P2
POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE
Date: November 12, 1996
Dept. File No. TF
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of Community Planning, in consultation with Director
of Land Use and Development
SUBJECT: Zoning Amendments in RT-4 and RT-5 Districts
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT the Director of Land Use and Development be instructed to
make application to amend the RT-4 and RT-4N, and RT-5 and
RT-5N Districts Schedule of the Zoning and Development By-law,
and to add RT-4A, RT-4AN, RT-5A, RT-5AN to the Districts
Schedule, generally in accordance with Appendix A;
FURTHER THAT the Director of Land Use and Development be
instructed to make application to rezone the areas shown in
Figure 2 from RT-4 and RT-4N to RT-4A and RT-4AN; and from
RT-5 and RT-5N to RT-5A and RT-5AN;
FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to
prepare the necessary by-law for consideration at the Public
Hearing, including amendments to the Sign By-law to extend the
current provisions for RT-4 and RT-4N, and RT-5 and RT-5N, to
RT-4A and RT-4AN and RT-5A and RT-5AN, respectively;
FURTHER THAT the application and by-laws be referred to Public
Hearing, together with the conditions of approval recommended
by the Director of Community Planning contained in Appendix B;
FURTHER THAT, subject to approval of the rezoning at Public
Hearing, the Subdivision By-law and Parking By-law be amended
to extend the provisions for RT-4 and RT-4N, and RT-5 and
RT-5N, to RT-4A and RT-4AN and RT-5A and RT-5AN, respectively;
AND FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed
to bring forward the amendments to the Subdivision By-law and
Parking By-law at the time of enactment of the Zoning By-law.
B. THAT beginning 55 days from the Public Hearing date, the
Director of Land Use and Development be instructed to report
to Council development applications which are contrary to the
proposed zoning amendments for possible withholding pursuant
to Section 570 of the Vancouver Charter.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A
and B.
COUNCIL POLICY
Council's policy for the RT-4/RT-4N and RT-5/RT-5N zoned areas is
embodied in the zoning and guidelines for the areas.
SUMMARY
The RT-4 and RT-4N and RT-5 and RT-5N Districts (hereafter referred to
as RT-4/4N and RT-5/5N) are located in a variety of neighbourhoods,
mainly on the east side of the city. (The N suffix applies to areas,
mainly along arterials, with acoustic requirements.)
There are an annual average of 12 "outright" one- and two-family
dwellings in RT-4/4N and 13 in RT-5/5N. An average of 7 one- and
two-family developments in RT-5/5N are "conditional", subject to the
existing design guidelines. Over the past 5 years the City has had many
complaints about the character and appearance of the "outrights", as
well as about overly long buildings projecting well past neighbours.
A solution that avoids an extensive zoning review but addresses the
concerns involves making one- and two-family development conditional,
and thus subject to the existing design guidelines. This was proposed to
all residents and owners in a survey undertaken in the various sub-areas
(see Figures 1 and 2). Renters supported the change in all the
sub-areas. Combined owner-occupier and absentee owners results were in
favour (ranging from 56% to 73%) in all but two of the areas.
Staff recommend amendments to the RT-4/4N and RT-5/5N Districts Schedule
to make one- and two-family dwellings conditional; together with
incorporation of a variation--RT-4A/4AN and RT-5A/5AN--that keeps them
outright, to be applied to the areas which did not support the change.
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
PURPOSE
This report outlines some concerns in the RT-4/RT-4N and RT-5/RT-5N
Districts; presents results of a survey regarding changes to the
Districts Schedule; and recommends the Director of Land Use and
Development make application for the zoning changes, and that they be
forwarded to Public Hearing.
BACKGROUND
Over the past few years the City has had numerous complaints about
aspects of the "outright" development currently permitted in the RT-4/4N
and RT-5/5N Districts. In May 1995, City Council approved undertaking a
survey of owners and residents in the RT-4/4N and RT-5/5N Districts of
the city, to determine whether they would support a zoning change, as
described below, to address the concerns.
DISCUSSION
1. Areas Under Consideration
The areas under discussion comprise all the RT-4/4N and RT-5/5N
Districts, located in a variety of neighbourhoods, mainly on the east
side of the city. The survey was sent to and tabulated for sub-areas:
Grandview-Woodland RT-4
Joyce RT-4/RT-4N
Grandview-Woodland RT-5
Cedar Cottage RT-5/RT-5N (East and West)
Mount Pleasant RT-5
Cambie RT-5
Burrard RT-5
2. Current Zoning and Community Concerns
The RT-4/4N and RT-5/5N Districts Schedules and associated design
guidelines, as they now stand, date from about 1984. (The N suffix on
a district schedule title stands for "noise" and indicates that for some
locations, normally along arterials, acoustics standards apply.
Otherwise the regulations are the same.)
The RT-4/4N Schedule permits new one- and two-family dwellings, and
multiple conversion dwellings (MCDs) up to two units, outright, to a
maximum of 0.60 FSR. They are not subject to the existing design
guidelines. They have minimal requirements for rear yards--only 7.6 m
(25 ft.) from a normal lane, with the garage being permitted in that
space. Only MCDs with more than two units are conditional, coming under
the design guidelines, with their review of building character and more
neighbourly rear yard controls.
The RT-5/5N District is similar to RT-4/4N, except that one- and
two-family dwellings, and MCDs may obtain an FSR relaxation to 0.75 FSR,
provided the development meets the design guidelines.
According to development permit statistics over the last 5 years, there
are about 12 one- and two-family dwellings built in the RT-4/4N
Districts every year, with none subject to design guidelines. In the
RT-5/5N, about 7 per year are built with the guidelines, and 13
without.
The Planning Department and City Council have had complaints over the
past five or so years from residents of the area about both the
character and appearance of "outright" new development, and about overly
long buildings projecting well past their neighbours. In July 1990,
Council requested a report back on actions to prevent overly long
duplexes in Grandview-Woodland RT-4 area. In late 1994, during
community consultation about the scope of Cedar Cottage planning,
residents requested a zoning review of the RT-5/5N Districts. Early in
1995 a door-to-door survey undertaken by Grandview-Woodland RT-4
residents on their own initiative found moderate to high levels of
concern with "non-heritage" style new development among 81% of their
respondents.
The Districts Schedules were put in place in these areas after community
planning programs between the late 1970s and mid-1980s, and there seems
to be satisfaction with their broad land use and development thrust--to
allow new development as well as MCDs. The issues raised are not as
extensive as in Kitsilano in the late 1980s, which generated a four-year
zoning review. However, a simple and effective solution to the key
issues (which was used in Kitsilano as an "interim" measure and proved
effective for these concerns) would be to bring all one- and two-family
dwellings into the stream requiring conditional guidelines review. The
effects of this change are outlined in Appendix C.
In May 1995, City Council approved undertaking a survey of all owners
and residents in the RT-4/4N and RT-5/5N Districts to determine what the
support is for such a zoning change.
(Staff note that, in terms of planning for the broader neighbourhoods,
Kensington-Cedar Cottage has been chosen for the CityPlan Community
Vision pilot project; Mount Pleasant s community planning was completed
in the late 1980s; and Grandview-Woodlands in 1983.)
3. Survey Results
The survey was distributed by hand to all residents (owner occupiers and
renters), and mailed to all absentee owners. About 6,400 were
distributed in all, in both English and Chinese. It outlined the
possible zoning change, and described the possible effects. (The survey
is on file with the City Clerk.) Response was by postage-paid mail back
of a survey response form. The response rate ranged from 23% to 33% in
different sub-areas. This is considered a reasonable response rate for
a mail survey. Table 1 charts the responses in detail.
Table 1. Survey Results
Occupier and Absentee Owners Renters
% Response
% % % % Sub-Area
In Favour Not in Favour In Favour Not in Favour
Grandview-Woodland 33% 58% 42% 84% 16%
RT-4
Grandview-Woodland 27% 63% 37% 76% 24%
RT-5/RT-5N
Mount Pleasant 26% 56% 44% 78% 22%
RT-5
Cedar Cottage West 26%* 60% 40% 77%* 23%*
RT-5/RT-5N
Burrard 32% 73% 27% ----- -----
RT-5
Cambie 26% 68% 32% 71% 29%
RT-5
Cedar Cottage East 26%* 35% 65% 77%* 23%
RT-5/RT-5N
Joyce 23% 21% 79% 100% 0%
RT-4/RT-4N
* These figures are actually for Cedar Cottage West and East combined. Only the owner results were analysed for
separately west and east (refer to discussion).
(a) Renter Response
In all sub-areas, 71% or more of the renters were in support of the
change.
(b) Owner Response
Combined occupier and absentee owner support for the change exists in
Grandview-Woodland RT-4 (58%); Grandview-Woodland RT-5/5N (63%); Mount
Pleasant RT-5 (56%); Cambie RT-5 (68%); and Burrard RT-5 (73%).
Combined owner response was clearly against the change in the Joyce
RT-4/4N sub-area (79%).
Cedar Cottage RT-5/5N was surveyed as one area. Combined owner response
was 49% in favour (owner occupiers 53%, absentee owners 28%). Because
of the close results, mapping responses was done, and staff found a
clear geographical pattern. West of Commercial, combined owner response
is in favour (60%), while east of Commercial owners are against the
change (61%). This sub-area was therefore divided in two parts.
4. Proposed Zoning Changes
Given the survey response, staff recommend amendment of the RT-4/4N and
RT-5/5N Districts Schedules to make one- and two-family dwellings
conditional. (Effects of the change described in Appendix C.) The
sub-areas wishing to have the change, which represent most of the zones
area, would retain this district schedule designation. A
variation--RT-4A/4AN and RT-5A/5AN--would be incorporated into the
Districts Schedules to allow for keeping one- and two- family dwellings
outright, as now. The two areas that did not support going conditional
are recommended for rezoning to RT-4A/4AN and RT-5A/5AN.
Figures 1 and 2 shows proposed designations after rezoning. Appendix A
contains the proposed district schedule revisions. Consequential
amendments will be needed to the Parking, Sign, and Subdivision By-laws,
as well as the existing guidelines, to reflect the new district schedule
labels.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
The proposal has no environmental implications.
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Children's Policy and the Statement of Children s Entitlements are
not applicable to this proposal.
PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS
There are about 23 outright one- and two-family applications annually in
the sub-areas where the change to the conditional stream would occur.
The processing of these applications will use more staff resources than
currently. However, the Director of Land Use and Development feels
that the additional work load can be handled by existing staff, using
some of the residential staff capacity from staff positions recently
created for new RS-5/RS-6 areas as part of the RS Interim Zoning
Program. This will, however, diminish the staff residual for future
RS-5/RS-6 rezonings.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The proposal has no financial implications.
CONCLUSION
A survey of residents and owners in RT-4/4N and RT-5/5N areas has
indicated substantial support in most of them for a change to the zoning
which would make one- and two-family dwellings conditional, and subject
to the existing design guidelines. This would address concerns that
have been expressed about the compatible appearance and the
neighbourliness of new development without the need to undertake a major
zoning review. This report therefore recommends the Director of
Planning apply to amend the District Schedules, and to rezone some
areas; and that the zoning changes be referred to Public Hearing.
* * *