design

Reference Notes
There are five alternatives that will eliminate, or reduce the extent of noise attenuation walls: 1) alternative standards for direct frontage lots which allow this approach to be used more widely; 2) modified standards for service roads and cul-de-sacs which reduce the height and visual presence of noise walls, increase the opportunities for landscaping and better define the spaces of the major streets; 3) the location of a greater range of less sensitive land uses adjacent to major streets; 4) the use of public rear lanes to allow units to front on the major streets while providing vehicular access from the rear; 5) the use of reverse frontage berms to reduce the height and visual dominance of noise walls

ALTERNATIVES TO NOISE ATTENUATION WALLS

To encourage the development of alternative means of noise attenuation, Council has endorsed the use of this series of concepts to be used in the processing of development applications. The use of these concepts, along with other measures which achieve the same objectives, are encouraged to reduce the need for noise attenuation walls.

The reduction or elimination of noise walls will produce the following benefits:

reduced liability to the City for the maintenance and replacement cost of deteriorating noise walls by reducing the length and height of walls; reduced costs to residents of maintenance and replacement cost of deteriorating noise walls by reducing the length and height of walls; improved aesthetic appeal of the City, avoiding the barren, canyon-like effect of walled streets; enhanced personal safety of pedestrians by incorporating Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles such as making streets better observed spaces with more escape routes; creation of more attractive and interesting streetscapes thereby encouraging pedestrians and use of public transit.

Extensive use of noise attenuation walls can create street canyons.

Volume 0296

June 1996

design

Reference Notes

ALTERNATIVES TO NOISE ATTENUATION WALLS

DIRECT FRONTAGE LOTS Where the technical setback and turning radii requirements can be satisfied, direct frontage lots should be encouraged using hammerhead, shared access, and rear garage access driveways. Each application has specific criteria which should be considered before direct frontage lots are implemented. In general, east/west collectors are more suitable for direct frontage access than those running north/south

In the proper context, direct frontage lots provide a stronger built form at street edge.

SERVICE ROADS/CUL-DE-SACS Subdivision design should incorporatestaggered service road patterns Service roads should be limited to one block in length (80 m, 260 ft.) A minimum 4.5 m(15 ft.) buffer block is required adjacent to a sideyard for berming: side yard setbacks should be increased to 6 m(20 ft.) Alternative fencing such as post and rail, tubular or wrought iron fencing should be considered instead of chain link fencing. Where appropriate, chain link fencing should be removed from the service road right of way to allow landscaping to act as the pedestrian barrier A 3 m (10 ft.) buffer block should be provided between any service road right-of-way and a major road when fencing is provided

Service road alternatives contribute to the landscaped street edge when appropriate patterns are established.

Volume 0296

June 1996

design

Reference Notes

ALTERNATIVES TO NOISE ATTENUATION WALLS

LESS SENSITIVE LAND USES To avoid reverse frontages and noise walls, cluster townhouses should be designed incorporating private service road layouts or direct frontage/rear garages. Where possible, land uses which are not sensitive to traffic noise, such as commercial sites, institutional uses, schools, city/community parks and open spaces should be located adjacent major roads. REAR LANES Rear lanes are proposed to allow dwelling units to front on the major streets without the problems of vehicular access from the major street. Lanes may be used with detached, semi-detached or street row dwellings. A detailed review of the following areas must be undertaken as part of the zoning/engineering review: design and construction standards, snow clearing, garbage collection, security, fire department accessibility, on-street parking, address assignment. Rear lanes can be a viable alternative to service roads where a strong built presence along the street is desired.

Noise walls are not required when less sensitive land uses front onto major roads.

Pending review of zoning and engineering standards, rear lanes may be implemented in place of major street accesses.

REVERSE FRONTAGE BERMS Where noise walls are unavoidable, they should be developed in conjunction with a berm where the berm provides most of the acoustic protection and the noise wall is located at the crest of the berm and limited to a maximum height of 1.2 m (4 ft) wherever possible.

Reverse frontage berms provide adequate setbacks and landscaping for rear yards backing onto major streets.

Volume 0296

June 1996

design

Reference Notes

ALTERNATIVES TO NOISE ATTENUATION WALLS

No one approach should be used exclusively. Rather, all approaches should be used, each in the appropriate situations. Review by staff in the Planning and Building, Transportation and Works, and Community Services Departments will be required as part of the implementation of these concepts.

A video presentation illustrating built examples of the criteria above is available for viewing upon request.

For additional information please contact the City of Mississauga Planning and Building Department, Development and Design Division, 11th floor, 300 City Centre Drive, Mississauga, Ontario L5B 3C1 (905) 896 - 5511

Volume 0296

June 1996