Municipality of Clarington Neighbourhood Character Study Public - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Municipality of Clarington

Neighbourhood Character Study

Public Workshop –September 12, 2019

www.clarington.net/NCS

Agenda

1. Introduction 2. Where We’ve Been 3. Overview of Purpose and Objectives for Tonight’s Workshop 4. Recap of May Workshop and Feedback Received 5. Neighbourhood Features- Feedback and Options to Address 6. Lot Features- Feedback and Options to Address 7. Housing Features- Feedback and Options to Address 8. Breakout Activity 9. Concluding Remarks

www.clarington.net/NCS

Study Purpose

• To better understand the effects on

established residential neighbourhood character by new development

• Address concerns with new lots, new

dwellings and additions to existing dwellings that are not compatible with existing character

• Consider whether changes to the

Municipality’s Zoning By-law 84-63 is needed to balance new development and intensification within existing neighbourhoods

www.clarington.net/NCS

Study Area

• Focused on three established

residential areas

• Mainly zoned “Urban Residential Type

One (R1)”

• Current regulations do not account

for existing neighbourhood character when dealing with heights, setbacks, massing, attached garages and lot coverage

www.clarington.net/NCS

Study Process

www.clarington.net/NCS

Neighbourhood Character

• Neighbourhood Character

is often defined as the collective qualities and characteristics that distinguish a particular area or neighbourhood.

• Neighbourhood character

is often perceived by residents based on values, and is therefore subjective.

• A combination of physical

features and characteristics can help define the character of the area.

NEIGHBOURHOOD RELATED LOT RELATED HOUSING RELATED

Street Trees Sidewalks Streetscape Lotting pattern/street pattern Road widths Other features (e.g. parks) Lot coverage Fencing Trees and landscaping Garages Setbacks Porches & decks Driveways & walkways Architectural style Building materials, colours & textures Building height Size of homes (floor area) Roofline pitch/pattern

www.clarington.net/NCS

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER

www.clarington.net/NCS

WHERE WE’VE BEEN

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

www.clarington.net/NCS

Observed Built Conditions

STUDY AREA 1: ELGIN NEIGHBOURHOOD

10 Prospect Street

• Original compact, walkable grid pattern persists from 1870s
• Close proximity to historic Downtown Bowmanville
• The majority of homes were constructed between 1945 and

2000 (5% built prior to 1900)

• 66% were constructed in the post WWII period as modern

bungalows and smaller workers’ cottages

• Vernacular architectural styles of Gothic Revival, Italianate,

Craftsman, Four Square and Bungalow

• Primarily one to two-storey single-detached dwellings
• 5% of dwellings have cultural heritage value
• Treed boulevards not consistently present (present along

Scugog and Fourth Street)

www.clarington.net/NCS

Observed Built Conditions

STUDY AREA 2: CENTRAL NEIGHBOURHOOD

8 Beech Avenue

• Mixture of original compact grid pattern and modified street

patterns as a result of subsequent development

• Immediately north of historic Downtown Bowmanville
• The majority of homes were constructed prior to 1944 and

maintain larger lot sizes and frontages

• Designated Beech Avenue Heritage Conservation District
• Vernacular architectural styles of Classical Revival, Second

Empire, Italianate, Queen Anne, Tudor Revival, Craftsman, Four Square and Bungalow, as well as Industrial Homes on Carlisle.

• Primarily one and a half to two-storey single-detached dwellings
• 74% of dwellings have cultural heritage value
• Distinctive landscape of treed boulevards and other landscape

features, grass lined verges

www.clarington.net/NCS

Observed Built Conditions

STUDY AREA 3: MEMORIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD

71 Brown Street

• Original compact, walkable grid pattern persists from 1870s
• Immediately south of historic Downtown Bowmanville
• Age of construction varies due to infill and other development

activities

• Development prior to 1914 consists of narrower lots and smaller

yards, while later development consists of wider and larger lots

• Vernacular architectural styles of Gothic Revival Cottages, some

early log home designs, Italianate, Victory, Craftsman and Bungalow.

• Primarily one to two-storey single-detached dwellings
• 28% of dwellings have cultural heritage value
• Treed boulevards not consistently present

www.clarington.net/NCS

• The Study Areas are changing in different ways. Each Area is unique and is

balancing changing lifestyle, preferences and complementary design considerations

• The Study Areas are seen as desirable places to live due to their proximity to

Downtown Bowmanville and surrounding transportation networks

• There are a growing number of seniors looking to have ground-level living
• There are a growing number of young professionals and young families seeking

affordable housing

• A large proportion of changes are coming from new homes being constructed on

large lots that have been severed

• Homes with in-house apartment units and separate front doors for each unit can

visually overwhelm the street

• Change must respect the existing character of the established neighbourhoods and

their elements

• Control of change should be about avoiding adverse impacts instead of minimizing

them

• Regulations should better address elements that define character

What we heard

WALKING TOUR FEEDBACK

www.clarington.net/NCS

Neighbourhood Features

www.clarington.net/NCS

Lot & Housing Features

www.clarington.net/NCS

Top 5 Ranked Features

www.clarington.net/NCS

Feedback Received and Options to Address Change

www.clarington.net/NCS

Based on the current zoning by-law, the following can be built:

• Rebuilt homes and infills
• ften viewed as over-built

within the Study Areas

• This often means that they

are too tall, cover too much

• f the lot, do not fit the

existing character, and are not appropriately setback from the neighbouring homes

www.clarington.net/NCS

Participants received graphic worksheets grouping neighbourhood character elements into three categories

• 1. NEIGHBOURHOOD FEATURES
• Heritage
• Trees
• Parking
• 2. LOT FEATURES
• Lot Area & Frontage
• Lot Coverage
• Landscaped Open Space & Driveways
• Setback & Corner Lots
• Projections
• 3. HOUSING FEATURES
• Dwelling Height
• Garages
• Accessory Buildings & Structures
• Apartment in House

www.clarington.net/NCS

Neighbourhood Features // Heritage FEEDBACK

What We Heard:

• Consider expanding Beech Avenue HCD to include Centre Street and Lovers Lane.
• Veterans Ave should be considered for heritage designation.
• Consider using heritage controls and protect areas and homes surrounding heritage

properties.

• Style of older homes should be preserved.
• Avoid over-restriction due to blanket policies.

www.clarington.net/NCS

Neighbourhood Features // Heritage RECOMMENDATION

Recommendations:

Area 1 a 1: Conduct a heritage study along Veterans Avenue. Area a 2: Conduct a heritage study to expand the Beech Avenue HCD to include Lovers Lane, Centre Street, Alexander Blvd, Liberty Place and Carlisle Avenue. Area a 3: Continue to consider individual properties with heritage value for listing.

**Note: Heritage is not a zoning-related feature. Controlled through other planning tools. Carlisle Ave. Lovers Lane

www.clarington.net/NCS

Neighbourhood Features // Trees FEEDBACK + RECOMMENDATION

What We Heard:

• Create a tree protection by-law requiring replacement of removed trees.
• The character of the area is impacted by the removal of trees.
• Mature trees should be preserved -- they add beauty to streetscapes.
• Caution that property owner’s right to manage tree-related issues that are impacting

their personal enjoyment may be taken away through a protection by-law.

Recommendations:

• 1. Complete a street tree inventory for each area.
• 2. Consider the adoption of a pilot project for a tree protection by-law for all of the

Study Areas that uses a minimum tree diameter and tree species list to identify desired trees for preservation on private and public land.

**Note: Tree By-law is not a zoning-related feature.

www.clarington.net/NCS

Neighbourhood Features // Parking FEEDBACK + RECOMMENDATION

What We Heard:

• On-street parking is not an issue, only see it on weekends or during festivals.
• On-street parking becoming an issue with more renters.
• Would like to see no on-street overnight parking.
• An issue with people parking on the lawn.
• Concession street is dangerous when cars parked on both sides of the street.

Recommendations:

• 1. Review existing parking by-law and consider extending on-street parking restriction

to the hours of 12a.m. and 7a.m, year-round.

• 2. Require that within a front or exterior side yard, parking only be permitted on a

driveway with a minimum length of 5.7m in order to prevent any portion of a vehicle from blocking a sidewalk.

**Note: Recommendation #1 is not a zoning-related feature.

www.clarington.net/NCS

Lot Features // Lot Area & Frontage FEEDBACK + RECOMMENDATION

What We Heard:

• Reduced lot frontages are causing

problems due to reduced parking potential and impacts to neighbourhood character.

• Housing width (setbacks) should be

tied to frontage.

Recommendations:

• 1. Maintain Lot Frontage and Lot Area zoning regulations in order to maintain

neighbourhood layout.

• 2. Reduce Lot Frontage for Interior Lot Single Detached Dwellings from 15m to

12m in Area 3.

www.clarington.net/NCS

Lot Features // Lot Coverage FEEDBACK

What We Heard:

• Lot coverage should be lowered and related

to height.

• Should be related to other homes on the

street.

• Current regulation is too high – 30% and

35% seems more appropriate.

• Current regulations are good – no large

change needed.

www.clarington.net/NCS

Lot Features // Lot Coverage RECOMMENDATION

Recommendations:

• 1. Vary the maximum Lot Coverage in association with increased Height:
• 1 and 1.5-storey dwellings: 35%
• Dwellings greater than 1.5 storeys: 30%

www.clarington.net/NCS

Lot Features // Landscaped Open Space & Driveways FEEDBACK

What We Heard:

• Would like to see a minimum soft landscaped area in front yards.
• Additional soft landscaping to absorb water runoff.
• Don’t want to see parking dominate front yards.
• Driveway widths should be restricted.
• Parking requirements are still necessary.

Landscaped Open Space% =

Landscaping, patio, and deck area ÷ Lot Area x 100

www.clarington.net/NCS

Lot Features // Landscaped Open Space & Driveways RECOMMENDATION

Recommendations:

• 1. Raise the Landscaped Open Space minimum requirement from 30% to 40%.
• 2. Parking spaces for detached, semi-detached and townhouse must not reduce

Landscaped Open Space within the front yard below 50% of the front yard area.

www.clarington.net/NCS

Lot Features // Setbacks FEEDBACK

What We Heard:

• Setbacks should relate to neighbouring houses.
• Setbacks should relate to the height of the dwelling.
• The taller the dwelling, the larger the setbacks should be.
• Front yard setbacks should be increased.
• New home rebuilds are too close to neighbouring homes.
• Uniformity of regulations across all properties takes away from character

www.clarington.net/NCS

Lot Features // Setbacks RECOMMENDATION

Recommendations:

1. Front Yard = 4.5m to dwelling and 6.0m to garage, or the average front yard setback distance of the adjacent dwellings, whichever is greater. Rear Yard = Maintain existing setback of 7.5m. Exterior Side Yard = Maintain existing setback of 6m. Interior Side Yard: Vary the setback in relation to height:

• For dwellings with attached garage = Minimum interior side

yard is 1.2m for the first storey, and an additional 0.6m for each additional full storey above the first storey.

• For dwellings with no attached garage = same as above for
• ne side and 4.5m for the other side yard.

2. Retain existing setback provisions along Liberty Street Corridor, as Liberty Street is recognized as a Regional Corridor that is subject to unique intensification policies and built form policies (e.g. height, density, floor space index).

Current Zoning Recommended Zoning

www.clarington.net/NCS

Lot Features // Projections FEEDBACK + RECOMMENDATION

What We Heard:

• Projections should match the dwelling design and be tasteful.
• No issues, so long as they meet all zoning standards.
• Prefer these over garages on the front of the dwelling.

Recommendations:

• 1. Maintain existing zoning regulations.

www.clarington.net/NCS

Housing Features // Dwelling Height FEEDBACK

What We Heard:

• Heights should be consistent with surrounding houses.
• Height should be related to lot size and setbacks.
• A variety of heights make for a more interesting streetscape.
• 10.5m is too tall.
• Maximum height should fit the average of the neighbourhood.

3.9m 8.0m

www.clarington.net/NCS

Housing Features // Dwelling Height RECOMMENDATION

Recommendations:

1. Reduce the existing building Height maximum from 10.5m to 9.0m to more accurately reflect the established heights within the study areas. Accordingly, revise the Side Yard setbacks to be increased and Lot Coverage to be reduced with increasing Height. 2. No changes to the definition of Height proposed.

www.clarington.net/NCS

Housing Features // Garages FEEDBACK

What We Heard:

• Garages should be detached and set back, with the exception of corner lots.
• Zoning should regulate the position and size of a garage to look proportionate to

the house.

• Do not want to see garages taking over the whole front of homes.
• Should provide adequate parking for each tenant.

Attached Garage Detached Garage

www.clarington.net/NCS

Housing Features // Garages RECOMMENDATION

Recommendations:

1. Remove provision to permit a private garage to extend in front of a dwelling unit. 2. Require 1m setback between a private garage and the front wall of the dwelling. 3. Require minimum outdoor parking space in front of garage of 5.7m by 2.75m. 4. In no circumstance will the width of a front facing garage exceed 25% of the overall site frontage. Protruding Garage Setback Garage

www.clarington.net/NCS

Housing Features // Accessory Buildings & Structures FEEDBACK + RECOMMENDATION

What We Heard:

• Setbacks appear to be appropriate.
• Accessory structure size should be

proportionate to the main dwelling.

• Accessory structure height could be

reduced to respect neighbours and privacy.

Recommendations:

• 1. Maintain existing zoning regulations; or
• 2. Revise Height maximum in proportion to dwelling height:
• 3m for 1 to 1.5 storeys; and
• 4m for 2 to 3 storeys.

www.clarington.net/NCS

Housing Features // Apartment-in-House FEEDBACK + RECOMMENDATION

What We Heard:

• Entrance to apartment unit should not be visible

from the street.

• 2nd entrance should fit the design of the dwelling.
• Additional parking should be in the rear of the

dwelling, if possible.

• No issues, so long as they meet all zoning

standards.

• Need to enforce the zoning on parking for

apartment units.

Recommendations:

1. Revise zoning regulations to conform to Bill 108 requirements; 2 units permitted within primary dwelling and 1 unit permitted within an accessory structure (e.g. detached garage)

• n the lot.

2. Add Official Plan criteria respecting entrance locations for new development containing apartment-in-house. (Note: Recommendation #2 is not a zoning-related feature.)

www.clarington.net/NCS

workshop breakout activity

www.clarington.net/NCS

A series of boards related to elements that define neighbourhood character and options to address each are provided around the room. Please take some time to walk around and review each panel and discuss any questions you may have with project facilitators and other attendees in the room . Identify on the boards with your stickers whether you agree (green), somewhat agree (yellow) or disagree (red) with the proposed option for a specific area or all areas. Additional paper is available for you to provide written comments as well if you would like. Thank you for your participation! We look forward to continue engaging with you as we progress into the next phase of this project!

www.clarington.net/NCS

Next Steps

• Final Report (Early November 2019)
• Recommendations for Amending the Zoning By-law as well

as other potential tools

• Draft Recommended Zoning By-law Amendments (Early

November 2019)

• Statutory Public Meeting (December 2019)
• Revisions to Draft Zoning By-law Amendments (December 2019)
• Recommendation to Council (January 2020)

www.clarington.net/NCS

Thank you!

Carlo Pellarin, Manager Development Review Municipality of Clarington cpellarin@clarington.net 905 623 3379 x 2408 Tracey Webster, Senior Planner Development Review Municipality of Clarington twebster@clarington.net 905 623 3379 x 2415 Amy Burke, Acting Manager Special Projects Municipality of Clarington aburke@clarington.net 905 623 3379 x 2423 Dana Anderson, Partner MHBC Planning danderson@mhbcplan.com 905 639 8686 x 226 Kelly Martel, Associate MHBC Planning kmartel@mhbcplan.com 905 639 8686 x 230