Rezoning – Page 3

Official Community Plan Primer

September 30, 2015 by clove Leave a Comment

A narrative of how our proposed development aligns with the goals of the City’s Official Community Plan (OCP) and our local area plan will be a key piece of our rezoning application. So let’s see how our proposed project stacks up under the lens of the City of Victoria’s OCP and the Gonzales Neighbhourhood Community Plan, both of which will dictate the limits of our project.

Here is the City’s vision for itself in 2041:

Pretty general stuff, but so far so good. We believe our project will inspire innovation toward community resiliency and will build on our city’s exceptional quality of life through its walkable neighbhourhoods of unique character.

Let’s dig a little deeper into the subject area goals that are most relevant to our development.

Goals for Land Development and Management:

We’re adding a modest amount of new housing to an over-sized single family lot that is spitting distance from shops, bus lines, schools, parks, and bike routes. We’re not building that economic activity, but we are adding residents that will support this model of development.

Goals for Climate Change and Energy:

We’re rebuilding an existing home rather than tearing it down. This existing home and the new home we add next to it will be designed to consume very little energy, and will rely solely on solar PV and non-fossil fuel based electricity. We will also consider material choices, favouring local, durable, and low embodied energy materials wherever possible.

So looks like we are aligned on the broad goals of the OCP. We need to dig deeper to see what it says more specifically about the Traditional Residential area that characterizes our location.

Here’s the General Development Guidance for Urban and Traditional Residential areas:

So now we have to look at the Urban Place Guidelines for Traditional Residential:

We’re proposing ground oriented buildings 2-storeys or less, with front and rear yards, thoughtful landscaping, off street parking, one single family home + one single family home with secondary suite, and floor space ratios of 0.5 and 0.6. So, check, check and check.

Things are looking good on the OCP front. What about in relation to the Gonzales Neighbhourhood Community Plan? This document is older than the OCP, published in 2002, so some elements may be outdated, but we still want to see if we are aligned with the plan’s overarching philosophy.

This Plan has three specific guidelines that most directly relate to our proposal:

3.2.3 Retain and maintain the existing viable single family and detached housing stock.
3.2.4 Retain existing, and where appropriate, encourage the provision of additional, affordable housing, e.g. “secondary suites” in houses.
3.2.5 Maintain and enhance a diversity of housing in Gonzales to meet the needs of a variety of people with different needs and incomes.

Subsequent to the writing of this plan, the R1-G2 Gonzales Small Lot District zone was created, which supports in concept what we are proposing. See this post for a rundown of where we diverge. If we were not adding a suite, we could meet the R1-G2 zoning with variances – the addition of a suite to a small lot house kicks it into a custom zone based on R1-G2.

Talking with our Neighbours – Part 1

September 14, 2015 by clove Leave a Comment

Yesterday I sat in the kitchen of our neighbhours immediately south of us and introduced our project over homemade ginger cookies. Mary and John* have lived in their house since the 1950s and are in many ways the heart of the neighbourhood. They know all the stories. They know everyone who lives on the block and everyone who used to live on the block. They know about the developments that have come and the ones that have been pushed away. They built onto their own tiny bungalow as their family grew to five kids. Mary showed me two photos in their front hall: one of the original 1940s bungalow and another with the first addition that John built himself in the evenings after work.

Given their status and history with the neighbhourhood, as well as the fact that they would be right next to our proposed new house, I felt they needed to be one of the very first I approached about our plans.

Mary’s first reaction was to say, “Oh, you’ll have a fight on your hands!” Something about ‘those small lot projects’ sounded like a sticking point for many in the neighbhourhood. She told a few stories of how the neighbhours had mobilized against past developments. She mentioned one fellow a block over who originally wanted to subdivide. All the neighbhours came out in protest, and in the end he built a duplex in the style of a heritage house, which Mary thought was beautiful. Many houses in the neighbourhood have been added to, or have been divided into suites over the years.

I asked Mary if she could describe the basis for resistance to past projects. “It’s change,” she said.

After feeling buoyed by my recent meeting with Ian Scott, I now feel deflated again. I realize I could do a better job of describing the project’s benefits, yet I don’t want to throw a big list out there the first time we talk. Neither do I want to have a fight on my hands. I want to have constructive conversations with our neighbours; to understand the issues and address them as best we can. This is our home too, after all, and we envision ourselves being here for the long-term.

And frankly, our property is ripe for development. It is the third property in from Oak Bay Avenue. It is the first house after the large mixed use building on the corner and the 6-unit townhouse next door. The house itself would have little value to a pure investor developer. Something will happen with this lot. A pure developer would surely tear down the existing house and fill the lot with as much square footage as possible. If we can accept that something will happen to our property, what is the best possible outcome? We think it’s a modest increase in density that maintains the neighbourhood’s single family character. We think it’s breathing new life into a solid 100+ year old home so it goes strong for another 100+ years. As a bonus, it will use a fraction of the energy it uses now.

We also think it’s creating a showcase – one new and one existing – of healthy, comfortable, ultra-low energy, high quality homes that go well beyond what is required by code. We want to show what is possible if we push ourselves a little to consider benefits beyond financial return and quality indicators beyond countertop material.

We think it’s even things like putting some thought and effort into the landscaping design so that people enjoy walking by and stopping for a chat.

So that’s me on my soapbox for today. I must maintain my enthusiasm, and, as always…be patient.

*Names changed to respect privacy.

Getting (Back) to the Basics

September 11, 2015 by clove 2 Comments

Current side yard setback with townhouse to the north

Our architect Mark A and I had our heads down for a while fiddling with house placement, window placement and property line locations to somehow wrestle our two houses (new + old) into existing R1-G2 small lot zoning allowances. We were doing weird things like removing all windows from the new house’s north face and sliding the property line to the very edge of the new house. The existing house simply doesn’t fit and I knew that, but even still, I started to despair that we were wanting to do too much with our lot and it was never going to fly.

So I lifted my head and sought an infusion of fresh perspective from our planing guru Ian Scott.

We met for coffee and went through the current plans. Ian offered some reassuring words that restored my confidence in our project; a key one being that window placement variances are commonly sought and granted for small lot properties, especially on the two facing walls of the subject homes. Mark A and I were fretting about the zoning requirement of 8’ (2.4 m) minimum setback to the property line to have windows in main living spaces like bedrooms. To meet this and keep a few windows on the south face of the existing house, we shifted the property line between the houses so far south that the new house’s lot became too small to meet the R1-G2 lot size requirement.

So, here are my key lessons from Ian:

Changes to lot size trigger rezoning
Window placement that varies from zoning requirements is a variance (i.e. not triggering rezoning, which is preferred wherever possible)
Setbacks that vary from zoning requirements are variances
Lot frontage that varies from zoning requirements is a variance
Site coverage that varies from zoning requirements is a variance

Ian’s suggestions made everything simple again:

Place windows strategically to protect privacy and apply for variances
Move the property line between the houses back to the middle of the shared driveway so that the lot sizes for both properties meet R1-G2 requirements.
The new house will apply for R1-G2 zoning with variances
The existing house will apply for a custom zone on the basis that we are adding a suite
Lot coverage for the existing house will also be a variance, on the basis that we are dealing with an existing building form.

Ian also helped me return to the key elements that define the project and that will communicate our intent and the project’s benefits to the neighbourhood, the community association, and ultimately, city staff and council.

Here’s how they’re shaping up:

The lot is large enough to support two small lot homes, per the R1-G2 Zone Gonzales Small Lot District. This zoning was developed based on the Gonzales Neighbourhood Community Plan established in 2002.
The proposed development supports several goals of the City’s Official Community Plan (OCP) by:
- adding “gentle” density while respecting the single family character of the neighbhourhood
- reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions through the creation of high performing but modestly sized housing options in a popular, walkable location for families
- modifying the existing home to facilitate multi-generational living and aging in place
The addition of the new ultra low energy home will finance extensive energy upgrades to the existing air leaky home and as a package, therefore, provide multiple benefits to the community in a way that retains and restores existing neighbourhood character.
The shared driveway allows retention of the existing street tree and power pole, and will preserve the current level of available street parking.
Retaining and improving the existing house conserves materials and preserves the basic shape and character of the home while significantly improving its comfort, energy performance, and useful life.

See this post for a more detailed rundown of key elements of the City’s OCP as it relates to our project.

Concept Development

August 12, 2015 by clove Leave a Comment

I met with our friend and architect, Mark Ashby today. We strategized about what appear to be our biggest issues with the detached house strategy: side setbacks and windows.

If we were building two new houses, we could easily meet the R1-G Gonzales Small Lot zoning. But because we want to retain the existing house, we are challenged to fit everything in. The existing house is 25 feet wide. The R1-G zoning requires 8’ (2.4m) setbacks to side property lines if you want to have any windows in “habitable” rooms; 5’ (1.8m) if you don’t want windows.

Our lot is 63.8 feet (19.44m) wide and 119.8 feet (36.5m) long. If we met the 8’ setbacks on each side of the existing house, we are left with only 23 feet for the new property. If we also added 8’ on each side of the new house, we’re left with a 7’ wide house! Not exactly viable. So we’re looking at walls that don’t need windows, and looking at variances that can still allow us to meet the intent of the setback/window requirements (ie maintaining privacy between properties).

What we are currently thinking is this:

Maintain the 8’ setback to the south property line so we can design south facing windows in the new house to get as much passive solar gain as possible.
Reduce the setbacks between the houses to 5’ on each side, creating a 10’ wide shared driveway to the back. Do not install any windows on the north side of the new house, but maintain some of the windows on the south side of the existing house to allow some natural light. There will be no privacy issues with this variance, since the new house has no windows facing the existing house.
Reduce the setback at the north property line to 5’, but maintain a few strategically placed windows to allow natural light/egress without compromising privacy for the townhouse property to the north.
This scheme reduces the width of the new house to about 16 feet outside dimensions, which is narrow but doable.

Here’s what this looks like on the site plan:

Learning from the Experts

June 26, 2015 by clove Leave a Comment

I met with Rus Collins of Zebra Design today. He a pioneer of small lot development in Victoria and spent a generous chunk of his Friday afternoon with me sharing his words of wisdom. He confirmed that I am on the right path by pursuing the subdivision option, as well as my plan to talk to the neighbhours early. He said that if I experience intense resistance in my early conversations, it might be best to cut our losses or wait a year before floating the idea again.

Here’s the process according to Rus (with some editorial added):

Do a very simple sketch or two of what we are proposing. Spend as little time and money as possible at this stage, because you won’t get this money back if the project dies.
Talk to our neighbhours with these early sketches to get a general sense for their openness to the project. While not required at this stage, it’s good to keep in mind that for the rezoning application in the City of Victoria, we will need signatures from 75% of our immediate neighbhours (anyone with a property line that is adjacent to ours at any point – across, beside and behind) confirming that they do not object to our plan. All adults of voting age count – so a couple living next door count as two votes. Renters and owners of a rental property all count as unique votes.
Talk to the local area city planner. Present the sketches and our proposed variances from the zoning we intend to apply for, as well as the early neighbour reactions. If she doesn’t raise any red flags, proceed with design.
Before launching into the full design, I recommend reviewing the Rezoning and/or Development Permit Application in detail, so you know what drawings need to be included in the package and what consultants you need on board. For Victoria, we need the following at a minimum:
1. Site plan (i.e. civil engineer)
2. Landscape plan (i.e. landscape architect or designer. Note a licensed architect is not required for a small project like our, but we’re using one, and it can help with the permitting process for anything ‘unusual’ like super-insulated walls)
3. Floor plans (i.e. architect or designer; also a structural engineer for modifications to the existing house)
4. Elevations
5. Photos or illustrations showing proposal with flanking buildings
Complete the full design.
Review again with the city planner (recommended by Rus to avoid being blindsided after getting neighbourhood approval and having to redesign and go back to the community again).
Present to the neighbhourhood association, in our case the Fairfield Community Association’s Advisory Design Committee. This process is also outlined in the rezoning application package document.
Collect the 75% signatures.
Complete and submit the rezoning and/or development permit application package, complete with application fee.

Rus felt the potential sticking point for our proposal was adding the suite to the existing house, given that it will become a small lot house. Current zoning does not allow for suites in small lot houses, and it’s often the addition of a suite that inflames the resistance of neighbhours. Most builders/owners will quietly add a suite later, and a quick survey of our block suggests that nearly every house on our block has some form of suite. It’s a reality of the local market that we both need rental accommodation and that many families need the additional income to afford their mortgages.

I would prefer to be above board in our application and advocate for the suite. If done well, it is a viable way to introduce a small increase in density to single family residential areas in the urban core. Our pitch is that we are creating housing for 2.5 families that uses less energy than the existing single family home on the property. I know that our current mayor Lisa Helps is open to making innovative projects happen and has been openly supportive of the North Park Passive House.

The existing but renovated house will create a transitional density between the adjacent townhouse to the north (FSR > 1.0) and the single family homes to the south (FSR = 0.5). The R1-G2 Small Lot Gonzales zoning allows for FSR = 0.55, which we can do for the new house. The existing house with suite will be less than 0.5. For the existing house, the basement area does not count toward the FSR calculation provided the bottom of the finished ceiling remains equal or less than 1.2 m above the average grade.

Rus thought we might be successful if we have a strong pitch (see Talking Points post). Overall, I left my meeting with Rus feeling optimistic about our chances. It’s also great to know that Rus is a potential resource-for-hire if we encounter difficulties getting through the rezoning process.

Recent Posts

Tags