Secondary Suites

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

as long as they meet code, i see no problem with having secondary suites anywhere in the city.

[Riise]

Most of the arguments that I hear against allowing ADUs city-wide is that they will affect and change the character of the community (i.e. parking and density) and people invested in single-family neighbourhoods. With the former, I believe that if ADUs are built in an appropriate fashion, which could be regulated by design guidelines and the like, they won't change the character of what are currently single-family neighbhourhoods as: a) parking problems could easily be mitigated; b) those same parking concerns are prevalent in single-family neighbourhoods without ADUs so they could actually be considered as part the potential character of single-family neighbourhoods; and c) two-family plots are hardly a huge change from single-family plots. As such, change to the character of a neighbourhood is a material concern but in this case I would not give it much weight as the change is not substantial.

With regards to buying into single-family neighbourhoods and ADUs decreasing property values, that is not a material consideration and not something the City needs to take into account during the decision making process. Additionally, who is to say the increase in density would not add value to properties as the area would be able to support additional services.

[freeweed]

Just don't allow overnight on-street parking (or better, move to calendar parking) and all parking issues go away.

You wanna own a vehicle? Then you can afford to pay for space to put it, whether it's on your own property or elsewhere.

Incidentally, a lot of the people who will complain about the SFH character changing are not generally worried about the increased density. What they're worried about is having a ton of *renters* in the neighbourhood. Yes, theoretically every house in a SFH neighbourhood could be rented out today, but in practice you don't see more than a handful. Secondary suites by design are occupied by renters for the most part.

Now, as to why that would be an issue... I won't touch this one with a 10-foot pole.

[Policy Wonk]

Now, as to why that would be an issue... I won't touch this one with a 10-foot pole.

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/6182.jpg

[mr.steevo]

Hi,

I just find basement suites so. damn. depressing.

I know I'm not the only one.

s.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[mr.steevo]

Touche´

However, I doubt that those sleeping under a bridge are there because there just weren't enough secondary suites in the city.

s.

[YYCguys]

What is calendar parking?

Also, here in Airdrie, there is a neighborhood called "The Canals" and some of the SFH stock have carriage houses, with the garage parking on the main level and a really nice apartment above. It looks great! And doesn't detract from the character of the neighborhood!

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[mr.steevo]

Also, here in Airdrie, there is a neighborhood called "The Canals" and some of the SFH stock have carriage houses, with the garage parking on the main level and a really nice apartment above. It looks great! And doesn't detract from the character of the neighborhood!

Hi,

I have seen a similar idea in McKenzie Towne. Briefly looking at the City of Calgary's planning department website I've found that these types of garages are not allowed (2nd floors are not allowed). I hadn't looked any further than a passing glance. If we weren't parking CO2 emitting vehicles in the garage I bet the city would be much more open to the concept.

I've lived in houses that had the main floor as one residence and the second floor as a second residence. Not the same thing, but a good option. Victoria has large 100 year old houses that have been converted to 3 or 4 condominium units, so clearly that option is viable if the house/land is large enough.

s.

[gorebug]

Hi,

I have seen a similar idea in McKenzie Towne. Briefly looking at the City of Calgary's planning department website I've found that these types of garages are not allowed (2nd floors are not allowed). I hadn't looked any further than a passing glance. If we weren't parking CO2 emitting vehicles in the garage I bet the city would be much more open to the concept.

I've lived in houses that had the main floor as one residence and the second floor as a second residence. Not the same thing, but a good option. Victoria has large 100 year old houses that have been converted to 3 or 4 condominium units, so clearly that option is viable if the house/land is large enough.

s.

I am in MacKenzie Towne and completed my Carriage Suite in June.

The lots needed to be zoned R2, and the maximum allowable floor space is 576ft^2; although you can get some additional space by adding a third story loft (if you can keep it under the height restrictions).

The economics are wonderful. We were able to build ours for right around $100k, and when you consider that to build an equivalent garage (large, heated, great electrical service, running water and sewer) would cost over $30k, the rent (north of $1,100/mos) provides a terrific return on capital.

My understanding is that the city is looking at being more flexible in allowing these types of structures to be built in established neighbourhoods, but I have no insight on how that has translated into the real world.

~gorebug

[mr.steevo]

I am in MacKenzie Towne and completed my Carriage Suite in June.

Hi,

My apologizes for mis-spelling your neighbourhood.

I'm encouraged to hear that the city is still allowing this type of construction. I am thinking of building a garage on my property in the next few years and would love to take advantage of having living space above it. When the time comes I will investigate further.

$1100/mth for a 576sq/ft living space? Or does that include the entire garage?

s.

[hulkrogan]

After owning an investment property for a year with a basement suite, I can easily see why people don't want the types of people that often rent them in their neighbourhood.

[/bitter landlord with two unemployed tenants]

[freeweed]

After owning an investment property for a year with a basement suite, I can easily see why people don't want the types of people that often rent them in their neighbourhood.

[/bitter landlord with two unemployed tenants]

Yeah, as a young'un I was exposed to a lot of landlords and heard all the stories. I wouldn't wish the (landlord) lifestyle on my worst enemy.

Of course, the bad apples really do spoil it for the rest of us. Back in my renting days, I actually had a landlord try to enforce a "no visitors" policy. Because he wanted to seem "tough" he pretty much ran this zero-tolerance - I asked him if my parents were allowed to visit from out of town, or would I have to meet up with them somewhere else just to talk. He never gave me an answer, really, just repeated his policy.

Needless to say we violated that rule on a regular basis but still - just how bad were some of his previous tenants???

[gorebug]

Hi,

My apologizes for mis-spelling your neighbourhood.

I'm encouraged to hear that the city is still allowing this type of construction. I am thinking of building a garage on my property in the next few years and would love to take advantage of having living space above it. When the time comes I will investigate further.

$1100/mth for a 576sq/ft living space? Or does that include the entire garage?

s.

I miss-spell the community name about half the time, so no worries.

I actually am getting more than $1,100 right now and it does not include any garage space, although does include all utilities other than telephone. There is uncovered parking available right beside the garage.

While I am sure I will eventually have landlord/tenant troubles, the set up is nice because we (and our tenant) have much more privacy than a basement set-up, yet is close enough for me to have a good idea on what is going on.

[hulkrogan]

Yeah, as a young'un I was exposed to a lot of landlords and heard all the stories. I wouldn't wish the (landlord) lifestyle on my worst enemy.

Of course, the bad apples really do spoil it for the rest of us. Back in my renting days, I actually had a landlord try to enforce a "no visitors" policy. Because he wanted to seem "tough" he pretty much ran this zero-tolerance - I asked him if my parents were allowed to visit from out of town, or would I have to meet up with them somewhere else just to talk. He never gave me an answer, really, just repeated his policy.

Needless to say we violated that rule on a regular basis but still - just how bad were some of his previous tenants???


I'm guessing you were a younger guy. I will be in future looking for younger tenants, because they actually have a reason to be renting a basement. If someone is 50 and renting a basement, the odds are a lot higher they don't have their life together.

[freeweed]

I'm guessing you were a younger guy. I will be in future looking for younger tenants, because they actually have a reason to be renting a basement. If someone is 50 and renting a basement, the odds are a lot higher they don't have their life together.

If by "younger" you include "nearly 30". :P

Ironically, this landlord was much harder on the younger tenants - assuming excess partying I guess? When he had older types renting he always figured they were responsible...

[hulkrogan]

If by "younger" you include "nearly 30". :P

Ironically, this landlord was much harder on the younger tenants - assuming excess partying I guess? When he had older types renting he always figured they were responsible...

Haha, yes I do. Even though I'm around the same age and don't consider myself "younger" I make a nice double standard for tenants.

Young couples are the jackpot. No parties, and at least one of them usually has an interest in keeping the place up.

[Policy Wonk]

just how bad were some of his previous tenants???

My brother (a clean cut professional) has always keep a little place in Edmonton and has more often than not been treated like he is a meth mouthed rig pig by landlords.

His last landlord even objected to his girlfriend staying overnight - over occupancy!

[Slug]

Haha, yes I do. Even though I'm around the same age and don't consider myself "younger" I make a nice double standard for tenants.

Young couples are the jackpot. No parties, and at least one of them usually has an interest in keeping the place up.

So that is why a buddy of mine has kept delaying his house warming party. I guess the stories of the last house warming party I attended (cops called 3 times) didn't jive with him.

[jeffwhit]

I already posted this in the water cooler thread, but frink pointed me here:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_05XmSc-wMJE/S102GqO0pFI/AAAAAAAABbg/pRNULNdje_Q/s800/crazy%20letter.jpg

That was written by the lunatic who lives across the street from me. Keep in mind, this is a woman who will call parking enforcement on cars she doesn't recognize that are legally parked on the street in the evening (my street has a 2 hour limit between 8 and 5 or permit required.) Yes, if you come visit me or my neighbours she may try to have you towed. I was having a small backyard bbq this summer, as was my neighbour. She came into his yard demanding to know who's car was parked in front of his house.


Anyway, there's a little more context on the author.

As for my thoughts... Of course it's beyond ludicrous to assume that allowing secondary suites is going to mean the city gestapo is going to forceably install one in your basement after they tear down your garage and replace it with a shanty. Come on. I support allowing secondary suites as well as carriage house type residences in all Calgary neighbourhoods. We're only a couple hundred feet from the core here, and directly connected to a transit line, it makes a lot of sense.

[Vascilli]

I already posted this in the water cooler thread, but frink pointed me here:

That was written by the lunatic who lives across the street from me. Keep in mind, this is a woman who will call parking enforcement on cars she doesn't recognize that are legally parked on the street in the evening (my street has a 2 hour limit between 8 and 5 or permit required.) Yes, if you come visit me or my neighbours she may try to have you towed. I was having a small backyard bbq this summer, as was my neighbour. She came into his yard demanding to know who's car was parked in front of his house.


Anyway, there's a little more context on the author.

As for my thoughts... Of course it's beyond ludicrous to assume that allowing secondary suites is going to mean the city gestapo is going to forceably install one in your basement after they tear down your garage and replace it with a shanty. Come on. I support allowing secondary suites as well as carriage house type residences in all Calgary neighbourhoods. We're only a couple hundred feet from the core here, and directly connected to a transit line, it makes a lot of sense.

I think I know where our next SSP meeting is. :hmmm:

[jeffwhit]

This topic comes up periodically on this forum and in Calgary municipal politics and media. Looks like it may rear its head again, so I figured this may be a good opportunity to start up a new thread.

There's an information session upcoming for Hillhurst/Sunnyside as part of the TOD Planning and ARP amendment process:

Link (http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_780_237_0_43/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Business+Units/Development+and+Building+Approvals+and+Land+Use+Planning+and+Policy/Land+Use+Planning/Current+Studies+and+Ongoing+Activities/Transit+Oriented+Development+TOD/Hillhurst+Sunnyside+Project/Hillhurst+Sunnyside+Project.htm)

So what are your thoughts on secondary suites, either in the context of Hillhurst/Sunnyside or Calgary in general?
frink, I am a little confused by whether or not you're a HH/SS resident or not? The way you worded it in the other thread "as a resident of Sunnyside" I wasn't sure if you were referring to me or to yourself.

I received a counter to the above scanned letter today from a different neighbour in my mailbox that was rational, reasoned and only used 1 font size. Did this happen to be you?

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[MichaelS]

I received a counter to the above scanned letter today from a different neighbour in my mailbox that was rational, reasoned and only used 1 font size.

Would you be willing to share this other letter with us as well?

[jeffwhit]

Would you be willing to share this other letter with us as well?
Yeah, I'll get around to it later, it's not all that interesting.

[MichaelS]

^ No rush, just wanting to see the counter argument in the debate.

[jeffwhit]

^ No rush, just wanting to see the counter argument in the debate.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_05XmSc-wMJE/S2D21krLxFI/AAAAAAAABcE/R_h-spe-Hqc/s800/reasonable%20letter.jpg

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[MichaelS]

Thanks Jeff.

[octothorp]

Jeff, we must be neighbours; you're across the street from the letter-writer, and I'm across the back alley (and down a few doors) from them.

Anyway, I agree with your thoughts. I love living in a lower density inner-city neighbourhood, but I also realize that one can't complain against sprawl and yet refuse change in one's own neighbourhood; a little bit of added density won't hurt Sunnyside at all.

Edit: as far as I can tell, the sort of structures she's protesting against are ones like this one over on 6th; personally, I think they can be quite nice and can keep within Sunnyside's character:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=746+5A+St+NW,+Calgary,+Alberta&sll=51.055149,-114.062438&sspn=0.395351,0.977783&gl=ca&g=Calgary,+AB&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=746+5A+St+NW,+Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&ll=51.058186,-114.077856&spn=0.012354,0.030556&z=15&layer=c&cbll=51.058101,-114.077729&panoid=RagYrnYDSVsU6M7O6OD-7Q&cbp=12,86.26,,0,1.84

[LFRENCH]

any word how the Hillhurst/Sunnyside meeting went?

here is a example from my hometown of increasing density without destroying the neighbourhood:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&source=hp&q=victoria&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Victoria,+Capital+Regional+District,+British+Columbia&ll=48.42028,-123.377801&spn=0.002093,0.004823&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=48.420228,-123.377697&panoid=AXuJnwCYUmZGssmjHS6nrA&cbp=12,225.97,,1,1.44

[Riise]

She's opposed to those? Towering monstrosities eh?

Anyway, I like this comment I found one the Herald's site:

I am a widow living by myself in a half-duplex, and am often out of town for work. I have a renter downstairs who is a wonderful single woman, also older, who works in a field our society happens to grossly undervalue: a day care & after school program in our neighbourhood. My transit-using renter loves the garden, appreciates the large suite with bedrooms for her grandchildren to visit, and is an inspiration to me in terms of being a good citizen very active in the volunteer sector, and who trades gardening tips with our neighbours.

I find it baffling that this arrangement which suits us - where we each have our own kitchen and own space - is considered something that should be illegal. Two ladies quietly preparing toast in their own kitchens and their own 1000 square foot, 3 bedrom apartments? What does the city say? Send out the bylaw officers and shut this down immediately to stop this! All single people should be forced to live in apartment buildings and only permitted to enjoy gardens if they are in the stage of life and inclination to have nuclear families. All widows who prefer to provide affordable housing to others and can't afford to keep their homes on their own should be forced to sell immediately to families of the correct size and composition.

Oh, and she doesn't drive, I'm usually out of town, so at most there is one car associated with our home, parked neatly in the double garage.

We're really destroying the neighbourhood, I know. Keeps me up at night, the guilt.

[jeffwhit]

Jeff, we must be neighbours; you're across the street from the letter-writer, and I'm across the back alley (and down a few doors) from them.

Anyway, I agree with your thoughts. I love living in a lower density inner-city neighbourhood, but I also realize that one can't complain against sprawl and yet refuse change in one's own neighbourhood; a little bit of added density won't hurt Sunnyside at all.

Edit: as far as I can tell, the sort of structures she's protesting against are ones like this one over on 6th; personally, I think they can be quite nice and can keep within Sunnyside's character:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=746+5A+St+NW,+Calgary,+Alberta&sll=51.055149,-114.062438&sspn=0.395351,0.977783&gl=ca&g=Calgary,+AB&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=746+5A+St+NW,+Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&ll=51.058186,-114.077856&spn=0.012354,0.030556&z=15&layer=c&cbll=51.058101,-114.077729&panoid=RagYrnYDSVsU6M7O6OD-7Q&cbp=12,86.26,,0,1.84

To be honest, she's against pretty much anything. I also like that little garage unit, so yes, sounds like we're just separated by one street, with a lunatic guarding the way. You maybe have seen me wheeling a giagantic instrument down 2nd ave.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[You Need A Thneed]

Secondary thoughts, Part 1
By Jason Markusoff Wed, May 12 2010

An annex of sorts to our latest story about Calgary secondary suite policy...

Grants conditionally approved for new secondary suites in incentive program's first year: 63

Target for annual suite creation for Calgary's 10-year plan to end homelessness : 200

Number of development applications for secondary suites (or suite-like basement "duplexes") since introduction of new land-use bylaw, June 1998 2008: 72

Develpment permits granted for suites or duplexes since then: 46

Number of techinically illegal suites requested or ordered to shut down by city inspectors last year: 336

% of Calgarians who strongly or somewhat support new secondary suites with regulation: 84*

% who support making existing suites legal: 85*

% who support suites in their own neighbourhoods: 76*

* = Mustel Group poll for City of Calgary. 501 respondents. Results considered accurate within 4.4 percentage points, 19 times out of 20

Source: City of Calgary


So... The city's plan to end homelessness is to shut down 6 times as many suites as they approve new ones?

Makes sense to me. :rolleyes:

46 DPs issued in two years, shutting down 300 some per year.

Make them legal, then people will get permits and build them properly! At least a much higher percentage of them.

When we were looking at homes to buy a few years ago, there was some real garbage the people were calling a basement suite.

[jeffwhit]

I swear the reason these suites are not getting approved is because someone in city hall is worried Rick Bell will say something mean about them, like calling them silly.

[bob1954]

This debate is rediculous!! If any of you guys get's to Chicago, look at large percentage of property's that have these "secondary suites" or "inlaw houses" on the same narrow lot. The city kept a lot of people in the city because these "suites" gave people an affordible option, that otherwise might have had to leave or live in a lees desireable are! Calgary is becoming a large city sounds like some folks in govn't need to start realizing this.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[You Need A Thneed]

UPDATED Council, barely flinching, offers blanket rezoning for secondary suites in several standalone-house districts.

By JASON MARKUSOFF MON, JUL 26 2010

This crop of aldermen have repeatedly voted against blanket rezoning or even one-off rezoning to allow secondary suites in R-1 and R-C1 zone districts which are designed for single-family houses.

But they have just -- perhaps unwittingly, but i'm not sure -- passed a bylaw create allowing the suites everywhere zoned R-1N and R-C1N, which is also designed for single-family houses.The difference the "N" makes? It signifies narrow lots, particularly in Calgary's 1980s and 1990s neighbourhoods. The vote was unanimous, and the bylaw changes take effect now.

So in areas like this sardine-like one in Royal Oak and also this area in Bridlewood. But not this more spacious area in University Heights right next to University of Calgary -- because it's R-C1 and council specifically did not want secondary suites in areas like that one that were built for single-family houses. (click on links for satellite views of those areas.)

In good news for other duplex-zoned areas like Inglewood and Sunnyside, council's bylaw amendments greatly reduced the minimum property width needed to develop a legal secondary suite.

What an odd way to wrap up the 2007-2010 council session.

UPDATE -- After council, I spoke to one aldermen about the change. The member didn't seem aware that that's what council had done... More on this possible mess Tuesday.

Link (http://communities.canada.com/calgaryherald/blogs/hallmonitor/archive/2010/07/26/council-barely-flinching-offers-blanket-rezoning-for-secondary-suites-in-several-standalone-house-districts.aspx)

[Policy Wonk]

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/fist-yesyes.gif http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/fist-yesyes.gif http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/fist-yesyes.gif The city finally shut down the flophouse in my neighborhood, the shitstains who lived there are gone along with their dozen odd pickup trucks and 1990's Sunfires.

[freeweed]

If there wasn't a Camaro on cinderblocks you have nothing to complain about.

Although... 1990s Sunfires and Cavaliers - might be the modern equivalent. Because I totally know what you mean. :haha:

[Policy Wonk]

I'm just glad their gone, I was seriously contemplating moving come summer.

Two down, one to go.

[kw5150]

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/fist-yesyes.gif http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/fist-yesyes.gif http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/fist-yesyes.gif The city finally shut down the flophouse in my neighborhood, the shitstains who lived there are gone along with their dozen odd pickup trucks and 1990's Sunfires.

Well you must be happy they are approving secondary suites soon?

[Policy Wonk]

No, I am dead set against secondary suites in most situations having suffered the illegal ones around here for some time.

[freeweed]

No, I am dead set against secondary suites in most situations having suffered the illegal ones around here for some time.

I don't know if secondary suites make things worse, but I completely understand. Living next to trash renters is just about the worst possible situation. We moved very specifically because of the losers next door. They've helped shape my opinion on open fires in an urban setting, noise bylaws, alcohol restrictions, and thoughts towards mandating that all U-Haul vehicles have automatic ignition shut-off after 10pm.

I'm sure there are owners who live like complete inconsiderate savages somewhere, but I've never lived by them. It's always renters - and most often, renters who are living in a place cheaper than the average. I pray that these secondary suites aren't specifically being introduced just to lower rents.

[MalcolmTucker]

As renters would have more rights living in a legal suite, not being under threat of eviction at any time, or threat of expulsion by order of the state, the rent should be higher in legal suites.

That being said, increasing transparency on how many suites are available in the rental market could lower prices, as could encouraging those who avoid putting in suites today due to legal aspects.

[kw5150]

No, I am dead set against secondary suites in most situations having suffered the illegal ones around here for some time.

Its called living in a city. This isn't disneyland. Dont let a couple of bad renters push you to make a choice that could affect thousands. I have always been a good renter. I cant wait until they start approving these things.

[Policy Wonk]

There are two separate issues, my primary objection to secondary suites is it will create parking hell in many neighbourhoods. One of my friends lives near the North Hill LRT station and the existing illegal tenants have taken up every square inch of street parking. One of the arguments for secondary suites is these people will supposedly be living car-free, which is ridiculous.

The fact my former neighbours were white trash vermin was a separate issue entirely.

The people who will be building out tangible numbers of secondary suites are going to be professional investors looking to double their tenants. They will be built in existing rental intensive areas and will create parking hell. I don't anticipate very many secondary suites will be popping up in owner-occupied dwellings.

[freeweed]

The people who will be building out tangible numbers of secondary suites are going to be professional investors looking to double their tenants. They will be built in existing rental intensive areas and will create parking hell. I don't anticipate very many secondary suites will be popping up in owner-occupied dwellings.

Yeah, I also find it hard to picture people in my neighbourhood (for example) putting in secondary suites in their own homes. I sure can see a lot of duplexes becoming 4-plexes, however. That sort of thing.

[kw5150]

There are two separate issues, my primary objection to secondary suites is it will create parking hell in many neighbourhoods. One of my friends lives near the North Hill LRT station and the existing illegal tenants have taken up every square inch of street parking. One of the arguments for secondary suites is these people will supposedly be living car-free, which is ridiculous.

The fact my former neighbours were white trash vermin was a separate issue entirely.

The people who will be building out tangible numbers of secondary suites are going to be professional investors looking to double their tenants. They will be built in existing rental intensive areas and will create parking hell. I don't anticipate very many secondary suites will be popping up in owner-occupied dwellings.

The church people that came to my neighborhood did more of a number on the parking stalls than a bunch of renters. Parking will always be an issue in the city. Its a good thing Calgary has such wide roads and we have room for all of these extra cars that will soon be showing up in neighborhoods.

[MalcolmTucker]

I think with the parking requirement secondary suites will end up passing. That being said if there are too many cars parked on the street the street can request pass parking no?

[LFRENCH]

There are two separate issues, my primary objection to secondary suites is it will create parking hell in many neighbourhoods. One of my friends lives near the North Hill LRT station and the existing illegal tenants have taken up every square inch of street parking. One of the arguments for secondary suites is these people will supposedly be living car-free, which is ridiculous.

I live half a block from North Hill LRT( Lion's Park) and parking is no such issue. If anything the annoyance is more the people going to the Yoga Shala with their mats parking in front of my house.

Sure there might be some people who complain about parking around here, but perhaps they need to learn to parallel park.

[mersar]

I think with the parking requirement secondary suites will end up passing. That being said if there are too many cars parked on the street the street can request pass parking no?

Yep, but unless they adjust the rules you can walk into the CPA office with your lease and your vehicle registration showing you live on the street and get a permit. That may help a bit, but if every renter goes and gets a permit you'll be back to square one.

[DizzyEdge]

Yep, but unless they adjust the rules you can walk into the CPA office with your lease and your vehicle registration showing you live on the street and get a permit. That may help a bit, but if every renter goes and gets a permit you'll be back to square one.

Have a rule of only allowing X number of passes per address, dependant on lot width?

[Policy Wonk]

Well, I guess you could do that - or you could just allow or disallow secondary suites based on a parking survey of the immediate area on a case-by-case basis.

[DizzyEdge]

One problem with the "must provide a parking space" for secondary suites is that there seems to be no concern about houses that have no on-property parking to begin with, ie a house with no on-property parking that wants to be a 2-suite house only needs one spot to be approved (Am I wrong?). If this is the case, perhaps the rule should be that if you want to put in a secondary suite, there must be 2 spots total on the lot.

A document from Coquitlam says "You must provide one extra parking space for the suite in addition to the two spaces already required for the main house on the lot."

Looks like the 2 spots is the bylaw for new construction in Coquitlam.

Lets say a current standard exists in Calgary that 2 spaces are required for a new house.
If your house is older than that standard, it's grandfathered in.
If you suite your house, it's no longer grandfathered, and you need 3 spots total, 2 for the main, 1 for the suite.

[DizzyEdge]

^^^ any thoughts on that?

[MalcolmTucker]

I would say Calgary better look into a bylaw for preventing yard conversions to parking areas if a parking requirement is put in. Some areas of Toronto have lost lawns as upzoning has happened.

Not that I am overly worried about lost lawns - just needs some process.

[freeweed]

I would say Calgary better look into a bylaw for preventing yard conversions to parking areas if a parking requirement is put in. Some areas of Toronto have lost lawns as upzoning has happened.

Not that I am overly worried about lost lawns - just needs some process.

Yeah, I've noticed a ton of that in Toronto. I'm with you though - while it looks a bit shocking at first to see zero lawn space, to be honest who cares? If you want a lawn, buy a house with one. If you want parking, buy that.

Related question - many people in the suburbs on corner lots convert part of their lawn to a trailer pad for large RV type units. Is this in any way regulated/controlled/restricted? Isn't this basically the same thing?

[mersar]

Yeah, I've noticed a ton of that in Toronto. I'm with you though - while it looks a bit shocking at first to see zero lawn space, to be honest who cares? If you want a lawn, buy a house with one. If you want parking, buy that.

Related question - many people in the suburbs on corner lots convert part of their lawn to a trailer pad for large RV type units. Is this in any way regulated/controlled/restricted? Isn't this basically the same thing?

Not sure what the rules in the city are, but I know that Cochrane has a bylaw that essentially bans parking of RV's on a residential property between Oct 1 and Apr 1, even if its a parking pad off a back lane. And you also can't park them on the street for more then 72 hours at any time of the year (this latter part I believe the city also has a bylaw doing similar). So regulation is possible, not sure what the city has in terms of rules though.


As for converting lawn space into parking pads, I believe its pretty doable, though you do have to abide by a number of rules on setbacks and access (so putting a parking pad in your front lawn may be harder then it sounds depending on what road you live on)

[LFRENCH]

anyone going to the LPT tomorrow morning? I will hopefully be there

[MalcolmTucker]

So we have an answer from the city lawyer:
markusoff (http://twitter.com/markusoff)
city lawyer: owner-occupied suite rule murky in law, nightmare in enforcement #suiteyyc (http://twitter.com/search?q=%23suiteyyc)

[You Need A Thneed]

Alderwoman Diane Colley-Urquhart appears to be blatently lying on twitter, saying that the crowd at the secondary suites open house last night was overwhelmingly against suites. All those in attendance, including the Mayor, seem to wholeheartedly disagree.

Apparently she hasn't read her own survey, either, considering it gives fairly overwhelming support in favour of legalized suites.

[danofkent]

Yeah, I've noticed a ton of that in Toronto. I'm with you though - while it looks a bit shocking at first to see zero lawn space, to be honest who cares? If you want a lawn, buy a house with one. If you want parking, buy that.

Related question - many people in the suburbs on corner lots convert part of their lawn to a trailer pad for large RV type units. Is this in any way regulated/controlled/restricted? Isn't this basically the same thing?

The loss of lawn space has a knock on impact. Britain allowed development in peoples' yards in the 1980s, and reversed that position last year. Lawns provide drainage, which concrete does not. In areas of Britain where so-called "garden-grabbing" has been rampant, flooding has become a real problem.

It's true that RV parking areas are unrestricted, but a policy which encourages suites and requires associated parking will make the situation more common. Moreover, I gather that garden suites are also permitted under the proposals, and they potentially take up even more potential drainage space.

[DizzyEdge]

Yeah, I've noticed a ton of that in Toronto. I'm with you though - while it looks a bit shocking at first to see zero lawn space, to be honest who cares? If you want a lawn, buy a house with one. If you want parking, buy that.

Related question - many people in the suburbs on corner lots convert part of their lawn to a trailer pad for large RV type units. Is this in any way regulated/controlled/restricted? Isn't this basically the same thing?

But....

WHERE WILL THE CHILDREN PLAY

[MalcolmTucker]

Thought I would share a page of the poll we had done during the 2007 municipal election on secondary suites with Ward by Ward breakdowns. The wards have around a 11% plus or minus (assuming 75,000 people per ward), whereas the entire sample has a 3.1% plus or minus.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6505/secondarysuitesses.jpg

[monocle]

Does anyone have the Cole's notes from the 12 hour Council meeting?

Any guesses on what we will end up with, regarding SS?

[You Need A Thneed]

^No city wide suites now, that will wait until December or next year, when two suite building alderman can again vote.

Suites became permitted where they were before discretionary. (removing the development permit stage, basically)

City is going to recommend building code updates to make the cost of a suite a little bit less.

[Wooster]

We'll get there.

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah, is a big step. In the last few days I remember seeing that people had been waiting almost a year for their DPs in their R-2 zones for suites. Now all they need is DPs right? Big progress and lays an easy framework to expand it either for proximity zones or blanket rezoning.

Sometimes if you can't make a touchdown, a first down is just as important.

[You Need A Thneed]

double post

[You Need A Thneed]

Yeah, is a big step. In the last few days I remember seeing that people had been waiting almost a year for their DPs in their R-2 zones for suites. Now all they need is DPs right? Big progress and lays an easy framework to expand it either for proximity zones or blanket rezoning.

Sometimes if you can't make a touchdown, a first down is just as important.

Yup, they just need BPs now. For the affected areas, it's a huge step. Getting a BP is pretty easy, and there is no question about whether it will be able to be approved. If it meets code, you can build it.

[Cage]

Overall good debate from Council on secondary suites. Some points that I liked:
- Recognition the "master plan" proposal did not adequately have a an enforcement provision for illegal secondary suites. I strongly believe that enforcement of illegal safety suites is a major point of any secondary suite discussion.
- Recognition that the mast plan did not change much in other Canadian cities. More appropriately, as Brian Pincott mention in the papers, Calgarians are not going to spend 25-50k to get the current nonconforming suites legalized.
- best line goes to Brian Pincott "If Calgary did it, it won’t destroy neighbourhoods or be a "panacea" for affordable housing" (Calgary Herald).

The study on safety code changes for the province's consideration will be very interesting. I suspect the changes will be quite minor and not affect the overall cost of building a safe secondary suite.

Keating's and Mar's opinion in December will be great for debate purposes. Convention wisdom is that Ketting and Mar will side with the pro-secondary suite everywhere crowd. However I suspect at least one of the Alderman to take the opinion that they were able to jump through the cities regulations with little fuss, therefore rules for safety code should stay in their entirety and present system would only require minor adjustments (e.g. I did it so anybody can do it).

So overall it looks like late 2012 or early 2013 is the dates when Secondary Suite changes could take effect. My timeline is based on assumptions the studies are complete by November/December 2011 and council starts to provide direction on revised bylaws in first half 2012 for a late 2012 implementation. Considering civic politics timeline is longer than average, this takes the City to about early 2013. That said if Council hinges the Secondary Suites changes to provincial safety code changes, it could be 2014 or 2015 before Secondary Suites come into effect. Nenshi's relection campaign will probably get some cost savings for not having to invent another Better Idea #1, just use the previous materials and talking points.

[monocle]

Thanks guys.
Interesting issue, especially the enforcement angle. I wonder if they'll have to set up a Hotline for all the pissed off renters in sub-standard suites.

[Jimby]

what about secondary homes in lanes and backyards and above garages?

[You Need A Thneed]

what about secondary homes in lanes and backyards and above garages?

They are always going to be a discretionary use, and they are legal anywhere secondary suites are legal.