mature neighbourhoods policy review: final report...40Õs & 50Õs 60Õs & 70Õs prepared for...

40’s & 50’s

60’s & 70’sPrepared for the

City of Brampton

Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review:

Final ReportMay 20th, 2014

Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc.

Contents

Purpose of the Study .......................................... 1

Purpose and Outline of this Report ................... 2

Development Trends and Neighbourhood

Analysis ............................................................. 3

Current Brampton Practices .............................18

.

Best Practices Review ..................................... 26

Summary of Issues and Opportunities

Analysis ........................................................... 37

Public Consultation Overview........................... 39

Options............................................................. 40

Preferred Approach Recommendations............47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report

May 20th, 2014

1. Purpose of the Study

2

2. Purpose and Outline of this Report


May 20th, 2014

3. Development Trends and Neighbourhood Analysis

3.1 Development Trends in

Residential Additions

3.2 Visual Survey Analysis of

Selected Neighbourhoods

Figures 1 4

Neighbourhood 1: South of Downtown and Peel Village

Figure 1


May 20th, 2014

! ! !

^

!

!

!

^^

!

!

!

!

^^

!

!

!

^

!

^

^

!

! ^

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

^

!

!

^

!

!

!

!

!

^

!

!

^

^̂

!

!

^!

!

!

!

^

^

!

!

^

!

!

!

MAIN

MILL

STEELES

KENNEDY

CLARENCE

MCMURCHY

RUTHERFORD

ELGIN

HALE

GLIDDEN

HAROLD

ELDOMAR

CORNWALL

ELIZABETH

AUSTIN

CHAROLAIS

BARTLEY BULLHARPER

STAFFORD

EDWIN

FREDERICK

GUEST

ABBEY

SELBY

NANWOOD

WILLIS

ORENDA

DEAN

LADORE

JERSEY

BACH

AMBLESIDE

BENTON

FERN

ALDERWAY

PARKVIEW

FIRST GULF

HOWELL

RESOLUTION

PRIVATE

GREYSTONEBRENDA

STERNEDUNCAN BULL

TROTTERS

RICHMOND

FRASER

BISCAYNE

FARMINGTON

CORBY

WATSON

TRELEAVEN

KEYSTONE

ROBERTS

INGLEW

OOD

LESBURY

ERINDALE

MILNER

ELLIOTT

DERW

ENT

GOLDING

HARTFORD

APPLETON

GORDON

MARSDEN

MEADOWLAND

ARMBRO

DRISCOLL

CATHEDRAL

LOCKTON

BRAMSTEELE

ERLESMERE

PARKEND

CORE

CALEDON

GREGORY

CRESTVIEW

PEEL VILLAGE

FAIR OAKS

RAMBLER

MELVILLE

ALLENDALEMORPETH

LANGWITH

FERNDALE

TERRA COTTA

KINGSVIEW

GOLF VIEWADELE

CENTRE

COUSINS

CASTLEMORE

PALGRAVE

TULLAMORE

RIVER VIEW

CALDWELL

SMITHERS

SHELDRAKE

BEATTYPLEASELEY

NORVAL

BLACKWELL

CHELTENHAM

STAVELEY

CARLYLE

ORCHARD

HODGSON

AVONMORE

SCOTTSDALE

ALSTON

BUNTING

JOHN BECK

CHATTERTON

KILMANAGH

GOVERNOR GROVE

PINE RIDGE

WILTON

CHAMNEY

TOWBRIDGE

SCHUBERT

RESEARCH

PEMBERTON

HASLEY

PRIVATE

ELLIOTT

MEADOWLAND0

125

250

375

500

62.5

Meters

±Neighbourhood 1

South Downtown /

Peel Village

Neighbourhood Boundary

Zones

R1A

R1B

R1C

R1D

R2 Zones

Registered Plans by Year

1800's

1900's, 10's, 20's and 30's

40's and 50's

60's and 70's

80's and 90's

2000's

Infill Properties

^Infill -‐ On Lot Under 20% Coverage

!Infill -‐ On Lot Over 20% Coverage

LEGEND

CITY OF BRAMPTON

KEY M

AP

Fig

ure

1

6

Analysis


May 20th, 2014

Neighbourhood 2: Centre Street and Rutherford Road

Figure 2

Analysis


May 20th, 2014

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

^

!

^

!

^

!

!

!

!

!

!

^

!

^

!

!

!

^

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

^

!

!

!

!

MAIN

VODDEN

BOVAIRD

WILLIAMS

KENNEDY

CENTRE

HANSEN

RUTHERFORD

LINKDALE

SOUTHLAKE ARCHDEKIN

STONEYLAKE

ENGLISH

MOORE

SIMMONS

IRONSIDE

SKELTON

TOBA

REIGATE

ROSEPAC

ARCHIBALD

GREENE

GARDEN

HERKLEY

ADAM

GABLE

ISABELLA

COWAN

BRICKYARDPLUTO

HINCHLEY WOOD

BRISCO

SUTHERLAND

BEECH

PROUSE

LANGSTON

GILLINGHAM

YELLOW BRICK

VALONIA

REEVE

WEYBRIDGE

HURONTARIO

SEAHORSE

TINDALE

TAILFIN

QUARRY EDGE

DEEP SEA

SUNFOREST

HIGHWAY 410

CASHEL

DUMFRIES

ROSEBUD

MARATRALEE

TOLTON

GILMORE

MURRAY

ROGERS

ABELL

KINGSWOOD

MILL

CHARTERS

BRAMHALL

NEWTON

PETUNIAS

ALABASTER

CARTER

SKEGBY

SATURN

MAJOR OAKS

BRUCE BEER

BURTON

MCGRAW

MCCULLA

ASHFORDCONES

TOGA

FALLWAY

POST

CARBERRY

ECCLESTONE

STREAMLINE

DUNDALK

SEA LION

GATESGILL

ASHURST

HORNE

BARKWOOD

MERTON

WINTERFOLD

TESSLER

PRESSED BRICK

FISHING

BLACKTHORN

FOSTER

RICHVALE

KINTYRE

WIKANDER

NEWLYN

NEWBY

SEABORN

CHIPWOOD

BURNHOPE

SHOWBOAT

LARKFIELD

MARSHALL

PRIVATE

MANETT

BLOSSOM

COLLINS

BEISEL

CUMBERLAND

HISTON

DANTEK

WILLERTON

RADFORD

LA ROSE

IVYBRIDGE

SWENNEN

CLAYPINE

RUSTHALL

ANTLER

HORSHAM

OLIVE

HOCKLEY

TOBERMORY

SALEM

LAYHAM

CROSSWOOD

BUCKLAND

BRYANT

SLATER

THORSON

CLIPSTONE

FOXACRE

CHERYL

CLARRIDGE

HEART LAKE

CAMBERLEY

CALM WATERS

ELDERWOOD

GORSEBROOK

MARTREE

GARFIELD

DAWSON

ROCKY POINT

SILENT POND

BARONWOOD

GREENLEAF

ASTER

CASTLEWOOD

TOWNSEND

ALISON

PENBURY

CUPOLA

DINGWALL

MURRAY

DUMFRIES

PRIVATE

0125

250

375

500

62.5

Meters

±Neighbourhood 2

Centre Street /

Rutherford Road


Zones

R1A

R1B

R1C

R1D

R2 Zones


1800's

1900's, 10's, 20's and 30's

40's and 50's

60's and 70's

80's and 90's

2000's

Infill Properties



LEGEND

CITY OF BRAMPTON

KEY M

AP

Fig

ure

2

11


May 20th, 2014

Neighbourhood 3: Bramalea – L-Section, Bramalea Woods and Crescent Hill

Figure 3

12

Analysis


May 20th, 2014!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

DIXIE

QUEEN

WILLIAMS

HOWDEN

HIGHWAY 410

VODDEN

ARCHDEKIN

CENTRAL PARK

LAMBETH

HANOVER

LEANDER

LAUREL

CREST

PEEL CENTRE

LA FRANCE

HEATH

HILLSIDE

LISA

LINDEN

MADOC

WEST

HILLDALE

MADRAS

LAIDLAW

HEGGIE

LINDRIDGE

LORRAINE

LADIN

SEABORN

LIONSHEAD

HORTON

PETUNIAS

BRAMHALL

LILLINGTON

HELENA

LAWNDALE

LANCEFIELD

LAMONT

MANSFIELD

LANSDOWNE

LEACREST

BARKWOOD

LORD SIMCOE

LINDHURST

HECTOR

LAKERIDG

E

BINGHAM

LEEWARD

LONE OAK

NORTH PARK

LONGBOURNE

CHIPWOOD

MILFORD

LACEW

OOD

LIBERA

TION

LASCELLES

LOMBARDY

HALEY

TEAM CANADA

HOLLIS

MONTJOY

HOSKINS

CRESCENT HILL

MADELAINE

LIVERY

HERKLEY

HILLBANK

HERCULES

PRIVATE

HOMER

OLIVE

CALM WATERS

MAIDSTONE

HERO

HANDEL

LEATHERHEAD

HABITAT

HAMLET

HOLLY

NEW

BRIDGE

HEDGESON

HOMELAND

HAW

KINS

KENILWO

RTH

ROYAL SALISBURY

HUNTINGTON

LIME RIDGE

LEVINE

HOLMCREST

HAZELGLEN

LOCKSLE

Y

MAYFAIR

HILLPAR

K

HAZELWOOD

HAW

THORN

HEATHER

MELITA

CASTLEWOOD

HIGHLAN

D

HAPSBURG

LUNDYS

HARTNELL

HEATHCLIFFE

LAKEHURST

SILVER MAPLE

LEHAR

HUNTINGWOOD

LANCEWOOD

LARGE

HASTING

NEW

HAMPSHIRE

HOLLYHEDGE

HUCKLEBERRY

NEWCASTLE

HORSESHOE

HUNTER'S

HIGHWAY 410 HIGHWAY 410

HIGHWAY 410

0100

200

300

400

50

Meters

±Neighbo

urho

od 3

Bram

alea: L-‐Section

, Bram

alea W

oods &

Crescent Hill Drive


Zone

s R1A

R1B

R1C

R1D

R2 Zones

Registered

Plans by Year

1800's

1900's, 10's, 20's and 30's

40's and 50's

60's and 70's

80's and 90's

2000's

Infill Prope

rties



LEGEN

D

CITY

OF BR

AMPTON

KEY MAP

Fig

ure

3


May 20th, 2014

Neighbourhood 4: Bramalea – G-Section

Figure 4

Analysis

16

!

!

^

!

!

^

^

!

!!

!

!

!

!

QUEEN

WILLIAMS

TORBRAM

BRAMALEA

CENTRAL PARK

GLENVALE

JILL

GRENOBLE

MACKAY

HILLDALE

GREENB

RIAR

JAYFIELD GREENMOUNT

GLENFOREST

GOLDCREST

BRAMTREE

JORDAN

FLAMINGO

CORPORATION

JEFFERSON

MIKADO

PRECIDIOGLEBE

BRAMKAY

MARKHAM

JACKMAN

GENEVA

PRIVATE

FOLKSTONE

MERIDIAN

JUNIPER

FINSBURY

GRAYMAR

MACDOUGALL

GARSIDE

GLADSTONE

GONDOLA

MAITLAND

GULLIVER

GLENRIDGE

HALEY

FINCHGATE

GLENORA

GABLE

GATEWOOD

FORSYTHIA

GRAHAM

GREENWOOD

GRASSMERE

GATWICKJASON

HAYDEN

GREENWICH

GRASSINGTON

GRISELDA

GROVELAND

GRANBY

JACOBS

HOMER

GLENMORE

HARDCASTLE

GAINSBOROUGH

GATSBY

HEDLEY

HERNON

JASPER

FALLINGDALE

GRENADIER

GRAND VA

LLEYGREENDUST

GAILWOOD

HILDA

HOWDEN

MAYFAIR

GLENGROV

E

GLENFIELD

JEANETTE

GOODWOOD

HURONIA

GARRISON

GLEN ECHO

GLENEADEN

GREENARROW

MAJESTIC

GOLD PINE

HALLCR

OWN

GRAND RIVERGRASSPOINT

GAILGROVE

GLENCAIRN

HAVENB

ROOK

GLENCASTLE

HARTNELL

GARLAN

D

MCGILLIVARY HEMLARK

PRIVATE

HILLDALE

GRASSINGTON

0100

200

300

400

50

Meters

±

Neighbourhood 4

Bramalea: G-‐Section


Zones

R1A

R1B

R1C

R1D

R2 Zones


1800's

1900's, 10's, 20's and 30's

40's and 50's

60's and 70's

80's and 90's

2000's

Infill Properties



LEGEND

CITY OF BRAMPTON

KEY M

AP

Fig

ure

4


May 20th, 2014

4. Current Brampton Practices


May 20th, 2014

Policy Gaps

4.2 Zoning By-law

Table 1

Table 1.

TA

BLE 1

: Z

on

e C

om

paris

on

Ch

art

- B

ram

pto

n M

atu

re N

eig

hb

ou

rh

oo

ds -

R1

& R

2 Z

on

es -

Pro

vis

ion

s f

or S

ing

le D

eta

ch

ed

Dw

ellin

gs

R1

AR

1A

(1

)R

1A

(2

)R

1A

(3

)R

1B

R1

B(1

)R

1B

(2

)R

1B

(3

)R

1C

R1

C(1

)R

1D

R2

AR

2A

(1

)R

2A

(2

)R

2B

R2

B(1

)R

2C

Min

. Lo

t A

rea

630 s

q m

1096 s

q m

882 s

q m

650 s

q m

450 s

q m

557 s

q m

492 s

q m

464 s

q m

360 s

q m

370 s

q m

270 s

q m

450 s

q m

557 s

q m

557 s

q m

(lot)

; 269 s

q

m (

unit)

557 s

q m

450 s

q m

270 s

q m

Min

. Lo

t A

rea

(co

rn

er)

735 s

q m

--

-540 s

q m

--

-450 s

q m

-360 s

q m

540 s

q m

--

-550 s

q m

360 s

q m

Min

. Lo

t W

idth

18 m

30 m

22 m

18 m

15 m

15 m

15 m

15 m

12 m

12 m

9 m

15 m

16.5

m18 m

16.5

m15 m

9 m

Min

. Lo

t W

idth

(co

rn

er)

21 m

--

-18 m

--

-15 m

-12 m

18 m

--

-18 m

12 m

Min

. Lo

t D

ep

th35 m

None

None

None

30 m

None

None

None

30 m

None

30 m

30 m

None

None

None

30 m

30 m

Min

. Fro

nt

Yard

Dep

th6 m

10.6

m9 m

6 m

(pro

vid

ed

gara

ge o

r

carp

ort

is

setb

ack a

t

least

7 m

)

6 m

7.6

m

4.5

m

(pro

vid

ed

gara

ge o

r

carp

ort

is

setb

ack a

t

least

7 m

)

3 m

(pro

vid

ed

centr

e o

f

front

wall o

f

bld

g.

is 4

.5

m,

and

gara

ge o

r

carp

ort

is a

t

least

7m

)

6 m

3 m

(pro

vid

ed

centr

e o

f

front

wall o

f

bld

g.

is 4

.5

m,

and

gara

ge o

r

carp

ort

is a

t

least

7m

)

4.5

m6 m

7.6

m

3 m

(pro

vid

ed

centr

e o

f

front

wall o

f

bld

g.

is 4

.5

m,

and

gara

ge o

r

carp

ort

is a

t

least

7m

)

7.6

m6 m

6 m

Min

. In

terio

r

Sid

e Y

ard

Wid

th

1.2

m for

firs

t

sto

rey,

plu

s

0.6

m for

each a

ddntl

sto

rey

0 m

(pro

vid

ed

adjo

inin

g s

ide

yard

is m

in.

2.4

m,

and n

o

win

dow

s o

n

sid

e;

ort

herw

ise

1.2

m for

firs

t

sto

rey,

plu

s

0.6

m for

each a

ddntl

sto

rey

1.8

m for

firs

t

sto

rey,

plu

s

0.6

m for

each a

ddtn

l

sto

rey

0 m

(pro

vid

ed

adjo

inin

g s

ide

yard

is m

in.

2.4

m,

and n

o

win

dow

s o

n

sid

e;

ort

herw

ise

1.2

m for

firs

t

sto

rey,

plu

s

0.6

m for

each a

ddntl

sto

rey

1.2

m for

firs

t

sto

rey,

plu

s

0.6

m for

each a

ddntl

sto

rey

1.2

m for

firs

t

sto

rey,

plu

s

0.6

m for

each a

ddntl

sto

rey

0 m

(pro

vid

ed

adjo

inin

g s

ide

yard

is m

in.

2.4

m,

and n

o

win

dow

s o

n

sid

e;

ort

herw

ise

1.2

m for

firs

t

sto

rey,

plu

s

0.6

m for

each a

ddntl

sto

rey

0 m

(pro

vid

ed

adjo

inin

g s

ide

yard

is m

in.

2.4

m,

and n

o

win

dow

s o

n

sid

e;

ort

herw

ise

1.2

m for

firs

t

sto

rey,

plu

s

0.6

m for

each a

ddntl

sto

rey

1.2

m o

n o

ne

sid

e,

and 0

.9

m o

n o

ther

sid

e,

with

min

. dis

tance

betw

een

buildin

gs o

f

2.1

m

0 m

(pro

vid

ed

adjo

inin

g s

ide

yard

is m

in.

2.4

m,

and n

o

win

dow

s o

n

sid

e;

ort

herw

ise

1.2

m for

firs

t

sto

rey,

plu

s

0.6

m for

each a

ddntl

sto

rey

1.2

m o

n o

ne

sid

e,

and 0

.9

m o

n o

ther

sid

e,

with

min

. dis

tance

betw

een

buildin

gs o

f

2.1

m

1.2

m for

firs

t

sto

rey,

plu

s

0.6

m for

each a

ddntl

sto

rey

1.2

m for

firs

t

sto

rey,

plu

s

0.6

m for

each a

ddntl

sto

rey

1.2

m for

firs

t

sto

rey,

plu

s

0.6

m for

each a

ddntl

sto

rey;

and

where

no

gara

ge o

r

carp

ort

, 2.4

m

1.2

m for

firs

t

sto

rey,

plu

s

0.6

m for

each a

ddntl

sto

rey

1.2

m for

firs

t

sto

rey,

plu

s

0.6

m for

each a

ddntl

sto

rey

0 m

(if

adja

cent

to a

non R

2C lot)

,

pro

vid

ed m

in.

dis

tance

betw

een

buildin

gs is

1.8

m,

and

both

sid

e

yard

s e

qual

no less t

han

2.1

m

Min

.Exte

rio

r

Sid

e Y

ard

Wid

th3 m

3 m

4.5

m3 m

3 m

3 m

3 m

3 m

3 m

3 m

3 m

3 m

4.5

m3 m

4.5

m3 m

3 m

Min

. R

ear Y

ard

Dep

th7.5

m7.5

m7.5

m7.5

m7.5

m7.5

m7.5

m7.5

m7.5

m

3 m

(pro

vid

ed

centr

e o

f re

ar

wall is n

o

clo

ser

than

7.6

m t

o r

ear

lot

line)

7.5

m7.5

m7.5

m

3 m

(pro

vid

ed

centr

e o

f re

ar

wall is n

o

clo

ser

than

7.5

m t

o r

ear

lot

line)

7.5

m7.5

m7.5

m

Max.

Bu

ild

ing

Heig

ht

10.6

m10.6

m7.6

m10.6

m10.6

m7.6

m10.6

m10.6

m10.6

m10.6

m10.6

m10.6

m7.6

m10.6

m7.6

m10.6

m10.6

m

Max.

Lo

t

Co

verag

eN

one

35%

25%

35%

None

35%

40%

40%

None

45%

None

None

35%

55%

35%

None

None

Min

. Lan

dscap

ed

Op

en

Sp

ace

70%

of fr

ont

yard

(except

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt,

60%

)

70%

of fr

ont

yard

(except

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt,

60%

)

70%

of fr

ont

yard

(except

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt,

60%

)

70%

of fr

ont

yard

(except

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt,

60%

)

60%

of fr

ont

yard

for

inte

rior

lots

;

70%

for

corn

er

lot;

50%

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt

60%

of fr

ont

yard

for

inte

rior

lots

;

70%

for

corn

er

lot;

50%

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt

60%

of fr

ont

yard

for

inte

rior

lots

;

70%

for

corn

er

lot;

50%

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt

60%

of fr

ont

yard

for

inte

rior

lots

;

70%

for

corn

er

lot;

50%

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt

50%

of fr

ont

yard

for

inte

rior

lots

;

60%

for

corn

er

lot;

40%

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt

50%

of fr

ont

yard

for

inte

rior

lots

;

60%

for

corn

er

lot;

40%

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt

40%

of fr

ont

yard

for

inte

rior

lots

;

50%

for

corn

er

lot;

30%

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt

60%

of fr

ont

yard

for

inte

rior

lots

;

70%

for

corn

er

lot;

50%

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt

60%

of fr

ont

yard

for

inte

rior

lots

;

70%

for

corn

er

lot;

50%

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt

50%

of fr

ont

yard

for

inte

rior

lots

;

60%

for

corn

er

lot;

40%

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt

60%

of fr

ont

yard

for

inte

rior

lots

;

70%

for

corn

er

lot;

50%

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt

60%

of fr

ont

yard

for

inte

rior

lots

;

70%

for

corn

er

lot;

50%

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt

50%

of fr

ont

yard

for

inte

rior

lots

;

60%

for

corn

er

lot;

40%

where

sid

e lot

lines

converg

e

tow

ard

s fro

nt

Min

. D

ista

nce

Betw

een

Bu

ild

ing

s

-

2.4

m

betw

een t

wo

1-s

tore

y

buildin

gs;

3.0

m b

etw

een

1.5

or

2-

sto

rey

buildin

gs;

3.6

m in a

ll o

ther

cases

-

2.4

m

betw

een t

wo

1-s

tore

y

buildin

gs;

3.0

m b

etw

een

1.5

or

2-

sto

rey

buildin

gs;

3.6

m in a

ll o

ther

cases

--

2.4

m

betw

een t

wo

1-s

tore

y

buildin

gs;

3.0

m b

etw

een

1.5

or

2-

sto

rey

buildin

gs;

3.6

m in a

ll o

ther

cases

2.4

m

betw

een t

wo

1-s

tore

y

buildin

gs;

3.0

m b

etw

een

1.5

or

2-

sto

rey

buildin

gs;

3.6

m in a

ll o

ther

cases

-2.4

m-

--

--

--

Tab

le 1

21


May 20th, 2014

Table 1

22

Zoning Gaps

4.3 Urban Design &

4.3.1 City of Brampton Development Design Guidelines (August 2003)

Gaps:

4.3.2. City of Brampton Architectural Control Guidelines for Ground Related Development: Part 7 of the Development Design Guidelines (August 2008)


May 20th, 2014

Gaps:

4.3.3 City of Brampton Design Workbook for Upscale Executive Special Policy Areas (September 2000)

Gaps:

4.4 Development Approvals


May 20th, 2014

Approvals Process Gaps

26

5. Best Practices Review

5.1.1 Town of Oakville, Livable Oakville

Study


May 20th, 2014

Applicability

5.1.2 Town of Oakville Technical Paper: Residential Zones (February 4, 2013)

Applicability

5.1.3 City of Newmarket

Areas

Applicability


May 20th, 2014

5.1.4 City of Edmonton Zoning By-law 12800, Section 817 Mature Neighbourhood Overlay

Applicability

Housing in Mature Neighbourhoods (March 21, 2011)

Applicability


May 20th, 2014

5.1.6 The City of Overland Park,

Design Guidelines and Standards (February 2004)

Applicability

5.2 Urban Design &

Architectural Control Best

5.2.1 City of Mississauga New Dwellings, Replacement Housing, and Additions Urban Design Guidelines Design Guidelines and Site Plan Requirements (March 2013)

5.2.2 Town of Oakville Design Guidelines for Stable Residential Communities (2013)


May 20th, 2014

5.2.3 City of Toronto Replacement Housing Guidelines (June 2004)

Housing in Mature Neighbourhoods (March 2011)

5.2.5 City of Calgary Low Density Residential Housing Guidelines for Established Communities (December 2010)

5.2.6 City of Edmonton Residential


May 20th, 2014

5.2.7 Knoxville – The Heart of

Guidelines

5.2.8 The City of Overland Parks

Guidelines and Standards City of Kansas (February 2004)

Options and Design Tools Available Through the Neighbourhood Plan Combining District (NPCD) (March 2011)


May 20th, 2014

6. Summary of Issues and Opportunities Analysis

Development Trends and Mature Neighbourhoods

Zoning

Urban Design and Architectural Control

City’s Development Approvals Process

Best Practices


May 20th, 2014

7. Public Consultation Overview

Question 1.

Question 2.

Question 3.

8. Options


May 20th, 2014

8.2 – Zoning Options

Reduced Lot Coverage:

Average Front Yard Depth:

Building volume / mass cap:

Height to eave:


May 20th, 2014

Rear yard setback based on depth of the lot:

Maximum depth of the dwelling:

Side yard setback based on lot width:

Summary

8.3 – Urban Design Options

Option 1: Status Quo

Option 2: Residential Renovation Guide


May 20th, 2014

Option 3: Mature Neighbourhoods Design Guidelines

Option 4: Mature Neighbourhood Design Guidelines implemented through Site Plan Control

8.4 – Combined Zoning and

Urban Design Option

Option 1: Illustrated Zoning By-law

Figure 5

Fig

ure

5: Exa

mple

of Ill

ust

rate

d Z

onin

g By-

law

(T

ow

n o

f La

Salle

, Onta

rio)


May 20th, 2014

9. Preferred Approach Recommendations9

Recommended Policy:

Replacement dwellings or building additions

to existing dwellings shall be compatible

with the established character of mature

neighbourhoods. Massing, scale and height

of the replacement dwelling or building

Replacement dwellings and or building

additions shall be designed to minimize

loss of privacy and sunlight on neighbouring

properties. Houses should not dominate

the lots. The separation of buildings shall be

consistent with existing separation of buildings

in the neighbourhood. Landscaping and

fencing is encouraged in order to maintain

privacy.

The built form of development,

including scale, height, massing,

architectural character and materials, is

character of the host neighbourhood.

Replacement dwellings or building

additions should be compatible with the

setbacks, orientation and separation

distances within the host neighbourhood.

Impacts on the adjacent properties shall

be minimized in relation to drainage,

access, privacy and shadowing.

Where designated or listed heritage

building are present in a mature

neighbourhood, the integration of heritage

building elements in the design of the

building addition, shall be made to the

greatest extent possible.

Recommended Policy:

Notwithstanding Section 5.7.3, any new

dwelling or addition to an existing dwelling

that is designed and used as a single

detached dwelling shall be subject to site plan

control, only when:

(i) the replacement dwelling, or addition

to an existing dwelling, is located within

Section 5.2; and,

(ii) the addition or replacement dwelling to

an existing dwelling on the lot represents

an increase in Gross Floor Area greater

than 50 square metres of the Gross Floor

Area of the existing dwelling.

A scoped site plan review process will be

used to review proposals subject to this

provision. The scoped site plan process will

only review the proposal in terms of massing,

scale, siting, coverage, setbacks, landscape and

architecture.

9.2 – Zoning

Short Term Zoning Amendment

Minimum Front Yard Depth


May 20th, 2014

Minimum Rear Yard Depth

Minimum Interior Side Yard Width

Maximum Lot Coverage

Maximum Building Height

Maximum Height of Wall to Eave

Longer Term

9.3 – Urban Design

Short Term

Longer Term

mature neighbourhoods policy review: final report...40Õs & 50Õs 60Õs & 70Õs prepared for...

Documents