Infill Residential Development in Mature Neighbourhoods Policy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
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
November 25, 2013
Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc.
– Open House – Presentation – Group Discussion (round-table discussions) – Next Steps
law (ICBL) 35-2013
– Applies to zones with single and semi-detached dwellings – Freeze on additions and replacement dwellings exceeding 15%
– Unless Council-approved exemption is granted
protection of mature neighbourhoods.
single detached houses
mature neighbourhoods
inappropriate
To To id identify: entify:
– Gaps in existing City regulations – Opportunities to control infill development in mature neighbourhoods – Options to ensure compatibility
mature neighbourhoods:
Phase 1 1: Background Research
Jan. . 2014
Feb. . 2014
Dec. . 2013
Phase 2 2: Analysis and Options Phase 3 3: Recommendations
We are Here
re-development include:
ity-wid ide m e map ap o
f areas built p uilt prio rior to r to 1980 1980
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
1 2 3 4
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
than permitted in the By-law
coverage, majority under 30%
in height
than permitted in the By-law
coverage
By-law requirement of 7.6 metres
requirements
requirements
requirements (7.6 metres)
coverage;
– whereas By-law permits max. of 35%-40% – in some cases, no max. requirement
– whereas By-law permits max. height of 10.6m
– Extensive mature landscaping
– Many single-car driveway widths – Many homes with carports or without garages
– Lot coverage – Height – Front, side and rear yard setbacks
Existing Lot Coverage
Permitted Lot Coverage
(common in many mature neighbourhods) 35% - 40% Some zones have NO NO max. permitted lot coverage
Existing Height
Permitted Height
Peaked Roof: Peaked Roof: Height measured to mid-point between eaves and ridge Flat Roof: Flat Roof: Height measured to highest point of roof surface 8.0 m 8.0 m mid-point of mid-point of peaked roof peaked roof 10.6 m 10.6 m 10.6 m 10.6 m flat roof flat roof 5.0 m 5.0 m
Existing Yard Setbacks Existing Yard Setbacks Existing Yard Setbacks Existing Yard Setbacks Permitted Yard Setbacks Permitted Yard Setbacks R1B Zone R1B Zone
– Based on average lot coverage in an area – For example:
coverage of 25%
Average Front Yard Depth
ermitted Front Yard Setback = Average of Adjacent Properties
Could be a “Quick Fix uick Fix”
– PROS
– CONS
– Create new Mature Neighbourhood Zone category with sub-zones based on character of area – Consider other additional zoning regulations, including:
– 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
– 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
based on lot depth
– Regulation could require a minimum rear yard to be a certain percentage of the lot depth (e.g. 40%)
Maximum dwelling depth
– As an alternative to minimum rear yard depth requirements, regulation could be used for max. dwelling depth
– Requiring minimum side yards based on width of a lot – The greater the lot width, the greater the side yard
– Restricting the width of driveways
– PROS
– CONS
policies through a variety of design illustrations.
approvals process.
Neighbourhoods Design Guidelines to address:
façade design in response to its context such as:
public open spaces, etc.
entrance treatment, driveways
treatment material; and/or
Horizontal Siding ?? Stucco ??
Urban Design & Architectural Design Guidelines Pros and Cons
its surrounding context …. however
review step needs to be implemented; and,
– Interim “Quick Fix” Solution
– Long-Term Zoning Review
based on character of area
– Develop “Mature Neighbourhood” Design Guidelines
neighbourhood. – What things do you dislike about recent building additions,
– What things do you like about recent building additions or new homes in your neighbourhood?
ensure they fit with the character of your neighbourhood?
– height of eaves – front yard – width of driveway – side yard setbacks – Garage width – building depth – rear yard size
regulated?
– massing and location on a lot – location of the garage – design of the roof line – colour and type materials used in the buildings
– Finalize Options – Recommendation Report – Statutory Public Meeting – Council Adoption
– Interim Control By-law (ICBL)
– Expires February 28, 2014, possible extension of ICBL if necessary
– Quick Fix Option: 6-12 months – Long Term Option: 1-2 years
Please co lease complete a co lete a comment sheet. ent sheet.
For further information please contact:
Natasha Rea, , MCIP, RPP Land Use Policy Planner III Planning, Design and Development City of Brampton 2 Wellington Street W, Brampton, ON L6Y 4R2 905-874-3861 Natasha.Rea@brampton.ca