Deputation for Changing Lanes; Agenda Item 2018.TE32.11 – For City of Toronto Council

Hello all, this blog post is my written response to the Toronto City Planning policy proposal with regard to laneway homes called “Changing Lanes Guidelines and By-law standards” due to be presented by our planners to Toronto City Council on May 2, 2018. The recommended guidelines are, in my opinion, incomplete.

I chose to write a deputation to the city because there were too, too many things that their guidelines did not address. It is simple as that.

I hope you find them useful as well.

__________________________________________________________

To Toronto City Planning: Agenda Item 2018.TE32.11

Lane Housing and Detached Dwelling Structures: A response to Toronto City Planning Intended Policy for May 2, 2018.

A Brief History: In 2007 The City of Toronto planners rejected an actual aging grandmother and her daughter’s application to renovate 2 car parking spaces of their existing one storey 3 car garage at the rear of the daughter’s home at 76 Delaware Avenue in downtown. It is now 2018, 11 (eleven) years later, that planning policy blindness literally cost that family, in unnecessary expense, arguably hundreds of thousands of extra dollars in elder care, thousands of miles in extra travel and too many hours in unnecessary travel for so many family members. This is still happening to thousands of more citizens. Although almost 12 years late, that lane home for an actual grandmother would easily comply with the ‘now’ intended policy being presented to City Council on May 2, 2018.

Now in 2018, Toronto City Planning is beginning to correct this error of policy by attempting to formulate new guidelines. Sadly these proposed guidelines for lane homes and Detached Dwelling Structures (DDS) are again missing major considerations.

The purpose of this response is to fill in what is missing from the intended 2017 City Planning Lane Home and (DDS) guidelines.

And just so I’m clear, this Lane Home and DDS issue is also a public health issue. The psychological, economic and physical health of our city is affected by our planner’s ability to adequately and wisely devise and administer good design solutions.

There are many site configurations in the City of Toronto and GTA. I have shown only a few core examples here. My goal is to illustrate very basic volumetric and setbacks considerations that allow for lane home and DDS building expectations and permutations going forward. Furthermore, at this early stage, this brief is about volumetric possibilities and NOT ‘high’ design detailed solutions. It is to be a visual aid to the concepts written about and illustrated here.

Projecting 25 years into the future:

1. Comfortable Accommodations: The final building; the lane home or detached dwelling structure (DDS), should comfortably accommodate two adults.
2. Family Accommodations: If a larger lane home or DDS is possible it should accommodate a growing family. Two children and an adult. Or, two children and two adults. Or, two grandparents and a grandchild. Or, two growing teenage/young adult siblings, etc.
3. Availability of Vehicle Parking: If car parking is a priority then that option is available.
4. Parking Facility Options: Car parking can also be bicycle parking or ‘shared’ car parking that is community affiliated or business affiliated such as a Zip Car.
5. Where ‘Barrier-Free’ or ‘Visitable’ habitable spaces are required, the car will take a secondary or tertiary priority to making a place for human beings to have dignified ‘Accessible’ design.
6. Below Grade Space: There are circumstances that can allow the lane home or DDS to have a basement and or below grade outdoor space (see illustration) that can double as a water catchment. A water catchment in some circumstances will act as a water buffering spacial device in the event of an adverse weather event. This catchment can help reduce or alleviate the potential damage to a house as well as an area. Of course, there would be two sump pumps, with at least one sump pump to be on battery backup.
7. Below Grade Considerations continued: Further, with regard to below grade or basement spaces, a.k.a. underground spaces; these below-grade spaces can also connect to the existing main house and while allowing for their roofs to be planted or designed to be traditional rear yards while simultaneously being a roof to newly enclosed underground space (see illustration in: (A) configuration). In a highly developed area, this option can be an excellent way to preserve the look of typical neighbourhood rear yards while also allowing for increased living space and usability options.
8. Below grade, solutions can add 15 to 30 percent more livable volume to an existing site.
9. Ambulance and fire access, the unencumbered access width to the rear yard should be the minimum required doorway width in a barrier-free access of travel. Similarly: From the City of Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines 2003, “Controlled access points (e.g., turnstiles), should be designed to accommodate the free movement of wheelchairs or scooters via an adjacent gate at minimum 915 mm wide.” page 27. In other words, the 1.0 metre presently being contemplated by planning is not appropriate and needs to be re-evaluated with relation to the already existing guidelines.
10. A clear unencumbered overhead height: A recommended 2100 mm (6’-10”), NOT “one-story” as is being contemplated by planning at this time.
11. Fire Hydrant and Fire Hose Access: Lane houses and DDS that are greater than 45 m from a fire hydrant or street face where a fire truck can park, then the use of residential sprinklers should be required. In addition, ensuring a 1.0-hour fire-rated assembly is built (OBC). Note: Non-combustible construction should not be required if the project uses Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) methodology and presented through the ‘Compliance Alternative’ component of the OBC for non-combustible compliance at the time of permit submission. FYI: CLT’s meet performance compliance standards for 1.0 hour and 2.0-hour fire-rated assembly when testing results are presented through the ‘Compliance Alternative’ mechanism of the OBC. Otherwise, the normal OBC fire resistant wall assembly rating and methods will apply.
12. Affording new fire hydrants paid for by residents should be considered as an option In order to extend the range of possible sites; specifically, those sites that would not qualify for lane houses or DDS because they are beyond the presently contemplated 45 metre distance for a fire truck or a fire hydrant. Additionally, residents within the serviceable distance (45 metres assumed) from the new hydrant should share in the cost of that new fire hydrant when the new lane house does not opt for its own residential sprinklers. Note here the fire department has the option of extending the service range of the new fire hydrant in the future should technology change.
13. Development Charges and Property taxes. Like the City of Windsor recent attempts to spark re-investment in residential and commercial building in its downtown core; lane homes and DDS should be allowed with minimal to NO development charges. Minimal would be similar to Windsor’s Area #1, at about a 92% reduction in its normal development charge. Moreover, when in the future the OBC permits, as a ‘prescriptive solution’, the lane home or DDS, the on-site ability to treat its own sewage, grey water and generate its own potable water, in combination with harnessing its own energy, then that lane home and DDS should NOT be charged any development fees as the new structure is effectively a ‘net-zero’ house. Further, it can and should be argued that a net zero lane home and DDS should also be given special reduced rate from property taxes. The argument being its existence is essentially carbon and energy neutral while also allowing people the opportunity to age-in-place and or use the additional funds to help them as they age, i.e. added health care costs associated with aging and thereby reducing the cost and responsibility of government to look after them. In addition, no added hard infrastructure is needed for the existence of this building.
14. Avoiding unnecessary applications and delays at the Committee of Adjustment. We need a broader and more inclusive policy that will allow more viable ‘as-of-right’ options for the lane homes and DDS. The present 6 to 7-month delay at the C. of A. is abhorrent to timely expectations. This cannot be made worse. The presently contemplated policy by city planning will, in my opinion, make this delay at C of A worse; much worse due to the fact that there are too many variations this present policy eliminates due to ‘narrow’ and unduly restrictive prescriptions.
15. Severance: Generally, any corner lot or end lot condition with lane access should be allowed a severance right now. Effectively such a lot has 3 (three) paved surfaces and two street fronts as opposed to the normal one street-front and two paved surfaces. Any other lot conditions should be assessed on the lot’s overall length, width and topographic (sloped conditions). A further study of the possible renders and permutations of such possibility is for future iterations of the lane home and DDS policy.
16. Lane Width: From the rear face of a garage, lane home or DDS – 2.5m from the centre line of lane assumed. A.K.A. 5.0m clear lane width. Special Note: Above the 5.5 metre height and if the lot can handle a 3rd level as in Configuration C, greater than 8 metres from the rear of the existing home, then that 3rd story should be permitted to extend to the full rear property line.

 

Three Main Configurations: (A),(B) and (C) to be Included in the Intended Planning Policy on Lane Homes and DDS:

(A) Configuration: Lane Home / DDS between 4.0 metres and less than 6.0 metres from the existing house.

• Lot widths: 12 feet (rear access only), 14 feet (4.3m) (rear access most likely), 16 feet, 18 feet, 20 feet, 22 feet, and wider.

• Lot depths of approximately 90 feet and longer.

• Lane House / DDS height to be limited to 4.0 m (13’-2”). It matches existing garage height limits.

• Car Parking is optional at 14 feet (4.3m) lot width plus or minus. Bicycles can, obviously, replace cars.

• All parking volumes can be made into living habitable spaces therefore that option is not shown.

• The minimum recommended length if a car is involved is 5.75 m (18’-10”) in depth.

• Allow for rooftop gardens or green roofs. See configuration for more explanations.

• Existing Garages are assumed to be 4.0 m (13’-2”) in height or less.

• The roof of the conversion should be allowed to be a patio and or green roof mix such that it can be accessed by a connecting bridge from the existing house and used a recreational space. Further, if possible and practical, the garage renovated roof is to provide an ‘accessible’ (wheelchair or walker friendly) space by an accessible bridge from the 2nd floor of the existing house. This possibility acknowledges the fact that people are adapting their homes as they become older and their use mobility assistive devices and design modifications to be able to age-in-place with continued dignity and access to outdoor space.

• There must be inherent in the possibility of a garage conversion to a habitable space for that habitable space to be returned to a garage without penalty.

• Further, for human safety, the converted garage to habitable human space necessitates that the space must be either a garage or a habitable unit. One or the other and not both unless the volume is large enough to compartmentalize the car component directly adjacent to a living space in compliance with the Building Code.

 

Configuration B) Lane Home / DDS between 6.0 metres and less than 8.0 metres from the existing house.

• In my experience regarding the minimum height of a house that is expected to allow 2 storeys must be a minimum of 5.3 m in height. 5.5m metres (18’-0”) is best for roof finishing with parapets for soil retention for lightweight green roof.

NOTE: Any angular plane of 45° should NOT be applied. The angular plane if applied severely reduces the livable space at the 2nd storey.

• At the distance of less than 8.0 metres, NO 3rd storey is recommended because of the adverse shading that may be caused beyond 5.5 metres (18’-0”).

• Lot widths: 12 feet (rear access only), 14 feet (4.3m) (rear access most likely), 16 feet, 18 feet, 20 feet, 22 feet, and wider.

• Lot depths of approximately 90 feet and longer.

• Car Parking is optional at 14 feet (4.3m) lot width plus or minus. Bicycles can replace cars.

• All parking volumes can be made into living habitable spaces therefore that option is not shown.

• The minimum recommended length if a car is involved is 5.75m(18’-10”) in depth.

 

(C) Configuration: Lane Home / DDS greater than 8.0 metres from the existing house.

• At the 8.0 metres from the rear of the existing house any height beyond 5.5 metres should apply the 45° angular plane to a final building height of 8.0 metres. This height will allow for a potential 3rd floor or 2 stories with tall ceilings, possible mezzanine spaces and or some exterior roof patios at the 2nd or 3rd storey.

• Above the 5.5 metre height and if the lot can handle a 3rd level as in Configuration C, greater than 8 metres from the rear of the existing home, then that 3rd story should be permitted to extend to the full rear property line.

• A reminder: This volume anticipates a family of 2 adults and 2 children to grow.

• Lot widths: 12 feet (rear access only), 14 feet (4.3 m) (rear access most likely), 16 feet, 18 feet, 20 feet, 22 feet, and wider.

• Lot depths of approximately 90 feet and longer.

• All parking volumes can be made into living habitable spaces therefore that option is not shown.

• The minimum recommended depth of a lane house or DDS, if a car is involved, is 5.75m(18’-10”) in depth.

SEE ATTACHED ILLUSTRATIONS