Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

TO:

Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

FROM:

Director of City Plans, in consultation with the Manager of the Housing Centre

SUBJECT:

C-2 Zoning Review - Part 1: Consultant's Recommendations

 

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

The four completed Community Visions all contain a Council-adopted Direction that "The design of mixed use development should be improved " including less bulky appearance, reduced impact on neighbours, more planting in setbacks and on terraces. Levels of approval were as follows:

SUMMARY AND PURPOSE

The citywide C-2 zone covers 1500 parcels along arterials, and permits 4 storey mixed residential/commercial, or all-commercial, development. This report presents the C-2 Zoning Review: Part 1 consultant study recommendations for changes to the C-2 zone, and proposes that Council instruct staff to draft a revised C-2 District Schedule and Guidelines based on them. These would then be brought forward to Council for referral to Public Hearing.

The consultant study was done mainly between January 2001 and March 2002. It addresses issues that have arisen over the past 10 years about C-2 projects' impacts on neighbours in the single family and two-family zones immediately behind C-2, and on the arterial streetscape. It balances these concerns with the C-2 landowners' wish to maintain their land values and development potential, and the broader City interest in the housing capacity provided in C-2.

The consultant recommendations address improving the lanescape; reducing overlook and improving privacy for neighbours; improving the street-front scale of projects; and reducing the density to an achievable level. There are specific recommendations to improve the situation where C-2 sites directly abut R-zoned sites, with no lane separating the two. Lastly, a new two-part height envelope is recommended: a lower 35 ft. height on the rear part of the site; and higher limit on the front, with the options being 40 ft. or 45 ft.

Table 1 summarizes the proposed changes for standard C-2 sites. Table 2 later in the report summarizes the impacts on the changes on housing capacity and land values.

Table 1 Summary of Recommended Changes to C-2

 

Now

Recommended

Minimum Rear Setbacks

    

ground level

no setback to parking or commercial
15 ft. if residential

2 ft. to parking or commercial
20 ft. if residential

2nd & 3rd storey

15 ft.

20 ft.

4th storey

15 ft. + unspecified in Guidelines

35 ft.

Minimum Front Setbacks

    

overall

no setback

2 ft.

4th storey

no setback

8 ft.

Maximum Height

   

at the lane

not specified

15 ft.

rear 35 ft. of the site

40 ft. above "base surface", with relaxations up to 45 ft. for sloping sites and non-combustible construction

35 ft. above "base surface"

front of site

2 Options: 40 ft. or 45 ft. above street grade, measured horizontally

Maximum Density

   

overall, for all uses

3.0 FSR

(2.68 FSR average achieved*)

2.5 FSR

for residential

2.5 FSR

(2.15 FSR average achieved*)

2.15 FSR
(1.75 FSR on top 3 levels,
0.40 FSR on ground level)

* between September 1989 and Dec 2001, in typical projects, i.e. 4 storey mixed use projects on sites 5,000 sq. ft. or more

BACKGROUND

C-2 zoning occurs along arterials throughout the city, covering about 1500 parcels. (Refer to following map.) In 1989, in response to a housing crisis, Council approved a change to the zoning which made 4 storey residential/commercial mixed-use projects feasible. The zone also allows 4 storey all-commercial projects. C-2 zoning is generally backed or flanked by RS or RT zoning.

Since the 1989 zoning change, about 3000 new housing units have been built in over 180 projects. However, there have also been many complaints from nearby residents about the massing and appearance of the mixed-use projects--both during processing of development applications, and during the Community Visions Program.

In 2000, Council approved the terms of reference and funding for a consultant study to undertake a review of the zoning, and approved the appointment of Neale Staniszkis Doll Adams Architects and Tandem Consulting to undertake the study. The objectives of the study were to:
· revise project massing (height, setbacks, density, articulation) to achieve better neighbourliness and streetscape
· address some architectural design aspects related to pedestrian friendliness, quality of design and materials; and
· address issues specific to C-2 sites located adjacent to R-zoned sites with no lane in between.

Another related objective of the review is to eliminate the contradictions and lack of clarity in the current C-2 District Schedule and Guidelines.

(Note that the C-B, C-2C, and C-2C1 zones, which are variations on C-2 adopted in the `70s and `80s, are not the subject of this study. Staff may, at a later date, propose that these zones be revised to bring them up to date with the revised C-2. However, that would require separate consultation and some technical work.)

DISCUSSION

1. Study Steps and Public Involvement

The bulk of the work on the study was done between January 2001 and March 2002. An 8 person Advisory Group was established, including 3 C-2 owners, 3 neighbouring residential owners, and 2 developers with experience in C-2. The Group met at the key points in the study. Their role was to advise on completeness and understandability of the study, and on outreach.

Data on all C-2 projects since 1989 was reviewed, and detailed analysis of 25 mixed use projects was done. Issues were identified and analysed in the following areas :

· impacts on neighbours (lanescape, scale at the rear, shadowing, overlook/privacy, parking and servicing impacts, and sites without lanes);
· street character (scale on the street, overall height, articulation, enclosed balconies, cornices/eaves, materials and detailing, and pedestrian experience/weather protection); and
· some aspects of livability, commercial ceiling heights, the overall permitted density in relation to the height and setbacks, and development on small sites.

Alternative possible directions to address these issues were developed. These were reviewed at a series of open houses across the City. Mailed invitations were sent to a 9000+ list including all C-2 owners, adjacent residential owners, and other interested individuals. Ads also appeared in local newspapers.

 

The issues and possible directions were also reviewed by city staff and by a group of architects with experience in C-2 development.

From the open houses, certain "common directions" that had broad support were identified. These were carried forward into the study recommendations. With respect to key directions about heights, setbacks, and the resulting densities, neighbours favoured significant change, while C-2 owners preferred directions most similar to the current zoning.

Reflecting this range of opinion, alternative height and setback scenarios were developed. (Refer to Appendix A for more information). The consultants tested the scenarios by designing various mixed use projects within them, to confirm feasible densities. The effects on housing capacity and land value were also estimated.
· Scenario A: 4 storeys; somewhat larger rear setbacks than now; maximum height 40 ft. on the rear 25 ft. of the site and 45 ft on the front of the site; maximum density 2.75 FSR for all uses combined, with residential 2.0 to 2.4 FSR.
· Scenarios B & C: 4 storeys; significantly larger rear setbacks than now; maximum height 35 ft. on the rear 35 ft. of the site, 45 ft. (B) or 40 ft.(C) on the front of the site; maximum density 2.5 FSR for all uses combined, with residential 1.75 to 2.15 FSR.
· Scenario D: 3 storeys; same rear setbacks as B and C; maximum height 35 ft. over entire site; maximum density 2.00 FSR for all uses combined, with residential 1.25 to 1.65 FSR.

To determine response to the Scenarios, an information package and mail-back survey were sent to all C-2 owners, as well as all adjacent property owners. In addition, a random telephone survey using the same questions was done by MarkTrend Research. The Scenarios were also presented to key city staff for their review and comment.

As anticipated, the C-2 owners' first choice was Scenario A, the option with the least change from the current zoning. The neighbouring owners' first choice was Scenario D, with the most change-reducing development to 3 storeys. The groups' second choices were Scenarios B and C, respectively. (B and C are the same in all respects except maximum height on the front part of sites.)

The consultant feels that Scenarios B and C offer significant improvement to neighbourliness and streetscape, without unduly reducing overall housing capacity or C-2 landowners' land values. Their recommendations are therefore based on Scenarios B and C.

2. Recommendations for Change to C-2 Zoning (except Overall Height)

This report recommends that staff revise the C-2 District Schedule and Guidelines in accordance with the consultant's recommendations, and bring these back to Council for referral to Public Hearing. This section of the report provides an overview of recommended changes. Note that the issue of overall height is dealt with separately in the next section of the report, in more detail.

(Numbers in brackets refer to the consultant's report recommendations, contained in full Appendix B. The complete consultant report is at: www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/
cityplans/cityplansprojects.htm.
For simplicity all dimensions in the consultant report and this report are imperial. They will be changed to metric when the District Schedule and Guidelines are revised, consistent with the City standard.)

A) Improved Lanescape

The appearance of the lanescape of the projects has a serious visual impact on neighbours. Recommended improvements include:
· the ground level of the building containing commercial and parking uses should be limited to 15 ft. in height at the lane (4.5), and have a 2 ft. planted area at grade, and a

· where residential occurs on the ground level, the setback should be increased from current 15 ft. to 20 ft, with a 5 ft. wide planting strip along the lane edge (4.2).
· parking, loading and servicing from the lane should receive more attention and screening (4.15).

B) Reduced Overlook and Improved Privacy

The study found that the impact of overlooking from upper levels of C-2 projects onto neighbours' rear yards is substantial. This should be reduced by:
· screening provided by the planting noted above.
· increasing the rear setbacks on the 2nd and 3rd storeys from 15 ft. to 20 ft., and on the fourth storey to 35 ft. (4.6, 4.7).

C) Improved Street-front Scale

A number of recommendations are aimed at improving street-front scale and articulation:
· a new 2 ft. front setback would allow building cornices, balconies, and bays to project without encroaching on the street right of way or resorting to awkward stepbacks in the facade. Directions to eliminate enclosed balconies, and to require more building articulation (rather than simply enabling it), were not supported in the first phase of the study, and so the recommendations are to maintain the current approach (4.13, 4.14).
· a new 8 ft. front setback on the fourth storey should be introduced to reduce the apparent scale of the building on the street (4.11).

D) Achievable Density on Normal C-2 Sites

The study confirmed that the maximum C-2 densities listed in the current District Schedule (2.5 FSR residential and 3.0 FSR for all uses combined ) cannot usually fit within the current setbacks and heights. While the Guidelines do advise applicants that residential densities of 1.8 - 2.2 FSR are likely achievable, the discrepancy between Schedule and Guidelines is confusing to owners, applicants and the public, and is often a source of conflict.

The recommended densities are as follows:
· the overall maximum for all uses combined should be 2.5 FSR (4.12). The residential maximum should be 1.75 FSR for the upper three floors, with an additional 0.4 FSR if residential is included on the ground floor at the back, for a residential total of 2.15 FSR.
· small sites (e.g. 50 ft. frontage and less) may or may not be able to achieve these densities, mainly depending on parking, and applicants should be so advised (4.12). Current Guidelines already note that achievable densities on small sites will be lower.

To arrive at these figures, the consultant tested how much density can be reasonably accommodated by designing various C-2 projects to fit in the proposed new setbacks and heights. Care was taken to ensure that both "corridor" and "courtyard" types of C-2 projects could be built, to maintain the needed housing variety within C-2. In addition, explicit provisions in the making it easier to have housing on the ground level at the rear will both provide more "ground-oriented" housing choice and result in more neighbourly projects.

Table 2 provides information about the effects of the proposed density change on housing capacity and land values. The reduction in city-wide housing capacity that will result from the changes is modest, and well within the City's committments in the Regional Context Statement. Land values, while not a matter of city policy, are of interest to C-2 owners.

Table 2 Effects of Recommended Changes on Housing Capacity and Land Values

 

Current

After C-2 Changes

C-2 housing capacity

14,600 units

12,000 to 14,300 units

Reduction in C-2 capacity

--

2 - 18 %

City-wide housing capacity

66.200 units

63,600 - 65,900 units

Reduction in city-wide housing capacity

-

0 - 4 %

West-side C-2 land values

$109 / sq. ft.

$99 / sq. ft.

East side C-2 land values

$84 / sq. ft.

$77 / sq. ft.

Capacity estimates by City Plans staff. Land value estimages by Coriolis Consulting.

E) Sites Adjoining R-zoned Sites with No Intervening Lane

Over 120 C-2 sites directly abut R-zoned sites with no lane separating the two. Impacts are more severe in these cases. The consultant study recommends:
· when possible, the Director of Planning should use the available bylaw authority to deem the shared property line to be the rear of the C-2 site. This will ensure that the large rear setbacks are adjacent to the R site (4.19.1). In these cases C-2 sites will be able to achieve the same density as normal C-2 sites (4.19.4).
· in some cases, the approach above is not appropriate since it will negatively affect more residential units than it will benefit. The C-2 project will then be side-by-side with the adjacent R property line. The main recommendation for these cases is to significantly increase sideyards above the ground level (4.19.2). In these cases, any site with 100 ft. or more frontage should be able to achieve the same densities as normal C-2 sites. On smaller sites, achievable densities will be less: about 2.15 total (all uses) for 66 ft. wide sites; 1.75 total (all uses) for 33 ft wide sites (4.19.4). However, as noted above, current Guidelines already advise applicants that smaller sites will likely be able to achieve lower densities.

F) Other Items

Other recommendations include:
· allowing secondary living spaces (bedrooms, dens, and dining rooms) of double-fronting (through) units to face into courtyards (4.17), subject to certain conditions.
· continuing to allow commercial use at grade along side streets, but limiting the commercial expression or appearance (e.g. signage, illuminated awnings) etc.
· providing clearer guidance to staff, regarding materials, detailing, and landscape using the more recent C-7 and C-8 Districts as an example (4.20).
· applying all the recommended changes to setbacks, heights and density for mixed-use projects to all-commercial projects, as well (4.21).

3. Overall Height

A) Current Height Limit, Issues and Scenarios

There are two aspects of overall height that create issues: the permitted height, and the way it is measured.

The current C-2 height limit is 40 ft. From the neighbours' perspective, height combined with setbacks contribute to the overlook/privacy impacts, as well as to the issues around street scale. From the development perspective, the 40 ft. height limit results in limited ceiling height for the ground floor commercial, which makes it less viable. Commercial space ideallyneeds 15 ft. floor-to-floor to accommodate structure and mechanical systems and still leave 12 ft. clear. The 40 ft. limit usually leaves only 9 ft. clear.

The height is currently measured from what is called the "base surface", i.e. approximately the surface of the site, which may be sloping in two directions. This means that the height limit also slopes in two directions. To respond to the sloping height envelope, buildings must either have stepped floor slabs (costly, less practical), give up density (at a cost) or apply for the available height relaxation. In order to deal with slopes (and/or allow for non-combustible construction) current Guidelines allow a relaxation of up to 5 ft. Since many sites slope, many applications involve a relaxation, which increases uncertainty, controversy, cost and length of processing.

The 40 ft. height limit was recognized as too constraining for 4 storey mixed use development when the C-2 zoning was last amended, in 1993. However, there was no point in considering an increase at that time because the Vancouver Building By-Law set a maximum height for wood frame construction which effectively limited buildings to 40 ft. However, the VBBL has since been revised, and a zoning height limit increase would be compatible with it.

As described above, the four alternative scenarios covered a range of height options.

B) Recommendations for Change to Overall Height

The consultant makes a multi-part recommendation regarding overall height, based on Scenarios B and C.

· maximum height on the rear 35 ft. of the site should be reduced from 40 ft. to 35 ft, and still be measured from "base surface". This, together with the larger rear setbacks, will significantly reduce the overlook/privacy impacts (4.10).
· on the front of the site, the height should be measured from a plane set from the street grade, and extending horizontally from front to rear (rather than from "base surface"). If the front street slopes, the plane would slope, but only in one direction. This would minimize the need for stepped floor slabs (4.10).
· with respect to the maximum height allowed in this front portion, the consultant identifies two options: 40 ft or 45 ft. If the 45 ft. were the limit, the 5 ft. height relaxation in the Guidelines should be eliminated. With the 40 ft. limit, a relaxation clause should remain (4.10).

In drafting the revised District Schedule and Guidelines for referral to Public Hearing, staff propose to include options for 40 ft. and 45 ft.

The following are the effects of the two options:

· the 45 ft. limit would permit higher commercial ceiling heights on the ground floor, and possibly higher ceilings in the residential floors. This might enhance economic viability, in some measure compensating C-2 owners for the reduction in density.
· on level sites, both the 40 ft. and 45 ft. limit (combined with the increased 4th floor setback) reduce the apparent height from rear neighbours perspective, compared to now. The diagrams in Appendix B section 4.10 how the angle of vision from a neighbour to the top of the building (i.e. its apparent height) is reduced, as well as how the distance increases. On some severely sloping sites, the 45 ft limit will not improve the angle of view, but the distance to the top of the building is still substantially increased from now.
· in terms of impact on street front scale, the recommended setback of the 4th storey will reduce apparent height along the street, whichever height is selected
· the 45 ft. limit would eliminate the need for relaxations, resulting in more efficient application processing. With the 40 ft. limit, relaxations would still be needed in some cases, although less frequently than now because of the recommended change in the method of measurement (described above).

C) Other Current Height Relaxations

In addition to the 5 ft. height relaxation mentioned above, the current C-2 Guidelines provide that on sites that are exceptionally large in both depth and width, a 5th storey (up to a maximum of 55 ft.) may be considered, provided there is no increased shadowing or view blockage, and benefits such as increased neighbourliness, open space and amenity result. An example of the use of this relaxation is the London Drugs development in Kerrisdale. Because such large sites are rare, and each is unique, staff did not ask the consultant to study this matter. Staff feel this flexibility is appropriate, and should be kept in the draft revised District Schedule and Guidelines.

In addition, the C-2 Guidelines formerly contained a third height relaxation, allowing consideration of heights above 5 storeys (i.e. mid- or highrise) for sites adjacent to zoning that allows higher buildings, and where it "will not disrupt neighbourhood character". This clause only applied to C-2 areas in Kerrisdale and West 10th Avenue, which have RM-3 zoning adjacent. Examples of projects using this clause are one in the 4500 block of W. 10th Avenue, and one in the 2400 block W. 4st beside Larch Park, both approved as mid-rises.

On June 2, 1998, because of public concerns, Council passed a motion deleting this clause from the Guidelines pending the C-2 zoning review. Staff have considered this matter, and do not feel a clause of this nature should be re-introduced into the draft revised District Schedule and Guidelines because:

· mid-rise and high-rise forms generated significant public opposition in individual applications seeking to use the clause.
· the Community Visions process allows communities to re-evaluate building forms in their C-2 areas. In none of the four Visions completed so far has there been support for mid-or high-rises in C-2.
· having a citywide District Schedule allow completely different building forms in only two geographic areas is arbitrary, and not good zoning practice.

4. Next Steps

The Recommendation is for staff to draft a revised C-2 District Schedule and Guidelines as described above, at the same time updating them in approach and format. They would then be brought forward to Council for referral to Public Hearing.

Staff anticipate the Public Hearing would be in early 2003, with enactment occurring 5 to 6 weeks later. The City does have the ability to "withhold" processing of applications that conflict with a proposed zoning for up to 90 days (usually counted back from anticipated date of enactment). However, C-2 development applications often take significantly longer to be processed, and subsequently issued. Therefore, as soon as possible, staff will issue a bulletin regarding the timing of the possible zoning change. This will allow enough time for applicants with permits approved but not issued to get them issued; and applications in process to be completed. In addition, people inquiring about future applications will have the information they need to make decisions about future timing.

HOUSING CENTRE COMMENTS

The Housing Centre has reviewed the proposed C-2 changes and supports this initiative, which is intended to improve general liveability and contextual relationship with surrounding residential areas. The effect of the changes should be minimal on housing capacity if developers are able to utilize the 0.4 FSR for ground level residential. Regulations and guidelines will need to facilitate this component or the impacts on housing capacity, housing supply and related housing affordability may be at the higher end of the predicted range, and therefore of concern to the Housing Centre. Housing Centre will work with Planning with the facilitation objective in mind.

Further, the Director of the Housing Centre supports the greater height of 45 feet proposed under Scenario B. The provision for a marginal height increase on the street-side of a prospective C-2 site offers the developer more flexibility in attaining the 2.5 FSR now proposed. It appears to be a reasonable massing trade-off for reductions on the rear portions of these sites which will be of benefit to adjoining residents.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The earlier part of this report described the extensive public consultation completed by the consultant in the course of this year long study. Once the consultant study was submitted, staff undertook a mailing to the full 9000+ mailing list, providing them with a summary of the consultant's recommendations, an outline of next steps, and the opportunity to send comments or to request to address Council at this meeting. Up to July 16, we had received a total of 15 responses with questions or comments. Of these, 11 responses were general enquiries, or comments about issues such as noise, traffic and other items outside the terms of reference of the study. Four responses were directly related to the proposed changes of the C-2 Zone. Of these, 2 expressed concern with building height and suggested that height be limited to 2 to 3 storeys. Two other respondents suggested minor changes to the proposed setbacks, density, and height measurement as outlined in the consultant's recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The city-wide C-2 zoning has seen over 3000 units of new housing since the major zoning change in 1989 which made mixed residential/commercial development feasible. However, complaints from neighbours about developments' impacts and appearance have also been frequent and widespread. The consultant study recommendations for changes to the C-2 zoning, would make a major improvement to the massing and appearance of C-2 developments, while having a moderate effect on C-2 property values and on housing capacity. Staff will prepare revised District Schedule and Guidelines as describe in this report, and forward them to Council for referral to Public Hearing.

ALTERNATE SCENARIOS SUMMARIZED APPENDIX A

 

Current C-2

Scenario A

Scenarios B & C

Scenario D

Rear setbacks

        

ground level when parking or commercial use

0

2 ft.

2 ft.

2. ft.

ground level when residential use;
2nd & 3rd levels

15 ft.

17. ft.

20 ft.

20. ft.

4th level

15 ft. + unspecified Guidelines

25. ft.

35 ft.

n. a.

Height: storeys

4 st.

4 st.

4 st.

3. st.

Height:: feet

40 ft.

+ 5 ft. relaxation for slope or non-combustible construction

45 ft. on front of site; 40 ft. on rear 25 ft. of site

45 ft (B) or 40 ft. (C) on front of site; 35ft. On rear 35 ft.of site.

35 ft.

Density

        

Overall (all uses combined)

3.0 FSR

(2.68 average achieved*)

2.75 FSR

2.5 FSR

2.00 FSR

Residential

2.5 FSR

(2.15 average achieved*)

2.40 FSR
(2.0 on top 3 levels; 0.40 optional on ground level)

2.15 FSR
(1.75 on top 3 levels; 0.40 optional on ground level)

1.65 FSR
(1.25 on top 3 levels; 0.40 optional on ground level)

Effects on Capacity and Land Values

C-2 Housing Capacity

14,600 units

14,600 units

12,000 to 14,300 units

8,800 to 11,400 units

Reduction in C-2 Housing Capacity

--

0

2 - 18%

22 - 40%

Reduction in City Housing Capacity
(66,200 units)

--

0

0 - 4%

5 - 9%

West Side C-2 Land Values

$109/sq. ft.

$109/sq. ft.

$99/sq. ft.

$79/sq. ft.

East Side C-2 Land Values

$84/sq. ft.

$84/sq. ft.

$77/ sq. ft.

$62/sq. ft.

C-2 ZONING REVIEW: PART 1 APPENDIX B
SECTION 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR C-2 CHANGES Page 1 of 1

LINK TO APPENDIX B

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver