HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2016, 3:33 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
How hard would it be to do spot follow-up inspections, say on a lottery basis, with some 1 month after approval, some 3, some 6, to confirm that (visible) things weren't redone/altered once they thought that the inspector was out of their hair? I would put emphasis on things that impact the neighbourhood like number of units, parking spaces, drainage/impermeable surfaces, upper story projections/overhangs, that sort of stuff.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2016, 4:31 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
How hard would it be to do spot follow-up inspections, say on a lottery basis, with some 1 month after approval, some 3, some 6, to confirm that (visible) things weren't redone/altered once they thought that the inspector was out of their hair? I would put emphasis on things that impact the neighbourhood like number of units, parking spaces, drainage/impermeable surfaces, upper story projections/overhangs, that sort of stuff.
How does the number of units "impact" the neighbourhood?

Does it do so negatively or positively?
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2016, 4:42 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Even with steadily improving shares of active and transit uses in infilling neighbourhoods, the demand for parking spaces per unit is still a non-zero number. Extra unplanned for unit(s) = extra unplanned for demand for parking, and increases the risk of paving over the property/neighbouring properties to serve that demand, and increases car traffic. Impacts are at the margins. One on a block? Not a big deal. Half a dozen on a black? Could start to have real, observable effects on the character of a street.

Variances (minor or zoning) and site plan approvals are based on specific conditions, changing the conditions after the fact breaks a contract and should be subject to steep penalties if broken. E.g., new infills are supposed to have 0% increase in water runoff, and that is confirmed by supposedly-expert-professionals at the site plan stage. But if extra units are added after the site plan is approved, and landscaping is removed and extra driveways and parking spaces are added for those units, there goes that part of the deal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2016, 5:20 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,321
Coach houses unwelcome in tony Rockcliffe Park, community association says
City to unveil draft proposal on coach houses to Rockcliffe residents Wednesday night

By CBC Radio's Ottawa Morning, CBC News Posted: Jun 15, 2016 11:31 AM ET Last Updated: Jun 15, 2016 12:27 PM ET


The community association for the tony Ottawa neighbourhood of Rockcliffe Park says it wants an exemption from any future legislation that would allow small residential buildings — commonly known as coach houses — to be built in backyards.

Ontario wants municipalities to allow them, and to that end the City of Ottawa has been consulting with neighbourhoods across town about it. A draft proposal is being unveiled Wednesday night for residents in Rockcliffe.

But the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association is opposed to the idea, saying the neighbourhood is a heritage conservation district and needs to be protected from more development.

"As a heritage area it is worth protecting, and the application of additional residential units within an area such as this ... is just really contrary to the whole idea of the heritage," said Peter Lewis, the association's president, in an interview in CBC Radio's Ottawa Morning Wednesday.

"Why bring an intensification initiative into an area that's very definition talks about limits on density, limits on intensification? It just seems to be completely counterintuitive to me."

Bryan Dickson, the association's vice-president, says coach houses would hurt the look and feel of the community.

"I think you have to remember that coach houses will take up up to 40 per cent of a backyard. You've mentioned a neighbour, but I'd like you to consider neighbours [plural], because there is a real possibility that property owners could be hemmed in by coach houses," he said.

"So instead of seeing greenery, trees, landscaping, you would see the wall of a so-called coach house."

He also said that while the province's objective is to combat suburban sprawl by increasing density, "cultural heritage shall be preserved," he said.

"That's really what we're talking about here. Rockcliffe is a cultural heritage landscape."

The meeting Wednesday night is taking place at the Rockcliffe Park Community Hall on Springfield Road at 7 p.m.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...tawa-1.3636143
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2016, 5:21 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
How does the number of units "impact" the neighbourhood?

Does it do so negatively or positively?
If you're speaking of units built illegally, any impact is more likely to be negative, no?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2016, 5:26 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
Coach houses unwelcome in tony Rockcliffe Park, community association says
City to unveil draft proposal on coach houses to Rockcliffe residents Wednesday night

By CBC Radio's Ottawa Morning, CBC News Posted: Jun 15, 2016 11:31 AM ET Last Updated: Jun 15, 2016 12:27 PM ET


The community association for the tony Ottawa neighbourhood of Rockcliffe Park says it wants an exemption from any future legislation that would allow small residential buildings — commonly known as coach houses — to be built in backyards.

Ontario wants municipalities to allow them, and to that end the City of Ottawa has been consulting with neighbourhoods across town about it. A draft proposal is being unveiled Wednesday night for residents in Rockcliffe.

But the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association is opposed to the idea, saying the neighbourhood is a heritage conservation district and needs to be protected from more development.

"As a heritage area it is worth protecting, and the application of additional residential units within an area such as this ... is just really contrary to the whole idea of the heritage," said Peter Lewis, the association's president, in an interview in CBC Radio's Ottawa Morning Wednesday.

"Why bring an intensification initiative into an area that's very definition talks about limits on density, limits on intensification? It just seems to be completely counterintuitive to me."

Bryan Dickson, the association's vice-president, says coach houses would hurt the look and feel of the community.

"I think you have to remember that coach houses will take up up to 40 per cent of a backyard. You've mentioned a neighbour, but I'd like you to consider neighbours [plural], because there is a real possibility that property owners could be hemmed in by coach houses," he said.

"So instead of seeing greenery, trees, landscaping, you would see the wall of a so-called coach house."

He also said that while the province's objective is to combat suburban sprawl by increasing density, "cultural heritage shall be preserved," he said.

"That's really what we're talking about here. Rockcliffe is a cultural heritage landscape."

The meeting Wednesday night is taking place at the Rockcliffe Park Community Hall on Springfield Road at 7 p.m.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...tawa-1.3636143
Should be an interesting discussion. Just this week, Kitchener City Council turned down a proposal to build a number of upscale townhouses on two lots in a neighbourhood zoned for estate homes. The proposal was rejected on the basis that the supply of estate lots was very limited and that the City needed to ensure sites for all types of housing, including estate homes. It makes sense, but it sort of presses on one's egalitarian nerve.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2016, 7:54 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
Even with steadily improving shares of active and transit uses in infilling neighbourhoods, the demand for parking spaces per unit is still a non-zero number.
And we are under no obligation to fill that demand.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2016, 7:54 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
If you're speaking of units built illegally, any impact is more likely to be negative, no?
Not with 100% certainty, no, but I'm not talking about "illegal" builds.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2016, 7:55 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,032
Simple solution for Rockcliffers who don't like coach houses:

Don't build one on your property.

Next!
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2016, 5:29 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,321
Councillor seeks tougher rules for Sandy Hill development

Emma Jackson, OBJ
Published on August 22, 2016


Garbage, parking and cladding – oh, my.

Infill issues are back on the agenda as Coun. Mathieu Fleury asks the planning committee to require extra scrutiny for Sandy Hill.

If the committee agrees Tuesday, all residential development applications would be subject to an extra site plan control process, although it would be limited to making sure building materials complement the heritage neighbourhood and that there’s adequate space for parking and waste bins.

“When that’s not properly designed and planned for, then its hodge-podge on the property,” Mr. Fleury said.

The neighbourhood is under pressure as demand for student housing drives conversions, additions and multi-residential infill along the historic red-bricked streets.

There are already several levels of development protection in place, but Mr. Fleury says it’s not enough.

“We want to make sure nothing falls through the cracks,” he said.

Garbage:

With every extra bedroom comes more garbage to deal with, Mr. Fleury said. But right now, if the applicant meets zoning requirements they’ll get their building permit without having to explain where they’ll stash the extra trash. Under the new rules, any application will have to prove there’s proper space for waste bins on site.

Parking:

Parking would also face extra scrutiny under Mr. Fleury’s new rules. He said it’s tied into the garbage problem: sometimes the only space left over for parking is so “unrealistic,” there’s no room to take waste bins from the backyard to the front – so they end up staying up front, where they’re an eyesore.

Building materials:

While infill shouldn’t copy nearby heritage styles, it should at least try to complement it, and that’s what Mr. Fleury hopes this extra scrutiny will accomplish in Sandy Hill. Five heritage conservation districts in the neighbourhood already operate under heritage development guidelines, but this change would apply similar principles to everything in between.

Limited cost:

Applicants wouldn’t have to do a full site plan workup – a process that can cost between $3,124 and $18,236 in fees – but only focus on the three issues of parking, garbage and building materials, Mr. Fleury said. That will reduce fees to a maximum of $3,000. Some may get away with no fees at all, depending on the size of their addition and if it's visible from the street.

Bigger picture:

This latest measure is part of a broader effort to protect Sandy Hill from losing its heritage character. In early 2017, Mr. Fleury expects staff to finish its review of the area’s blanket R4 zoning, which allows everything from single homes to four-storey apartment buildings. He said that’s “too permissible” and expects the report to recommend areas where the zoning should be reduced.

http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/Constr...-development/1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2016, 6:27 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,032
Nice to see Fleury pandering again to those who want to be pandered too.

Be nice if he'd do something about the atrocious state of local transit in his ward, but, hey, priorities.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2016, 10:16 PM
ElieB ElieB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: eliebourget.com
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
How does the number of units "impact" the neighbourhood?

Does it do so negatively or positively?
I think the question is really who benefits, and who suffers, when zoning regulations are stretched and broken on a whim?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2016, 10:45 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElieB View Post
I think the question is really who benefits, and who suffers, when zoning regulations are stretched and broken on a whim?
In a world full of real suffering, I have very little sympathy for the Victims of Zoning Regulations.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2016, 12:06 AM
ElieB ElieB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: eliebourget.com
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
In a world full of real suffering, I have very little sympathy for the Victims of Zoning Regulations.
kk, let's throw out the rule of law cause people suffer far worse fates around the world...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2019, 4:01 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 3:52 AM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,860
R4 zoning study

https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/publi...-zoning-review

Some of these recommendations will have the pearl clutching brigade in a tizzy. Won't they think of the setbacks.

No parking allowed on R4 lots of less than 15 m in frontage and 450 m2 in area. That is quite a change.

Also planning to do away with some of those arbitrary dead zone amenity area requirements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2020, 6:54 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
Zoning Changes to Regulate Residential Development in the Urban Area within the Greenbelt
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agdoc...&itemid=399310
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2020, 7:20 PM
TransitZilla TransitZilla is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Zoning Changes to Regulate Residential Development in the Urban Area within the Greenbelt
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agdoc...&itemid=399310
There is one passage of the report that highlights a policy that I particularly disagree with: (emphasis added)

Quote:
In addition, vehicles are being parked in abutting driveways that access these front-facing garages, whose long-understood principal function is to provide space for parking, and not merely to provide non-vehicular storage. This is becoming more frequent as lots become narrower where there is less width available for garages, often leaving insufficient room to park a car in the newly created front-facing garage. The MNO regulation in Section 139 (12) states that a driveway loses its function when it no longer provides access to a legal parking space (i.e. outside of the front yard).
The Regulation in section 139 (12) is a barrier to intensification because it essentially prohibits garages from being converted to another use. There are lots of 1970s/1980s vintage homes with attached garages that could potentially be converted to a secondary dwelling unit. But the bylaws make that impossible because the driveway is no longer considered a legal parking spot if it does not lead to a garage.

EDIT: Here's a story in the Citizen from a few years ago of some folks who ran into this ridiculous rule. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/couple+...884/story.html

Last edited by TransitZilla; Apr 27, 2020 at 7:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2020, 10:22 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
Westboro Infill Study Discussion paper 2
https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/publi...l-zoning-study

Proposal to allow for 4 storey buildings on Churchill
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2020, 11:33 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Zoning Changes to Regulate Residential Development in the Urban Area within the Greenbelt
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agdoc...&itemid=399310
Thanks..this ones seems to have been just dropped. I hadn't heard of any of this. So much for simplification of the zoning regulations. You don't work for the City do you WaterlooWarrrior?

I have to deal with this stuff all the time and I can already see parts of projects of mine that won't be compliant.

Who writes this stuff. The average home owner won't have a clue what this is all about.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:47 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.