Report to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
20 September 2010 / le 20 septembre 2010
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
|
Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0185 |
|
SUBJECT: |
Status of urban infill development: Design Guidelines and zoning by-law |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
état de l’aménagement urbain intercalaire : lignes directrices de design et règlement de zonage |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement prenne connaissance du présent rapport.
BACKGROUND
In January of 2010 an application for Site Plan Control was submitted to the Planning and Growth Management Department that complied with Zoning By-law 2008-250, but did not meet many of the Guidelines included in the Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing. These Design Guidelines are a working tool to help developers, designers, property owners, utility providers, community groups, builders and Council and City staff implement policies of the Official Plan and facilitate the approvals process by highlighting the desired type of development.
In a related occurrence, in the spring of 2010 community associations and individual community members approached the City expressing dissatisfaction with recent infill housing in their neighbourhoods. These residents felt that many of the new homes were incompatible with the character of the neighbourhood and were making a negative contribution to the community.
In an effort to address their concerns and as a result of discussion regarding the aforementioned application, staff determined that it was necessary to survey recent construction in an effort to understand what exactly was being built and what effect it was having on specific neighbourhoods.
To undertake the survey, staff assembled a list of Building Permits issued for infill single, semi-detached, town homes and stacked town homes in Wards 12 (Rideau-Vanier), 14 (Somerset), 15 (Kitchissippi) and 17 (Capital) between January 2005 and the end of June, 2010. These wards were selected because they are seeing the largest amount of small scale infill; additionally, the neighbourhoods in these wards are generally established and have a distinctive character that includes treed streets. To a lesser degree, these issues occur in all urban wards, and occasionally in suburban and rural wards (villages).
The review of both recent small scale infill development and the existing policy context has led staff to conclude that there is a disconnect between the requirements of the Official Plan, Urban Design Guidelines, and the Zoning By-law, specifically with regards to the issue of the accommodation of parking, garages and driveways.
DISCUSSION
Applications for infill development typically fall into two categories: those where some form of planning review and public consultation is part of an application to the Committee of Adjustment and/or for Site Plan Control, and those where no planning review occurs and the only application required is for a Building Permit. Attached Documents 1 through 3 are a series of maps illustrating Building Permits for small-scale residential infill since 2005 in the above selected wards. The most common example would be permits to demolish a single family dwelling and replace it with a semi-detached dwelling. In some cases these require applications to the Committee of Adjustment, while in other cases it’s not required because what is proposed meets the Zoning By-law. It should be noted that larger infill, such as apartments, have not been included on these maps. Only small-scale infill is addressed, or up to and including triplex or townhome developments. Wards 12 (Rideau-Vanier) and 14 (Somerset) together total 26 permits, Ward 15 (Kitchissippi) includes more than 300 permits and Ward 17 (Capital) includes 80 permits.
For applications where only a Building Permit is required, the applicable policy document is the Zoning By-law. Urban Design Guidelines are not applicable law and cannot be included in the technical review done by the Building Code Services Branch under the Building Code Act. Thus the Zoning By-law is the sole tool to regulate built form for those applications that do not require Site Plan Control and/or minor variances.
For applications that require minor variances or Site Plan Control, the Zoning By-law is one applicable policy document during the review of applications for Site Plan Control. However, it is not the only tool to determine whether a proposed development is appropriate. Section 41(4) of the Planning Act as amended through Bill 51 now permits municipalities to consider through the Site Plan Control process matters relating to exterior design, including without limitation the character, scale, appearance and design features of buildings, and their sustainable design.
Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan speaks to Compatibility and Community Design. Although compatible design is not necessarily the same as or similar to existing buildings in the vicinity, it must fit and work well in its existing context. The more a development can incorporate the common characteristics of its setting in its design, the more compatible it will be.
Section 4.11 of the Official Plan, Compatibility, references the review of Development Applications. At the scale of neighbourhoods or individual properties, issues such as noise, spillover of light, accommodation of parking and access, shadowing, and micro-climatic conditions are prominent considerations when assessing the relationships between new and existing development. Often, to arrive at compatibility of scale and use will demand a careful design response, one that appropriately addresses the impact generated by infill or intensification. Consequently, the issue of ‘context’ is a dominant theme of the Official Plan where it speaks to compatibility and design. Objective criteria that can be used to evaluate compatibility include: height, bulk or mass, scale relationship, and building/lot relationships, such as the distance or setback from the street, and the distance between buildings. An assessment of the compatibility of new development involves not only consideration of built form, but also of operational characteristics, such as traffic, access, and parking.
Annex 3 of the Official Plan includes Design Objectives, to ensure that new development respects the character of existing areas, and complements the massing patterns, rhythm, character, and context of existing areas. The Official Plan states that the City will use its available tools to pursue community design that achieves the Design Objectives and Principles in the process of Development Application Review. Council has also approved Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing. These Guidelines are applied during the review of Site Plan Control Applications, and those that are relevant to the issue of parking, garages and driveways are included below:
Section 2.0 Public Streetscape
2.2: Provide a streetscape that is inviting, safe, and accessible, emphasizing the ground floor and street façade of the buildings with principal entries, windows, porches, balconies and key internal uses at street level.
2.3 Landscape the front yard to blend with surrounding front yards’ landscaping patterns. The landscaping should complement and enhance the continuity of uses along the street and create a significant green presence.
Section 3.0 Building Design (Built Form)
3.1.1: Ensure new development faces and animates the street.
3.3.2: Allow the front door (the public entrance) to dominate the front façade as opposed to the garage being dominant. The use of quality materials and an eye-catching entrance is preferable over recessed and shadowed entrances.
3.3.7: Create building faces that are detailed with inviting entrances and living spaces close to the ground that offer ‘eyes on the street’ and contribute to the amenity of the public realm.
3.3.9: Provide primary building entrances that are inviting and visible from the street by:
- Adding architectural elements such as porches which promote street-oriented interaction.
- Keeping the front doors prominent and match the pattern of the doors on the street and/or by placing doors close to grade to minimize exterior stairs for accessibility and ease of year-round maintenance.
Section 4.0 Parking and Garages
If a house presents only a garage door as its primary face on the public street, the result is a loss of a quality environment for the neighbourhood. A pedestrian’s enjoyment of these city spaces diminishes if the pattern of blank garage faces repeats itself down the length of a city street. A garage should not dominate any façade facing a street.
4.2: Make driveway locations and car storage as discrete as possible to allow for greater amounts of landscaped open space.
4.5: 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. Consider the use of permeable pavers for all or portions of the driveway.
4.6: Share driveways where feasible.
4.7 If access to a garage is at the front, limit the garage width to occupy no more than 50 per cent of the width of the lot to preserve soft landscaped areas for the environmental value, streetscape aesthetic and space for snow storage.
Many recent examples of small scale urban infill development include the required parking by accommodating it through garages at the front of the building. This is permitted through the Zoning By-law, which requires that each new dwelling unit include one parking space measuring 2.6 metres wide by 5.2 metres long. However, this is not traditionally how parking has been accommodated in many urban neighbourhoods, nor does it meet the intent of the Urban Design Guidelines outlined above. By providing parking through street-front garages, the ability to provide principal entries and windows at the ground floor level is often eliminated as is the ability to landscape and animate the front yard.
Site plan proposals have been submitted with garages directly accessing onto the street, which is a built form not compatible with the context in many cases. As such, the applications do not meet the intent of Sections 4.11 and 2.5.1 of the Official Plan or the Council approved Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing. However, the Department notes that in cases where a proposed site plan is in complete conformity with the Zoning By-law, the legal opinion is that the as-of-right permission as conferred by the Zoning By-law would ultimately carry more weight before the Ontario Municipal Board than would the Design Guidelines.
As such, the Department is proceeding with the revisions to the Zoning By-law which were contemplated as part of the implementation of Official Plan Amendment No. 76. These revisions will be specifically directed to include provisions regulating to the location of parking and garages with the goal of ensuring that compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines can be more readily achieved, and that significant detractions therefrom will require a planning rationale instead of being permissible as-of-right. The next step in this process will be for staff to detail revisions to the Zoning By-law in a report before Planning and Environment Committee in approximately six months.
CONSULTATION
This report has not proceeded through Public Notification and Consultation and is an information item. Any contemplated changes to the Zoning By-law will be subject to the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
N/A
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
There are no legal/risk management implications associated with this report.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
Revisions to the Zoning By-law and Urban Design Guidelines will bring future development closer in line to the City Strategic Plan by ensuring that existing urban fabric and neighbourhood form are respected so that new growth is seamlessly integrated with established communities.
TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 – Small Scale Residential Infill – Wards 12 and 14
Document 2 – Small Scale Residential Infill – Ward 15
Document 3 – Small Scale Residential Infill – Ward 17
DISPOSITION
Planning and Growth Management will continue work on revisions to the Zoning By-law and Design Guidelines for submission to Planning and Environment Committee and City Council.
SMALL SCALE RESIDENTIAL INFILL – WARDS 12 AND 14 DOCUMENT
1
SMALL SCALE RESIDENTIAL INFILL – WARD 15 DOCUMENT 2
SMALL SCALE RESIDENTIAL INFILL – WARD 17 DOCUMENT 3
