Report
to/Rapport au :
Comité de l'urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
21 March 2011 / le 21 mars 2011
Submitted by/Soumis
par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City
Manager, Directrice municipale adjointe, Planning
and Infrastructure, Services d'Urbanisme et d'Infrastructure
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
AMÉNAGEMENTS INTERCALAIRES DE FAIBLE
HAUTEUR dans LES QUARTIERS bien établis |
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That Planning Committee recommend
Council approve:
1.
An amendment to the Zoning By-law
2008-250 to include a new section which provides regulations for infill
development as detailed in Document 2;
2.
The Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Rise
Infill Housing as detailed in Document 3;
3.
The proposed changes to the City’s submission
requirements and procedures – including procedures and fees for new planting,
the Urban Tree Conservation By-law and the Drainage By-law as detailed in Document
4 and direct the appropriate branches to implement these changes within eight
months of Council approval of this report; and
4. The addition of one Full-Time Employee for the Forestry Services Branch
as a pressure to the draft 2013 budget, in order to ensure that the amendments
to the Urban Tree Conservation By-law can be implemented.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme recommande au
Conseil :
1.
approuve
une modification au règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin d’inclure un nouvel
article qui fournit une réglementation quant aux aménagements intercalaires,
comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 2;
2.
d’approuver
les Directives d’esthétique urbaine pour les aménagements résidentiels
intercalaires de faible hauteur document 3 ci-joint;
3.
d’approuver
les modifications proposées aux exigences en matière de présentation des
demandes d’aménagement et aux procédures de la Ville - y compris les procédures
et les coûts de la nouvelle plantation, au Règlement municipal sur la
conservation des arbres urbains et au Règlement sur le drainage document 4
ci-joint et de demander aux services concernés d’adopter ces modifications dans
les huit mois suivant l’approbation du présent rapport par le Conseil; et
4.
Ajoute
un employé à temps plein à la Direction des services forestiers comme pression
du budget préliminaire de 2013 afin de veiller à ce que les modifications au
Règlement sur la conservation des arbres urbains puissent être mises en œuvre.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Low-rise infill housing is continually being built and is seen as a
beneficial addition to neighbourhoods as long as the infill is compatible and
makes a positive contribution to the neighbourhood. In Ottawa there are increasing amounts of
infill, in particular in Wards 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17, and, as certain
neighbourhoods in these wards are seen as very desirable, infill in these areas
is expected to continue. Although much
of this is positive, there are certain negative building patterns that have reduced
the compatibility of some infill in these wards.
This report is being brought forward in order to propose changes to
permissions and procedures related to infill housing that aim to increase the positive
contributions and improve the overall compatibility of low-rise infill development.
The proposed changes were developed following a long study period that
included an extensive visual survey of new infill construction, analysis of the
survey data, the creation and review of various options for change, and a
comprehensive internal and external consultation process.
A comprehensive stakeholder
consultation process began in early 2011.
The consultation process,
documented fully later in this report, included:
§ Four
public meetings held in February 2011 and one in September 2011
§ 17
meetings with industry and community stakeholders
§ Additional
meetings with individuals and interest groups as requested throughout the process
and ongoing email correspondence with stakeholders
The recommendations recognise the importance of low-rise
infill housing. They also acknowledge that
infill results in neighbourhood change and that this change must contribute
positively to the neighbourhood and not erode the characteristics that make the
neighbourhood liveable.
The purpose of the recommendations is to enhance the nature of new low-rise
residential development that is being built within stable residential
neighbourhoods. To ensure that infill makes a more positive contribution to the
character and quality of the neighbourhoods the recommendations include:
§ Changes
to the existing zoning by-law provisions (Document 2) as they relate to the
construction of new, low-rise infill housing with the study area (see Document 1)
§ Revisions
to the City’s current Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Rise Infill Housing
(Document 3 - applicable within the urban area only)
§ Changes
to City submission requirements and
procedures, the Urban Tree Conservation By-law and the Drainage By-law (Document
4 – applicable within the urban area only)
The recommendations are
expected to:
§ Improve
the relationship between the front of house and the street, and promote more
neighbourly frontages and uses at street level
§ Improve
the landscape and streetscape treatment so that new homes ‘fit’ better in
established neighbourhoods
§ Increase
the permeability of yards and front yard green potential
§ Improve
the implementation of the City’s Urban Tree Conservation By-law
§ Increase
the amount of information that the City receives with infill applications so
that it is possible to better evaluate the impact of proposed construction
§ Ensure
that infill lots are graded as per approved plans
§ Improve
internal communication and co-ordination related to infill applications within
and amongst municipal departments
§ Improve
the clarity of the Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Rise Infill Housing
§ Create
opportunities for good infill to be recognized
The recommendations will apply to Building Permit, Site Plan and
Committee of Adjustment applications submitted after Council approval of the
changes. The proposed changes related to
improved implementation of the Urban Tree Conservation By-law (as outlined in
Document 4) will require an additional staff resource. The remainder of the proposed changes have no
financial implications for the City.
Several follow up actions are being proposed, including an analysis of
the impacts of zoning by-law setback and height provisions on infill
development, a determination of whether the zoning by-law changes should be
applied to additional neighbourhoods outside the current study area, as well as
a complete review and monitoring of the currently proposed changes
(Recommendations 1 through 3 of this report).
RÉSUMÉ
On assiste
régulièrement à la mise en chantier d’aménagements résidentiels intercalaires
de faible hauteur. Ces aménagements sont réputés être un atout pour le
voisinage, dans la mesure où ils sont compatibles et apportent une contribution
positive aux quartiers dans lesquels ils sont bâtis. On compte de plus en plus
d’aménagements intercalaires à Ottawa, en particulier dans les quartiers 12,
13, 14, 15 et 17, et, comme ces quartiers sont très convoités pour leur
convivialité, on projette d’y poursuivre l’érection d’aménagements
intercalaires. Bien qu’on y trouve généralement des avantages, ces quartiers
comportent des modèles de construction dont les effets négatifs réduisent la compatibilité
de certains aménagements intercalaires.
Le présent rapport
propose de modifier les permissions et procédures reliées aux aménagements
résidentiels intercalaires, dans un secteur donné, afin d’accroître la contribution
positive et d’améliorer la compatibilité des aménagements intercalaires de
faible hauteur.
Les modifications
sont proposées à la lumière d’une longue période d’étude qui comportait une
vaste enquête visuelle des aménagements intercalaires nouvellement construits, l’analyse
des données de cette enquête, l’élaboration et l’examen de diverses solutions de
modification et un processus de consultation interne et externe.
Une consultation de tous les intervenants a été
amorcée en 2011. Ce processus de consultation, dont les détails figurent plus
loin dans le présent rapport, prévoyait :
§ Cinq réunions publiques dont quatre ont été tenues en
février 2011 et une en septembre 2011
§ Dix-sept réunions avec l’industrie et la collectivité
§ Des réunions supplémentaires, avec des personnes et
des groupes d’intérêt, dont la tenue s’est avérée nécessaire durant le
processus et une correspondance continue par courriel avec les divers
intervenants
Les
recommandations font état de l’importance des aménagements résidentiels
intercalaires de faible hauteur. Elles reconnaissent aussi qu’ils entraînent des
changements dans le voisinage et que ces changements doivent apporter une contribution
positive au voisinage et laisser intactes les caractéristiques qui favorisent
la qualité de vie du milieu.
L’objet de ces
recommandations est d’améliorer la nature des nouveaux aménagements
résidentiels intercalaires construits dans les quartiers résidentiels bien
établis. Voici ce qui est recommandé pour faire en sorte que ces aménagements
intercalaires contribuent au caractère et à la qualité des quartiers en
question :
§ Modification des dispositions actuelles du règlement
sur le zonage (document 2) qui traitent de la construction de nouveaux
aménagements résidentiels intercalaires de faible hauteur dans le secteur à
l’étude (document 1).
§ Révision de la version actuelle des Directives d’esthétique urbaine pour les
aménagements résidentiels intercalaires de faible hauteur (document 3
- ne s’applique qu’au secteur urbain).
§ Modification des exigences en matière de demande
d’aménagement et des procédures de
la Ville, du Règlement municipal sur la
conservation des arbres urbains et du Règlement sur le drainage (document 4
- ne s’applique qu’au secteur urbain).
Les recommandations visent à :
§ Harmoniser les façades de maison avec les rues en vue
de les rendre plus accueillantes.
§ Améliorer l’aménagement paysager et le paysage de rue
afin que les nouvelles demeures s’intègrent mieux dans le voisinage.
§ Accroître la perméabilité des cours et le potentiel
écologique des cours avant.
§ Assurer une mise en application rigoureuse du
Règlement municipal sur la conservation des arbres urbains.
§ Exiger des demandes d’aménagements intercalaires plus
étoffées afin que la Ville soit en mesure d’évaluer l’impact de la construction
proposée.
§ Assurer que les terrains destinés aux aménagements
intercalaires sont nivelés conformément aux plans approuvés.
§ Améliorer la communication interne et la coordination entre
les services municipaux qui traitent les demandes d’aménagements intercalaires.
§ Clarifier les Directives d’esthétique urbaine pour les
aménagements résidentiels intercalaires de faible hauteur.
§ Rechercher des occasions de souligner les aménagements
intercalaires réussis.
Les recommandations
s’appliqueront aux demandes de permis de construire et de plan d’implantation
ainsi qu’à celles soumises au Comité de dérogation une fois que le Conseil aura
approuvé les modifications. Les propositions exigeant une mise en application plus
étroite du Règlement municipal sur la conservation des arbres urbains (comme le
stipule le document 4) nécessiteront des ressources humaines
supplémentaires. Les autres modifications proposées n’ont pas de répercussion financière
sur les services de la Ville.
Plusieurs mesures de suivi
sont proposées, y compris une analyse des répercussions des dispositions du
Règlement de zonage concernant les retraits et la hauteur des immeubles sur les
aménagements intercalaires, une analyse de l’opportunité d’appliquer les
modifications au Règlement de zonage à des quartiers situés à l’extérieur du
secteur visé par l’étude, ainsi qu’un examen complet et une surveillance des
modifications projetées actuellement (recommandations 1 à 3 du présent rapport).
BACKGROUND
The Official Plan promotes intensification through a variety of ways,
one of which is infill development in the urban area. The Official Plan notes
that the stability and the character of established neighbourhoods is to be
ensured, and that these neighbourhoods have the potential for smaller scale
growth over time. While infill development will be different from the original
homes, infill proposed within the interior of established stable neighbourhoods
must be designed to complement and contribute to the area’s pattern of built
form, as well as its desirable landscape and streetscape characteristics.
In the spring of 2010 a number of community associations and individual
community members expressed concerns that recent, low-rise, infill housing
projects in their neighbourhoods were incompatible with the character of the
neighbourhood and were making a negative contribution to the community.
To better understand the issues, staff assembled a list of building
permits issued for infill detached, semi-detached, multiple attached dwellings
and stacked dwellings between January 2005 and the end of June 2010 in Wards
12, 13, 14, 15 and 17.
Many of the neighbourhoods in these wards were developed pre-war, are stable
and well established, have a distinctive character, and are seeing the largest
amount of low-rise infill. During the
summer of 2010, staff conducted a visual survey of over 400 properties on the
list. The survey found that there are
certain types and patterns of infill housing that appear to have a negative
impact on the landscape and streetscape character of neighbourhoods. The detailed survey findings are available on
the study web pages at ottawa.ca/infill. Based on the survey, staff began to work with
other City Branches and Departments to explore possible solutions to address
the identified issues.
At the same time, following from the October 4, 2010 report to Planning Committee Status of Urban Infill Development: Design Guidelines and Zoning By-law ACS2010‑ICS-PGM-0185, Planning and Growth Management staff was directed examine issues related to infill housing and report back to Committee.
DISCUSSION
The
recommendations, as detailed below and in the attached documents, are proposed
in order to:
§ Address
concerns over the impacts of infill housing and enhance the contribution of new
construction to streetscapes and neighbourhoods.
§ Improve
the clarity of policy documents so that they may be applied more effectively
§ Increase
and improve the level of information given to the City, thereby facilitating
the review of applications and providing the applicant with more clarity
surrounding City expectations.
§ Improve
the internal co-ordination of information so that applications can be reviewed
more effectively.
§ Ensure
that City assets in the right-of-way are identified and better protected.
§ Address
on-going concerns within this report’s study area, and in neighbourhoods that
fall outside the study area.
§ Monitor
and evaluate the impact of the proposed changes, and determine whether
additional measures are necessary.
Through the study
process, numerous ways of addressing areas of concern were considered. Detailed information on the study web pages ottawa.ca/infill outlines
a set of initial ideas that were considered by staff and put forward for public
feedback at the February 2011 consultation sessions. The ideas were informed by best practices in
other municipalities such as Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Oakville
and Mississauga. Based on a vetting of the
ideas and options gathered from the February meetings, and on a process of
internal consultation with the affected branches and departments, the initial
set of ideas was refined into a second document that was released in early
September 2011 and discussed at the September public meeting. The September consultation document is also available
at ottawa.ca/infill. Based on participant feedback and through a
process of internal consultation, the ideas were refined to those presented in Documents
2, 3 and 4.
All of the changes to the permissions around
infill construction are encompassed by recommendations 1, 2 and 3, and detailed
in the associated Documents 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The rationale behind the changes proposed by
recommendations 1, 2, and 3 is explained in the three following sections.
Recommendation 1 - Changes to the Zoning By-law
within the Study area (Document 2)
Through the study,
there was recognition that
certain undesirable infill conditions would not change if there are no changes
to certain provisions in the Zoning By-law.
As such, recommendation 1 suggests changes to the Zoning By-law to lots:
§ within the R1, R2, R3 or R4 zones shown on the schedules in Documents 1
and 2; and,
§ on which a new residential building containing a detached,
semi-detached, linked‑detached, duplex, three unit or multiple attached
dwelling is constructed.
Specific changes being recommended (and detailed in Document 2)
include:
§ A new definition of grade,
based on the pre-alteration site grades, and a requirement to
confirm that grade is built as approved.
§ A
limit on the height and square footage of rooftop projection used to access roof
top patios.
§ A
calculation of front-yard setback based on the average of the adjacent homes.
§ Permission
for front-yard projections to be the average of those of the adjacent homes.
§ Permission
to build without offering on-site parking.
§ Permission
for front-yard parking (new infill only and with limits on hard surface area).
§ Restrictions
on hard surface area in the front-yard.
§ Restrictions
on the provision of front garages.
As noted in the October 4, 2010 report to Planning Committee, “applications
for infill development typically fall into two categories: those where some
form of planning review and public consultation is part of an application…and
those where no planning review occurs and the only application required is for
a Building Permit”.
For applications where only a Building Permit is required, the
applicable planning 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
Approval, the Zoning By-law and the City’s Urban Design Guidelines can be
applied during the review process. However,
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. The Committee of Adjustment has regard to the
Guidelines where applicable but the extent to which they may influence a
decision can relate directly to the extent to which they are raised at the
Hearing. Given the above, zoning
is the proper tool to affect the desired changes to low-rise infill housing.
Document 2 is the final
product of extensive internal and external consultation processes, and outlines
the proposed zoning changes. Endnotes in the Guidelines explain the
intent behind the proposed changes and are included to facilitate and clarify future
interpretation of the by-law provisions.
The changes take an approach to zoning that is more contextual than the
existing Zoning By-law 2008-250 provisions permit. The goal of this approach is to achieve
future infill development that is more sensitive to the characteristics of the
neighbourhood in which it is built.
Staff will monitor the results of the proposed changes to determine
whether the resulting infill is making the desired positive contribution to
neighbourhoods. This will include
monitoring of the uptake on the ‘no parking required’ provision and any
resulting potential impacts on street parking. If deemed necessary, the Department will undertake a study of the
on-street parking permit program within the study area, in order to determine
if existing programs should be expanded or new ones instituted.
As part of the examination of best practices, staff examined the
standards of other jurisdictions. By way
of an example, elements of the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 1156-2010, the
City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 2008-250, and the proposed zoning changes outlined
in Document 2 are compared in Document 5.
From Document 5, it is evident that the City of Ottawa’s current and
proposed regulations are more permissive than Toronto. Monitoring the impacts of the proposed
changes will help to determine whether additional and more restrictive zoning changes
are required, and/or if all forms of low-rise infill should be subject to Site
Plan Control.
Recommendation 2 - Changes to Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Rise
Infill Housing (Document 3)
Through the consultation it was clearly noted that, in many situations,
the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Housing hold no weight and/or cannot be
applied. This is true of any application
that only requires a Building Permit to proceed. The Guidelines may be applied through the
Committee of Adjustment. However, it is
only when an application goes through Site Plan Control that the Guidelines may
be more judiciously applied. Given the
limited weight of the Guidelines, this study did not focus on significant
content changes.
Instead, the Infill Design Guidelines have been revised in order to
reduce the repetition in the document, clarify wording, improve the photo
examples and reorganise the information within headings and under new
ones. The Infill Design Guidelines have
also been revised so that the text reflects the proposed zoning changes coming
from the Infill Study. The new document Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Rise Infill Housing
(Document 3) is applicable to all urban areas of the city and replaces
the Urban Design Guidelines for
Low-Medium Density Housing - 2009 Update.
Recommendation 3 - Changes to City submission requirements and procedures,
the Urban Tree Conservation By-law and the Drainage By-law (Document
4)
Document 4 outlines a series of changes to procedures and submission
requirements aimed at improving internal co-ordination and communication, and
positively impacting the infill process and final product. For instance, more
detailed information in the submission packages will assist the City to more
fully understand the development that is being proposed, and whether all by-law
requirements are being met (e.g. zoning, private approach, and encroachment
by-laws). Early internal coordination
and review of the more detailed information may reduce the number of neighbour
complaints that require staff time to investigate, as well as the incidence of
By-law infractions that require later follow up, thereby saving the City time. Further, Document 4 also includes two initiatives
aimed at promoting open consultation and sensitive design. Staff
will create and provide an on-line consultation template for
builders/developers. The template will
outline a consultation process that builders/developers could follow in order
to enhance communication about a project with the immediate neighbours and the
neighbourhood. Staff will also create a
Low-Rise Infill Housing Award category for the next cycle of the City’s Urban
Design Awards program.
An amendment to the Drainage By-law is also being proposed to require
certification of final grade, which will help to address current problems where
site grading is not installed as per approved plans and should reduce requirements
for mid- and post-construction staff review and follow-up.
The impact of infill development on trees is significant, and as such, Document
4 outlines new information requirements meant to improve the implementation of
the current Urban tree Conservation By-law, which applies to all trees 50cm DBH
and greater on the subject lot and on adjacent lots. It does not, however, suggest a change in the
size of tree subject to the Urban By-law. To realize the changes outlined in
Document 4, one additional FTE Forestry staff position is required and will be
added as a 2013 budget pressure. Until
the approval of the proposed position, the Urban Tree Conservation By-law will
be implemented as it is currently.
While previous drafts of the document released in September 2011
proposed more rigorous attention to the impacts of development on trees on
adjacent lots - specifically, that on adjacent lots, trees 10 cm DBH (diameter
at breast height) or greater be documented and subject to Forestry staff review
- it was determined that the requirements of the Urban Tree Conservation By-law
had to apply equally to all lots and all trees; meaning that a 10cm DBH
standard could not apply on one lot while a 50cm DBH (currently the standard in
the Urban Tree Conservation By-law) applied to the subject infill lot. Forestry Services indicated that they did not
have the resources to expand the applicability of the Urban Tree Conservation
By-law to trees that are less than 50cm DBH, and that an expansion of the
applicability of the by-law would require a significant addition of staff
resources.
To ensure that new street trees are planted and properly maintained
when new infill lots are created, Document 4 also outlines a new tree planting
fee, to be charged to all building permit applications for each new single detached,
semi-detached, duplex and triplex unit not subject to Site Plan Control or Plan
of Subdivision. Forestry Services would
oversee the administration of this new tree planting requirement to ensure that
the appropriate species is selected, planted to optimum specifications, and
properly maintained for two years. As
such, this recommendation relieves developers of the requirement to enter into
development agreements with the City, of the need to have planting
specifications approved by Forestry Services, and of the two year maintenance
responsibility.
The changes outlined in Document 4 are applicable to all urban areas of
the city, not only those within the boundaries of the Study of Low-Rise Infill
Housing in Mature Neighbourhoods. As the
Document 4 changes do not deal with questions of neighbourhood character, but rather
with improved procedures, they can be applied without detailed neighbourhood
studies. The changes will help to
improve the residential infill process, and their benefits are seen as being
important to all urban wards.
PROPOSED FOLLOW
UP TO THIS REPORT
§ Within
one year of approval of this report, staff will complete a study that looks at
the zoning provisions related to
building height and setbacks in the R1, R2, R3 and R4 zones in the study area. The study will determine if additional
changes are required to improve the compatibility of new infill.
§ Within two years of approval of this report, staff
will determine whether the Zoning By-law changes brought forward in this report
should be applied, in whole or in part, to other areas of the city that are
subject to increasing low-rise infill housing.
§ Staff will monitor the changes resulting from
recommendations 1, 2, and 3 and, within three years of approval of this report,
undertake a complete review of the low-rise infill within the study area built
under the new changes.
RURAL IMPLICATION
There are no rural implications.
CONSULTATION
A comprehensive stakeholder consultation process began in early 2011. The record of this process is presented below.
A project information
meeting for industry
stakeholders was held in late January 2011.
Invitations to this meeting were sent to builders, developers,
architects and planning consultants involved in the construction of low-rise infill
housing. The stakeholders were asked to
circulate the invitation to industry colleagues who were not on the City’s
initial list. The January meeting was
attended by 30 industry members.
Resulting from the meeting, a group of ten individuals stepped forward
to form an Industry Working Group to liaise with the City. In order to better represent their industry
colleagues, the Working Group expanded to 16 members in September 2011. Over the course of this study, the City has
held nine meetings and working sessions with the Industry Working Group.
Four public meetings were held in February 2011. These were advertised via Public Service
Announcements, through the City’s website, as well as through communication
with the affected Ward Councillors and community associations.
The public meetings all followed the same format. Staff began by presenting a summary of the
findings of the survey on infill housing and followed this with a range of
possible ways to address negative current low-rise infill trends. Following the first meeting, all of the
findings and possible solutions were posted to the project web pages and can be
accessed at ottawa.ca/infill. The
staff presentation was followed by a question and answer period, and then a working
session where attendees were asked to provide feedback on the City’s ideas, and
to identify issues related to low-rise infill housing. The meeting attendance sheets were signed by
over 250 people. In addition to the
meeting working session, the City accepted input from stakeholders via email,
fax and letter up until March 16, 2011. A
record of the significant level of participation and feedback was circulated to
all attendees and also posted to the project web pages ottawa.ca/infill.
In May of 2011, staff
invited representatives from all of the registered community associations
within the study area to a meeting in order to discuss the study. The purpose was to engage the community
associations, and also to provide the associations with an opportunity to come
together; ten community associations accepted the invitation.
Over the course of this study, the City has held two working sessions
with the representatives of the community associations that elected to become
involved in the study. Staff also met
with the community associations individually upon request.
Over the course of the study, there were two joint meetings between the
Industry Working Group and the community association representatives. The
purpose of these joint meetings was to have the two groups meet and better
understand the issues that each is dealing with.
A public meeting was held at City Hall in
September 2011. This meeting was advertised
in two local newspapers, on the project web site, through the ward councillors,
and via email to all public and industry stakeholders. Over 70 people signed the meeting attendance
sheet. Staff presented a previously
released draft of the proposed changes to infill construction within the study
area. This was followed by a question
and answer period where the public were able to address senior managers in
attendance. Staff accepted comments on
the proposed changes up until the end of September 2011. A summary of the participation and feedback
was released to attendees and stakeholders in October. The information presented at the September
meeting and a record of the feedback was posted to the project web pages and is
available at ottawa.ca/infill.
Following the September meeting and information release, staff held a
number of internal and external meetings to further refine the proposed
changes. The ‘final’ proposed changes
were released to the Industry Working Group and community association representatives
for review in March 2012.
Throughout the process of this study, staff accepted input from
stakeholders and endeavoured to provide stakeholders with email updates of the
study progress.
As noted above, staff met with the community associations individually
upon request. Through these
meetings important neighbourhood concerns were identified and this study has endeavoured
to deal with them. However, due to its proximity to the University of
Ottawa, Sandy Hill has particularly unique concerns specific to infill student
housing. In the winter of 2012, Action
Sandy Hill raised the issue of single infill houses being created to house
large numbers of students (e.g. four apartments and upwards of 20 bedrooms per
house). Within Sandy Hill, such houses have
been created by working around the Site Plan Control process and therefore,
questions such as parking and garbage storage were not addressed. As this situation appears to be unique to
this area, and as the Infill Study does not address issues such as number of
occupants or interior uses of buildings, properly addressing the Action Sandy
Hill concerns would require additional study.
Complete details of the public consultation are posted at ottawa.ca/infill. The
document Record of Public Input, available
on ottawa.ca/infill, outlines all of the information presented at the February
2011 meetings. It also includes a
completed record of the public response to the information presented by the
City and additionally identifies all of the other issues of concern raised by
stakeholders at the sessions. Proposed changes (September 2011)
identifies all of the changes to by-laws and procedures that the City presented
at a September 2011 public meeting. The
document Summary of Stakeholder Input
(October 2011) outlines the stakeholder response to the City’s September
2011 document and meeting.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLORS
Councillor Chernushenko –
Capital Ward: I am fully in support of the excellent work
and thoughtful recommendations contained in this report, which comes on the heels
of extensive consultations, including with the public, community associations
and developers.
However, there is one recommendation that I feel is missing from this
report, and which I may decide to address through a motion at Committee. I
believe that it is appropriate and necessary to restrict front yard parking to
lots with a minimum width of at least 5.6 metres. This would prevent excessive
curb cuts (which eliminate the traffic calming effect of on-street parking) and
would be an important measure for saving mature urban trees, preserving
permeable and natural front yards and keeping cars out of front yards.
Obviously, some larger and thornier problems also remain to be
addressed (e.g. inappropriate building height, mass and scale) which will have
to be dealt with in the not-too-distant future.
Councillor Hobbs – Kitchissippi Ward: I am in full support of this report, and am pleased to see it coming forward after almost two years of work on infill issues. The changes proposed to the Zoning By-Law and the Urban Design Guidelines will deliver more compatible development to our urban neighbourhoods right away. By making these changes part of the Zoning By-Law rather than just guidelines, this will ensure properties that do not require a minor variance or rezoning will also be more compatible. While some of the changes are not perfect, they do represent a balanced solution to a basket of problems that were not consistent across the city or even across my own ward. The direction to monitor the results of the changes and undertake a review within three years of Council approval is ideal as it will serve to provide a better guide for what further refinements should take place.
I am especially thrilled with the improvements to the Urban Tree Conservation By-Law which will give the City the force it needs to save more mature trees that are one of the reason people are choosing to raise their families in mature neighbourhoods in the first place. This is why it is so important that we approve the budget for one FTE for the Forestry Services Branch.
I would like to thank the entire Planning and Growth Management team that worked to help improve the way our urban wards intensify.
Councillor Fleury is aware of this report.
Councillor Clark is aware of this report.
Councillor Holmes is aware of this report.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The Planning Act requires that approval authorities such as the Council, staff through delegated authority, the Committee of Adjustment or the Ontario Municipal Board have regard for relevant policy documents such as design guidelines. Thus, such documents, while they are to be considered, are not binding and can only be applied if there is an application under the Planning Act. As discussed above, if all that is required is a Building Permit, the Chief Building Official does not have the legal ability to apply such documents.
Therefore, to ensure that the principles contained in design guidelines are applied where site plan, subdivision or Committee of Adjustment approval is not required, it is necessary to incorporate such principles into the Zoning By-law
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
No risks have been identified.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Recommendations 1 and 2: There are no direct financial implications.
Recommendation 3: The proposed new tree planting fee revenues will fund
tree planting costs. It is anticipated that there will be no net financial impact.
Recommendation 4: The FTE, and associated funding, for the additional
position in the Forestry Services branch will be brought forward as a budget
pressure through the 2013 budget process.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
The new procedures related to the documentation of existing trees (see Document 4) are expected to improve the implementation of the Urban Tree Conservation By-Law, which will, in turn, support the City’s urban forestry policies and percentage tree cover targets.
ACCESSIBILITY IMPACTS
There are no implications from an accessibility perspective.
TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct technical implications associated with this report.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
This study supports the following
priorities and objectives of the Strategic Plan.
F1- Become leading edge in community and urban design including housing creation for those in the city living on low incomes and residents at large
F2 – Respect the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood form and the limits of existing hard services, so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Map of Study Area
Document 2 Zoning By-law changes, for R1, R2, R3 and R4 zones, within the study area
Document 3 Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Rise Infill Housing
Document 4 Changes to City submission requirements and
procedures, the Urban Tree Conservation By-law and the Drainage By-law
Document 5 Comparison of City of Toronto Zoning By-law 1156-2010, the City of Ottawa ZBL 2008-250, and Document 2
DISPOSITION
Planning and Growth Management Department to undertake the follow-up
implementation measures that are its responsibility:
§ Legislative and Technical Services Unit to
prepare the by-law adopting the Zoning By-law Amendments, forward to Legal
Services, and undertake the statutory notification
§ Notify persons who made oral or written
submissions at Planning Committee and all persons and public bodies who
requested to be notified of the amendments.
§ Community
Planning and Urban Design Unit to e-publish the Urban Design Guidelines for
Low-Rise Infill Housing and notify all affected City departments
§ Community
Planning and Urban Design, assisted by other departments as required, to implement
the actions and changes outlined in Document 4
Planning and Growth Management Department to undertake the following as
a follow up to this report:
§ Complete a study, within one year of Council
approval of this report, of the zoning provisions related to building height
and setbacks in the R1, R2, R3 and R4 zones in the study area, to determine if
additional changes are required to improve the compatibility of new infill;
§ Within two years, determine if the Zoning By-law
changes brought forward in this report should be applied, in whole or in part,
to other areas of the city that are subject to increasing low-rise infill
housing; and
§ Monitor the results of the changes resulting from
recommendations 1, 2 and 3; and to, within three years of Council approval of
this report, undertake a complete review of all infill within the study area
built under the new changes.
Public Works Department to undertake the follow-up implementation measures
that are its responsibility:
§ Forestry Services to prepare the by-law
adopting the Urban Tree Conservation By-law Amendments, forward to Legal
Services, and undertake any statutory notification
§ Forestry Services to add one FTE as a budget
pressure for 2013.
Environmental Services Department to undertake the follow-up
implementation measures that are its responsibility:
§ Prepare the by-law adopting the Drainage
By-law Amendments, forward to Legal Services, and undertake any necessary
statutory notification.
City Clerk and Solicitor’s Department to forward all implementing
by-laws to City Council.
Endnotes:
(1) The
identified area was the subject of a visual survey of infill housing in the
summer of 2010. Many of the
neighbourhoods were developed pre-war, are well established and have a
distinctive character. They are also
seeing the largest amount of low-rise infill within the City. To conduct the survey, the City assembled a
list of building permits issued for low-rise residential infill between January
2005 and the end of June, 2010. This amounted to over 400 properties; these
were visited and photographed. Although
there is community interest in expanding the area of application, the City
believes that prior to study of the infill patterns in the neighbourhoods, it
is impossible to extend the area of application.
(2)
The majority of the neighbourhoods within the study
area were developed without attached front garages or with front garages that
take up a limited percentage of the total lot frontage. This means that the
greater percentage of the frontage is devoted to built form that includes
doors, windows, porches and stoops that create a positive relationship between
the structure and the street; as compared to blank garage doors which have a
poor interface with the street. This
poor condition becomes exacerbated as lots become narrower and more
constrained. Removal
of a garage or carport in favour of other parking solutions is meant to
encourage improvements to the interface between ground floor and street
activity. By removing the garage or
carport door, the potential exists to create street-facing, ground floor living
space in its place.
Note
that a garage constructed on a corner side frontage, or detached and at the
rear of the property is permitted to have doors facing the street.
(3)
This provision addresses the case where a driveway/
parking spot is at the side or rear and does not provide access to a front
door. The intent behind the provision is to allow access to a front door but to
ensure that the hard surface walkway is not wide enough to park on and to
maintain a large percentage of soft surface area in the front yard.
(4)
The intention behind allowing front yard parking
is to provide more options around how and where cars can be stored on a
lot. In certain instances and in certain
neighbourhoods, front yard parking is seen as more desirable than an attached
garage or carport because, allowing for front yard parking can permit a
building façade that is more in keeping with established character of the
neighbourhoods in question. In
comparison to driveway access to rear yard parking, front yard parking can
reduce the amount of paved area on a lot and thereby provide more potential for
contributions to surface water infiltration.
Where the designer/builder selects to build the driveway/ parking
spot/walkway using permeable surfaces, there will be further contributions to
surface water infiltration.
(5)
In the Zoning By-law, the minimum length of a
parking spot is 5.2 meters. The
provision allows front yard parking spots from 5.2 – 6.0 meters in length. The longer lengths are permitted so that situations
where cars overhang the sidewalk or curb can be avoided. Where there is a narrow distance between the
property line and curb or sidewalk, the length of the spot should be increased
beyond the 5.2 meter minimum.
(6) There are
neighbourhoods where the existing and dominant front yard setback depth is
greater than what is permitted in the current Zoning By-law and where the
by-law permissions are not reflective of the pattern and character of the
neighbourhood. The intention of this
provision is to take a contextual approach to establishing setback in order to
ensure greater compatibility between the front yard setbacks of infill and
existing homes, and to allow for projections such as porches that would also reflect
established character.
(7) The manipulation of site grading can lead to
significant grade differences between the infill and surrounding lots. The overall building height should reflect
the prevailing context of neighbouring buildings, with a maximum height limit
identified in the applicable zoning by-law; the intention behind the new
definition of grade is to ensure that this occurs on a more regular basis.
The current definition of grade is ambiguous as it does not indicate
where grade is to be measured or how many points must be included in the
calculation.
The new proposed definition is based on known and static points that can
be measured and would not change based on the proposed placement of a building
on a lot or with the shape of a building footprint. The new definition provides clarity with
regards to the number of points required in the calculation and where these are
to be taken.
A calculation based on points on the property line should result in less
chance of site alteration, and thus more chance that site grades will reflect
adjacent lots. A calculation that
includes points on the street centreline, should also ensure that the grade
calculation is reflective of the immediate context.
(8)
Projections above the building height limit have
the potential for adverse impacts of overlook and privacy, as well as access to
sunlight. However, projections which
provide access to a roof decks are permitted as of right in the Zoning
By-law. Currently, the Zoning By-law
does not specify the permitted area, the permitted height or a definition of
what constitutes habitable space. The
intent behind the new provisions is to add direction to what is permitted with
regards to projections which provide access to roof decks. The provisions continue to permit projections
but require that these focus on serving the intended function, which is to
provide access, but not more.
(9)
Chimneys are exempt from the height limit.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Ottawa
by Design
1.0
Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Objectives
1.2 The Official Plan
1.3
Intensification
1.4 When are Design Guidelines applied?
2.0
Streetscapes
3.0
Landscape
4.0
Building Design (Built Form)
4.1 Siting
4.2 Mass/Height
4.3 Architectural Style and Facades
5.0
Parking & Garages
6.0
Heritage Building Alterations/Additions
7.0
Service Elements
8.0
Infill on Narrow Lots
9.0
Glossary
10.0
Appendix: How Design Guidelines fit with the current Development Approval
process
1.0 Introduction
This is a series of design guidelines for
infill housing to help fulfill some of the design strategies for Ottawa as
outlined in the Official Plan. It is intended as a basic framework for the
physical layout, massing, functioning and relationships of infill buildings to
their neighbours.
Infill housing is
about the development of vacant lots or portions of vacant lots in established
urban areas. A vacant lot may have been
vacant historically, created by a severance, or result from demolition, fire
and/or some other means. Infill optimizes the efficient use of serviced lands
adjacent to existing infrastructure and transportation modes. Design guidelines
are a working tool to help developers,
designers, property owners, utility providers, 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 of the individual design guidelines listed in this document apply or
are appropriate in every infill situation and thus, the guidelines are not to
be used as a checklist in evaluating proposals.
Well-designed
residential infill projects can integrate harmoniously into a local landscape,
improving and enriching a neighbourhood, and increasing the value of the infill
development itself. Good design is critical to growing cities and essential for
increasing densities appropriately. The keys to good infill are recognizing the
scale and visual lot pattern of the desirable neighbourhoods that exist, and
those planned for the future, and not permitting the car to dominate the public
realm. Designing for the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, and integrating the
car appropriately into a planned urban environment, improves the quality of the
city streetscape and helps create liveable cities.
Liveable communities consist of a balanced
environment where pedestrians, cyclists and automobiles exist supportively
together to create a sense of place and local identity.
These guidelines target those attributes that
can guide various stakeholders into achieving quality design for infill
development with regard to:
§
Public
streetscapes
§
Landscape
§
Building
design
§
Parking
and garages
§
Heritage
building alterations/additions
§
Service
elements
1.1 Purpose
and Objectives
In general, the aim of the guidelines is to
help create infill development that will:
§
Enhance
streetscapes
§
Support
and extend established landscaping
§
Be
a more compact urban form to consume less land and natural resources
§
Achieve
a good fit into an existing neighbourhood, respecting its character, and its architectural
and landscape heritage
§
Provide
new housing designs that offer variety, quality and a sense of identity
§
Emphasize
front doors and windows rather than garages
§
Include
more soft landscaping and less asphalt in front yards
§
Create
at grade living spaces that promote interaction with the street
§
Incorporate
environmental innovation and sustainability
In so doing, these design guidelines
highlight the important elements of building in a civic-minded spirit.
Pursuing a comprehensive design strategy,
entitled ‘Ottawa by Design’, these guidelines serve to fulfill the Official
Plan’s objectives in the area of community design.
The Plan directs growth to established areas,
to maximize the use of land that is already serviced, accessible and close to
existing amenities. Intensifying empty lots with infill development will become
a more common occurrence, and good design will be the essential ingredient for
achieving quality development at higher densities.
The guidelines are intended to address the
small-scale changes in a neighbourhood, but are also meant to deal with more
substantive changes to achieve a good ‘fit’ within an established context.
Design direction is offered to assist people
who are proposing change and also help those evaluating proposals through the
development review process, to assess, promote, and achieve appropriate infill.
In addition, neighbourhood residents and interested stakeholders can see what
the expectations are for infill development, and thereby obtain a better
understanding of how development proposals will be evaluated.
To facilitate the approvals process, builders
can get practical ideas and guidance on important design ingredients for
building in established communities prior to starting the design of their
project.
1.2 The Official Plan
“The
Design Objectives of this Plan are qualitative statements of how the City wants
to influence the built environment as the city matures and evolves. These
Design Objectives are broadly stated, and are to be applied within all land use
designations, either at city-wide level or on a site-specific basis.” (Excerpt
from the Official Plan)
Design Objectives (Section 2.5.1 of
the Official Plan)
- To
enhance the sense of community by creating and maintaining places with
their own distinct identity
- To
define quality public and private spaces through development
- To
create places that are safe, accessible and are easy to get to, and move
through
- To
ensure that new development respects the character of existing areas
- To consider adaptability and
diversity by creating places that can adapt and evolve easily over time
and that are characterized by variety and choice.
- To
understand and respect natural processes and features in development
design
- To maximize
energy-efficiency and promote sustainable design to reduce the resource
consumption, energy use, and carbon footprint of the built environment.
Figure
1: New development in an existing area combines both new and traditional
materials in innovative ways.
Urban
Design and Compatibility (Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan)
“Community design generally deals with
patterns and locations of land use, relative densities, street networks, and
the allocation of community services and facilities. Urban design is more
concerned with the details relating to how buildings, landscapes and adjacent
public spaces look and function together. As the City grows and changes over
time, design of these elements should work together to complement or enhance
the unique aspects of a community’s history, landscape and its culture.
Encouraging good urban design and quality and
innovative architecture can also stimulate the creation of lively community
places with distinctive character that will attract people and investment to
the City. The components of our communities where urban design plays a key role
include:
§ Built form, including
buildings, structures, bridges, signs, fences, fountains, statues and anything
else that has been constructed, added or created on a piece of land;
§ Open spaces, including streets,
parks, plazas, courtyards, front yards, woodlots, natural areas and any other
natural or green open areas that relate to the structure of the city;
§ Infrastructure, including,
sidewalks, bike paths, transit corridors, hydro lines, streetlights, parking
lots or any other above- or below-grade infrastructure that impacts upon the
design of the public realm.
“Introducing new development in existing
areas that have developed over a long period of time requires a sensitive
approach and a respect for a communities established characteristics.”
“In general terms, compatible development
means development that, although it is not necessarily the same as or similar
to existing buildings in the vicinity, nonetheless enhances an established
community and coexists with existing development without causing undue adverse
impact on surrounding properties. It ‘fits well’ within its physical context
and ‘works well’ among those functions that surround it. Generally speaking,
the more a new development can incorporate the common characteristics of its
setting in its design, the more compatible it will be. Nevertheless, a
development can be designed to fit and work well in a certain existing context
without being ‘the same as’ the existing development”.
Urban
Design and Compatibility (Section 4.11 of the Official Plan)
“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.
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 will involve not only consideration of built form, but also of
operational characteristics, such as traffic, access, and parking”.
1.3
Infill and Intensification
Infill
is development that occurs on a single
lot, or a consolidated number of small lots, on sites that are vacant,
undeveloped or where demolition occurs.
Infill may also refer to the creation of the lot or lots.
Infill
development at higher densities, in relation to existing neighbours, requires
good design to mitigate the potential impact of intensified building forms.
Residential intensification means intensification of
a property, building or area that results in a net increase in residential
units or accommodation and includes:
§ Redevelopment (the creation of new units, uses or lots on previously
developed land in existing communities), including the redevelopment of
Brownfield sites;
§ The development of vacant or underutilised lots within previously
developed areas;
§ Infill development;
§ The conversion or expansion of existing industrial, commercial, and institutional
buildings for residential use; and
§ The conversion or expansion of existing residential buildings to create
new residential units or accommodation, including secondary dwelling units and
rooming houses.
The
benefits of intensification (from CMHC’S ‘Healthy Housing 2005’) are:
§ More efficient use of
existing infrastructure and community facilities
§ Reduced expense on
entirely new infrastructure and transit systems
§ Lower energy
requirements for transportation due to reduced automobile travel and more
opportunities for public transport, walking and cycling
§ Reduced commuting
time and stress on the environment
§ More compact
development patterns protect greenspaces
§ Reduced rate of
encroachment on undeveloped areas
§ Reduced water
collection costs in clustered and more dense development
§ Lower water treatment
costs with larger treatment plants serving more homes
§ Mixed dwelling types
encourage people to stay in the same community as their housing needs change
1.4 When are Design Guidelines applied?
Design
guidelines are a tool to help achieve the Official Plan’s goals in the areas of
design and compatibility; they help implement Official Plan policies with
respect to the review of development applications for infill development.
This design guideline document will be applied to
all infill development affected by the Official Plan’s ‘General Urban’
designation including the following residential types: single detached,
semi-detached, duplex, triples, townhouses and low-rise apartments.
Please
also refer to Section 8.0 of this document, which explains the legislative
context under which the guidelines can be applied.
The design guidelines
that follow illustrate some of the important principles for design in the
public realm.
The
photographs and sketches are intended to illustrate only a few of the multitude
of solutions for successful infill development. Note that not all components of
every photograph illustrate successful solutions. As new projects are constructed, some
photographs may be replaced from time to time with photographs which better
illustrate the guidelines in this document.
The
City’s Design Guidelines are available at:
2.0
Streetscapes
The
public realm is made up of the public streets, sidewalks, boulevards, back
lanes, street furniture, public
utilities parks and open spaces. Civic life takes place in these outdoor
spaces that make up the public realm. In addition, private front yards form the
edge of the public realm. Both landowner
and pedestrian benefit when the front yards of buildings serve as landscaped
edges to the public sidewalk.
New
development should contribute to the character and legibility of public spaces,
and new streets should form natural, logical extensions of the existing city
street network. Cities are for people, and when the environment is designed
with a respect for pedestrians and cyclists, the quality of the public realm
improves.
For
healthy cities development must make public streetscapes attractive to
pedestrians, with trees and planting a priority. Sustainable cities have
beautiful large-canopied trees lining their sidewalks, providing natural
cooling and shade in the summer.
Where
neighbourhoods have diverse building forms and a less-than-successful urban
environment, infill buildings can fulfill the role of creating newer and more
desirable standards which can enhance the streetscape.
Design Guidelines
2.1
Contribute to an inviting, safe, and
accessible streetscape by emphasizing the ground floor and street façade of
infill buildings. Locate principal
entries, windows, porches and key internal uses at street level.
Figure
2: Buildings, with active facades close to the sidewalk, frame the street
to establish a human scale and connection to the public realm.
2.2
Reflect the desirable aspects of the
established streetscape character. If
the streetscape character and pattern is less desirable, with asphalt parking
lots and few trees lining the street, build infill which contributes to a more
desirable pedestrian character and landscape pattern.
Figure
3: The infill building on the left
reflects the style, mass and character of the existing building on the
right. A soft landscape edge has
been retained and new trees, which will contribute to the streetscape, have
been planted.
Figure
4: A sidewalk lined with trees is a pleasant pedestrian environment
Figure
5: A row of street trees creates an attractive street edge.
2.3 Expand the network of public sidewalks,
pathways and crosswalks, to enhance pedestrian safety.
2.4 Provide pedestrian-scale lighting that
points downward in order to minimize light pollution and prevent spillage onto
neighbouring properties. (Refer to the City’s Standard Site Plan Agreement,
Schedule ‘C’ - City Standards and Specifications, under Condition 19 - Exterior
Lighting)
2.5 Preserve
and enhance any existing decorative paving on streets and sidewalks.
2.6 Design universally accessible walkways,
from private entrances to public sidewalks.
2.7 Ensure that new streets, if private,
look, feel, function and provide similar amenities as do public streets,
including sidewalks and street trees.
3.0
Landscape
Design
guidelines
3.1 Landscape
the front yard and right-of-way to blend with the landscape pattern and
materials of the surrounding homes. Where surrounding
yards are predominantly soft surface, reflect this character.
Figure
6: The newly planted front yard of this infill home reflects the green
front yards of the surrounding homes.
3.2
Where the soft surface boulevard in the
right-of-way is limited, increase front yard setbacks to allow more room for
tree planting.
3.3
Design buildings and parking solutions to
retain established trees located in the right-of-way, on adjacent properties,
and on the infill site. To ensure
survival, trenching for services and foundations must take into account the
extent of the tree’s critical root zone. Replace trees with new ones if removal is
justifiable.
Figures
7 and 8: These images show how trees can be retained when driveways and
building footprints are sited carefully.
3.4
Provide street trees in continuous planting
pits or in clusters to support healthy growth.
Where the available soil volume and planting area is limited (less that
9m2 per tree), use materials and planting techniques (e.g. permeable
paving, Silva Cells or similar planting systems) that improve tree growth
conditions and limit the impacts of soil compaction and road salt.
3.5
Plant trees, shrubs, 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 challenging 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/)
Figure
9: Planted edges, on public or private land, enhance the public sidewalk
and streetscape.
3.6
For energy conservation, plant deciduous trees to shade south and south-west windows from the summer sun.
3.7
Support sustainability and improve
environmental performance by creating landscaped green roofs that are
functional and have aesthetic value.
3.8
In order to enhance a sense of separation
when infill is close to the street, use planting and/or low fencing to define
the boundary between the public space of the street and the semi-public space
of the front yard.
4.0 Building Design (Built Form)
Infill
development by its nature is contemporary construction within an historic
context, a stylistic blending of new with existing. The existing context, character and pattern
of an established neighbourhood can be recognized, while at the same time,
allow for the evolution of architectural style and innovation in built form.
Infill development should be a desirable addition to an existing neighbourhood.
This does not mean imitating historical styles and fashions of another era, or
conversely creating a total contrast in fabric or materials, but rather
recognizing the established scale and pattern of the context and the grain of
the neighbourhood.
The
goal of good infill development can be met within any architectural style.
Residential
infill should meet current building requirements and incorporate new
technologies. Various architectural styles can be very compatible with existing
structures and spaces. Through the use of quality materials and innovative
design, contemporary architectural styles can revitalize a street. Built form
rich in detail enhances public streets and spaces.
Design
Guidelines
4.1
Siting
4.1.1 Ensure new infill faces and animates the
public streets. Ground floors with
principal entries, windows, porches and key internal uses at street level and
facing onto the street, contribute to the animation, safety and security of the
street.
4.1.2 Locate and build infill in a manner that
reflects the existing or desirable planned neighbourhood pattern of development
in terms of building height, elevation and the location of primary entrances, the
elevation of the first floor, yard encroachments such as porches and stair
projections, as well as front, rear, and side yard setbacks.
Figure 10:
This urban infill matches the setbacks of surrounding homes and
preserves an established tree. The
front door faces the street, the ground floor elevation matches that of the
neighbours and the large first floor window contributes to an animated and
safe street.
Figure
11: This suburban infill respects
the scale, setback and materials of surrounding homes. The home takes advantage of a corner lot
by locating the garage and driveway on the side façade.
4.1.3 In determining infill lot sizes, recognize local lot sizes including lot
width, as well as the existing relationship between lot size, yard setbacks and
the scale of homes; recognize also the provisions of the Zoning By-law and the
Official Plan’s intensification policies.
4.1.4 Orient buildings so that their amenity
spaces do not require sound attenuation walls and that noise impacts are minimized. Design amenity areas such as second floor
balconies and roof top decks to respect the privacy of the surrounding homes.
4.1.5 In cases where there is a uniform setback
along a street, match this setback in order to fit into the neighbourhood
pattern and create a continuous, legible edge to the public street. In cases
where there is no uniform setback, locate the infill building at roughly the
same distance from the property line as the buildings along the abutting lots.
4.1.6 Contribute to the amenity, safety and
enjoyment of open spaces by offering living spaces that face them.
Figure
12: Living spaces facing onto public pathways support the quality of an
open space.
4.1.7 Avoid the arrangement of units where the
front of one dwelling faces the back of another, unless the units in the back
row have façades rich in detail, recessed garages and extensive
landscaping.
Figures
13 and 14: These two rows of infill townhomes, built around an internal
parking court, use extensive landscaping to enhance the development. Generous balconies predominate over
recessed garages.
Figure
15: The back row units, in the same development shown in Figures 13 and 14,
offer attractive landscaping, enhanced front entrances, large balconies and
recessed garages.
4.1.8 Determine appropriate side and rear
separation distances between existing homes and new infill homes/ infill
housing blocks to ensure appropriate light, view, and privacy. Consider how building height, site
orientation and the location of windows affect views, access to direct sunlight
and privacy.
Figure
16: An adequate separation distance between infill blocks, on this rear
private lane, ensures sufficient light, view and privacy for
residents. Richly detailed rear balconies and arbours define outdoor amenity areas,
while complementary screening and planting increase privacy.
4.1.9 Maintain rear yard amenity space that is
generally consistent with the pattern of the neighbouring homes. Do not break an existing neighbourhood
pattern of green rear yards by reducing rear yard setbacks.
4.1.10 Permit varied front yard setbacks if this
preserves and integrates existing natural features, such as mature trees or
rock outcroppings, or if this is consistent with the cultural landscape of the
neighbourhood. Note: some neighbourhoods enjoy consistent setbacks, others are
characterized by irregular setbacks.
4.1.11
Respect the grades and characteristic first
floor heights of the neighbourhood by not artificially raising or lowering
grades.
4.1.12
Position infill to take advantage of solar
heat and reflected light. Create a
layout where internal and external spaces benefit from solar orientation.
4.2
Mass/Height
4.2.1 Design infill in a manner that contributes
to the quality of the streetscape, and that considers the impacts of scale and
mass on the adjacent surrounding homes.
Figure
17: The height, width, materials and
landscape treatment of this infill echo the existing units on either side.
4.2.2 In cases where new buildings back on to
lower-scale residential properties or public open space, set the building(s) so
that it does not project into a 45 degree angular plane from the rear property line, in order to reduce
the impact of the potential loss of sunlight or privacy on neighbouring
properties. (A 45 degree angular plane is measured from a rear lot line and projects at a 45
degree angle toward the development.) For larger infill development, design
within an appropriate angular plane, and provide a suitable buffer zone in
order to protect a neighbour’s access to adequate light, view and privacy.
Figure
18: Building within angular planes protects existing neighbour’s privacy
and access to sunlight.
4.2.3 Where the new development is higher than
the existing buildings, create a transition in building heights through the
harmonization and manipulation of mass. Add architectural features such as
porches and bays, and use materials, colours and textures, to visually reduce
the height and mass of the new building.
4.2.4 Locate roof projections, which provide
access to decks and patios, so that height impacts are reduced.
4.2.5 To reduce the perceived height of the
building, as contributed to by the parapet around a roof top use, consider
materials such as frosted plexiglass which reduce height impacts and at the
same time maintain a level of privacy.
4.2.6 If the new development is significantly
larger than the existing adjacent buildings,
create a transition in building widths by visually dividing the building into
smaller sections that approximate the width of the neighbours, and by scaling
down the height as it approaches the neighbours.
4.3 Architectural Style and Facades
4.3.1 Design all sides of a building that face
public streets and open spaces to a similar level of quality and detail. Avoid
large blank walls that are visible from the street, other public spaces, or adjacent
properties.
Figure
19: 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.
4.3.2
Design infill to be rich in detail and to
enhance public streets and spaces, while also responding to the established
patterns of the street and neighbourhood.
To appropriately transition into an established
neighbourhood,
incorporate elements from the neighbourhood such as:
§ Materials, patterns
and colours used in wall treatments
§ Cornice lines, form
of the roofline and chimney details
§ Size, shape,
placement and number of doors and windows
§ The pattern and
location of projections, recesses, front porches, stoops, and balconies
Figure 20:
These townhouses pick up on the materials and colours of the
existing residences while at the same time incorporating more modern design
elements.
4.3.3 Provide primary building entrances that are
inviting and visible from the street by:
§ Using quality and
eye-catching materials and features at the entry
§ Adding architectural
elements such as porches which promote street-oriented interaction
§ Keeping front doors
prominent and close to the ground to match the pattern of the doors on the
street, and to minimize exterior stairs for accessibility, as well as to ease
year-round maintenance
§ Where the front door
does not face the street, use architectural detailing, lighting and landscape
design to clearly indicate the location and route to the front door.
Figure
21: A covered porch articulates
the front façade and highlights the entrance to this home. 
4.3.4 Ensure that when one or more units are constructed on adjacent
properties, they are compatible with each other and with the existing fabric on
street. At the same time, design the
infill units with distinguishing characteristics (e.g. different materials,
colours, rooflines, windows and door treatments) so that they have distinct
identities.
Figures
22: This semi-detached home is
designed so that the two units are compatible but not identical to each
other.
4.3.5
Locate front doors at an elevation that
reflects the dominant and desirable pattern of door heights in the
neighbourhood. A first floor elevation
that is the average of that of the surrounding homes, allows for better
compatibility with the neighbourhood pattern of doors, entries, porches and
landscape.
4.3.6
Where they are in keeping with the character
of the neighbourhood, add front yard projections, such as porches, bay windows
and balconies, to enhance the façade of the infill and contribute to the
sociability of the street.
Figures
23 and 24: Front doors and windows close to grade offer an attractive edge
to the public sidewalk. Lowering the
elevation of the first floor reduces the need for stair projections thereby
allowing for maximum soft surface front yard area.
4.3.7
Use the past to inform approaches to design;
reinterpret local vernacular in a contemporary way.
Figure 25: This semi-detached infill unites two different
architectural styles. The renovated
unit on the left is attached to the contemporary middle unit but reflects
the form and character of the existing single-detached red brick home. The contemporary unit adopts the colours
of the renovated unit to blend into the streetscape.
4.3.8 Harmonize with the traditional materials of
the neighbourhood when in the context of a heritage streetscape.
5.0 Parking
and Garages
Create
infill that supports the quality of the public streetscape and enriches the
pedestrian experience. To preserve liveable city streets, a high quality built
environment is as important a consideration as the need for parking and
servicing. Buildings define the edges and richness of a public space.
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 must not dominate any façade facing a street, public space or other
residential dwelling. Soft landscaping should prevail for its aesthetic and
environmental value. The goal is to design safe and environmentally friendly
communities with an appropriate interface between pedestrians, cyclists and
vehicles.
Design
guidelines:
5.1 Limit the area occupied by driveways and
parking spaces to allow for greater amounts of soft landscape in the front and
rear yard. Reduce the width and length
of driveways and parking spots, and use permeable pavers to minimize the visual
and environmental impacts of hard surface areas.
5.2 Where driveways and walkways abut, use
contrasting materials to distinguish and highlight the walkway to front door.
Figure
26: The use of different paving
materials distinguishes the parking surface from the walkway to the
principal entry.
5.3 In order to minimize paved surface area
and pedestrian/vehicular conflicts at the sidewalk, and to maximize room for
soft landscaping and on-street parking, build shared underground parking that
is contained within the site when multiple units are proposed. (Photo to be
added)
5.4 In order to maximize the area of green front yard and to emphasize
the dwelling façade, provide driveways to detached rear garages or parking
areas, when these parking solutions are in keeping with the neighbourhood
character.
Figure
27: This detached rear garage fits
with the neighbourhood parking pattern and permits more front yard
landscaping.
5.5 In neighbourhoods with open rear public lanes and on corner
lots, provide parking in the rear with access from the lane or flanking
street.
Figures
28 and 29: A single shared access driveway for multiple units matches the
neighbourhood pattern of parking at the back. A single vehicular access reduces
vehicle/pedestrian conflict, allows for more soft landscaping in the front
yard, and permits more on-street parking.
Figure
30: The design of this infill minimizes the impact of car storage by
locating shared parking behind the development, internal to the site and
accessed through a low entryway.
5.6 Where access to a garage is at the
front, design infill so that the proportional relationship between the width of
the garage and the width of the lot is similar to the pattern of the
neighbourhood. For example, if front
garages occupy 25% of the lot frontage of existing homes, reflect this
characteristic in the proposed infill home.
5.8 Limit the number and width of access
depressions (curb cuts), and share driveways in order to maintain as much on-street
parking as possible.
5.9 Avoid sloped driveways to the basement
garages of detached and semi-detached houses, to avoid creating a pit in the
front yard and/or at the street edge.
5.10 Where front garages are permitted, recess
garages behind the front façade and make windows, projecting balconies, living
space and landscaping the dominant elements facing the public streetscape.
Figure
31: The architectural detailing on this
semi-detached residence highlights the structure and not the garage and
covered parking spot. Each half is
also architecturally distinctly different from the other.
5.10
Limit the width of
front yard parking in order to retain the maximum amount of soft landscape area
in the front yard.
5.11
In order to
increase the amount of surface water infiltration, in particular on narrow lots
where paved areas occupy a large percentage of the yard, use permeable paving
for hard surface areas (e.g. parking spots, walkways, driveways). Turfblock, cobblestone, honeycomb
block, and wheel strips, that are hard,
stable and dust resistant, can all be used as alternatives to conventional
paving.
Figure
32: Wheel strips provide a stable base for
vehicles; an unpaved gravel driveway allows for increased infiltration.
Figure
33: Turf block provides a stable base for
parking while increasing on-site infiltration of surface water. 
6.0
Heritage Building
Alterations/Additions
Revitalizing
and adding on to existing buildings is a fundamental principle of city
building. Older structures, with updated interiors, rejuvenated exteriors, new
uses and added facilities, are good neighbours. As familiar landmarks in the
community, they represent prudent development and conserve the environment
through reduced landfill. Heritage buildings
require special attention and are covered under their own legislation under the
Ontario Heritage Act.
Design
guidelines:
6.1
Respect the municipal and provincial policies
specifically related to additions and infill associated with heritage buildings
and areas: City of Ottawa OP Sections: 4.6.1.2, 4.6.1.7 and 4.6.1.8 and the
Provincial Policy Statement, 2.6 Cultural Heritage. (OP policy 4.6.1.2
specifically ties into design guidelines that form part of heritage
conservation district studies. Since many older residential parts of former
Ottawa are part of designated heritage conservation districts, the district
studies and the guidelines contained therein are relevant.)
6.2
Complement the character and style of the
existing building as well as the attributes of the surrounding area.
6.3
Respect and conserve the heritage value when
introducing a new addition to an historic building and/or place.
6.4
Use materials and finishes that are
predominant in a neighbourhood with heritage character. Traditional materials
and finishes, rather than simply the traditional building form, can be used as
an effective mechanism to balance new with old. Select colours and materials
that enhance, or harmonize with, the existing character of development in the
area.
6.5
Make new development physically and visually
compatible with, and distinguishable from, the historic place. Look for
opportunities to be innovative and creative when blending new development with
the existing context.
6.6
Enhance and maintain the amenity and continuity
of a heritage streetscape.
6.7
Recognize the surrounding older architectural
vocabulary and reference this in the scale, proportion and materials of the new
infill.
6.8
Safeguard and protect views to adjacent or
nearby valued older and/or landmark buildings and structures.
6.9
Protect and incorporate existing site
features such as large trees, fencing, stone walls, stone paving, etc.
6.9.1
Design additions either secondary to, and
framing the heritage showpiece; or design additions as visually separate and
distinct from the heritage structure.
Figure
34: The red brick infill addition, which is set back and to the right of
this neighbourhood building, blends into the existing context through its
compatible composition, materials and colours. Its placement on the site
showcases the heritage building.
7.0
Service Elements
Reduce
the negative aesthetic impact on streets and open spaces of service elements
such as utility boxes, garbage storage, loading docks, vehicle access and
egress (such as ramps to parking), air conditioner compressors, utility meters
and transformers.
Services
can be incorporated into the design of new development and screened from view
so that they do not diminish the quality or safety of the public streetscape.
(Photo to be added)
Design
guidelines:
7.1 Integrate and screen service elements
(such as loading areas, garbage and recycling storage, utility meters,
transformers, heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment) into the
design of the building so that they are not visible from the street and/or
adjacent public spaces. Conceal these elements using a variety of methods such
as containment, hard and soft landscaping, and decorative screening, without
unduly limiting access, safe operations
and maintenance.
Figure
35: Service elements are integrated into the design of this home by making
them visually less prominent.
7.2 Where
there is no garage, store garbage, green bins and recycling bins in a rear
shed, or in a small storage space that is within the dwelling unit but with
outdoor access at the side or rear of the unit, or outdoors at the side of the
house. Do not replace the storage
function of a garage with a storage unit that is visible on the front façade of
the home.
7.3 Ensure screening does not interfere with
the safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles.
7. 4 Locate ventilation out-takes so odours do
not spill into public areas or private residential spaces.
7.5. Respect
safety clearances and setbacks from overhead and underground services and
utilities.
7.6 Group
utility boxes to minimize their visual impact.
Consider innovative methods of containing utility services on or within
streetscape features such as gateways, lamp posts, transit shelters etc., when
determining appropriate locations for large utility equipment and utility
cluster sites.
8.0
Infill
on Narrow Lots
In some neighbourhoods, the lot widths permitted by
the Zoning By-law are much narrower than existing lots and, as a result, it can
be more difficult to achieve a compatible fit.
This is particularly true for development on the narrowest lots (less
than 6m in width) where many functions must be squeezed into a narrow
area. Particular attention to design and
context is required to ensure a compatible fit for infill on narrow lots.
All the previous sections of this document apply to
small lots; guidelines are given in this Section 8.0 to place particular
emphasis on the issues surrounding narrow lots, and to re-emphasize certain
guidelines.
8.1 Design houses where the principal living space is at grade and where
ground floor doors and windows face the street and create possibilities for
interaction with the neighbourhood.
8.2 Do not
create a dwelling on stilts as a means to provide parking under the dwelling or
access to rear parking.
8.3 Limit the width of driveways, parking spaces and walkways in the front
yard in order to maximize the amount of soft surface area remaining in the
front yard.
8.4 Locate hard surface areas so that the largest area of contiguous
greenspace can be maintained.
8.5 Ensure that there is sufficient space to park a single vehicle without
overhanging the sidewalk or curb.
8.6 Construct hard surface areas out of porous materials to increase on site
surface water infiltration.
8.7 Where there are healthy existing trees, site driveways and parking spaces
on the property in such a way that the trees can be retained.
8.8 When
planting new trees in an area with limited soil volume and planting area (less
that 9m2 per tree), use materials and planting techniques (e.g.
Silva Cells or similar planting systems) that improve tree growth conditions
and limit the impacts of soil compaction and road salt.
8.9 Incorporate architectural features, such as porches, that reflect
neighbourhood character.
8.10
Store garbage,
recycling and green bins in a rear shed, or in a small storage space that is
within
the dwelling but
with outdoor access at the side or rear, or outdoors at the side of the
house. Do not create a storage unit that
occupies the front façade of the home.
9.0
Glossary
Accessibility: the ease with which
a building or place can be reached
Amenity:
elements
that contribute to an area’s needs, whether social, environmental or cultural
and promotes the comfortable use of the space
Angular
plane:
an upward angle drawn from the edge of a residential lot line to define the
confines in which to build to protect a neighbour’s access to light and sun
Architectural
elements:
prominent or significant parts of the physical building or structure that
contribute to the overall design
Articulation:
architectural
detail that gives a building interest and added richness
Buffer
zone: an
area to be used for planting/screening, to mitigate the impact of an adjacent
use
Building
mass: the
combined effect of the shape and bulk of a building or group of buildings,
including height, width and depth
Built
form: buildings
and structures, their density, scale (height and massing) and appearance
Block: an area surrounded
by a set of streets
Character:
a
place with its own identity
CHMC: Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation
Compatibility:
when
the density, form, bulk, height, setbacks, and/or materials are able to
co-exist in their surroundings. ‘Compatible’ does not mean ‘the same as’ and is
not intended to preclude innovation and creativity.
Context: the setting of a
site, and its adjacent uses; it can include the houses on a street, the trees,
the neighbourhood, the pedestrian environment
Cultural
Landscape: represents
the combined works of nature and man
Driveway: a private way used
for vehicular access from a parking space to a public street
‘Eyes
on the Street’:
coined by Jane Jacobs, “The sidewalk must have users on it fairly continuously,
both to add to the number of effective eyes on the street and to induce a
sufficient number of people in buildings along the street to watch the
sidewalks.“ (From her book, “Death and Life of Great American Cities”)
Fabric:
the
pattern of the arrangement of street blocks, lots and buildings
Façade: the principal face
of a building (also referred to as the front wall)
Front
wall:
the main exterior wall of a residential building located closest to the front
lot line
Front
yard: the
space between the property line and the structure facing the public street
Glazing:
a
transparent part of a wall, usually made of glass or plastic
Grade: Ground level
Grain:
see
Fabric
Green
building: buildings designed to
reduce the overall impact of the built environment on human health and the
natural environment throughout the building’s lifecycle. Some design and material considerations which
contribute to a green building include (1) the use of environmentally friendly
products (e.g. sustainably harvested materials, materials made with a high
percentage of recycled content etc.), (2) design that reduces material and
energy consumption and promotes renewable energy generation (e.g. building
orientation and location, passive solar heating and cooling, grey water or rain
water recycling, solar thermal or PV installations), (3) design which considers
occupant health (e.g. low VOC paints and glues), (4) design that reduces waste
and pollution (e.g. limiting construction waste, recycling of demolition
materials etc.), and (5) design which reduces contribution to the urban heat
island effect through cool or green roofs, light coloured materials, and
reduction in paved surfaces. A green
building may incorporate some or all of these ideas. While green buildings are encouraged, they
must still meet the provisions of the building code.
Green
roof:
provides recreational amenity, reduces storm water run-off, helps insulate
buildings, reduces heat infiltration, filters rainwater and requires less
energy to cool
Infrastructure:
physical
structures that form the foundation for development. Infrastructure includes
wastewater and water works, electric power, communications, transit and
transportation facilities, and oil and gas pipelines and associated facilities.
Landscaped
buffer:
a landscaped area along the perimeter of a lot that screens certain uses from
one another or from the public street
Legibility:
the
ease by which an area can be understood and navigated by both its residents and
the world at large
Light
pollution:
light created from excessive illumination, by unshielded or misaligned light
fixtures, and by inefficient lamp sources, with health implications to humans
and wildlife
Lot
width:
the horizontal distances between the side lot lines
Official
Plan:
the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa (2003) as amended from time to time
Pedestrian
scale:
a size (of building, space) that a pedestrian perceives as not dominating or
overpowering
Permeability:
the
variety of routes and views through something that feels pleasant and safe
Private
way:
private driveways within a planned unit development that leads to a public
street
Property
line: the
legal boundary of a property
Public
Lane:
a narrow street at the back of buildings, generally used for service and
parking
Public
realm: the
streets, lanes, parks and open spaces (whether public or privately owned) that
are free and available to anyone to use.
Public
Streetscape: the
overall character and appearance of a street formed by buildings and landscape
features that frame the public street. Includes plants, lighting, street
furniture, paving, public utilities;
etc.
Planned
Unit Development: two
or more residential use buildings on the same lot
Scale:
the size of a building in relation to its surroundings and to the size of a
person (see Pedestrian Scale)
Setback:
the
required distance from a road, property line, or another structure, within
which no building can be located. Soft landscape: the area used for planting
Soft
Landscaping:
includes trees, shrubs, hedges, ornamental plantings, grass and ground cover
Street: a public street
Streetscape
character:
a streetscape with characteristics based on street age; building siting,
landscape patterns and natural features
Streetwall:
a
line of buildings that frames the street
Style:
architectural
vocabulary and appearance; can reflect historic or modern
Urban
Design: the
art of making places; includes buildings, groups of buildings and the spaces
between them
Walkway:
a walking area that connects the street or public sidewalk
to the front door of a residence.
10.0 Appendix:
How Design Guidelines fit with the current Development Approval process
Many
of the urban design guidelines can be implemented through the mechanisms
available in the Planning Act. These
mechanisms are applied, in part, through the City’s Zoning By-law, through the
review of Site Plan Control applications, and through the variance and consent
processes of the Committee of Adjustment.
In
the area covered by the ‘Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy’, these
guidelines will be implemented through the Urban Design Review Panel which
requires design review by a professional peer review group as part of the
approvals process for all new developments within the Review Panel’s area of
authority.
The
Zoning By-law
outlines what a parcel of land may be used for and regulates lot size, parking
requirements and building height. Design guidelines will support the
requirements under Zoning.
Site
Plan Control
is the process that is used to control or regulate the various features on the
site of an actual development including building location, landscaping,
drainage, parking, and access by pedestrians and vehicles.
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
The Committee of
Adjustment
is a quasi-judicial tribunal appointed by City Council and is independent and
autonomous from the City Administration. It derives its jurisdiction from the Planning Act of Ontario. The Committee's mandate is to:
- Hear Applications for "Minor Variances" -
where a requirement of a Zoning By-law cannot be met (under Section 45 of
the Planning Act)
- Hear Applications for Consent to "Sever" a
property or for any agreement, mortgage or lease that extends for more
than 21 years (under Section 53 of the Planning
Act)
- Consider Applications for Permission, which deal
with the enlargement or extension of a building or structure that is
legally non-conforming, or for a change in non-conforming use
The
design guidelines are a tool to guide development. Applicants will have regard
for the guidelines as they prepare their submissions; the Committee of
Adjustment will equally have regard to the guidelines as they evaluate
development applications.
For
more information on the Committee of Adjustment, please consult the City’s web
site.
For
a ‘Consent (to sever) Application’ where an infill lot is being created,
even if the lot conforms to the requirements of the Zoning By-law, the Planning
and Growth Management Department may request specific conditions for the design
of the building to be constructed on the lot. For example, the Committee of
Adjustment can approve a severance with conditions imposed on that approval,
such as the requirement for rights-of-way that will help achieve the design
principles for the street as outlined in the guidelines.
The
Building Permit stage is sometimes the only time an infill project,
albeit only the building structure itself, will be reviewed. For example, 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; designed to ensure
that once the building or addition etc is completed, the minimum building
standards for health, safety, structural sufficiency, accessibility and energy
conservation will have been incorporated and that applicable law has been
met. Applicable law in the case of
infill residential in the area of study would include: the Zoning By-law,
Demolition Control By-law and the Heritage
Act.
Cash
in Lieu of Parking and Cash in Lieu of Parkland requires providing
cash in lieu of providing parking spaces, and cash in lieu of providing lands
for recreational uses, whichever may apply.
|
Changes to
submission requirements and City procedures |
|
|
1. |
Existing
Trees o
Grading plans submitted for Site Plan
Control, Committee of Adjustment, and Building Permit applications, will
require the inclusion of Tree Disclosure information on the grading
plan (see
endnote 1). o
The Tree Disclosure information must
include the following: o
A table listing the diameter at breast
height (DBH), species, condition, and ownership for all City-owned trees on
City property adjacent to the subject site, all trees with a DBH of 50 cm or
greater on the subject site, and
all trees with a DBH of 50 cm or greater on adjacent properties that
have a critical root zone within the proposed excavation area on the subject
site. The table must indicate if each tree is to be retained or removed. o
A plan showing the location of all the
trees listed in the table, overlaid on the grading plan. o
Where excavation is planned to occur within
the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) of any of the trees listed in the table, an
Arborist assessment of the impact of the work on the trees must be included. o
Protection measures for trees to be
retained (including on subject site, in the ROW, and/or to protect trees on
adjacent private lands). o
The Tree Disclosure information must
identify where site works will harm or destroy trees on adjacent private
lands. In such cases, an arborist and/or applicant is required to
contact the owner of the adjacent affected property. o
If Distinctive Tree(s) will be lost, the
applicant, with the support of the property owner, is required to apply for a
Distinctive Tree Permit from the City. Note that all owners of a jointly
owned tree, as determined by the location of the trunk, are required to sign
the permit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all
property owners are in agreement and have signed the permit. o
If trees with a DBH of 50 cm or greater may be harmed or compromised, the
applicant is required to erect tree protection and signage prior to the
commencement of any site works and both must remain in place until all site
works have been completed and inspected. The City will create sign
templates to be used by the applicant/arborist that will identify the “Tree
Protection Zone”. These
changes will be implemented through an amendment to the Urban Tree
Conservation By-law 2009-200. Critical
Root Zone (CRZ) -
The critical root zone (CRZ) is established as being 10 centimetres from the
trunk of a tree for every centimetre of trunk DBH. The CRZ is calculated as
DBH x 10 cm. |
|
2.
|
New Trees o
A tree planting fee will be
charged to all Building Permit Applications for each new single,
semi, duplex and triplex (units that are not subject to Site Plan Control or
Plan of Subdivision). o
A per lot fee will be collected at the time
of Building Permit application and transferred to Forestry’s Tree Planting
Fund. o
The amount will cover Forestry Services’
costs to plant and maintain one new tree per lot for a two-year period; the
estimated amount is $700 plus HST. o
The tree will be planted in the right-of-way
(ROW). o
If there is insufficient room in the ROW,
the funds will be used for tree planting programs in the neighbourhood. o
If there is already a tree in the ROW of
the lot, a refundable security will be collected and kept for two years to
ensure that the tree survives. If the
tree does not survive, the funds will be used to plant and maintain a
replacement tree. (Note that if an existing tree is not properly protected
and is damaged during construction, additional fines and/or compensation
under the Municipal Trees and Natural Areas By-law may be collected). |
|
3. |
Change to drawing
requirements (see
endnote 2) o
Grading plans submitted for Site Plan
Control, Committee of Adjustment and Building Permit applications will be
required to clearly identify, dimension and label all hard and soft surface
areas and materials (e.g. asphalt, pavers, wood deck, grass, planting bed
etc.) in the front yard, corner side yard, rear yard and Right-of-Way
(ROW). o
The drawings must show private lands as
well as the entire ROW area to the curb, and materials for all of these
areas. o
Additionally, the drawings must show all
utilities and any furniture in the ROW (e.g. bus shelters, mail boxes). |
|
4. |
Change to required
review Calculation of
building height o
Coordination between the grading approvals
unit and Building Code Services will be improved in order to ensure changes
to the previously approved grading plans will be reassessed by the Zoning
Plans Examiner to reconfirm whether the more recent changes to the grading
will building height calculations prior to issuance of the building permit
and revisions thereto. Review of private
approach and encroachment o
In an effort to ensure better compliance
with the Private Approach and Encroachment By-laws, Building Code Services
will circulate grading and site plans to the Right of Way, Bylaw Permits and
Inspections unit which will contact the applicant directly should there be
requirements to be met per either by-law.
|
|
5. |
Final
grading inspection o
Certification of final grade will now be
required for all infill homes. The purpose is to ensure that the site
grading is completed as per the Planning and Growth Management, Development
Review, Infrastructure Approvals approved grading plan. o
In order to implement this, the Drainage
By-law will be amended. This amendment
may include the taking of securities. o
Once the final site grading has been
completed, the applicant will be required to submit to the City a stamped
letter from a Professional Engineer or Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) certifying
that grading has been implemented as per the approved grading plan. o
Once the certification letter is received,
the City will complete a site inspection if deemed necessary by the City. |
|
6. |
Landscape
Implementation o
Once the final landscape has been
installed, the developer/builder or their agent will be required to submit a
letter, and accompanying summertime photo, certifying that all hard and soft
landscape areas have been installed as per the approved plan and that all
protected trees remain. o The
information will be reviewed by Planning and Growth Management and forwarded
to By-law Services should there be compliance issues. |
|
Committee of
Adjustment |
|
|
1. |
Existing Trees o
The City Forester will provide comments to
Committee of Adjustment based on the Tree
Disclosure information supplied with the application. o
The City Forester may
provide comments in support, or not, for the Committee’s consideration, and/
or identify conditions related to existing trees to be included if the
Committee approves the requested minor variance and/or consent. |
|
2. |
Information Session Planning
and Growth Management will run an information session for the Committee
Panels to inform them about infill issues, the changes to zoning and the
applicability of all City policy documents |
|
Other |
|
|
1. |
Public Consultation
on Infill Projects In
an effort to encourage better communication practices, the Planning and
Growth Management will create a ‘consultation process’ template that
builders/developers will be able to follow as good business practice; this
will be posted online. However, it should
be noted that there is no legal basis for the City to require a
builder/developer to follow the suggested process. The consultation template will be created
by the Urban Design group following Council approval. |
|
2. |
Education and
incentives The City will pursue the idea of creating an Infill Housing Award as part of its biennial Urban Design Awards. Projects will be nominated jointly by the community and builder/developer and judged based on architecture, urban design and the construction and communication process.Staff currently responsible for the Awards program will integrate this new initiative in the next round of awards, currently scheduled for 2013. |
Comparison of City of Toronto
Zoning By-law
1156-2010,
the City of
Ottawa ZBL 2008-250, and Document 2 DOCUMENT 5
The
following table compares elements of the City of Toronto’s Zoning By-law
1156-2010 and the City of Ottawa’s Zoning By-law 2008-250. Toronto’s By-law 1156-2010 was repealed and a
new By-law, which has few changes from 1156-2010 with respect to the general
provisions for residential dwellings, will be presented to the City Council in
2012. As the provisions will be
generally unchanged, the table below is a valid comparison between the provisions
of the Ottawa and Toronto By-laws.
|
|
City of Toronto Zoning By-law 1156-2010 |
City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 2008-250 (provisions within infill study area) |
Zoning changes outlined in Document 2 |
|
1.
Building height |
7.2m for flat/ shallow roof
(2 storey max) 10.0m for sloped roof
(measured to top of roof peak) |
11m (most zones) 8m (in some zones) Height measured at top of a
flat roof or to mid-way point on peaked roof |
No change from ZBL 2008-250 |
|
2.
Rooftop patios |
Not permitted |
Permitted – no restrictions |
No change from ZBL 2008-250 |
|
3.
Access to
rooftop patio |
Not permitted |
Permitted - no restrictions
on height or area of projection |
Limits on height, area and
canopy |
|
4.
Decks/
balconies above 1st floor |
Maximum of 4 platforms and
no more than one on each side of a house.
Maximum area of each platform 4.0m2 |
Permitted - no restrictions |
No change from ZBL 2008-250 |
|
5.
Minimum front
yard setback |
Front yard averaging |
3m (most zones) 6m (some zones) Front yard setback
reductions permitted (Section 123) |
Front yard averaging |
|
6.
Minimum width
of a townhouse* |
5m if no individual driveway,
6m if served by individual driveway |
4.5m |
No change from ZBL 2008-250 |
|
7.
Minimum lot
width |
5m if no individual driveway,
6m if served by individual driveway |
4.5m |
No change from ZBL 2008-250 |
|
8.
Lot width at
which front garage allowed |
7.6m |
No restrictions |
7.6m |
|
9.
Minimum side
yard setback |
Varies with lot width and
subzone e.g. RD zone: §
0.6m if
frontage less than 6m §
0.9m if
frontage 6 – 12m |
Detached total of 1.8m (.6m min on one side) Semi-detached and townhouse
1.2m per side |
No change from ZBL 2008-250 |
|
10.
Minimum rear
yard setback |
7.5m or 25% of lot depth |
7.5m or 25% of lot depth |
No change from ZBL 2008-250 |