Agenda Index City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of City Plans
SUBJECT: Monitoring RS-5/5S and RS-6 in areas rezoned as part of the RS-Interim Zoning Program
 

INFORMATION

COUNCIL POLICY

On May 03, 1996, Council approved an Interim Zoning program for RS-1 and RS-1S areas of Vancouver in advance of CityPlan's Neighbourhood Visioning program.

As a result of the Interim Zoning program, Council adopted RS-5, RS-5S, or RS-6 zoning in eleven areas of the City.

PURPOSE

To report on survey results monitoring new houses built under RS-5/5S and RS-6 zoning implemented as part of the RS-Interim Zoning Program.

BACKGROUND

The RS-1 and RS-1S Interim Zoning program provided interested neighbourhoods with the opportunity to change their current RS-1/RS-1S zoning to either RS-5/RS-5S or RS-6 or RS-6S in response to concerns about the external design of new houses and site landscaping.

While both RS-5 and RS-6 are `design control' zones that address external design and landscaping, the two zones are based on fundamentally different approaches:

… RS-5 is a `guideline-based' tool that offers increased floor space as an incentive for following design guidelines and entering into a design review process. The design guidelines require new buildings to be compatible with neighbouring houses and landscaping. The design review process includes neighbourhood notification, design review by City staff, and discretionary decisions by the Director of Planning.

… RS-6 is a `regulation-based' tool that requires all new development to meet external design regulations that address selected key issues. As the external design issues are dealt with in the regulations, the processing is simpler and faster and does not involve neighbourhood notification, design review, or discretionary decisions by the Director of Planning.

The areas which adopted RS-5 or RS-6 zoning as part of the Interim Zoning Program are Clinton Park, Douglas Park, Dunbar, West Kerrisdale, Kitsilano, Mackenzie Heights, West Southlands, and a one block section of West Marpole.

Community Planning has made a practice over the last several years of monitoring new zoning and rezoned areas to understand the impacts of the zoning and evaluate its performance. This survey monitored RS-5/5S and RS-6 zoned areas that adopted the zoning as part of the RS-Interim zoning program. East Kerrisdale, in which RS-6 was initially developed, was also monitored. Monitoring RS-5/RS-5S and RS-6 enabled staff to obtain feedback from neighbours, residents' associations, owners, and design professionals regarding new single-family houses built under these recently adopted zones.

The full results of the survey and evaluation are provided in Appendix `A' (link to Appendices A - C).

DISCUSSION

RS-5

The monitoring program was conducted to evaluate new houses and landscaping against the criteria and intent of the zoning. The intent of the `guideline-based' RS-5/5S zoning is to encourage the design of renovations and new developments to be compatible with neighbouring houses and landscaping and to emulate the design quality exemplified by

nearby existing houses. Houses built under the RS-5/5S zoning may be granted additional floor space if the owner/applicant wishes to design within the RS-5/5S guidelines. An application that seeks this additional floor area is considered a `conditional' application. If an owner/applicant does not want the extra floor area, the application is considered an `outright' application and is not subject to the design review process, although applicants are still encouraged to use the guidelines.

Twenty-two houses were surveyed in the areas that adopted the `guideline-based' RS-5 zoning. Houses built under the `outright' RS-5/5S option were not included in the neighbourhood survey as they did not involve notification or design review, and as such were not required to meet any design criteria regarding compatibility with neighbouring houses. Neighbours that were notified during the original development permit process were surveyed (936 surveys were sent out with 236 returned for a response rate of 25%), as were residents' associations, owners, and architects and designers. The following summarizes the main findings from each group (for further information on the survey results refer to Appendix A):

… Neighbourhood: Results in RS-5/5S zoned areas indicate a high level of satisfaction among neighbours with about 80% of the surveys responding positively to questions regarding the compatibility, design quality and landscaping of the houses. The primary negative comment made with respect to compatibility was building size/bulk. Approximately 22% of the survey returns commented negatively regarding the size of the house being surveyed and/or recommended that the zoning should be changed to decrease the allowable size.

… Residents' Associations: Residents' Associations responded to the survey in several forms including survey responses and observations and commentary on the zoning. Most of the RS-5 neighbourhood associations were generally satisfied with the houses built under the zoning, although the Dunbar Residents' Association questioned the effectiveness and relevance of the zoning as compared to the changes brought about by market forces. The West Kerrisdale Residents Association thought that several of the new houses did not adequately reflect the character and quality of original homes in the general vicinity.

… Owners: In RS-5, 65% of owners of `conditional' houses that responded said that they were able to build the architectural style of house they wanted under the design guidelines. A few owners felt that inflexibility in applying regulations and guidelines compromised aspects of the house they wanted. Most of the owners who built under the `conditional' option did so because they wanted the extra floor space.

… Architects and Designers: Architects and designers gave a mixed response as to whether they were able to design the type of house their clients wanted under the RS-5 zoning and guidelines. All the architects and designers thought the `conditional' process takes too long, and that this discourages clients from pursuing the `conditional' option. All respondents were supportive of the higher roof ridge height of RS-5 as they thought this allowed greater design freedom and better roof forms than RS-1. Most thought that using the adjacent 4 or 5 houses to establish the design context was too limiting, and that more emphasis should be placed on basic principles and area characteristics.

Development statistics show that the relative proportion of `outright' applications is increasing and now represents over 60% of the applications received in RS-5 (in the first years of RS-5, `outright' applications comprised about 25% of RS-5 applications). Survey responses from owners and designers indicated two main reasons for declining to apply for additional floor space in return for following the design guidelines:

… the `conditional' process takes too long;

… owners either do not want or cannot afford to build the extra floor space offered in the `conditional' stream.

Typically, `conditional' applications take eight to twelve weeks to process, whereas `outright' applications take two to three weeks. There are current and upcoming programs within the city that are aimed at reducing processing time. In the new process initiated by Development Services, combining the development and building permit application is estimated to reduce overall permitting time of `conditional' applications by two to three weeks.

The recent trend toward `outright' applications likely reflects an observed shift in the market towards custom built homes designed and built for a specific family versus `speculative' home construction for resale. Though this situation will require ongoing monitoring by staff, it may be that the market conditions (built for owners, non-maximum FSR houses) will result in the design of new houses (`outright' or `conditional') that are seen as acceptable by residents of RS-5 zoned neighbourhoods.

Planning will continue to monitor application processing and development activity over time, and if warranted will report back to Council on potential adjustments to the relative attractiveness of `conditional' and `outright' options in RS-5 zoning.

RS-6

The intent of the `regulation-based' RS-6 zoning is to encourage a good standard of building design, materials, and landscape development while allowing design diversity. The RS-6 zoning was structured to accomplish its intent through regulations to enable a faster, less involved process than the contextual design review basis of RS-5.

Thirty-four houses were surveyed in the areas that adopted the `regulation-based' RS-6 zoning. Neighbours within a few doors, across the lane and across the street were surveyed (464 surveys were sent out and 94 were returned for a response rate of 20%), as were resident's associations, owners, and architects and designers. The following summarizes the main findings from each group (for further information on the survey results refer to Appendix A):

… Neighbourhood: In RS-6, 50 - 60% of the neighbours responded positively to questions about the standard of building design and landscape, and contribution to the neighbourhood of the new houses. About 25% of the neighbours responded negatively to the questions, with the remainder neutral. The primary negative comment made with respect to compatibility was building size/bulk. Approximately 33% of the survey returns commented negatively regarding the size of the house being surveyed and/or recommended that the zoning should be changed to decrease the allowable size.

… Residents' Associations: The Residents' Working Group that participated in the development of the RS-6 zoning thought that the houses were a marked improvement over what had been built in the years previous, but that there was still room for further improvement. The West Southlands Ratepayers' Association expressed a concern that the bigger, higher scale that RS-6 allows has negative implications for the character of the neighbourhood and for permeability issues and the floodplan.

… Owners: In RS-6, 80% of the responding owners said that they were able to build the architectural style of house they wanted.

… Architects and Designers: Architects and designers that responded to the RS-6 survey appreciated the comparatively quick and less involved process, but several observed that the `regulation-based' approach of RS-6 sometimes undermines the intent of the zoning (for example that the external regulations for roofs can unnecessarily limit possibilities for roof design and use of 3rd floor attic space). All designers thought that they were able to design the architectural style of house their client wanted under the RS-6 zoning regulations.

Comparison of RS-5 and RS-6

The survey results indicate that, in general, the houses built under the `guideline-based' RS-5/5S zoning were better received by neighbours than those built under the `regulation-based' RS-6 zoning. In addition to the effect of market forces, the difference in response may in part reflect the different approach of the two zones. The regulatory approach of RS-6 was intended to address only selected key issues, whereas the design guideline and review approach of RS-5 specifically requires that houses be designed to respond to their context. It is also interesting that although technically the `regulation-based' RS-6 houses are a smaller floor space ratio than the `guideline-based' RS-5/5S houses, there were more negative comments made by RS-6 neighbours about the size of the new houses (22% vs 33%). This may indicate that the contextual `guideline-based' approach of RS-5 is being somewhat successful in reducing apparent building mass.

While the survey results indicate a neighbourhood preference for houses built under the `guideline-based' RS-5 zoning, by contrast, owners and architects seemed to prefer the `regulation-based' RS-6 as they were more able to design the style of house they wanted and were able to complete permit processing in a faster and less involved manner.

The outcomes and implications of the `guideline-based' vs `regulation-based' approaches to design control need to be carefully weighed in any future program work on controls regarding the character and compatibility of new houses in single family areas. Given the recent market trend toward selecting the simpler, faster process over increased floor space incentives, a better balance of neighbourhood and applicant interests may be accomplished by combining the two approaches in one zone: an `outright' option with external design regulations that address key issues, and a `conditional' design guideline and review option with an increased floor space incentive that more specifically addresses compatibility and context. The proposed RS-Rethink program, if approved for funding from the 2000 Contingency Reserve, may be an appropriate program through which to further develop this potential approach.

CONCLUSION

Monitoring of development in RS-5/5S and RS-6 has indicated generally positive results in terms of the design of new houses and related landscaping. Planning will continue to monitor application processing and development activity over time, and if warranted report back to council on potential adjustments to RS-5 and RS-6 zoning.

APPENDICES A-C

* * * * *

ag990914.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.

[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver