|
5. Urban Design
Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing – Update 2009 Lignes
directrices en esthétique urbaine pour les logements d’insertion de densité
faible à moyenne |
Committee recommendation
That Council approve Document 1, Urban Design Guidelines
for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing – Update 2009.
Recommandation DU Comité
Que le Conseil approuve le Document 1 intitulé Lignes directrices en esthétique urbaine pour les lodgements
d’insertion de densité faible à moyenne – Mise à jour de 2009.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community
Sustainability,dated 5 October 2009 (ACS2008-ICS-PGM-0191).
2. Extract of Draft Minute, 13 October 2009.
3. Report to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
05 October 2009 / le 05 octobre 2009
Submitted
by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Infrastructure Services and Community
Sustainability
Services d’infrastructure et
Viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne-ressource :
Richard Kilstrom, Manager/Gestionnaire, Policy Development and Urban
Design/Élaboration de la politique et conception urbaine, Planning and Growth
Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance Élaboration de la politique et
conception urbaine
(613)
580-2424 x22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT:
|
Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium
Density Infill Housing – Update 2009 |
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
Lignes directrices en esthétique urbaine pour les logements
d’insertion de densité faible à moyenne |
REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
that Council approve Document 1, Urban
Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing – Update 2009.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement recommande au Conseil d’approuver le Document 1 intitulé Lignes directrices en esthétique urbaine
pour les lodgements d’insertion de densité faible à moyenne – Mise à jour de
2009.
BACKGROUND
In
2005, after an extensive consultation process, the City produced Urban
Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing. This document was approved by Council and
has been used extensively in the evaluation of infill development applications.
The document, which won a Provincial Planning Award in 2008 and is used
primarily to evaluate development applications established neighbourhoods
experiencing levels infill pressure.
The document is available on the
City’s website at http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/planning/design_plan_guidelines/completed/infill_housing/index_en.html
In
2008 staff determined that it would be beneficial to review and update the
guidelines in order to address some minor issues that had arisen in the
application of the document during the Site Plan, Committee of Adjustment and
Ontario Municipal Board processes. A
draft document Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing
– Update 2009 was prepared for internal, public, agency and stakeholder
consultation. This update focused on
making clarifications to the original text. It also added two new guidelines as
well as a number of new photos and captions to support the existing text.
The
draft document was circulated for consultation and then amended based on the
feedback.
CONSULTATION
The
draft document Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing
– Update 2009 was posted to the City’s website for public, agency and
stakeholder consultation on May 15, 2009.
An
advertisement, notifying stakeholders of this fact and inviting comment, was
placed in the Ottawa Citizen and Le Droit newspapers on May 15, 2009. At the same time, all urban Councillors, all
advisory committees and all registered community groups/associations were notified
that the revised guidelines were posted for comment. In addition, through an email contact list from the 2005
consultation process, individuals and groups who had previously participated in
the creation of the guidelines were advised that the draft revisions were
posted for comment. Interested parties
were asked to review and comment on the revised document.
Although
the entire revised document was posted, interested parties were asked to
provide comment on the new and changed material only. This request was made as the original guidelines had gone through
an extensive public consultation and were Council approved; the intent of the
2009 consultation was not to revisit guidelines, captions and photos that were
unchanged.
Comments
were received from two agency groups, one community association and six members
of the public as well as from internal City staff who use the Infill Guidelines
on a regular basis. The comments are
shown in Document 2.
The
feedback included comments on new and unchanged material. All comments were evaluated to determine how
they contributed to enhancing the guideline document. In general comments that helped clarify the intent of the guidelines,
simplified the wording and corrected errors were incorporated into the document. New guidelines were added to give more
direction to service elements and there were some additions to the
glossary. Comments whose inclusion
would cause conflict with other guidelines or that added a level of specificity
that made the document cumbersome, or that would be difficult to achieve in
implementation, were generally not included.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no legal/risk management implications associated with this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing – Update 2009 (Previous distributed and held on file with the City Clerk)
Document 2 Record of Public, Agency and Stakeholder Feedback
DISPOSITION
N/A
Individual Member of the Public
Subject: INFILL GUIDELINES
The new guidelines are improved over the
previous ones.
First they are more focussed with less
prose. Some new important
items are covered and overall the shorter
text is beneficial.
Unfortunately they will remain just words
unless put into practice.
The guidelines should be turned into a
checklist for use by residents,
developers, city staff and the committee of
adjustment. More of the
issues should be meaureable. Items that cannot be measured should be
rated on some scale.
Individual residents are at a disadvantage
with limited access to
resources and design plans.
Driveway lengths have been shortened over
the years to the point that
two medium size cars cannot be
accomodated. The encroachment of
cars
into the sidewalk is a more common
sight. Most people who can afford
a 17' wide 3 story house at $500K plus own
two cars. Visitors can
park on the street which is already
congested.
Snow removal is not identified as an
issue. Even with shorter
driveways, front yards are smaller and lot
widths are smaller. Where
to put the snow?
Finally as any developer or city staff will
tell you, these are guidelines not bylaws.
The infill guidelines need more teeth.
I am sorry I do not have more time to deal
with other important issues
with deadline today.
Hintonburg Community Association
Revisions to
Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing
On behalf of the
Hintonburg Community Association, I would like to offer the following comments:
1. This revision
is premature. The OPA has not been approved and this document seems to be
quoting from it (as it should, once it is approved). There is no mention of the
recent Planning Act changes that give municipalities the power to regulate
design. Since the Site Plan by-law will have to be amended once the OPA is
passed in order for this power to be fully implemented, the revision of Design
Guidelines should wait until the City is in a position to regulate design and
the guidelines should refer to the appropriate enabling by-laws, regulations,
etc.
At the very
least, the reference to Site Plan in section 8 should include the fact that
design objectives will be implemented through site plan control since that is
what is happening now.
2. We are
concerned that this proposed revision has not been circulated widely enough.
The former chair of our zoning committee received this notice, but I did not,
although I routinely receive many notices about planning issues. If it has only
been circulated to those who commented on the previous version, you will be
missing many groups who have had experience with the guidelines when dealing
with development proposals. I have personally referred several community
associations to these guidelines when asked for help with development issues.
The delay suggested above would allow you to reach a wider audience and to get
further comments and potential improvements.
3. The weakening of the requirement that
no more than 50% of the lot frontage is to be used for parking is a great
disappointment.
4. On the other
hand, the addition of wheel strips to section 4.12 is positive.
5. The changes
to the section on the Committee of Adjusment, especially the statement that the
C of A will "have regard for" these guidelines in making its
decisions is appreciated.
6. Please add
"cool roof" to the glossary and the definition of "green
building".
http://www.coolroofs.org/
Thank you for
the opportunity to comment on this revised document.
Individual Member of the Public
P 7. Public Streetscape: too prescriptive,
no room for vision, based on a very specific ideal of what counts as beauty
P 7. “sustainable cities have …” This statement implies first of all
that sustainable cities exist, yet the most we can hope for is minimizing waste
and encouraging vibrancy in some way (e.g. walkable); it also implies that there
is one way to design sidewalks. Some
European cities have narrow streets with tall buildings with no trees, yet they
are vibrant and dense.
Also implied is the notion that a diverse
building form is undesirable
Design Guidelines 2.3 p. 8: Landscaping
should blend; continuity is desired
This is prescriptive and discouraging of
new design vision, particularly problematic in areas where current landscaping
may decrease the use and aesthetics of the streetscape (e.g. vast landscapes of
Kentucky Blue).
Figure 3. Probably mostly suited to a
commercial street, not necessarily to residential where front yards are the
norm.
Building Design p. 11: Good paragraph that
summarizes and addresses many of the above criticisms. However the rest of the
section is prescriptive with requirements for uniformity of setbacks and
styles.
Figure 18, p 14. This townhouse breaks all the ‘rules’ implied above (setbacks,
height, scale) but it deemed desirable because it is well designed. This seems
very superficial.
p. 16: 3.3.4
contradicts earlier prescriptions calling for continuity
1. 18: 3.3.7
why conifers? Deciduous trees, such as maples, leave the soil less acidic; they
shade in the summer and allow light through in the winter.
Summary:
Document gives prescriptive suggestions
based on a superficial reading of a limited planning perspective and in doing
so introduces a number of contradictions (e.g. respect the character of the
neighbourhood while introducing modern architectural interest).
Document is essentially a guide to
aesthetically pleasing infill. There is
little substance (safety, functionality, socio-economic class factors).
Brief mention at the beginning about for
whom the document is intended but there is no mention as to how it will be
disseminated or at what stage and how it would become an important resource for
such groups such as developers. It is
merely a guideline its potential influence is questionable.
Several Old Ottawa South Residents
The following is
a summary of comments by several Old Ottawa South residents, responding as
private citizens, in response to the Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium
Density Infill Housing.
Re:
1.0 Introduction, pp 2: " Design guidelines are a working tool to help developers,
designers, property owners, community groups, builders, Council and city
staff implement policies of the Official Plan and facilitate the approvals
process by highlighting the desired type of development. Applicants are
encouraged to use the guidelines to come up with ideas to
further improve urban infill. Note that not all guidelines
apply or are appropriate in every infill situation and thus, the guidelines
are not to be used as a checklist in evaluating proposals."
-
Perhaps the
guidelines could be used as a checklist in evaluating proposals afterall, with
guidelines that do not apply or are not appropriate being designated
'not applicable' so that applicants would not be penalized for ignoring
these guidelines. Staff evaluating proposals would be able to see how
many of the applicable guidelines were heeded and get a better idea of how
much effort was put forth where appropriate.
-
I'd also like to
see these guidelines get an upgraded status / force so developers cannot just
ignore them; to increase the likelihood that if they aren't ever
going to make these enforceable, then
at least we will be able to say we tried and they ignored us.
Re:
Guideline 2.6, pp 10: "Provide street trees for shade at 6 to 10 metre
spacing, in continuous planting pits or in clusters to support healthy growth.
Use planting techniques that avoid the effects of soil compaction and road
salt."
-
Developments may
provide lots of trees and all the right techniques may be used when planting
them, but if insufficient space is given for them to grow (in particular the
roots), they are likely to grow poorly or die. I suggest adding a
note about allowing adequate space for each tree which might very
depending on the species being planted.
Re:
Guideline 2.11, pp 10: "Plant trees, shrubs, hedges, ornamental plantings and
ground cover adjacent to the public street and sidewalk for an attractive
sidewalk edge. Select hardy, salt tolerant native plant material that can
thrive in stringent urban conditions. (General information on native
species can be found on the Ottawa Forest and Greenspace
Advisory Committee’s web pages http://www.ofnc.ca/ofgac/)"
-
I suggest adding
a link to a website that defines and discusses the dangers of using invasive
species to better back up the argument that native plants should be used. While there are some native invasives, the
majority of invasives are non-native species.
Re:
Figure 18, Guideline 3.2.1, pp 14: “The
stacked townhomes on the left are larger in scale than the
adjacent properties, but through the use of quality
materials and design, they contribute to create a positive
streetscape.”
-
I think this
suggests that scale can be overlooked as long as materials and design are in
keeping with the guidelines. I don't think it should be implied that
one guideline can be ignored as long as a few others are followed.
Re: Figure 25, Guideline 3.3.6, pp 17: “The curved façade, echoed by the curved
arbour, creates a unique corner treatment that adds interest to the public
realm. The significant glazing contributes to community surveillance.”
-
I don’t know
exactly what is meant by “glazing”: is
it simply the use of windows, or does it refer to tinting/reflecting of windows
or other treatments? I tried to look
the term up in the glossary at the end of the document but it is not included. I suggest including it in the glossary.
Re: New
guideline 4.5, pp 21: “In order to maximize the area of green front
yards and emphasize the dwelling façade, where possible provide driveways to
detached rear garages or parking areas.”
-
While I like that
cars and parking are de-emphasized by putting them at the back of buildings,
the farther they are from the street the longer the driveways will be and the
more paving there will need be. Perhaps this could be acknowledged
and a suggestion made that developments incorporate permeable paving
methods to mitigate against the increased stormwater runoff that would occur
as a result of increased areas of paved surface. These technologies
are mentioned elsewhere in the document but could be mentioned again here.
-
think #4.5
...driveways to detached rear garages or parking areas... is a good idea and
can be done well especially on a corner site. The problem is that even if it is
possible, developers often prefer the drive-in-garage which makes for an ugly
streetscape (see most of Brewer's gate) but is an efficient use of space.
It depends on the site. A single unit infill may be better off with a small
parking pad or carport. But many infill projects are semis or rows which can
lend themselves to other arrangements (and if they all have drive in garages at
the front they make the street look like a back alley). There are examples of
attractive rear yard parking at the East end of Brewer's gate on Hopewell, also
the modern four unit row on Glen East of Seneca.
The strangest example of why we should discourage front yard parking is the
project on Sunnyside along the grounds of the College of Physicians and
Surgeons. The whole Sunnyside frontage is garage doors. A lane behind could
have made the whole "public" front green, but instead the most
attractive units face the green fields of the very "private" College
(until the College, to the residents chagrin, paved the fields for parking).
It depends on the site, but I think the intention is good, and as these are
just guidelines they are mostly ignored by developers anyway.
-
First is the
statement about "In order to maximize the area of green front
yards...", which somehow seemed out of step with older neighbourhoods like
OOS and the Glebe, where many of the houses have front porches/steps that come
to within a few feet of the sidewalk. The "green front
yard" is mostly a foreign concept around here.
Second is the bit about "...where possible provide driveways to detached
rear garages or parking areas." While it seems that the intent is to give
the automobile less prominence in the street "fabric", this guideline
has the perverse effect of requiring that a lot more of a precious resource --
land -- be devoted to the car. Most people are I think happy to have a small
driveway or pad up front where they can fit one or maybe two cars. If instead I
had to put a driveway all the way to the back of my lot, well there goes a tree
or two and a good chunk of my garden. I'd also have a much harder time keeping
it clear in winter -- and what would happen to all that snow? Will the city
haul it away?
Re: Appendix, pp 31:
“Site Plan Control approval is exempted for detached, semi-detached and duplex and triplex buildings under the site plan control
by-law. For more information on Site Plan
Control please refer to:
http://ottawa.ca/residents/planning/dev_review_process/dev_application/17_3_5_en.
Html
-
This implies that
it used to be that only semi-detached and duplex buildings were exempt from
site plan control approval but now singles and triplexes are exempt as
well. I think that the more oversight
there is the less chance there is that something inappropriate will be built. I
don’t believe any developments should be exempt.
Re: Appendix, pp 32: “ How Design Guidelines fit with the
current Development Approval process:
The Building
Permit stage is sometimes the only time an infill project will be reviewed (e.g.
It may be reviewed only at Building Permit stage if it is exempt from Site
Plan Control By-law 2002-4 as amended; the Building Code and all other Zoning
By-law provisions have been met; it is not a Designated Heritage Building or
within a Heritage Conservation District under the Ontario Heritage Act and
there is no requirement for a severance). The Building Code review process
is technical only; therefore, Building Code Services has no authority to do a
design review under the Building Code Act.
If the
building is a permitted use and complies with the zoning by-law in terms of
performance standards, there is no ability for the Chief Building Official to
require that plans be modified to respond to design matters. Therefore, the
design guidelines may not be applied when an infill project is only reviewed at
the Building Permit stage.”
-
This implies that
developers need not heed the guidelines if their development is exempt from
site plan control approval and is subject only to a building code review. While this may be true, technically, I think
it should be stressed in this paragraph that the guidelines should still be
followed as much as possible. The way
it reads it almost seems like, in these instances, developers are off the
hook. They should never be off the hook
to build well-designed developments.
General comments:
-
Just wondering if
builders would have to request this document or if it will be sent out to all
builders in the City. I think it should be the latter. Don't put
the onus on them to get the guidelines.
Glebe Community Association
The Glebe
Community Association has reviewed the Revisions to the Urban Design
Guidelines.
We appreciate the City's dedication to
keeping this guideline up-to-date.
We have noted
some conflict in the application of the guideline. On page 2, a statement has
been
added indicating
that "not all guidelines apply". This conflicts with the statement on
the top of
page 7, which
indicates that "design guidelines will be applied to all infill
development".
The GCA would
like to have this clarified. We think it is reasonable to apply the guideline
to all
infill development.
The statement on page 2 should be modified to indicate this, but with a caveat
that alternative proposals will be considered.
Individual Member of the Public
Regarding file # D04-01-09-INFILL
I am a resident
of Ottawa, home owner and pay taxes to this fair city of Ottawa. I have
concerns regarding the city of ottawa’s present building and infill policy. I
hope this will change so our city remains a green and appealing one. At the
present rate I feel it is becoming unappealing and ruined. I believe and
request the city to stop allowing dev. To change variance and code’s which meet
their needs instead of the needs and appearance of a community. For
example on keyworth ave in Ottawa changes were allowed to tear down a fine
house with a property of ten beautiful mature trees some of which were oak and
three ugly box homes are being built. These are being built with a change of
the original law . the dev. Again won his wishes and the community lost. #2
example up the street on keyworth a man had 5 beautiful mature oak trees tore
down and he is planning to build a huge double which again will destroy the
community.
I believe the
city needs to have and enforce a law to preserve trees and greenery. At the
present rate of tree cutting this city will be unappealing and will lose what
it is famous for (green spaces and communities). Trees offer so much to a
community both environmentally and economically (money saved by not using an
air conditioner in the summer). In some countries you have to have a permit
before being allowed to cut down a tree.
Could you please
advocate for this?
Thank you for
your time. Please do not overdevelop this city and stop the endless
construction of condos along Richmond road. You do not have the infrastructure
to meet this pop. So why are you continuing to give out permits?
Individual Member of the Public
I too see the logic and the rationale
behind stopping urban sprawl.
That said 'infill' must be appropriate
to the neighbourhood.
In fact my community assoc 'Woodpark' has
often said. " infill yes, BUT appropriate infill"
Unfortunately that has not always been the
case.
I'm certain our community assoc will be
sending something in but I did want to express my own concerns.
