City of Brampton Infill Residential Development in Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review Public Workshop November 25, 2013 Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc.
Welcome and Introduction Welcome and Introduction • Welcome • Workshop Agenda – Open House – Presentation – Group Discussion (round-table discussions) – Next Steps
Interim Control By-law Interim Control By-law • February 2013, City Council passed Interim Control By- law (ICBL) 35-2013 – Applies to zones with single and semi-detached dwellings – Freeze on additions and replacement dwellings exceeding 15% of the existing gross floor area – Unless Council-approved exemption is granted • This study is to examine potential solutions for the protection of mature neighbourhoods.
Background Context Background Context • Across Greater Golden Horseshoe - trend for larger single detached houses • Increased pressure for infill and redevelopment of mature neighbourhoods • Can result in change in character that is not desired or inappropriate
Purpose of the Study Purpose of the Study To To id identify: entify: – Gaps in existing City regulations – Opportunities to control infill development in mature neighbourhoods – Options to ensure compatibility ompatibility of new development within mature neighbourhoods: o Policy and Zoning o Approvals Process o Urban Design / Architectural Control
Study Process Study Process Phase 1 1: Background Research • Issues and Opportunities Report Phase 2 2: Analysis and Options We are Here • Public Workshop • Finalizing Options Dec. . 2013 Phase 3 3: Recommendations • Official Plan, Zoning, Guidelines Jan. . 2014 • Statutory Public Meeting Feb. . 2014
Brampton’ ’s Mature Neighbourhoods s Mature Neighbourhoods Brampton • Mature neighbourhoods with the greatest potential for re-development include: o Time of construction: prior to the 80’s o High proportion of lots with 20% lot coverage or less
Brampton’ ’s Mature Neighbourhoods s Mature Neighbourhoods Brampton • City-w ity-wid ide m e map ap o of areas b f areas built p uilt prio rior to r to 1980 1980
Brampton’ ’s Mature Neighbourhoods s Mature Neighbourhoods Brampton • Areas b reas built p uilt prio rior to r to 1980 w 1980 with less than 20% ith less than 20% co coverage verage Built prior to 1980 Built prior to 1980 Built prior to 1980 & Built prior to 1980 & Less than 20% Coverage Less than 20% Coverage
Study Neighbourhoods Study Neighbourhoods • 4 Study Neighbourhoods were selected: 1. South of Downtown / Peel Village 2. Centre Street and Rutherford Road 3. Bramalea: L-Section, Bramalea Woods and Crescent Hill 4. Bramalea: G-Section 2 4 3 1
South of Downtown/Peel Village South of Downtown/Peel Village
South of Downtown/Peel Village South of Downtown/Peel Village • Larger front, side and rear yard setbacks than permitted in the By-law • Many properties under 20% lot coverage, majority under 30% • No minimum lot coverage in By-law • Many bungalows (height of 4-5 metres) • By-law permits max. height of 10.6m
Centre Street/Rutherford Road Centre Street/Rutherford Road
Centre Street/Rutherford Road Centre Street/Rutherford Road • Most homes range from 5 to 8 metres in height • By-law permits max. height of 10.6m • About ¼ are under 30% coverage • Maximum permitted coverage is 40% • Homes could potentially double in size
Bramalea: L-Section, : L-Section, Bramalea Bramalea Woods & Woods & Bramalea Crescent Hill Drive Crescent Hill Drive
Bramalea: L-Section, : L-Section, Bramalea Bramalea Woods & Woods & Bramalea Crescent Hill Drive Crescent Hill Drive • Larger front, side and rear yard setbacks than permitted in the By-law • Many properties under 20% lot coverage • By-law permits max. 25%-35% coverage • Most homes 2-storeys in height; reflects By-law requirement of 7.6 metres
Bramalea: G-Section : G-Section Bramalea
Bramalea: G-Section : G-Section Bramalea • Front and side yards reflect By-law requirements • Rear yards are much larger than By-law requirements • Building heights are reflective of By-law requirements (7.6 metres) • Many properties under 20% lot coverage; • By-law permits max. 35% coverage
Observed Trends Observed Trends • Larger front, side and rear yard setbacks than permitted in the By-law • Many properties under 20% lot coverage; – whereas By-law permits max. of 35%-40% – in some cases, no max. requirement • Many bungalows have height of 4-5 metres – whereas By-law permits max. height of 10.6m
Observed Trends Observed Trends • Other physical traits for which there are no corresponding By-law requirements: – Extensive mature landscaping – Many single-car driveway widths – Many homes with carports or without garages
Current Zoning Current Zoning • Existing neighbourhood character is not reflected in current zoning in terms of: – Lot coverage – Height – Front, side and rear yard setbacks
Current Zoning Current Zoning Existing Lot Coverage Permitted Lot Coverage Approx. 10% - 20% 35% - 40% (common in many mature Some zones have NO NO max. neighbourhods) permitted lot coverage
Current Zoning Current Zoning Existing Height Permitted Height mid-point of mid-point of peaked roof peaked roof 8.0 m 8.0 m 10.6 m 10.6 m 5.0 m 5.0 m flat roof flat roof Peaked Roof: Peaked Roof: Height measured to mid-point between 10.6 m 10.6 m eaves and ridge Flat Roof: Flat Roof: Height measured to highest point of roof surface
Current Zoning Current Zoning Permitted Yard Setbacks Permitted Yard Setbacks Existing Yard Setbacks Existing Yard Setbacks Existing Yard Setbacks Existing Yard Setbacks R1B Zone R1B Zone
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
POTENTIAL INTERIM SOLUTIONS POTENTIAL INTERIM SOLUTIONS • Reduce Lot Coverage – Based on average lot coverage in an area – For example: • Zoning permits max. lot coverage of 40% in an area • Actual average lot coverage in this given area is 20% - 25% • New development would only be permitted at a maximum lot coverage of 25% • Could be a “Quick Fix”
POTENTIAL INTERIM SOLUTIONS POTENTIAL INTERIM SOLUTIONS Average Front Yard Depth • Permitted Front Yard Setback = Average of Adjacent Properties ermitted Front Yard Setback = Average of Adjacent Properties • Could be a Could be a “Quick Fix uick Fix”
POTENTIAL INTERIM SOLUTIONS POTENTIAL INTERIM SOLUTIONS • Interim Zoning Changes: – PROS • Relatively quick implementation • Triggered during zoning review (Building Permit Process) • No additional approvals required beyond minor variance process – CONS • Does not offer solution for all issues
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS • Long Term Zoning Review – Create new Mature Neighbourhood Zone category with sub-zones based on character of area – Consider other additional zoning regulations, including: • Building volume / mass cap • Height to eave • Rear yard setback based on lot depth • Dwelling depth • Restricting extent of paved surfaces
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS • Building volume / mass cap – Regulates dwelling mass in addition to coverage – Uses ratio of floor area to lot area – Beneficial to limit large multi-storey homes in areas of one- storey and split-level homes
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS • Height to eave – Currently, height is measured to the mid-point of peaked roof, or highest point of a flat roof – Regulation could require maximum height of eave to reduce the height of the wall – Results in houses looking less high Height Height to eave to eave
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS • Rear yard setback based on lot depth – Regulation could require a minimum rear yard to be a certain percentage of the lot depth (e.g. 40%)
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS Maximum dwelling depth – As an alternative to minimum rear yard depth requirements, regulation could be used for max. dwelling depth
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS • Side yard setback based on lot width – Requiring minimum side yards based on width of a lot – The greater the lot width, the greater the side yard • Restricting paved surfaces – Restricting the width of driveways
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS • Long Term Zoning Review – PROS • Done at time of comprehensive review of zoning by-law • Greater controls on size and mass of dwelling • Triggered during zoning review (building permit stage) – CONS • Longer implementation process
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS 1. Develop Mature Neighbourhoods Design Guidelines o Design Guidelines are documents that exemplify land use policies through a variety of design illustrations. o They are developed to inform builders, developers and owners and are used by the City during the development approvals process.
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS 1. Develop Mature Neighbourhoods Design Guidelines to address: o Site Planning: façade design in response to its context such as: o view corridors; o corner lots; o “T” intersections; and, o fronting or backing onto public open spaces, etc.
Recommend
More recommend
