Residential Intensification Analysis ReportRESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION Community Design and...

Guelph Growth Management Strategy:

Residential Intensification Analysis Report

Community Design and Development Services The City of Guelph

Fall, 2007

RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION Community Design and Development Services ANALYSIS City of Guelph

October 3, 2007 2

Table of Contents Executive Summary…,..…………………………………………………………….03 1.0 Introduction…….………………………………………………………………..04

1.1 Background…………………………………………………………….……04 1.2 Preliminary Capacity Analysis………………………………………………05

2.0 Preliminary Results……………………………………………………………...08 3.0 Residential Capacity Discussion……………………………………………….. 09 4.0 Observations………………………………………………………………….… 10 5.0 Terms and Definitions………………………………………………………..… 10 6.0 Appendices……………………………………………………………………....13 7.0 Tables……………………………………………………………………….........13 P:\Planning&DevelopmentServices\Planning\RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION ANALYSIS\RIA Report Newest.doc


October 3, 2007 3

Executive Summary In response to the provincial legislation Places to Grow Act 2005, the City of Guelph has undertaken a residential intensification analysis to determine the City’s additional potential residential capacity within the existing city. The analysis involved a city wide property evaluation that identified key sites that would lend themselves to residential intensification. Within the ‘Built Boundary’ there is existing vacant land (i.e. higher-density apartment blocks within older registered plans), intensification sites (under-utilised sites that may range in development complexity), and redevelopment sites (challenging development opportunities that may require re-zoning/re-designation). A series of factors were applied to develop an inventory of properties that had such potential. Once this inventory was created the individual sites were subjected to qualitative and quantitative testing to determine the level of development and future potential dwelling unit creation. The result of this Residential Intensity Analysis indicates a potential of approximately 18,500 dwelling units within the 2031 timeframe; or an increase of approximately 46,250 residents within the draft ‘Built Boundary’ of the City of Guelph. Of note, of the 18,500 dwelling units, approximately 3,000 units are possible on 35 sites that are zoned for higher density developments but are currently vacant.


October 3, 2007 4

1.0 Introduction The City of Guelph recognizes that in order to accommodate future population growth, sustain economic prosperity and attain a high quality of life, we must focus on planning the city for growth and intensification. This must employ a balanced and tactical approach and encompass all aspects of a healthy city. A focus on building comprehensive and strong communities, taking advantage of the existing infrastructure and protecting natural and agricultural resources will contribute to maximizing the benefits of place making, and minimize costs of growth. By exploring the current land fabric of the city we can begin to identify where and how growth should occur that will support and boast the City on a provincial and global scale. This report outlines recommendations to intensify within the designated built boundary of the City of Guelph by increasing the current amount of residential units. Within the built up area, residential intensification will be focusing on the development and redevelopment of sites located in the urban growth centre, intensification nodes, corridors, and special interest areas and also highlights vacant residential sites. The goal of changing our current development pattern from the outer-edge to working within the existing city is a major challenge for Guelph. It requires a new approach to consider the city as a place capable of continuous improvement and renewal and developing an appreciation for the benefits of bringing more people together. The next steps will require pro-active work by the municipality to manage and promote change with the public prior to specific planning application discussions. The delivery of high-quality urban design which can enhance a neighbourhood or precinct will be key in developing public trust in intensification goals.

1.1 Background

Over the next 25 years, the number of people living in Ontario is expected to grow by approximately four million. The Ontario government is responsible for ensuring that this growth contributes to prosperous, healthy and diverse communities in all parts of the province.

On June 13, 2005, the Places to Grow Act, 2005 received Royal Assent. The Act provides a legal framework for growth planning in Ontario.

The Act enables the government to plan for population growth, economic expansion and the protection of the environment, agricultural lands and other valuable natural resources in a co-ordinated and strategic way. The legislation is provincial in scope and allows for growth plans in any part of Ontario.


October 3, 2007 5

The legislation ensures that growth plans reflect a geographic perspective and promote a rational and balanced approach to growth that builds on community priorities, strengths and opportunities.

The Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal (PIR) has the overall responsibility for fostering and implementing the government’s long-term plan for growth.

The first growth plan adopted under the Places to Grow Act, 2005 is the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, released on June 16, 2006.

The City of Guelph is identified as an urban settlement area within the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan. Municipalities are required to bring their official plans into conformity with the growth plan for their area.

1.2 Preliminary Capacity Analysis

As a project within the Local Growth Management process, the Residential Intensification Analysis was undertaken to enable the City to respond to the Places to Grow requirement for increased levels of residential growth within the existing city. A series of mapping and development activity analyses were conducted and combined to create a comprehensive review of the capacity of the existing city to accept new potential residents.

Methodology:

1. Establish the City’s ‘Built Boundary’: In consultation with PIR, the Built

Boundary creates the outer edge of the existing city as of June 2006. Everything within this line is considered towards the Intensification Target. (As of September 2007, the Built Boundary exists as ‘draft’ awaiting final direction from PIR.) (See Appendix #1)

For the purposes of this study, the Residential Intensification Capacity has been set to the June 2006 timeframe.

2. Establish the City’s ‘Urban Growth Centre’: In consultation with PIR, the

UGC edges were established. This area is given special importance in the Places to Grow density targets with a minimum density of 150 persons and jobs per hectare. The UGC is based on the current ‘Central Business District’ and adjacent mixed-use zones, in conjunction with analysis of the boundaries of stable residential neighbourhoods and areas of potential change located on the downtown’s periphery. Significantly, older industrial lands across the river that are planned for long-term redevelopment are being tentatively considered as part


October 3, 2007 6

of the UGC at this time. (As of September 2007, the UGC Boundary exists as ‘draft’ awaiting final direction from PIR) (See Appendix #2)

3. Existing Population Density Analysis: Study undertaken to establish areas of

high, medium and low density within the existing city to suggest areas for connection and expansion. 2001 Statistics Canada Census information by dissemination area over Traffic Zone. (See Appendix #3)

4. Committee of Adjustment Mapping: Compilation of last 15 years of CofA

Consents (severances) to determine where change is occurring in established neighbourhoods. (See Appendix #4)

5. Existing Lot Fabric Analysis: Mapping undertaken to generate parcels that met

a lot depth criteria. (lots over 40m deep) that could possibly make them suitable for redevelopment. Resulting pattern analyzed and lots removed where judged unsuitable (ie. lots within stable neighbourhoods). (See Appendix #5)

6. Overlay ‘Nodes, Corridors and Downtown’ principles: To develop a logical framework for Intensification on the existing fabric. (See Appendix #6)

7. Opportunities and Constraints Analysis:

The following areas were applied into creating the intensification framework: Opportunities Considered:

• Known Brownfields (See Appendix #7); • Greyfields (older underperforming commercial areas); • Identified areas of renewal (ie. Community Improvement Plan for St.

Patricks Ward, Old University and Centennial Neighbourhoods); • Residential Intensification Opportunities within the Mixed Use Nodes and

Intensification areas of the OP commercial presentation (See Appendix #8);

• Vacant Residential Lands Inventory (known apartment and townhouse parcels which remain undeveloped) (See Appendix #9)

• Transportation network (transit and major roads) -- opportunities to enhance transportation with compatible development

Constraints Considered:

• Environmental Constraints (OP designations) as noted in Appendix #8 (i.e. Core Greenlands)

• Stable neighborhoods (based on severance activity and cultural heritage resources)

• Right of ways (hydro corridors, rail corridors, identified road widenings, etc)

• Service capacity (Water supply, Storm drainage, Sanitary Sewers) • Transportation network capacity


October 3, 2007 7

• Land-use adjacencies (areas of employment/industry) (See Appendix #8) • Age of development (e.g. sites that are newer than 20 years old were not

considered for redevelopment within the 2031 horizon year). • Downtown: constraints on the UGC such as cultural heritage buildings,

Protected View Areas, and extent of public spaces and buildings were factored.

8. Staff Review: Mapping exercises reviewed with development and policy

planning staff to corroborate and critique analysis based on recent development activities and long-range policy viewpoints. Comments incorporated into mapping. (See Appendix #10)

9. Data Gathering & Mapping: (See Table #1)

Results of above analyses entered into database and developed as follows:

a) Lots with potential entered: Address, Area, Existing zoning & permitted density, Status (vacant/built), Existing unit count (estimated from MPAC) (Units within UGC

were hand-counted), Each lot was assigned to a designated area and type (eg. Woodlawn

Node or Speedvale Corridor, etc.)

b) Development Characteristics Assigned:

Note: These numbers are based on the Weinstein Leeming Hinde & Associates intensification standards and were chosen because they take into account things such as lot inefficiencies, irregularly shapes, exterior yards, easements, etc.: Medium density = 34.2 units/hectare (approx. 3 storeys in height) Medium-high density = 58.2 units/hectare (approx. 5 storeys in height) High density = 123.5 units/hectare (approx. 8 storeys) As an average the following apply:

UGC: High Node: High Minor Node: Medium-high Corridor: Medium-high Special Interest Areas: Medium-high

Some exceptions were made on specific areas related to adjacent use or compatibility constraints.


October 3, 2007 8

c) Estimated Projected Dwelling Creation: Once a typology was assigned, the lot’s existing units were subtracted from the potential units to estimate the capacity for intensification.

d) Commercial Development Correction This formula is used to correct

the amount of potential residential activity that may be expected to occur where commercial land-use is predominant. Generally this factor was applied as follows:

UGC: 25% residential units reduction Nodes: 75% residential units reduction Minor Nodes: 50% residential units reduction Corridors: 10% residential units reduction Special Interest Areas: 20% residential units reduction

e) Post 2031 Dwelling Unit Inventory: Sites marked ‘post-2031’ based on

age of development (less than 20 years…), and sites that have been had recent major investment. Building permit activity was used to determine Post 2031 eligibility.

f) Total Units by Type: following the detailed zone analysis, all zones were

gathered into the broad categories of Node, Minor Node, Corridor, Special Interest Area and Urban Growth Centre.

g) General Infill: A category for General Infill was created to reflect the

assumption that severance and accessory unit development would be an ongoing activity that the City would also promote. Numbers projected were an estimate for yearly averages to date. These numbers are not mapped but assumed to occur throughout the stable residential areas over time. As the more easily developed sites become harder to identify, the City may have to review policies (ie. coachhouses, accessory unit sizes etc.) to ensure a supply into 2031.

h) Mapping: Identified zones were mapped on to GIS, colour-coded and

weighted to produce a gradient map of projected unit creation over the Traffic Zones. (See Appendix #11)

2.0 Preliminary Results

The analysis identified that there is a capacity within the Built Boundary of approximately 18,500 units. This is broken down into the following categories:

Nodes: 2,600 (parts of North, West, South only - rest in Greenfield) Corridors: 8,900 (includes areas such as Stone Road, Willow West) Infill: 2,500 (a general activity count for units across the city) Downtown: 4,500 (special density target) TOTAL: 18,500


October 3, 2007 9

At an average of 2.5 persons per unit this creates an upper limit of 46,250 people within the Built Boundary within the Places to Grow timeframe of 2031. At the lower population target of 175,000 persons, it appears the intensification requirements of that population can be met with the identified units. (See Appendix #11, and Table #1) At the higher population target of 195,000 persons, and because the Greenfield capacity is limited, the additional people within the Built Boundary goes beyond the capacity projections for 2031. Accommodating the higher population means ‘pushing the envelope’ on building height and redevelopment -- this discussion is meant to be part of the public consultation process for the Fall 2007. 3.0 Residential Capacity Discussion: There are three broad categories of opportunities identified:

• Existing Vacant Land • Intensification Sites • Redevelopment Sites

3.1 Existing Vacant Land

There are many sites within the ‘Built Boundary’ that have not yet been built. Typically these are the higher-density apartment blocks within older registered plans. As Places to Grow moves forward, it is anticipated that these sites will be some of the first to be developed and contribute to the intensification goals. There are a total of 35 vacant sites that can immediately produce approximately 3000 dwelling units.

3.2 Intensification Sites

These are sites that are already built but that are typically under-utilised. The sites may or may not require land assembly, re-zoning to higher density, etc. Depending on the age, adjacency and location of a site, these projects can range in complexity from small severance and accessory unit development to major projects such as:

• Severing or redeveloping existing large residential lots • Adding capacity to existing apartment/townhouse blocks which have

additional land (i.e. surface parking lots, etc). • Adding residential capacity to low-rise commercial areas


October 3, 2007 10

3.3 Redevelopment Sites

These are sites that require rezoning/re-designation to create additional housing opportunities within the ‘Built Boundary’ and are typically the most challenging. It is anticipated that pro-active policy will be required to stimulate development on these types of projects: • Under-used Service Commercial sites • Brownfields (typically a former employment use) • Adaptive re-use

4.0 Observations

• Guelph’s historic development pattern has a direct impact on the potential areas for redevelopment and intensification. Generally, there are more sites available in the older pre-war sections of the city. Post-war subdivisions, with their efficient lot patterning, have much less intensification potential

• Many of Guelph’s major arterial roads, which should lend themselves to

‘Corridor’ redevelopment, do not have the capacity due to the post-war lots that were developed on them (Victoria Road for instance was developed with 30m deep lots which are difficult to repurpose for higher capacities)

• Three of the Mixed-Use Nodes (East, South and part of West) are in the

Greenfield and therefore will not contribute towards intensification (but rather towards Greenfield density)

• The study suggests that many of the already denser sites in the city are candidates

for further intensification -- ie. 1960s apartment or townhouse sites that have a lot of undefined open space -- there could be an added benefit to considering additional density on these sites in addressing their urban design deficiencies

5.0 Terms and Definitions Built Boundary - The Built Boundary is the fixed geographic line which will be used to

distinguish the built-up area (intensification areas) from the non-built-up area (greenfield areas).

The Growth Plan requires that by the year 2015 and for each year thereafter, a minimum of 40 per cent of all annually occurring residential development will be constructed within the built-up area.

For a summary on the City’s and the Province's methodology for delineating the Built Boundary please refer to the Technical Paper on a Proposed Methodology for Developing a Built Boundary for the Greater


October 3, 2007 11

Golden Horseshoe, released by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal on November 27, 2006.

Brownfield - An abandoned, vacant, derelict or underutilized commercial or industrial

property where past actions have resulted in actual or perceived contamination and where there is an active potential for redevelopment.

Coachhouse - A self-contained and fully detached dwelling unit added or converted on

the same lot as an existing house. The Coach House is subordinate to the existing main dwelling unit on the lot in terms of size and function.

Greyfield - Under utilized, abandoned or derelict former residential/commercial or

industrial site, that is not significantly contaminated. Greyfields, unlike brownfields, are relatively uniform in condition, and are usually the most obvious and accessible redevelopment sites.

Greenfield - Sites in both rural and urban areas, which have not experienced previous

development. Under-utilised - The characteristics of a under utilized site for the purpose of defining a

grey field or potential redevelopment site is described as the following:

• Excludes heritage sites and or heritage buildings • Excludes parks • Includes any building or property that is vacant or abandoned • Dull, or derelict buildings found at the end vistas of prime

viewsheds • Large surface parking lots • Properties containing an interim or temporary use/activity • Sites which are largely inaccessible • Where high density designation is permitted (Zoning By-

law/Official Plan) but not being used • Sites with holding provisions • Buildings that fail to generate the revenue that would justify their

continued use. • Retail or residential properties that require significant private

and/or public intervention to stem decline • Abandoned roads and rail lines.

Urban Growth Centre – The centre of the city and prime development site. The Urban

Growth Centre must be planned to achieve by 2031, or earlier, a minimum gross density target of 150 residents and jobs per hectare.

Node – A prime intensification zone that combines both residential and employment

based development. This intensification zone occurs on a large scale and


October 3, 2007 12

can often encompass primary transportation nodes and principal community focal points. Nodes are often linked together by intensification Corridors.

Minor Node – Intensification zones where both residential and employment development

are expected to occur but on a smaller scale then that of a Node. Minor Nodes are typically situated in isolation that is adjacent to low density development.

Special Interest Area – Specialized small pockets of land where there is development

potential. SIA’s are often found in isolation and are not typically connected to other major redevelopment sites.

Corridor – Stretches of lands between Nodes and/or the Urban Growth Centre. Corridors

act as the linking factor between different areas of the city and help by adding continuity to development.


October 3, 2007 13

6.0 Appendices Appendix #1 – Proposed Draft Built Boundary…………………..…………………14 Appendix #2 – Proposed Draft Urban Growth Centre…………………………..…..15 Appendix #3 – Existing Population Density Analysis……………………………....16 Appendix #4 – 15 Year Severance Activity…………………………………………17 Appendix #5 – Existing Lot Fabric Analysis………………………………………..18 Appendix #6 – Framework for Intensification – Nodes, Corridors & Downtown..…19 Appendix #7 – City of Guelph Brownfield Sites………………………………….…21 Appendix #8 - Residential Intensification Opportunities within the Mixed Use

Nodes and Intensification areas of the OP……………..……….……22 Appendix #9 - Vacant Residential Lands (Apt and Townhouse Sites) Inventory...…23 Appendix #10 – Staff Review………………………………………...……………...24 Appendix #11 – Draft Potential Residential Intensification ..…………………….....25 7.0 Tables Table #1 – Residential Intensification Property Analysis Summary...……….…...... 26


October 3, 2007 14

Appendix #1 – Proposed Draft Built Boundary

Built Boundary

Greenfield Area


October 3, 2007 15

Appendix #2 – Proposed Draft Urban Growth Centre


October 3, 2007 16

Appendix #3 – Existing Population Density Analysis


October 3, 2007 17

Appendix #4 – 15 Year Severance Activity


October 3, 2007 18

Appendix #5 – Existing Lot Fabric Analysis


October 3, 2007 19

Appendix #6 – Framework for Intensification – Nodes, Corridors & Downtown


October 3, 2007 20


October 3, 2007 21

Appendix #7 – City of Guelph Brownfield Sites


October 3, 2007 22

Appendix #8 - Residential Intensification Opportunities within the Mixed Use Nodes and Intensification areas of the OP


October 3, 2007 23

Appendix #9 - Vacant Residential Lands (Apartment and Townhouse Sites) Inventory


October 3, 2007 24

Appendix #10 – Staff Review


October 3, 2007 25

Appendix #11 – Draft Potential Residential Intensification


October 3, 2007 26

Table #1 - Residential Intensification Property Analysis Summary

RI Zone # General Zone Location Type of Development

Commercial Development Correction %

Total Area Unit Creation

City Wide Unit

Creation City Wide Potential Population Increase

2 Corridor York Corridor Medium High 0 404 18314 45784

3 Corridor York Special Interest Area Medium 25 % 61 5 Node Woodlawn Node High 75 % 161 6 Corridor Woodlawn Corridor Medium High 0 346 7 Corridor Watson Corridor Medium High 25 % 26 8 Corridor Waterloo Corridor Medium High 25 % 320 9 Corridor Wellington St. W Minor Node Medium High 50 % 195

10 Corridor Deerpath Dr. Special Interest Area Medium High 0 % 254

11 Corridor Fife Rd. Special Interest Area Medium High 75 % 20 12 Node Elmira Rd. S Minor Node Medium High 50 % 9 13 Corridor Grange Rd. Minor Node Medium High 0 100 14 Corridor Victoria/Cassino Corridor Medium High 50 % 74 15 Corridor Victoria/Eramosa Minor Node Medium High 50 % 8

16 Corridor Victoria/Speedvale Rd. E Minor Node Medium High 50 % 19

17 Corridor Victoria Corridor Medium High 50 % 162 18 Corridor Victoria Minor Node Medium High 75 % 35

19 Corridor Eramosa/Speedvale Rd. E Minor Node Medium High 75 % 58

20 Urban Growth Centre Urban Growth Centre High 25 % 4412 21 Corridor Edinburgh/Municipal Minor Node High 50 % 78 22 Corridor College Corridor Medium 50 % 232 23 Node College Minor Node Medium High 50 % 15 24 Node College Special Interest Area High 35 % 310 25 Node Stone Rd. Node High 80 % 390 26 Node College/Gordon Minor Node Medium High 50 % 54 27 Node College/Dovercliffe Minor Node Medium High 50 % 20

28 Node Conroy Cres Special Interest Area Medium High 0 % 20

29 Node Niska Rd. Special Interest Area Medium 10 % 35

31 Node Downey Rd. Special Interest Area Medium 0 % 80

32 Node Ironwood Rd. Minor Node Medium High 50 % 22 33 Corridor Stevenson Corridor Medium High 25 % 142


October 3, 2007 27

34 Corridor Elizabeth St. Corridor Medium High 25 % 152

35 Corridor Ferguson St. Special Interest Aera Medium High 0 % 27

36 Corridor Speedvale Corridor Medium High 60 % 980

37 Corridor Suffolk St. W Special Interest Area Medium High 25 % 26

38 Corridor Hanlon Special Interest Area Medium High 0 % 124

39 Node Westwood Rd. Minor Node Medium High 25 % 224 40 Node Silvercreek Node High 80 % 490 41 Node Paisley Node High 75 % 219 42 Node Paisley Minor Node Medium High 50 % 28 43 Corridor Paisley Corridor Medium High 0 998 45 Corridor Gordon Corridor Medium High 55 % 1017 46 Corridor Gordon Minor Node Medium High 80 % 32 47 Corridor Gordon Special Interest Area Medium 10 % 615 48 Corridor Kortright Minor Node Medium High 50 % 24 49 Corridor Eramosa Minor Node Medium High 75 % 96

50 Corridor Eramosa Special Interest Area Medium High 50 % 61 51 Corridor Woolwich St. Minor Node Medium High 75 % 252 52 Corridor Woolwich St. Corridor Medium High 25 % 167 53 Corridor Dufferin Special Interest Area Medium High 25 % 142 54 Node Dawson Rd. Minor Node High 25 % 319 55 Corridor Speedvale Minor Node Medium High 25 % 28 56 Corridor Edinburgh Corridor Medium High 50 % 362 57 Corridor Water St. Special Interest Area Medium High 50 % 36 58 Corridor Walkerway Special Interest Aera Medium High 0 104 59 Node Stone Rd Special Interest Area Medium High 50 % 151 60 Corridor Arkell Minor Node Medium High 75 % 20

61 Corridor Speedvale/Stevenson Minor Node Medium High 75 % 56

62 Corridor Silvercreek Corridor High 25 % 352 63 Corridor Grange Special Interest Area Medium 25 % 379

64 Corridor Clair Rd. Corridor Medium 25 % 269

Residential Intensification Analysis ReportRESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION Community Design and...

Documents

Transcript of Residential Intensification Analysis ReportRESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION Community Design and...