Planning Advisory Committee at their September 22, 2014 meeting. At this meeting the Committee expressed concern regarding the density, overall heights, and transition of built form that is proposed from the taller buildings to the north to the lower buildings and park space located to the south. The Committee recommended against the approval of the proposed policy and by-law amendments required to facilitate the consideration of a development agreement. A report from the PAC will be submitted to Community Council under separate cover. Given the concerns outlined above, and further to its own review, staff recommends that Regional Council not approve amendments to the Municipal Planning Strategy which would enable consideration of the attached development agreement (Attachment C). Should Council choose to allow this project to proceed as proposed by the applicant, policy is provided in Attachments A and B of this report, through Alternative

Designation and Zoning. The subject properties are located site: • lies within Area 6 3 of the South End SMPS, which was adopted in 1983, and are: Peninsula North Secondary Planning Strategy (PNSPS) (Section XI of the Halifax MPS); • is designated Medium Density Residential (MDR) as shown on Map 1. The designation is intended to support by the PNSPS, which envisions a mixed residential environment with both familyin the form of single family dwellings, duplex and semi-oriented units and smaller housing units in buildings not exceeding four storeys. Family units are defined as those with more than 800 square feet of floor areadetached housing, and 50% of buildings containing three to four units in any building must be of this form. There are no density limits established within this designation(Map 1); • zoned R-2A R-2 (General Residential Conversion Zone) under the LUB as shown on Map 2. This zone seeks to implement the MPS intent by establishing Residential), which has limits on lot coverage, setbacks, building height, unit mix and size, and a cap of 14 four units per building, while also allowing for daycares, home occupations, and churches (Map 2). There are no Regional Council should note that at the time the planning policies and zoning regulations were devised for the area in 1983, the site was included in the MDR designation and the R-2 Zone. As a result, the use of the property became non-conforming, with the intent that any future redevelopment be low density limits established within this zonein character. The applicant wishes to remove the existing buildings on the site, consolidate the two parcels and construct a seven-storey residential building that is approximately 85 feet in height. Attachments A-D outlines the applicant’s proposal in greater detail. Features of the development include the following: • a three to four-storey building base with a visible five-foot high podium blank wall around the perimeter of the site; • 2 levels of enclosed parking area with access off Seaforth Street; • the base covers approximately 95% of the site, with 3 metres (10 feet) setbacks from adjoining streets and 6 metres (20 feet) setbacks from properties to the east; • upper storey stepbacks; • 75 residential units that vary between bachelor and two-bedroom units; • interior amenity space for residents; and • within the 35 foot height precinct as shown on Map 3. This height limit is established within the MPS for much of the nearby district. Regional Council’s initiation of the MPS amendment process for this application was satisfied through the previously proposed Case 18565 which proposed 12 rooftop and 10 storey towers atop of a shared podium. Staff recommended refusal of this application at the initiation stage. Council instead decided to approve initiation, requesting that feedback of the community and planning advisory committee be gathered to fully assess the appropriateness of the development. Through discussions with the applicant, feedback received from the community, and site analysis, staff previously recommended new planning policy which would allow development of a building with a maximum height of 23.0 metres (75.46 feet) and a maximum of 95,000 square feet of gross floor area. Council indicated that these limitations would satisfy neither the community nor the applicant and as such passed a motion cancelling the public hearing. In light of the previous case never reaching a public hearing, a new case number was assigned to this new application which proposes the development of 8 and 10 storey residential towers atop a shared main floorpodium level amenity space. Amendments to an MPS are generally not considered unless it can be shown that circumstances have changed since the document was adopted to the extent that the original land use policy is no longer appropriate. Site specific MPS amendment requests, in particular, require significant justification to be considered. To support Attachment A incorporates the request to amend the MPS in this caseapplicant’s rationale for changing policy which includes, but is not limited to, the applicant submits that following: • That conditions have changed considerably in the 30 years since the existing Medium Density Residential MDR designation and 35 the 35-foot height limit were applied to the properties. The following reasons are given by the applicant: • The properties are no longer used as single family homes and can be extensively redeveloped as high density housing under existing policy; • That larger scale high density development has since taken place on the opposite side of Wellington Streetarea; • The context of existing structures are not conducive to upgrading as the properties relative construction is obsolete with regards to the HDR designation, the presence of existing taller buildings of 13 energy efficiency and 15 storeys, the abutting park, and relative isolation from Low Density Residential properties justifies greater height and densitylayout; • That regulation of urban design As the city continues to grow and architecture through use of a site specific development agreement policy residential communities in the peninsula continue to mature, there is a better approach than simply limiting height as a means of ensuring quality development growing demand for modern and protecting neighbourhoods; • Although the 23 units which are permitted as of right meet the LUB definition of “family type units”, it is more likely that these units will be student housing, and that allowing a single larger building would better enable the “family type” goal to be met; and • Allowing an MPS change will result in assurances through the development agreement process of a better quality of development than can be achieved otherwise. The subject site has been evaluated as an appropriate place to develop a transitional size of building between the high density residential buildings located to the immediate north and the low density homes to the south. The development of Wellington Street could be described as eclectic with no dominant form or scale. As such, a number of built forms could fit into the existing context without being identified as incongruent with the streetscape. With this said, following an evaluation of the proposed building, staff have concluded that the application would not be an appropriate and contextually sensitive addition to the street. Concerns have focused on the following: • Staff advise that the building being proposed is excessive relative to the size of the site to be developed. The buildings are measured as covering 75 % of the lot with building, in addition to the underground parking garage being constructed flush to the property lines on all sides below grade. Limited provision of setbacks, which range between 4 and 9 feet, add to this concernup-to-date accommodations; • The blocky massing of the buildings is inconsistent with the context and reflective of a more intensively urban context. In comparison, the Downtown Halifax Land Use By-law would consider this development a mid-rise proposal provides new residential units in an environmentally responsive building form and as such require the building to be setback 10% of the lot width or 5.5 metres from an interior lot line, whichever is less, above a height of 60 feet. The proposed building reaches 80 feet on its lower building, replaces obsolete existing and 100 feet in height on its taller building with no additional setback provided in either case above the 60 foot mark. The proposed setback at this height is half, on the north side, and one quarter, on the south side, of what would be required for a building of this size in the denser downtown setting; • The two towers are proposed to be separated by a distance of 26 feet. In towers of this height, a common and appropriate urban design standard would suggest that separation distances between these buildings be closer to three times this distance. This presents not only an urban design concern with regard to consistency of the street and light penetration, but also a livability concern from the perspective of eventual building inhabitantsinefficient modified structures; and • The overall proposed height proposal provides high quality unit types that are more comfortable and affordable for many residents who wish to live centrally. Staff recognizes the growth and development potential of the site as it is located at the corner of two towers does not represent an appropriate transition higher-volume streets, North Street and Oxford Street, and surrounded by a wide range of land uses. The site has merits for greater density development than the range of land uses envisioned by the MDR designation and the R-2 Zone. In addition, the site has the capability to the lower density homes located to the south accommodate additional development considering that approximately half of the propertysite is comprised of surface parking. The combination of a height more than double what exists adjacent, in addition to limited setback or articulation of this southern wall further adds to this concern. Adding population to the Regional Centre of Halifax is undoubtedly a central goal of the Regional Plan. The objective behind this goal is to develop and grow areas of the municipality which are already well serviced with existing civic amenities inclusive of transit, roads, sewers, parks, community centres, and other core services of HRM. IndeedHowever, it is important to recognize the existence of this full complement of amenities that tends to attract residents to these types of communities in the first place. By adding population to these already developed areas, growth can be facilitated without the significant costs associated with constructing brand new services in a previously undeveloped area. As such, added density in the Regional Centre can be seen as a means to an end, and not an end in and of itself. If buildings are constructed which are overly dense and/or poorly designed, this could result in the development of a less livable Regional Centre. A careful balance must be struck between adding density to existing communities and not disturbing the elements character of the community which make it livable established low density neighbourhood and desirable to residentsstreetscape attributes. While broadly speaking, increasing density within Regional Council should note that the Regional Centre is a central objective to the Regional Plan, it is adding density in a sensitive manner that is the more difficult but most important task facing Councilproposal does not sufficiently account for these circumstances. More specificallyFurthermore, the Regional Plan speaks to accommodating low to medium density development within established neighbourhoods without altering the local character of these places. This can often mean development on the edges of these established neighbourhoods, or infill development within these neighbourhoods that is compatible with the existing built form. In assessing this application, staff advise that the development proposed within this application is overly aggressive in the density being sought, and does not meet the test of sensitivity discussed above. The above notwithstanding, Regional Council has the authority to establish its own planning policy. To enable this course of action, amendments to both the MPS and LUB following issues have been provided in this report (Attachments A and B) which would allow Council to consider approving the proposed development through the Development Agreement process. Given that the purpose of this policy is to enable the applicant’s proposed building contrary to the recommendation of staff, this policy does not contain evaluative criteria that would require Council to consider several factors that would typically be included within a site specific policy, and which were included within the previously recommended policy considered under Case 18565. Such elements of policy not included within Attachment A include consideration of how the development would impact the surrounding public realm with regard to wind or shadow, in addition to considering the appropriateness of the massing of the building inclusive of setbacks and tower spacing. Concern highlighted for the impact that these building / design elements could have on adjacent lands were factors in the staff recommendation of refusal. A public information meeting hosted by the Districts 7 & 8 Planning Advisory Committee was held for this application on September 3, 2014. This application was also reviewed by the Districts 7 & 8 Planning Advisory Committee at their September 22, 2014 meeting. At this meeting the Committee expressed concern regarding the density, overall heights, and transition of built form that is proposed from the taller buildings to the north to the lower buildings and park space located to the south. The Committee recommended against the approval of the proposed policy and by-law amendments required to facilitate the consideration of a development agreement. A report from the PAC will be submitted to Community Council under separate cover. Given the concerns outlined above, and further to its own review, staff recommends that Regional Council not approve amendments to the Municipal Planning Strategy which would enable consideration of the attached development agreement (Attachment C). Should Council choose to allow this project to proceed as proposed by the applicant, policy is provided in Attachments A and B of this report, through Alternativediscussion: