lanefab - comments on permitting barriers

Lanefab Design/Build Sept 2016

Illustrative comments on permitting barriers (and opportunities) for RS houses & LWH

September 2016

Lanefab Design/Build


In our view there is a hierarchy of ‘policy importance’.

Less important policies should be removed / expedited during periods w permit delays (or) low rental vacancy rates.


Life SafetyFire separation, exposing faces, stair and guard dimensions, fire sprinklering etc

Energy & ClimateEnvelope thermal performance, thick wall exclusions, passive house relaxations etc

Floor Area & Height Compliance

Overlook and Shadowing

Accessibility

Tree Canopy Retention

Architectural Design Guideline ComplianceFront and rear yard compatibility, roof shape, window trim dimension etc

Landscape Design Guideline Compliance

A hierarchy of ‘policy importance’


Our mental map of the process for an outright RS house or LWH



Currently, our biggest source of delay



Our biggest source of frustration

(and delay)


Trees


Had to go to BOV for relaxations to save/incorporate this magnolia tree Often there is not enough flex in the bylaw and guidelines… but this is improving…


More lumber in the barriers than in trees being protected.Nowhere to work.

146 W.22nd – new RS-1 outright house and lwh


Late 90s: 4’ tree barrier when main house was builtAdding a garage, and re-doing the backyard


Late 90s: 4’ tree barrier

Same trees in 2016: 24.5’ requested tree barrier (would have killed the entire project)

Adding a garage, and re-doing the backyard


Late 90s: 4’ tree barrier

Same trees in 2016: 24.5’ requested tree barrier (would have killed the entire project)

Adding a garage, and re-doing the backyard

This was appealed (successfully), but after much delay. We need a simpler/clearer policy


1 arborist says building this lwh at 2’ from property line and tree is OK.2nd arborist does an air-spade inspection, and says it’s OK

City tree inspector says no… planners ask for a neighbour letter... neighbour refuses...project is killed after 8 months work and 15k in expenses.

Problem: no clear & early guidance regarding work near trees. Frequent discrepancy between private and city arborists.

5545 Larch St.1 storey lwh


Client wants to preserve existing tree.City grants extra depth into the yard to move away from the tree (yay!)

City then asks for a neighbour letter due to the granted relaxation…. (grrr)

Solution: don’t ask us to jump through extra hoops if you grant a relaxation to save a tree

6627 Inverness

26’


38 E.37th RS-1 Passive House

Passive House: Low quality (topped) conifer in the footprint of the garage and basement well.



At permit review the city is asking for the tree to be retained… ...a choice that negates the ability to achieve the passive house standard.




At permit review the city is asking for the tree to be retained… ...a choice that negates the ability to achieve the passive house standard.

Ongoing.... 5 weeks of discussion...We need to balance competing policy agendas (without freezing the triggering project)



Design Review


We need to talk about the cost vs.

value of design guidelines


Design-review interventions to reduce ‘apparent massing’ of upper level.

Example of guidelines leading to time-consuming review…... with little net gain for the city.


“Too Two-Storyish”

Fake roof lines. Yay!


The design review committee is a ‘black box’ that can be subjective and arbitrary.

1168 Park Dr. LWH


Rejected: “…creates too much “cluttered space” at the rear…”

This LWH scheme aimed to retain existing garage, fence and gate.

1168 Park Dr. LWHThe design review committee is a ‘black box’ that can be subjective and arbitrary.


Rejected: “…creates too much “cluttered space” at the rear…”

5 different concepts with weeks in-between waiting for comments from committee

This LWH scheme aimed to retain existing garage, fence and gate.

1168 Park Dr. LWHThe design review committee is a ‘black box’ that can be subjective and arbitrary.


3106 Venables

The design review committee is a ‘black box’ that can be subjective and arbitrary…...and has unwritten rules

Staff are debating the imposition of unwritten limits on the width of sunken patios…

Staff are debating the imposition of unwritten limits on the width of sunken patios...…this would not have been allowed.


If design review staff see a need to create new rules…

...save them up, and propose them as part of a public process


Not a Lanefab project

Meanwhile, this was approved…


The city’s view of how design guidelines impact projects:

Most projects (and the city) are

improved through design review and design

guidelines

Some projects would have been “ok” anyway, even without the guidelines


Many crappy (but compliant) projects still get built

Good / different / interesting / innovative projects get

dumbed-down and ‘normalized’

Many projects meet the guidelines initially, but owners do post-inspection modifications to get what they actually wanted

Some projects are actually improved through design review

(but at a significant cost and delay)

Our* view of how design guidelines impact projects:

* designers, builders, & owners of small-lot residential projects

Some projects would have been “ok” anyway, even without the guidelines


Trees / Landscape

• Allow relaxations without incurring additional hurdles (i.e. neighbour letter)• Remove the requirement for landscape review• Plan checkers can do tree review w simple formulas for barriers • Landscape staff can do a pre-check, and landscape supervisor can support PCs• Allow tree removal for trees in the building footprint (w/out city inspection)

Design Review

• Individual design reviewers can clear a project without the committee• The committee exists solely as an appeals process• Hidden guidelines are shelved until the next policy update process• Next policy update should reduce /simplify the guidelines

Permit Review

• Allow for a phone call or meeting to review deficiency lists• Allow older surveys (1 yr.)

lanefab - comments on permitting barriers

Government & Nonprofit