POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

Date: February 26, 2002
Author/Local: T. French/7041/

June Christy/6114
RTS No.: 02548

CC File No. 5301

Council: March 12, 2002

TO:	Vancouver City Council
FROM:	Director of City Plans
SUBJECT:	Amendments to the RT-7 and RT-8 District Schedules and to the Kitsilano RT-7 and RT-8 Guidelines

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT the Director of City Plans be instructed to make application to amend the RT-7 and RT-8 District Schedules of the Zoning and Development Bylaw to make housekeeping amendments, generally in accordance with Appendix A and that the application be referred to a public hearing;

FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to prepare the necessary amending by-law for consideration at the Public Hearing.

B. THAT the RT-7 and RT-8 guideline amendments be approved in principle, generally as outlined in Appendix B.

CONSIDERATION

C. THAT if A is approved, the application include amendments to permit an increase in maximum floor space to accommodate excavated crawl spaces, generally in accordance with Appendix C.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A, and puts forward C for consideration. The General Manager does not recommend C,however should Council wish, item C can be forwarded to the Public Hearing for consideration.

COUNCIL POLICY

There is no Council policy directly applicable to these amendments.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report recommends a number of housekeeping amendments to the RT-7 and RT-8 District Schedules of the Zoning and Development Bylaw (Appendix A). The Director of City Plans recommends these changes be considered at a public hearing. The report also outlines related guideline changes that will be brought forward for approval by Council at the time the zoning amendments are enacted (Appendix B).

This report also discusses, but does not recommend, one possible substantive change. This is in regard to a proposal to allow crawl spaces in pre-1990 developments to be excavated and have the resulting additional floor space allowed above the normal maximum FSR. Excavating crawl spaces to achieve additional floor space does not result in visible building bulk. However, the resulting "bonus" of occupiable space would be highly inequitable, with different owners benefiting to very different degrees. Staff has concluded that the proposal is contrary to the basic principle of equity for owners within a zone. The Director of City Plans does not recommend that the amendment to allow this increase in floor space be considered at a public hearing, but does offer the option as Consideration item C, should Council wish to do so.

BACKGROUND

In May 1994, following a lengthy local planning program begun in late 1989, portions of Kitsilano were rezoned from RT-4 and RT-5 to RT-7 and RT-8 respectively. Compared to the old schedules, the new schedules:

· put a much stronger emphasis on renovation and retention of older character buildings through incentives;
· encourage new development on sites with non-character buildings;
· ensure more neighbourly scale and placement of buildings; and
· continue to ensure compatible design through design guidelines.

While the main purpose of this report is to deal with housekeeping amendments based on experience with the schedules, some statistics on development activity are presented for information in Table 1. They indicate that, as was the intent of the zoning, the balance of development has swung towards retention/renovation.

Table 1: Development Permits in Kitsilano RT 7 and 8 Zoning Districts

	Before Zoning Change May 16, 1990-May 16, 1994 (4 years)		After Zoning Change May 17, 1994-July 1, 2001 (7 years)
	RT-4 (now RT-7)	RT-5 (now RT-8)	RT-7	RT-8
Total number of Development Permits
Retention/Renovation**	14 (37%)	44 (57%)	15 (52%)	57 (74%)
New Development*	23 (62%)	33 (43%)	14 (48%)	20 (26%)
Combined	37	77	29	77
Annual average number of Development Permits
Retention//Renovation**	3.5	11.00	2.11	8.00
New Development*	5.75	8.25	1.96	2.81
Combined	9.25.	19.25	4.07	10.81

* includes permits for new construction of 1 family, 2 family, and multifamily dwellings

** includes permits for additions/alteration, conversion, and/or infill to 1 family, 2 family, multiple conversion and multifamily dwellings

DISCUSSION

1. Recommended "Housekeeping" By-law Amendments:

Since the extensive changes to the District Schedules and Guidelines in 1994, some items requiring clarification and minor adjustments have come to light.

The following recommended amendments require a public hearing, and draft by-law wording is outlined in Appendix A:

· to Section 2.2, to increase the permissible size of accessory buildings [e.g. garages] by 6 m² to accommodate bicycle storage
· to Section 4.4, to insert a front yard relaxation clause
· to Section 4.7.1(b) to clarify that the floor space increase is intended to include space within the lowest floor existing as of July 24, 1990 (Note: if the amendment put forward as Consideration item C is forwarded to PublicHearing, and is approved, the wording of this section would instead reflect the wording proposed in Appendix C)
· to Section 4.7.1, to correct an inadvertent effect of the 1994 zoning change, and return to allowing non-dwelling uses [e.g. community centre, libraries, schools etc.] to obtain 0.60 FSR, as they could prior to 1994
· to Section 4.7.3, to allow parking space in an infill building to be excluded from FSR
· to Section 5.3, to add a standard clause allowing the Director of Planning to exclude parking space in principal buildings on corner sites.

2. Recommended Guideline Amendments:

The following amendments to the guidelines outlined in Appendix B should be approved in principle following the Public Hearing, and will be brought forward for formal Council adoption at the time the zoning amendments are enacted:

· to Section 2.1.1/2.2.1 Massing, to clarify limits on raising buildings
· to Section 4.7 Floor Space Ratio, as a consequence of the proposed change to S 4.7.1 noted above
· to Section 5.1 Renovation/Addition/Infill in Character with Original Building, to clarify expectations about replacement of existing building fabric, and application submission requirements
· to Section 5.2 to clarify clause regarding projecting balconies

3. Exclusion of Excavated Crawl Space Floor Area from FSR - Background and Current Situation

All zoning districts regulate the floor space ratio, or FSR. This is the ratio of the total floor area in a building to the site area. In calculating floor space, all floors with a ceiling height greater than 1.2 m (4 ft.) are counted, except undeveloped floor space above the highest storey having no permanent means of access other than a hatch. This means crawl spaces and inaccessible attics are not counted. Basements are counted, because they have ceiling heights greater than 1.2 m. (4 ft.). (Refer to Diagram 1).

In 1990, as part of an "interim" zoning in the Kitsilano RT areas during the planning program, a clause 4.7.1 (b) was added to and remains in the District Schedules to permit floor space beyond the normal FSR maximums "provided that there are no building additions and the floor space to be permitted is within the walls and roof of a building existing as of July 24, 1990...". This became known as the "attic grandfathering clause", although there are some other types of space that could be legally opened up this way, such as enclosed space under porches.

The purpose of the clause was described in the 1990 Council report as follows:

"Purpose: To encourage the retention of existing houses

THAT there be no limits to the amount of floor space developed within the existing walls and roofs of houses that were existing as of the amendment to the RT-4 and RT-5 District Schedules.

This action would permit legal access to space, within the existing walls and roofs of existing houses, that would not otherwise be legally accessible due to the exceeding of floor space ratio (FSR) provisions. Implementation would permit, for instance, legal access to attic space. In addition to increasing the viability of retaining existing dwellings, this action could make existing dwellings more suitable for accommodating larger families by permitting, for instance, an additional bedroom."

It also should be noted that the clause allowed not only older houses to legitimize attic space, but also newer duplex development. There are no statistics readily available on how often this clause has been used, but application processing staff report it has been minimal.

Diagram I

In 1994, a few years after the inclusion of clause 4.7.1 (b) the owner of a recent duplex built to the maximum FSR under RT-4 (now RT-7), excavated the crawl space to create a basement, and was reported to the City by neighbours. He sought to have the new floor space considered legal under clause 4.7.1(b), noting that it does not specifically say "existing floor, walls and roof". This was turned down by the Director of Planning on the grounds that it was clearly not within the intent of the clause. The owner sought Board of Variance approval, but a variance was not granted. Staff agreed with the owner to bring forward to Council the question of amending the zoning to allow excavated crawlspace floor space to exceed the normal maximums, at the time of this housekeeping report. In the intervening years no enforcement action has been taken.

4. Exclusion of Excavated Crawl Space Floor Area from FSR - and Recommendation Not to Support

Analysis: The main argument put forward by the proponent in support of allowing crawl spaces to be excavated, with the additional floor space permitted above the normal maximum FSR, is that it would not increase visible building bulk. This is certainly the case, and were this the only consideration it might be supportable.

However, one of the principles in zoning is that owners within a zoning district be treated equitably. While our discretionary zones may require a project to meet various guidelines before achieving the maximum discretionary floor space, a goal in drafting them is that ideally all owners should be able to achieve that maximum.

Table 2 summarizes the results of staff analysis of the effective "bonus" that different types of development can achieve under the current clause 4.7.1 (b), and under the proposal to allow excavated crawl spaces to exceed the normal maximums.

Table 2 : Comparison of effective "bonus" under current and revised clause 4.7.1(b)

	RT-7 (previously RT-4)		RT-8 (previously RT-5)
	Old House Renovation	`77-90 New Outright Development.	Old House Renovation	`77-90 New Outright Development	`77-90 New Discretionary Development
Normal Maximum FSR (up to 1990)	.60, with design review	.60, no design review	.75, with design review	.60, no design review	.75, with design review
Current clause 4.7.1 (b), attic space legitimized above normal maximum FSR
FSR "bonus" above normal	.22	.15	.14	.15	n.a. (usually have no attic)
Percent "bonus"	36%	25%	19%	25%
If the clause is extended to excavated crawl spaces: an additional +/- .30 FSR would be legitimized in `77-`90 developments.
Total FSR "bonus" above normal	.22 (basement already counted)	.45	.14 (basement already counted)	.45	.30
Total Percent "bonus"	36%	75%	19%	60%	40%

The table shows that the FSR "bonus" under the current clause 4.7.1.(b) ranges from 0.14 to 0.22. These "bonus" FSR numbers are approximate, and were obtained by looking at a range of attic floor space sizes in different forms of existing houses. (Duplexes built to .75 under RT-8 normally had little or no attic, so can't benefit from the clause).

If the clause 4.7.1(b) were extended to include excavated crawl spaces, the "bonus" for older houses with basements would stay the same since basements are already counted, but for `77-90 development with crawl spaces, the "bonus" would increase. If the "bonus" already achievable from the attic floor space is added to the "bonus" achievable in excavated crawlspaces, the total "bonus" ranges from .30 to .45. The newer buildings benefit a lot morethan the older houses. In addition, the buildings benefiting most are the "outright" .60 developments which were generally built without having to meet the design guidelines. The inequity is worsened by the fact that only buildings built before 1990 can use this clause.

Since floor space has economic value, the Director of City Plans feels the benefit to some owners over others would be very disproportionate, in addition to being provided for no commensurate public benefit as is the case with other bonuses or exclusions (e.g. better design, amenity space, building retention). There will be no additional housing units created. Therefore, revising clause 4.7.1 (b) is not supported, and this report does not recommend forwarding a revised clause to public hearing. However, if Council wishes to do so, they should approve Consideration Item C.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Staff met with representatives from the various affected Kitsilano residents' associations to advise them of the contents of this report and of the opportunity to address Council at the Public Hearing. Staff also met with the owner of the property involved in the crawlspace issue to advise him of our conclusions. Council may receive a request from him to approve recommendation item C.

CONCLUSION

This report contains a number of miscellaneous bylaw and guideline amendments to RT-7 and RT-8 to provide additional clarity in the interpretation of existing provisions. Staff recommend referral of the amendments in Appendix A to Public Hearing. The proposed guidelines amendments in Appendix B will be brought forward for Council adoption at the time of bylaw enactment, and are included for approval in principle, following the public hearing.

The Director of City Plans is not recommending referral to Public Hearing of a proposal to amend clause 4.7.1 (b) to allow crawl spaces to be excavated, and have the resulting additional floor space be permitted over the normal maximum FSR. However, a Consideration item is put forward in case Council wishes to do so.

- - - - -

APPENDIX A

RECOMMENDED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO RT-7 AND RT-8 DISTRICT SCHEDULES OF ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT BYLAW

[All additions are shown in bold italics. Deletions are shown in strikeout.]

Section 2.2. Uses

Change to increase the permissible size of accessory buildings in order to provide space for required bicycle parking, as in the similar RT-4, 5, 6 and 9 Districts.

Amendment:

2.2.A (d) the total floor area, measured to the extreme outer limits of the building, of all accessory buildings is not greater than 42 m² 48m²;

Section 4.4 Front Yard

Add an inadvertently omitted clause permitting Director of Planning discretion on the front yard.

Amendment:

4.4.2 The Director of Planning may permit a different minimum front yard than prescribed in section 4.4.1 provided he first considers all applicable policies and guidelines adopted by Council.

Section 4.7. 1 Floor Space Ratio increases

The proposed amendment to Section 4.7.1 (b) is to clarify that in order to qualify to be permitted above the maximum floor space, the additional floor space must be within the walls, roof, and lowest floor as they existed in July 1990. (This amendment is recommended by the Director of Current Planning. An alternative amendment to Section 4.7.1 (b) is presented as Consideration item B and Appendix C, but is not recommended.)

When the zoning was revised in 1994, the outright maximum floor space ratio was reduced to 0.40 in RT-7 and 0.50 in RT-8, with discretionary increases considered for dwelling uses. Due to an oversight, other uses [e.g. schools, community centres, libraries] that previously had been able to achieve 0.60 FAR outright were not made eligible for a discretionary increase, and were thus effectively down-zoned. The proposed amendment would allow them to achieve 0.60 FAR as before, would clarify clause 4.7.1 (b) and would renumber the clauses as necessary.

Amendment:

4.7.1 The floor space ratio shall not exceed 0.40*, except that:

(a) for one- and two-family dwellings, infill dwellings, and multiple conversion dwellings, the Director of Planning may, provided he first considers the intent of this Schedule and all applicable policies and guidelines adopted by Council and the submission of any advisory group, property owner or tenant.

(a) (i) permit...

(b) (ii) permit floor space beyond 0.60** provided that there are no building additions and the floor space to be permitted is within the lowest floor, walls and roof of a building existing as of July 24, 1990, except for floor space additions up to a maximum of 5.0 m², which may be the result of meeting the exiting requirements of the Building By-law or providing additional daylight into existing attic space;

(c) (iii) permit...

(d) (iv) on sites...

(b) for developments comprising other uses, the Director of Planning may permit an increase in the maximum floor space ratio to a maximum of 0.60, provided he first considers the intent of this Schedule and all applicable policies and guidelines adopted by Council and the submission of any advisory group, property owner or tenant.

* 0.50 in RT-8

**0.75 in RT-8

Section 4.7. 3 Floor Space Ratio exclusions

Revise the clause to allow parking space in infill buildings to be excluded from FAR, correcting an inadvertent omission.
Amendment:

(c) where floors are used for off-street parking and loading...which:

(i) are located in an accessory building located on the site in accordance with section 2.2.A of this schedule, or in an Infill building; or

Section 5 Relaxation of Regulations

Add a clause to allow floor space for parking within a principal building to be excluded from FAR in certain anomalous cases, as is done in RS districts which have similar regulations on placement of off-street parking.

Amendment:

5.3 The Director of Planning, in the case of a corner site, where the rear property line of a site adjoins, without the intervention of a lane, the side yard of a site in an R District, may relax section 4.7 of this Schedule to permit the exclusion of floor space used for off-street parking in the principal building up to a maximum of 42 m².

APPENDIX B

RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO KITSILANO RT-7 AND RT-8 GUIDELINES

[All additions are shown in bold italics. Deletions are shown in strikeout.]

The following recommended revisions to guidelines do not need to be referred to Public Hearing, and are included here for information. They will be brought forward for Council approval at the time of enactment of revisions to the Zoning and Development Bylaw.

Section 2.1.1/2.2.1 Massing

Add a clause to clarify limits on raising houses that are being retained and renovated.

· Some existing houses have basement headroom too low to allow the floor space to be fully usable. Often the renovation project will involve extensive reconstruction of the foundations. In these cases, digging deeper is preferred to raising the building to obtain the needed headroom. However, in some cases, significant foundation work may not be being undertaken. In these cases, raising the house may be considered provided it meets the following conditions.

The main floor should be raised by no more than .45 m; the main floor level should end up not more than 2 m above grade at the front; and the basement level should continue to conform to the requirements of the basement definition in the zoning bylaw.

Raising should not be considered where it will significantly alter old stone or brick foundation walls or pillars unless these can be added to with the same material, and maintaining their overall design and appearance.

Section 4.7 Floor Space Ratio

Revise the existing table to clarify discretionary FAR increases for dwelling uses; to correct clause numbering; and to add a clause regarding discretionary FAR increases for other uses.

4.7 Floor Space Ratio

(a) As provided for in the district schedule, The discretionary increases in floor space ratio provided for in the district schedule, may be considered as described in the following chart and notes:

APPENDIX B

Circumstances for FAR Increases for Various Uses

	TYPE OF SITE*
USE	Pre-Date	Post-date	Under-utilized	Severely Altered
Additions to any of the uses listed below existing legally as of May 17, 1995	_	_	_	_
MCD	_	_	_	_
Infill	_	_	_	_
One-Family Dwelling [new]		_	_	_
Two-Family Dwelling [new]		_	_	_
Multiple Dwelling [new]		_	_	_

* NOTES:

_: discretionary increase will be considered...

(b) In considering...

(b)(c) When additional...

(c)(d) The amount...

(e) The district schedule provides for a discretionary increase in floor space ratio to a total of 0.60 for developments other than those in (a) above. This is the same density potential these mainly conditional uses (e.g. schools, community centres, library) have historically been able to achieve in these and similar zones. While there are no further guidelines in this document for these uses because of their diversity in size, scale, age and style, their design should strive for neighbourliness and compatibility with their immediate surroundings.

Section 5 Architectural Components

Clarify expectations regarding replacement of exterior building fabric in renovations.

5.1 Renovation/Addition/Infill in Character with Original Building

General Principles

(a) Where a renovation is occurring to a pre-date building, the new architectural components should maintain the original character of the building. The original building fabric should be retained where feasible. However, it is recognized that replacement of a good deal of material may be necessary in some cases, particularly with smaller houses. The amount of original exterior building fabric that is to be replaced is not limited, as long as it is replaced in a manner closely similar to the original, as set out in the following guidelines. Where extensive replacement is to occur, the City may require as a condition prior to issuance of a development permit, an assurance letter and retention drawings.

.

Section 5.2 New Development to "Compatible Appearance"

Clarification regarding projecting balconies.

5.2.4 Balconies and Decks

(a) Projecting balconies and decks located on the front facade are not part of the traditional character... Small balconies projecting "french" balconies up to 0.6 m. may also be acceptable...

APPENDIX C

TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE RT-7 AND RT-8 DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT BYLAW - NOT RECOMMENDED

[All additions are shown in bold italics. Deletions are shown in strikeout.]

Section 4.7.1 Floor Space Ratio increases
Amendment:

4.7.1 The floor space ratio shall not exceed 0.40*, except that:

(a) for one- and two-family dwellings, infill dwellings, and multiple conversion dwellings, the Director of Planning may, provided he first considers the intent of this Schedule and all applicable policies and guidelines adopted by Council and the submission of any advisory group, property owner or tenant

(i) permit an increase in the maximum floor space ratio to a maximum of 0.60.

(ii) permit floor space beyond 0.60** in a building existing as of July 24, 1990 provided there are no building additions and the floor space to be permitted meets one or both of the following:

(a) is within the lowest floor, walls and roof that existed as of that date;

(b) is newly created by lowering of that lowest floor.

further provided that there are no building additions except for floor space additions up to a maximum of 5.0 m2, which may be the result of meeting the exiting requirements of the Building By-law or providing additional daylight into existing attic space.

(iii) permit...

(iv) on sites where...

(b) for developments comprising other uses, the Director of Planning may permit an increase in the maximum floor space ratio to a maximum of 0.60, provided he first considers the intent of this Schedule and all applicable policies and guidelines adopted by Council and the submission of any advisory group, property owner or tenant.

* .50 in RT-8

** .75 in RT-8

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver