Northdale Neighborhood

[mpd618]

Fantastic news!! Hopefully they come up with a similar vision to that of HUG.

Hopefully they are able to provide reasonable options for achieving the green/urban vision for Northdale. Jan d'Ailly asked staff to release a summary of the current policies within a few weeks.

[Spokes]

Hopefully they are able to provide reasonable options for achieving the green/urban vision for Northdale. Jan d'Ailly asked staff to release a summary of the current policies within a few weeks.

In your opinion, what are the reasonable options. Like if you were in charge what would you report back to council? Same question goes for others.

[Spokes]

City review will address student ghetto issues

By Greg MacDonald, Chronicle Staff
Jan 20, 2010

City staff will review every option for revitalizing Northdale after councillors voted to review the vision for the core neighbourhood.

Development services will undergo an extensive review of the tools available to the city to stabilize or transform the neighbourhood between now and April.

“I think the intent is to find the tools needed to implement the vision for the neighbourhood — whether it’s the current vision or an alternative vision,” said Coun. Jan d’Ailly, who represents Northdale and brought the review forward.

The neighbourhood has been a flashpoint in the areas around the universities, as students and older residents grapple with co-existing.

The city’s current plan is to draw renters out of the neighbourhood into higher forms of housing on major corridors.

But an outcry from residents and students alike has called that plan into question.

The review will include a plan submitted by HUG — Help Urbanize the Ghetto in Waterloo — to intensify and diversify the neighbourhood.

“Northdale is the last opportunity the City of Waterloo has to show it can build a vibrant, people-centered neighbourhood,” said Michael Druker, a member of HUG and graduate student at the University of Waterloo.

Druker and the group want to see a greener, more built-up plan for the neighbourhood in order to combat some of the behavioural issues that have been ongoing in Northdale for the past decade.

Others aren’t so sure.

Dan Currie, a consultant with MHBC planning, told councillors at Monday’s meeting to stick to the current plan.

Currie was representing a rental website that specializes in off-campus housing. He’s also a former city planner who worked on the Student Accommodation Study that forms the backbone of the municipality’s current vision for Northdale.

He believes changing the zoning to a more intensified level would not fix the behavioural or property maintenance problems in the neighbourhood. In fact, it would give property owners and landlords more reason to neglect the upkeep of their lots since they know they could be bought out by a developer at any time.

Under the current plan, the quality of the housing on the corridors encourages landlords to improve the units in the neighbourhood, he said.

Currie also warned that the transition from a community of single-detached dwellings to a mixed-use, high density neighbourhood wouldn’t be smooth and could generate problems of its own.

“You can’t make a mixed neighbourhood happen just because you change the land use policies,” he said.

Councillors stressed they weren’t making a decision Monday, but instead were exploring the options. And those had to be both long-term and short-term, said Coun. Ian McLean. “We need to look at how we make things better today while we’re waiting for something more long-term.”

http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/article/200195

[mpd618]

I have nothing nice to say about that article, so I will refrain.

In your opinion, what are the reasonable options. Like if you were in charge what would you report back to council?

I would like to see a form-based code, and in fact think it makes the most sense to just take Kitchener's mixed-use zoning, with something like: MU-1 for the side streets, MU-2 for main corridors, and MU-3 for major intersections. Get rid of minimum parking requirements, and maybe turn them into maximum parking requirements. Widen the sidewalks, and maybe even turn the side streets into woonerfs. Put in a paved path from the end of Hickory St to Phillip St. Turn the two cul-de-sacs into through streets. There should be strong disincentives to building all units with 4+ bedrooms, but I'm not sure what the right mechanisms are. Getting rid of minimum parking requirements (which are per unit) somewhat does this. Maybe a limitation on the proportion of high-bedroom count units? I'm sure there's a natural way of doing this, and hopefully other places have thought of it.

That's not really all "the reasonable options", just what I'd like to see for the medium-term. I don't know what other approaches are reasonable, and that's why it's important to have staff report on that. However, I think it is important that the focus be on setting the kind of framework under which good patterns of use emerge naturally, versus having to impose ad hoc lodging house limitations, hard-core by-law enforcement, hard distinctions between "nodes and corridors" and the interior, and all that jazz.

[mpd618]

Turn the two cul-de-sacs into through streets.

To follow up on this, it looks like this would require 10 properties. However this is less of an impact than it seems, as once the street gets put through the remaining land would have a very high value.

[Spokes]

I have nothing nice to say about that article, so I will refrain.

I've got to ask haha

I would like to see a form-based code, and in fact think it makes the most sense to just take Kitchener's mixed-use zoning, with something like: MU-1 for the side streets, MU-2 for main corridors, and MU-3 for major intersections. Get rid of minimum parking requirements, and maybe turn them into maximum parking requirements. Widen the sidewalks, and maybe even turn the side streets into woonerfs. Put in a paved path from the end of Hickory St to Phillip St. Turn the two cul-de-sacs into through streets. There should be strong disincentives to building all units with 4+ bedrooms, but I'm not sure what the right mechanisms are. Getting rid of minimum parking requirements (which are per unit) somewhat does this. Maybe a limitation on the proportion of high-bedroom count units? I'm sure there's a natural way of doing this, and hopefully other places have thought of it.

That's not really all "the reasonable options", just what I'd like to see for the medium-term. I don't know what other approaches are reasonable, and that's why it's important to have staff report on that. However, I think it is important that the focus be on setting the kind of framework under which good patterns of use emerge naturally, versus having to impose ad hoc lodging house limitations, hard-core by-law enforcement, hard distinctions between "nodes and corridors" and the interior, and all that jazz.

You're bang on with the mixed use corridor I think. Can council actually dictate the kind of units (ie less 4/5 bedroom units) I'd love it if they could though because I think that's one of the biggest problems. You've got some really great ideas though. I definitely agree. Do something like Kitchener's King st makeover to make it more pedestrian orriented.

How can patterns emerge naturally though? Haven't recent trends shown us that we have to step in and push it in a certain direction?

[mpd618]

I've got to ask haha

Misquoting; the point of the vision is not combating behavioural issues; and I don't think the straw-man defense of the status quo should've received the "counterpoint" attention the media so loves. But maybe it's not so bad, as the article did cover a broad range of points.

Can council actually dictate the kind of units (ie less 4/5 bedroom units) I'd love it if they could though because I think that's one of the biggest problems.

Well, I believe the rental lodging licensing the city is currently considering could do that -- though I don't think that's a good solution. But presumably the authority is there if they want to use it.

How can patterns emerge naturally though? Haven't recent trends shown us that we have to step in and push it in a certain direction?

The current zoning, parking, and lodging house policies are very artificial and the recent trends reflect what the market looks like in the context of that framework. I'd rather have the right base forces put in place so that the market produces a good solution, versus having every detail needing micro-management from above. It could involve some pushes in certain directions, but it's not going to work unless it makes sense on a basic level. Small post-war car-oriented single-family houses on large lots in very close proximity to two growing universities (and future light rail) in a city with an undersupply of urban housing -- do not make sense on a fundamental level.

[Spokes]

Well, I believe the rental lodging licensing the city is currently considering could do that -- though I don't think that's a good solution. But presumably the authority is there if they want to use it.

Well hopefully that can happen. I think it's a useful solution and can help a lot. No non students want to live in 5 bedroom units. By having ONLY 4 or 5 bedroom units, they guarantee it's students that's living there. If the city can somehow regulate that, they will help diversify the population living there.

The current zoning, parking, and lodging house policies are very artificial and the recent trends reflect what the market looks like in the context of that framework. I'd rather have the right base forces put in place so that the market produces a good solution, versus having every detail needing micro-management from above. It could involve some pushes in certain directions, but it's not going to work unless it makes sense on a basic level. Small post-war car-oriented single-family houses on large lots in very close proximity to two growing universities (and future light rail) in a city with an undersupply of urban housing -- do not make sense on a fundamental level.

I agree.

[Ktown4ever]

Not really knowing the neighbourhood very well, I am curious to hear from others...just how much of an issue are the "behavioural or property maintenance problems in the neighbourhood" ? Is it as bad as they make it out to be?

[Spokes]

I can't comment on specifics, I'll leave that to someone that lives there - any forum members?

I can imagine though that when there is such a high concentration of students there could be problems that would arise. Particularly at the start/end of the year

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

Temporary ban on converting homes into student housing

THE RECORD | Saturday, January 30, 2010

Waterloo - Concerned councillors have intervened in a campus-area neighbourhood to temporarily ban property owners from converting detached homes into lodging houses and duplexes for students. The special bylaw to forbid such conversions affects a handful of blocks near State, Fir and Hickory streets, north of Wilfrid Laurier University. The temporary ban can be in place for up to two years.

[Spokes]

FINALLY!!!
Now how do we take back lodging licenses?

[Spokes]

After thinking some more, is there any way this can be taken to the OMB?

[mpd618]

After thinking some more, is there any way this can be taken to the OMB?

It's probably not worth anyone's time and money....

[Spokes]

It's probably not worth anyone's time and money....

So it wouldn't be a Cedar Hill situation?

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

/\ It likely wouldn't be a Cedar Hill situation at this time. Here's one of the reasons why:

For Cedar Hill, council approved what was known as an Interim Control By-law in May 2003 to prohibit the use of land, buildings, or structures for new residential care facilities, lodging houses, etc. The City's authority to pass an Interim Control By-law was authorized under Section 38(1) of the Planning Act. The Interim Control By-law expired 1 year later in May 2004, but was extended by a year (until May 2005) to allow more time to complete a Land Use and Social Environmental Study. Therefore, the initial by-law that was passed in 2003 and the 1 year extension was perfectly legal and allowed under the Planning Act. This still comes with appeal rights to the OMB of course, but in Cedar Hill's case for the Interim Control By-law, it was not this particular action of the City that was appealed. It was the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that followed (as a recommendation of the Study) that ended up at the OMB.

I wonder if the City of Waterloo passed a similar Interim Control By-law under Section 38(1) of the Planning Act to allow time to complete a study of the Northdale Neighbourhood? If this is so, similar to Cedar Hill, I doubt anyone would appeal it because they would realize that the City has only temporarily suspended the Northdale housing conversions to allow time to complete a comprehensive study.

[mpd618]

I wonder if the City of Waterloo passed a similar Interim Control By-law under Section 38(1) of the Planning Act to allow time to complete a study of the Northdale Neighbourhood? If this is so, similar to Cedar Hill, I doubt anyone would appeal it because they would realize that the City has only temporarily suspended the Northdale housing conversions to allow time to complete a comprehensive study.

That's exactly it, though this isn't all of Northdale, and I am somewhat confused as to why a separate review of the State/Fir/Hickory area is being undertaken in addition to the earlier Northdale motion.

[Spokes]

City puts a hold on Northdale

By Greg MacDonald, Chronicle Staff
Feb 03, 2010

The City of Waterloo has limited the construction of duplexes and add-ons in the Northdale neighbourhood after a surge in development applications.

The municipality has placed an interim control bylaw on an area bounded by Hickory, State and Fir streets to prevent expansion on single detached units.

“We've heard concerns from council and the community about what's happening in the neighbourhood and what it looks like,” said Krista Walkey, development planner with the city.

“Development services noticed an increase in development applications in the area and wanted to find a solution.”

The Hickory-State-Fir area was the last area in the Northdale neighbourhood to allow duplexing. City staff recommended removing that provision in the 2004 Student Accommodation Report, but that change was not accepted.

In 2009, there were 13 applications for duplexing in Northdale after only four in 2008. That sent off alarm bells in development services, which is currently exploring a new vision for Northdale.

The increase in duplexes would have pushed the percentage of residences in the area with the additions to 40 per cent, Walkey said.

The bylaw also limits additions for accessory apartments.

It’s a rare move for the city, which has instituted a policy only once before in the last decade.

“It’s something we don’t do very often and we don’t take lightly,” Walkey said.

The interim control bylaw will be in place for a year while staff looks for solutions.

“These duplexes are the wrong type of housing for students, no matter what the solution for Northdale is,” she said. “This was not going in the right direction. (This decision) gives us full opportunity to find the right solution.”

But for Coun. Mark Whaley, the decision brings to mind Cedar Hills in Kitchener. The limits placed on that neighbourhood were struck down by the Ontario Municipal Board for being unconstitutional.

“The interim control bylaw is so draconian. It will take away the rights of a neighbourhood for an entire year,” he said. “Our legal counsel says (the bylaw) is not discriminatory, but I’m not so sure.”

Coun. Ian McLean agreed that the move was drastic, but said it was the only weapon in the city’s arsenal to curb this kind of development.

“This is unfortunately our best tool,” he said. “The planning tools we have before us are blunt instruments, not surgically precise.”

Staff are expected to report back on the Northdale vision in April.


http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/article/201534

[Wloon]

So, SFH neighbourhood is GR zoning and allows duplexing, so the city puts an IC bylaw in place to prevent it.

Also between University and Columbia, but further west, between Lester and Hazel St. is SR zoning which forbids duplexing.

Why is a huge addition and duplexing going on on Sunview Street?
Can't miss it.

This is a licensed property owned by a landord.

Why would the city allow such activity in a neighbourhood where it's not allowed, but ban it in an area where it is allowed?

[mpd618]

For anyone interested, today's Jeff Allan Show will be discussing Northdale from 9am to 10am, in case anyone wants to tune in or call in.