|
6. URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HIGH-RISE HOUSING LIGNES
DIRECTRICES D’ESTHÉTIQUE URBAINE POUR LES HABITATIONS DE GRANDE HAUTEUR |
That Council approve Document 1, the Urban Design Guidelines for
High-Rise Housing.
Recommandation DU Comité
Que le conseil approuve le document 1, Lignes directrices d’esthétique
urbaine pour les habitations de grande hauteur.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability,
dated 18 September 2009 (ACS2008-ICS-PGM-0143).
2. Extract of Draft Minute of 13 October 2009.
Planning and Environment Committee
Comite de l’urbanisme et de l’environement
and Council / et au Conseil
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 HIGH-RISE HOUSING
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
LIGNES DIRECTRICES D’ESTHÉTIQUE URBAINE POUR LES HABITATIONS DE GRANDE HAUTEUR
|
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council
approve Document 1, the Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au conseil
d’approuver le document 1, Lignes directrices d’esthétique urbaine pour les
habitations de grande hauteur.
BACKGROUND
The Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing have been prepared as a tool to guide architects, planners, developers, community groups and City staff engaged in the development review process. This document is the next in the series of the Urban Design Guidelines that provide more refined direction in support of Official Plan policy.
The Official Plan places a high importance on the design quality of the built environment, and on creating attractive communities. Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing is part of a multi-faceted approach to support creativity and better design in the Ottawa. Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan promotes a comprehensive urban design strategy, entitiled “Ottawa By Design”, which includes design guidelines as an appropriate implementation tool.
City Council has currently approved over 10 sets of design guidelines, which range in topic from Traditional and Arterial Mainstreets, Greenfield Neighbourhoods, Drive-Through Facilities, Gas Stations to Large Format Retail. This set of currently approved guidelines won the Ontario Professional Planner’s Institute “Excellence in Planning Award” in 2008. The Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing will also be a stand-alone document that provides more specific design direction than the broader objectives outlined in the Official Plan.
DISCUSSION
These urban design guidelines are
to be used during the review of development proposals to promote and achieve
appropriate high-rise development. The design guidelines will be applied
wherever high-rise residential and mixed-use buildings are proposed.
A high-rise building is defined in
the Official Plan as any building that is 10 storeys or more. In high-rise
housing, residential uses predominate but other land uses are often included in
a mixed-use development including, retail, office, institutional, cultural and
entertainment activities. While these guidelines are aimed at residential
development, they are a useful reference when considering high-rise commercial
development, and will also be useful with mid-rise development that appears
tall in relation to its context.
These urban design guidelines will express the City’s expectations for new high-rise housing development where it is permitted. They will work with other previously-approved urban design guidelines and are intended to: (1) provide direction to the development review process for areas without an approved secondary plan or community design plan; (2) complement any design considerations in approved community design plans or secondary plans; and (3) assist the preparation of future community design plans or secondary plans.
When approved, the guidelines will have status as Council policy. City staff will use the Guidelines as a basis for discussion when evaluating development applications. The guidelines will provide clear expectations to the proponent when formulating high-rise development proposals prior to the development review process. These guidelines will also improve consistency in the review of high-rise development across the city.
The guidelines are not a checklist; they allow flexibility to
accommodate unique projects, sites and contexts. They are not a substitute for
detailed site-specific planning, design and/or engineering solutions. These are general guidelines, and not all
will apply equally in all circumstances. Each context will inform the application
of, and the emphasis on, various guidelines. Specific site context and
conditions will be considered in conjunction with these guidelines.
The structure of the guidelines is consistent with
that of the previously approved guidelines. They are simple, brief and
illustrated so they can be an easy reference for a wide audience. These
proposed guidelines are categorised under topics that highlight areas of
interest to the City and allow the reader to focus their interest and find
information quickly. The topic areas are: Context, Built Form, Pedestrians and
the Public Realm, Open Space and Amenities, Site Circulation and Parking,
Environmental Considerations, and Services and Utilities.
Design guideline documents emphasize the importance of achieving quality design in land use planning and development. Guidelines represent a value-added tool for architects, developers, and City staff engaged in the development review process, which will help achieve appropriate high-rise residential development. In addition, neighbourhood residents and interested stakeholders can understand what design features are desirable for high-rise housing where it is permitted, and get a better understanding of the types of issues on which development proposals will be evaluated.
A high-rise building has three primary components that are integrated into the whole of the design: a base or podium; a middle or tower, and a top. The base is the primary interface with the city context, the street, people, and services. The tower is sized, shaped, oriented and clad to respond to functional and contextual requirements, and to the lifestyle of the residents. The top performs key roles including integrating the mechanical equipment, and contributing to sky views.
Document 1, ‘Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing’, offers practical ideas and guidance for building high-rises in established, and new communities to help create a development that contributes to the liveability of city streets and neighbourhoods. The guidelines emphasize the important elements when building in a civic minded spirit and, combined with Official Plan policy and land use zoning, will guide high-rise housing development.
The objective of these urban design guidelines is to highlight ways to:
High-rises are one of the many possible building
types contributing to land use intensification that meets provincially mandated
growth targets and fulfills Official Plan direction to create compact liveable
communities and support public transit. The Official Plan provides policy
direction to evaluate the appropriateness of individual sites, and to inform
many aspects of high-rise design. Official Plan Sections 2.5.1, and 4.11, and
the Design Considerations in Annex 3, are key policy areas that direct high-rise
buildings to specific areas of the city including the downtown core, along Main
Streets, in Mixed-Use Centres, and near major Transit Stations.
CONSULTATION
The objective of the consulation process was to engage a wide range
of professionals, development proponents, community interest groups and
citizens. Workshop sessions created opportunities to receive detailed feedback
that would help in the refinement of the design guidelines.
The attached final document was produced as a result of consultation with City Departments, community associations, members of the development industry and interested stakeholders. Consultation began in July 2008 with the release of an initial draft document. On July 14, 2008 an invitation was sent to members of community associations, design professionals, building professionals and other stakeholders to attend an August 6, 2008 focus group for a hands-on opportunity to work on the preliminary draft document in preparation for broader public consultation. This preliminary draft was also circulated to Advisory Groups, elected officials, and City Departments for comment and feedback. A separate mailbox was set up on the City’s website requesting comments to be submitted directly to that mailbox. In September 2008, a Public Open House was held, and pages from the draft guidelines were pinned up on the wall with illustrative photos and spaces for comments. This hands-on session gave members of the public, and participants in the previous focus group the opportunity to review the guidelines and to suggest new guidelines. From July to September 2009 a final draft was circulated to focus group members and those who had expressed interest in the document during the consultation. Document 1 is the third and final draft and reflects those comments received from the focus group working session, internal circulations, and the public open house.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Once adopted by Council, the Planning Act, section 2.1 requires that regard be had to these guidelines in respect of any development to which they apply.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
N/A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Final report ‘Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing’ (Previously distributed and held on file with the City Clerk)
Document 2 Summary of Public Consultation Comments and Responses
DISPOSITION
Planning and Growth Management Department will:
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 2
The study and consultation process for the guidelines included:
|
May-July 2008 |
Preliminary draft guidelines released for internal/external consultation |
|
July 2008 |
Website set up with mailbox to receive comments from the focus groups and public |
|
July 14, 2008 |
Preliminary draft document circulated and focus group invitation released; |
|
July 16, 2008 |
Preliminary draft document circulated to City Departments, elected officials and Advisory Committees for comment |
|
August 6, 2008 |
Focus group with external participants in
the building industry |
|
September 17, 2008 |
Distribution of updated draft (Draft revision #1) to elected officials and Advisory Committees |
|
Public Open House; Consultation with invited community groups and general public regarding draft guidelines (Draft revision #1) |
|
|
October-November 2008 |
Draft revision #2 prepared based on feedback from stakeholders. |
|
Nov. 20, 2008 |
Draft revision #2 (French and English) posted on City website for further comments |
|
February – May 2009 |
Final draft #3 – Internal consultation and refinement of guidelines to address only high-rise housing, and reorganization of the format |
|
July 2009 |
Presentation of the final draft to Environmental Advisory Committee |
|
September 2009 |
Distribution of final draft to focus group, and those who expressed interest in the document during consultation, with a request for feedback |
Comments received during the
public consultion were positive and highlighted areas where the guidelines
could be modified to improve clarity. To address many of the comments, the subject matter of the
guidelines was refined to focus on one land use, and the document is now called: Urban
Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing. As a result, the document was fully revamped.
The guidelines were refined, new ones added, the introductory sections
were rewritten to be clearer, and new photos and captions added. Some comments
received from various stakeholders were aimed more at policy, zoning, and land
management issues. These aspects are not directly addressed by design
guidelines and therefore these comments were shared with City staff working in
those areas. Comments that informed the content of the guidelines, in
combination with those received from other stakeholders, contributed to the
refinement of the guidelines.
Summary of
Public Consultation Comments and Responses
The Enviromental Advisory Committee (EAC) reviewed the prelininary draft, July 2008, and the final draft, August 2009, and provided a wide range of observations and comments, that are attached below. Many of the EAC comments regarding environmental quality were directly incorporated into the revised guidelines. Guidelines with an environmental orientation were given a greater emphasis in the final draft by being brought together in their own section called Environmental Considerations. As for the rest of the guidelines in the document, many have an implicit environmental value when addressing such aspects as the building shape and form, pedestrian and open space areas, etc. EAC comments regarding light pollution resulted in an additional guideline. The document was also reviewed for clarity to address comments regarding height and intensification. Some EAC comments focused on the broader development policy framework. These were shared with staff undertaking the Official Plan review.
The Accessibility Advisory Committee highlighted issues regarding physical and visual accessibility. Issues included the placement of site furniture, door and window contrasts and maintenance of street trees. These were addressed in the revised guidelines and figure notes. Some observations were broad-based in nature and could not be addressed by land use specific guidelines. This committee’s comments are also attached below.
A diverse range of comments, feedback and observations were received from local community groups and individuals. Most of the comments received were generally understanding and supportive. Comments often highlighted concerns regarding the location, appropriateness and compatibility of high-rise development. Several cited past examples or situations as cautionary examples. Again, those points related to broader Official Plan policy and land use zoning were shared with staff working in these areas.
Members of the architectural community provided many comments and observations, and identified several issues. Concerns regarding the “misalignment of the Official Plan and Zoning” were addressed in the updating of those documents in 2009. More comprehensive polices in Official Plan Section 4.11 regarding Building Profile address suggestions to enhance the strategic approach to tall buildings and provide a framework for the application of these design guidelines. Access to sunlight and impact of shadows was raised and specific standards suggested. Guidelines were enhanced and new ones added to address sun and shadow, but performance and qualitative measures were used rather than specific standards. In addition, architects specializing in sustainability provided observations and comments. The creation of an “Environmental Considerations” section and refined guidelines in the document addressed many of the themes raised by the architects.
Planning consultants focused on the definitions and interpretation section at the beginning of the guideline document. The introductory section was refined to address suggestions by planning consultants to refine the definition of “high-rise” and to highlight that the existing and the planned context (defined in the Official Plan, Community Design Plans and Zoning) must also be taken into account. The introduction to the guidelines was also enhanced to address change and intensification over time. The guidelines now note that while “the existing context may set the present day framework for high-rise buildings, the planned context, laid out in documents such as Community Design Plans and the Comprehensive Zoning By-law, provide a reference for what may often be significant growth and change.”
Some design and planning professionals expressed concern that the guidelines might preclude opportunities for a wide range of design solutions and favour particular design styles. The guidelines were reviewed to ensure that they focused on ways to address community benefits rather than prescribe a design solution.
A common theme in the comments was concern regarding the implementation of the guidelines. For example there were several opinions regarding “density bonusing” – an increase in the height and density of a development above the level otherwise permitted in the zoning by-law. Some noted that “transactional zoning mechanisms or density bonusing mechanisms should be investigated in order to lever the potential benefits that tall buildings can accrue to the broader community”. Others noted that the inclusion of the positive features in the guidelines does not necessarily constitute an entitlement to exceed the provisions of the zoning. While not within the scope of the guidelines, these values are important and inform staff. “Bonusing” will be the topic of a future report to Committee and Council.
Finally, some members of the public took the opportunity to raise the issue of noise generated by heating, ventilation and cooling (HVAC) systems, and in particular to express concerns regarding noise coming from a recent renovation to a high-rise residence. Although these are urban design guidelines, and not technical engineering guidelines, the guidelines in the Services and Utilities section of the document were reviewed and enhanced to highlight the issue early in the design process. To improve coordination among guidelines, references are provided to the Environmental Noise Control Guidelines, approved by Council on May 10, 2006.
Comments as
received from Advisory Committees on the Preliminary Draft, July 2008
|
Environmental
Advisory Committee, July 2008:
Accessibility
Advisory Committee, July 2008:
|
|
Environmental
Advisory Committee comments on the final draft September 10, 2009: The EAC is pleased with the revised
Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing. The final draft provided August 19th, 2009 is more
focussed than the original Urban Design Guidelines for High Profile buildings
of July 11, 2008. The document promotes
a mix of housing, employment, opens spaces and transportation choices at the
podium level of the building, thereby promoting a more lively urban
environment. The addition of an
environmental consideration section with guidelines 42 to 50 is a positive
change the EAC supports. The
EAC recommends the addition of light pollution guidelines specifying full
cut-off lighting at the property line.
Light pollution creates “artificial sky glow”, which is an issue not
just for migratory birds, but for people as well. Signage
on buildings designed to attract the attention of motorists can pose a
significant annoyance to residents of long established neighbourhoods. Reducing
light pollution will not only reduce the deaths of migratory birds, it will
save energy, enhance the visibility of the night sky’s stars, and improve
security and safety for people and property through the use of efficient,
properly designed lighting fixtures. For guidance on criteria, the City of
Ottawa should considered existing light pollution guidelines from the City of
Toronto[1]. The Cities of Calgary and Windsor also
have light pollution provision. The
EAC questions the inclusion of a height restriction ratio in urban areas as
they could be interpreted as limits to intensification on a particular site
and contradict the targets the City of Ottawa’s OP has established. Increased urban intensification will
promote sustainable public transportation, reduced air pollution and lower greenhouse
gas emissions, all of which, besides their clear environmental benefits, will
lead to economic savings and therefore reduced property taxes. Furthermore intensification is much less
costly to the city in terms of infrastructure, road provision, etc. than
building new subdivisions on greenfields/rural land. The EAC therefore recommends that the
high-rise design guidelines context section (guidelines 1 to 24) related to
the built form ratio be revised with the addition of ‘as possible, such that intensification
is not significantly restricted’. The
restriction on right of way width to building height width should be
specifically revised. |
URBAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HIGH-RISE HOUSING
LIGNES DIRECTRICES D’ESTHÉTIQUE
URBAINE POUR LES HABITATIONS DE GRANDE HAUTEUR
ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0143 CITY WIDE/À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
A written submission dated October 12, 2009 from Lord
Lansdowne Neighbourhood Group was received and is held on file with the City
Clerk.
Nelson Edwards, Planner II, provided a PowerPoint presentation, outlining the urban design guidelines for high-rise housing, which is held on file with the City Clerk.
The presentation included an overview of each of the following:
· Break down of urban design guidelines
· Application of guidelines
· Urban guidelines for the developmental review process
· Official Plan pertaining to high rises
· High-rise objectives
· Main components of a high-rise with a breakdown consisting of the context; built form; pedestrian and the public realm; open space and amenities; environmental considerations; site circulation and parking; and services and utilities
· Consultation process and next steps
In response to Councillor Qadri’s inquiry, Mr. Nelson explained the urban design guidelines primarily speak to how a building would inter-relate with the community, public transit, utilities, etc. The internal operations of garbage collection would not necessarily arise in the urban guidelines.
Councillor Qadri referred to page 14, Guideline 24 of the comprehensive report, noting that there was no mention of waste collection or systems in the high-rise buildings. Mr. Edwards advised that staff primarily focused in aspects such as utilities and waste management but believed waste collection would be defined under Services and Utilities in the Guidelines.
Councillor Qadri pointed out that the said guidelines referred to collection on the outside of a residential building. In reference to composting that was discussed at Council a few months ago, the Councillor explained problems with single chutes feeding all the garbage waste and advised that this was not reflected in the guidelines. Mr. Edwards declared that the guidelines are primarily to be used during the development review process, which is normally dealt with during site plan control. He offered to include Councillor Qadri’s point and enhance the guideline to build that concept into the report.
Catherine Caule, spoke to the issues of health, safety and welfare of a building’s occupants, noting that architecture and design can contribute to health problems through pollution materials, waste, air quality, light and noise. She highlighted that none of the six urban design guideline objectives address health and recommended include it in the report.
In reference to the Context and Issue section, she offered that the positive and negative health consequences should be mentioned and staff should aim for a positive or neutral consequence of the building. Environmental health issues should also be more prominent in the document as opposed to being in various areas of the report.
In addition, Ms. Caule suggested detailing the level or type of sound referred to in Guideline 61 on acoustical dampening for noise pollution.
Ms. Caule concluded by recommending that hard links be included in the design guidelines to the enforcement tools and policies that are referred to therein.
Mr. Edwards noted that the design guidelines are formed by the Official Plan, which include values such as a healthy city and promote intensification that are in proximity to amenities and services. The guidelines also enhance the awareness of some of these values through the Environmental Qualities Section. He reiterated his comments at the beginning of the discussion that the guidelines are part of many tools that staff work with, noting the zoning by-law provides the strongest regulatory guidance. Guidelines are used during the development review process and part of a series of documents including Community Design Plans, zoning and Official Plans.
In response to a question from Chair Hume, John Moser, General Manager of Planning and Growth Management confirmed that Section 40 of the Planning Act could be used to impose these guidelines through site plan control.
Councillor Doucet asked staff when a guideline was used to create a development that was more environmentally and community friendly. Mr. Edwards advised that guidelines are used as part of the development review process during site plan control.
David Hoye, Lord Lansdowne Neighbourhood Group spoke from a written submission, held on file with the City Clerk, and advised that he provided comments to staff, which mostly have been incorporated in the guidelines. He emphasized some of his main points as follows:
· Address the issue of noise in the Services and Utilities Section,
· Add an objective to encourage development that is complementary to with the present and planned uses of the surrounding neighbourhood,
· Suggestion that the guidelines should be bolder and stronger,
· Include more community values.
Chair Hume read Guideline 11 and asked how the delegate would re-word the objective. Mr. Hoye referred to his suggestion for Guideline 42 and believed that the orientation guidelines are sprinkled through the report. He felt that they need to be scientifically stronger and more consideration given of the effects on the existing and planned neighbourhoods.
Councillor Feltmate noted that the by-law would be enforcement document as opposed to the guidelines. Mr. Hoye agreed that if there were by-laws, they should be referenced to the guidelines.
Mr. Nelson responded that throughout the guidelines they have referred to several other documents that may apply. Guideline 66 was greatly enhanced based on community feedback and referred to environmental regulations and by-laws and the environment noise control guidelines, which provided more specific direction. These other guidelines and documents assist in strengthening the urban design guidelines.
Ted Fobert and Rob Lahey, FoTenn/Roderick Lahey Architects, noted that they are generally happy with the guidelines. He stated that their only concern was with Guideline 20 - dealing with the separation between towers to allow for adequate light, solar exposure, views and privacy for people in the building as well as people on the street. Looking at the figures in the guideline, Mr. Fobert noted that a 20-23 metre separation between towers provides sufficient separation to achieve the guideline, although seriously impacts their ability to build high-rises in the city, particularly in the inner areas where they are intending to accommodate a lot of the growth in the central areas and the communities that surround it. Typically, the lots in these areas are 50-66 feet wide and 100 feet deep. If these guidelines are applied, they could only develop on every third lot.
Mr. Fobert also pointed out that if the proposed guideline proceeds, it would put most of the zoning that is currently in place to accommodate their high-rise buildings in non-compliance.
Mr. Leahy informed the Committee that he participated in some of the public processes and was pleased with the outcome. His concerns were the same as Mr. Fobert’s and also agreed with the previous delegate. Guideline 22 could presently be argued and potentially stop a project going forward. He thought the guidelines could be achieved by building orientation and design of buildings without putting additional restrictive setbacks.
Mr. Edwards indicated Guideline 22 has changed the most in the current document. He felt the intent of this guideline was to reflect what the previous speaker was requesting, to press ideas forward in a guideline and explore it. The guideline was based on best practices, where they researched what other municipalities were doing. As well, they reflect direction in the approved district escarpment plan and some of the advice and numbers provided within the plan.
Chair Hume reiterated Mr. Fobert’s concerns regarding the restriction of only being able to build on every third lot. Mr. Fobert further added that this objective is clear in a newer developing community if there were a strategy to accommodate growth in particular areas on a basis of growth where the density is justifiable. Presently under these proposed guidelines, no more development could occur downtown.
Mr. Nelson rebutted the guideline focuses on the separation of the towers that are above grade; it does not speak to the base/podium of the building. In other guidelines, a continuous building edge is recommended at the base level for the first several stories that are generally defined in the zoning by-law.
Councillor Doucet commented many cities which have a lot of high-rises typically develop in this manner, where there is a continuous podium level and the spacing in the upper levels provide light and prevents winds tunnels.
Mr. Fobert agreed with the Councillor’s comments and pointed out that generally the building heights in Ottawa’s inner area are restricted to 12 stories. He thought it appropriate to rethink the limit of 12 stories and how to accommodate growth. He agreed with creating a strong podium, good orientation to the streets, but tower heights are increased to offset the lose created by the separation in terms of reaching the intensification goals.
Chair Hume surmised, the initial concern being put forward deals more with the example given in the guideline, which Mr. Fobert concurred.
Mr. Nelson suggested that the wording of the figure notes in the guideline be more demonstrative, adding these numbers should not be construed as number to be measured against. Mr. Fobert advised that the focus will still be on the intent, on how these guidelines are achieved and thought they would have to go on the premise of conditions not withstanding on how things are currently developed and whether or not the zoning by-law permits, rather than generalizing.
Councillor Feltmate commented after the research was complete, what is being proposed was deemed the best practice. Her thoughts were that it should be what is stated and anything that is not 20-23 feet should be justified by the circumstances. Therefore, the guideline remains what is the best practice, and then if it is not followed, there is a reason given.
Mr. Fobert remarked that best practice in other cities differ from what is being proposed for Ottawa. If best practice were going to be applied, a new strategy would have to be developed to address accommodating intensification.
Following the debate, Chair Hume suggested that the delegates and staff meet to further discuss and attempt to provide wording in the guidelines that are mutually agreed upon prior to the Council meeting.
That
the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve Document
1, the Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing.
CARRIED
DIRECTION TO STAFF
That Policy Development and Urban
Design staff meet with delegates that presented at the Planning and Environment
Committee to discuss the wording in portions of the guideline prior to the
Council meeting.
With respect to garbage collection, pick up
and deliveries of materials that is part of the internal working of a building
should be reflected in the external design. Staff to enhance some of the
guidelines to build this concept, prior to council.