HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-130-94Subject: MAKING CHOICES
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DRAFT GUIDELINE
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD- 130 -94 be received for information.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 In May of 1994 the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the
Ministry of Housing released a draft guideline entitled
"Making Choices - Alternative Development Standards ". The
Guideline provides a range of alternative planning and
engineering standards to be considered in the design and
development of residential subdivisions
1.2 In June of this year Council received correspondence from the
Ministry of Housing with regards to the Alternative
Development Standards Guideline and resolved as follows:
"THAT the correspondence dated June 10, 1994 from Ann Borooah
and Dana Richardson, Ministry of Housing, regarding
Alternative Development Standards, be received; and
THAT the correspondences be referred to the Director of Public
Works, in conjunction with the Director of Planning and
Development, for preparation of a direct response."
Staff will be providing a more detailed response directly to
the Ministry. However, this report provides an overview of
staff comments for Council's benefit. ....2
541
H ECYCLED RECYCLE AP
THIS IS PREMED W RECYCLED PAPER
REPORT NO. PD ®130 ®94 PAGE 2
2 DOCUMENT OVERVIEW
2.1 The draft Guideline "Making Choices" was prepared by a
consulting team, in consultation with an advisory Committee,
intended to represent a broad range of 'stakeholders'. The
Guideline is designed to provide a range of alternative
planning and engineering standards to be considered in the
design and development of residential subdivisions. The
Guideline suggests the use of the alternative development
standards will create streets and neighbourhoods which have a
more compact urban form, are more liveable, affordable and
adaptable and allow more of the natural environment to be
preserved.
2.2 Development standards are established for the review,
designing and construction of roads and lots in new
developments and redevelopments, such as residential plans of
subdivision. Development standards by their nature are
reflective of the social, economic, technical and
environmental imperatives of the day.
2.3 The Guideline suggest that the development standards of most
municipalities are reflective of the values and needs of the
19501's and are no longer appropriate. It is argued that
standards created during times of economic prosperity and
lower land values are not reflective of today's economic
climate and greater environmental awareness. Hence the
Guideline was prepared to assist municipalities in addressing
the values emerging in the 19901s.
2.4 The Guideline were prepared with four objectives in mind:
• enhancing the liveability of communities;
• improving cost efficiency;
• supporting environmental sustainability; and
• allowing for adaptability and flexibility
....3
-548
REPORT NO. PD- 130 -94 PAGE 3
In evaluating potential alternative design standards, in
addition to the above four objectives, potential alternative
standards were required to be considered acceptable from the
perspective of health, safety, and functionality.
2.5 The Guideline indicates that the economic cost of current
development standards which are characterized by large lot,
single -use residential developments which are automobile
oriented have become of concern. The Alternative Development
Standards are suggested to reduce the overall costs of
infrastructure through a more efficient use of land and
compact development form.
2.6 In discussing the new community form that can be achieved
through the use of development standards the Guidelines
usually provided a "more urban" and a "less urban"
perspective. The difference reflects the character of the
area determined by context and density. The Planning and
Engineering considerations which were identified are continued
in the following two lists respectively:
a) Planning Considerations
• Range of Street Widths
• House -to- Street Relationships
• Building Types
• Use of Rear Lanes
• Lot Frontages and Parking Treatment
• On- Street Parking
• Sidewalks
b) Engineering Considerations
• Right -of -way and Road Design
• Sidewalk Location
• Traffic Volume, On- Street Parking and Street Operation
• Daylight or Visibility Triangles
....4
549
REPORT NO. PD- 130 -94 PAGE 4
• Snow Clearing and Snow Storage Requirements
• Watermain, Sanitary and Storm Sewer Locations
• Utility Location, Joint Utility Trenches and Separation
Between Utilities
• Tree and Street Light Location
• Grading
2.7 In releasing the Guideline the Ministries' have stated their
objective is not to supersede current municipal standards, but
to expand the range of choices available. This document has
provided a good basis from which municipalities and local
utility companies can commence discussion of new standards
which are appropriate to local conditions.
3 COMMENTS
3.1 The Planning Department and the Public Works Department have
reviewed the draft Guideline. Both Departments acknowledge
that maintaining some level of flexibility in terms of the
development standards used is of benefit to the development of
the community. Furthermore, compact, development which
provides a more liveable environment, that is environmentally
sustainable and reduces the cost of housing is an important
ideal to strive for.
3.2 The Planning Department has been working on the preparation of
a new Official Plan, a draft copy of which was released in May
of this year. The Policies of the new plan were prepared in
consideration and recognition of three (3) key principles:
sustainable development, healthy community and growth
management. A more compact form is a key objective of the
draft Official Plan.
In addition, the Residential Neighbourhood and Transportation
policies of the Draft Official Plan encourages the use of the
following development forms:
....5 rk �U
REPORT NO. PD- 130 -94 PAGE 5
• grid street patterns;
• street - oriented development with reduced front yard
setbacks;
• provision of front porches;
• innovative housing design which encourages social
interaction on the public street;
• housing designs which discourage garages as the dominant
feature of the streetscape;
• public open spaces providing ease of movement for
pedestrians; and,
• alternative design and zoning standards to implement neo-
traditional neighbourhood planning concepts.
These are many of the same directives which are addressed in
the Alternative Development Standards Guideline. The Planning
Department is supportive of the direction targeted by the
Guideline. A new openness to planning and engineering
standards would permit the development of urban areas which
better balances the needs of people and automobiles, addresses
environmental concerns and improves the neighbourhood
environment.
3.3 The Public Works Department Staff from past experience have
serious concerns with the proposed alternative development
standards and the impact on the Municipality and future
residents. Works Department Staff were critical of the draft
Guideline for:
• not providing a thorough assessment of the consequences
of implementing the proposed concepts;
• being idealistic and optimistic in dealing with the new
concepts proposed;
• not identifying long term consequences, financial or
otherwise of incorporating the concepts suggested; and
• recommending present quality standards for engineering
design requirements be reduced to be more flexible.
j ....6
f
REPORT NO. PD- 130 -94 PAGE 6
Of specific concern was the concept of the rear yard lane and
reduced right -of -way widths. Rear lanes are anticipated to be
more costly, present operational and maintenance difficulties,
and become a public safety concern. The Public Works
Department recognizes that there are improved streetscape and
possibly social benefits, however, until the cost, maintenance
and other concerns are addressed the Department is not
supportive of rear lanes.
The Municipality, through its Works Department, must maintain
an equilibrium between reduction in level of services, capital
and maintenance cost expenditures and assumption of risk. Any
change of standards must, with some degree of confidence,
identify and quantify the changes in the above and achieve an
equilibrium acceptable to the Municipality and the public.
3.4 The Guidelines provide a stimulus for Municipalities to review
the flexibility of current standards and their ability to
implement new more flexible standards. A detailed examination
of each new proposed standard should be undertaken with the
involvement of all jurisdictions impacted.
3.5 The draft Guideline should remain a "tool kit" of alternative
ideas, but should not be prescribed provincial standards.
Many of the concepts proposed to achieve a more compact form
of development, can be undertaken without having a short, or
long term impact on maintenance and cost to the Municipality.
This includes:
® mutual driveways;
• reduced front yard setbacks;
• sidewalk relocation; and
• grid street pattern
3.6 The Port of Newcastle development proposed by Bramalea Ltd.,
is designed on the basis and principles of neo- traditional
....7
5/
REPORT NO. PD- 130 -94 PAGE 7
planning. It is understood that other developers may be
submitting proposals of similar style. The Planning and
Public Works Departments intend to carefully review the
proposals and select a pilot project for the implementation of
some aspects of the alternative development standards.
4 CONCLUSION
4.1 The Guideline provides many good ideas, and after thorough
assessment some of the proposed new concepts may be able to be
incorporated in the planning, design and construction of new
subdivisions. However, as suggested in the Guidelines,
implementation of any new standards must be carefully
considered, evaluated and if possible, tested, before deemed
appropriate for application.
4.2 The Public Works Department and Planning Department have
diverse views on several aspects of proposed Alternative
Development Standards. However, both Departments concur that
any proposed change to the Municipality's current standards
must proceed with caution, undertaking a comparative
assessment of the capital and maintenance costs.
Respectfully submitted,
Q) (- <X,-L -
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
V -
Walter A. Evans, P. Eng.
Director of Public Works
CP *DC *WAE *FW *cc
*Attach
11 October 1994
Reviewed by,
zV, `
W. H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative
Officer
553
TRADITIONAL 5TEET - 20.0 m RIGHT -OF -WAY
(LE55 URBAN)
O to
00
a3
6) to 1n
w
to
v
t0 ai
3�
t9 O
O O
o �
C7 °-
u
5TTREET -18.5 m RIGHT -OF -WAY
r
(LE55 URDAN)
a= == === =a =s'a X-il
000 Un0 0 0 0 00 0
0 Ki f us (\] o
a
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2
w
Rear lanes allow lots to
6e narrower and
development to be more
compact than would be
the case without them.
559