What We Learned Report

As part of Draft 1 of the Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Rise Infill Housing, we heard from City staff, industry partners, community organizations, and residents. The feedback we received has helped us understand where the guidelines are clear and useful, and where they need to be more flexible, practical, and easier to use.

This summary highlights what we learned and how it will shape the next draft.

1. Guidelines should be clear and flexible.

What we heard:

• People support having design guidance for low-rise infill, but are concerned that some wording feels too rigid or “regulatory,” especially where the guidelines say “avoid,” “must,” or give very specific dimensions.
• Industry and community groups stressed that guidelines should not function like a second Zoning By-law or be used to prevent otherwise compliant housing.
• There is concern that projects not subject to Site Plan Control may experience the guidelines as inflexible requirements if the language is too prescriptive.

What we’re doing:

• Rewriting key guidelines to be more outcomes-based (what good design achieves rather than one way to do it).
• Reducing prescriptive language and adding qualifiers such as “where feasible,” “where appropriate,” or “where site conditions allow” where flexibility is needed.
• Clarifying that the Zoning By-law, Building Code and other mandatory regulations take precedence, and that these guidelines are advisory guideline design tools.

2. Better alignment with the Zoning By-law, Heritage Planning, and other regulations

What we heard:

• Some guidelines overlap with or appear to contradict existing rules on height, projections, balconies, tree protection, stormwater, or heritage.
• Heritage Planning, tree protection, and stormwater are already strongly regulated elsewhere, and repetition in the guidelines can cause confusion.
• Public and industry feedback emphasized that mandatory requirements should be clearly identified as such—and not disguised as optional “should” statements.

What we’re doing:

• Cross-checking the guidelines against the current and draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, Tree Protection By-law, Building Code and Heritage Planning requirements and policies.
• Removing or simplifying guidelines that simply restate existing regulations.
• Refining heritage planning language for new infill housing in Heritage Conservation Districts to be consistent.

3. Making the guidelines work for small infill housing projects and evolving neighbourhoods

What we heard:

• Residents asked how these guidelines will influence the many small projects (12 units or less) that are exempt from Site Plan Control.
• People support having different approaches in established neighbourhoods and in Evolving Overlay areas, but noted that zoning standards do not always reinforce this difference.
• There is interest in referencing the guidelines more directly in City tools (e.g., Zoning By-law text, geoOttawa) so that they are visible to homeowners, designers and builders early in the process.

What we’re doing:

• Clarifying in the Use and Application section how the guidelines are intended to inform smaller projects that do not trigger Site Plan Control, as a resource for designers, homeowners and building officials.
• Working with the Zoning team to better align built-form standards with the different expectations in established neighbourhoods versus areas with Evolving Overlays.

4. Accessibility, safety and operations must be balanced with design

What we heard:

• Some guidance on ramps, lifts, and front-yard access feels too restrictive for narrow or sloping lots, and may be hard to reconcile with AODA, and Building Code requirements.
• Internal lifts are expensive and not always feasible; exterior lifts and front-yard ramps sometimes remain the only workable solution.
• Similar concerns were raised about strict limits on front-yard bike parking, waste storage, and mechanical equipment on tight lots.

What we’re doing:

• Reviewing accessibility-related content against AODA, Ontario Human Rights Code and the OBC to ensure the guidelines support, rather than complicate, accessibility.
• Adjusting wording so that front-yard ramps, lifts, or bike parking can be acceptable where there is no reasonable alternative, while still encouraging good design and impacts on the public realm.
• Updating utilities and servicing guidance to recognize operational and safety needs and using “where possible / where feasible” language where appropriate.

5. Strong support for trees, landscaping and climate resilience with clear terminology and goals

What we heard:

• There is broad support for protecting existing trees, improving canopy cover, and reducing heat island effects.
• Commenters asked for clearer references to Critical Root Zones, “protected trees,” soil volumes, continuous planting areas, and low-impact development (e.g., rain gardens, permeable paving).
• Concerns were identified with artificial turf and weak planting examples in some images.

What we’re doing:

• Renaming and strengthening the Landscaping and Trees section to focus on tree health, canopy, shade and heat mitigation as core goals.
• Clarifying terminology (Critical Root Zones, protected trees, continuous trenches) and showing how to avoid fragmented planting strips that can’t support large trees.
• Replacing or updating images that inadvertently normalize turf strips or poor planting and showcasing better local examples.

6. Built form, massing, materials and private outdoor spaces

What we heard:

• Feedback supported human-scale, well-fitting infill but there is an interest in transitions and massing to be handled with flexibility, not tied to a single formula or be overly constrained by neighbouring buildings.
• Balconies, window wells, and terraces are important for livability but there is a need for thoughtful guidance, not blanket restrictions.
• Material guidance should focus on durability, quality, and how materials are used—not on ruling out particular materials such as metal cladding.
• Residents and industry partners both highlighted the need for clear expectations that side façades facing streets or parks receive “frontage quality” treatment.

What we’re doing:

• Emphasizing outcomes such as good transitions, human scale, and privacy rather than prescriptive step-backs or height caps.
• Refining balcony, terrace and window-well guidance so it protects privacy, trees and safety while still allowing livable outdoor space.
• Focusing material guidance on durability and good detailing at street level and allowing a wider range of materials where they are well designed.
• Adding explicit direction that façades facing public streets or open spaces, including side façades, should be designed with a high level of quality and articulation.

7. Clarity of language, diagrams and glossary

What we heard:

• Some terms (e.g., “depth-rich materials,” “hybrid roofs,” “facing distances”) are not clear to non-experts.
• In several places, it is not obvious whether a diagram is a “good” or “bad” example, and some images unintentionally show practices that conflict with the text.
• Many people asked for better local examples and more diagrams to explain relationships between buildings, yards, and streets.

What we’re doing:

• Creating a short, plain-language glossary for key design and technical terms.
• Reviewing all diagrams and photos so each is clearly labelled as a preferred or discouraged example and directly linked to specific guidelines.
• Replacing weaker images with stronger and locally relevant examples that demonstrate desired infill types.

8. Process, timing and next steps

What we heard:

• Several comments mentioned that the review period for Draft 1 was limited and made it difficult to coordinate detailed comments, especially while the City’s new Zoning By-law is still being finalized.

What we’re doing:

• Documenting concerns about timing and recognizing that zoning and glossary work are still evolving, which will be reflected in Draft 2.
• Coordinating the Draft 2 with key Zoning By-law milestones to avoid inconsistencies.
• Committing to review how the guidelines are applied over time, including for projects not subject to Site Plan Control, and to refine wording and supporting material if they are being used in ways that hinder, rather than help, the delivery of well-designed infill housing.

This feedback is directly shaping Draft 2 so that the guidelines are clearer, more flexible, easier to use, and better aligned with the City’s broader Official Plan goals: more housing, better design, healthier trees and landscapes, and walkable, complete neighbourhoods.