rezoning – Page 2

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.

Remind Me Again Why We’re Doing This?

January 29, 2016 by clove 3 Comments

I’ve been learning through trial and error about how to communicate our project.

In my early conversations with our neighbours, I focused on sharing the basic information. What do we want to do and what does it look like? I knew I had to keep it short and not throw out too much information all at once. So I showed renderings, gave basic facts, and then somewhere in the muddle of it all, I practically whispered something about energy efficiency and my passion for sustainability – as if I was embarrassed to admit that this was the stuff that gets me up in the morning.

Then last week, I took a course in communication and leadership that convinced me I had it backwards. I need to lead with the vision and follow with the cool pictures and facts!

In other words, we must answer the question ‘why?’ at the very beginning of the conversation. If we answer the question later, it gets lost in the details. If we don’t answer it at all, we leave others to guess, and for many, ‘why’ is that we’re just another developer out to maximize profit.

So I tried it for myself, using the project narrative/letter to Council as my testing ground. Here’s the draft of the introduction:

This proposal is to modestly increase density in one of Victoria’s most walkable neighbourhoods, in a manner that exemplifies efficient design and construction practices, and respects the fabric of the existing established neighbourhood. The project is shaped by the following fundamental values (here comes the ‘why’):

We believe that we have the skills, materials, and available technologies – right now – to build new homes that are significantly more energy and water efficient, comfortable, healthy and long-lasting than most of what is being built today.
We believe there is tremendous value in our existing homes and that there is much we can do to improve those as well.
We believe that environmental outcomes are at least as important as financial ones.
We believe that thoughtfully designed infill is critical to supporting a walking and biking culture.
We believe that sustainable design is compact design.
We believe that anyone can make a positive difference in their communities and this project is how we want to do it.

Starting with our vision – in a written narrative, a presentation, or an in-person conversation – reminds us what motivates us; what excites us; what pushes us out to knock on doors and jump through seemingly endless hoops. The fact that we have this opportunity to manifest so many of our core values in a real, live, bricks and mortar project is frankly incredible! It makes me want to jump up and cheer. So why in the world would we not start by sharing this enthusiasm?

You may not agree with our vision, and that’s OK. But the beautiful thing about sharing it is that it opens the door to conversation. It leads to questions. It may lead to disagreement. It may lead to new ideas.

And by being clear about what we care about and where we are coming from, we are opening ourselves to the possibility that others are there with us.

What do you think?

(For a different spin on the same theme, check out architect Steve Ramos’ 7 Essential Public Speaking Lessons I Learned the Hard Way.)

Talking with Our Neighbours Part 2

December 6, 2015 by clove 5 Comments

On Remembrance Day and I found myself with the gift of a free afternoon – a rare window of time during the day when I wasn’t working or with our daughter.

Despite a low-level trepidation, I folded the plans under my arm, donned my boots, scarf and mittens and thrust myself into the bright chilly November afternoon.

I started at the south end of the 100m radius on our block. A neighbhour several doors down was out raking leaves. I introduced myself, told her we were planning a project and asked if she wanted to hear a bit more. As I got into some of the goals of the project, she became increasingly engaged. She knew about Passive House; recognized that we had a huge lot that was likely to be developed by someone if not us, and said she would like to see our project happen. What a great (and relieving!) first conversation!

I talked with 5 more neighbhours that afternoon, including three who share a property line with us. 5 of the 6 people I talked with were either neutral or supportive. The 6th thought that the new lot and house seemed very narrow, but he also commended our ambitious plan.

So far so good!

I’ve now spent five afternoons door knocking and have had conversations with over 20 different neighbours. Each time, I have started with uncertainty and finished feeling buoyed by the largely positive response.

Here is a summary of the generally positive and constructive comments I have heard so far:

Most are either neutral or supportive of the project proposal
Many were supportive of adding modest density to the area
Most are either neutral or supportive of adding the suite to the existing house, citing the need to increase density and the diversity of housing options in the area
Neighbours sharing back yard boundaries want to ensure that their privacy is considered in the house and landscape design
One architect neighbour with a long history in the area suggested we move the parking back to the front of the property (see early design post). No other houses on the block with adjoining back yards on Chamberlain and Clare Streets have parking in the rear, which results in a large ‘park’ space that many of the residents value highly. There are even gates connecting many of the backyards.
Many expressed interest in and support for the energy efficiency/low energy approach to the design

OK but HOW do we Talk with Our Neighbhours?

November 13, 2015 by clove Leave a Comment

I’ve described our project to neighbours we’ve gotten to know since moving in this summer. I need to broaden the circle to include neighbhours we haven’t yet met. But I’d been reluctant to take the next step and realized that I didn’t quite know how to initiate those conversations. I saw myself become the door-to-door solicitor that everyone avoids. I don’t want to impose myself and I don’t want to presume that everyone is interested or has the time to talk.

Deeper within my psyche lies the fear of launching our creation out into the universe and inviting feedback. It’s entirely possible that this project into which we have poured many hours of research and creative energy, could be hated. We are making ourselves vulnerable, and that is a little scary.

And yet – if we want to realize our project, it has to be done and the sooner the better. It’s even highly possible that we will learn something that will make our project even better. We’re early enough in the process that we can bend with the prevailing wind of community opinion.

Acknowledging the root of my reluctance, I turned off the timid voices in my head and converged on a plan of action. Yes, I will go door to door. But the purpose of my door knocking is simply to introduce the project; to ask if people want to learn more and then to arrange follow-up that meets their needs. This is a plan I can work with.

The Radius of Neighbhourhood Consultation

October 31, 2015 by clove Leave a Comment

When our design is essentially complete, we will apply to present our project to a meeting of the Gonzales Neighbhourhood Community Association Land Use Committee (CALUC). The city mails notices of the meeting to all residents within a 100m radius of our property.

Here’s what that radius looks like (our house is the starred one in the middle):

The job of the CALUC is to record the general sentiment and specific comments of both the committee and any neighbhours in attendance. They submit these comments to the city and they are considered during the evaluation of our application.

As part of our application – and ideally before the CALUC meeting, we also have to petition all voting-age owners and renters of all properties sharing a property line or with a property line within 10m of ours. The properties outlined in red within the 100m radius shown in the image are the ones we are required to petition:

The petition asks residents to indicate whether “I support the application” or “I am opposed to the application” and includes a space for comments. We tally up the “yeses” and the neutral non-responders and these have to represent a minimum of 75% of the total petitioned.

So my goal is to knock on as many of these doors as possible while we are still developing the design and can incorporate feedback.

Early Meeting with the City Planner

October 9, 2015 by clove 1 Comment

Yesterday I met with the City of Victoria planner responsible for small lot subdivisions in our area. The purpose of this early meeting was to get a sense for any real or perceived barriers to approving our project from the planning department’s perspective. After we go through the community consultation process and submit our official rezoning application, it works its way through various engineering and planning departments and the planning department ultimately makes a recommendation for Council’s consideration.

When it comes to giving guidance around rezoning, planning staff are tasked with communicating what is allowed by already established zoning classes. They are unlikely to express support for a custom zoning proposal. A lot of work has gone into the creation and evolution of existing zoning and to have every developer come along and create something new would defeat the whole purpose of zoning regulations. The purpose of this early meeting was therefore to read between the lines and to get a sense for openness to our proposal.

The first thing the planner said, having given the schematic drawings a quick glance, was “this looks challenging.”

He felt that the biggest challenge was the addition of a suite to a small lot property (which is what the existing house would become after subdivision). It isn’t allowed in the existing small lot zoning, which is already very well established. It even has its own Design Guidelines.

There was plenty of nuance in our in-person conversation, including an acknowledgement of the importance of neighbourhood opinion. The nuance was absent from his follow-up email, which encouraged us to rework the project to meet existing zoning (i.e. no suite).

Although it feels like a rejection, I would be a fool to be surprised by this response. We already know that adding a suite in a small lot house is unprecedented. We also know that we need to creatively add housing in the most walkable neighbhourhoods of our city; to increase affordable housing and options for aging-in-place, and to reduce the impact of our buildings and lifestyles.

I debriefed with our planning guru Ian Scott and he said that he was expecting the planning department to say no, and that there was also a strong possibility that planning would recommend against the project in their report to council. The prospect that our project’s approval could come down to a final face-off between City staff and Council feels risky.

However, Ian also said that none of the current zoning regulations has been updated to reflect the goals of the Official Community Plan (read post). So what it comes down to is whether we want – or can afford– to stick out our necks.

We would love to set a new precedent and to show what is possible with good design. And yet…are we willing to take the risk – the potential added expense and time to redesign and resubmit after a rejected application- in order to be the first to do something new?

I was anxious to get going on our detailed design, but I still don’t know what many of our neighbhours think – particularly about the suite question. Our next logical step, then, is to talk with our neighbours about more of the specifics – show the renderings and gather their opinions about adding the suite, and then see how everything sits.

I think that if we can get a consensus that the project is very likely to get approved by both our neighbhours and city planning if we exclude the suite, then we would move toward that option.

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.

Recent Posts

Tags