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 Safety
Fire separation, exposing faces, stair and guard dimensions, fire sprinklering etc
Energy & Climate
Envelope thermal performance, thick wall exclusions, passive house relaxations etc
Floor Area & Height Compliance
Overlook and Shadowing
Accessibility
Tree Canopy Retention
Architectural Design Guideline Compliance
Front 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 built
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)

Late 90s: 4’ tree barrier
Same trees in 2016:
24.5’ requested tree barrier (would have killed the entire project)
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. LWH

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. LWH

3106 Venables
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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Lanefab - Comments on Permitting Barriers

Similar to Lanefab - Comments on Permitting Barriers (20)

More from Bryn Davidson

More from Bryn Davidson (10)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Lanefab - Comments on Permitting Barriers