POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE
Date: October 24, 1995
Dept. File No.: PB
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of Community Planning, in consultation with
Director of Land Use and Development
Manager of Real Estate Services
General Manager of Engineering Services
Director of Permits & Licenses, and
Director of Legal Services
SUBJECT: Referral of RS-6 Zoning to Public Hearing for a
Portion of South Shaughnessy/Granville
Single-Family Zoning Review Study Area
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT the Director of Land Use and Development be
instructed to make application to amend the Zoning
and Development By-law to create a new RS-6/RS-6S
Districts Schedule (in an earlier stage of
development referred to as RS-1D/RS-1DS 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 area
generally bounded by Granville Street, West 57th
Avenue, East Boulevard, West 42nd Street, Maple
Street, West 41st Avenue, Cypress Street, and West
49th Avenue, shown on Figure 1 from RS-1 to RS-6;
FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be
instructed to prepare the necessary by-laws for
consideration at Public Hearing, including
amendments:
(i) to the Parking By-law to apply the regulations
pertaining to the RS-1/RS-1S District to the
RS-6/RS-6S District; and
(ii) to the Sign By-law to apply regulations
pertaining to the RS-1/RS-1S District to the RS-
6/RS-6S District;
AND FURTHER THAT the application and by-laws be
referred to Public Hearing, together with the
condition of approval recommended by the Director of
Planning that, if approved at Public Hearing, the by-
laws be accompanied at the time of enactment by the
- 2 -
"RS-6/ RS-6S Design Guidelines" (draft attached as
Appendix B) to be adopted by resolution of Council
for the RS-6/ RS-6S District.
B. THAT the Director of Planning 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.
C. THAT, subject to the approval of the rezoning at
Public Hearing, the Subdivision By-law be amended to
apply the regulations pertaining to the RS-1/RS-1S
District to the RS-6/RS-6S District;
AND FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be
instructed to bring forward the amendment to the
Subdivision By-law at the time of enactment of the
zoning amendments.
D. THAT, subject to the approval of the rezoning at
Public Hearing, the fees for services related to the
development permit application process, as set out in
Schedule 1 of the Zoning and Development Fee By-law
No. 5585, be amended to fully recover costs in
administering RS-6 development applications, as
generally described in Appendix C.
E. THAT if the rezoning is approved, Council approve
funding in the amount of $31,932 to establish a
regular full-time Plan Checking Assistant position in
Permits and Licenses, subject to classification
review.
CONSIDERATION
Given that, under RS-1 zoning, most new buildings on
smaller lots have only partial basements due to FSR
limitations, and given resident interest in allowing for a
greater use of basements in the RS-6 zone, Council may
request:
F. THAT an exclusion of basement floor area from FSR
calculations (provided an amount equal to one-third
times the excluded basement floor area is deducted
from the permitted above grade FSR on the first and
second storeys) be included in the draft by-law for
consideration at Public Hearing.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS
approval of A, B, C, D, and E, and submits F for
- 3 -
CONSIDERATION.
COUNCIL POLICY
On January 25, 1990, Council approved staff positions to
undertake community discussion and development of area-specific
zoning and design guidelines to replace current RS-1 zoning.
Council further resolved that the area bounded by Oak Street,
East Boulevard, King Edward, and 57th Avenue be the first area
of attention.
On September 27, 1994, Council asked the Director of Planning
and the General Manager of Engineering Services to report back
to Council with recommendations for private property "green
space" regulations which address aesthetic and infrastructure
issues.
On June 6, 1995, Council asked staff to report back on interim
measures to deal with neighbourhood requests for character
zoning until such time as staff are able to go back into those
neighbourhoods to work with them on their neighbourhood
centres.
Figure 1. Proposed RS-6 DistrictSUMMARY
This report recommends referral to Public Hearing of a proposed
new zoning (RS-6) that addresses resident objectives in the
westerly portion of the South Shaughnessy/Granville study area,
illustrated in Figure 1. This westerly portion is referred to
as the RS-1 West Sub-Area, and is one of five sub-areas
included in Phase II of the South Shaughnessy/Granville Single-
Family Zoning Review (see Figure 2 below). RS-6 zoning was
previously referred to as a draft RS-1D zoning, and contains
similar provisions as RS-1D. Accompanying RS-6/RS-6S design
guidelines are also described.
The proposed new zone, RS-6, provides more flexibility for
designers and builders by enlarging the current RS-1 building
envelope, establishing some minimum standards for landscape
development through impermeability regulations and design
guidelines, establishes some standards for selected design
items through external design regulations, and provides
additional relaxations from regulations for
renovations/additions to existing houses. RS-6 also permits
more floor area for new and existing buildings, on a
conditional approval basis, up to 0.24 FSR plus 130 m› above
grade, provided 0.04 FSR is located above the second storey
under a pitched roof and minimum standards for site landscaping
are met. An option to exclude basement floor area from FSR to
permit full basements for houses on small lots with a one-third
proportional reduction of above basement FSR is put forward for
Council's consideration.
- 4 -
A recent survey of residents in the RS-1 West Sub-Area (see
Figure 1) indicates a majority of respondents (63%) preferred
the new RS-6 zoning to the existing RS-1 zoning. Staff
recommend that Council refer RS-6 to Public Hearing for the RS-
1 West Sub-Area.
PURPOSE
This report seeks Council approval to rezone a portion of the
RS-1 to RS-6 in an area generally bounded by Granville Street,
West 57th Avenue, East Boulevard, West 42nd Street, Maple
Street, West 41st Avenue, Cypress Street, and West 49th Avenue
(shown on Figure 1), to amend the Zoning and Development By-law
to include a new RS-6/RS-6S District Schedule, and to adopt RS-
6/RS-6S Design Guidelines for use in the RS-6/RS-6S District.
BACKGROUND
In January 1990, Council approved a zoning review for the South
Shaughnessy/Granville area to address concerns that recent
development was not sympathetic to the existing character of
the neighbourhood. The study area boundaries established by
Council are indicated on Figure 2 below.
Phase I resulted in the adoption of RS-3 and RS-5 zoning in the
northern portion of the study area. Given the differing house
and lot characteristics, and differing resident objectives, the
Phase II study area was divided into five sub-areas, as
indicated on Figure 2 below.
Figure 2. South Shaughnessy/Granville Phase II Sub-Areas
- 5 -
Consultation has been conducted in all the sub-areas. To date,
Phase II of the zoning review has led to the rezoning of the
RS-3 North area to RS-3A, along with the adoption of RS-5
design guidelines. RS-5 design guidelines were also adopted on
an interim basis in the RS-3 South sub-area.
The report also responds to the September 27, 1994 Council
directive that, in response to storm flooding that occurred the
previous summer, the Planning and Engineering Departments
report back with recommendations for private property "green
space" regulations which address aesthetic and infrastructure
issues. This has led to an attempt via pilot regulations
addressing impermeability to address these issues through the
proposed RS-6 zoning.DISCUSSION
1. Area Description
The RS-1 West Sub-Area is made up of roughly 815 properties,
ranging in size from 113 m› to 1 579 m› (4,000 sq. ft. to
17,000 sq. ft.). Property widths range from 9 m to 30.5 m (30
ft. to 100 ft.); property depths 36.5 m to 53 m (120 ft. to 175
- 6 -
ft.). The housing stock is a mix of pre-war Tudor- and
Georgian-style houses (with some Craftsman-style houses on
smaller lots), post-war bungalows, post-1980s houses, and other
styles.
2. Planning Process
After an initial public information meeting for all study area
residents in February of 1994, staff consulted with a resident
volunteer working group from the RS-1 West Sub-Area (made up of
area residents and/or architects and builders), and also formed
an advisory group of architects, designers and realters with an
interest in RS-1 issues. Discussions with the working group
and advisors involved identification of sub-area issues,
objectives and an analysis of zoning options. Staff then
delivered questionnaires to all property owners within the sub-
area asking for their opinion on proposed changes. Three open
houses were held in conjunction with the sub-area survey in
order to provide additional information on the zoning options
and the planning process. Survey results indicated a majority
of respondents (63%) preferred the new RS-6 zoning to the
existing RS-1 zoning (see section 8 - Public Response).
3. Zoning Objectives
Major concerns were expressed by the RS-1 West Sub-Area working
group about the lack of variety in new houses, and poor design
and construction quality, particularly respecting site
landscaping and exterior building detailing. Many of these
concerns have been expressed by RS-1 residents in other areas.
The proposed RS-6 zoning focuses on four key neighbourhood
objectives:
- encourage more design diversity in new houses;
- encourage a good standard of landscape development;
- encourage a good standard of building design and
materials; and
- encourage retention of existing houses.
In response, RS-6 zoning:
- provides more flexibility for designers and builders by
enlarging the current RS-1 building envelope;
- establishes some minimum standards of landscape
development through impermeability regulations and
landscape design guidelines;
- establishes some standards of building design and
materials through external design regulations; and
- allows greater relaxations of District Schedule items
(beyond what's permitted under RS-1 zoning) for
renovations and additions to existing buildings, including
- 7 -
additional FSR on first and second storeys.
4. RS-6 Zoning and Design Guidelines
Existing alternatives to RS-1 zoning--RS-3 or RS-5 zoning with
accompanying RS-5 design guidelines--were felt by many working
group members to be too restrictive and complicated in terms of
requiring designers/architects to derive the design of new
housing from existing adjacent houses (some being new houses
which replaced older, more traditional-looking houses).
Processing time of conditional applications in the RS-3 and RS-
5 zones was considered by most to be too long.
Therefore the proposed RS-6 zoning addresses selected design
issues without specifically referencing adjacent houses. This
approach does not ensure streetscape compatibility as do
conditional applications in RS-3 or RS-5; it does, however,
address many residents' key concerns about specific design
items and quality of construction of new homes.
The vast majority of zoning controls in RS-6 are contained in
the district schedule as outright regulations. Design
guidelines have been drafted with provisions for site
landscaping for those seeking a discretionary increase in floor
area. Further, given the prescriptive nature of the outright
external design regulations, the design guidelines also allow
for the consideration of designs which meet the general intent
of the district schedule but not the specific requirements of
the external design regulations.
If applicants for a new house or an addition to an existing
house go through the discretionary process, RS-6 permits more
floor area, up from the RS-1 maximum of 0.20 FSR plus 130 m›
(1,400 sq. ft.) above grade to a maximum of 0.24 FSR plus
130 m› (1,400 sq. ft.) above grade, provided that for new
houses no less than 0.04 FSR is located above the second storey
under a pitched roof. If applicants go through the outright
process, not meeting provisions in the design guidelines
(including landscaping provisions), RS-6 permits less floor
area for new buildings than RS-1, to a maximum of 0.16 FSR plus
130 m› (1,400 sq. ft.) above grade. Outright renovations can
still achieve the RS-1 maximum of 0.20 FSR plus 130 m› (1,400
sq. ft.) above grade under RS-6 zoning. Please see section 6,
"Permit Processing", for a more complete discussion of the
processing streams in RS-6.
The following sets out in more detail the major objectives,
issues, and zoning responses, as incorporated in the new draft
RS-6 zoning and design guidelines.
(a) Major Objectives
- 8 -
(i) Encourage more design diversity in new development
The approach taken to address this objective is to provide
more flexibility for designers and builders by enlarging
the current RS-1 building envelope, while still respecting
the need for new buildings to be "neighbourly."
"Wedding-Cake" Shape
Issue: The RS-1 zoning secondary envelope requirements
often result in a stepped "wedding cake" form of housing
on middle-sized and larger lots. More traditional forms
of single-family house design--vertical walls rising to a
full gable or hip roof--rarely occur under current
outright RS-1 regulations. Although changes are needed in
this regard, residents still expressed the need to protect
neighbouring buildings from overshadowing.
Response: Substantially revise RS-1 secondary envelope
requirements to be less constricting and less prescriptive
(see Figure 3 below); allow some exterior side walls to
rise vertically to 9.1 m (30 ft.); to protect neighbouring
buildings, sideyards will increase to 12% of site width
from 10% on narrower lots; and a new secondary envelope
will be applied to all buildings requiring roofs at or
above 9.1 m (30 ft.) to come inward at a 45¯ angle to
minimize overshadowing, etc., to neighbouring properties.
Truncated Roofs
Issue: Pitched roof forms are frequently cut off at 9.1 m
(30 ft.)--the RS-1 maximum allowable height--and are often
unable to achieve real ridges.
Response: Adjust height and roof form regulations to
allow pitched roof ridges to go to 10.7 m (35 ft.) height
(see Figure 3 below) subject to the RS-6 secondary
envelope regulations (see above), with additional
regulations on the use of dormers above the second storey.
Figure 3. Height Envelope Controls in RS-1/RS-6
- 9 -
Building Depth
Issue: For the permitted FSR, the RS-1 building depth is
quite restrictive and does not foster a wide variety of
design responses, particularly on smaller, narrower lots.
Designers must often cram the maximum above grade floor
area into the maximum permitted building depth; there is
little room to manoeuvre. However, residents still
recognized the need to protect smaller neighbouring houses
from deeper new houses overwhelming their properties.
Response: Allow deeper building depth to 40% (from 35% in
RS-1) in middle 60% portion of building width. The two
20% side portions of the allowed building width would
remain at a 35% building depth, although these side
portions could also achieve additional depth (up to 40%)
- 10 -
where the subject site is a corner lot or next to existing
deep adjacent houses (see Figure 4 below).
Figure 4. Building Depth in RS-1/RS-6
(ii) Encourage a good standard of landscape development
The approach taken to address this objective is to
establish some minimum standards of landscape development
through both impermeability regulations and design
guidelines. These provisions respond to Council's
directive to regulate private property green space to
address aesthetic and infrastructure issues: planting
areas (lawn, ground cover, etc.) are permeable, allowing
for on site retention/ absorption of surface water,
reducing flooding potential in many areas and reducing the
- 11 -
capacity demands on the combined sewer system. Ecological
concerns are also addressed: the aquifer is recharged
(i.e., source of ground water) and air quality is improved
(i.e., planted materials can absorb carbon dioxide and
release oxygen).
Site Paving
Issue: Paving of yards is excessive, resulting in loss of
planting area and increased run-off, impact on city
sewers, potential flooding.
Response: Regulate maximum site coverage for house,
garage and paved areas to 60% of site area.
After testing these regulations in the new RS-6 District,
Planning and Engineering Staff will report back to Council
on the feasibility of extending site permeability
regulations, and related landscape guidelines, to other
zones in the city.
Landscaping
Issue: Inadequate planting of shrubs and/or ground covers
on new building sites.
Response: Establish minimum landscape requirements for
new houses and renovations seeking the maximum permitted
FSR. Applicants will be required to comply with the
design guideline landscape requirements (i.e., minimum
planting requirements, site lighting, etc.) in order to
achieve maximum permitted FSR.
(iii)Encourage a good standard of building design and
materials
The approach taken to address this objective is to
establish some standards of building design and materials
through external design regulations. The standards are
deliberately contained in the district schedule; this is
intended to avoid the longer permitting process associated
with fully conditional development applications.
The external design regulations focus on aspects of the
design and use of materials that were considered by
residents to not fit with the general style and character
of their existing neighbourhood. While the intent of RS-6
is not to be as directly contextual as RS-3 or RS-5 zoning
(i.e., designs derived from adjacent buildings or
streetscape), staff have tried to focus on those elements
which most affect neighbourliness, quality of
construction, and are considered by residents to be most
- 12 -
contrary to existing house form and expression. However,
no particular architectural style is prescribed.
Staff have attempted to craft the regulations and design
guidelines so that, in effect, a wide variety of design
elements can be used but applied in ways that are
consistent with the overall design expectations of the
neighbourhood. However, in developing "outright" design
regulations, and reducing the number of interpretive
decisions made by the Planning Department, designers and
builders will be faced with a more prescriptive, less
flexible set of zoning provisions for some aspects of
their building design. Staff developed these regulations
with the residents' group keeping in mind:
- the degree of consensus in the neighbourhood about
the design element;
- the effectiveness of the provisions in accomplishing
the objective;
- the equity of the provisions; that is, whether the
control, in effect, takes place in other areas; and
- whether or not it can be easily administered and
enforced.
Nonetheless, staff have some concerns about the
limitations of these outright controls, particularly those
affecting glazing and roof materials, but suggest they be
referred to Public Hearing for discussion as there are
strong views on all sides. Also, because there may still
be some building materials or practices which could meet
zoning objectives but not the specific regulations, staff
have developed design guidelines which provide the
opportunity for an applicant to propose designs or
materials which "step outside" specific external design
regulations, provided the related provisions of the RS-6
Design Guidelines and the zone's intent are met.
Pitched Roofs
Issue: Flat roofs or shallow pitched roofs on 2´-storey
houses can create a visual impression of excessive
building bulk above the second storey and general
boxiness.
Response: Require a minimum 6:12 pitch for roofs on
portions of the building above 7.3 m (24 ft.) height; all
or partial flat roof designs will still be allowed below
7.3 m (24 ft.) height so 2-storey flat-roof buildings are
still permitted. Dormer roofs above the second storey
will have a minimum pitch of 4:12. Dormers above the
second storey are regulated to have a maximum width
(related to the width of the storey below) of 40% in the
- 13 -
rear yard and 25% to 30% in the front yard. As an
incentive to build a pitched-roof house, an additional
0.04 FSR is permitted for any habitable area located below
a (partial) third-storey pitched roof.
Roof Decks
Issue: Open roof decks can create overlook problems for
neighbours.
Response: Roof decks above the second storey are limited
in size, located in the rear half of the building, and set
back from the perimeter walls of the building.
Projecting Basements
Issue: Basements projecting beyond the first storey
toward the front yard are not characteristic of housing in
the neighbourhood.
Response: Apply external design regulations and design
guidelines (including landscaping considerations) to
projecting basements facing streets.
Inadequate Detailing
Issue: Inadequate exterior detailing results in a
substandard appearance; specific concern about trim or
treatment at doors, windows, chimney B-vents, etc.
Response: Require some detail treatment at windows and
doors, and visual screening on gas chimney vents
protruding above roofs or above framed chimney enclosures.
Double-Height Front Entries
Issue: The form and proportions of a double height front
entry often results in an excessive architectural
expression and detracts from the residential streetscape
image.
Response: Limit height of cover over porches to first
storey.
Windows and Glazing
Issue: Use of large expanses of translucent or coloured
glass is not typical of residential areas; the large
variety of sizes and types of windows on front facades of
buildings is also atypical.
Response: External design regulations on glazing types
- 14 -
with design guidelines on the relative size and variety of
windows and additional allowable glazing types.
Wall-Cladding Materials
Issue: Poor quality wall-cladding systems lack adequate
durability and when inadequately maintained result in
staining from water damage; some other materials are not
typical for residential areas (e.g., glass curtain wall or
glass block, polished stone, shiny finishes, vinyl,
aluminum).
Response: Specify permitted systems, excluding materials
less durable or materials not typical in the area.
Approval of a broader variety of materials may be
considered with a full Development Application process.
False Fronts
Issue: Building appearance looks unfinished when higher
quality exterior wall cladding materials are used only on
the front facade and not on side elevations.
Response: External design regulations requiring
continuation of front materials onto side walls to
specified minimum dimensions.
Roofing Materials
Issue: Brightly coloured materials (red, yellow, orange
etc.) for roofs not typical for area, and are often
discordant with the existing residential streetscape
image.
Response: Permit no brightly coloured, high profile or
corrugated roofing systems outright. Approvals of a
broader variety of materials may be considered with a full
Development Application process.
(iv) Encourage retention of existing houses
The approach taken to address this objective allows
greater relaxations of District Schedule items for
renovations and additions to existing buildings beyond
what's permitted under RS-1 zoning.
issue: The demolition of existing (older) houses seems
excessive to many residents; RS-1 regulation of
renovations and additions is sometimes onerous; impact on
landfill sites is also a consideration.
Response: Allow outright FSR to 0.20 plus 130 m›
(1,400 sq. ft.) above grade for renovations and additions
- 15 -
(same as RS-1); allowed greater relaxations of District
Schedule items (beyond what's permitted under RS-1
zoning), including additional FSR on first and second
storeys up to 0.24 FSR plus 130 m› (1,400 sq. ft.) for
renovation.
(v) Other Objectives
Garage Size
Issue: Large garages under RS-1 zoning occupy up to 80%
of the lot width, create excessive building bulk in the
rear yard (with overshadowing of neighbours), and are
often accompanied by the excessive removal of existing
trees and landscaping.
Response: Reduce garage size from 80% lot width to 67%
lot width.
Bay Windows
Issue: On some new RS-1 houses the bay window element is
used excessively due to floor space ratio exclusion.
Response: Limit FSR exclusion for bay windows to 1% of
total allowable building FSR.
Height Controls on Sloping Sites
Issue: Under the RS-1 zoning, the sloping height envelope
for buildings located on sloping sites sometimes leads to
awkwardly shaped buildings (e.g., roof ridges cut-off on
down hill end, etc.).
Response: Use the average site elevation of the permitted
building envelope as level base for height regulations,
applicable to most sites. For very large sites with
unusual topography, or for any site with a slope greater
than 15% across the allowed building envelope, the
Director of Planning may permit the 10.7 m (35 ft.)
maximum height to be calculated using the method employed
in RS-1 zoning.
Light-Well Locations
Issue: The protrusion of light-wells into front yards
often has a negative visual impact on front yard
landscaping.
Response: Permit light-wells on the front of houses but
not projecting into the required front yard.
5. Basements
- 16 -
Staff put forward for Council consideration an option to allow
an increased size of basements in the RS-6 zone. Currently
under RS-1 zoning, the overall permitted floor area (0.60 FSR)
roughly equals the above basement FSR (0.20 plus 130 m›) on
smaller sized [10.1 m (33 ft.)] lots. This leaves many new
buildings with small-sized basements: on a typical 10.1 m by
36.6 m (33 ft. by 120 ft.) lot, a basement would be
approximately 17.1 m› (184 sq. ft.) if all permitted above
basement floor area is built on the first and second storey.
The feeling of most members of the West Sub-Area working group
was that full-sized basements (as big as the first storey) on
smaller lots should be permitted even if the maximum overall
FSR is exceeded because this increases usable living space
without increasing building bulk above the ground. Other
areas' RS-1 residents have also expressed interest in providing
more opportunities for the building of full size basements
regardless of lot size but concurrently have expressed the
concern that RS-1 houses on 10.1 m (33 ft.) lots seem
excessively bulky above ground.
Staff do have concerns about simply excluding all basement
floor area from FSR. Such a provision would dramatically
increase the amount of floor area permitted on smaller lots.
For example, the overall FSR on a 10.1 m by 36.6 m (33 ft. by
120 ft.) lot with basement floor space excluded would jump by
roughly 36% (from 0.64 FSR to 0.87 FSR). Larger lots which
already have the opportunity to build large basements would
obtain no benefit from the exclusion of basement floor area
from FSR (i.e., the maximum overall FSR of 0.64 would not
change). Thus excluding all basement floor area from FSR would
create further inequities between large and small lot owners
than currently exists under RS-1 zoning (i.e., on smaller lots
more floor space relative to lot size is permitted above grade
than on larger lots in RS-1).
Staff suggest that Council consider the following: exclude
basement floor area from FSR calculations provided that an
amount equal to one-third times the excluded basement floor
area is deducted from the permitted above grade FSR. This
zoning provision would reduce inequities by having small lot
owners "trade-off" a third of the additional floor space
excluded in the basement for above basement floor area. It
could also provide an additional benefit for neighbouring
properties by encouraging applicants to reduce the above-grade
bulk of the house (a problem most pronounced on smaller lots)
in favour of having a larger basement. For example, on a
typical 10.1 m by 36.6 m (33 ft. by 120 ft.) lot, this could
reduce the above grade FSR by approximately 12% while
permitting the basement to be increased from 17.1 m› (184 sq.
ft.) under RS-1 zoning to 83.6-93 m› (900-1,000 sq. ft.).
Also, the basement would not be allowed to project beyond the
- 17 -
first storey on properties opting for this pro-rated FSR trade-
off to obtain larger basements. Again, larger lots which
already have the opportunity to build full basements under the
current zoning are not affected by the proposal.
The Manager of Real Estate Services is of the opinion that this
change has the potential to marginally increase smaller-lot
land value and their new homes. While the market value of the
above-grade space may be higher than the space at the basement
floor level, the per-square-foot cost to build a basement floor
in new construction would be significantly less than the
construction cost of above-grade floors; site excavation and
foundation costs are similar whether or not a basement is
provided.
However, for existing homes, say an existing full 0.60 FSR
"Vancouver Special" built on a slab on a small lot, to re-
excavate and build a finished basement may be physically
difficult, and the cost may be high. Also, it would
necessitate reducing the above-grade FSR in order to fulfil the
requirement for a 1:3 transfer of floor space to the basement.
Therefore, it may not be feasible for an existing "Vancouver
Special" type home to benefit from the proposed basement FSR
exclusion. The feasibility of taking advantage of this 1:3
basement FSR trade-off for the renovation/addition of other
types of existing homes will depend on the existing above
basement and total FSR as well as specific construction
conditions. Should Council adopt this 1:3 basement FSR
exclusion, it may lead to a greater demand for smaller [10.1 m
(33 ft.)] sites and some increase to demolition rates on these
smaller lots in RS-6 relative to RS-1 areas. This could lead
to an acceleration of demolitions of some types of older homes
on smaller lots.
Staff could proceed with further analysis of this issue in
later reviews (see below), or Council could refer the change
suggested above, along with the RS-6 zoning, to Public Hearing.
6. Permit Processing
There are essentially three streams of permit processing
established by RS-6 zoning for new houses:
- Applicants seeking the maximum FSR of 0.16 plus 130 m›
(1,400 sq. ft.) above grade and no relaxations will be
processed as outright applications and will not require
landscaping. If the regulations are met, applicants will
receive a Joint Permit (JP) (combined Building and
Development Permit), requiring approximately three to five
weeks of processing time. Currently, RS-1 applications
for new houses--meeting only basic outright regulations
regarding height, yards and minimal design controls--take
- 18 -
approximately one to three weeks.
- Applicants seeking the maximum FSR of 0.24 plus 130 m›
(1,400 sq. ft.) above grade and no other relaxations will
also apply for a JP but will require qualitative
evaluation in terms of landscaping. The applications will
be processed as conditional applications, however, there
will be no notification of immediate neighbours, and plan
checking for the most part will be conducted by Permits
and Licenses staff. Processing time will be three to five
weeks.
- Applicants seeking relaxations of external design
regulations and the maximum FSR of 0.24 plus 130 m›
(1,400 sq. ft.) above grade will enter what has
traditionally been referred to as the conditional stream.
Applicants will initially apply for a Development Permit
(DP) which will be processed by Planning staff. They will
then apply for their Building Permit. In such cases,
notification of immediate neighbours will occur, and
processing time for the DP (i.e., to issuance of the
prior-to letter) will likely require six to eight weeks as
is typical with most DP conditional applications.
There are three similar streams of permit processing
established by RS-6 zoning for additions/renovations to
existing houses, except the outright stream permits a maximum
FSR of 0.20 plus 130 m› (1,400 sq. ft.) above grade (provided
the applicant is not seeking any major relaxation of zoning
requirements).
Additional submission requirements (beyond RS-1 requirements)
for other than "outright" JP applications or DP applicants will
include:
- a landscaping plan, including a plant list and showing
planted and paved areas, and outdoor lighting;
- a more detailed description of finishing materials (e.g.,
type of stucco used for wall-cladding, colour and type of
roofing material, colour of window glazing); and
- dimensions and/or calculations made during the course of
meeting additional RS-6 regulations [e.g., dimensions and
pitch of dormers roofs, floor area located under sloping
ceilings with a height of less 2.3 m (7.5 ft.), etc.].
RS-6 is a more complicated zoning than RS-1. In order that the
regulations may be more fully understandable to both applicants
and administrators, a support document for the RS-6 zoning and
guidelines has been prepared, entitled "RS-6 and RS-6S
Explanatory Notes" and is attached to the report as Appendix D.
- 19 -
A clear and comprehensive checklist for staff and applicants
will be provided to help to determine the appropriate
application process stream, given that the proposed design must
meet all external design regulations in order that it be
processed as a joint permit. If the applicant is unsure about
meeting the regulations, and during the course of plan checking
it is determined that the external design regulations were not
met, then the application either has to be revised by the
applicant to conform to regulations, or be resubmitted as an
application for a Development Permit. A checklist should
minimize any confusion.
Also, during the "start-up" phase of administering to the new
RS-6 zoning, staff and applicants will be required to be
"brought-up-to-speed" on the regulations and design guidelines.
Initial delays in designing buildings and processing
applications should be anticipated. This may require training
materials and sessions for prospective applicants and
administrators.
Provisions such as site paving and impervious areas can be
difficult to enforce. However, past experience with similar
design regulations have indicated that they are infrequently
challenged by applicants and owners.
7. Development Permit Fees
In light of Council's objective that processing of development
applications be cost recoverable, staff have reviewed the
development application fee schedule for all types of
applications likely to be submitted under the RS-6 zoning, and
recommend the following increases for new one-family dwellings
and large additions [i.e., greater than 60 m› (646 sq. ft.)]:
(a) where the permit would be issued as an outright approval
. . . . . . . . $500.00 (RS-1/RS-1S: $400.00)
(b) where the permit would be issued as a conditional
approval, with no relaxations of regulations (JP)
. . . . . . . . $750.00 (RS-1/RS-1S: $600.00)
(c) where the permit would be issued as a conditional
approval, with relaxations of regulations requested (DP)
. . . . . . . . $900.00 (RS-1/RS-1S: $600.00; RS-5:
$900.00)
8. Consequential Amendments
The Director of Land Use and Development recommends that if the
proposed zoning is referred to Public Hearing, consequential
amendments be made to the Parking and Sign By-laws to apply
regulations pertaining to the RS-1 District to the RS-6
- 20 -
District. Further, if the proposed zoning is approved at
Public Hearing, the Director of Land Use and Development
recommends that an amendment be made to the Subdivision By-law
to apply regulations pertaining to the RS-1 District to the RS-
6 District at the time of enactment, and that fees for services
related to the development permit application process be
amended to fully recover costs in administering RS-6
development applications.
9. Public Response
With respect to public consultation, the majority of RS-1 West
Sub-Area working group members support the change to RS-6
zoning and adoption of the RS-6 Design Guidelines. A
questionnaire was sent out to all property owners within the
sub-area. Question 1 asked about the "acceptability" of the
current RS-1 zoning and the proposed RS-6 zoning (note:
respondents could find both options acceptable). Question 2
asked about the respondent's preference between RS-1 and RS-6.
Of the 815 questionnaires distributed, 152 (or 19%) were
returned. The results are as follows:
RS-1 RS-6 No Response
Acceptable 44% 63% 4%
Preferred 32% 63% 5%
10. Designers'/Architects' Responses
Staff assembled an advisory group made up of two architects,
two designers and a realter to discuss the new RS-6 zoning and
guidelines. In general, the group endorsed the RS-6 zoning and
design guidelines as a preferred alternative to RS-1 zoning.
Many other designers/architects were contacted by staff to give
their opinion, including representatives of the Architectural
Institute of British Columbia (AIBC). Many respondents
endorsed the changes to encourage the retention of existing
buildings. Most respondents also supported the changes made to
the building envelope; it was felt that the changes would
provide more flexibility for the designer than RS-1.
However, the external design controls in the RS-6 zoning were
felt by many architects to unduly restrict the freedom of the
designer, particularly regarding the regulations pertaining to
materials. Further, some AIBC representatives felt that RS-6
zoning was too complicated and too restrictive in its entirety,
and asked for a return to the RS-1 regulations which existed
prior to 1986 (e.g., no above-grade FSR limitations, basic
height envelope control). Staff consider this request to run
- 21 -
contrary to the concerns expressed by many residents in
Vancouver's single-family zones, who consider many new
buildings in the current RS-1 zoning to be out of character
with their neighbourhood in terms of size and design.
11. Impact on Property Values
The Manager of Real Estate Services advises that under current
market condition, there should be no significant impact on
property values in the short term if the RS-6 zoning is
adopted.
If the proposed 1:3 pro-rated basement FSR exclusion is
approved, there would be a potential for a marginal increase in
lot values and new home prices for smaller lots (e.g., 33 ft.
lots). However, this potential value increase would diminish
as the lot size increases, and a 18.3 m (60 ft.) or larger lot
would be indifferent to this proposal. It may or may not be
feasible to provide a full basement underneath an existing
home, depending on the cost of construction and the existing
FSR figures.
12. An Interim Zoning for Other RS-1 Neighbourhoods
The South Shaughnessy/Granville Single-Family Review has been
carried out, at least in part, while staff have been
considering interim measures to deal with neighbourhood
requests for character zoning in other RS-1 areas as per
Council's request. Residents from some other single-family
neighbourhoods in the City have been informed about the work
being done, and are considering the applicability of RS-6
zoning to their neighbourhoods. Staff are also investigating a
more expedient process by which a zone like RS-6 could be
offered in other RS-1 neighbourhoods in the city. Further
discussions are ongoing between staff and other RS-1
neighbourhoods in the city. Staff will report back to Council
on interim measures shortly.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
The proposed RS-6 site coverage and impermeability regulations
and the proposed landscaping design guidelines will help reduce
stormwater runoff into the sewer system. This will provide
some flood protection and combined sewer overflow (CSO)
reduction benefits. It will also address some ecological
concerns regarding air quality--plant materials can absorb
carbon dioxide and release oxygen--and water quality--through
recharging the aquifer.
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Children's Policy and the Statement of Children's
Entitlements are not applicable to this amendment.
- 22 -
PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS
RS-6 zoning is unique and more complex than RS-1 zoning.
Processing of applications will generally involve extra staff
time for checking applications and providing information to
residents and prospective applicants. It will affect staff in
the following areas:
- Permits and Licenses Plan Checkers (additional 1-2 hours
per application);
- Planning Facilitators and/or Plan Checkers (additional 2-3
hours per application);
- Landscaping Technicians (additional 0.5 hour per
application); and
- Development Information Officers (additional 0.5-1 hour
per application).
The RS-1 West Sub-Area is composed of roughly 815 properties.
The sub-area has had 30 to 35 Joint Applications and
Development Applications per year over the last three years.
To administer the same number of applications under RS-6
zoning, assuming most applicants will seek the maximum FSR and
submit a conditional application, roughly four to seven weeks
of total additional staff time per year may be involved.
The Director of Land Use and Development considers the marginal
increment in each of three staff areas in Land Use and
Development not so significant to justify three additional
staff positions. Rather, he suggests that Planning staff
monitor changes in workload and related levels of staff service
if the RS-6 is adopted in the RS-1 West Sub-Area. If RS-6 is
adopted elsewhere in the city or if the incremental workload
proves to be more extensive than originally envisioned, staff
can report to Council on the need for additional Planning staff
to handle additional inquiries and applications. The issue of
space will need to be resolved by the Manager of Facilities
Development in consultation with the Directors of Planning and
Permits and Licenses.
The Director of Permits and Licenses requests the addition of a
Plan Checking Assistant at this time ($31,932 per year at pay
grade 19). Permits and Licenses are at a point where handling
any additional workload will increase the processing time for
development permits and further decrease their level of
service. Currently, an RS-1 application for a single-family
dwelling may take as long as three weeks to process; the target
for turnaround times for these applications is three days. The
hiring of an additional Plan Checking Assistant at this time
will allow the department to take on these additional
responsibilities and hopefully reduce the current three-week
processing time of other RS-1 applications to an acceptable
level (five to seven days).
- 23 -
CONCLUSION
By rezoning the RS-1 West Sub-Area of the South Shaughnessy/
Granville Single-Family Zoning Review Study Area, three key
area objectives will be addressed: encourage more design
diversity in new development; encourage a good standard of
building design, materials and landscape development; and
encourage retention of existing houses. RS-6 zoning provides
more flexibility for designers and builders by enlarging the
current RS-1 building envelope, establishes some minimum
standards of design through external design regulations, and
provides additional relaxations from regulations for
renovations/additions to existing houses.
* * * * *