SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 1
P&E COMMITTEE AGENDA
MARCH 13, 1997
POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING
Date: February 12, 1997
Dept. File: PEM-95017
CC File: 5308-1
TO: Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
FROM: Director of Land Use and Development
SUBJECT: Proposed Rezoning of 6691-6699 Victoria Drive
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT the application to rezone the site at 6691-6699 Victoria
Drive (Lots 24 to 26, Block 2, D.L. 735, Plan 3421) from RT-2
to CD-1, for a three-storey, mixed-use development providing
commercial floor space at grade and dwelling units above, be
REFUSED.
B. THAT the Director of Land Use and Development report back with
a recommended policy pertaining to the rezoning of
residentially-zoned lands outside the Central Area for
commercial uses and development.
CONSIDERATION
C. THAT Council is prepared to consider a new application to
rezone the site at 6691-6699 Victoria Drive from RT-2 to CD-1,
for a three-storey, mixed-use development providing a reduced
amount of commercial floor space at grade, dwelling units
above and an adaptable dwelling unit at grade designed to
accommodate persons with disabilities.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval
of A and B and presents C for CONSIDERATION.
COUNCIL POLICY
RT-2 Two-Family Dwelling District Schedule and RT-2 Multiple
Dwelling Guidelines.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
This report assesses an application to rezone three lots at 6691-6699
Victoria Drive from RT-2 to CD-1, to allow a mixed-use, three-storey
development containing commercial uses at grade and dwelling units
above. (See map below and additional information in Appendix A, plans in
Appendix D and statistical information in Appendix E.)
Staff recommend that this application be refused, principally because
there is no shortage of commercial development potential in the
adjoining commercial district. Staff also believe that the proposed
floor space ratio and residential unit density are too high for this
location, resulting in a form of development which would be incompatible
with the adjoining RS-1S and RT-2 Districts. Neighbours who telephoned,
or came in to look at the plans of proposed development, did not
indicate any support for the application but expressed various concerns
about it.
Staff also recommend a report back on a policy pertaining to the
rezoning of residentially-zoned lands outside the Central Area for
commercial uses and development. The absence of an explicit City policy
to discourage such rezoning applications has led to some ambiguity in
staff recommendations and Council decisions on such applications in
recent years. In light of this, and given the history of the present
application, staff offer for Council consideration an instruction that
staff process a new application in the usual manner.
DISCUSSION
Background: In October 1996, after an earlier report on this
application had been on hold for a year, the original applicant, Ken
King, Architect, was replaced by Edward de Grey, Architect (see
additional background information in Appendix A). The new applicant s
subsequent comments have raised issues which have led staff to re-write
the report on this application.
The applicant s client presently operates retail stores in the adjoining
development, at 6645 and 6653 Victoria Drive. Against Planning staff
advice, he purchased the site which is the subject of this application.
General Over-supply of Commercially-zoned Land: The city outside the
Central Area generally has an over-supply of commercially-zoned land as
a result of historic commercial strips located along previous street-car
lines. Consequently, stretched-out or ribbon commercial development
and a preponderance of under-developed sites frustrates the evolution of
more intensive local-serving commercial districts. To add more
commercial potential, when a surplus exists, would simply add to
over-supply and further extend already-long commercial strips.
These observations were made in City studies of commercial land use
outside the Central Business District (1961-1971) and since then staff
have generally discouraged the rezoning of residential land for
commercial uses. There have been a very few exceptions, notably the
filling in of small gaps within established commercial strips.
Additional commercially-zoned land has also been supported in growing or
under-served neighbourhoods (e.g., Champlain Mall on a site rezoned from
RS-1 and First Avenue Marketplace on a site rezoned from C-1).
Applicant s Rationale for Permitting Commercial Use on this Site:
Previous enquirers and the original applicant on this site were advised
of the need to provide a rationale for rezoning which addressed City
concerns about the over-supply of commercial land. The original
applicant submitted information and analysis about the adjoining small
C-2 commercial district centred at East 49th Avenue and Victoria Drive
which concluded that the proposed retail space is supported by
population estimates and the review of existing and potential
development" in the adjoining commercial area. He also subsequently
provided an appraiser s study of vacancy rates and development potential
in this commercial strip.
Staff reviewed this material and concluded there is no shortage of
commercial development potential in the area. Existing development has
an overall FSR of only 0.5 in a district which has a maximum FSR of 3.0,
or six times the amount of existing development. Most of this potential
will likely be developed in multiple dwelling use (in upper storeys of
mixed-use developments), but there would still be potential to double
the amount of grade-level commercial space. The available potential is
so large that extending the area cannot be justified, particularly as
the population in the surrounding census tract has been increasing at a
rate of no more than 1.2 percent per year since 1981. (See Further
Discussion and map in Appendix C.)
Staff also note that while a 827.5 m2 (8,904 sq. ft.) site might be an
insignificant addition to the district, rezoning would be seen as a
precedent and this would have repercussions for many other residential
sites elsewhere in the city which are next to commercially-zoned lands.
Need for Council Policy on Rezoning Residential Land for Commercial Use:
There is no explicit City policy to discourage the rezoning of
residentially-zoned lands outside the Central Area for commercial uses
and development. As a result, enquirers and applicants are frustrated
by inconsistencies they perceive in staff recommendations and Council
decisions in recent years supporting the rezoning of residential land
for commercial use.
Staff recommend a short report back on a policy pertaining to the
rezoning of residentially-zoned lands outside the Central Area. It is
not proposed that in-depth study and public consultation be undertaken
for this purpose but simply a policy review in the context of CityPlan
rezoning policy and other relevant City plans and policies. This would
be an interim measure prior to the review of commercial land supply and
related issues in Community Visioning programs.
Applicant s Rationale for Proposed Density and Form of Development: The
rationale offered for the density, form and at-grade commercial space is
that proposed development would provide a more gradual mid-block
transition between potential development on the C-2 site to the north
(3.0 FSR, 12.2 m maximum height and 100 percent site coverage) and
development in the adjoining RS-1 and RT-2 districts (0.6 FSR, 9.2 m
maximum height, and 45 percent site coverage). The original applicant
also stated that rezoning would complement adjacent retail and service
uses and consolidate the block face, that a three-building would be more
in scale with the width of the street and with adjoining C-2 zoning, and
that proposed development could more properly interface with the blank
wall of adjoining C-2 development.
Staff disagree with this rationale. Mid-block zoning boundaries are not
unusual in the city and result in a variety of mid-block changes in land
use, density and building height. The differences between C-2 and RT-2
are not so great or unique to justify extending commercial uses to the
south end of the block in order to obtain a more gradual transition
between the two districts. Furthermore, extending commercial use would
place an incompatible land use across the street from residential use
(RT-2 on the east side of Victoria Drive). Staff also note that there
is a 0.76 m (2.5 ft.) sideyard on the abutting C-2 site which would
probably have to be gated for crime prevention purposes, as no sideyard
is proposed on the subject site.
Staff do not support the proposed FSR of 1.7 which is almost three times
the maximum (0.60) in the adjoining RT-2 and RS-1S Districts:
the proposed development would have significantly more bulk than
buildings in the adjoining RS-1S and RT-2 Districts, resulting in a
form of development which is not in scale and character with
surrounding residential buildings; and
the proposed development would not maintain the open space
character of surrounding residential development (the site coverage
would far exceed the maximum in the RT-2 District and most of the
undeveloped site area would be used for surface parking rather than
providing landscaped open space).
Staff reached this conclusion with advice from the Urban Design Panel
which did not support the application (see additional comments in
Appendix C, page 1).
Proposed Revisions: The new applicant requests that Council refer the
application to a Public Hearing with the following revisions that he
proposes to make beforehand:
reduction in commercial floor area (amount unspecified),
reduction in FSR (amount unspecified),
revision of form of development according to Urban Design Panel
advice, and
provision of a dwelling unit with modifications to accommodate
persons with special needs (i.e. disabilities).
Staff have not supported requests from either the original applicant or
the new applicant to be given an opportunity to revise the application,
because the proposed revisions would not address the issue of increased
commercial potential. Multiple dwelling development, at maximum FSR of
0.75, is permitted in the RT-2 district. Although the criteria for this
conditional approval use are not met on this site, a case might be made
for multiple dwelling development stepping down from the C-2 district to
East 51st Avenue. However, neither applicant wished to remove the
commercial component from the proposed development.
Staff have also not supported requests to revise the application because
a revised application would have be reviewed anew, as if a new
application, including re-notification of surrounding neighbours and
another review by the Urban Design Panel but with no fee being
collected to recover these additional costs.
If Council is prepared to consider a revised proposal with some
commercial floor space, staff suggest that the applicant should submit a
new application which would then be processed in the usual manner.
(Note: A new application which proposes less commercial space, a reduced
floor space ratio, increased open space provision, and an
accessible/adaptable dwelling unit would be sufficiently different from
the present application that Council would have the legal authority to
consider it within a year s time of its refusal of the present
application.)
CONCLUSION
Planning staff do not support the commercial use, density and form of
development proposed in this rezoning application and therefore
recommend that it be refused. Staff further recommend a report back on
a policy pertaining to the rezoning of residentially-zoned lands outside
the Central Area for commercial uses and development.
If Council wishes to consider a revised application, as requested by the
present applicant, staff suggest that Council refuse the present
application and advise staff that it is prepared to consider a new
rezoning application as proposed by the present applicant.
* * * * *
APPENDIX A
Page 1 of 3
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Background: The application and drawings reviewed in this report were submitted in April, 1995 by Kenneth King,
Architect. A staff report recommending refusal of this application was completed and given to Mr. King for comment on
September 8, 1995. He requested that the application be put on hold while he and the property owner considered staff s
non-support.
In April 1996, the original applicant and the property owner met with staff to propose some revisions to the application,
but with commercial space retained at grade. A Retail and Occupancy Study was also submitted in an effort to provide
further support of the proposed commercial space. After a review of this study, staff concluded there was no basis for
changing the conclusion and recommendation of the 1995 staff report. (See Further Discussion in Appendix B.)
In August 1996, staff were informed that another architect would take over the application. This was confirmed in a
letter dated September 24, 1996 from Edward de Grey, Architect, and a letter dated October 23, 1996 from the original
applicant, Kenneth E. King, Architect. Mr. de Grey provided an applicant s comment on the staff report in letters dated
October 8 and October 16, 1996 (on file in the Planning Department). In response to the change in applicants, staff
updated their report, now dated November 6, 1996. Mr. de Grey subsequently requested that that report be withdrawn from
the agenda of Council s Planning and Environment Committee meeting of November 28, 1996 in order to have more opportunity
to review the revised report. On January 13, 1997, Mr. de Grey provided extensive comment on the report (on file in the
Planning Department). Due to the nature of these comments, which addressed issues beyond the scope of the report, the
staff report has been revised again to address the principal issues raised by Mr. de Grey.
Site, Surrounding Zoning and Development: The site is developed with two one-family dwellings, but consists of three
lots, each being 7.9 m (26 ft.) by 34.4 m (113 ft.) in size, with a total width of 23.8 m (78 ft.). The site is at the
north-west corner of Victoria Drive and East 51st Avenue. It abuts a C-2 district which extends north, to East 48th
Avenue on the east side of Victoria Drive and East 47th Avenue on the west side.
The surrounding area is generally zoned RS-1 east of this corridor, and RS-1S to the west. Gordon Park is located one
block to the west between East 49th Avenue and East 53rd Avenue. South Vancouver Neighbourhood House is located two
blocks to the north at 6470 Victoria Drive. Census data for the years 1981, 1986 and 1991 indicate that population and
households in the census tract (# 14) surrounding the site have increased at a rate of about 1.2 percent per year.
APPENDIX A
Page 2 of 3
The abutting site to the north, which occupies the balance of the block-face, was rezoned from RT-2 to C-2 in 1959 and
developed with a two-storey building containing commercial uses at grade with dwellings above and surface parking at the
rear. This development has provided a 0.76 m (2.5 ft.) sideyard setback from the south property boundary.
Proposed Development: A three-storey, mixed-use development is proposed, containing commercial floor area at grade for
retail, service, and office uses and 12 dwelling units in two upper storeys. A building height of 9.2 m (30 ft.) is
proposed and a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.7. Underground and surface parking would provide 31 parking spaces.
About 36 percent of the total floor space, or 509.4 m2 (5,483 sq. ft.), would be for commercial uses. This floor space
would be oriented to Victoria Drive while the dwelling units on the upper two floors would have their street entrance on East 51st Avenue. The commercial floor space is intended to be occupied by the property owner, who presently operates two
retail premises in the adjoining development, Teemway Seafood Co. and Teemway Meat Market Ltd. at 6645 and 6653 Victoria
Drive respectively.
A 2.43 m (8 ft.) sideyard setback is proposed on East 51st and a 6.1 m (20 ft.) setback at the rear. The rear yard would
provide surface parking as would a portion of the sideyard near the lane. No sideyard from the north property line is
proposed although the adjoining development has a 0.76 m (2.5 ft.) sideyard.
Proposed Revisions: In April 1996, the original applicant proposed some revisions to the original application:
the proposed commercial floor space would be reduced to 371.6 m2(4,000 sq. ft.),
the FSR would be reduced from 1.7 to 1.5,
the form of development would be revised according to Urban Design Panel Advice, including a reduction in surface
parking and increased underground parking so as to provide more open space, and
an assured rental, accessible/adaptable dwelling at grade for the physically disabled (entry on East 51st Avenue)
would be provided.
As this proposal still contained some commercial floor space at grade, staff were not prepared to reassess the
application.
APPENDIX A
Page 3 of 3
In October 1996, the new applicant requested an opportunity to make the following revisions:
reduction in commercial floor area (amount unspecified),
reduction in FSR (amount unspecified),
revision of form of development according to Urban Design Panel and staff advice, and
provision of a dwelling unit with modifications to accommodate persons with special needs (i.e. disabilities).
Staff do not support this request because the proposed revisions still would not address the issue of increased
commercial potential, and also because a revised application would have to be reviewed anew, as if a new application,
including re-notification of surrounding neighbours and a review by the Urban Design Panel, but with no fee being
collected to recover staff costs.
* * * * *
APPENDIX B
Page 1 of 5
FURTHER DISCUSSION
Commercial Feasibility Study (1995): The original applicant provided information and analysis to demonstrate the need
for additional commercial space in this neighbourhood.
1. Existing Commercial Floor Space: The original applicant identified 9 935 m2 (106,943 sq. ft.) of commercial
floor area in the small C-2 commercial strip centred at East 49th Avenue and Victoria Drive (see map on next page). Most
of this space consists of small premises providing convenience retail or services catering to the daily needs of
surrounding residents. These include pharmacy, grocery stores, produce stores, delicatessen, barber shop, beauty salon,
coffee shop, restaurant, dry-cleaning, and video store. There are also two gasoline stations and a large, 1 384 m2
(14,900 sq. ft.), Value Village discount store which serve a wider city area.
Most of the commercial space, 8 656.6 m2 (93,181.9 sq. ft.) or 87 percent, is provided at grade, but not all of this
grade-level space is occupied by retail and service uses. About 29 percent is occupied by office and other uses,
including South Vancouver Neighbourhood House and Elizabeth Fry Society Family Support Services.
2. Potential for Additional Commercial Floor Space: The original applicant identified two of the 24 sites in this
district as having good potential for redevelopment. They would provide a net increase of 800 m2 (8,611 sq. ft.) in
grade-level commercial floor space. In April 1996, the applicant submitted a further study, by Burgess, Austin &
Associates (Real Estate Appraisers and Market Analysts), which concluded:
... the area in question is not fully developed with regards to the available retail/commercial space which could
be constructed, (but) there is very little opportunity ... to construct a modern contiguous retail unit of some
4,000 sq. ft., given the patterns of ownership, present property usage and the general economic viability
associated with existing uses.
The appraiser deemed any site less than 6,000 sq. ft. to be unsuitable for commercial redevelopment and also any site
with near 100 percent site coverage. These criteria removed from consideration all but three of the 25 sites in this C-2
district. The appraiser in turn judged these three sites to be uneconomical to redevelop for at least 10 years. Staff
believe these criteria are overly restrictive.
APPENDIX B
Page 2 of 5
Victoria Drive and East 49th Avenue
C-2 Commercial District (showing building outlines)
APPENDIX B
Page 3 of 5
It is possible that one or both gasoline service station sites, at 49th & Victoria, could be redeveloped with a
mixed-use, four-storey building providing up to 1 139 m2 (12,260 sq. ft.) commercial space at grade. There are also
opportunities in this area of small one-storey buildings to assemble a number of lots for redevelopment (such as the
four-storey development with commercial uses at grade and dwelling units above which was recently completed at 6201-6255
Victoria Drive). By the criteria used in the study, it could be argued that most small, local-serving commercial areas
throughout the city should be enlarged by rezoning adjoining residential sites to commercial use.
3. Longer-Term Potential: The total site area of the C-2 properties in this area is 19 916 m2 (214,378 sq. ft.).
Given the applicant s data, borne out by the building outlines on the map on the previous page, development in this
district has an estimated overall FSR of 0.5. The maximum FSR of 3.0 in the C-2 District represents a total potential of
about 60 000 m2 (645,000 sq. ft.), which is six times the amount of existing development.
Most of this potential will likely be developed in multiple dwelling use (in upper storeys of mixed-use developments),
but there would still be potential to double the amount of grade-level commercial space. In this circumstance there is
no justification for enlarging the commercial district. While a 827.5 m2 (8,904 sq. ft.) site might appear to be an
insignificant addition to the district, rezoning would be seen as a precedent and this would have repercussions for many
other residential sites elsewhere in the city which are next to commercially-zoned lands.
4. Vacancy Rates: The original applicant identified 656 m2 (7,060 sq. ft.) of floor space as vacant as April, 1995,
a vacancy rate of 6.6 percent. The study by Burgess, Austin & Associates subsequently reported that vacancies declined
to 4.7 percent in November, 1995 and that the vacancy rate should be between 5 and 8 percent to be considered healthy
and balanced . The applicant further advised staff in June, 1996 that the vacancy rate had fallen still further, to 3
percent.
Staff believe that the amount of vacant commercial space in any area will naturally fluctuate, from year to year, and
possibly on a seasonal basis as well. If vacant space remains scarce, it will likely stimulate some redevelopment of
under-utilized sites. As low as the vacancy rate might fall, staff do not believe this should be a signal to increase
the supply of commercial land but rather that property owners and developers will sooner or later be stimulated to
redevelop some under-utilized sites.
APPENDIX B
Page 4 of 5
Applicant Concerns: The new applicant has raised three principal objections to staff s recommendation that this rezoning
application be refused:
1. The City should not regulate supply and demand: The applicant considers staff s attention to commercial floor
space in the adjoining commercial area as an attempt to regulate supply and demand, and he questions the legality of
this.
Staff believe that the City has a duty to govern the land use demands on infrastructure, particularly transportation, and
that this is a both a paramount and legitimate objective of land use control. As stated in its preamble, the Zoning and
Development By-law has among its purposes to conserve and stabilize the value of property and to lessen congestion on
city streets .
A review of the vacancy rate, the amount of existing floor space, and development potential is the means whereby staff
can assess whether or not there is an undersupply of commercial space in a neighbourhood which might justify additional
commercially-zoned land. It is therefore irrelevant that there is a declining or low vacancy rate, or that proposed
development would increase the vacancy rate very little. Rather, an applicant must demonstrate that an area has very
little commercial development potential.
2. The proposed rezoning is not contrary to any explicit Council-adopted policy: The applicant questions why staff
have taken such a firm position on the matter of commercial land supply and imply it is a City position, when there is in
fact no official policy on this matter.
Staff acknowledge there is no Council-adopted policy concerning commercial space outside the Central Area. However, the
assessment of rezoning applications includes a variety of matters and issues that may or may not be addressed in specific
City policies. Rather, staff reports to Council will incorporate any and all factors which might have a bearing on the
merits and demerits of an application. The desirability of an explicit policy in the case of commercial land over-supply
is considered more closely in further discussion below.
3. Some rezoning applications approved in recent years suggest inconsistent application of this policy : The
applicant sees an inconsistency between the recommendation that this application be refused and the approval of several
other rezoning applications in recent years in which commercial use and development has been permitted on
residentially-zoned lands outside the Central Area.
APPENDIX B
Page 5 of 5
Staff have reviewed the rezonings cited by the applicant, as follows:
CD-1 #347 at 2897 West 41st (from RS-1) approved at Public Hearing on March 12, 1996. This rezoning created a
site for a medical offices with a dwelling above. Staff recommended this application be refused as there was no
documented need for any commercial potential at this location, and staff were concerned about the precedent for
other similar non-commercial intersections across the city.
CD-1 #303 at 737 West 16th (from RM-4 and C-2) approved at Public Hearing on February 18, 1993. This rezoning
actually reduced the commercial potential that had been available on the C-2 portion of the site.
CD-1 #302 at 3545 Kingsway (from RT-2) approved at Public Hearing on June 23, 1992. This rezoning allowed
commercial uses at grade and dwelling units above on an isolated site in an otherwise unbroken commercial strip.
CD-1 #294 at 5305 Victoria Drive (from RT-2) approved at Public Hearing on October 22, 1992. Same rationale as
CD-1 # 302.
The applicant also observes that the abutting site to the north, which occupies the balance of the block-face, was
rezoned from RT-2 to C-2 in 1959. Staff note that very little information is available about that rezoning, but that it
does pre-date the 1961-1971 commercial land use studies.
Staff acknowledge that the reports assessing the applications at 3545 Kingsway and 5305 Victoria Drive did not raise as a
significant issue the amount of additional commercial space which was proposed. By comparison, staff s assessment of
this application, and reluctance to consider proposed revisions to it, may be perceived to be heavy-handed. However, the
fact is that there remain very, very few isolated residentially-zoned sites within commercial districts by contrast to
the many, many residential sites throughout the city which abut or adjoin a commercial district.
* * * * *
APPENDIX C
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE APPLICANT
Urban Design Panel: In its review of the application on June 7, 1995, the Urban Design Panel felt that commercial uses
at grade could be compatible with surrounding uses but the Panel did not support the application because it "had serious
concerns about the form of development and the density being proposed" and "felt that a reduction in density would lead
to a more interesting form that would be more responsive to the residential neighbourhood."
The Panel recommended some specific improvements: provision of a dwelling unit at grade fronting East 51st Avenue,
provision of a larger setback from 51st Avenue, removal of parking from this setback area, and setting back the third
storey from the front property line. Interior dens and bedrooms without windows must also be avoided.
Public Input: An application information sign was installed on the site on June 8, 1995. On June 14, 1995, staff mailed
a notification letter to 256 property owners in the surrounding area.
The original applicant undertook some public consultation prior to submitting the application, including interviews with
immediate neighbours and an Open House on April 4, 1995. The application states that results indicate generally that
the neighbourhood is supportive of the proposal.
Planning staff have received telephone calls from several residents and some have come in to look at the plans of
proposed development. All have expressed concerns about the increased traffic and on-street parking which they
anticipate from the proposed commercial and residential development. Planning staff have not received any communication
from neighbours in support of the application.
Applicant's Comment: The following comment has been provided by Mr. Edward de Grey, Architect:
The applicant for this rezoning has read this amended report (dated February 12, 1997) and still disagrees with
the report s recommendations and the analyses leading to those recommendations. Accordingly, we wish to have the
opportunity to discuss the merits of our proposal with Council.
* * * * *
APPENDIX E
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
APPLICATION BY Edward de Grey, Architect (Present Applicant)
PLANS BY Kenneth E. King, Architect (Original Applicant)
PROPERTY OWNER Teemway Holdings Ltd.
DEVELOPER n/a
SITE INFORMATION AND STATISTICS
STREET ADDRESS 6691-6699 Victoria Drive
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 24 to 26, Block 2, D.L. 735, Plan 3421
SITE AREA 827.5 m2(8,904 sq. ft.)
WIDTH 23.8 m (78 ft.) [3 lots x 7.9 m (26 ft.)]
DEPTH 34.4 m (113 ft.)
DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED RECOMMENDED
PERMITTED UNDER RT-2 DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
ZONING
FLOOR AREA
Commercial (At Grade) 509.4 m2( 5,483ft2) STAFF
Residential (Above) 902.9 m2( 9,719ft2)
TOTAL 496.5 m2(5,344ft2) 1412.3 m2(15,202ft2) RECOMMEND
MAX. FLOOR SPACE RATIO 0.60 (see NOTE 1) 1.7 THAT
DWELLING UNITS 3 (see NOTE 2 12 THIS
MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE 45 percent 61.5 percent
APPLICATION
MAXIMUM HEIGHT 9.2 m (30 ft.) 9.2 m (30 ft.)
BE
FRONT YARD SETBACK 7.3 m (24 ft.) 0 m ( 0 ft.)
REFUSED
REAR YARD SETBACK 7.6 m (25 ft.) 6.1 m (20 ft.)with
surface parking
SIDE YARD SETBACKS
from south property line 3.7 m (12.1 ft.), may 2.43 m (8 ft.) but with
be relaxed to surface parking near lane
1.5 m (4.9 ft.)
from north property line
1.5 m (4.9 ft.) 0 m (0 ft.) abutting site
provides 0.76 m
(2.5 ft.)setback
PARKING 31
NOTES: (1) The maximum FSR is 0.75 for multiple dwellings, but the site does not meet the requirements for approval of
this conditional approval use as set out in the RT-2 Multiple Dwelling Guidelines.
(2) The three individual lots are restricted to one-family dwelling develop-ment as they do not meet the
minimum site area requirements in the RT-2 District for two-family dwellings.