Ottawa Updates Infill Zoning Rules

Ottawa condos could be affected by new zoning rules

The City of Ottawa Planning Committee approved a new infill by-law today that could affect future low rise condo developments in Ottawa. The new rules will put further limits on building heights and will increase rear yard setbacks for all residential buildings in the city. Condo buildings constructed in R4 zones will have to conform to the new by-law which will result in decreased intensification. New condo buildings will now have to be built to reduced heights and with smaller building depths producing reduced building volumes. Smaller condo buildings result in lower condo unit yields and therefore less affordable housing in the urban core.

Surface Developments is a founding member of the Urban Infill Council which is a member of the Greater Ottawa Home Builder’s Association. GOHBA and UIC opposed the new by-law on the grounds that it would hinder housing affordability in the urban core and have consulted with the City over the last 6 months in an effort to temper the limitations that would grossly limit intensification. The final version of the by-law which was passed today incorporated many of our recommendations. While we in principle continue to oppose the by-law we see the revised version as a significant improvement.

The Ottawa Citizen published more details on the passing of the by-law which you can read here: Planning committee OKs slight changes to city’s infill rules

Infill II By-Law

Purpose and intent of the Infill II By-law

Further to the adoption of the Mature Neighbourhoods By-law (2012-147), which dealt with streetscape character, Council directed staff to address the issues of mass, height and setbacks for a larger geography that INCLUDES the inner- and outer-urban areas of the City (the urban area inside the Greenbelt).

The public process that accompanied this second phase of infill-related zoning work produced focused discussions and strategic directions on the desirable compromises to allow the evolution of residential areas while ensuring that new development is well integrated into its context.

The fundamental principles that underpin the Infill II zoning recommendations are:

• To continue to allow the types of residential dwellings permitted under each zone;
• To ensure that individual buildings fit into a city block in a way that leaves a sufficient amount of open space in the middle of the block for air and sunlight penetration, preservation of permeable surfaces and existing vegetation, do not create privacy intrusion or overlook issues and provides for the opportunity for at-grade amenity area;
• To permit building heights that allows for gradual intensification and evolution, and the ability to develop permitted forms of dwelling types, while having regard for the established character and built form;
• o provide new opportunities for discreet infill that allow neighbourhoods to gently transition to a more diverse housing stock;
• To better regulate roof-top amenity areas in order to allow them in a way that does not produce privacy or overlook conflicts;

Proposed revisions to the original Infill II By-law

The following describes the rationale behind all agreed-upon changes. Table 1 of Document 1 provides all the details of the modifications.

At-grade amenity area

The intent of both the Infill II and Converted Dwellings By-laws is to ensure that a minimum of 15 square metres at-grade amenity area is required per dwelling unit up to and including eight units, plus six square metres per unit for each unit beyond the first eight (as already permitted under 2008-250). Since the area/schedule applicable to Infill II overlaps the area/schedule applicable to Converted Dwellings, consistent language for both By-laws was necessary to ensure clarity. Furthermore, as additional language with regards to communal amenity area was part of the Conversion By-law, staff were of the opinion that these provisions should also be brought into Infill II. Essentially, the additional language would require that 100 per cent of the required amenity area be communal for the first eight units, it be located in the rear yard, be comprised of 80 per cent soft landscaping and that it abut the rear lot line, unless the lot has access to a rear lane.

Rear yard setback

Under Infill II, the zoning provisions tied the required rear yard setback to the building height to ensure a 45° angle is maintained from a rear perspective while limiting privacy intrusion from side perspectives. This resulted in increased rear yard setbacks requirements for buildings higher than two storeys. In addition to privacy, increased rear yards were also intended to preserve open space at-grade for the required amenity area, air and sunlight penetration, permeable surfaces and existing vegetation.

Although not perceived as incompatible in terms of building height, by not having to provide an increased setback, two-storey buildings could potentially create privacy issues with rear yards on either side and were not contributing to preserving open space.

With the intent of reducing potential privacy issues and loss of open space caused by two-storey buildings while knowing that the existing 25 per cent rear yard setback requirements was not sufficient for taller buildings, staff suggested the same setback requirement, no matter what the building height. To do so, a balance needed to be reached where the permitted footprint of a two-storey building would remain viable and taller buildings would maintain an acceptable angle from the rear lot line.

Instead of determining the rear yard setback requirement using the height of the building, staff proposed using a percentage of lot depth, which increased with lot depth. Another reason for proposing a lot-depth percentage was to relieve property owners wanting to build small additions or projecting structures from the burden of having to retain the services of an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) to have their building height measured in order to determine their rear yard setback.

The following percentages were established based on lot depth and on the front yard setback requirement as they both influence the buildable footprint:

Where the required minimum front yard setback is up to and including 4.5 metres:

• lot depth up to and including 23.5 metres: a distance equal to 25 per cent of the lot depth which must comprise at least 25 per cent of the area of the lot,

• lot depth greater than 23.5 metres and up to and including 25 metres: a distance equal to the lot depth minus 17.5 metres which must comprise at least 25 per cent of the area of the lot,

• lot depth greater than 25 metres: a distance equal to 30 per cent of the lot depth which must comprise at least 25 per cent of the area of the lot.

Where the required minimum front yard setback is greater than 4.5 metres:

• lot depth up to and including 24 metres: a distance equal to 25 per cent of the lot depth which must comprise at least 25 per cent of the area of the lot,

• lot depth greater than 24 metres and up to and including 25 metres: a distance equal to the lot depth minus 18 metres which must comprise at least 25 per cent of the area of the lot,

• lot depth greater than 25 metres up to and including 32 metres: a distance equal to 28 per cent of the lot depth which must comprise at least 25 per cent of the area of the lot,

• lot depth greater than 32 metres and up to and including 33 metres: a distance equal to the lot depth minus 23 metres which must comprise at least 25 per cent of the area of the lot,

• lot depth greater than 33 metres: a distance equal to 30 per cent of the lot depth which must comprise at least 25 per cent of the area of the lot.

The formulas are meant to ensure a gradual rear yard increase between two percentages to avoid inconsistent rear alignment of buildings. As an example, a proposed house on a 23.5 metres deep lot would have to be located 5.9 metres (25 per cent of lot depth) from the rear property line whereas a proposed house on a 23.6 metres deep lot would have to be located 7.08 metres (30 per cent of lot depth) away.

Building height

R1 and R2 Zoning

At the time of the Infill II Study, the LIDAR technology used to assess existing building heights in R1 and R2 zonedneighbourhoods was taking four readings per square metre. The technology has since evolved to 10 readings per square metre. Thus staff agreed to reassess buildings heights in R1 and R2 zones to ensure that the collected data would reflect existing heights as accurately as possible.

The results showed that certain areas had an average building height exceeding the 8.5 metres maximum introduced under Infill II. As the parameters of the readings were set to identify buildings under or over 8.5 metres, site visits were necessary to determine

the specific maximum height to be applied for each area. The areas where the maximum building heights are to be revised are:

• Old Ottawa South:

• South of Grove Avenue, east of Leonard Avenue, west of Bank Street, north of Cameron Avenue : 9 metres

• Riverdale Avenue, between Echo Drive and Main Street : 9.5 metres

• Rideau Shore Court : 9.5 metres

• Glebe:

• Clemow Avenue, between Bronson Avenue and Bank Street: 10 metres

• Monkland Avenue and Linden Terrace, between O’Connor Street and Queen Elizabeth Drive: 10.5 metres

Maximum building height based on roof type in R3 and R4 Zones

GOHBA and Domicile wanted assurances that the building height reduction from 11 metres to 10 metres introduced under Infill II for detached, linked detached, semi-detached, duplex and townhouse dwellings was not applicable where a peaked roof having a slope of 1 in 3 (4/12 pitch) or steeper is provided. Staff agreed to revise the language as follows:

The following uses have a maximum building height of 10.0 metres:

• detached dwelling,

• linked detached dwelling,

• semi-detached dwelling,

• duplex dwelling and

• townhouse dwelling,

unless the building has a peaked roof having a slope of 1 in 3 (4/12 pitch) or steeper, in which case the maximum building height is as per Zoning By-law 2008-250.

All other uses have a maximum building height as per Zoning By-law 2008-250.

Maximum height for triplexes in R3 zones – Old Ottawa East Appeal

The Old Ottawa East Community Association’s appeal is focused on a change that the community association thought should have been made to reduce heights for triplex dwellings from 11.0 metres (which is allowed under the current Zoning By-law 2008-250) to 10.0 metres. As part of the Infill II process, reducing the permitted height for a triplex was investigated; however, it was concluded that the current 11.0 metre height limit for a triplex was required to ensure that this land use could be developed so as to achieve reasonable design where floor heights are neither Ontario Building Code (OBC) minimums nor market demand minimums. Furthermore, it was determined that a difference of one meter in height would be imperceptible. Consequently, no change to permitted heights for a triplex was introduced through Infill II. As the appeal filed by the Old Ottawa East Community Association is not for a proposed amendment to the Zoning By-law, is therefore not deemed to be a valid appeal.

Roof-top terraces and accesses

Roof-top terraces

GOHBA indicated that the performance standards introduced by Infill II removed the opportunity for smaller roof-top terraces to be used as balconies. More specifically, the new 1.5 metre setback from exterior walls took away too much area to make a small roof-top terrace possible. As privacy intrusion caused by overlook roof-top amenity areas was one of the main concerns raised throughout the Infill II Study, the rationale behind the 1.5 metre setback was to obstruct the perspective down into abutting back yards. Keeping this intent in mind, staff proposed the following provision:

Where a roof-top terrace is not located on the roof of the uppermost storey and does not exceed an area equivalent to 25 per cent of the gross floor area of the storey it is adjacent and most equal to in height, no setback is required. Where such roof-top terrace is adjacent to a rear yard and within 1.5 metres of an exterior side wall or interior side lot line, a 1.5 metre high opaque screen is to be provided facing the interior side yard or interior side lot line.

Roof-top access structures

GOHBA and Domicile Developments indicated roof-top access structures need a minimum height of 3 metres instead of 2.7 metres to leave sufficient head room while meeting OBC requirements. The proposed 0.3 metres increase was of no concern to staff as the required setback for these structures is tied to the height. In other words, no impact would result from the changes as the 45° angle would be maintained by locating the access structure an additional 0.3 metres away from exterior walls.

GOHBA and Domicile Developments also proposed that a consistent maximum footprint should be applied to roof-top accesses for both straight-run and switch-back stairs, as the largest footprint is being considered as acceptable in terms of massing impact. Considering that even with two maximum footprints being applied, as the largest could potentially be repeated over several abutting buildings, staff agreed that a smaller maximum footprint for straight-run stairs was not relevant. The intent of the regulation is to ensure that roof-top access structures contain the access to the roof-top only. Applying a maximum footprint that allows switch-back stairs would not produce an excess of useable space for straight-run stairs that might then become used as living space.

Anomalies

As part of the above revisions, staff took the opportunity to request from the OMB to correct the following minor anomalies as part of the revised By-law:

Rear yard setback

• Revise the wording of Sections 3(6)(a), 5(8)(a), 7(9)(a), 9(11)(a), which relate to rear yard setback requirements, by deleting the word “interior” as follows:

“for any interior lot with a lot depth:”

This wording was excluding corner lots, which should also be subject to the new rear yard setback requirements introduced under Infill II.

• Revise the wording of Sections 3(6)(b), 5(8)(b), 7(9)(b), 9(11)(b), which relate to rear yard setback requirements for through lots, by deleting the word “rear” as follows:

“for any through lots which are 60 metres or greater in depth Subsection 135(1) continues to apply to the actual rear lot line; however, the provisions of (6)(a) above are to be applied to each half of the lot assuming a hypothetical rear lot line located at 50 per cent of the lot depth.”

This is meant to capture corner through lots with a configuration where the hypothetical line would be an interior lot line instead of a rear lot line.

• Revise the wording of Section 5(8), which relates to the rear yard setback requirements for R2, by replacing “VII” with “IX” before the word “Column” as Column VII applies to R1.

Corner lot

• Revise the wording of Section 3(9)(b)(i), which relates to the front yard setback requirement for the corner lot severances, as follows:

from:

“The minimum front yard setback of the subzone applies to corner lot”

to:

“Where the side lot line abutting a street becomes the front lot line, the minimum front yard setback is the same as the corner side yard setback of the subzone.”

This is meant to ensure a consistent setback from the street for both the corner lot and the interior lot resulting from a corner lot severance.

• Delete Section 3(9)(b)(iv), which relates to the side yard setback requirement for corner lot severances.

This provision is not necessary as it reiterates the side yard setback requirement of Zoning By-law 2008-250.

• Revise the wording of Section 9(12), which relates to yard requirements for corner lots, by deleting “for detached dwellings” as follows:

“Despite the minimum rear yard and interior side yard setback provisions in Columns IX and X of Table 162A, the minimum required rear yard and interior side yard setbacks for detached dwellings on a corner lot…”

This provision is meant to apply to all permitted built forms in R4 zones, the same as for R2 and R3 zones.

• Revise the wording of Sections 7(10)(a) and 9(12)(a), which relates to yard requirements for corner lots, by adding “Except for a lot containing a Planned Unit Development” as follows:

“Except for a lot containing a Planned Unit Development, the minimum setback from any rear lot line or interior side lot line is…”

Planned Unit Developments should have been exempted from the corner lot setback requirements, the same as they were from the new rear yard setback requirements introduced under Infill II.

Roof-top

• Delete Sections 3(11) (b) and (d), which relate to performance standards for roof-top landscaped areas, gardens, terraces and accesses projecting above the maximum building height.

These provisions are not necessary as roof-top landscaped areas, gardens, terraces and accesses are not permitted to project above the maximum building height in R1.

• Delete Sections 5(13) (a) and (c), 7(14)(a) and (c), 9(16)(a) and (c), which relate to performance standards for roof-top landscaped areas, gardens and terraces projecting above the maximum building.

These provisions are duplicating Sections 5(14), 7(15), 9(17) which apply to roof-top landscaped areas, gardens, terraces and accesses no matter if projecting or not above the maximum building height.

• Revise the wording of Sections 3(11)(a), 3(12)(b), 5(14)(b), 7(15)(b), 9(17)(b), which relate to performance standards for roof-top landscaped areas, gardens and terraces, by adding the word “roof-top” before “landscapes areas” and deleting it before “gardens” as follows:

“roof-top landscaped areas, gardens and terraces must..”

The existing wording was not differentiating roof-top landscaped areas from those at-grade.

• Revise the wording of Sections 3(12)(d), 5(14)(d), 7(15)(d), 9(17)(d), which relate to performance standards for roof-top landscaped areas, gardens and terraces, by adding the word “Where located on the roof of the uppermost storey” at the beginning of the provision as follows:

“Where located on the roof of the uppermost storey, a roof-top access must be setback a distance…”

This is meant to differentiate the terraces on the roof of the uppermost storey from the smaller ones located on lower roofs.