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
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final 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
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
May 20th, 2014
Neighbourhood 2: Centre Street and Rutherford Road
Figure 2
Analysis
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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
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
2
11
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
May 20th, 2014
Neighbourhood 3: Bramalea – L-Section, Bramalea Woods and Crescent Hill
Figure 3
12
Analysis
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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
Neighbourhood Boundary
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
^Infill -‐ On Lot Under 20% Coverage
!Infill -‐ On Lot Over 20% Coverage
LEGEN
D
CITY
OF BR
AMPTON
KEY MAP
Fig
ure
3
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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
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
4
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
May 20th, 2014
4. Current Brampton Practices
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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)
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
May 20th, 2014
Approvals Process Gaps
26
5. Best Practices Review
5.1.1 Town of Oakville, Livable Oakville
Study
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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)
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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)
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
May 20th, 2014
7. Public Consultation Overview
Question 1.
Question 2.
Question 3.
8. Options
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
May 20th, 2014
8.2 – Zoning Options
Reduced Lot Coverage:
Average Front Yard Depth:
Building volume / mass cap:
Height to eave:
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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)
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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
Mature Neighbourhoods Policy Review: Final Report
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
Top Related