P2
POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
Date: October 22, 1996
Dept. File No. FAS
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of Land Use and Development
SUBJECT: Proposed Rezoning of 4477-4679 Puget Drive
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT the Director of Land Use and Development convene a
meeting to discuss the development potential under current
RS-1 zoning regulations, with particular regard to the front
and rear yard regulations and the implications of development
on the existing streetscape character and resident views;
FURTHER THAT the registered property owners of 4477-4679 Puget
Drive and those immediately across the lane to the southwest
be invited to this meeting;
FURTHER THAT the Director of Land Use and Development be
instructed to make application to rezone 4477-4679 Puget Drive
from RS-1 to an amended RS-1 requiring a greater front yard
and lesser rear yard, if there appears to be support for such
a rezoning on the basis of the above-noted meeting;
AND FURTHER THAT this application (if made) be referred to
Public Hearing and the Director of Legal Services be
instructed to prepare the necessary by-law, including
Subdivision, Sign and Parking By-law consequential amendments.
As an alternative to the foregoing, the following is submitted for
CONSIDERATION:
B. THAT the Director of Planning be instructed to continue to
approve, without intervention, development applications in
RS-1 areas which comply with provisions of the RS-1 District
Schedule.
- 2 -
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services shares the dilemmas
presented by the Director of Land Use and Development. RS-1 zoning
regulations pertaining to siting of development allow (if not
encourage) new development that is extremely disruptive of the
established streetscape character in these blocks and has
significant view impacts on residents in existing, adjoining homes.
However, an amended zoning, even with outright siting regulations,
will further add to the complexity of the City s regulatory system.
Amended siting regulations for these lands may also result in some
increased view loss for residents on adjacent upland properties.
Furthermore, the current circumstances on these few blocks of Puget
Drive might exist to a similar (but perhaps lesser) degree on many
other blocks in this vicinity and elsewhere in the city; others may
request similar remedial zoning consideration and question the
priority attached to these few blocks of Puget Drive.
Nonetheless, I agree with the Director of Land Use and Development
that the current RS-1 siting regulations are particularly
unresponsive to the circumstances on these blocks of Puget Drive.
Experience gained in addressing this small area could be very
helpful should the City wish to consider similar anachronistic RS-1
zoning situations. On this basis, the General Manager of Community
Services RECOMMENDS approval of A, but submits B as an alternative
for CONSIDERATION.
COUNCIL POLICY
There is Council policy from both 1982 and 1985 when the issue of view
protection in single-family areas was first considered and later
re-visited. The prevailing policy, from 1985, is to allow development
that complies with zoning regulations, without any intervention by
Planning staff, irrespective of the impacts of this development on views
from surrounding homes.
PURPOSE
This report outlines the physical, social and economic disruption posed
by redevelopment on an incremental basis under outright approval of RS-1
regulations for siting of new dwellings on properties along a specific
portion of Puget Drive.
BACKGROUND
This report is not focused solely on view protection in RS-1 view
sensitive areas. To the extent it does, the focus is on siting of new
development, not height, as was the issue in the early 1980s.
View blockage as a result of new single-family development under then
existing RS-1 zoning was a significant issue raised by Council in 1981.
It was, however, only one of a number of issues in RS-1 areas, including
Vancouver Specials , secondary suites, subdivision of existing lots,
narrow lots and thin houses, parking access from fronting streets,
etcetera.
A number of these issues have been - or still are - the subject of staff
and Council attention in the years since. Many have been largely
addressed (e.g., RS-1 categories in the Subdivision By-law, Parking
By-law amendments re: lane access to off-street parking, RS-1S zoning
for secondary suites). Some are still being addressed, such as the
series of RS-1 building envelopes, FSR and siting revisions in the late
1980s, and neighbourhood specific single-family zoning reviews.
One issue that has not been further considered by Council in an explicit
manner is private property view blockage through single-family
redevelopment in view-sensitive areas. Amendments to RS-1/RS-1S
regulations in the late 1980s and early 1990s did reduce the height and
above-grade size of new dwellings. They also revised the siting
regulations by:
amending the front and rear yard requirements, resulting in deeper
rear yards and garages at the rear of the property;
instituting a building depth regulation; and
making provision for front yard averaging but not at the expense of
the rear yard and rear yard compatibility with adjacent dwellings.
The provision of a rear yard and rear yard compatibility being more
important than front yard compatibility was re-visited by Council in
1988 and confirmed.
DISCUSSION
Revisions to RS-1/RS-1S height regulations have addressed, somewhat, the
view impact issue of new single-family development in view-sensitive
areas. However, the siting of the building also significantly affects
views. The present building envelope provisions that determine the
siting of new RS-1/RS-1S dwellings dictate that front and rear yard
requirements are as follows:
a front yard equal to 20 percent and a rear yard equal to 45
percent of the site depth are required, with building depth limited
to 35 percent of the site depth;
front yard averaging is required if the 20 percent requirement
would site a dwelling more than 5 feet forward from the average of
the dwellings on each side;
front yard averaging may require that a building be sited further
back on its site but the rear yard may be reduced to allow this
only if it does not locate the new dwelling further back to provide
a rear yard less than the rear yard provided on either of the
adjoining properties; and
if locating the new dwelling further back on the site results in a
permitted building depth of less than 35 percent of the site depth,
then the building is permitted to extend further forward,
irrespective of front yard averaging, to provide the 35 percent
site depth for building.
The foregoing ensures that rear yard compatibility is not sacrificed at
the expense of front yard compatibility (or the 35 percent site depth
for building), as confirmed by Council in 1988.
The provision of usable rear yards and concerns about new dwellings
intruding on the privacy of the rear yards of its neighbours, are
adequately addressed by the foregoing, albeit at the expense of front
yard compatibility and streetscape character. This may be an
appropriate trade-off in most circumstances but is problematic in its
impacts when the resultant front yard incompatibility results in
significant view impacts for neighbouring development and a substantial
disruption of the established streetscape character.
In July I was asked by a Councillor to respond to a resident complaint
about a development permit issued for 4667 Puget Drive. The combined
development and building permit issued, on an outright basis (i.e.,
complying with the above noted siting requirements) permitted a new
dwelling to be constructed in a location approximately 25 ft. forward of
the house on the northeasterly side and 15 ft. forward of the house on
the southeasterly side.
In spite of Council s prevailing 1985 policy that the Director of
Planning approve, without intervention, outright RS-1 development
applications, I met with this permit holder, his architect, and the
owners on either side of the site. Subsequently, the permit holder
voluntarily agreed to site the new dwelling 11 ft. further back on the
property, even though either of the neighbouring properties could be
redeveloped on an outright approval basis with new dwellings located
approximately 14 ft. further forward than is his new dwelling. I
encouraged this relocation by agreeing to relax the required rear yard,
noting that the owners of adjacent properties were prepared to fully
sacrifice rear yard compatibility if the front yard were more
compatible.
Although the new dwelling at 4667 Puget Drive has been sited in a more
compatible fashion than required by the RS-1 zoning, neither adjacent
property owner is happy with the resolution. The new dwelling is still
14 ft. further forward than the house on the northeasterly side and 4
ft. forward of the house on the southeasterly side, reducing the view
from the southeasterly adjacent home and, for it and the northwesterly
home, creating a less than compatible relationship (see letters,
Appendix A).
This recent situation could occur elsewhere where the historic pattern
of homes sited to take advantage of the view in a neighbourly manner
have done so in a consistent fashion that would not be reinforced
through outright redevelopment under existing RS-1 zoning.
Staff undertook a review of development on other Puget Drive properties
in this area to see if there was a consistent pattern of building siting
that is significantly inconsistent with what current zoning would allow.
The properties on the southwest side of Puget Drive from 4477 to 4679
all have dwellings located much further back (uphill) than would current
RS-1 regulations. Interestingly, two new dwellings have been
constructed under permits where the applicants voluntarily sought and
obtained rear yard variances via the Board of Variance in order to site
the new dwellings further back to respect the streetscape character and
equitably share the view with older adjacent homes on either side.
Zoning Alternatives
Consideration of alternatives to current RS-1 regulations for view-
sensitive properties is relatively straight forward if the historic
pattern of development remains intact. Once disrupted by redevelopment
under current zoning regulations, equity issues become more complex in
considering alternate zoning:
new zoning that would change rear yard requirements and
compatibility in order to achieve front yard setbacks consistent
with the historical siting of dwellings will make the new dwelling
at 4667 Puget Drive non-conforming. More importantly, it would
preclude each of its neighbouring properties from siting
redevelopment to re-capture the view, privacy and compatibility
lost when 4667 Puget was redeveloped;
new zoning that would allow properties to redevelop consistent with
the siting of the new dwelling at 4667 Puget Drive will result in
incompatibility with the dwellings on either side, and in so doing
most likely irritate these neighbours; and
leaving the zoning as is will likely result in future discontent
not unlike that related to 4667 Puget Drive. In addition, any
owner/developer agreeing to a greater front yard than required in
order to improve neighbourliness might well face incompatible
development on a neighbouring site in future that redevelops
according to outright regulations.
Given these difficult issues, it is recommended that property owners of
4477-4679 Puget Drive be invited to a meeting to discuss zoning
alternatives before doing any further technical analysis. Since an
alternate zoning requiring a greater front yard and lesser rear yard
will entail siting of new dwellings further back on these properties and
therefore uphill, this siting may have more impact on the views of
property owners to the southwest, across the lane to the rear. These
owners should also be invited to the meeting.
Any discussion of zoning alternatives could result in some owners
obtaining development approval under current RS-1 regulations before
they change. Consequently, timely initiation of an amended RS-1
rezoning application may be necessary in order to avail Council of the
withholding provisions pending consideration of new zoning for these
lands.
There are undoubtedly other view sensitive private properties that would
be significantly impacted by the siting of new dwellings according to
the outright provisions of the RS-1/RS-1S District Schedule. A
comprehensive review to identify these, and subsequent community
discussions, would require considerable staff resources and time. This
is not a current Planning Department work program item. Furthermore, it
could be advantageous to approach this on an incremental basis,
benefitting from the experience of addressing this issue for the
properties at 4477-4679 Puget Drive. Consequently, if Council believes
this issue warrants further consideration, it is recommended that staff
only pursue the matter in terms of these Puget Drive properties.
CONCLUSION
Current RS-1/RS-1S regulations do not encourage new development that
will be sited in a compatible manner with what exists on adjacent
properties. While sacrifice of front yard compatibility in order to
achieve a usable rear yard and maintain rear yard privacy for neighbours
may be appropriate in most cases, it may not be appropriate where it
significantly impacts views. Alternate zoning that places priority on
front yard compatibility may be more appropriate in these circumstances.
Staff believe this warrants further consideration, using the properties
at 4477-4679 Puget Drive as an initial focus.
* * * * *