Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS)

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS)"

Transcription

1 Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS)

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In December 2015, the City of Kitchener retained Meridian Planning Consultants to undertake the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS). The purpose of this study is to review the City s current planning approval process for new development in the established neighbourhoods to determine if changes are necessary. The study process is divided into three parts, these include: background review, evaluation of options and the preferred option. Each task involves regular consultation and input from the public and stakeholders. The City s current planning framework promotes intensification and directs intensification to take place primarily (but not exclusively) in the downtown area, main corridors, and other growth areas that are generally served by transit. However, change is also expected in the City s established neighbourhoods. Many Ontario municipalities have grappled with the issue of how to manage intensification in established neighbourhoods and have developed strategies in response. These strategies were developed in an effort to ensure that redevelopment was compatible with existing housing and to ensure that the impact of redevelopment on the character of the neighbourhood was minimized. Land use compatibility has been a common issue under consideration by municipalities and at numerous Ontario Municipal Board hearings. In an often-quoted decision of the Ontario Municipal Board dated August 11, 2006 (Decision/Order # 2263), a reference is made on page 7 of that decision to the language in another Decision: "when he said being compatible with is not the same as being the same as. Being compatible with is not even the same thing as being similar to. Being similar to implies having a resemblance to another thing; they are like one another, but not completely identical. Being compatible with implies nothing more than being capable of existing together in harmony." While the location of buildings, driveways and other elements of development on a site are important considerations in existing low density residential neighbourhoods, it is quite often the architectural style and the bulk and massing of a proposed development that has the most important impact on the character of a street, area or neighbourhood. However, it is the architectural style that are the most difficult to regulate. Another subjective component is the defining character of the neighbourhood itself. Given the different ages at which neighbourhoods develop, it is recognized that there are many different types of neighbourhoods with many different character traits, and that it is important to understand that certain characteristics are not necessarily better than others. The character of a neighbourhood is a reflection of how the defining elements of the built form and setting are consistent (or not). In our view, the more consistency there is amongst the above main defining elements, the more obvious the character is. After the character of any neighbourhood is identified, then the challenge is to determine how that community character can be affected by new development. When there is a predominant consistency, new ii

3 development should be evaluated to ensure it is in keeping with the surrounding character. However, it is often difficult to determine how significant a change or new development will have on a neighbourhood and whether the potential change is significant enough not to permit the proposed change to occur. There are some instances where changing the character of the neighbourhood is desirable, if other public interest objectives are met. An example of this may be where dwelling units within a neighbourhood are beyond repair and urban redevelopment is encouraged to improve the quality of life' in that area. However, in cases where change affects the character to an extent that there is a perceived decrease in the quality of life or sense of place, then that change is not appropriate, especially in already stable communities. The above are some of the factors considered in developing the options available to the City moving forward. These options are summarized in the table below. Category Options 1. Changing existing zoning rules 2. Apply new zoning rules Zoning Rule Changes Change the zoning on certain streets to better reflect 3. character Official Plan Policy Establish policies that direct that character areas be 4. Changes established through zoning or other tools Urban Design Manual 5. Expand the existing Urban Design Manual standards for infill projects Changes to existing 6. Expand site plan control to singles, semi-detached, and/or duplex dwellings in some areas (requires change to Official Plan) processes 7. Change Notice policies for Planning Act processes 8. Implement Cultural Heritage Landscape Study in some Establish a New Process for Some or All of the Study Area Public Information and Awareness (about intensification) areas 9. Develop a Streetscape Character Analysis requirement to be implemented in zoning by-law 10. Establish a Development Permit System 11. Create a guide for infill development To a large extent, the modification of existing zoning rules or the addition of new rules (Options 1, 2 and 3 above) would have a direct impact on primarily rebuilds and additions on existing lots. However, these rules if changed or applied would also affect new development on new lots as well. The changing of the rules along certain streets may also have an impact on the uses that are permitted on those streets. There are a number of options with respect to the types of changes that could be made to the Official Plan (Option 4). These range from developing character area specific policies to general policies that provide additional guidance on the review of applications. iii

4 The City s Urban Design Manual sets out guidelines for infill development in the central neighbourhoods. It also speaks to development objectives in the suburban areas. Updates to the Urban Design Manual (Option 5) could assist in making them more effective when applied in the Study Area. Changing the City s existing planning application processes (Options 6, 7 and 8) could enhance the current processes by building on the current practice. This could include applying site plan control to single, semi-detached and/or duplex dwellings (currently the practice is only for triplexes and up). In addition, changes to notice policies could provide the public with more access and knowledge regarding development activity in the City. Lastly the City could build on completed studies such as the Cultural Heritage Landscape Study in implementing further tools that provide a mechanism for heritage conservation. Establishing a new process in the way the City considers and approves development applications (Options 9 and 10) could have a number of impacts on City resources and potentially introduce a considerable amount of complexity into the process. However, such a process may also provide for the subjectivity and discretion that may be deemed necessary to consider applications for development on a case-by-case basis. Lastly, the City could consider the creation of a guide for infill development in the central and Vanier neighbourhoods (by the entire area as a whole or by neighbourhood) as a resource for the development community, the public and Council (Option 11). This would contribute to public awareness about intensification and the processes required for residential development in established neighbourhoods. There are clearly pros and cons with every approach introduced above. The intent of this is not to recommend a course of action in this regard. Instead, the intent of this Report is simply to identify options, and then determine which ones are feasible and which ones are not (based on the review of these options by Council, staff, stakeholders and members of the general public and business community). Once feedback has been received, the next step involves the making of recommendations on what the appropriate course of action should be. Our intent in the sections that follow is to objectively present the options, how and where they have been implemented and to identify potential pros and cons of each. It is recognized that the identification of what is a pro and a con is very subjective because for example, the more restrictive zoning rule may be considered to be a positive thing to the general public but construed in a negative light by developers, homeowners interested in making a change to their property and others. Another factor to consider in all of this is what the implications of any change will be on the amount or rate of intensification that will occur in the City of Kitchener in the future. The benefits of intensification are well documented in terms of the additional investments being made in the community, the provision of additional housing choices, the financial benefits to homeowners and landowners and the ability to provide housing iv

5 that is more affordable and located close to the many social services that are typically provided in central parts of most Cities and Towns. This is the challenge we have as the authors of this Report and the challenge the City has in determining the best way forward. Our job is to make sure the conversation is as informed at possible. v

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II 1.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY Background Meridian Planning Retained by City STUDY PROCESS INTENSIFICATION IN KITCHENER Introduction Summary of Building Permit Applications ( ) Summary of Rezoning Applications ( ) Summary of Minor Variance Applications ( ) Summary of Site Plan Applications ( ) Summary of Demolition Control Applications ( ) Development Potential on Vacant Parcels ZONING IN THE STUDY AREA Introduction What Can Happen As of Right in the Study Area Residential Two (R-2) Zone Residential Three (R-3) Zone Residential Four (R-4) Zone Residential Five (R-5) Zone Residential Six (R-6) Zone Residential Seven (R-7) Zone Summary and Conclusions PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESSES Rezoning Consent Minor Variance Site Plan Approval Heritage Permit BRINGING IT BACK TO KITCHENER Intensification is expected in the Study Area Some Challenges to Consider 35 vi

7 6.2.1 Land Use Compatibility Neighbourhood Character Interface Considerations MOVING FORWARD WITH OPTIONS Introduction Zoning Rule Changes Option 1 Change Existing Zoning Rules Option 2 Apply New Zoning Rules Changing Zone Standards or Creating Overlay Zones Option 3 Change the Zoning on Certain Streets Official Plan Policy Changes Option 4 Establish Policies that Direct that Character Areas be established through Zoning or Other Tools Update Urban Design Manual Option 5 Updates to the Urban Design Manual Changes to Existing Processes Option 6 Expand Site Plan Control Option 7 Change Notice Policies for Planning Act Processes Option 8 Implement Cultural Heritage Landscape Study Establish a New Process for Some or All of the Study Area Option 9 Develop a Streetscape Character Analysis Process Option 10 Establish a Development Permit System Public Information and Awareness Option 11 Create a Guide for Infill Developments Summary of Option Implications CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 73 APPENDIX 1 74 APPENDIX 2 92 APPENDIX vii

8 1.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY 1.1 Background The City of Kitchener is a growing and changing mid-sized city. The City s current planning framework promotes intensification and directs intensification to take place primarily (but not exclusively) in the downtown area, main corridors, and other growth areas that are generally served by transit. Outside of these areas are established neighbourhoods where limited intensification and change overall is expected to occur. Established neighbourhoods are generally more static than other areas and, as such, can be negatively impacted by intensification or other forms of change if not directed or managed appropriately in accordance with their unique contexts. Although the concept of intensification is widely understood, there is no universal definition and perceptions of what might constitute intensification can vary, especially in the case of residential intensification. Residential Intensification is defined in the new City of Kitchener Official Plan as follows: Intensification of a property, site or area which results in a net increase in residential units or accommodation, and includes: a) Redevelopment, including the redevelopment of brownfield sites; b) The development of vacant or underutilized lots within previously developed areas; c) Infill development; d) The conversion or expansion of existing industrial, commercial and institutional buildings for residential use; and, e) The conversion or expansion of existing residential buildings to create new residential units or accommodation, including accessory apartments, second dwelling units and rooming houses." The intent of the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study ('the Study') is to address all of these forms of residential intensification. It is noted however that the types of intensification described in clauses a) through to c) have been more challenging than types d) and e) and are expected to be the primary focus. The Study will also address the following situations that may or may not fit one of the above-noted definitions: Where an existing single detached dwelling is expanded or demolished and replaced by a new single detached dwelling that is different in scale or location on the lot compared to what exists on the immediate street; and, Where a new multiple dwelling (typically 3-12 storeys) apartment is proposed in an area that is predominantly low-rise residential and not necessarily within one of the City s nodes or corridors. 8

9 There are several staff reports to the City s Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee of Council that provide background and context to the issues along with outlining a number of actions that have already been taken, are in progress, or are planned. In August 2013, staff report CSD ( Residential Intensification Infill Housing ) discussed the topic and outlined a number of immediate or interim actions, including adjustments to certain zoning items, urban design guidelines and process matters. Over the past two years, Council continued to receive and identify ongoing issues with various scales of intensification developments and applications. Eventually, this Study was added to the City s Corporate Business Plan in the beginning of There are several major planning studies that are currently underway that relate to this Study in some way and will be informed by the results. This includes the Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) study, which has completed two phases of system-wide work and is now in the midst of three of five projects for specific station areas. Areas of focus and areas of influence have been recommended for each station area. The latter category typically includes established residential neighbourhoods with many ground-oriented homes that are in good condition. It is expected that the results of this Study will inform how to address intensification in these respective areas with more emphasis given to the areas of influence whose land use (low rise residential) likely will change through station area planning. Another project is the Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By-law (CRoZBy), which includes a review of all of the existing residential zones and residentially - zoned properties within the City. It is expected that the results of this Study would influence the zoning provisions properties within the Study Area. A future project that is scheduled to start in the fall of 2016 is the review of City's Urban Design Manual. The current Manual includes a subsection and several guidelines aimed at infill development. It is expected that the preparation of this Study will inform the preparation of more comprehensive guidelines to be added to the Manual. 1.2 Meridian Planning Retained by City In December 2015, the City of Kitchener ( City ) retained Meridian Planning Consultants ( MPC ) to complete the Study. The established neighbourhoods are generally referred to as the City s central neighbourhoods and Vanier Planning community (see Figure 1 on next page). There are several ways that residential intensification can and does occur in the City s established neighbourhoods. These include the: Modification of an existing single detached dwelling to add one or more dwelling units either internally or in a building addition; Replacement of a single-detached or duplex dwelling on an existing lot and additions; Redevelopment of existing lots at higher densities; Adaptive reuse of existing non-residential buildings or properties; 9

10 Development of vacant or underutilized lots; and Assembly of abutting lots to permit higher density development. Figure 1: Area (Central neighbourhoods and Vanier planning community). The objective of the Study is to review the planning and approval processes for the types of intensification listed above. This will involve a review of what is currently permitted as of right by the City's Official Plan and zoning by-law, because it is these two documents that set out what is permitted. For each type of intensification scenario, the Study will recommend: The rules that should apply to new intensification proposals depending upon the context; The criteria to be applied when considering development applications within the RIENS area and on immediately adjacent lands; A potential range of conditions to be applied to future approvals; The tools available to the City to plan for and react to applications; and 10

11 The planning approval processes that should be established (or maintained) for each application, and potentially by area. This reviews the study process, describes the refined Study Area, summarizes the state of intensification in the City of Kitchener, and provides a review of best practices to managing residential intensification in established neighbourhoods. Also included is a suite of options for consideration by City Council, staff and the public. For the purpose of this Report, the RIENS study will be referred to as the Study and the Area will be referred to as the Study Area. It is recognized that the Study Area is very large. However, the focus of the Study is only on those lands that are designated in the Official Plan and zoned for low-density residential uses. Lands that are designated and/or zoned for higher density uses and commercial, industrial and institutional uses are not the subject of the Study. 11

12 2.0 STUDY PROCESS The Study process includes three key tasks: background review, preparation of options, and determining the preferred option(s). Each task involves regular consultation and input from the public and stakeholders. The completion of this Issues and Options marks the early stage of Task 2 in the Study process. Below are the key activities that have been/will be carried out in each task of the study process (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Study process. Meridian Planning Consultants is the primary consulting team whose responsibilities include: preparing reports and deliverables; managing the project with City Staff support; managing sub-consultants; gathering information and considering input from Council, stakeholder and the public. 12

13 3.0 INTENSIFICATION IN KITCHENER 3.1 Introduction The Region of Waterloo Official Plan requires urban municipalities, such as the City of Kitchener, to achieve a minimum of 45% of all new residential development within its Built-Up Area (BUA). The Study Area is entirely in the Built-Up Area (see Figure 3 below). Figure 3: Built-Up Area (medium purple) in the City of Kitchener. In 2009 the City of Kitchener adopted the Kitchener Growth Management Strategy (KGMS) that established the foundation for the growth management program. The strategy provides a long-term framework for planning where and how future residential and employment growth can be accommodated in Kitchener. The Kitchener Growth Management Monitoring Report is prepared annually and tracks the potential capacity to accommodate growth both within the Built-Up Area (Intensification Areas) and in the Designated Greenfield Area and the achievement of residential intensification targets and density targets. 13

14 As of August 2015, the City s current intensification level of 49% and a 5-year average intensification level of 48% in the Built-Up Area exceeded the Region s intended intensification target of 45%. Figure 4 (below) illustrates the historic intensification levels in Kitchener since Figure 4: Intensification in the Built-Up Area (2001 to January 2015) in the City of Kitchener. (Report CSD Kitchener Growth Management Strategy 2015 Annual Monitoring Report ) The City has reported a relatively high intensification level in the past decade, however Figure 4 (above) shows several peaks and dips. The City attributes this pattern to the timing of approvals for significant developments as this can impact the reporting rate. Table 1 (below) identifies the 5-year average intensification levels from June 2001 to June 2015 that indicate the City is on track for achieving Regional intensification levels. Table 1: 5-year average intensification levels in the City of Kitchener (Report CSD Kitchener Growth Management Strategy 2015 Annual Monitoring Report ). The annual Growth Management Monitoring Report does not specify intensification by the neighbourhoods that comprise the Study Area. Part of the background research that was completed as part of the first task of the study was the completion of a technical background memorandum by City staff dated January 13, 2016 that outlines development activity in the Study Area. It is noted that the development activity memorandum separated development activity into different geographies in the Study Area and reported for the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 (from January until November). The two geographic areas by 14

15 which the data is separated are identified as the central neighbourhoods and the Vanier Planning Community that is shown on Figure 1 (see page 10) of this report. On the basis of the above, the following sections provide a summary of the development activity from the technical background memorandum prepared by City staff. While the focus of the tables below is on the central neighbourhoods and the Vanier Planning Community area (as indicated above), it is noted that the technical memorandum provides statistics for development in these areas including along mixed-use corridors that are not included in the Study Area. 3.2 Summary of Building Permit Applications ( ) The development of any new residential unit in the City of Kitchener requires a building permit and potentially additional planning approvals. In some cases, however, a building permit may be the only City approval required for a new development. For example, if a proposed development of a single detached, duplex, or semi-detached dwelling meets the zoning standards, a building permit would be the only approval required. This section summarizes the number of new residential units created through building permits (see Tables 2 and 3 below). Table 2: New residential dwelling units created through building permits in the central neighbourhoods Total Single-detached Semi-detached Duplex Townhouse (1) Multiple (2) Total (!) Townhouses include street-fronting townhomes. (2) Multiples include apartments, triplexes, qudraplexes, and cluster townhouses. Low-density housing types, such as single-detached and semi-detached dwellings, comprise a small number of new residential dwelling units that have been developed in the central neighbourhoods between 2011 and On the contrary, the development of duplex dwellings and particularly multiple dwellings has been much greater. Specifically, in 2014 the number of multiple dwelling units created was significantly higher than other forms of new residential dwelling units. This is reflective of City-wide trends in 2014, where 63% of the total new residential units were comprised of multiple dwellings in the form of four high-rise apartment buildings and newer forms of stacked townhouse units and low-rise multiple units (as referenced in report CSD Kitchener Growth Management Strategy 2015 Annual Monitoring Report ). Some new residential dwelling units were also created between 2011 and 2015 in the Vanier Planning Community area (see Table 3, next page). 15

16 Table 3: New residential dwelling units created through building permits in the Vanier Planning Community Total Single-detached Semi-detached Duplex Total New residential dwelling units in the Vanier Planning Community have generally been in the form of semi-detached dwellings or duplex dwellings. The table above indicates that there has been a steady increase in the development of new duplex dwellings between 2011 and 2015, while the creation of semi-detached dwelling units has generally been the same each year. 3.3 Summary of Rezoning Applications ( ) In contrast to the significant development activity occurring through the building permit process as described above, only five applications for re-zoning in the Study Area were submitted between 2011 and The general intent of the rezoning applications was to add a residential use or vary a regulation that could potentially allow for additional units (i.e. floor space ratio or height). The table below (Table 4) identifies the number of rezoning applications that were received and approved in each year in the central neighbourhoods and the Vanier Planning Community area. Table 4: Rezoning applications by type Number of Applications Received Central Vanier Number of Applications Approved Central Vanier Given the significant amount of development that has occurred without a re-zoning being required, it is clear that the City's zoning by-law is generally permissive (as will be discussed later in this report). 3.4 Summary of Minor Variance Applications ( ) Contrary to the above, the City received and approved a greater number of minor variances between 2011 and 2015 (see Table 5, next page). Minor variances, in general, are submitted with the intent of making a minor change to an existing zoning by-law standard or regulation. The majority of the minor variance applications submitted were for lands in the central neighbourhoods (94%) compared to the Vanier Planning Community Area (6%). 16

17 Table 5: Minor variance applications received and approved in the central neighbourhoods and Vanier Planning Community area between 2011 and Number of Applications Received and Approved Central Vanier Total Between 2011 and 2015, the number of submitted and approved minor variance applications peaked in 2012 with a total of 31 submitted and approved applications, however a decline in the number of applications received and approved has been noted since then. With reference to Figure 5 above, 2012 is the same year that the City saw a sharp decline in reported intensification (below 30%) in the built up area. As indicated previously, timing of approvals for larger developments can impact the reporting rate of intensification. It is noted that the applications and approvals for minor variance were almost entirely in the central neighbourhoods compared to the Vanier Planning Community area, however the graphics below (Figures 5 and 6) identify the types of zoning standards that were altered through the minor variance applications in each area. Figure 5: Types of standards in minor variance applications in the central neighbourhoods. Figure 6: Types of standards in minor variance applications in the Vanier Planning Community area. Changing the side yard, front yard, and rear yard setback standards were the most common types of minor variances. 17

18 3.5 Summary of Site Plan Applications ( ) The City of Kitchener does not require site plan approval for single-detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, or duplex dwellings. This means that the summary of site plan applications addressed in this section only include dwellings with three or more units such as townhouse dwellings and multiple dwellings in the Central neighbourhoods and Vanier Planning Community area (see Table 6). Table 6: Residential site plan applications received and approved in the Central neighbourhoods and Vanier Planning Community between 2011 and Number of applications received Central Vanier Number of applications approved Central Vanier A number of site plan applications were submitted and approved between 2011 and 2015, with the exception of applications submitted in 2014 of which 10 applications were submitted but did not gain approval in the same year. Development of townhouse dwellings and multiple dwellings was found to be much more prevalent in the Central neighbourhoods than in the Vanier Community Planning area where only one application was submitted between 2011 and Higher residential development, such as townhouse dwellings and multiple dwellings, require appropriate zoning that occurs more frequently in the Central neighbourhoods than in the Vanier Planning Community area. 3.6 Summary of Demolition Control Applications ( ) The purpose of Demolition Control (under the Planning Act) is primarily to prevent the premature loss of viable housing stock and the creation of vacant parcels of land. The City of Kitchener has established a Demolition Control Area that includes properties zoned Residential One (R-1) through Residential Six (R-6) only. Table 7 below summarizes the number of applications that have been approved to demolish residential units in the Central neighbourhoods and Vanier Planning Community area. Table 7: Approved applications to demolish residential units in the Central neighbourhoods and Vanier Planning Community area between 2011 and Central neighbourhoods Single-detached Duplex Multiples Vanier Planning Community area Single-detached The number of applications approved in 2012 and 2013 were much higher compared to other years for a range of housing types that include single-detached, duplex, and 18

19 multiple dwellings. The majority of applications for demolition control have been for single-detached dwellings. 3.7 Development Potential on Vacant Parcels The City s technical background memorandum also identified vacant parcels in the Study Area that had lot sizes that are greater than 148 m 2. These represent potential opportunities for residential intensification. The lot area of 148 m 2 represents the smallest buildable lot area that is currently permitted in the City s Zoning By-law Table 8 below summarizes the vacant parcels with this minimum lot area in the Central neighbourhoods and the Vanier Planning Community area. Table 8: Vacant parcels. Location of Vacant Parcels Number of Vacant Parcels Central neighbourhoods 101 Vanier Planning Community area 10 Total

20 4.0 ZONING IN THE STUDY AREA 4.1 Introduction The City of Kitchener s Zoning By-law 85-1 initially came into force on February 11, In 1994, the City made a number of changes to By-law 85-1, the purpose of which was to permit a range of uses and establish standards that allowed for flexibility and innovation in building design. One of the reasons for creating such a flexible zoning regime at the time was to permit a wide range of housing choices and to decrease the need for site-specific zone changes and variance applications. To a very large extent, the actions of the City in 1994 were very forward - thinking at the time. Since 1994, a comprehensive review of the City s Zoning By-law has not been undertaken, but it has been subject to amendments as a result of completed studies (such as the Kitchener Streetscapes Study that addresses parking regulations) and sitespecific amendments. The City is currently undertaking a review of the Zoning By-law 85-1, of which the Residential zones are planned for review in the fall of Sections of By-law 85-1 deal with the nine residential zones in the City. These residential zones apply on a City - wide basis, meaning that residential zones that are unique to the Study Area do not exist. The Study Area includes six different residential zones, including Residential Two (R-2), Residential Three (R-3), Residential Four (R-4), Residential Five (R-5), Residential Six (R-6), and Residential (R-7). These zones provide for a range of housing types and standards. The remaining Residential Zones (Residential One (R-1), Residential Eight (R-8) and Residential Nine (R-9)) are not the focus of the Study. These zones are generally applied to lands outside of the central neighbourhoods or to medium-density and high-density residential uses throughout the City. The Residential zones and permitted housing types in the Study Area are summarized in the table below (see Table 9). Table 9: Permitted uses and zones in the Study Area. Zones in the Study Area Types of Housing Permitted in the Study Area R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 Single-detached Dwelling Duplex Dwelling Semi-Detached Duplex Dwelling - - (1) (1) Semi-detached Dwelling - - Multiple Dwelling (2) Street Townhouse Dwelling (1) Legally existing prior to July 31, (2) To a maximum of 3 units (triplex) 20

21 4.2 What Can Happen As of Right in the Study Area Each residential zone establishes permitted uses and standards for each permitted use. As of right zoning means that a permitted use (e.g. a single detached dwelling) can be developed without an application to amend the Zoning By-law because the current permissions would allow the development. In this scenario, a building permit would likely be the only approval required from the City of Kitchener and public consultation would not be required as a consequence. There are several standards that aim to control the location of development that can occur within each residential zone. These include, but are not limited to, standards such as lot width, lot coverage, and setbacks. The minimum lot width requirement is a fixed measurement (see Figure 7). Given that certain uses are only permitted if a certain minimum lot width exists, the minimum lot width standard in each residential zone is the starting point used to determine whether a permitted use can occur on a lot. It is recognized that other standards can impact development if the minimum lot width is met. However, the remainder of this section will focus on permitted uses and the minimum lot width required. Lot Coverage Figure 7: Example of zone standards (specifically lot width shown in red). Based on the standards that exist today, an illustration has been prepared to show what could be built as of right in the R-5 zone. Figure 8 (next page) illustrates the size and massing of a new semi-detached dwelling (two semi units) that replace an existing single detached dwelling on an existing lot in the R-5 Zone. As Figure 8 (next page) indicates, the size of the new semi-detached dwelling would clearly be larger than the other dwellings on the same side of the street. While the owner of the lot may choose a different built form, the illustration describes what the maximum development potential would be. It should be noted that the maximum allowable development on a lot is primarily controlled by two factors. The first factor is the requirement to be set back a minimum distance from lot lines. These setbacks form the building envelope. The second factor is the maximum lot coverage restriction. The effect of the lot coverage restriction is to limit the use of that portion of the lot that is inside of the setback area. In other words, the size of the home could be much larger if there was no over-riding lot coverage restriction. This semi-detached dwelling could replace an existing single detached dwelling. Note that the illustration does not bring the building as close to the street as permitted. This 21

22 has been done to illustrate that there is enough room on the lot to build a home with protruding garages (to maximize the efficiency of the internal layout of the home). Figure 8: Semi-detached dwelling permitted as of right (in an R-5 zone). The illustration above provides for side yard setbacks of 1.2 metres, a rear setback of 7.5 metres, and a front yard setback that is +/- 8.0 metres to the garage and +/ metres to the dwelling. The building height is 10.5 metres and each semi unit has a single car garage that is protruding from the habitable portion of the dwelling. On the basis of the above, and to summarize what could happen in accordance with existing zoning, there are three types of development that can generally occur as of right in the Study Area: A. Rebuild or add addition to a single residential dwelling(s) on an existing lot. In general, any existing dwelling can be replaced on an existing lot, regardless of the minimum lot width requirement. (Note: a single detached dwelling cannot be replaced with a duplex dwelling if the minimum lot width requirement is not met). Additions to existing dwellings on an existing lot may also occur regardless of the minimum lot width requirement, but is subject to other zone standards (e.g. setbacks). B. Redevelop an existing lot to accommodate additional dwelling units within an existing building or a new building. In general, this could include: adding a unit into a single detached dwelling making it a duplex dwelling, replacing an existing single detached dwelling with a duplex dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, multiple dwelling, or a street townhouse dwelling. C. Divide an existing lot into one or more lots to construct new residential dwelling(s) on each new lot. In general, this can only occur if at least double the minimum lot width exists for the proposed dwelling type (for example, an 18 metre lot width would be required to create two 9.0 metre wide lots in the R-4 Zone, on which a new single detached or duplex dwelling could be developed). 22

23 On the basis of the above, the following sections review of what could occur as of right in each of the zones that are in the Study Area Residential Two (R-2) Zone The Residential Two (R-2) zone is applied to larger residential lots that are generally occupied by single-detached dwellings (see Figure 9). The R-2 zone only occurs in the community area known as Westmount. Lands that are zoned R-2 have lot widths that range from metres in the Study Area. The permitted uses and associated minimum lot widths for the R-2 zone are below in Table 10. Figure 9: Example of two single-detached dwellings on lands that are zoned R-2. Table 10: Permitted Uses and Minimum Lot Width in the R-2 zone. Permitted Use Single-detached Dwelling Duplex Dwelling Minimum Lot Width 24.0 metres 24.0 metres On the basis of the above, rebuilding a residential dwelling on an existing lot is the only type of development that is expected to occur on lands in the R-2 zone, because existing lot widths in the R-2 zone generally range from metres and the minimum lot width to develop a single-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling on a new lot is 24.0 metres. A. Rebuild or add addition to a single residential dwelling on an existing lot. An existing single-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling can be replaced on any existing lot. B. Redevelop an existing lot to accommodate additional dwelling units within an existing building or a new building. Can add a unit to a single-detached dwelling to make it a duplex or replace the single-detached dwelling with a duplex dwelling if the existing lot is 24 metres in width or greater. C. Divide an existing lot into one or more lots to construct new residential dwelling(s) on each new lot. This type of development could not occur in the R-2 zone because it would require a lot width of 48.0 metres (which does not exist in the R-2 Zone in the Study Area). 23

24 4.2.2 Residential Three (R-3) Zone The Residential Three (R-3) zone is applied to some lands in the following neighbourhoods: North Ward, Fairfield, Auditorium, Eastwood, Rockway, Meinzinger Park Lakeside, Victoria Hills, Westmount and Vanier. The housing stock includes mainly single-detached dwellings with some duplex dwellings (as shown in Figure 10 and 11). Lands that are zoned R-3 have lot widths that generally range from metres in the Study Area. The permitted uses and associated minimum lot widths for the R-3 zone are below in Table 11. Figure 10: Example of a single-detached dwelling with a carport in a R-3 zone. Figure 11: Example of a single-detached dwelling with an attached garage in a R-3 zone. Table 11: Permitted Uses and Minimum Lot Width in the R-3 zone. Permitted Use Single-detached Dwelling Duplex Dwelling Minimum Lot Width 13.7 metres 13.7 metres On the basis of the above, rebuilding a residential dwelling on an existing lot is the only type of development that is expected to occur on lands in the R-3 zone, because lands in the R-3 zone generally range from metres and the minimum lot width to develop a single-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling is 13.7 metres. A. Rebuild or add addition to a single residential dwelling on an existing lot. An existing single-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling can be replaced on any existing lot. B. Redevelop an existing lot to accommodate additional dwelling units within an existing building or a new building. Can add a unit to a single-detached dwelling to make it a duplex or replace the single-detached dwelling with a duplex dwelling if the existing lot is 13.7 metres in width or greater. C. Divide an existing lot into one or more lots to construct new residential dwelling(s) on each new lot. This type of development could not occur in the R-3 zone because it would require a lot width of 27.4 metres (which does not exist in the R-3 zone in the Study Area). 24

25 4.2.3 Residential Four (R-4) Zone The Residential Four (R-4) zone is applied to some lands in the following neighbourhoods: North Ward, Fairfield, Auditorium, Eastwood, Southdale, Rockway, Meinzinger Park Lakeside, Victoria Hills, Westmount, Cherry Hill, St. Mary s Hospital, Mount Hope Huron Park and Vanier. Single-detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, and semi-detached dwellings are examples of the types of housing that exists in the R-4 zone (as shown in Figure 12 and 13). Lands that are zoned R-4 have lot widths that range from 9-25 metres. The permitted uses and associated minimum lot widths for the R-4 zone are below in Table 12. Table 12: Permitted Uses and Minimum Lot Width in the R-4 zone. Permitted Use Single Detached Dwelling Duplex Dwelling Semi-Detached Dwelling Minimum Lot Width 9.0 metres 9.0 metres 7.5 metres (per semi unit) On the basis of the above, there are three types of development that could be expected to occur on lands in the R-4 zone. This is because the lot widths in the R-4 zone range from 9-25 metres. The minimum lot width to develop a single-detached or duplex dwelling is 9 metres and a semi-detached requires 15 metres (7.5 metres per semidetached unit). A. Rebuild or add addition to a single residential dwelling on an existing lot. An existing single-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling can be replaced on any existing lot. B. Redevelop an existing lot to accommodate additional dwelling units within an existing building or a new building. In order to redevelop an existing lot to accommodate a semi-detached dwelling, the minimum lot width must be at least 15.0 metres (7.5 metres per semi-detached unit). Figure 12: Example of a single-detached dwelling in a R-4 zone. Figure 13: Example of a semi-detached dwelling in a R-4 zone. C. Divide an existing lot into one or more lots to construct new residential dwelling(s) on each new lot. The minimum lot width of 18.0 metres is required to divide an existing lot and construct a single-detached dwelling or a duplex dwelling on each new lot. 25

26 4.2.4 Residential Five (R-5) Zone The Residential Five (R-5) zone is the most prevalent Residential zone that is used in the City of Kitchener s Zoning By-law. The R-5 zone includes a range of permitted residential uses and is applied to a range of lot types within the Study Area (as shown in Figure 14 and 15). Lands that are zoned R-5 have lot widths that generally range from metres in the Study Area. The permitted uses and associated minimum lot widths for the R-5 zone are below in Table 13. Figure 14: Example of a multiple dwelling with three units in a R-5 zone. Figure 15: Example of a semi-detached dwelling in a R-5 zone. Table 13: Permitted Uses and Minimum Lot Width in the R-5 zone. Permitted Use Single Detached Dwelling Duplex Dwelling Semi-Detached Dwelling Multiple Dwelling (maximum 3 units) Minimum Lot Width 9.0 metres 9.0 metres 7.5 metres (per semi unit) 15.0 metres On the basis of the above, there are three types of development that could be expected to occur on lands in the R-5 zone. This is because the lot widths in the R-5 zone range from metres. The minimum lot width to develop a single-detached or duplex dwelling is 9 metres and a semi-detached or multiple dwelling requires 15 metres (7.5 metres per semi-detached unit). A. Rebuild or add addition to a single residential dwelling on an existing lot. An existing single-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling can be replaced on any existing lot. B. Redevelop an existing lot to accommodate additional dwelling units within an existing building or a new building. In order to redevelop an existing lot to accommodate a multiple dwelling or a semi-detached dwelling, the minimum lot width must be at least 15.0 metres (7.5 metres per semi-detached unit). C. Divide an existing lot into one or more lots to construct new residential dwelling(s) on each new lot. The minimum lot width of 18.0 metres is required to divide an existing lot and construct a single-detached dwelling or a duplex dwelling on each new lot. 26

27 4.2.5 Residential Six (R-6) Zone The Residential Six (R-6) zone occurs in the same neighbourhoods as the R-4 zone, with the addition of the King Street East neighbourhood. There is a range of housing types on varying lot sizes in this zone (as shown in Figure 16 and 17). Lands that are zoned R-6 have lot widths that generally range from metres in the Study Area. The permitted uses and associated minimum lot widths for the R-6 zone are below in Table 14. Figure 16: Example of a multiple dwelling in a R- 6 zone. Figure 17: Example of a street townhouse dwelling in a R-6 zone. Table 14: Permitted Uses and Minimum Lot Width in the R-6 zone. Permitted Use Minimum Lot Width Single Detached Dwelling 9.0 metres Duplex Dwelling 9.0 metres Semi-Detached Dwelling 7.5 metres (per semi unit) Multiple Dwelling 15.0 metres Street Townhouse 5.5 metres (each dwelling unit) On the basis of the above, there are three types of development that could be expected to occur on lands in the R-6 zone because the lot widths in the R-6 zone range from metres. The minimum lot width to develop a single-detached or duplex dwelling is 9 metres and a semi-detached or multiple dwelling requires 15 metres (7.5 metres per semi-detached unit). The minimum lot width to develop a street townhouse is 16.5 metres (5.5 metres for each dwelling unit) A. Rebuild or add addition to a single residential dwelling on an existing lot. An existing single-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling can be replaced on any existing lot. B. Redevelop an existing lot to accommodate additional dwelling units within an existing building or a new building. In order to redevelop an existing lot to accommodate a multiple dwelling or a semidetached dwelling, the minimum lot width must be at least 15.0 metres (7.5 metres per semi-detached unit). To redevelop an existing lot to permit a street townhouse dwelling (which is a minimum of 3 units in a row), the minimum lot width must be at least 16.5 metres (5.5 metres per dwelling unit). C. Divide an existing lot into one or more lots to construct new residential dwelling(s) on each new lot. The minimum lot width of 18.0 metres is required to divide an existing lot and construct a single-detached dwelling or a duplex dwelling on each new lot. 27

28 4.2.6 Residential Seven (R-7) Zone The Residential Seven (R-7) zone is applied to the following neighbourhoods: North Ward, King Street East, K-W Hospital, Eastwood and Meinzinger Park Lakeside. Lands that are zoned R-7 have lot widths that generally range from metres in the Study Area. The permitted uses and associated minimum lot widths for the R-6 zone are below in Table 15. Figure 18: Example of a multiple dwelling on lands that are zoned R-7. Figure 19: Example of a multiple dwelling on lands that are zoned R-7. Table 15: Permitted Uses and Minimum Lot Width in the R-7 zone. Permitted Use Minimum Lot Width Single Detached Dwelling 9.0 metres Duplex Dwelling 9.0 metres Semi-Detached Dwelling 7.5 metres (per semi unit) Multiple Dwelling 15.0 metres Street Townhouse 5.5 metres (each dwelling unit) On the basis of the above, there are three types of development that could be expected to occur on lands in the R-7 zone. On the basis of the above, there are three types of development that could be expected to occur on lands in the R-7 zone because the lot widths in the R-7 zone range from metres. The minimum lot width to develop a single-detached or duplex dwelling is 9 metres and a semi-detached or multiple dwelling requires 15 metres (7.5 metres per semi-detached unit). The minimum lot width to develop a street townhouse is 16.5 metres (5.5 metres for each dwelling unit). A. Rebuild or add addition to a single residential dwelling on an existing lot. An existing single-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling can be replaced on any existing lot. B. Redevelop an existing lot to accommodate additional dwelling units within an existing building or a new building. In order to redevelop an existing lot to accommodate a multiple or semi-detached dwelling, the minimum lot width must be at least 15.0 metres (7.5 metres per semidetached unit). To redevelop an existing lot to permit a street townhouse dwelling, the minimum lot with must be at least 16.5 metres (5.5 metres per street townhouse). C. Divide an existing lot into one or more lots to construct new residential dwelling on each new lot. The minimum lot width of 18.0 metres is required to divide an existing lot and construct a single-detached dwelling or a duplex dwelling on each new lot. 28

29 4.3 Summary and Conclusions In the Study Area the R-2 and R-3 zones are applied primarily to areas with singledetached dwellings and duplex dwellings. In this regard, the type of development expected to occur in the R-2 and R-3 zones is the rebuilding or addition to residential dwellings on existing lots. The R-4 zone provides a decreased minimum lot width for residential dwellings. In this zone, compared to the R-2 and R-3, the minimum lot width required is 9.0 metres for residential development (compared to 24.0 metres and 13.7 metres, respectively). The R-4 zone is applied to single-detached dwellings, duplex dwellings and semi-detached dwellings. On the basis of the above, the type of development expected to occur in this zone includes: rebuilding of residential dwellings on existing lots, redevelopment of existing lots to accommodate increased density, and/or the division of an existing lot into two new lots to permit single-detached dwellings or duplex dwellings. The R-5 zone permits multiple dwellings in addition to the same uses as the R-4 zone (single-detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, and semi-detached dwellings). The R-6 and R-7 zones permit the widest range of residential uses that include street townhouses in addition to all of the uses of the R-5 zone (single-detached dwelling, duplex dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, and multiple dwelling up to 3 units). In this regard, the types of development expected in the R-5, R-6 and R-7 zones includes: rebuilding of residential dwellings on existing lots, redevelopment of existing lots to accommodate increased density, and/or the division of an existing lot into two new lots to permit single-detached dwellings or duplex dwellings. This is summarized in the table below (see Table 16). Table 16: Summary of types of residential development permitted in the Study Area. Rebuild Residential Dwelling on Existing Lot Singledetached Dwelling Duplex Dwelling Redevelop an Existing Lot to Accommodate Increased Density Semidetached Dwelling Multiple Dwelling Minimum Lot Width Street Townhouse Divide One Lot into Two Lots and Construct a Dwelling on Each New Lot Singledetached Dwelling Duplex Dwelling ZONES R m R m R m - R-5 - R-6 (7.5 m per 16.5 m 9.0 m 15.0 m semidetached (5.5 m for 18.0 m 18.0 m R-7 each unit) dwelling unit) 29

30 5.0 PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESSES Proposed residential development in the Study Area may be subject to one or several planning approval processes prior to applying for a building permit. The various planning approval processes are briefly described below. 5.1 Rezoning The City s Zoning By-law 85-1 sets out how land may be used, where buildings and structures can be located, the type of buildings that are permitted, and the lot sizes, dimensions, parking requirements, building heights, and setbacks from the street. These uses vary in each residential zone in the City s zoning by-law. If a proposed development does not conform to the requirements set out in the City s current zoning by-law, an application may be made to rezone the property in order to permit the proposed development. This process is known as a zoning by-law amendment. Submission requirements may include a Planning Justification Report and an Urban Design Brief that would not only examine how the proposal would conform to the Official Plan but also the proposed site and building design. Council is responsible for reviewing and passing a zoning by-law amendment. A Neighbourhood Information Meeting may also be held in advance of a decision being made on an application. When a zoning by-law amendment application is submitted to the City, the applicant is required to post a zone change notice sign. The zone change sign must have frontage on at least one public road and must remain in place until Council has made a decision and the appeal period has expired. Within 15 days of the application being deemed complete, a Notice of Application is also circulated by the City to landowners within 120 metres of the subject land(s), various departments, and other agencies for comment. Prior to Council passing a zoning by-law amendment, there must be at least one statutory public meeting. Notice is provided for the statutory public meeting in the local newspaper (The Record) 20 days in advance of the meeting. The public meeting is an opportunity for the public, stakeholders, and other interested agencies to provide comments and/or in regards to a specific application. Input received through the public consultation process is considered in the evaluation of the proposed zoning by-law amendment. In addition, other criteria used in evaluating an amendment includes compatibility with adjacent land uses and the official plan, suitability of the land for the proposed purpose (including size and shape of lot), adequacy of vehicular access, water supply, and sewage disposal, and the risk of flooding. After considering all factors, Council makes a decision on staff recommendation. Following a decision provided by Council a notice of decision is circulated. Once this has been issued, there is a 20-day appeal period to the Ontario Municipal Board. 5.2 Consent The separation of an existing property to form a new parcel or lot is commonly known as consent or land severance. In order for an application for consent to be approved the new lot must conform to the City s Official Plan and Zoning By-law. In addition, consent 30

31 applications for a new lot must not conflict with the overall future planning goals and policies of the Official Plan and consideration is required as to the effects that the division of land may have on the site, neighbours, and the community as a whole. Other considerations in evaluating applications of consent include: suitability of the land for the proposed purpose, including size and shape of the lot(s) being created, adequacy of vehicular access, water supply, and sewage disposal, as well as the need to ensure protection from potential flooding. One of the main reasons that applications for consent are submitted is to divide a larger lot into smaller lots. In some cases, the Committee of Adjustment is asked to divide a lot with two semi-detached dwellings into two smaller lots that can be then sold separately. The Committee of Adjustment is the approval authority at the City of Kitchener for consent applications. After an application is submitted, the Committee of Adjustment is required to provide notice of the application at least 14 days before a decision is made. The minimum requirements of Ontario Regulation 197/96 under the Planning Act relating to how the notice of application is given involve the making of a choice with respect to how notice is given. In this regard, the Committee of Adjustment can circulate the application to every owner of land within 60 metres of the property and require that a notice be posted on the property itself, or provide notice in a newspaper only. In the City of Kitchener, the notice is provided in the newspaper. However, the City also circulates the application to owners of land within 30 metres of the property, which is not a requirement of Ontario Regulation 197/96 since the notice is provided in the newspaper. Any person or public body is able to provide comments or concerns on the application. Following a decision provided by the Committee of adjustment, the Committee is required to send notice of decision to any person or public body that has requested notification within 15 days of the decision being made. Once this has been issued, there is a 20-day appeal period to the Ontario Municipal Board. 5.3 Minor Variance The zoning by-law sets out the permitted uses and required standards for all the lands within the City of Kitchener. A minor variance is the process whereby an applicant proposes a variation from those requirements. An example of a minor variance would be an applicant requesting relief from a minimum setback requirement on a property to support proposed development. The City s Committee of Adjustment has the authority to grant minor variances if the variation can pass the four tests in section 45(1) of the Planning Act. The four tests include: Is the application minor in nature? Is the application desirable for the area? Does the application follow the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Does the application follow the intent and purpose of the Official Plan? After an application is submitted, the Committee of Adjustment is required to have a hearing on the application within 30 days after the application is received. In addition, the Committee of Adjustment is required to provide notice of the hearing at least 10 31

32 days before the hearing. The minimum requirements of Ontario Regulation 200/96 under the Planning Act relating to how the notice of hearing is given involve the making of a choice with respect to how notice is given. In this regard, the Committee of Adjustment can circulate the application to every owner of land within 60 metres of the property and require that a notice be posted on the property itself, or provide notice in a newspaper only. The 60-metre requirement is reduced to 30 metres if the minor variance applies to a single detached, demi detached or duplex dwelling. In the City of Kitchener, the notice is provided in the newspaper. However, the City also circulates the application to owners of land within 30 metres of the property, which is not a requirement of Ontario Regulation 200/96 since the notice is provided in the newspaper. Any person or public body is able to attend the hearing to provide comments or concerns on the application. Following a decision provided by the Committee of Adjustment, the Committee is required to send notice of decision to any person or public body that has requested notification within 10 days of the decision being made. Once this has been issued, there is a 20-day appeal period to the Ontario Municipal Board. 5.4 Site Plan Approval Site Plan Control, under section 41 of the Planning Act, is another tool that is used by the City to regulate certain external building, site, and boulevard design matters that can include character, scale, appearance, and sustainable streetscape design. Site Plan Control allows the City to require conditions related to design matters including agreements, which may be registered on title. The Site Plan Control process can also have different streams, by which development of a certain size and nature can progress through a scoped process. The scoped Site Plan Approval process takes less time because of the scale of the work involved. The City currently requires Site Plan Approval for triplex dwellings and up. This process is the implementation tool for the City s Design Manual that also includes criteria/standards to support compatibility. The Site Plan Approval process does not require public consultation and is generally reviewed and assessed by City staff because of the technical nature of site plan review. The City of Kitchener does not require the posting of a notice sign on the subject lands. If the City fails to approve the plans or drawings within 30 days after they are submitted, or if the owner is not satisfied with the conditions for approval, the owner may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Members of the community do not have appeal rights for site plan approval. 5.5 Heritage Permit Under the Ontario Heritage Act, if a property is individually designated (Part IV) or is in a heritage conservation district (Part V), a heritage permit is required if a proposal is submitted to alter the property in a way that is likely to affect the reasons why the property was designated. The Act describes alterations as a change related to restoration, renovation, repairs, or disturbance to original form. A heritage permit is also required for the erection or demolition of a building or structure on a designated property. 32

33 The Study Area includes three Heritage Conservation Districts that are designated through the Ontario Heritage Act. These include: the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD, the St. Mary s HCD, and the Victoria Park Area HCD. Heritage Permit requirements may differ between each of the HCD plans depending on the policies and guidelines that have been developed for each area. Heritage permit applications include the application form itself, a written description of the proposed changes, construction and elevation drawings, photographs, samples and any other applicable information to assist City staff in their assessment of the application. City staff will meet with the applicant before submission to ensure that all components have been addressed. The deadline for applications is 5 weeks prior to the scheduled committee meeting dates. A Notice of Receipt is sent to the applicant by City staff, as required by the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff will determine whether an application can be processed under delegated approval authority or if an application is required to be approved by Heritage Kitchener and/or Council. If a heritage permit is refused, the applicant can appeal the decision within 30 days of receiving Notice of Council s decision. The appeal process can be to the Conservation Review Board (for alterations to designated properties under Part IV) or to the Ontario Municipal Board (for demolition of property under designated Part IV or for any work to designated property under Part V). 33

34 6.0 BRINGING IT BACK TO KITCHENER 6.1 Intensification is expected in the Study Area While intensification has already been occurring in Kitchener, there is an expectation that the rate of intensification in the City will increase as the City's population and the demand for alternative forms of housing increases. It is also expected that improved transit services, changing demographics, changing land economics, the establishment of additional employment in Kitchener and Kitchener's location itself will make intensification a more attractive prospect for developers. The arguments typically in favour of intensification are that new development in built up areas will allow for the optimization of existing infrastructure and the more efficient and economical provision of services. The creation of diverse communities, more vibrant central neighbourhoods, and higher levels of service, with a range of uses and opportunities also occurs when the number of people and jobs increases in built-up areas. Yet there are also arguments against intensification: increased traffic and density in defined areas can alter neighbourhood character, affect the stability of established communities, and over-stretch the capacity of existing infrastructure and facilities. It is recognized that the Province requires all municipalities to provide for additional intensification within the existing built-up area. However, this requirement does not necessarily mean that all areas and neighbourhoods within the built-up area should be intensified. Instead, it is the intent of the Province, as articulated within the Growth Plan, to direct intensification to urban growth centres, transit and intensification corridors, major transit station areas and in other major intensification areas. This means that there is no expectation that all other areas are required to intensify, unless a municipality decides it would be appropriate to do so. The City of Kitchener has already gone through such a process and it has been determined that the potential for intensification is significant in those areas so identified. This process has resulted in the development of a strategy that focuses intensification within the Urban Growth Centre, along major corridors and in transit station areas. The overall intent of the strategy is to firstly ensure that the intensification target for Kitchener can be implemented and to also indicate where major change in the form of intensification is not expected nor encouraged. In our opinion, this is a key component of any intensification strategy, since the identification of areas that will change and areas that will not change over time provides a certain amount of surety to City residents and also allows for the investment in time and energy in the right places. Establishing priority areas for intensification also provides the basis for infrastructure planning and the making of decisions on how best to service these areas. In addition, long term decisions on transit, with transit usage being very dependent on the density and location of development, can be made when such a strategy has been prepared However, and notwithstanding the above, change is expected in the City's established neighbourhoods. While it should not be the intent of any municipality to control personal 34

35 preferences and tastes, it is our view that there is an overall public interest in controlling the design of new dwellings if there is a public interest in protecting the existing character of a street, area or neighbourhood. 6.2 Some Challenges to Consider Many Ontario municipalities have grappled with the issue of how to manage intensification in established neighbourhoods and have developed strategies in response. These strategies were developed in an effort to ensure that redevelopment was compatible with existing development and to ensure that the impact of redevelopment on the character of the neighbourhood was minimized Land Use Compatibility Land use compatibility has been a common issue under consideration at numerous Ontario Municipal Board hearings. In an often-quoted decision of the Ontario Municipal Board dated August 11, 2006 (Decision/Order # 2263), a reference is made on page 7 of that decision to the language in another Decision: "when he said being compatible with is not the same as being the same as. Being compatible with is not even the same thing as being similar to. Being similar to implies having a resemblance to another thing; they are like one another, but not completely identical. Being compatible with implies nothing more than being capable of existing together in harmony." The criteria that assist in determining whether uses can exist together in harmony when change is proposed in the context of redevelopment in a residential neighbourhood can include: The relationship between the massing and height of existing and proposed buildings; The location of established building lines (the average setback of existing development from the street); The placement of existing and proposed buildings on a lot; The lot coverage of existing and proposed development; The nature of existing and proposed building materials; and, The location of driveways garages and trees. While the location of buildings, driveways and other elements of development on a site are important considerations in existing low density residential neighbourhoods, it is quite often the architectural style and the bulk and massing of a proposed development that has the most important impact on the character of a street, area or neighbourhood. However, it is the architectural style that are the most difficult to regulate Neighbourhood Character Another subjective component is the defining character of the neighbourhood itself. Given the different ages at which neighbourhoods develop, it is recognized that there are many different types of neighbourhoods with many different character traits, and that it is important to understand that certain characteristics are not necessarily better than 35

36 others. The character of a neighbourhood is a reflection of how the defining elements of the built form and setting are consistent (or not). Some of the main defining elements of character are outlined below: 1. Lot size 2. Vegetation size, location, age, variety 3. Building size, location, orientation, materials 4. Architectural style 5. Age of neighbourhood 6. Right-of-way treatment 7. Parking and driveways In our view, the more consistency there is amongst the above main defining elements, the more obvious the character is. Notwithstanding the above, in neighbourhoods where there is no consistency in terms of the elements identified above, that neighbourhood can also have a certain character, however, that character would be considered to be more eclectic. It is for this reason that many older neighbourhoods developed before the Second World War in urban areas are more eclectic in nature. To some extent the more eclectic a neighbourhood is, the more able it is from a compatibility perspective to experience change in the form of different building types and styles. After the character of any neighbourhood is identified, then the challenge is to determine how that community character can be affected by new development. When there is a predominant consistency, new development should be evaluated to ensure it is in keeping with the surrounding character. However, it is often difficult to determine how significant a change or new development will have on a neighbourhood and whether the potential change is significant enough not to permit the proposed change to occur. There are some instances where changing the character of the neighbourhood is desirable, if other public interest objectives are met. An example of this may be where dwelling units within a neighbourhood are beyond repair and urban redevelopment is encouraged to improve the quality of life' in that area. However, in cases where change affects the character to an extent that there is a perceived decrease in the quality of life or sense of place, then that change is not appropriate, especially in already stable communities. As noted above, we do not believe and we are not making a judgment that any character is good or bad. Instead, it is our view that in a circumstance where it has been determined that an area or neighbourhood rates high on a character index, the time it takes for the character of an area to change will have the effect of decreasing the quality of place since these consistent elements of the character are being slowly lost. 36

37 6.2.3 Interface Considerations Another component of this Study is to give consideration to an approach that can be used by the City to deal with the interface between different types and/or scales of development. The City has planned for different types of uses in different designations. For example, low-rise residential is primarily for low-density residential housing, however mixed-use corridors provide for a range of uses that could include residential. In addition, there are a number of single properties that also have the potential of being redeveloped as well. In general, whenever different forms of development are proposed in an area, there is the risk of conflict. This is a challenge that every municipality faces because boundaries around types of uses are inevitable. However, by understanding the components that define the lands and uses that occur along the interfaces, the City can develop an approach to assess and mitigate potential conflicts between land uses that may not be widely accepted as being compatible. With the above in mind, below is a discussion of the two types of common interfaces - along the property line or across a street. Scenario 1: Interface along property line The first scenario where an interface could occur is along a property line. In general, this would occur along a rear property line where residential lands abut lands designated for a higher density use, but in some cases could occur along side yard property line. The figure below (see Figure 20) depicts scenario 1 as described above. The yellow area identifies the interface area. Figure 20: Interface Consideration - Scenario 1 (Yellow - interface focus area, Grey - dwellings and garages, Green - trees, Blue - swimming pool) 37

38 The first step is to understand the character and use of the low-rise residential lands (depicted above in Figure 20 as those lands on the north side of Local Street B ). The table below (see Table 17) identifies possible criteria. Table 17: Criteria to consider in understanding the low-rise residential lands in Scenario 1. Criteria to Types of Questions to Why? Consider Consider 1. Lot depth Are the lot depths consistent or do they vary in depth? Lot depth can influence how proposed adjacent development impacts the existing dwellings because it is the defining line between existing dwellings 2. Orientation of lots Do the lots have the same frontage or are some lots fronting on different streets? 3. Location and orientation of dwelling 4. Height of existing dwellings Where is the dwelling located on the lot? Is it near the front property line or in the middle of the lot? Is the dwelling entranceway facing the street or is it on the side or at the rear of the dwelling? How many storeys are the existing dwellings? Do they have backyard or side yard additions? 5. Windows Do the existing dwellings have multiple and/or large windows on the rear face of the dwelling? 6. Backyard uses What is the primary use of the backyards? Do the backyards have other amenities? 7. Trees and landscaping Do the backyards have mature trees and/or landscaping? What type of vegetation is along the rear property line? 8. Fence Do the backyards have fences along the rear property line? What type of fence material is currently in place (e.g. wood or wire)? and future development. If all lots front on the same street, proposed development is only occurring along rear lot lines. With side yard lot lines, impacts can vary because generally side yards are smaller than the rear yard and would be much closer to the dwelling. Dwelling location could impact how a proposed development impacts privacy. If a dwelling were closer to the front lot line, then the line of sight and distance to adjacent development would be farther. The opposite is true if a dwelling was located in the centre of a lot or towards the rear lot line. Similar to the location and orientation of existing dwellings, privacy and line of sight can be impacted by proposed development. Location of windows and the type (e.g. bathroom window vs. living room) influences what existing landowners would see and could impact privacy. The location of amenities in the backyard may be a factor to consider for development on adjacent lands. Mature trees and landscaping are an indicator of the privacy and realm created in a space. Trees can help create a natural buffer. Fencing is another form of a barrier and its impact can vary based on the type of material and the height. 38

39 The second step is to understand the type of development that could occur on the side of the scenario where lands are planned to have higher density uses. The table below (see Table 18) identifies possible criteria. Table 18: Criteria to consider in understanding the higher density lands in Scenario 1. Criteria to Types of Questions to Why? Consider Consider 1. Height How many storeys is the proposed development? Height can impact the transition from low rise residential to multi-storey 2. Grade Is there a different grade between the proposed development and residential properties? 3. Bulk/Massing and Building Location Is the proposed development a single multistorey building or several smaller buildings? Are there stepbacks on upper storeys? Is it the same material for the entire building or different on upper storeys? Is the roof flat or sloped? 4. Windows Are the windows on the proposed development facing the residential properties? Are they large windows (e.g. living room) or small windows (e.g. bathroom) or both? 5. Balcony Does the proposed development provide units that have balconies? 6. Use What are the uses that are permitted on the mixed-use lands? Are the uses only residential? Are 24-hour establishments permitted? Will the uses require loading space? Will there be noise impacts and will they vary by time of day? What traffic impacts may be a result of development (e.g. customer and residential parking, deliveries, etc.) buildings. A difference in grade between multistorey buildings and low rise residential can cause a building to appear much larger than it may be and therefore have a potentially negative impact on adjacent landowners. Bulk/massing and the location of a building can also have an impact on the visual perception of adjacent landowners. The size of windows can impact privacy, or lack thereof, on adjacent residential uses. Balconies can also impact privacy. Certain types of uses can have a greater impact on the quality of life of landowners in existing residential dwellings. For example, uses that are open long hours or require deliveries mean that space is needed for deliveries and noise impacts could be a result at varying hours. 39

40 Scenario 2: Interface divided by a street A second scenario where interface considerations are warranted is where residential lands are located on one side of the street and higher density uses are located on the opposite side of the street. An example of this in Kitchener is the former Schneider s (Maple Leaf Foods) factory site. The figure below (see Figure 21) depicts scenario 2 as described above. The yellow area identifies the interface area. Figure 21: Interface Consideration - Scenario 2 (Yellow - interface focus area, Grey - dwellings and garages, Green - trees, Blue - swimming pool) In this regard, consideration for both types of uses on either side of the street/interface area would be required. The table below (see Table 19) identifies possible criteria in assessing the residential lands. Table 19: Criteria to consider in understanding the low-rise residential lands in Scenario 2. Criteria to Types of Questions to Why? Consider Consider 1. Front Yard Setback 2. Location and orientation of Do the dwellings have the same front yard setback or do they vary? Where is the dwelling located on the lot? Is it near the front The front yard setback identifies how far a dwelling is from the front lot line. Dwellings closer to the road may experience a greater impact of development that those that are farther away. Privacy and line of sight can be impacted by proposed development. 40

41 Criteria to Consider dwelling 3. Height of existing dwellings Types of Questions to Consider property line or in the middle of the lot? Is the dwelling entranceway facing the street or is it on the side or at the rear of the dwelling? How many storeys are the existing dwellings? Why? Similar to the location and orientation of existing dwellings, privacy and line of sight can be impacted by proposed development. Similarly, the type of development on the opposite side of the street would require an assessment. The table below (see Table 20) identifies possible criteria. Table 20: Criteria to consider in understanding the higher density lands in Scenario 2. Criteria to Types of Questions to Why? Consider Consider 1. Height How many storeys is the proposed development? Height can impact the transition from low rise residential to multi-storey 2. Grade Is there a different grade between the proposed development and residential properties? 3. Bulk/Massing Is the proposed development a single multi-storey building or several smaller buildings? Are there stepbacks on upper storeys? Is it the same material for the entire building or different on upper storeys? Is the roof flat or sloped? 4. Signage Will the proposed development require signage? Will the signage require lighting? Will the sign be lit up 24-hours a day? buildings. A difference in grade between multistorey buildings and low rise residential can cause a building to appear much larger than it may be and therefore have a potentially negative impact on adjacent landowners. Bulk/massing of a building can also have an impact on the visual perception of adjacent landowners. Illuminated signage can have a visual impact and create light pollution on the residential dwellings across the road. The City s current Sign By-law sets out some standards for illuminated signage to mitigate potential impacts to adjacent development. 41

42 7.0 MOVING FORWARD WITH OPTIONS 7.1 Introduction The report up until now has done the following: Identified the purpose of the Study; Described the Study process; Reviewed the character of the many neighbourhoods within the Study Area; Identified the zoning rules that currently apply to development in the Study Area; Described the planning processes that are currently relied upon in the Study Area; and, Identified challenges to consider in moving forward. All of the above was intended to set the stage for an informed discussion on the options available to the City moving forward. These options are summarized in the table below (see Table 21). Table 21: Options for the City to consider. Category Options 1. Changing existing zoning rules 2. Apply new zoning rules Zoning Rule Changes Change the zoning on certain streets to better reflect 3. character Official Plan Policy Establish policies that direct that character areas be 4. Changes established through zoning or other tools Expand the existing Urban Design Manual standards for Urban Design Manual 5. infill projects Expand site plan control to singles, semi-detached, and/or 6. duplex dwellings (requires change to Official Plan) Changes to existing processes 7. Change Notice policies for Planning Act processes Implement Cultural Heritage Landscape Study through the 8. Establish a New Process for Some or All of the Study Area Public Information and Awareness (about intensification) eventual development of a Heritage Permit process 9. Develop a Streetscape Character Analysis requirement to be implemented in zoning by-law 10. Establish a Development Permit System 11. Create a guide for infill development To a large extent, the modification of existing zoning rules or the addition of new rules (Options 1, 2 and 3 above) would have a direct impact on primarily rebuilds and additions on existing lots. However, these rules if changed or applied would also affect new development on new lots as well. The changing of the rules along certain streets may also have an impact on the uses that are permitted on those streets. There are a number of options with respect to the types of changes that could be made to the Official Plan (Option 4). These range from developing character area specific 42

43 policies to general policies that provide additional guidance on the review of applications. The City s Urban Design Manual sets out guidelines for infill development in the central neighbourhoods. It also speaks to development objectives in the suburban areas. Updates to the Urban Design Manual (Option 5) could assist in making them more effective when applied in the Study Area. Changing the City s existing planning application processes (Options 6, 7 and 8) could enhance the current processes by building on the current practice. This could include applying site plan control to single, semi-detached and/or duplex dwellings (currently the practice is only for triplexes and up) in some areas. In addition, changes to notice policies could provide the public with more access and knowledge regarding development activity in the City. Lastly the City could build on completed studies such as the Cultural Heritage Landscape Study that could not only provide a mechanism for heritage conservation but could also open up additional tools to deal with any new development in neighbourhoods. Establishing a new process in the way the City considers and approves development applications (Options 9 and 10) could have a number of impacts on City resources and potentially introduce a considerable amount of complexity into the process. However, such a process may also provide for the subjectivity and discretion that may be deemed necessary to consider applications for development on a case-by-case basis. Lastly, the City could consider the creation of guide for infill development for the Study Area (for the entire area as a whole or by neighbourhood) as a resource for the development community, the public and Council (Option 11). This would contribute to public awareness about intensification and the processes required for residential development in established neighbourhoods. There are clearly pros and cons with every approach introduced above and discussed in more detail below. The intent of this is not to recommend a course of action in this regard. Instead, the intent of this Report is simply to identify options, and then determine which ones are feasible and which ones are not (based on the review of these options by Council, staff, stakeholders and members of the general public and business community). Once feedback has been received, the next step involves the making of recommendations on what they appropriate course of action should be. With the above in mind, the remainder of this section describes the above options in some detail and identifies how other municipalities have, through our best practices review, implemented the option. In this regard, there is a considerable amount of information available on the experiences of literally hundreds of municipalities with respect to zoning and planning process approaches to consider. In this regard, we have reviewed the zoning rules that are in effect in a number of municipalities with similar types of neighbourhoods, including Markham, Richmond Hill, North York, Etobicoke, Burlington, Oshawa, and Vaughan. An extensive sampling of zoning rules and definitions is included within Appendices 1 and 2. 43

44 We have also reviewed various approaches to how zoning by-laws and the zoning rules are structured from a technical perspective. For example, certain municipalities have established unique zones for defined geographic areas and other municipalities have created overlay zones that float on top of the existing zones. Both have the same effect. Lastly, we have also reviewed the planning processes used in a number of municipalities including the Cities of Ottawa, Mississauga and Edmonton (these are described later in this Report). Our intent in the sections that follow is to objectively present the options, how and where they have been implemented and to identify potential pros and cons of each. It is recognized that the identification of what is a pro and a con is very subjective because for example, the more restrictive zoning rule may be considered to be a positive thing to the general public but construed in a negative light by developers, homeowners interested in making a change to their property, and others. Another factor to consider in all of this is what the implications of any change will be on the amount or rate of intensification that will occur in Kitchener in the future. The benefits of intensification are well documented in terms of the additional investments being made in the community, the provision of additional housing choices, the financial benefits to homeowners and landowners and the ability to provide housing that is more affordable and located close to the many social services that are typically provided in central parts of most Cities and Towns. This is the challenge we have as the authors of this Report and the challenge the City has in determining the best way forward. Our job is to make sure the conversation is as informed at possible. 7.2 Zoning Rule Changes Option 1 Change Existing Zoning Rules At the present time, the City of Kitchener through Zoning By-law 85-1 regulates the following in the R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7 Zones: 1. Maximum height. 2. Minimum lot width (which in some cases is related to the dwelling unit type). 3. Minimum corner lot width (which is typically larger than floor interior lots because it is a corner lot). 4. Minimum lot area. 5. Maximum lot coverage (which is expressed as a percentage in most zones and as a floor space ratio control in others). 6. Minimum front yard and side yard abutting street. 7. Minimum side yard. 8. Minimum rear yard. Generally speaking, the minimum lot width and minimum lot area requirements are more of a consideration when proposals to develop new lots are being considered. However, these minimum lot width and minimum lot area requirements are not much of a factor at 44

45 all in terms of regulating the built form on a lot, simply because the other standards are all related to the lot lines as they exist. However, and notwithstanding the above, the minimum lot width and minimum lot area requirement can be a determining factor if a landowner wishes to replace for example a single detached dwelling with a permitted duplex dwelling or semi detached dwelling because any new housing type has to be on a lot that meets the minimum lot width and minimum lot area requirements. This is to ensure that buildings with two or more dwellings are not constructed on existing substandard lots. There are five zoning rules that remain as a result (maximum height, maximum lot coverage, minimum front and side yard abutting street, minimum side yard and minimum rear yard). These zoning rules have a direct impact on the bulk, massing and location of a dwelling on a lot. There are also rules in the City s zoning by-law that deal with garage projections and garage widths that only apply to new lots and not existing lots. As well, the City s zoning by-law also includes regulations for driveway width and widenings. The table below (Table 22, next page) identifies a number of options respecting how some of these existing rules relied upon by the City can be modified. The table also identifies the intent of the standard, what the current standard actually is in Kitchener, the potential changes to that standard, a number of examples of how other municipalities have applied the standard based on our best practices review and identifies the implications of any change from a pro and con perspective. The table below (Table 22, next page) identifies options with respect to: 1. Modifying the maximum lot coverage restriction; 2. Modifying the minimum front yard requirement by increasing the requirement; 3. Replacing the minimum front yard requirement with a building line rule; 4. Modifying the maximum height permission by reducing the permission; 5. Modifying the height provisions by adding a new rule that deals with maximum permitted height for additions only; 6. Replacing the minimum interior side yard requirement with a maximum occupied frontage rule; 7. Applying the existing maximum garage projection rule to existing lots; and, 8. Applying the existing maximum garage width rule to existing lots as well. It should be noted that the options described above are not 'all or none options'. For example, changes can be made to the zoning rules in some of the zones, but in not all of the zones. Similarly, certain rules can be tailor-made to certain zones as well. In addition, combinations of rules can be applied to some zones and not all as well. The above essentially represents a menu of potential changes to existing rules and the application of certain existing rules that apply to existing lots within the Study Area. 45

46 Table 22: Options for modifying zone rules. Current Description Potential Kitchener of Rule Change Standard Modify Maximum Lot Coverage requirement Other Municipal Standards Illustration Controls the amount (as a percentage) of land on a lot that is covered by a dwelling or accessory structure. Maximum 55%, of which the habitable portion of the dwelling shall not exceed 45% and accessory buildings or structures, whether attached or detached, shall not exceed 15%. Could include maximum lot coverage between 45%- 50% of which the habitable portion of the dwelling would not exceed 35%-40%. The accessory buildings or structures, whether attached or detached, shall not exceed 15%, the same as the current standard. Markham: 25%-35% Brampton: 30% (excludes accessory structures) Etobicoke, Oshawa, Burlington, Richmond Hill: range of 20-40% Vaughan: R1V zone 20% Increases the probability that lot coverage will be consistent with adjacent Pros and established development. Limits the size of proposed dwellings and may restrict layout options, Cons particularly for single storey dwellings. Modify the Minimum Front Yard Setback requirement. North York and Etobicoke: range from 7.5 to 12.5 metres Controls the location of a dwelling in relation to the front lot line. 4.5 m, except no part of any building used to accommodate off-street parking shall be located closer than 6.0 m to the street line. Could increase the minimum front yard setback. Burlington, Oshawa, Vaughan, Richmond Hill: range from 7.5 to 12 metres Pros More accurately reflects current setbacks in some neighbourhoods. Cons Some streets already have dwellings that are very close to the road. In these situations, an increased minimum front yard setback may not be consistent with existing streetscape. 46

47 Description of Rule Current Kitchener Standard Potential Change Other Municipal Standards Replace Minimum Front Yard Requirement with a Building Line rule. Illustration Controls the location of the front wall to ensure that dwellings on a street are generally in line with each other. 4.5 m, except no part of any building used to accommodate off-street parking shall be located closer than 6.0 m to the street line. Could require front wall of rebuilds to be no more than 1.0 metres +/- closer (farther) than other homes on street. Many municipal by-laws already have such rules. Ensures consistency of the location of dwellings on a lot relative to existing Pros dwellings on the street. Time-consuming process to determine the location of building line Cons Will need to determine how many abutting lots to consider in calculation Modify Maximum Height requirement Markham, North York, Etobicoke: Pitched roof (9.8 m) and flat roof (8 m) Controls the permitted height of a dwelling by specifying the number of storeys and maximum height in metres metres for all uses in the R-2 to R-7 zones except 24.0 metres for the multiple dwelling use in the R-7 zone. Could reduce the maximum height to twostoreys and/or metres. Could include height range by the type of roofs. (E.g. pitched roof vs. flat roof) Burlington: two and a half storey maximum Brampton: 8.5 m, R1D zone 10.6 m Richmond Hill: maximum height range m Ensures consistency in building height (most dwellings are 1-2 storeys in Pros the Study Area). Cons Limits the options available when development and redevelopment is proposed. 47

48 Description of Rule Current Kitchener Standard Potential Change Other Municipal Standards Modify height provisions by Adding New Rule for Height for Additions. Controls the height of additions, Could include a maximum height for Markham, North York, and which are residential Etobicoke: - usually in the additions of one-storey side yard (sometimes in rear). one storey and/or 4.6 metres. and 4.6 metres in height. Illustration Ensures that additions to existing dwellings are compatible with Pros neighbouring existing dwellings. Ensures privacy between neighbouring dwellings. Cons Limits the height of additions to existing dwellings. Replace the Minimum Interior Side Yard requirement with a Maximum Occupied Frontage rule - Controls the width of a dwelling and the open space on either side based on the frontage of a lot. - Introduce a maximum occupied frontage requirement of 70%. This would require a minimum of 30% of the lot width as the interior side yard. Markham analysis: based on m lot frontage. Pros Provides for flexibility with proposed development based on the size of the lot. Time-consuming process to calculate occupied frontage. Cons May not be appropriate on smaller lots. May need different rules for different lot widths. Apply existing Maximum Garage Projection rule to existing lots. Controls the distance a garage can protrude from a dwelling. New lots: Maximum garage projection for singledetached and duplex is 3.0 m for lot width less than 12.1 m, not greater than the front façade for lots greater than 12.1 m, or 1.2 m ahead of portico. The maximum Could require all development on existing lots to comply with garage projections that are currently applied only to new lots. Could also update garage rules to include a no projection Markham: cannot project any closer to the front lot line than 2.1 metres beyond the point of the main building Richmond Hill: in older neighbourho ods, no garage is to 48

49 Description of Rule Current Kitchener Standard garage projection for semi-detached and street townhouse dwellings is 3 m, notwithstanding where a portico is attached to the garage and the projection is 1.2 m. Potential Change rule. Other Municipal Standards project toward the front yard more than 2.1 metres beyond main wall. Illustration Provides consistency for garage projections in the Study Area and across Pros the City. Cons Could affect interior layout of the house. Apply existing Maximum Garage Width rule to existing lots Controls the percentage of the front wall that can be a garage. New lots: Maximum garage widths for singledetached, semidetached, and duplex dwellings are 70% of the front façade, and for street townhouse dwellings it is 60%. Require all development on existing lots to comply with maximum garage widths that are currently applied only to new lots. Consideration could be given to reducing the permitted widths in established neighbourhoods or not permitting garages on the front wall facing the street and instead only permitting them in rear yards. Markham: lots less than 18.3 m frontage max garage width is 7.7 m Richmond Hill: lots less than 18.3 garage width is 6.5 m. Pros Ensures that garages occupy an appropriate percentage of the front face of a dwelling. Cons May limit the garage width or location for the owner of the property. 49

50 Description of Rule Current Kitchener Standard Potential Change Other Municipal Standards Illustration Establish a new Maximum Driveway Width rule in conjunction with a minimum landscaped front yard rule. Singledetached and - duplexes: lot width =/<10.4 m driveway may extend beyond width of garage by 5.2 m or lot width >10.4 m 25% of front the driveway Could yard on Controls the may extend to introduce a small lot is to amount of a maximum of rule to restrict be retained front yard that 50% of lot the maximum for is occupied by width or 8 m, width and landscaping a driveway whichever is relate to and 40% of and less. minimum front yard on landscaping. Driveways for landscaping in larger lots - semis may the front yard. Markham extend beyond garage by 5.2 m. For all dwellings, no close than 0.6 m to side lot line. Pros Ensures that minimum amount of landscaping is retained in front yard. Cons Driveway widening does not require City permits other than for the curb cut - which means that it would be up to homeowner to ensure compliance. Restricts how many cars could be accommodated on a lot. 50

51 7.2.2 Option 2 Apply New Zoning Rules In addition to the changes suggested above, consideration could be given to adding new rules in some or all of the zones within the Study Area. These new rules are listed below. 1. Apply a new maximum floor space ratio restriction to all or some of the permitted dwelling types in the Study Area. 2. Establish a new maximum depth of dwelling rule for all or some of the zones in the Study Area. 3. Establish a new maximum height of first-storey floor above grade rule for all or some of the zones in the Study Area. The table below (Table 23, next page) identifies the options in this regard. 51

52 Table 23: Options to establish new rules. Description of Rule Current Standard Potential Change Best Practices Review Illustration Establish a Maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) rule to all or some of the dwelling types Controls the mass of a building by relating permitted floor area of all buildings and structures to the size of a lot. FSR is 0.60 for multiple dwellings in the R-6 Zone and 1.0 in the R-7 Zone FSR could be 0.40 or Markham and Etobicoke: 0.45 Provides for flexibility because the mass of a building depends on the size Pros of the lot where development is proposed. This standard may conflict with lot coverage standard. The many differences in the way this is calculated need to be reviewed. Requires detailed floor plans to carry our calculation. Cons Does not consider atriums and other spaces with no floor area. Would limit the amount of development permitted on a property for the owner. Establish a new Maximum Depth of Dwelling rule for all or some of the dwelling types Maximum depth of dwelling could be 16.8 metres. Controls the depth of a dwelling to ensure back yards are consistent. Also reduces potential for overlook into existing backyards. - Permit an increase for residential additions at the rear of a dwelling to 18.9 metres. Also require residential additions to not be wider than 50% of the width of the dwelling at the widest point and at least 3.0 metres from each side lot line. Markham: 16.8 m and 18.9 m North York and Etobicoke: maximum 19.0 m Pros Provides consistency in depth of backyards. Provides for privacy in adjacent backyards. 52

53 Description of Rule Current Standard Potential Change Best Practices Review Illustration Cons Limits the size of a proposed residential dwelling. Establish a new Maximum Height of First-Storey floor above grade for all or some of the zones Controls the height of the first storey floor to ensure that first storey floor is close to grade similar to adjacent dwellings - Could introduce a rule to restrict maximum first floor height 1.0 to 2.5 metres above grade. - - Pros Ensures that first storey is at same height as other dwellings on street. Cons Can only be applied where the first storey floor level is consistent in the first place. 53

54 7.2.3 Changing Zone Standards or Creating Overlay Zones With both Options 1 and 2, the standards in each individual zone can be modified as necessary. However, the challenge in Kitchener is that the zones in the study area apply across the City and changing some or all of the standards, as set out above may not be appropriate in all parts of the City. The other approach is to establish rules that 'float' over the other rules in multiple zones. The latter approach is the one being taken by the City of Brampton. The Brampton Mature Neighbourhood Area includes any property in the boundaries (see Figure 22), otherwise known as an overlay area in the Zoning By-law. The Mature Neighbourhood Area has its own set of provisions in the Zoning By-law that are applied to lands in addition to the underlying zone. Proposed development is required to comply with the both sets of provisions. In this regard, the Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay sets out requirements for minimum rear yard depth, minimum interior side yard, maximum lot coverage, and maximum building height beyond the underlying Residential zone standards. Figure 22: Mature Neighbourhood Area in the City of Brampton Zoning By-law Option 3 Change the Zoning on Certain Streets As has already been presented in this report, a number of different dwelling types are permitted in each of the zones in the Study Area. In some areas, permission exists in the zoning by-law to replace existing single detached dwellings with a duplex dwelling, one semi-detached dwelling (two semi units) or a multiple dwelling on the same lot, provided that the minimum lot width and lot area requirements are met, along with adherence to all other zoning rules. While the wholesale replacement of a row of single detached houses on an existing street in this manner is very remote, the permission does exist for this to occur, with the permissions obviously varying by zone. 54

55 The decision to include the range of permitted dwelling types in the City s by-law was made in Our understanding is that at the time, there was a desire to encourage further development and redevelopment within the built up area. To a very large extent the permissive nature of the by-law was very forward thinking at the time, and continues to be so. This is because, in our experience, it is not common for a wide range of dwelling types to be permitted within established residential neighbourhoods as of right, in fact, most municipalities do not permit semi-detached, multiple and street townhouse dwellings as of right in these types of zones. As a consequence of these enhanced permissions, there has been little need to amend the zoning by-law since to permit a wide range of dwelling types in the City s established neighbourhoods. It is noted however that one dwelling type was deemed to not be appropriate as a permitted use (semi-detached duplex) and the permission for this use was removed from the zoning by-law on July 31, 2014 (through OMB Order PL140037, By-law ) While the vast majority of the homeowners and landowners within the Study Area have not taken advantage of the enhanced permissions for other dwelling unit types, the potential certainly exists for this to happen in the future, if the status quo remains. It is also assumed that, given the length of time the permissions have been in place, that a number of homeowners/landowners have made decisions on purchasing property on the basis of these enhanced permissions being in place. As has already been demonstrated, there are many streets within the Study Area that have a strong and consistent character, with these streets being predominantly the site of very similar single detached dwellings. It is on these key streets that the implications of replacing a single detached dwelling with one semi-detached dwelling (two semi units) for example can potentially be significant. However, the 'down-zoning' of land is a significant decision that would have to be soundly justified, and supported by clear policy objectives in the Official Plan in order to provide the basis for such a significant change. In order to manage these changes going forward, it is our opinion that some of the zoning rule change options already presented could mitigate these impacts. In addition, if site plan control is applied to single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and duplexes, many of the elements regarding building placement, tree retention/tree planting and bulk and massing could be dealt with as well. However, there are still factors that cannot easily be controlled by zoning or regulated by site plan control (architectural style) and it may be appropriate to consider, on a case by case basis, the removal of certain permissions in defined areas. In order to determine where these areas are, a much more detailed street-by-street analysis would need to be carried out to identify 'character streets' or 'character areas'. Once such areas are identified, the Official Plan would also need to be amended to provide the basis for the making of changes to the zoning by-law. In order to provide the basis for the consideration of this option further, we have carried out a neighbourhood character review to understand the types of development and built 55

56 form that exists in each neighbourhood. A detailed review of each neighbourhood is provided in Appendix 3. The neighbourhood analysis included a review of zoning, lot width, building height, lot depth and garage location that can be used as indicators in order to try to identify whether or not consistencies within and between neighbourhoods exists. While not explicitly studied, the location and width of driveways and the percentage of the front yard that was landscaped was included in our analysis. The review of zoning in each neighbourhood included identifying the number of zones, the standards in each zone (including definitions of each permitted use) and any special regulations or provisions identified in the zoning by-law. Lot width was measured using the City s online mapping tool and provided an indication of the types of development that could be accommodated on varying sizes of lots. Similarly, the City s online mapping tool was used to determine consistency in lot depth. The dominant building height (by number of storeys) and garage location (attached, at the rear, or no garage) was recorded by zone in each neighbourhood by the use of Google Streetview. All of the above-mentioned components were recorded for each neighbourhood and were categorized by zone. This provided a detailed summary of the built form and physical characteristics that contribute to the type of character in the Study Area. A general assumption is that consistency of a neighbourhood relates to how susceptible an area is to change. For example, a neighbourhood that has uniform lot size, frontage, dwelling type and height, and garage location, could otherwise be categorized as consistent and would likely experience a greater impact as a result of development that does not share the similar features. Neighbourhoods that are more consistent could be classified as stable or mature neighbourhoods. The opposite is true for open-ended neighbourhoods; these areas have inconsistent lot sizes, lot widths, dwelling types and heights, and garage locations. The neighbourhood analysis showed that most neighbourhoods do not have unique characteristics as a whole that set them apart from one another. Most neighbourhoods have a variety of zones, lot width, and different garage locations. There are, however, areas within neighbourhoods that exemplify consistency in physical characteristics that make a street, or cluster of streets, unique. Some examples of consistent streets, by neighbourhood, are listed below (see Table 24). These streets have been identified for having consistent lot width, height of dwelling, garage location, and consistent lot depths. Table 24: Examples of consistent streets in each neighbourhood in the Study Area. Neighbourhood Street Fairfield Ahrens Avenue and Brunswick Avenue Mount Hope Huron Park Westmount Dieppe Avenue and Blucher Street Delisle Avenue and Guelph Street (east of DeKay Street) Rushmore Road Union Boulevard Claremont Avenue 56

57 Central Frederick Auditorium St. Mary s Meinzinger Park Lakeside Brandon Avenue Majority of streets have similar characteristics Two areas of consistency Streets west of East Avenue Streets east of East Avenue Admiral Road Marlborough Avenue Southdale Southdale Avenue Rockway Rockway Drive Eastwood Vanier Majority of the streets in the R-3 zone have similar characteristics Lands bound by Sheldon Avenue, Brentwood Avenue, Fairmount Road, and Jackson Avenue St. Jerome Crescent Cedarwood Crescent Clark Avenue Broadmoore Avenue Victoria Hills Alice Avenue Victoria Park King Street East Homewood Avenue Brockwood Street Fairview Avenue K-W Hospital Wood Street Cedar Hill Sydney Street (west of Rosedale Avenue) No street consistency. North Ward East side of Birch Avenue (south of Arnold Street) 7.3 Official Plan Policy Changes Option 4 Establish Policies that Direct that Character Areas be established through Zoning or Other Tools As mentioned in Section 7.2.3, the Official Plan would also need to be amended to provide the basis for the making of changes to the by-law to reflect the unique character of certain streets or areas. This would certainly be the case if the new rules eliminated some of the current as of right permitted uses in these areas. At the present time, the new Official Plan contains some direction on intensification within established neighbourhoods. For example, Section 3.C.2.52 states the following: "Limited intensification may be permitted within Community Areas in accordance with the applicable land use designation on Map 3 and the Urban Design Policies in Section 11. The proposed development must be sensitive to and compatible with the character, form and planned function of the surrounding context." 57

58 Section 4.C.1.6 encourages intensification and states the following: "The City will identify and encourage residential intensification and/or redevelopment, including adaptive re-use and infill opportunities, including second dwelling units, in order to respond to changing housing needs and as a cost-effective means to reduce infrastructure and servicing costs by minimizing land consumption and making better use of existing community infrastructure." Section 4.C.1.7 identifies what may be required to support development projects: "The City may require a site plan, elevation drawings, landscaping plans and any other appropriate plans and/or studies, to support and demonstrate that a proposed development or redevelopment is compatible with respect to built form, architectural design, landscaping, screening and/or buffering. These requirements are intended to address the relationship to adjacent residential development, to ensure compatibility with the existing built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood and to minimize adverse impacts." The Official Plan also contains a definition of 'community character' to elaborate on the meaning of the term in the above section: "Community Character - refers to identifiable pockets of the urban fabric with distinctive physical attributes. These attributes include but are not limited to development patterns, scale of the built environment, architectural vernacular of existing buildings and structures, cultural heritage resources and community infrastructure. Community character is a reflection of community image, identity and sense of place and may also reflect cultural and social values. Cultivating community character is intended to foster community pride." It is noted however that the above can only be requested when a Planning Act process is required to provide for the proposed development. Section 4.C.1.8 specifically identifies what may be required to support applications for re-zoning and minor variance to facilitate development projects: "Where a special zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) is/are requested, proposed or required to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) will be reviewed, but not limited to the following to ensure, that: a) Any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood. b) Where front yard setback reductions are proposed for new buildings in established neighbourhoods, the requested front yard setback should be similar to adjacent properties and supports and maintain the character of the streetscape and the neighbourhood. c) New additions and modifications to existing buildings are to be directed to the rear 58

59 yard and are to be discouraged in the front yard and side yard abutting a street, except where it can be demonstrated that the addition and/or modification is compatible in scale, massing, design and character of adjacent properties and is in keeping with the character of the streetscape. d) New buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. e) The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site. f) The impact of each special zoning regulation or variance will be reviewed prior to formulating a recommendation to ensure that a deficiency in the one zoning requirement does not compromise the site in achieving objectives of compatible and appropriate site and neighbourhood design and does not create further zoning deficiencies." The above requirements are very well written and detailed. However, they again only apply when a change to the zoning by-law or a minor variance is required. This means that the above policies cannot be relied upon if only an application for building permit is needed. Section 4.C.1.9 also deals with character: "Residential intensification and/or redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods will be designed to respect existing character. A high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context is important in considering compatibility." Section 4.C.1.14 deals with development proposals adjacent to established neighbourhoods: "The City will have standards/guidelines for non-residential sites which are adjacent to residential sites, including, but not limited to screening, berming, fencing, or landscaping where appropriate and in accordance with the Urban Design Policies in Section 11." Section 11.C.1.28 provides some direction on urban design established (central) neighbourhoods: "Neighbourhoods in the City can be characterized as either suburban or central neighbourhoods. The Urban Design Manual provides design direction with respect to character, built form and amenities in both typologies of neighbourhoods. a) In the Central Neighbourhoods the City s primary focus will be to ensure that new infill development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood." Section 17.E.22.1 deals with site plan control and it specifically excludes single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and duplexes. As will be mentioned later in this report, this section would have to be amended to allow for the use of site plan control for these dwelling types. If site plan control is to be applied to single detached dwellings, semi-detached 59

60 dwellings and duplexes, it is our opinion that there will be a need for new policies to provide guidance, with these new policies being similar to Section 4.C.1.8 which already specifically identifies what may be required to support applications for re-zoning and minor variance to facilitate development projects. 7.4 Update Urban Design Manual Option 5 Updates to the Urban Design Manual The City s Urban Design Manual (UDM) is a comprehensive document intended to foster a high quality of urban design on a City - wide basis. The guidelines are a resource that are available for members of the development community, residents, special-interest groups, City council and staff and includes important details on the urban design guidelines and urban design standards. Section 4.1 of the UDM addresses design guidelines in the central neighbourhoods and aims to ensure that new infill development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood. The design guidelines address objectives for character, built form and amenities. The UDM identifies specific standards for multiple residential dwellings, which includes cluster townhouses and multiples. In addition, for mixed-use corridors in the central neighbourhoods, the City has developed specific standards and policies as well as a Mixed Use Corridors Design Brief. This design brief expands on the UDM general guidelines and clarifies the City s design and development expectations along corridors. Built form standards include consideration for building placement, corner sites, street enclosures, neighbourhood transition, building height, and human scale. Of particular importance to this study, is the consideration for transitions adjacent to low rise residential neighbourhoods. Section 4.2 of the UDM addresses design guidelines in the suburban neighbourhoods that includes the Vanier community. Similar to the central neighbourhoods, the design guidelines speak to objectives for character, built form, and amenities that aim to create diverse, attractive, walkable neighbourhoods that contribute to complete communities. Based on our assessment of the Study Area, the City may consider updates to the Urban Design Manual. This could include enhanced design guidelines and standards to create more direct and comprehensive objectives for the consideration of any new infill or intensification development in the established neighbourhoods. 7.5 Changes to Existing Processes Option 6 Expand Site Plan Control Currently, the City of Kitchener only applies Site Plan Control to triplexes and up. The City could consider broadening the requirement for Site Plan Control to apply to applications for single, semi-detached and/or duplex dwellings in some or all of the Study Area. In order to provide the basis for the application of the site plan control in this manner, an amendment to the Official Plan will be required. 60

61 As part of our best practices review, it has been determined that the City of Mississauga uses site plan control in its established neighbourhoods. In this regard, the City of Mississauga has identified 22 Neighbourhood Character Areas in Chapter 16 of the City s Official Plan. The Neighbourhood Character Areas contain various policies that relate to technical matters and design issues. For example, for lands that are within a Neighbourhood Character Area a maximum building height of four storeys applies, unless a specific character area policies state otherwise. The Site Plan Control process is a key component to the implementation of the City s Official Plan and its Neighbourhood Character Areas. The Development and Design Division of the Planning and Building Department administers the site plan process and has delegated approval to approve or refuse applications. The City s Site Plan Control By-law ( ) states that all lands within the City of Mississauga is designated as a Site Plan Control area, under which all development is subject to site plan approval. There are exceptions to this approval, as described in Section 4 of the Site Plan Control By-law. The purpose of the Site Plan Control By-law is to ensure that development in the designated areas complements the overall character of the community s existing housing stock and natural areas, and contributes to the unique qualities of the neighbourhood in which it is being developed. The types of development that are subject to the Site Plan Control By-law include the construction of new dwellings (including single-detached dwellings), replacement housing and residential additions. Between 2011 and 2015, the City received approximately 200 site plan applications per year for low-rise residential development in the character areas. The process begins with a preliminary meeting to review concept drawings with City staff before submitting an application for approval. The City does not require applicants to post a sign on the subject property. A series of checklists have been developed by the City that are required as part of a complete site plan application. These checklists include: Site Plan Infill Residential Drawings Checklist, Development and Design Checklist, Forestry Checklist, Parking Planning Checklist, Site Grading Checklist, and Zoning Checklist. City staff reviews the application with the completed checklists for: The size of the home, compared to others in the neighbourhood; The location of the home on a property; Landscaping and trees on the property and the street; Driveways and other hard surfaces; and The slope of the property (grading). For the areas designated as Neighbourhood Character Areas, City Council has endorsed specific design guidelines for dwellings that is intended to assist homeowners, designers, architects, and landscape architects in understanding the expectations of the City for infill housing. The design guidelines deal with scale, massing, and character of the proposed buildings and/or additions. Siting (location of the dwelling on a property), tree protection, garage location, driveway location, and grading are also components of the guidelines that must be reflected in development proposals. 61

62 In addition to the urban design guidelines and process for Site Plan Control areas, the applicable policies and standards of the Zoning By-law must also be met in preparing design proposals Option 7 Change Notice Policies for Planning Act Processes Public consultation and notification initiatives can take on a variety of forms. The Planning Act sets out minimum requirements for notification and consultation for certain types of planning applications. In some instances, the public may not become aware of a proposed development until after it has been approved or once construction has begun on a site. This is because some types of applications do not require a sign to be posted, a public meeting to be held or any notification to be provided. Enhanced consultation measures are an option for the City to consider in their approach to processing certain planning applications, these could include: Requiring applicants to post a sign on the subject land(s) for consent and minor variance applications; Increasing the circulation requirements for consent and/or minor variances to 60 metres from 30 metres (the combination of requiring the posting of a sign and an increased circulation distance would replace the newspaper notice requirement); and, Increasing awareness and/or expansion of information available through the City s OnPoint GIS system for development applications. In addition, the City does not currently require a sign to be posted for site plan applications. The City could consider changing its current notification process to include a requirement for the posting of a sign for site plan applications. The posting of a sign in this case would be asked for on a voluntary basis, since there is no statutory requirement for the posting of a sign. A more challenging scenario exists for development proposals that only require a building permit. This is the case when a proposal conforms to the zoning by-law. In general, when a building permit application is submitted, the City has ten days to review and approve the application. If a sign were required, this would provide a short timeline for the posting of a sign and notifying the public. In addition, there is no legal basis for the posting of a sign for a building permit or determination of which party (City or applicant) would bear the cost. The City does, however, have an online mapping tool (OnPoint GIS system) where the City posts active building permits. The City could consider exploring ways to increase awareness of this mapping tool. Another consideration for the City could be to include simplified language used in planning application notifications. This could assist the public in understanding potential implications and opportunities for consultation Option 8 Implement Cultural Heritage Landscape Study The Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) Study was completed in December 2014 and was formally considered and approved by Kitchener City Council on April 27, 2015 through Staff Report CSD ( Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape 62

63 Study ). Direction on the study methodology was taken from the Regional Implementation Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation. The Regional implementation guidelines were endorsed by Regional Council in August 2013, to serve as a policy tool providing detailed guidance in the application of ROP policies, and in this case, direction to area municipalities on how to proactively identify, document and conserve significant CHLs. CHLs are defined in the Provincial Policy Statement as, a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples of cultural heritage landscapes include but are not limited to heritage conservation districts, parks, cemeteries, trailways, neighbourhoods and industrial complexes. Establishing an inventory of significant CHLs marks the first step in a three-phased CHL conservation process (see Figure 23). Figure 23: Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Process (from The study identified Report CSD Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study ). and documented 55 significant CHLs in the following categories: Residential Neighbourhoods 12 CHLs Parks, Natural Areas and Other Public/Private Open Space - 7 CHLs Transportation Corridors and Streetscapes - 17 CHLs Institutional Landscapes - 3 CHLs Commercial, Industrial and Retail Landscapes - 2 CHLs Agricultural Landscapes - 3 CHLs Residential/Estate - 3 CHLs Cemeteries - 7 CHLs Grand River Valley Landscapes - 1 CHL Many of the Residential Neighbourhoods that have been identified as CHLs are in the Study Area. These CHLs are identified in the Figure below (see Figure 24, next page). 63

64 Figure 24: Residential neighbourhoods identified as cultural heritage landscapes. The City is currently evaluating an approach for implementing the objectives of the CHL study. These could include a range of options such as: establishing guidelines for specific areas; listing properties on the Heritage Register; and, the consideration of new or expanded Heritage Conservation Districts. Depending on the approach taken through the CHL review, different tools and processes may then be applied within parts of the study area. These tools would also assist in addressing the character of new development and the extent of review will depend on the approach. 7.6 Establish a New Process for Some or All of the Study Area Another option for the City to consider is to establish a new planning approval process. In this regard, we have reviewed planning approval processes in the Cities of Ottawa and Edmonton. In Ottawa, the City relies upon a streetscape character analysis to determine what the zoning rule should be on a particular property. This type of process is new, was endorsed by the Ontario Municipal Board in By-law (PL#120666) and has been operational since June While the approach taken by the City of Ottawa is unique and novel, it does require a significant level of effort on the part of the landowner to carry out parts of the analysis and on the part of City Staff to review the analysis and make decisions. 64

65 In the City of Edmonton, the City relies upon a development permit system that is similar to but very different in other respects to the development permit system in Ontario. These options are discussed below Option 9 Develop a Streetscape Character Analysis Process In 2015, the City of Ottawa adopted an Infill Zoning By-law that established a Mature Neighbourhood Overlay to regulate the character of low-rise residential development in order to recognize and reflect the existing character of the streetscapes in established residential neighbourhoods. The Zoning By-law describes character as: The recurrence or prevalence of patterns of established building setbacks, site layouts, orientation of the principal entranceway to the street, incidental use of lands, and landscape that constitute a streetscape, based on identified and confirmed land use attributes. The Mature Neighbourhood Overlay is applied to any lots in any zones where a residential use building of four or fewer storeys is permitted. The Mature Neighbourhood Overlay generally includes lands zoned R1, R2, R3, and R4, in Wards 7-18, in the City of Ottawa. The types of development that must comply with the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay include: Proposed development to construct a new homebuilding, Add an addition to an existing dwelling that abuts the front yard or side corner yard, or Change in the incidental use of the lands in the front, side or corner yards. In the Mature Neighbourhoods, your street gives you your rules. In addition to the regular zoning that applies to a property, certain rules are based on streetscape. In order to determine all zoning requirements and permissions that apply to a property in the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay area, a Streetscape Character Analysis is required. Since June of 2015 when the City began implementing this requirement, the City has received 150 Streetscape Character Analysis submissions. A Streetscape Character Analysis is required any time a building permit is required for lands in the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. In general, applications for zoning by-law amendments, minor variances, or site plan control are requested with the intent of developing a property that would require a building permit and, as a consequence, the completion of the Streetscape Character Analysis is required. In the above-mentioned types of applications, the statutory requirements apply. When developing a corner lot that has frontage on more than one street, two Streetscape Character Analysis forms must be completed. Figure 25: Example of the 21 lots that must be assessed as part of a Streetscape Character Analysis. The star represents the subject property. The Streetscape Character Analysis identifies and records the attributes of 21 lots (see Figure 25) surrounding the subject property. 65

66 To further explain the approach that the City of Ottawa uses, the figures below are an example that was presented by City of Ottawa staff in February Step 1: Identify the properties that need to be surveyed in the streetscape character analysis. Once the properties to be included in the Streetscape Character Analysis have been identified, a series of attributes are to be observed in order to define the streetscape character, these include: Landscaping of the front yard, interior yard, interior side yard, and corner side yard; Location and width of driveways; Location and size of all parking spaces, garages, and carports; and Orientation of principal entranceways. Step 2: Using the City s online mapping and site visits at each property, complete the Streetscape Character Analysis form. The findings from the completion of this form provide the rules for development. Attribute patterns are then grouped into Character Groups. The dominant Character Group, which may be comprised of more than one pattern in the same Character Group, establishes the requirement and creates permissions for each of the Attributes. The Zoning By-law defines dominant as: In the case of patterns, the dominant pattern is the most frequently occurring pattern as set out in Section 140 for each of the attributes being documented in a Streetscape Character Analysis. 66

67 In the case of Character Groups, the dominant Character Group is the most frequently occurring Group as detailed in Section 140, inclusive of the various patterns that constitute it, for each of the attributes being documented in a Streetscape Character Analysis. The completion of the Streetscape Character Analysis determines the zoning requirements for the applicant. Once approved, a Streetscape Character Analysis is valid for a period of eighteen months from the date of approval. The final step is for the applicant to prepare their plan for proposed development. Step 3: Develop plan that complies with zoning rules. As a result, the site plan was designed to comply with the elements that were reviewed through the Streetscape Character Analysis. This included locating the garage under the one of the semi-detached units, providing landscaping in the front yard and orienting the front entranceway with the street. This reflects existing dwellings on the street and fits in to the surrounding character. The pictures below (see Figure 26 and 27) illustrate the constructed semi-detached dwelling located at 37 Ladouceur in the City s mature neighbourhood area. Figure 26: 37 Ladouceur from the street. Figure 27: 37 Ladouceur close-up of the garage. 67

68 7.6.2 Option 10 Establish a Development Permit System Overview of the Edmonton Experience Another different approach that could be considered by the City is to establish a development permit system. This approach is used in the City of Edmonton and is described below. It should be noted that the Planning practice in Alberta is different than in Ontario. This is also further described below. The City of Edmonton, Alberta, uses a Mature Neighbourhood Overlay in their Land Use By-law (12800) to ensure that new development in the mature neighbourhoods is sensitive in scale to existing development and maintains traditional character. The Planning practice in Alberta differs from that of Ontario. The Alberta Municipal Government Act mandates the planning practice in the province of Alberta. There is a requirement under the Act to prepare Municipal Development Plans (MDP) (equivalent to Official Plans in Ontario) and Land Use Bylaws (LUB) (equivalent to Zoning By-law in Ontario). However, the Land Use Bylaw is a standalone document that does not necessarily have to be in conformity with the MDP. It does, however, need to be in conformity with the requirements set out in the Alberta Municipal Act. In this regard, a municipality has a significant amount of discretion with respect to how the Land Use Bylaw is organized and with respect to content. Another difference is that Alberta uses a Development Permit System that relies on additional criteria to assess an application, providing significant leeway in interpretation compared to planning practice in Ontario. The Mature Neighbourhood Overlay uses the characteristics of abutting properties in determining standards for proposed development. The Mature Neighbourhood Overlay applies to all lands zoned Single Detached Residential (RF1), Low Density Infill (RF2), Low Density Development (RF3), Semi-detached Residential (RF4), and Row Housing (RF5). The zone standards for the above-mentioned zones in the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay area are summarized below (see Table 25). Table 25: Zone standards of the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay area and other Residential Zones. Mature Neighbourhood Overlay Area RF1 RF2 RF3 RF4 RF5 5.5 metres with front or flanking access to required off-street parking space or an attached garage. Minimum Front Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Within 1.5 metres of abutting lots, but not less than 3.0 metres Site width less than 18.3 metres, 6.0 metres 20% of the site width, 20% of the site width, 4.5 metres with rear access to required off-street parking space or garage (2) 5.5 metres with front or flanking access to required offstreet parking space or an attached garage. (4) 1.2 metres 1.2 metres 68

69 Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback Maximum Height underlying zone applies. Site width greater than 18.3 metres, setback is 20% of Site Width, but not to exceed 6 metres. 40% of the site depth minimum side setback of 1.2 metres on each side. to a maximum total of 6.0 metres, with a minimum side setback of 1.2 metres on each side. 7.5 metres (1) 7.5 metres (3) 8.6 metres ( metres storeys) Upper half storey of a 2.5 storey building Maximum not to exceed 50% N/A Floor Area of the structure of the second storey floor area. (1) Where a primary dwelling with an attached garage faces the flanking public roadway, it may be reduced to 4.5 metres. (2) Except that the front setback may be less than 4.5 metres to a minimum of 3.0 metres when a landscaped boulevard strip between the curb and the walkway of the road cross section at the front of the Site is provided by the Design and Construction standards. (3) The rear yard may be reduced to 5.5 metres where an attached garage is provided. (4) A minimum of 3.0 metres where a treed landscaped boulevard is provided; a minimum of 5.5 metres where front attached garage forms integral part of dwelling, except in case of private roadway, minimum shall be 6.0 metres. The provisions for lands in the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay area allow for a minimum front yard setback within a range of the abutting lots front yard setback. This provides some flexibility in the location of a dwelling on a lot. The minimum side yard setback is similar to other Residential zones except for lots that are greater than 18.3 metres. The building height is also slightly lower at 8.6 metres compared to other Residential zones where the permitted maximum building height is 10.0 metres. In 2009, the City of Edmonton developed Residential Infill Guidelines for Mature Neighbourhoods to support the policies of the Land Use By-law. The guidelines aim to achieve high quality residential infill that address location, form, and height of residential infill in mature neighbourhoods. The guidelines apply to all forms of proposed residential development in 107 designated mature neighbourhoods throughout the City of Edmonton. The guidelines are organized by scale of development and housing type and provide explanations, typical zones for the proposed development, and height and density. The Residential Infill Guidelines are used by City staff in reviewing development applications and by developers in preparing applications for infill, rezoning, or development permits. All forms of residential development in the Mature Neighbourhoods are subject to the review of the Residential Infill Guidelines. 69

70 Limitations of the Development Permit System in Ontario The Province introduced the Development Permit System ('DPS') in 2007 as an alternative to the contemporary planning framework that has existed in Ontario since the 1950s. The intent at the time was to permit municipalities to establish a discretionary zoning regime that allowed for the consideration of a number of factors in the reaching of a decision. While discretionary decision-making is certainly a key component of the review of an application against an Official Plan, making decisions based on the context of the site is not an option when applying a zoning by-law under Section 34 of the Planning Act. This is because zoning by-laws are required to be as "black and white" as possible since they are intended to provide surety as to what is permitted on a property. This has been upheld through the courts and by the Ontario Municipal Board on a number of occasions, and with respect to the courts, it has long been the experience of many that where a zoning by-law is found to be unclear, the court will side with the landowner's interpretation since the duty falls exclusively upon the municipality to write and enact clear zoning by-laws. When the Province first proposed enacting legislation to enable the use of a DPS, a number of concerns were expressed by the development industry on the transferring of the making of decisions from publicly elected Councils to bureaucrats. Many in the development industry felt that the political process was necessary in order to make decisions and that relying upon municipal staff to make these decisions was inappropriate. As a consequence of this sentiment, the Ontario regulation establishing the ability to establish a DPS was made overly complicated, since it required the preparation of an Official Plan Amendment that provided the basis for the use of a DPS system in addition to establishing a DPS by-law. The intent of the Province at the time was to ensure that as many of the elements of the discretionary decision-making process where codified in the Official Plan first so that the parameters of making every possible decision were understood in advance by all those that were affected. The rationale was that, since landowners could not appeal a decision on a development permit, there was a need to ensure that these same landowners understood the policies and regulations up-front in the enabling documents, which were subject to appeal (unfortunately, this only make sense in year one not in year ten when lands have changed ownership). The resulting challenge with the current legislative framework is that all aspects of what is expected in areas subject to a DPS have to be thought through and considered in advance. Many of the elements of the DPS framework in Ontario came from Alberta. However, the most significant difference between the two systems is that there is only one statutory document in Alberta - the DPS by law itself. While there is a Municipal 70

71 Development Plan (similar to an Ontario Official Plan) in Alberta, it does not enjoy the same statutory place in the planning regime and essentially it functions much more as a strategic document that sets out the municipality's long-term goals and objectives. As a consequence, the DPS by-law is really the sole document that identifies which uses will be considered and the type of public consultation required. Having assisted the City of Brampton with the preparation of a DPS Official Plan Amendment and by-law for part of the Central neighbourhoods, another issue raised through that process was the need to very clearly articulate the DPS application review process in the context of the Official Plan. This meant for the City of Brampton that a new review process had to be established since a DPS application results in the need, on occasion, for an agreement, but such an agreement is not a site plan agreement as per Section 41 of the Planning Act. As a consequence, a new plan review process had to be established with input from multiple departments and it was this component of the process that took the longest. The City of Hamilton also came to this conclusion when it was considering the preparation of a DPS by-law. It also prepared a DPS policy framework in the Official Plan but decided to abandon the implementation of those policies for the downtown area, since it was perceived to be much simpler to simply pre-zone the lands affected and apply a Holding provision. 7.7 Public Information and Awareness Option 11 Create a Guide for Infill Developments Navigating the many layers of policies, standards, and guidelines for development proposals can be complex, as both an applicant for development and as a member of the public. In this regard, another option for the City is create a guide for infill developments in the Study Area that is focused on the established neighbourhoods. Such a guide could be used as a public resource in understanding the planning application process, notification, and opportunities for consultation. 7.8 Summary of Option Implications A summary of the options and implications for each is provided in the table below (see Table 26, next page). 71

72 Table 26: Summary of Options SUMMARY OF OPTIONS Approach to Making the Changes Impacts on Development Applications How much work is involved to implement? Is a Council approval required to implement? Are changes to the Official Plan required? Are there appeal rights to establish the option? What is the effect on staff resources? Are additional approvals needed? What are the potential impacts on the applicant? Will the public be consulted or notified? Zoning Changes 1 Change existing zoning rules Moderate - ZBA requires public meeting. Yes - requiring at least one public meeting. No - the changes are technical in nature. Yes - the ZBA can be appealed. Minimal No - however, potential for minor variances increases when more rules are introduced. The applicant will have to factor in changes to rules into their design. No - unless minor variance is needed. 2 Apply new zoning rules Moderate - ZBA requires public meeting. Yes - requiring at least one public meeting. No - the changes are technical in nature. Yes - the ZBA can be appealed. Minimal No - however, potential for minor variances increases when more rules are introduced The applicant will have to factor in changes to rules into their design. No - unless minor variance is needed. 3 Change the zoning on certain streets to better reflect character Extensive - A more detailed review of certain identified areas or streets would have to be carried out. Yes - requiring at least one public meeting for ZBA. Additional consultation expected for each area. No - however, changes could occur in conjunction with Option 4 if changes to policy are required. Yes - the ZBA can be appealed, along with the OPA as per Option 4. Minimal No - however, potential for minor variances increases when more rules are introduced. The applicant will have to factor in changes to rules into their design. No - unless minor variance is needed. Official Plan Changes 4 Establish policies that direct that character areas be established through zoning or other tools Extensive - detailed review of identified areas or streets, some with Cultural Heritage Landscape objectives. Yes - requiring at least one public meeting for OPA. Additional consultation expected for each area. Yes Yes - the OPA can be appealed. Depends on implementing process. Depends on implementing process. Depends on implementing process. Depends on implementing process. Urban Design Manual 5 Expand Urban Design Manual standards for infill projects Moderate. Yes - Council approves Urban Design Manual updates. No No No - would be used for site plan review. No The applicant will have to factor in changes to rules into their design. No Changes to Existing Processes 6 Expand Site Plan Control to singles, semis and/or duplexes in some or all of the Study Area Moderate - establish new procedures, amend site plan control by-law, OPA. Yes - requiring at least one public meeting for OPA. Amendment to Tariff of Fees bylaw and site plan control by-law also required. Yes Yes - the OPA can be appealed. Moderate - site plan applications may increase by between 15 and 40 based on past trends. Requiring site plan approval for single detached, demi detached and duplex dwellings is a new approval requirement. Cost and addition processing time, potential for additional consulting services. Depends on whether City requires the posting of a sign as per Option Change Notice policies for Planning Act processes (Consent, Minor Variance and Site Plan) Implement Cultural Heritage Landscape Study Develop a Streetscape Character Analysis process Establish a Development Permit System Minimal - new procedure, coordination with sign shop. Extensive - requires determination of appropriate implementation tool and direct landowner notice. Extensive - detailed assessment, establish new process. Extensive - determination on the rules that would apply and the application review process. Changing the way notice is given requires Council decision because it would require amending existing Council approved policies. Yes - most implementation options/tools will require some level of Council approval. Yes - requiring at least one public meeting. Additional consultation expected. Yes - OPA and the Development Permit By-law. No Yes (CHLs to be identified in Official Plan Amendment). Depends on whether Official Plan policies are required to support new process. No TBD - Depends on the option (e.g. an HCD can be appealed). Yes - the ZBA and the OPA (if required) can be appealed. Minimal - depends on who is responsible for notices (City or applicant). Depends on implementing process. Establish New Process for some or all of the Study Area Yes Yes Moderate - depending on the analysis needed. Moderate - depending on the new process created. No Depends on implementing process. No - but considerable additional analysis needed. Yes - development permit. If signs are required for notice, costs associated with production and/or installation. Depends on implementing process. Zoning processing time will take much longer for building permit. Cost and addition processing time, potential for additional consulting services. Notify - for processes per new policy. Depends on implementing process. No To be determined by the Development Permit By-law. Public Information and Awareness (about intensification) 11 Create a guide for infill developments Minimal - design and production of guide. No No No Minimal - may reduce questions about process. No May assist applicant in understanding process. Information on process will be made available. 72

73 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS This provides a comprehensive review of the Study Area neighbourhoods, development activity between 2011 and 2015, best practices review and explanation of the types of general planning approval processes. It is clear that the established neighbourhoods are changing. Moving forward, the City will experience more pressure to develop in these established areas and this review is timely in determining how the current planning process can be refined to guide appropriate and practical residential intensification. Several examples of municipal approaches manage residential development in established areas have been reviewed and are examples of options that the City of Kitchener could implement. Such approaches include zoning overlays, regulating character through streetscape analyses, and site plan control. Lastly, and most common, is the option to incorporate standards into the City s zoning by-law that would provide controls on how a lot is developed. The is a key deliverable for Task 2 in the Study process. The options presented in Section 7 of this Report provide the basis for moving forward in establishing a process to evaluate residential intensification in the established neighbourhoods. The next steps in the process will include consultation with Council, stakeholders, and the public. The engagement opportunities will provide the study team with a good understanding of the types of changes that may be desirable from the community. This will aid in preparing recommendations for a process that can be used by the City when assessing and evaluating development proposals in the established neighbourhoods. The final deliverables will include the preparation of a final report and a report to Council that presents the recommended preferred process. 73

74 APPENDIX 1 74

75 APPENDIX 1: Best Practices Zone Standards APPENDIX 1A: Markham Infill Housing Controls for One Family Detached Dwellings By-Laws Maximum Height Maximum Number of Storeys Maximum Depth Maximum Garage Projection Maximum Garage Width Maximum Floor Area Ratio Other provisions 1229 (99-90) Pitched roof dwellings 9.8 metres Flat roof dwellings 8 metres 2 (within a single vertical plane) 16.8 metres by an extension to the rear of the dwelling if such extension complies with the following: - the extension does not exceed 1 storey and 4.6 metres in height. - the extension is set back from all lot lines a minimum distance of the greater of 3.0 metres, or the minimum required setback; and - the extension is not wider than one-half (½) the width of the dwelling at its No closer to the front lot line than 2.1 metres beyond the point of the main building closest to the front lot line. 7.7 metres for any lot having a frontage of less than 18.3 metres. R1, R2, R3 and R4 Zones: 45% Lot Frontage R1, R2, R3 & R4 zones: 60 ft Minimum Lot Area: R1, R2, R3 & R4 zones: 6,600 sq. ft Coverage R1, R2, R3 & R4 zones: 35 % Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 75

76 By-Laws Maximum Height Maximum Number of Storeys Maximum Depth Maximum Garage Projection Maximum Garage Width Maximum Floor Area Ratio Other provisions widest point (16-93) As above As above 16.8 metres Except that the depth may be increased to 18.9 metres by an extension to the rear of the dwelling if such extension complies with the following: - the extension does not exceed 1 storey and 4.6 metres in height. - the extension is not wider than one-half (½) the width of the dwelling at its widest point. As above n/a 47% Minimum front yard: Notwithstanding Section 6.1 of By-law 2237, as amended, the minimum Front Yard for the lands shown on Schedule A; hereto shall be 10.7 metres. Lot Frontage R3 60 ft Minimum Lot Area: R sq. ft Coverage R3 zone: 33 1/3 % Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 76

77 By-Laws Maximum Height Maximum Number of Storeys Maximum Depth Maximum Garage Projection Maximum Garage Width Maximum Floor Area Ratio Other provisions 2237 (101-90) Pitched roof dwellings 9.8 metres for the R2, R3, RM1, RM2 and RM3 zones. 8.6 metres for the R4 and R4S zones. Flat roof dwellings (all zones) 8 metres As above As above As above 7.7 metres for any lot having a frontage of less than 18.3 metres. R2, R3, R4, R4S, RM1, RM2, RM3 zones: 50% Lot Frontage R2 75 ft R3 60 ft R4 50 ft Minimum Lot Area: R sq. ft R sq. ft R sq. ft Coverage R2, R3 & R4 zones: 33 1/3 % 2237 (223-94) (Heritage Bylaw) No closer to the front lot line than 1.0 metres beyond the point of the main building closest to the front lot line. - 33% Maximum Floor Area: m 2 for single detached dwellings (exclusive of garage) Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards m 2 for garages

78 By-Laws Maximum Height Maximum Number of Storeys Maximum Depth Maximum Garage Projection Maximum Garage Width Maximum Floor Area Ratio Other provisions 1767 (100-90) Pitched roof dwellings 9.8 metres for the R1, R2, R3, R4, SR2 and SR3 zones metres for the SR1 and GR zones. Flat roof dwellings (all zones) 8 metres As above As above As above 7.7 metres for any lot having a frontage of less than 18.3 metres. R1, R2, R3, R4 zones: 50% SR1, SR2, SR3 zones: 47% GR zone: 42% Lot Frontage R1 100 ft R2 75 ft R3 60 ft R4 50 ft Minimum Lot Area: R1 10,000 sq. ft R sq. ft R sq. ft R sq. ft Coverage R1, R2, R3 & R4 zones: 25 % Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 78

79 APPENDIX 1B: North York Zoning Provisions By-law 7625 Maximum Height Sloped Roof 9.5 metres for R1 and R2 zones. 8.8 metres for R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 zones. Flat roof: 9.5 metres for R1 and R2 zones. 8.0 metres for R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 zones. Minimum lot frontage and width R1 30 m R2 21 m R3 18 m R4 15 m R5 15 m R6 12 m R7 9 m Minimum Lot area R m 2 R2 975 m 2 R3 690 m 2 R4 550 m 2 R5 550 m 2 R6 371 m 2 R7 278 m 2 Maximum Length R1 no maximum R2 no maximum R m R m R m R m R m Maximum finished first floor height 1.5 m (all zones) Maximum Lot Coverage 25% for lots in neighbourhoo ds: Bond, Chipping, Duncairn, Greenland, Mallow and Overland Front Yards Side Yards Rear Yard One and Two Storeys: R1 12 m R2 9 m R3 7.5 m R4 7.5 m R5 7.5 m R6 6 m R7 6 m Three storey: R1 12 m R2 9 m One and Two Storeys: R1 3 m R2 1.8 m one storey; 2.4 m two storey R3 1.8 m R4 1.8 m R5 1.8 m R6 1.2 m R7 1.2 m Three Storey: R1 & R2 3 m One and Two Storeys: 9.5 m (all zones) Three Storey: R1 & R2: 9.5 m Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 79

80 Other provisions The front yard setback in R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7 may be increased or decreased by 1.0 m in most cases Side yards increased to 1.8 m for lots with frontage 15 m or greater. The maximum length of dwelling in the R6 and R7 zones may be increased by a 1.5 m one-storey extension to the front of the dwelling and/or a 2.1m one-storey extension to the rear of the dwelling, provided the extension(s) are no wider than one-half the width of the dwelling at the dwelling s widest point, and the height of the extension(s) does not exceed 5.0 m. The maximum length of dwelling in the R3, R4 and R5 zones may be increased 2.1 m (from 16.8m to 18.9m) by a one-storey extension to the rear of the dwelling, provided the extension is no wider than one-half the width of the dwelling s widest point, has a minimum 3.0m side yard each side and maximum height of 5.0 m. The maximum first floor height may be increased from 1.5 m to 2.0 m for dwellings on lots that have a frontage of less than 13.7 m and have a down-sloping driveway (Note: down-sloping driveway are not permitted on lots with a lot frontage greater than 13.7 m). Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 80

81 APPENDIX 1C: Etobicoke Zoning Provisions Residential Detached Dwellings Maximum Height 9.5m to the peak of the roof and 6.5m to the unders ide of the eaves; or 6.5 to the top of flat roofs. Minimum lot frontage and width R1 15 m R m R3 12 m R4 12 m R5 15 m Minimum Lot area R1 557 m 2 R2 510 m 2 R3 465 m 2 R4 465 m 2 R5 557 m 2 Maximum Length -N/A *Rear yard setback = 25% of lot depth but not less than 7.5m Maximum finished first floor height Maximum Lot Coverage -N/A R1 33% R2 33% R3 33% R4 33% R5 33% Front Yards Side Yards Rear Yard -Refer below One Storey: LF<15.3m 0.9m (1.2 if windows located on 1 st storey) LF> m More than One Storey: LF<15.3m - 0.9m per side and a total minimum combined side yards of 2.1 minimum 25% of lot depth but not less than 7.5m LF 15.3m to 18m - >1.2 per side is and total minimum combined side ueards that is equal to or greater than 20% of LF Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 81

82 Other provisions Front Yard Setback in R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 zones Dwellings in line with adjacent dwelling: A minimum of 17.5 from the center line of road to the front of main building and a minimum of 7.5m from front property line to the front of main building Dwellings not in line with adjacent building: minimum front yard setback is the average distance between the front wall and front property line of the existing dwellings on either side. Dwellings on a key lot: average of the required distance for the adjoining interior lot and the required distance from the side lot line on the street side of the building on the adjoining reverse corner lot. Where no buildings exist on either side, the distances established by such buildings shall be used in computing the front yard for a key lot. LF = Lot frontage Side yard setback, one storey corner lot minimum distance from the side lot line on the street shall be 50% of the distance from the front lot line for buildings on lots in the rear of such corner lot (excluding key lots), but not less than 3m. Side yard setbacks, dwellings more than one storey with a lot frontage greater than 18m for every 3m or portion there of beyond 18m but need not exceed 3m per side provided that the total minimum combined side yards is equal or greater than 20% of lot frontage. Side yard setbacks, dwellings more than one storey corner lot minimum distance from the side lot line on the street shall be 50% of the distance from the front lot line for buildings on lots in the rear of such corner, nut not less than 3 m. Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 82

83 APPENDIX 1D: City of Burlington Zoning Provisions By-law 2020 (Low Density Residential Zones) Zone Building Height R1.2 2 ½ storey maximum height for detached dwellings. R2.1 2 ½ storey maximum height for detached dwellings. R2.2 2 ½ storey maximum height for detached dwellings. R2.3 2 ½ storey maximum height for detached dwellings. Lot Width Lot Area Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Street Side Yard 24 m 925 m 2 9 m 9 m With attached (on a corner garage/carport: lot the rear 10% of actual lot yard may be width 4.5 m) 18 m 700 m 2 11 m 10 m (on a corner lot the rear yard may be 4.5 m) 18 m 700 m 2 11 m 10 m (on a corner lot the rear yard may be 4.5 m) 18 m 680 m m 9 m (on a corner lot the rear yard may be 4.5 m) Without attached garage/carport: 10% of actual lot width, 3 m minimum on one side. With garage/carport: 1.2 m attached Without attached garage/carport: 1.2 m one side, 3 m other side. With attached garage/carport: 1.2 m Without attached garage/carport: 1.2 m one side, 3 m other side. With attached garage/carport: 1.2 m Without attached garage/carport: 1.2 m one side, 3 m Maximum Lot Coverage 9 m With attached garage/carport (including accessory 4.5 m 4.5 m 4.5 m buildings and structures) 1 storey: 40% 1 ½ storey: 37.5 % 2 + storeys: 35% (40% in R3.3 and R3.4 zones) Without attached garage/carport (principle structure/accessory buildings and structures): 1 storey: 32% / 8% 1 ½ storey: 29% / 8% 2 + storeys: 27% / 8% (32% / 8% in R3.3 and R3.4 zones) All dwellings in Designated Areas shaded on Schedule A Maps 25% including all accessory buildings and Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 83

84 Zone Building Height R2.4 2 ½ storey maximum height for detached dwellings. R3.1 2 ½ storey maximum height for detached dwellings. R3.2 2 ½ storey maximum height for detached dwellings. Lot Width Lot Area Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Street Side Yard other side. 16 m 600 m 2 6 m 9 m With attached 4.5 m (on a corner garage/carport: lot the rear 1.2 m yard may be 4.5 m) Without attached garage/carport: 1.2 m one side, 3 m 15 m 500 m 2 6 m 9 m (on a corner lot the rear yard may be 4.5 m) 15 m 425 m 2 6 m 9 m (on a corner lot the rear yard may be 4.5 m) other side. With garage/carport: 1.2 m attached Without attached garage/carport: 1.2 m one side, 3 m other side. With attached garage/carport: 1.2 m Without attached garage/carport: 1.2 m one side, 3 m other side. 4.5 m 4.5 m Maximum Lot Coverage structures Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 84

85 APPENDIX 1E: City of Oshawa Zoning Provisions By-law Zones Minimum Lot Frontage R1 R1-A, R1-B, R1-C, R1-D: m Minimum Lot Area R1-A, R1-B, R1-C, R1-D: m 2 Minimum Front Yard Depth R1-A, R1-B, R1-C, R1-D: 6 9 m Minimum Interior Side Yard Depth R1-A, R1-B, R1-C, R1-D: 1.2 m Minimum Exterior Side Yard Depth R1-A, R1-B, R1-C, R1-D: 2.4 m Minimum Rear Yard Depth R1-A, R1-B, R1-C, R1-D: 7.5 m Maximum Lot Coverage R1-A, R1-B, R1-C, R1-D: 40% Maximum Height R1-A, R1-B, R1-C, R1-D: 9.0 m R2 & R5 R3 (townhouse R1-E: 9 m R1-F, R1-H: 30 m R1-G, Single detached dwelling 9 m Semidetached dwelling on a corner lot 12 m 6.0 m per dwelling unit R1-E: 270 m 2 R1-F, R1-G, R1-H: m 2 Single detached dwelling 270 m 2 Semidetached dwelling on interior lot 9 m Semidetached dwelling on a corner lot 320 m 2 R1-E: 6 m R1-F, R1-G, R1-H: m Single detached dwelling 6 m Semidetached dwelling on interior lot 275 m 2 Semidetached dwelling on a corner lot 6 m R1-E: 1.2 m (interior lots); 0 m (corner lots) R1-F, R1-G, R1-H: 5 m Single detached dwelling 1.2 m on one side only; 0.0 m for corner lots Semidetached dwelling on interior lot 6 m Semidetached dwelling on a corner lot 0.0 m R1-E: 2.4 m R1-F, R1-H: 5 m Single detached dwelling 2.4 m dwellings) Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 85 R1-G, Semidetached dwelling on interior lot 1.2 m on one side only Semidetached dwelling on a corner lot 2.4 m R1-E: 7.5 m R1-F, R1-G, R1-H: 10.5 m Single detached dwelling 7.5 m Semidetached dwelling on interior lot N/A Semidetached dwelling on a corner lot 7.5 m R1-E: 40% R1-F, R1-H: 20% Single detached dwelling 40% R1-G, Semidetached dwelling on interior lot 7.5 m Semidetached dwelling on a corner lot 40% R1-E: 9.0 m R1-F, R1-G, R1-H: 10.5 m Single detached dwelling 9 m Semidetached dwelling on interior lot 40% Semidetached dwelling on a corner lot 9 m Semidetached dwelling on interior lot 9 m 185 m m 1.2 m 2.4 m 7.5 m 50% 10.5 m

86 Zones R4 (block townhouse) R6 (apartment buildings) R7 (lodging house) R8 (correctional group home) Minimum Lot Frontage Minimum Lot Area Minimum Front Yard Depth 30.0 m 1250 m 2 Abutting arterial road m Minimum Interior Side Yard Depth Any other road 6.0 m m m 1.5 m for each storey or half-storey Minimum Exterior Side Yard Depth Minimum Rear Yard Depth Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Height 3.0 m m 35% 10.5 m N/A N/A R6-A: 2.4 m All others: 1.5 m for each storey or half-storey m 22% 40% m Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 86

87 APPENDIX 1F: City of Vaughan Zoning Provisions By-law 1-88 Zones R1V Old Village Residential R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 (single family detached dwelling) RD1 RD2 RD3 RD4 RD5 Minimum Lot Frontage Lot Area Minimum Yards Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Building Height 30 m 845 m 2 Front 9.0 m 20 % 9.5 m Rear 7.5 m Interior Side 1.5 m Exterior Side 9.0m R1 18 m R1 540 m 2 Front R1 35 % R1, R2, R3, R4 9 m R2 15 m R2 450 m 2 R1 7.5 m R2, R3 40 % R5 11 m R3 12 m R3 360 m 2 R2, R3, R4, R5 4.5 m R4 45 % R4 9 m / unit R4 270 m 2 / unit R5 50 % R5 7.5 m / unit R5 225 m 2 / unit Rear R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 7.5 m Interior Side R1, R5 1.5 m R2, R3, R4 1.2 m Exterior Side R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 4.5 m Front 9.0 m Rear 7.5 m Interior Side 1.5 m Exterior Side 9.0m (single family detached dwelling) Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 87

88 Notes: The sum of the side yards calculated from the main building shall not exceed 15 metres. The minimum side yard on one side can be reduced to 0.3 metres, where it abuts a side yard of a minimum of 1.2 metres, except where the side yard abuts a non-residential use. Except for building in excess of 11 metres in height, the interior side yard requirement shall be a minimum of 7.5 metres or half the height, whichever is the greater. Except where a single family detached dwelling is erected without an attached garage or carport, the minimum side yard requirements of one interior yard be 4.5 metres, or the front yard shall be a minimum of 11 metres. The minimum interior side yard requirement may be reduced to 3 metres where a mutual driveway is provided. Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 88

89 APPENDIX 1G: Town of Richmond Hill By-law By-Laws Maximum Height Maximum Gross Floor Area Side Yard Maximum Garage Projection Maximum Garage Width Front Yard (371-90) 6.0 metres (19.7 ft), not exceeding one (1) storey (372-90) 8.5 metres (27.9 ft), not exceeding 2 storeys (373-90) 6.0 metres (19.7 ft), not exceeding one (1) storey 12.2 m 2 (131.3 sq. ft) per linear metre (1.1 yard) of the Net Lot Frontage 15.2 m 2 (163.6 sq. ft) per linear metre (1.1 yard) of Net Lot Frontage m 2 (131.3 sq. ft) per linear metre (1.1 yard) of the Net Lot Frontage 1.5 metres (5 ft) No private garage shall extend beyond the main wall into an exterior side yard. Minimum interior side yard 3.0 metres (9.8 ft) at the top of the second storey. Minimum interior side yard 3.0 metres (9.8 ft). No garage shall extend beyond the main wall into an exterior side yard. No private garage shall project toward the front yard more than 2.1 metres (6.9 ft) beyond the main wall. 6.5 metres (21.3 ft) for any lot having lot frontage less than 18.3 metres (60 ft). 9.7 metres (31.8 ft) for any lot having a lot frontage of 18.3 metres (60 ft) or greater. Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 89 A private garage shall have a minimum front yard of 6 metres (19.7 ft). - - All buildings metres (29.9 ft) at the top of the second storey, or that which existed at the time of passage of this Bylaw if such building or structure has had a front yard greater than 9.1 metres (29.9 ft). No garage shall project toward the front yard more than 2.1 metres (6.9 ft) beyond the main wall. 6.5 metres (21.3 ft) for any lot having a lot frontage of less than 18.3 metres (60 ft). 9.7 metres (31.8 ft) for any lot having a lot frontage of 18.3 metres (60 ft) or For any building or structure the greater of 9.1 metres (29.9 ft) or the setback of the main wall of an existing dwelling. A garage, whether or not attached to

90 By-Laws Maximum Height Maximum Gross Floor Area Side Yard Maximum Garage Projection Maximum Garage Width Front Yard (374-90) 8.5 metres (27.9 ft), not exceeding 2 storeys m 2 (163.6 sq. ft) per linear metre (1.1 yard) of Net Lot Frontage (212-92) 8.5 metres (28 ft) m 2 (164 sq. ft) per linear metre (3.28 ft) of Net Lot Frontage, to a maximum gross floor area of 265 m 2 (2852 sq. ft). In addition to the above, the maximum gross floor area shall be increased by 14 m 2 (150.7 sq. ft) for each additional 3.0 metres (9.84 ft) of depth of lot in excess of 46 Minimum interior side yard 6.0 metres (19.7 ft) at the top of the second storey. The minimum side yard for a 1 storey dwelling shall be 1.5 metres (4.92 ft). No private garage shall extend beyond the main wall into an exterior side yard. greater. a main building, shall have a minimum front yard of 6 metres (19.7 ft). - - All buildings - 12 metres (39.4 ft) at the top of the second storey, or that which existed at the time of passage of this Bylaw if such building or structure has had a front yard greater than 12 No private garage shall project toward the front yard more than 2.1 metres (6.9 ft) beyond the main wall. 6.5 metres (21.3 ft) for any lot having a lot frontage of less than 18.3 metres (60 ft). 9.7 metres (31.8 ft) for any lot having a lot frontage of 18.3 metres (60 ft) or greater. Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 90 metres (39.4 ft). A private garage shall have a minimum front yard of 6 metres (19.7 ft).

91 By-Laws Maximum Height Maximum Gross Floor Area Side Yard Maximum Garage Projection Maximum Garage Width Front Yard metres (150.9 ft), to a maximum of 70 m 2 (753.5 sq. ft) of additional gross floor area, to a maximum total gross floor area of 265 m 2 (2852 sq. ft). Other Provisions contained within Parent By-law 66-71: Minimum Lot Frontage R1 Zone m (50 ft) R2 Zone m (80 ft) R3 Zone 9 m (interior lots), 11 m (corner lots) Minimum Lot Area R1 Zone m 2 (12,000 sq. ft) R2 Zone m 2 (5,000 sq. ft) R3 Zone 270 m 2 (interior lots), 330 m 2 (corner lots) Maximum Lot Coverage R1 Zone 30% R2 Zone 30% R3 Zone 40% (interior lots), 33 1/3 (corner lots) Appendix 1: Best Practices Zone Standards 91

92 APPENDIX 2 92

93 Appendix 2: Best Practices Review Zoning Definitions APPENDIX 2A: Definitions Relating to Infill Housing Term Markham Definition Oshawa City of Toronto Basement Cellar Means that portion of a one family detached dwelling, between two (2) floor levels, which is located partly underground and which has more than one-half (½) of its height from floor to underside of floor joists of the story next above, above the established grade (99-90) (16-93) 2237 (101-90) 1767 (100-90) Means that portion of a one family detached dwelling, between two (2) floor levels, which is located partly or entirely underground and which has more than one half (½) of its height from floor to underside of flood joists of the storey next above, below the established grade. Means that part of a building which is between two floor levels and is partly below ground, and which has at least one-half but not more than two-thirds of its unobstructed interior height above the average level of the ground adjacent to its exterior walls. Means the portion of a building between the first floor and any floor below the level of the first floor Means that part of a building which is between two floor levels and which has more than one half of its unobstructed interior height below the average level of the proposed or finished ground adjoining all exterior walls. - Depth Floor Area, Gross 1229 (99-90) (16-93) 2237 (101-90) 1767 (100-90) Means the shortest distance between two lines, both parallel to the front lot line, one passing through the point on the dwelling which is the nearest and the other through the point on the dwelling which is the farthest from the front lot line (99-90) (16-93) 2237 (101-90) 1767 (100-90) Means the total of the floor areas within a one family detached dwelling measured between the Appendix 2: Best Practices Review Zoning Definitions Lot Depth means the horizontal distance between the front and rear lot lines but, where the front and rear lot lines are not parallel, the lot depth is the length of a line joining the midpoints of such lot lines. Means the sum total of the horizontal areas of the floors in a building, Lot depth means the horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot, or the projection of the side lot lines, measured along a straight line drawn perpendicular to the lot centerline to the required minimum front yard setback. Means the sum of the total area of each floor level of a building, 93

94 Term Markham Definition Oshawa City of Toronto exterior faces of the exterior walls of the dwelling at each floor level, including basement and garage areas (detached and attached), but excluding cellars, unfinished attic areas and areas having a height, from floor to underside of floor joists of the storey next above, of less than 1.5 metres (99-90) (16-93) 2237 (101-90) 1767 (100-90) measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or, where calculated individually for one or more uses in a building, measured from the centerline of the common wall separating the uses and, where provided shall include: (a) Cellars, basements, corridors and lobbies; (b) Half-storeys and mezzanines; and (c) Areas occupied by interior walls or partitions; above and below the ground, measured from the exterior of the main wall of each floor level. Floor Area Ratio Garage Width Means the gross floor area of a one family detached dwelling expressed as a percentage of the net lot area (99-90) (16-93) 2237 (101-90) 1767 (100-90) Means the width of the garage opening which is used for vehicular access where there is more than one opening, the garage width shall be the distance between the two outer extremities of the garage openings, including any intervening columns, doors, windows or wall sections which may separate two or more garage openings. But does not include elevator shafts, stairwells, roof areas, crawl spaces, mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, indoor refuse storage or collection areas, mechanical or electrical penthouses, areas used for parking or loading whether in the main building or in an accessory building. - Interior Floor Area means the floor area of any part of a building, measured to: a) the interior side of a main wall; b) the centerline of an interior wall; or c) a line delineating the part being measured - - Appendix 2: Best Practices Review Zoning Definitions 94

95 Term Markham Definition Oshawa City of Toronto Grade, Established 1229 (99-90) 2237 (101-90) 1767 (100-90) Means the finished surface elevation at the outside front walls of a building or structure, which is arrived at by taking the arithmetic mean of the levels of the finished ground surface at every location of change of grade at those outside front walls of the building or structure. - Means the average elevation of the ground measured at the two points where the projection of the required minimum front yard setback line is 0.01 metres past each side lot line. Height 1229 (99-90) (16-93) 2237 (101-90) 1767 (100-90) Means the vertical distance of a building or structure measured between the level of the crown (i.e. high point) of the street at the midpoint of the front lot line, and: (a) the highest point of the roof surface or the parapet, whichever is the greater, of a flat roof; or (b) the highest point of the ridge of a gable, hip, gambrel or other type of pitched roof. Notwithstanding (a) and (b) above, any ornamental roof construction features including towers, steeples or cupolas, and any mechanical features including skylights, vents or chimneys, shall be disregarded, provided such features do not project more than two (2) metres above the highest point of the building (99-90) (16-93) 2237 (101-90) 1767 (100-90) Appendix 2: Best Practices Review Zoning Definitions Means, when used in reference to a building or structure, the vertical dimension between the grade of such building or structure and: (a) In the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall; (b) In the case of a mansard roof, the deck line; (c) In the case of a gable, hip, gambrel or one-slope roof, the average level between eaves and ridge, except that a one-slope roof having a slope less than twenty (20) degrees from the horizontal line shall be considered a flat roof for the purposes of this By-law; (d) In the case of a structure not having a roof, the top of such structure; or (e) Where an exterior wall other than a required fire wall extends above the top of the roof of a - 95

96 Lot Area Term Markham Definition Oshawa City of Toronto Minimum Lot Area Net Lot Area Means the area within the lot lines of a lot (99-90) (16-93) 2237 (101-90) 1767 (100-90) Means the minimum required lot area for a lot in accordance with the applicable zone requirements of By-law [1229 / 2237 / 1767], as amended (99-90) 2237 (101-90) 1767 (100-90) Means the sum of the minimum lot area for a lot plus one-half (½) of the difference between the lot area and the minimum lot area for the lot, except in cases where the lot area is less than the minimum lot area for a specific lot, the net lot area shall be deemed to be equal to the lot area. building, the top most part of such exterior wall. Means the total horizontal area within the lot lines of a lot. Means the horizontal area within all the lot lines of a lot Net Lot Area 1229 (99-90) 2237 (101-90) 1767 (100-90) Means the sum of 22,000 square feet plus onehalf (½) of the difference between the lot area and 22,000 sq. ft, except in cases where the lot area is less than 22,000 sq. ft for a specific lot, the net lot area shall be deemed to be equal to the lot area. - - Storey (16-93) Means the portion of a one family detached dwelling, other than a cellar or unfinished attic, located between the surface of any floor and the Means a part of a building which is not a half-storey and which is situated between any floor level ad the floor, Means a level of a building, other than a basement, located between any floor and the floor, ceiling or roof Appendix 2: Best Practices Review Zoning Definitions 96

97 Term Markham Definition Oshawa City of Toronto surface of the floor or roof above, and shall include a basement (99-90) (16-93) 2237 (101-90) 1767 (100-90) ceiling or roof next above it and shall include a basement but shall not include a cellar or attic. immediately above it. Appendix 2: Best Practices Review Zoning Definitions 97

98 APPENDIX 2B: Definitions Relating to Infill Housing Term Burlington Vaughan Richmond Hill Basement Means that portion of a building between two floor levels which is partly underground but which has at least half its height from finished floor to finished ceiling above the average finished grade level adjacent to the exterior walls of the building. Cellar Means that portion of a building between two floor levels which is partly of wholly underground and which has more than half of its height from finished floor to finished ceiling below the average finished grade level adjacent to the exterior walls of the building. Depth Lot Depth means the average horizontal distance between the front and rear lot lines. Floor Area, Gross Floor Area Ratio Means the sum of areas of each floor of a building, less 15% for service areas but shall include a basement or cellar when used for commercial purpose. Measurement shall be from the exterior face of outside walls, or from the centre line of partition and common walls. Gross Floor Area shall not include floor space devoted to vehicle parking, storage, air handling equipment, or enclosed mall. Means the total area of the floor measured to the outside of all Means a storey, the floor of which is at least 0.75 metres below finished grade, provided that not more than one half of its height from the floor to the underside of the floor joists is below the finished grade. Means that portion of a building below the lowest storey which has more than one half of its height from the floor to the underside of floor joists below the finished grade. Lot Depth means the horizontal distance between the front and rear lot lines. Where these lines are not parallel, it shall be the length of a line joining the mid-points of the front and rear lot lines. Means the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys of a building, measured to the exterior of the outside walls, but not including the areas of any cellar, or car parking area above or below grade within the building or within a separate structure Shall men the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys of a building or structure, including the private garage, but not including the basement, which floor areas are measured between the exterior faces of the exterior walls of the building(s)/ - - Appendix 2: Best Practices Review Zoning Definitions 98

99 Garage Width Grade, Established / Grade, Finished Term Burlington Vaughan Richmond Hill outside walls, including a basement or cellar, but excluding areas used for parking or motor vehicles or areas above an atrium. - - Grade means when used with reference to a building, the average elevation of the finished surface of ground where it meets the front wall of such building, exclusive of any artificial embankment or depressed driveway. Shall mean the width of a private garage measured along the wall that abuts the front lot line. Grade, Finished means the average elevation of the finished ground level at the wall(s). - Height Grade Fixed means the elevation of the ground at the street line measured at the midpoint of a lot, or in the case of multiple unit developments, means the elevation of the ground at the street or common driveway line measured at the mid-point of the dwelling unit. For residential building designed to be accessible by direct access from the ground or by means of stairways, height means the vertical distance measured in linear metres, between fixed grade and the highest point of a flat or peaked roof, exclusive of any ornamental dome, chimney, tower, cupola, steeple, spire, water storage tank, electric apparatus, sign, television antenna, structure for mechanical equipment required for the operation of the building. Appendix 2: Best Practices Review Zoning Definitions In the RV1 Old Village Residential Zone: Means the vertical distance between the average elevation of the finished grade at the front of the building, exclusive of any artificial embankment, berm or raising of grades, in excess of the limits set out below, and: i) in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface; ii) in the case of a mansard roof, the highest point of the roof surface; Means, with reference to a building or structure, the vertical distance measured from the elevation of the centre line of the street at the mid point of the front lot line to: 1) the highest point of the roof surface of the parapet, whichever is the greater, of a flat roof; 2) the deckline of a mansard roof; 3) the mean level between eaves and ridge of a gabled hip or gambrel roof or other type of pitched roof; 99

100 Term Burlington Vaughan Richmond Hill iii) in the case of a gable, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between the eaves and the highest point of the roof. Exclusive of any accessory roof construction such as chimney, tower, steeple, elevator, mechanical room, or television antenna. For the purpose of this definition, the front of the building is deemed to be the wall containing the main entrance. 4) in the case of a structure with no roof, the highest point of said structure. This definition shall not apply to buildings with a front yard greater than 20 metres (65.6 ft) and the definition of Height in accordance with By-law shall apply. Lot Area Means the total horizontal area at grade of all buildings including all exterior walls. For the purpose of this definition, grades may not be artificially raised in excess of the following: The gradient of rear and front yards shall be limited to a maximum of 5% and a minimum of 2% within 6 metres of a dwelling unit. Artificial embankments and/or retaining walls shall not be permitted on a lot unless required to achieve proper drainage. Should such embankments be required, the maximum slope shall be limited to 3:1 and the corresponding grade differential shall not exceed 600 mm. The total grade differential achieved by retaining walls, embankments or a combination of retaining walls and embankments, shall not exceed 1.5 m. Means the horizontal area within the boundary lines of a lot. - Minimum Lot Area Appendix 2: Best Practices Review Zoning Definitions 100

101 Term Burlington Vaughan Richmond Hill Net Lot Area Net Lot Frontage Storey - - Means the portion of a building other than a cellar, basement, or attic included between any floor level and the floor, ceiling, or roof next above it. For residential building, storey height shall be in accordance with Part 1, Sub-section Means that portion of a building other than a cellar, basement or unfinished attic, which lies between the surface of the floor and the surface of the next floor above, and if there is no floor above it, then the surface next above it, provided its height is not less than 2.3 metres. Means the sum of the minimum lot frontage for a lot plus one half the difference between the lot frontage and the minimum lot frontage provided that where the lot frontage is less than the minimum lot frontage the net lot frontage shall be equal to the lot frontage. - Appendix 2: Best Practices Review Zoning Definitions 101

102 APPENDIX 3 102

103 Appendix 3: Study Area Neighbourhood Analysis APPENDIX 3A: Permitted Uses in the Residential Zones The table below summarizes the permitted uses in each residential zone in the study area. Zone R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 Permitted Uses Single-detached dwelling Duplex dwelling Single-detached dwelling Duplex dwelling Single-detached dwelling Duplex dwelling Semi-detached dwelling Single-detached dwelling Duplex dwelling Semi-detached dwelling Multiple dwelling (maximum 3 units) Single-detached dwelling Duplex dwelling Semi-detached dwelling Street Townhouse dwelling (3 units or more) Multiple dwelling (3 units or more) Single-detached dwelling Duplex dwelling Semi-detached dwelling Street Townhouse dwelling (3 units or more) Multiple dwelling (3 units or more) APPENDIX 3B: Definitions of Permitted Uses in the Residential Zones The table below provides definitions for each of the permitted uses. Permitted Use Single-detached dwelling Duplex dwelling Semi-detached dwelling Multiple dwelling Definition A building containing one dwelling unit. A building containing two dwelling units, but not including a semi-detached dwelling. A building divided vertically into two semi-detached houses by a common wall which prevents internal access and extends from the base of the foundation to the roof line and for a horizontal distance of not less than 35% of the horizontal depth of the building. Each semi-detached house shall be designed to be located on a separate lot having individual vehicular access to and frontage on a street or lane. A building containing three or more dwelling units but shall not include a street townhouse dwelling or semi-detached dwelling. Street townhouse is defined as: A building divided vertically into three or more townhouses by common Appendix 3: Study Area Neighbourhood Analysis 103

104 Permitted Use Street Townhouse dwelling Definition walls which prevent internal access between townhouses and extend from the base of the foundation to the roof line and for a horizontal distance of not less than 35% of the horizontal depth or the building. Each townhouse shall be designed to be on a separate lot having individual vehicular access to a street. A building divided vertically into three or more townhouses by common walls which prevent internal access between townhouses and extend from the base of the foundation to the roof line and for a horizontal distance of not less than 35% of the horizontal depth or the building. Each townhouse shall be designed to be on a separate lot having individual vehicular access to a street. APPENDIX 3C: Zone Standards in the Residential Zones The table below summarizes the standards for the six residential zones in the study area. Notes: 1. Semi-detached duplex dwellings are permitted in the R-4 and R-5 zones if legally existing prior to July 31, Semi-detached duplex dwellings are permitted as of right in the R-6 and R-7 zones. 2. Multiple dwellings are permitted in the R-5 zone with a maximum of three units (triplex). Appendix 3: Study Area Neighbourhood Analysis 104

Community & Infrastructure Services Committee

Community & Infrastructure Services Committee REPORT TO: DATE OF MEETING: September 12, 2016 Community & Infrastructure Services Committee SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Natalie Goss, Senior Planner,

More information

Residential. Infill / Intensification Development Review

Residential. Infill / Intensification Development Review Residential Infill / Intensification Development Review How Best to Manage The Compatible Integration of New Housing Within Established Residential Neighbourhoods Identification of Issues Privacy/overlook/height

More information

3.1. OBJECTIVES FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS GENERAL OBJECTIVES FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS

3.1. OBJECTIVES FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS GENERAL OBJECTIVES FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS 3. RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS INTRODUCTION The Residential land use designations provide for housing and other land uses that are integral to, and supportive of, a residential environment. Housing

More information

Islington Avenue - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report

Islington Avenue - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 3002-3014 Islington Avenue - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report Date: Febuary 2, 2016 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Etobicoke York

More information

LOT AREA AND FRONTAGE

LOT AREA AND FRONTAGE LOT AREA AND FRONTAGE Lot Area & Frontage for the R2.1 Zone Lot Area & Frontage for the R2.4 Zone Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Zone Area Width R2.1 700 sq m 18 m R2.4 600 sq m 16 m Lot Area means the total

More information

PIN , Part 1, Plan SR-713 in Lot 2, Concession 5, Township of McKim (1096 Dublin Street, Sudbury)

PIN , Part 1, Plan SR-713 in Lot 2, Concession 5, Township of McKim (1096 Dublin Street, Sudbury) STAFF REPORT Applicant: Dalron Construction Limited Location: PIN 02124-0103, Part 1, Plan SR-713 in Lot 2, Concession 5, Township of McKim (1096 Dublin Street, Sudbury) Official Plan and Zoning By-law:

More information

Chairman and Members of the Planning and Development Committee. Thomas S. Mokrzycki, Commissioner of Planning and Building

Chairman and Members of the Planning and Development Committee. Thomas S. Mokrzycki, Commissioner of Planning and Building Exhibit 1 Port Credit DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Chairman and Members of the Planning and Development Committee Thomas S. Mokrzycki, Commissioner of Planning and Building Proposed Heritage Conservation District

More information

Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake Official Plan Review. Discussion Paper: Second Residential Units. Prepared for: The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake

Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake Official Plan Review. Discussion Paper: Second Residential Units. Prepared for: The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake Official Plan Review Discussion Paper: Second Residential Units Prepared for: The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake October 15, 2015 PLANSCAPE Inc. Building Community through Planning

More information

Planning Rationale in Support of an Application for Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-Law Amendment

Planning Rationale in Support of an Application for Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-Law Amendment Planning Rationale in Support of an Application for Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-Law Amendment The Kilmorie Development 21 Withrow Avenue City of Ottawa Prepared by: Holzman Consultants Inc. Land

More information

SUBJECT: Character Area Studies and Site Plan Approval for Low Density Residential Areas. Community and Corporate Services Committee

SUBJECT: Character Area Studies and Site Plan Approval for Low Density Residential Areas. Community and Corporate Services Committee Page 1 of Report PB-70-16 SUBJECT: Character Area Studies and Site Plan Approval for Low Density Residential Areas TO: FROM: Community and Corporate Services Committee Planning and Building Department

More information

Table of Contents. Title Page # Title Page # List of Tables ii 6.7 Rental Market - Townhome and Apart ment Rents

Table of Contents. Title Page # Title Page # List of Tables ii 6.7 Rental Market - Townhome and Apart ment Rents RESIDENTIAL MONITORING REPORT 2013 Table of Contents Title Page # Title Page # List of Tables ii 6.7 Rental Market - Townhome and Apart ment Rents 21 List of Figures iii 7.0 Other Housing Demands and Trends

More information

Housing & Residential Intensification Study Discussion Paper Township of King

Housing & Residential Intensification Study Discussion Paper Township of King Housing & Residential Intensification Study Discussion Paper Prepared by Planning Department January 2011 1.0 Background 1.1 Provincial Policies (Greenbelt and Growth Plan) Since 2001, the Province of

More information

PLANNING REPORT Gordon Street City of Guelph. Prepared on behalf of Ontario Inc. March 17, Project No. 1507

PLANNING REPORT Gordon Street City of Guelph. Prepared on behalf of Ontario Inc. March 17, Project No. 1507 PLANNING REPORT 1131 Gordon Street City of Guelph Prepared on behalf of 1876698 Ontario Inc. March 17, 2016 Project No. 1507 423 Woolwich Street, Suite 201, Guelph, Ontario, N1H 3X3 Phone (519) 836-7526

More information

Staff Report. October 19, 2016 Page 1 of 17. Meeting Date: October 19, 2016

Staff Report. October 19, 2016 Page 1 of 17. Meeting Date: October 19, 2016 October 19, 2016 Page 1 of 17 Staff Report Report No.: PDSD-P-58-16 Meeting Date: October 19, 2016 Submitted by: Subject: Recommendation: Ben Puzanov, RPP, Senior Planner Application for Zoning By-law

More information

MINTO COMMUNITIES INC. AVALON WEST STAGE 4 PLANNING RATIONALE. July Prepared for:

MINTO COMMUNITIES INC. AVALON WEST STAGE 4 PLANNING RATIONALE. July Prepared for: MINTO COMMUNITIES INC. AVALON WEST STAGE 4 PLANNING RATIONALE July 2015 Prepared for: MINTO COMMUNITIES INC. 200 180 Kent Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 0B6 Prepared by: J.L. RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES LIMITED

More information

1202 & 1204 Avenue Road Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report

1202 & 1204 Avenue Road Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 1202 & 1204 Avenue Road Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report Date: March 17, 2017 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: North York Community Council Director,

More information

JASPER PLACE NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSING ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER West Jasper Place. Glenwood. Britannia Youngstown. Canora

JASPER PLACE NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSING ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER West Jasper Place. Glenwood. Britannia Youngstown. Canora JASPER PLACE NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSING ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2013 West Jasper Place Glenwood Britannia Youngstown Canora TABLE OF CONTENTS A: INTRODUCTION................................... 01 B: PHOTOGRAPHIC

More information

8.5.1 R1, Single Detached Residential District

8.5.1 R1, Single Detached Residential District 8.5.1 R1, Single Detached Residential District The purpose of this district is to provide for residential development in the form of single detached dwellings. Dwelling, Single Detached Home Business,

More information

FEASIBILITY REPORT. 1486, 1490 and 1494 Clementine. Prepared by: Lloyd Phillips & Associates Ltd. For: Ottawa Salus

FEASIBILITY REPORT. 1486, 1490 and 1494 Clementine. Prepared by: Lloyd Phillips & Associates Ltd. For: Ottawa Salus DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT 1486, 1490 and 1494 Clementine Prepared by: Lloyd Phillips & Associates Ltd. For: Ottawa Salus LPA File No. 1008 Lloyd Phillips & Associates June 9, 2010 Feasibility Report Page

More information

Corporate Report. 2. That the Interim Control By-law prohibit within the Low Density Residential Suburban Neighbourhood (R1) zone, the following:

Corporate Report. 2. That the Interim Control By-law prohibit within the Low Density Residential Suburban Neighbourhood (R1) zone, the following: Corporate Report Report from Planning and Building Services, Planning Services Date of Report: November 23,2016 Date of Meeting: December 5, 2016 Report Number: PBS-330-2016 File: 60.35.2.1 Subject: Interim

More information

3390, 3392, 3394, 3396 and 3398 Bayview Avenue - Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report

3390, 3392, 3394, 3396 and 3398 Bayview Avenue - Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 3390, 3392, 3394, 3396 and 3398 Bayview Avenue - Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report Date: March 14, 2016 To: From: Wards: Reference

More information

PLANNING REPORT THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF COBOURG

PLANNING REPORT THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF COBOURG THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF COBOURG PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning & Sustainability Advisory Committee FROM: Desta McAdam, MCIP, RPP Planner I Development DATE OF MEETING: May 8 th, 2018. REPORT TITLE/SUBJECT:

More information

Development & Builders Association Comments on the Implementation Tools 2009 Affordable Housing Discussion Paper

Development & Builders Association Comments on the Implementation Tools 2009 Affordable Housing Discussion Paper Development & Builders Association Comments on the Implementation Tools 2009 Affordable Housing Discussion Paper Guelph Wellington Development Association & Guelph & District Home Builders Association

More information

Municipal Council has directed staff to report annually on the nature of Variances granted by the Committee of Adjustment.

Municipal Council has directed staff to report annually on the nature of Variances granted by the Committee of Adjustment. Report to Planning and Environment Committee To: Chair and Members Planning & Environment Committee From: George Kotsifas, P. Eng. Managing Director, Development & Compliance Services and Chief Building

More information

BROCKVILLE CITY OF BROCKVILLE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW REVIEW DISCUSSION PAPER OCTOBER 2013 FINAL D

BROCKVILLE CITY OF BROCKVILLE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW REVIEW DISCUSSION PAPER OCTOBER 2013 FINAL D BROCKVILLE CITY OF BROCKVILLE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REVIEW DISCUSSION PAPER OCTOBER 2013 FINAL D14-13-010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1 Purpose and Goals of this Project... 1 1.2 Study Process...

More information

25 Leonard Avenue - Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Applications - Preliminary Report

25 Leonard Avenue - Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Applications - Preliminary Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 25 Leonard Avenue - Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Applications - Preliminary Report Date: March 8, 2017 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Toronto and East York

More information

5. Housing. Other Relevant Policies & Bylaws. Several City-wide policies guide our priorities for housing diversity at the neighbourhood level: Goals

5. Housing. Other Relevant Policies & Bylaws. Several City-wide policies guide our priorities for housing diversity at the neighbourhood level: Goals 5. Housing Other Relevant Policies & Bylaws Several City-wide policies guide our priorities for housing diversity at the neighbourhood level: Goals 1. Encourage more housing diversity while maintaining

More information

Staff Report for Council Public Meeting

Staff Report for Council Public Meeting Agenda Item 3.3 a Staff Report for Council Public Meeting Date of Meeting: February 7, 2018 Report Number: SRPRS.18.022 Department: Division: Subject: Planning and Regulatory Services Development Planning

More information

Outline of Land Use Bylaw, 1P2007 Changes

Outline of Land Use Bylaw, 1P2007 Changes Outline of Land Use Bylaw, 1P2007 Changes Changes to single and multi-family builders, renovators, land developers and trades The City s new Land Use Bylaw, 1P2007 has been approved by Council. The new

More information

AMENDMENT NUMBER 38 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST LINCOLN (COMPLIANCE)

AMENDMENT NUMBER 38 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST LINCOLN (COMPLIANCE) AMENDMENT NUMBER 38 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST LINCOLN (COMPLIANCE) 2013 AMENDMENT NUMBER 38 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST LINCOLN PART 1 - THE PREAMBLE 1.1 TITLE This

More information

12, 14, 16 and 18 Marquette Avenue and 7 Carhartt Street Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report

12, 14, 16 and 18 Marquette Avenue and 7 Carhartt Street Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 12, 14, 16 and 18 Marquette Avenue and 7 Carhartt Street Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report Date: July 17, 2014 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: North

More information

PLANNING PRIMER. Elective: Understanding Residential Intensification and Infill. Planning and Growth Management Department.

PLANNING PRIMER. Elective: Understanding Residential Intensification and Infill. Planning and Growth Management Department. PLANNING PRIMER Elective: Understanding Residential Intensification and Infill Planning and Growth Management Department Amended 2015 Agenda Information re: Infill and Intensification Initiatives Residential

More information

5219 Upper Middle Road, Burlington

5219 Upper Middle Road, Burlington 5219 Upper Middle Road, Burlington Resident Information Meeting May 23 rd, 2017 7:00pm Corpus Christi Secondary School 5150 Upper Middle Road, Burlington City File No. 520-05/17 Team Members Subject Lands

More information

Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines Project. Planning and Growth Management Committee. Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning

Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines Project. Planning and Growth Management Committee. Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning PG8.12 STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines Project Date: October 20, 2015 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Planning and Growth Management Committee Chief Planner

More information

2016 Census Bulletin Changing Composition of the Housing Stock

2016 Census Bulletin Changing Composition of the Housing Stock Metro Vancouver s Role Every five years, the Census of Canada provides benchmark data that is instrumental in analyzing and evaluating local government planning policies and services. Representing member

More information

MARKHAM. Task 12: Infill Zoning Standards and Interface between Residential and Non-Residential Uses. Draft. Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project

MARKHAM. Task 12: Infill Zoning Standards and Interface between Residential and Non-Residential Uses. Draft. Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project City of MARKHAM Task 12: Infill Zoning Standards and Interface between Residential and Non-Residential Uses Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project Markham Zoning By-law Consultant Team Gladki Planning Associates,

More information

Planning Justification Report

Planning Justification Report Planning Justification Report Kellogg s Lands City of London E&E McLaughlin Ltd. June 14, 2017 Zelinka Priamo Ltd. Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

More information

LITTLE MOUNTAIN ADJACENT AREA REZONING POLICY

LITTLE MOUNTAIN ADJACENT AREA REZONING POLICY LITTLE MOUNTAIN ADJACENT AREA REZONING POLICY JANUARY 2013 CONTENTS 1.0 INTENT & PRINCIPLES...1 2.0 APPLICATION...2 3.0 HOUSING TYPES, HEIGHT & DENSITY POLICIES...3 3.1 LOW TO MID-RISE APARTMENT POLICIES...4

More information

377 Spadina Rd and 17 Montclair Ave - Zoning Amendment Application - Preliminary Report

377 Spadina Rd and 17 Montclair Ave - Zoning Amendment Application - Preliminary Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 377 Spadina Rd and 17 Montclair Ave - Zoning Amendment Application - Preliminary Report Date: May 15, 2015 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Toronto and East York Community

More information

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY. Port Credit Local Area Plan Built Form Guidelines and Standards DRAFT For Discussion Purposes

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY. Port Credit Local Area Plan Built Form Guidelines and Standards DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Port Credit Local Area Plan Built Form Guidelines and Standards DRAFT For Discussion Purposes 1 Local Area Plan - Project Alignment Overview Directions Report, October 2008 (General Summary Of Selected

More information

Document under Separate Cover Refer to LPS State of Housing

Document under Separate Cover Refer to LPS State of Housing Document under Separate Cover Refer to LPS5-17 216 State of Housing Contents Housing in Halton 1 Overview The Housing Continuum Halton s Housing Model 3 216 Income & Housing Costs 216 Indicator of Housing

More information

Financial Analysis of Urban Development Opportunities in the Fairfield and Gonzales Communities, Victoria BC

Financial Analysis of Urban Development Opportunities in the Fairfield and Gonzales Communities, Victoria BC Financial Analysis of Urban Development Opportunities in the Fairfield and Gonzales Communities, Victoria BC Draft 5 December 2016 Prepared for: City of Victoria By: Table of Contents Summary... i 1.0

More information

PLANNING REPORT. 33 Arkell Road City of Guelph. Prepared on behalf of OHM Arkell Inc. August 4, Project No. 1327

PLANNING REPORT. 33 Arkell Road City of Guelph. Prepared on behalf of OHM Arkell Inc. August 4, Project No. 1327 PLANNING REPORT 33 Arkell Road City of Guelph Prepared on behalf of OHM Arkell Inc. August 4, 2015 Project No. 1327 423 Woolwich Street, Suite 201, Guelph, Ontario, N1H 3X3 Phone (519) 836-7526 Fax (519)

More information

May 5, Highway 7 and Kipling Avenue Northeast Quadrant Land Use Study

May 5, Highway 7 and Kipling Avenue Northeast Quadrant Land Use Study May 5, 2016 Highway 7 and Kipling Avenue Northeast Quadrant Land Use Study To provide an update on the study and obtain feedback on draft scenarios prepared by the consulting team from the public. The

More information

STAFF REPORT PLN September 11, 2017

STAFF REPORT PLN September 11, 2017 Page: 1 TO: SUBJECT: GENERAL COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS FOR OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT 37 JOHNSON STREET WARD: WARD 1 PREPARED BY AND KEY CONTACT: SUBMITTED BY: GENERAL MANAGER APPROVAL:

More information

Council Public Meeting

Council Public Meeting Agenda 3.1 a Council Public Meeting Department: Division: Subject: Planning and Regulatory Services Development Planning Request for Comments Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications

More information

Proposed Changes to Conservation District Regulations. Quality of Life Committee March 25, 2013

Proposed Changes to Conservation District Regulations. Quality of Life Committee March 25, 2013 Proposed Changes to Conservation District Regulations Quality of Life Committee March 25, 2013 Purpose To discuss aspects of the current Conservation District ordinance that need improvement To summarize

More information

Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District

Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District STAFF REPORT September 1, 2005 To: From: Subject: Toronto and East York Community Council Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District Further Report Applications to amend Official Plan

More information

Date to Committee: October 13, 2015 Date to Council: November 2, 2015

Date to Committee: October 13, 2015 Date to Council: November 2, 2015 Page 1 of Report PB-76-15 TO: FROM: Development and Infrastructure Committee Planning and Building SUBJECT: Statutory public meeting and information report regarding 1371975 Ontario Inc. (Markay Homes)

More information

4.0. Residential. 4.1 Context

4.0. Residential. 4.1 Context 4. 0Residential 4.1 Context In 1986, around the time of Burnaby s last Official Community Plan, the City had a population of 145,000 living in 58,300 residential units. By 1996, there were 179,000 people

More information

UNDERSTANDING DEVELOPER S DECISION- MAKING IN THE REGION OF WATERLOO

UNDERSTANDING DEVELOPER S DECISION- MAKING IN THE REGION OF WATERLOO UNDERSTANDING DEVELOPER S DECISION- MAKING IN THE REGION OF WATERLOO SUMMARY OF RESULTS J. Tran PURPOSE OF RESEARCH To analyze the behaviours and decision-making of developers in the Region of Waterloo

More information

REPORT Development Services

REPORT Development Services REPORT Development Services To: Mayor Coté and Members of Council Date: 11/7/2016 From: Beverly Grieve Director of Development Services File: 13.2525.20 Item #: 371/2016 Subject: Official Community Plan

More information

Kingston Road - Zoning Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications - Preliminary Report

Kingston Road - Zoning Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications - Preliminary Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 6480-6484 Kingston Road - Zoning Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications - Preliminary Report Date: April 19, 2016 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Scarborough

More information

General Manager, Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability in consultation with the Director of Legal Services

General Manager, Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability in consultation with the Director of Legal Services POLICY REPORT DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING Report Date: December 12, 2017 Contact: Anita Molaro Contact No.: 604.871.6479 RTS No.: 12322 VanRIMS No.: 08-2000-20 Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 TO: FROM: SUBJECT:

More information

Planning Justification Report

Planning Justification Report Planning Justification Report 101 Kozlov Street, Barrie, Ont. Destaron Property Management Ltd. November 2015 Revised February 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION... 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT

More information

CHAPTER 8: HOUSING. Of these units, 2011 Census statistics indicate that 77% are owned and 23% are rental units.

CHAPTER 8: HOUSING. Of these units, 2011 Census statistics indicate that 77% are owned and 23% are rental units. CHAPTER 8: HOUSING Port Moody has traditionally been a family oriented community. Based on the 2011 Census, 64% of all census families include children. Overall the number of dwelling units in Port Moody

More information

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION(S) 2017 May 04. That Calgary Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Land Use Amendment.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION(S) 2017 May 04. That Calgary Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Land Use Amendment. Page 1 of 14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This proposed Land Use Amendment seeks to redesignate the subject parcel from Residential Contextual One/Two Dwelling (R-C2) District to a DC Direct Control District to accommodate

More information

1555 Midland Avenue - Zoning Amendment & Subdivision Applications - Preliminary Report

1555 Midland Avenue - Zoning Amendment & Subdivision Applications - Preliminary Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 1555 Midland Avenue - Zoning Amendment & Subdivision Applications - Preliminary Report Date: October 24, 2013 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Scarborough Community Council

More information

INFILL DEVELOPMENT. Elective Course January 14, 2017 Derek Pomreinke Tammy Henry Nazim Virani

INFILL DEVELOPMENT. Elective Course January 14, 2017 Derek Pomreinke Tammy Henry Nazim Virani INFILL DEVELOPMENT Elective Course January 14, 2017 Derek Pomreinke Tammy Henry Nazim Virani Agenda 9:05 What is infill? 9:20 How is it regulated? 9:45 How do developers view infill? Break 10:30 Applications

More information

Zoning Options. Key Questions:

Zoning Options. Key Questions: Zoning Options This section explores zoning options to encourage Character Home retention and improve size and compatibility of new homes in the study areas. Options being explored include: A Floor Area

More information

Salem HNA and EOA Advisory Committee Meeting #6

Salem HNA and EOA Advisory Committee Meeting #6 Salem HNA and EOA Advisory Committee Meeting #6 Residential Land Policies Employment Land Policies Policy Discussions with the Committee Outcome of today s meeting Direction from this Committee on proposed

More information

Table of Contents. Appendix...22

Table of Contents. Appendix...22 Table Contents 1. Background 3 1.1 Purpose.3 1.2 Data Sources 3 1.3 Data Aggregation...4 1.4 Principles Methodology.. 5 2. Existing Population, Dwelling Units and Employment 6 2.1 Population.6 2.1.1 Distribution

More information

Housing Issues Report Shoreline Towers Inc. Proposal 2313 & 2323 Lake Shore Boulevard West. Prepared by PMG Planning Consultants November 18, 2014

Housing Issues Report Shoreline Towers Inc. Proposal 2313 & 2323 Lake Shore Boulevard West. Prepared by PMG Planning Consultants November 18, 2014 Housing Issues Report Shoreline Towers Inc. Proposal 2313 & 2323 Lake Shore Boulevard West Prepared by PMG Planning Consultants November 18, 2014 PMG Planning Consultants Toronto, Canada M6A 1Y7 Tel. (416)

More information

PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT JULY COMITÉ DE L URBANISME RAPPORT 34 LE 11 JUILLET ZONING 1008 SHEFFORD ROAD

PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT JULY COMITÉ DE L URBANISME RAPPORT 34 LE 11 JUILLET ZONING 1008 SHEFFORD ROAD 28 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME 4. ZONING 1008 SHEFFORD ROAD ZONAGE 1008, CHEMIN SHEFFORD COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 1008

More information

Poverty Rates by Census Tracts

Poverty Rates by Census Tracts The following document is a presentation that was delivered to the Housing Conservation District Advisory Group (HCDAG). The materials contained in this presentation (including several updates) were prepared

More information

Planning Justification Report - Update Castlegrove Subdivision, Gananoque Draft Plan of Subdivision and Class III Development Permit

Planning Justification Report - Update Castlegrove Subdivision, Gananoque Draft Plan of Subdivision and Class III Development Permit Planning Justification Report - Update Castlegrove Subdivision, Gananoque Draft Plan of Subdivision and Class III Development Permit by IBI Group Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1 1 Introduction...

More information

April 3 rd, Monitoring the Infill Zoning Regulations. Review of Infill 1 and 2 and Proposed Changes

April 3 rd, Monitoring the Infill Zoning Regulations. Review of Infill 1 and 2 and Proposed Changes April 3 rd, 2018 Monitoring the Infill Zoning Regulations Review of Infill 1 and 2 and Proposed Changes Presentation Overview Background Monitoring Findings (Committee of Adjustment) Infill 1 Concerns

More information

(1) The following uses are permitted uses subject to:

(1) The following uses are permitted uses subject to: SECTION 4 - RESIDENTIAL SECOND DENSITY (R2) ZONE PURPOSE OF THE ZONE The purpose of the R2 Residential Second Density Zone is to: () restrict the building form to low density residential uses in areas

More information

Staff Report for Council Public Meeting

Staff Report for Council Public Meeting Agenda Item 3.3 Staff Report for Council Public Meeting Date of Meeting: September 27, 2017 Report Number: SRPRS.17.134 Department: Division: Subject: Planning and Regulatory Services Development Planning

More information

RM2 Low Density Row Housing RM3 Low Density Multiple Housing

RM2 Low Density Row Housing RM3 Low Density Multiple Housing REPORT TO COUNCIL Date: May 30, 2017 RIM No. 0940-40 To: From: City Manager Community Planning Department (LK) Application: DP16-0014 & DVP16-0144 Owner: RA Quality Homes Ltd., INC. No.BC0647947 & 1052192

More information

density framework ILLUSTRATION 3: DENSITY (4:1 FSR) EXPRESSED THROUGH BUILT FORM Example 1

density framework ILLUSTRATION 3: DENSITY (4:1 FSR) EXPRESSED THROUGH BUILT FORM Example 1 density framework 4 ILLUSTRATION 3: DENSITY (4:1 FSR) EXPRESSED THROUGH BUILT FORM INTRODUCTION The Downtown Core Area contains a broad range of building forms within its relatively compact area. These

More information

6040 Bathurst Street and 5 Fisherville Road Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application Preliminary Report

6040 Bathurst Street and 5 Fisherville Road Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application Preliminary Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 6040 Bathurst Street and 5 Fisherville Road Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application Preliminary Report Date: January 24, 2017 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: North York Community

More information

6. RESIDENTIAL ZONE REGULATIONS

6. RESIDENTIAL ZONE REGULATIONS 6. RESIDENTIAL ZONE REGULATIONS PART 6A PURPOSE OF CHAPTER (1) The purpose of this Chapter is to provide detailed regulations and requirements that are relevant only to residential zones and specific residential

More information

Update on the Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings Action Plan

Update on the Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings Action Plan STAFF REPORT INFORMATION ONLY Update on the Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings Action Plan Date: May 15, 2009 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Planning and Growth Management Committee Chief Planner and Executive

More information

MARKHAM. Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project. Markham Zoning By-law Consultant Team

MARKHAM. Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project. Markham Zoning By-law Consultant Team City of MARKHAM Task 4B: Review & Assessment of Minor Variances Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project Markham Zoning By-law Consultant Team Gladki Planning Associates, R. E. Millward and Associates, Woodfield

More information

Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee

Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee REPORT TO: DATE OF MEETING: February 2, 2015 SUBMITTED BY: Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Alain Pinard, Director of Planning PREPARED BY: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7987

More information

Director, Community Planning, Scarborough District ESC 44 OZ & ESC 44 SB

Director, Community Planning, Scarborough District ESC 44 OZ & ESC 44 SB STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 6175, 6183 Kingston Road and 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,10 & 11 Franklin Avenue - Official Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications Preliminary Report

More information

Public Notice. June 7, Application: New Zoning Schedule: RD3 (Residential Infill)

Public Notice. June 7, Application: New Zoning Schedule: RD3 (Residential Infill) Public Notice June 7, 2018 Application: New Zoning Schedule: RD3 (Residential Infill) The new zoning designation RD3 (Residential Infill) can support smart growth by increasing density in areas where existing

More information

STAFF REPORT. January 25, North York Community Council. Director, Community Planning, North District

STAFF REPORT. January 25, North York Community Council. Director, Community Planning, North District STAFF REPORT January 25, 2005 To: From: Subject: Purpose: North York Community Council Director, Community Planning, North District Refusal Report OPA & Rezoning Application 04 194214 NNY 33 OZ Applicant:

More information

Changing Lanes: The City of Toronto s Review of Laneway Suites City-Initiated Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Final Report

Changing Lanes: The City of Toronto s Review of Laneway Suites City-Initiated Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Final Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED Changing Lanes: The City of Toronto s Review of Laneway Suites City-Initiated Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Final Report Date: April 16, 2018 To: From: Toronto

More information

Missing Middle Housing Types Showcasing examples in Springfield, Oregon

Missing Middle Housing Types Showcasing examples in Springfield, Oregon Missing Middle Housing Types Showcasing examples in Springfield, Oregon MissingMiddleHousing.com is powered by Opticos Design Illustration 2015 Opticos Design, Inc. Missing Middle Housing Study Prepared

More information

CITY OF VAUGHAN EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2012

CITY OF VAUGHAN EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2012 CITY OF VAUGHAN EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2012 Item 1, Report No. 51, of the Committee of the Whole (Working Session), which was adopted without amendment by the Council of the

More information

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION(S) 2016 November 17

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION(S) 2016 November 17 Page 1 of 15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In October 2014 Council added the new Residential Grade-Oriented Infill (R-CG) District to Land Use Bylaw 1P2007. Since no lands were redesignated to the R-CG District when

More information

50 and 52 Neptune Drive Rezoning Preliminary Report

50 and 52 Neptune Drive Rezoning Preliminary Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 50 and 52 Neptune Drive Rezoning Preliminary Report Date: February 11, 2010 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: North York Community Council Director, Community Planning, North

More information

50+54 BELL STREET NORTH

50+54 BELL STREET NORTH 50+54 BELL STREET NORTH SITE PLAN CONTROL APPLICATION OCTOBER 2014 PREPARED BY: FOTENN Consultants Inc. 223 Mcleod Street Ottawa, ON K2P OZ8 (613) 730-5709 PREPARED FOR: Ottawa Chinese Alliance Church

More information

Planning Rationale. 224 Cooper Street

Planning Rationale. 224 Cooper Street Submitted by: Robertson Martin Architects Tel 613.567.1361 Fax 613.567.9462 216 Pretoria Ave, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1X2 Planning Rationale 224 Cooper Street Planning Rationale Application to City of Ottawa

More information

Corporate Services Planning and Economic Development. Memorandum

Corporate Services Planning and Economic Development. Memorandum Corporate Services Planning and Economic Development Memorandum TO: FROM: Committee of the Whole Paul Freeman, Chief Planner DATE: June 21, 2018 RE: York Region C omments on Draft Provinci al Guidance

More information

STAFF REPORT. September 25, City Council. Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division

STAFF REPORT. September 25, City Council. Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division STAFF REPORT September 25, 2006 To: From: Subject: City Council Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division Request for Directions Report Toronto & East York Community Council, Report

More information

General Manager of Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability in consultation with the Director of Legal Services

General Manager of Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability in consultation with the Director of Legal Services POLICY REPORT DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING Report Date: August 31, 2016 Contact: Anita Molaro Contact No.: 604.871.6489 RTS No.: 11651 VanRIMS No.: 08-2000-20 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT:

More information

PUBLIC HEARINGS. (St. Boniface Ward) File DAV /2013D [c/r DAZ 208/2013]

PUBLIC HEARINGS. (St. Boniface Ward) File DAV /2013D [c/r DAZ 208/2013] Minutes Riel Community Committee October 7, 2013 PUBLIC HEARINGS Minute No. 336 Variance 851 Taché Avenue (St. Boniface Ward) File DAV 109813/2013D [c/r DAZ 208/2013] COMMUNITY COMMITTEE DECISION: The

More information

MARKHAM. City of. Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project. Task 4b. Review and Assessment of Minor Variances

MARKHAM. City of. Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project. Task 4b. Review and Assessment of Minor Variances Appendix E City of MARKHAM ra ft Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project Task 4b. Review and Assessment of Minor Variances D January 22, 2014 Markham Zoning By-law Consultant Team Gladki Planning Associates,

More information

Highland Green Estates Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan

Highland Green Estates Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan Highland Green Estates Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan Original Outline Plan approved by Council: March 10, 1997 Outline Plan amended by Council: March 24, 1997 Converted to a Neighbourhood Area Structure

More information

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE September 19, 2018

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE September 19, 2018 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE September 19, 2018 Board 1 BACKGROUND Council direction was given to develop a The is looking at new housing in mature and recent communities, as outlined in the City of Winnipeg s planning

More information

4650 Eglinton Avenue West - Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report

4650 Eglinton Avenue West - Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 4650 Eglinton Avenue West - Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report Date: August 14, 2015 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Etobicoke York Community Council

More information

For Vintages of Four Mile Creek Town of Niagara on the Lake, Ontario

For Vintages of Four Mile Creek Town of Niagara on the Lake, Ontario Planning Impact Analysis For Vintages of Four Mile Creek Town of Niagara on the Lake, Ontario Prepared by: Upper Canada Consultants 261 Martindale Road Unit #1 St. Catharines, Ontario L2W 1A1 Prepared

More information

GEORGE / GROSVENOR AREA STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING CITY OF LONDON DEPARTMENT OF. MAY 1985 r----q

GEORGE / GROSVENOR AREA STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING CITY OF LONDON DEPARTMENT OF. MAY 1985 r----q GEORGE / GROSVENOR AREA STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS CITY OF LONDON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING MAY 1985 r----q PREFACE On April 9, 1985, the Planning Committee held a public meeting regarding the St. George/Grosvenor

More information

Town Centre Community Improvement Plan

Town Centre Community Improvement Plan 2012 Town Centre Community Improvement Plan City of Greater Sudbury Growth and Development Department 1.0 PLAN BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction The following Community Improvement Plan (CIP) has been prepared

More information

New Comprehensive Zoning

New Comprehensive Zoning New Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project Phase 2: Strategic Directions Development Services Committee June 14, 2016 Task 1: Guiding Principles and Parameters & Trends and Issues in Zoning 1. Drafting of

More information

Infill Housing Analysis

Infill Housing Analysis City of Victoria Proposed Fairfield and Gonzales Neighbourhood Infill Housing Analysis Urbanics Consultants Ltd. Proposed Fairfield and Gonzales Neighbourhood Infill Housing Analysis Victoria, B.C. Prepared

More information

Deeming By-law, Maple Leaf Drive, Bourdon Avenue, Venice Drive, Stella Street and Seabrook Avenue Final Report

Deeming By-law, Maple Leaf Drive, Bourdon Avenue, Venice Drive, Stella Street and Seabrook Avenue Final Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED Deeming By-law, Maple Leaf Drive, Bourdon Avenue, Venice Drive, Stella Street and Seabrook Avenue Final Report Date: October 16, 2007 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Etobicoke

More information