COMMUNITY DESIGN PLANS: WHOSE DESIGN IS IT,
ANYWAY?
 |
| credit: ddpavumba |
Community Design
Plans, also called CDP’s, are a hot-button topic these days. It’s important
that we educate ourselves on how these plans work, what they cover, and how
they’ve come to be.
CDP’s are intended to
recognize that the next 20 years will not be the same as the last 20 years;
consequently, to manage change effectively, the CDP process was born. CDP’s are
conducted in areas that are expected to have major growth and intensification,
so naturally they are not meant as a tool for maintaining the status quo. They
are produced, most specifically, to manage changing needs and visions; and as
such, they wouldn’t be of
much use in an area not geared for new development.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE CDP
CDP’s have evolved
over the years. These policies used to be written in broad language, and they
used to allow for developers (and community groups) to flex their
interpretation of the language quite a lot. For instance, an older CDP may
simply state that “higher buildings will be built around transit stations, and
lower developments will be built in the rest of the area”. The developer was
then able to propose a building of any height...and on the flipside, a
community group would be able to oppose
a building of any height.
As the learning curve
of CDP’s continued, we learned to tighten up the policy so that wild
interpretations weren’t as easy to get away with. New CDP’s will state clearly
that, say, “buildings up to twelve storeys will be built around transit
stations, and lower developments under six storeys will be built in other
areas.”
CDP’s have also
evolved to become known as secondary
plans, and consequently they are a part of the Official Plan for the entire
city; this means that the policy frameworks are approved by City Council, and
are implemented by the zoning by-law.
THE BENEFITS OF THE MODERN CDP
As the CDP evolution
has continued, these policies now provide several benefits:
-They provide
certainty for the community experiencing growth and make it easier to manage
community expectations. With more clarity built right into the CDP, community
groups don’t need to take such extreme interpretations of CDP policies in their
attempt to have development proposals rejected or amended.
-They also provide
certainty for the developers, should be happy that the approval process has
been made faster and easier by only requiring a building permit and site plan—unless,
of course, they are attempting to amend the plan and zoning to add height and
density; and the new CDP policy framework makes it very difficult-to-impossible
to get this type of approval, given the newer, more stringent policy wording.
-Developers are
learning, and quickly, that the old ways of proposing height changes anywhere
they like is not going to work.
THE CREATION OF A CDP: COOPERATION
 |
| credit: AMBRO |
The process of
developing a CDP has also evolved over the years. In the past, CDP’s have been
solely community-driven, without any input from the landowner. The new CDP’s
take a much more balanced approach, involving both the community and the
landowner in discussions, and consequently fostering a more realistic view of
development. With this new inclusive process, our most recent CDP—the Bank
Street CDP—may not generate even one appeal from either side. And that’s an
amazing result.
LEANING AT WINDMILLS: COMMUNITY NEEDS FAITH
When CDP’s are adhered
to, despite some very determined and audacious developers, is it because there
are vocal community groups making a loud fuss from the start? Not necessarily.
The concept of the ‘squeaky wheel getting the grease’ doesn’t really apply here.
With the newer, clearer, more stringent CDP’s, the reality is that the ‘grease’
is already there, and often the ‘wheel’ has been squeaking for nothing. Yet
time and again, we end up with a pitched battle between the panicked community
group, and the panicked developer, both who just want to ensure their vision is
upheld. With the new CDP’s, the goal is to have the vision made so clear that
no one need worry about what the outcome will be; both sides will know from Day
One what will and won’t be allowed in their area.
-Peter
The most recent CDPs are certainly more specific and clearer than previous ones. In our area (Hintonburg), the West Wellington CDP that studied the Wellington St W/ Somerset traditional main street area resulted in a specific height limit (6 storeys), with a few spots identified for possible increases to 9 storeys. Since this limit is in the secondary plan (and hence will be part of the Official Plan), this zoning should reflect what actually gets built within the CDP boundaries.
ReplyDeleteIf the aim, though, is that “both sides will know from Day One what will and won’t be allowed in their area,” then there is still going to be some trouble. The first building proposed in the West Wellington CDP area is a 28 storey condo/mixed use building. Technically, it conforms to the CDP, since only part of the lot is in the CDP area, and the rest is behind it. The part in the CDP is, indeed, to be a podium of 6 storeys. However, it is proposed to be attached to a 28 storey tower. Technical conformity to the CDP aside, residents will consider this a 28 storey building in the CDP area.
The CDP only set the zoning for the area on the main streets. If the effect of the CDP is going to be to force developers to buy up lots just behind the CDP zone in order to build 20+ storey towers attached to 6 storey podiums, this isn’t going to improve the perception of CDPs, I’m afraid. It will actually have a worse perception, since it will push large developments further back into the low rise residential area, which will appear to exploit a loophole.
In this specific case, the current proposal for a larger tower on the site at Somerset and Breezehill by Claridge may not be inappropriate, since it is a light industrial site relatively separate from the residential area. The problem is, however, that the same planning justification used by FoTenn to support this one applies generally to most sites adjacent to the CDP—being within 600m of a transit station, adjacent to an area slated for intensification, etc. It looks to me like CDPs are going to have to consider the zoning not only of the target area per se, but also of the areas in the buffer zone just outside the Main Street or Mixed Use Centre that is the main subject of the study, or the problem of very large re-zonings may become routine just outside their boundaries, instead of within.
Thanks for the very thorough comments, Jay. Most definitely, CDP’s will need to keep adapting to fit new growth patterns. Hindsight is 20/20, and learning from the proposed high-level build you’re mentioning here means that in future, CDP writers may choose to be more cautious to avoid zoning a property like this one as being half-in, half-out of the CDP boundaries. This particular development is a great example of the two-way street that is CDP clarity: just as we expect developers to adhere to the CDP expectations, builders also expect the CDP to be clear. Thus, when the CDP only includes half of a lot, they have the right to propose a taller build on the second half. It keeps coming down to the three C’s of writing effective policy: caution, clarity, and collaboration. -Peter
Delete