Blog – Page 6

Over to You, City!

December 1, 2016 by clove 1 Comment

We have officially submitted our rezoning application! And don’t be silly – of course it didn’t go as smoothly as expected. One of these days, I will know better.

View from the northeast, rendering Mark Ashby Architect

A couple of Thursdays ago, I hauled 10 lbs and $120 worth of paper down to City Hall for my 11 AM appointment, including:

80 sheets of 24 x 36 plans (5 sets)
2 sets of 11 x 17 plans
3 sets of 8.5 x 11 plans
letter to Mayor and Council
completed Rezoning Application forms
plus a check for $2150
and a flash drive with PDF versions of all of the above

At this required appointment, a staffer takes a first pass to check for completeness before your application wends it way through the various departments. I suspect this is ultimately a time saver for everyone, although it left me with a feeling that I’m navigating my way through a labyrinth with more dead ends than ways through. In reality, there is simply a lot for a first timer to wrap one’s head around and get right.

Turns out we were missing the “average proposed grade” calculation and a line indicating such on elevations and sections. We were also missing a label for the setback distance between the main structure and the accessory building.

I was told to come back again when I had corrected these omissions. I grumbled that there would be no celebrating that weekend, and grumbled louder that I had to haul the giant roll of paper back home; reprint and repeat. The patient staffer assured me that it would be quicker next time because she’d already checked everything else.

So Mark A made the requested changes, I reprinted the five affected sheets in the various sizes and quantities, reassembled the sets, and made a second trip down to City Hall the following Tuesday after work.

One thing that I thought to ask at this second appointment was about the Development Permit Application. From what I understood, the Rezoning Application is required for a change in use to a property; for example, from single family to two-family. A Development Permit Application is also required for any requested variances; for example, moving parking from the rear to the front yard. I had been told by my planner contact that they would review both applications at the same time. Was there a separate application and fee for the Development Permit piece? Oh, yes, in fact there was. Fortunately, I was able to fill out the second application on the spot, and add the extra $750 to the $1400 check I was already writing for the rezoning.

I’m happy to report that this time, our application was accepted and the 6-8 month processing time clock has officially started ticking!

I feel a muted celebration is in order as we await the first round of comments. We already know that adding a suite to a duplex is not allowed in the current zoning, and the staffer pointed out as much. Our proposal is well aligned with the more current Official Community Plan (OCP). Still, there is a possibility that the city will recommend rejecting our proposal on the basis of existing zoning, and we will have to appeal to City Council to vote against city staff recommendations, but in line with the OCP. We’re building exactly the same square footage as we would build if we were not adding a suite, and by adding the suite, we are adding housing diversity and affordability in an extremely efficient manner – all key goals of the OCP. So we’ll see.

And here’s a fun feature: I can track the progress of our application (and any other application) with the City’s Development Tracker app:

We can expect comments within a few weeks. Stay tuned!

Community Meeting: Success!

November 20, 2016 by clove Leave a Comment

Our community meeting was a success! (At least it felt that way for a while.)

The intent of this meeting, hosted by the local Community Association Land Use Committee (CALUC), is to gather comments from neighbours that will be submitted as part of your rezoning application. The comments may also lead to design changes. While this is the official opportunity to gather community input, you’d be foolish not have at least introduced the project to your neighbours well in advance. In our case, we are over a year into the conversation.

I had sat in on several meetings for other projects, so I knew the general format. Still, I felt a lot of uncertainty before our meeting because I didn’t know who would be there besides our neighbour who had vocally opposed our small lot subdivision proposal.

The meeting started at 7 PM. There were four projects on the agenda, and we were #2. The room was packed and stuffy. I knew a handful of people.

The first project was a proposed 4-storey condo building to replace two single family homes across from Beacon Hill Park. The presentation went for an hour and a half, with a lot of discussion around scale, height, parking, privacy, views, and south-facing light – very typical discussion points from what I’ve seen.

After much of the room cleared out, we taped up our drawings and presented to about 15 people plus 5 members of the CALUC. At least 8 people were there for our project; many but not all were familiar faces.

We heard the full range of comments, from ‘everything about it is brilliant’ to ‘everything about it is horrible’. No kidding! On the whole, though, the feedback was very positive, and we had a thoughtful conversation about how to do creative infill in our city. I hesitate to represent the comments of others, so I will just say that those who supported the project seemed aligned with what we were aiming for, while the ‘horrible’ comment was too vague to draw any constructive criticism from. Our neighbours who were strongly opposed to the small lot subdivision focused on the details – plantings between our properties, the design of the roof line etc, which I took as an encouraging sign.

To get to this point feels like an accomplishment, even though we still face many more steps before we can break ground.

We originally chose this property because it is in a fabulous location and well suited to a small infill project. Early on, I heard a lot of stories from neighbours who had fought off various developments over the years. I wondered whether we had chosen the wrong neighbourhood. And yet we persisted through comments like ‘You’re ruining the neighbourhood’, ‘I’ll fight this to the death’ and ‘We’ll have to sue you’. We clung to the encouragement of those who liked what we were doing, and in talking to as many people as we could, we discovered that opposition was very localized; a minority talking like a majority. Still, we listened. We changed our design. And here we are, ready to submit our rezoning application.

And I actually believe even more strongly now that this is the perfect neighbourhood for our project. The way it has evolved reflects not only our vision and values, but also those we share with our neighbours. It reflects the eclectic and thoughtful character of and characters in our community.

POSTSCRIPT: I since received an email from a neighbour who attended the meeting that was very negative and attacking on our character. Two steps forward…

A friend told me before we started on this path that someone will always hate your project, no matter what you do. Fair enough, but I could do without the personal attacks. Needing a lift, I went for a long walk and checked out a couple of Passive House project tours that were happening around town (the 5th Street Passive House currently under construction and the North Park Passive House, which has been occupied for over a year). I got a few new ideas and my spirit was buoyed by the conversations I had with people who are committed to improving our environment, enthusiastic about learning, open about making mistakes, and hopeful for the future.

To all of you: Namaste!

Duplex Design

October 24, 2016 by clove Leave a Comment

Here is the design that we presented at the community meeting last Thursday. We’re pretty excited by what Mark A and Kate have come up with.

The renovation of the existing house respects and maintains the original form and roof line, while the addition is intentionally contemporary, simple and contrasting. This design strategy highlights the relationship between old and new.

We are using traditional materials, including cedar siding and stucco, that are common throughout the neighbourhood. Deep window reveals introduced by the thicker Passive House walls add visual interest and depth to the facade. The landscaping ties everything together.

Front elevation, sketches by Kate Stefiuk

Front yard, side view

Side yard from our south neighbour’s back yard

Back yard with sunken workshop

Landscape plan by Kate Stefiuk

Lower floor plans, by Mark Ashby Architecture

Lower floor plan, by Mark Ashby Architecture

Upper floor plan

Streetscape, by Mark Ashby Architecture

The Path to Decarbonization and Net Zero Energy

October 13, 2016 by clove Leave a Comment

We’re targeting net-zero energy consumption and zero carbon emissions in the operation of our post-project home. Say what?

Net zero energy means that, on an annual basis, we generate as much energy as we use. So unless we have an oil well on our property, we are drastically reducing both our fossil fuel consumption and our utility grid dependence. Zero carbon emissions simply means that we don’t burn any fossil fuels to operate our home.

A home could use one or more different sources of site-generated renewable energy – solar photovoltaics or solar thermal, for example. I’m keeping things simple for the moment by assuming that we will only use solar photovoltaics to generate electricity. Unless we include battery storage, we will still be drawing electricity from the grid when the sun isn’t shining or when our demand is higher than our panels can provide. But in a place like BC that has a net-metering program, we will also be feeding back into the grid when we’re generating more than we need.

So can anyone just plunk a bunch of solar panels on the roof and viola: net zero energy? Not so fast. With the amount of energy most houses use today, you’d need a much bigger roof than you have. Allow me to demonstrate with our existing house.

In an earlier post, I estimated our current annual energy consumption to be about 13,270 kWh per year, or ~120 kWh/m2 of conditioned floor area, based on our first 6 months of utility bills. This is actually an ok number given that we have three chimneys, single pane windows, and all sorts of leaks and drafts. It’s about 45% lower than the average Canadian home and on par with the Germans. We turn things off when we aren’t using them, but we also shiver through the winter with an inadequate heating system.

We now have a full year of electricity consumption data to update my earlier guestimate. Our actual one-year consumption was 13,700 kWh, or 123 kWh/m2/year. The daily consumption curve looks like this:

Full year of energy consumption for our existing house

The ‘curved’ part is the energy we used for heating. If you drew a straight line across the flatter portion of the graph, the area below the line would roughly represent our non-heating energy use, which stays relatively constant throughout the year.

So that’s the energy demand side. Let’s now turn to the solar PV question.

I called up Power to the People, who will do a free, high level evaluation of the solar potential of your house, based on a google earth analysis, some rules of thumb, and an assumption that your roof is not shaded. Here’s what their evaluation spat out for our existing house:

Power to the People Solar PV Analysis

If we covered our south, east, and west roofs with panels, we could generate 7150 kWh annually. This is a little over half of our current consumption. We would have to reduce our consumption by nearly half to achieve our next zero energy vision using only solar PV.

Is this even possible? The Passive House approach promises a 90% reduction in heating demand by focusing primarily on the design of the building envelope. According to my rough estimate, about 50% of our current consumption is for heating. So it would be doable if we both dramatically reduced our heating demand by improving the envelope and found some additional ways to save. I predict, for instance, that my long hot shower habit will be curbed when our house feels warm and comfortable in the winter. We’ve also heard that people who live in passive houses do not use dryers because the heat recovery ventilator helps clothes dry so quickly.

So we think it’s challenging but doable, and our example illustrates two things:

The first step must be to reduce demand through passive strategies, like extra insulation, increased air tightness, and better windows.
The way you live in your house matters too! Turning off lights and electronics, limiting long hot showers and dryer use etc. The lower you can get your energy demand, the more likely you can meet your annual average with site-generated energy.

One of the most exciting prospects about following the passive house approach is that we can reach our goal while feeling WAY more comfortable and having WAY better air quality. Win win!

CALUC, Here We Come!

October 10, 2016 by clove Leave a Comment

We are presenting our duplex proposal at the Fairfield Gonzales Community Association Land Use Committee (CALUC) on October 20! The Association’s political struggles have sufficiently abated that the Committee has resumed its activities.

Everyone who lives or runs a business within 100m of our property will receive a letter inviting them to the meeting, and anyone can attend. We present our plans; neighbours ask questions and provide comments, and the CALUC records those and submits them to the city. Depending on the comments received, we may make some revisions before submitting our official rezoning application. Then the 6-8 month clock starts ticking as our application wends its way through the various city engineering and planning departments. If all that goes well, we present at a Public Hearing, at which City council votes yay or nay to approve our application.

Then we apply for our building permit and then we can put shovels to the ground – phew! With a little luck, we’ll get rolling with construction early next summer.

We are still tweaking a few things, but here’s how the design is shaping up.

Front Elevation, sketch by Kate Stefiuk

Landscape plan, sketch by Kate Stefiuk

Attached Duplex Design is a Go!

July 17, 2016 by clove 2 Comments

Attached model experiments by Mark Ashby

We’re going ahead with a new attached duplex design! Here’s why:

The attached option addresses some neighbours’ concern that the small lot house would have been too close to our neighbours. The attached option creates more space on the sides and fits better on our lot.
The attached option provides more distance to the large Garry oak in the adjacent yard to the south – better for its roots and less shade for our rooftop solar photovoltaics.
I’ve identified at least a couple of lending options that are viable for the attached option.
The massing is better for energy performance (less exterior walls = less energy lost through the envelope).
The approval process is simpler – we can meet the two-family zoning regulations with fewer variances and no longer need to collect petition signatures.
The city fees for the rezoning application are lower and we eliminate city subdivision fees (which amounts to savings of $5,000-$8000).

If we were set on the small lot subdivision option and were willing to wait a while, we might have been able to get it through. But the attached option does meet our needs and we do want to get the project going, so it felt like the best solution given the circumstances.

The design in now in progress and we’ll share renderings soon. One of the debates we’ve had is how to design an addition to an old existing house. Do we blend the design so that it looks like one unified whole? I think if we were designing from scratch we would do that. But to make the structure look like a unified whole, we actually would have to change the form of the existing house dramatically – particularly the roof.

We believe that the best way to honour the existing home and to retain as much of its existing structure as possible is to create a marked distinction between new and old. Mark A is taking a sculptural approach to the addition to contrast with the existing form and work with the existing roofline. Not an easy task, and we’re thankful we have an architect like Mark working out the details.

I had hoped to present the design at the mid-August Fairfield Gonzales Community Association Land Use Committee (CALUC), but discovered that the committee has been disbanded. Well, temporarily at least, as the group reconciles its status as a charity organization with its role in land use development issues. I am attending a community meeting to learn more. Stay tuned and in the meantime, enjoy the sun!

Financing 103

July 1, 2016 by clove Leave a Comment

When comparing our small lot vs. attached duplex development options, I’d heard that financing would likely be more straightforward for a small lot subdivision because we’d have a legal bare lot as security for the lender. With the attached option, we wouldn’t have much until the building is finished.

I’d found a private lender who was not scared off by a duplex/existing building reno; with more flexibility than a bank or credit union, but at a higher interest rate (8-10%). For our project, they would loan one (big) amount to cover our current mortgage and the construction financing. We’d only pay interest on the amount spent, but from day one we’d be paying 8-10% on our current mortgage. With a 10 month construction period, that translates to about $38,000 in interest just for our existing mortgage, and we’d be paying interest in the realm of $50,000 for the whole build. Ouch.

I talked with some other people who have more experience with this stuff, and they suggested we talk with the local credit unions. They will be more conservative than a private lender and more flexible than a big bank, but with interest rates more in line with big bank rates. So I called up a couple of local ones.

The first thing that caught my attention were their rates. Prime + 2% for the construction financing. So, more like 4.7%, which is a heck of a lot better than 8-10%.

Generally speaking, this is how a credit union would structure the lending:

We would terminate our existing mortgage (paying the penalty that is stipulated in our terms – in our case, 3 months’ interest).
We would take out a standard residential mortgage for the existing house, at standard mortgage rates (say 2.8%), which will always be kept separate from the construction loan.
We would take out a construction loan for the new build/major reno. They will charge a 1% construction financing fee and will lend 75-80% of the project’s appraised final value. The 20-25% we need to put in can be a combination of cash and equity.
Similar to the private lend, we would only pay interest on the money actually spent. The money is drawn corresponding with project construction milestones (as verified by an appraiser) – also the same as the private lender.
We would have to self-finance to a point. That point is AT LEAST after approval of rezoning, but depending on which option we pursue, and who the lender is, may vary beyond that. For the small lot subdivision, it’s likely we’d have to self-finance past rezoning approval and to the approval of the subdivision, which may or may not include completion of the subdivision. This is a pretty big grey area, since the cost to fully service the lot (required to complete the subdivision) was quoted to me by the city as being in the realm of $25,000 – $30,000.

One of the credit union mortgage specialists I talked with got really nervous when I told her we were raising the existing house. She said that in this situation, they might be limited to lending based on land value alone. The other credit union rep I talked with, on the other hand, said they were comfortable with house-raising (and in fact, she enjoyed seeing the pictures of the lift in progress).

In conclusion: The local credit unions offer better rates and a more attractive solution for either of our proposed options. The difference in costs between private lender rates and credit union rates could be as much as $30,000, which is a significant amount of money for a small project like ours. And it’s money that would disappear with no equity coming out the other end. We will be much better off going through a credit union provided we can meet their requirements. Also, the credit unions seemed comfortable with either option: small lot subdivision or attached duplex.

I would recommend calling several lenders as you’re planning your own project – private lenders, big bank, and credit unions. Even among the credit unions, their comfort level with our particular project varied.

And on that note, Happy Canada Day!

Checking in with the City

June 10, 2016 by clove 2 Comments

I met with the City Planner responsible for rezoning applications for a second time. I’d met with him much earlier in the process to present our small lot subdivision concept. This second meeting was to update him on our progress and to establish whether the planning department had a preference for the small lot subdivision or the attached duplex path. I had already poured over the respective rezoning requirements for both options, but I found that the duplex design guidelines were much less detailed than the small lot design guidelines.

The planner confirmed that, in terms of design, a small lot subdivision and duplex application are evaluated similarly. In neither case does his department judge a project based on whether it is a contemporary or a traditional design. They look more at elements like scale, form, variation in materials, and landscaping that reference dominant features in the neighbourhood. So that was good news.

I also followed up with calls to other city departments that will be reviewing our application. Here’s what I learned:

For the small lot subdivision, we can either add two curb cuts or one larger curb cut to serve both properties. The city has a slight preference for a single larger curb cut because it takes up less overall street parking space. An attached duplex will need two curb cuts spaced a minimum distance apart. We’ll want to have these details worked out before we submit to minimize redesign work.
Here’s an interesting one: For the small lot subdivision, the city will ask for up to 1.5 meters of the depth of our lot as a dedication for widening the street. This is because our street is only 15 m wide and their standard is 18 m. So the city uses the subdivision as an opportunity to gain back up to half the missing road width, which they can then use to widen the boulevard or plant additional street trees. Here’s roughly what that would look like:

The takeaway: make sure the small lot meets the minimum 300 sq m area with a 1.5 m swathe removed from it. With the current proposed property line location, one lot would dip below the minimum with that strip removed, and could potentially be rejected.
For the attached duplex option, this would not be a requirement. Score one for Plan B.

I hope that I will soon reach a point when I stop learning surprising new things every time I talk with someone about how to make our project happen. What I will say about working with the City of Victoria is that, while the rezoning process is an onerous one, its staff are available and willing to provide guidance. It’s easy to set up a meeting and if I call someone, they call me back within a couple of days. The trick is to figure out what questions you need to ask.

As we find answers and continue to hear input from others, Matt and I are solidifying our plan and feeling confident in our path forward. More to come soon!

Progress toward Continually Adjusted Expectations

June 3, 2016 by clove Leave a Comment

When doing something like this for the first time, I think it’s safe to say that your expectations for the amount of time the project will take and how much it will cost will creep toward longer and more expensive the deeper into it you get.

Take the budget category of “soft costs” for example. I like this term because it captures the malleable, ill-defined edges of a catch-all bin for all the costs you don’t yet fully understand. Things like design costs, engineering fees, rezoning application fees, permitting costs, miscellaneous city fees, site servicing fees, financing costs, and legal costs.

I learned from my latest call to the city that we should budget $25,000 – $30,000 to complete the small lot subdivision. This is only for servicing the lot (water, sewer), providing access (driveway and curb cut), and paying city fees. Yikes!

I laugh at the naïve me who a year ago estimated that the total cost to renovate our existing house would be about $100,000. Since that time, I’ve gotten a quote from a contractor who does interiors, plus a round estimate from our builder who will do the shell of the building (foundation, walls, windows, roof), and it’s looking more like $300,000 to do everything on our wish list.

I also marvel at the optimistic me of only 6 months ago, who thought we’d have our rezoning application submitted by February (which I’d already extended from a previous goal of ‘before Christmas’). The City of Victoria is special in the level of civic engagement it expects for all development projects. But especially so in a case like ours where we intend to continue living here once our project is complete, the amount of time we have invested to meet and listen to our neighbours is important and worthwhile. And it just takes time.

(Read this post to learn what our neighbours have said so far.)

The biggest choice we are currently facing is whether we will continue with our small lot proposal or switch to our Plan B, the attached duplex option (shown below).

Preliminary concept for attached duplex option. Rendering by Mark Ashby Architecture.

It’s not as simple a decision as what our neighbours will be most likely to support, although that is an important piece. Financial risk is another big one, as the costs and financing options are different for the two options. What will work best for our family long-term? What is most likely to make it all the way to Council approval and actually be realized?

I’ve been spending my time lately looking for answers to as many of these questions as I can – calling various city departments, calling lenders, calling people who have done this before. Then Matt and I will sit down and evaluate our options against a list of criteria which is starting to take shape:

financing risk and financing costs
total cost and return on investment
maintaining/building positive relationships with our neighbours
best fit with the site and its immediate surroundings
lowest impact on the environment
what will work best for us long-term
likelihood of approval

Stay tuned and thanks for reading.

Survey Says…(Talking with Our Neighbours Part 3)

May 27, 2016 by clove Leave a Comment

We’re approaching 11 months since we moved into our new (old blue) house, and about 9 months since we had our first early conversations about our small lot subdivision proposal. We’ve since talked with over 50 neighbours and left letters with a bunch more. We reached out to everyone on our block, plus many neighbours on adjoining blocks. Some neighbours we’ve met with numerous times; some only once; others we haven’t heard from at all.

This level of outreach may not be required for every project, but it felt right in our case for a few reasons:

The level of engagement in our community is very high. People care and want to be included.
We heard some strong opposition to our small lot proposal early on and needed to better understand how many people shared these views.
Because we intend to stay here for the foreseeable future, the effort to meet our neighbours has been worthwhile. We’ve heard so many interesting stories!

Here is our summary of what we’ve heard so far (you can view the current design here).

Of the immediate neighbours from whom we need written support (those with whom we share a property line), 73% who have responded are supportive and 27% are opposed. Several others have not responded or are remaining neutral. The key here is that to proceed with the current proposal, we would need at least 75% of neighbours to provide written support via petition. If someone doesn’t respond, his/her vote does not count.

Of ALL the neighbours we have heard from, 84% are in support or neutral, and 16% have stated opposition.

Here is what we heard people say they like about our current design (generally including comments we heard from more than one person):

They like the scale of the small lot house
They like that we are adding modest density
They like that we are keeping the existing house
They like the ultra-low energy design and environmental goals
They think density is needed to support Oak Bay Avenue businesses
They like the dedicated green space in back yard (moving parking to the front)

Here is what we heard people say they do not like about our current design:

They think the space is too tight for a second house
They are opposed to small lot subdivision
They don’t like the design and think it should more closely mimic character houses on the block
They think the proposed project will make parking issues worse
One doesn’t like parking in the front

Other comments, suggestions and ideas that were offered:

Consider the attached option, as it will leave more space between adjoining side properties.
Many are concerned about impacts to our neighbours most immediately affected due to their strong relationships and their current health issues. Consider waiting.
Confirm that there will be enough distance to the Garry Oak to the south to not damage it.
Partially bury workshop in the rear yard and/or change roof line to reduce height and minimize intrusion on properties to the west.
Remove back yard shed for new house to leave more rear yard green space.
Make the roof line of the new house more conventional.
Be more clear about material choices (i.e. show that we are using cedar or other natural siding material).
Include solar thermal for hot water pre-heating.

Next steps: If we go ahead with the small lot plan, we will incorporate as much of the constructive feedback as possible. We are also considering the attached duplex option. To confirm that this option is viable for us, we have a bunch of questions we need to answer around financing, costs, design requirements, and city expectations. This is what we are working on now.

Schedule: With either option, we have to apply for rezoning, which will take 6-12 months to get approved after we submit. Our current goal is to submit our application this summer with the hope of beginning construction next spring/summer.

Recent Posts

Tags