1

STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

1100 Patricia Boulevard, Prince George, B.C., V2L 3V9

DATE: August 27 2014

TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL

FROM: IAN WELLS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT: Official Community Plan Amendment Application No. CP100099 and Rezoning Application No.

RZ100473 to facilitate the adoption of a new RS4: Urban Residential zone

Location: City of Prince George Bowl Neighbourhoods

ATTACHMENT(S):

- Location Map

- Appendix “A” to CP100099

- Appendix “A” to Bylaw No. 8602

- Appendix “A” to Bylaw No. 8603

- Appendix “B” to Bylaw No. 8603

- Appendix “C” to Bylaw No. 8603

- Official Community Plan Consultation Checklist

- Public Consultation Materials

- Correspondence Received

i CITY OF

PRINCE GEORGE

2

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. THAT Council RECEIVE Application No. CP100099 to amend City of Prince George Official Community Plan

Bylaw No. 8383, 2011.

2. THAT Council GIVE FIRST READING to the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 8383,

2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 8602, 2014.

3. THAT Council CONSIDER the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 8383, 2011,

Amendment Bylaw No. 8602, 2014, in conjunction with the current Financial Plan and confirm there are

no issues;

4. THAT Council CONSIDER the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 8383, 2011,

Amendment Bylaw No. 8602 2014, in conjunction with the current Regional District of Fraser Fort-George

Solid Waste Management Plan and confirm there are no issues;

5. THAT Council CONSIDER the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 8383, 2011,

Amendment Bylaw No. 8602, 2014, in conjunction with the City of Prince George Strategic

Framework for a Sustainable Prince George and confirm there are no issues;

6. THAT Council GIVE SECOND READING to the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw No.

8383, 2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 8602, 2014.

7. THAT Council APPROVE the following public consultation process to fulfill the requirements of Section

879 of the Local Government Act as outlined in the attached Official Community Plan Amendment

Consultation Checklist:

a) Two Citywide Newspaper advertisements requesting written comment.

8. THAT Council RECEIVE Application No. RZ100473 to amend City of Prince George Zoning Bylaw 7850,

2007.

9. THAT Council APPROVE FIRST and SECOND READING to City of Prince George Zoning Bylaw No. 7850,

2007, Amendment Bylaw No. 8603, 2014.

3

PURPOSE:

On July 8th, 2013, Council recommended as

part of Core Service Review Item 3.51 that

Administration prepare a bylaw for the

expansion of RS4: Single Residential zoning

to facilitate infill housing on narrow lots

within the bowl area of Prince George.

Expanding the RS4 zone responds to the

policies in Official Community Plan Bylaw

No. 8383, 2011 (OCP) that clearly support

small lot infill housing in the bowl

neighbourhoods.

The subject neighbourhoods considered

include the Crescents Neighbourhood, East

Central Fort George, Quinson, Millar

Addition, VLA, Van Bow, and South Fort

George (see Figure 1).

The proposed amendments for Council’s

consideration include the introduction of a

new RS4: Urban Residential zone for single

residential properties within the subject

neighbourhoods. This report summarizes

the new approach based on the proposed

RS4 zone, the public consultation input on

small lot housing, and the research and

analysis that led to the recommendations in

this report.

BACKGROUND:

The subject neighbourhoods were subdivided into narrow lots in the early 20th Century as part of the “City Beautiful”

movement. This movement consisted of a grid pattern of streets that transition into the concentric semi-circle of streets

surrounding Duchess Park Secondary School. The narrow residential lots are commonly +9 m wide and +35 m deep for

an approximate area of 315 m2. This historical urban structure of the narrow lots, the grid pattern, and the lane access

provide the opportunity for small lot residential infill today.

A zone for small lot infill development was included in the City’s Zoning Bylaw No. 3482 (1980) and the current Zoning

Bylaw No. 7850 (2007). The RS4: Single Residential zone is intended for residential infill development within the

historical subdivision layout of the bowl area. The specific purpose of the RS4 zone is to “to foster the redevelopment

on older smaller inner city lots of at least 300 m2 with lanes or in new traditionally designed neighbourhoods.” Small lot

residential infill is supported by policy direction in the OCP for urban neighbourhoods in the bowl area (see policy

analysis on page 5 and 6).

Schedule D-5 of the OCP designates Intensive Residential Development Permit Areas. The area includes all of the

neighbourhoods identified on Figure 1 above, with the exception of the Crescents Neighbourhood. Within this

development permit area, new single detached housing projects on lots less than 9 m wide with laneway access trigger

a form and character review. Administration is recommending that the development permit area be expanded to

include the Crescents Neighbourhood and that the trigger for development permit include all properties up to 11 m

wide (see Appendix “A” to Bylaw No. 8602 and Appendix “A” to CP100099). The intent of these changes is to have new

housing projects on a range of lot sizes across the bowl area to achieve a high-quality design that respects the form and

character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Administration is recommending that a more flexible and comprehensive RS4: Urban Residential zone replace the

current RS2, RS3 and RS4 zones within the subject neighbourhoods (see Appendix “A” and Appendix “B” to Bylaw

8603). The intent of the proposed RS4 zone is to accommodate a range of detached housing forms, from narrow

homes to wider bungalows, with development regulations that vary depending on the specific dimensions of the lot. For

example, only lots with laneway access and a width less than 9 m are permitted to develop with the maximum site

coverage of 50%.

Figure 1

West

Bowl

East

Central

Fort

George

Crescents

Van Bow

VLA

Millar

Addition

South

Fort

George

~tJi~~vmtnc~O t[

4

Single detached housing is just one residential infill development option in the bowl area; other options include

duplexes or multi-family housing. There are no changes proposed for lots that are zoned for duplex (RT) or multi-unit

(RM) development.

The specific amendments that are proposed to support this initiative, and which are considered in this report, are as

follows:

Official Community Plan Amendments:

- Re-designate Schedule D-5: Intensive Residential Development Permit Areas to include the Crescents

Neighbourhood.

- Amend Policy 8.3.2 to reflect that development permits are required for those lots with developed lane access

and up to 11 m wide.

- Amend Section 9.3 of the Official Community Plan to change the trigger for an Intensive Residential

Development Permit from “residential house construction on lots less than 9 m wide” to “residential house

construction on lots up to 11 m wide.”

Zoning Bylaw Amendments:

- Remove existing RS4 zone and replace with new RS4: Urban Residential zone

- Within the subject neighbourhoods, rezone the properties zoned RS2, RS3, and RS4 to the new RS4: Urban

Residential zone.

- Amend Section 8.7 of the Zoning Bylaw to update the Intensive Residential Development Permit Guidelines.

The intent of the proposed amendments is to reflect best practices for infill residential housing while also addressing

public input and concern as identified in the public consultation portion of this report.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

Administration consulted with the subject neighbourhoods to inform residents of the RS4 zoning initiative and to

request input. Surveys and invitations to four (4) Open Houses were sent to over 3,700 land owners.

This was advertised as follows:

Delivery of Survey and Open House Invitations to all property owners within the subject neighbourhoods.

Three (3) Free Press Newspaper ½ Page advertisements (Friday September 27, October 4, and October 11,

2013) to summarize the initiative, to advertise the four (4) available open houses, and to describe the

opportunities to provide feedback.

The well-attended open houses were held at several different venues throughout the bowl area:

Open House Date Location Neighbourhood Min. Attendees

October 7, 2013 Spruceland Elementary Spruceland 22

October 10, 2013 Ron Brent Elementary VLA 30

October 15, 2013 Heritage Elementary Heritage 24

October 17, 2013 Ron Brent Elementary VLA 44

Information was provided at the open houses through presentations by staff, poster board displays, and a discussion

period for questions and comments. The discussion was facilitated in partnership with University of Northern British

Columbia Environmental Planning students. After the discussion, laptops were available for attendees to review the

specific circumstances of their property with staff.

Out of 196 surveys received, the results demonstrate that 56% respondents are in favour of narrow lot housing

compared to 36% that are opposed. In addition, detached laneway housing was seen as a preference for intensification

compared to duplex and multifamily housing, and should be considered in the future.

Respondents in support of narrow lot housing stated that this form of housing provides an opportunity to revitalize

neighbourhoods, increase density and improve affordability. Other identified advantages included the ability to tie-in to

existing City services, the increased tax base, the growth near the downtown, and the efficient use of land.

5

Those respondents not in support were primarily concerned that this form of housing will result in over-crowding, the

loss of green space, and the loss of neighbourhood character. Other concerns included the lack of parking,

infrastructure capacity, crime, snow removal in the alley, and homogeneous design.

Administration has worked to better understand and respond to these concerns with updates to the RS4 zone and the

Intensive Residential Development Permit guidelines. Please refer to the Zoning Bylaw section of this report for a

detailed analysis changes to encourage infill development while also respecting the positive and valued aspects of the

neighbourhood.

The consultation process also provided the opportunity to clarify the implications of the RS4 zone versus other single

residential zones. For example, some residents were surprised to find out that narrow lot housing can already be

developed on lots zoned RS2 in the bowl area. The RS4 zone simply increases the allowable site coverage, which is

intended to facilitate the construction of detached or attached parking garages off of the lane. Directing vehicles

towards the lane provides a more pedestrian friendly curb appeal to the fronting street.

Should this application move forward to 3rd Reading and Public Hearing, the public and community stakeholders will

have an additional opportunity to express their views to Council directly.

POLICY ANALYSIS:

Official Community Plan

The Official Community Bylaw No. 8383, 2011 (OCP) establishes a framework for planning and land use in the City and

includes statements of objectives and policies to guide land use management decisions within the City. The OCP

references and incorporates the direction of many subject specific plans and policies, including the myPG Sustainability

Plan goals, the Active Transportation Plan, and the current Financial Plan.

The policy direction in the Official Community Plan supports the intent of the RS4 zone, which is to:

Expand housing options available;

Intensify and renew neighbourhoods through infill development;

Provide the opportunity to tie-in to existing City infrastructure and servicing;

Encourage attractive pedestrian-oriented housing with parking off the lane; and,

Retain the character and scale of the existing housing mix.

Housing Choices

Creating opportunities for residential infill near growth priority areas is a key consideration of the OCP with the aim to

develop “a full range of housing types and tenures so that people of all ages, income levels and abilities have housing

choices throughout the community” (see Objective 7.5.2). This report focuses on OCP and Zoning Bylaw amendments

to facilitate single detached residential infill opportunities within the bowl area of Prince George.

The subject neighbourhoods (Crescents, East Central Fort George, Quinson, and portions of Millar Addition, VLA and Van

Bow) are primarily designated Neighbourhood Residential, Neighbourhood Centre Residential, and Neighbourhood

Corridor on Schedule B-6: Future Land Use of the OCP. Even in the lowest-density Neighbourhood Residential

designation, a wide range of housing forms are supported including narrow lot housing, laneway homes, duplexes, and

ground-oriented multiple residential units (see Policy 8.3.58, Policy 8.3.57, Policy 13.2.30).

Varied housing concepts help to diversify neighbourhoods and provide housing options for the different needs of the

population. Narrow lot housing provides an option for people seeking compact single detached housing nearby

amenities and major employment centres. The smaller building footprint of narrow homes may also present a more

affordable option for single detached homes. Therefore, narrow lot housing alongside other forms of ground-oriented

housing provide residents with a cross section of choices in their neighbourhood with respect to housing type, form,

tenure, and affordability.

Growth Management

The subject neighbourhoods are designated as growth priority and infill areas on Schedule B4: Growth Management of

the Official Community Plan. New growth within established neighbourhoods is preferred over the extension of services

and roads into suburban and rural areas because the City is able to “minimize ongoing operating, maintenance and

replacement costs of infrastructure” (see Objective 8.1.15). For example, residential growth in the bowl area utilizes

existing sidewalks, roads, and water, sanitary and storm services. With growth directed towards the bowl area, the City

6

can focus on the renewal and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure and continue to provide sufficient levels of service

that are aligned with manageable fees and taxes. The environmental benefits of infill development over car-dependent

suburban and rural greenfield development align with the City’s ‘Green City, Green Practices’ objectives outlined in

Section 6.4 of the OCP.

Transportation

The OCP supports the creation of complete communities that “make it easy for people to shop, play and work close to

home” and to emphasize, “a range of attractive mobility choices, including walking, cycling, and transit.” This land use

management approach directs residential growth and capital investment towards priority areas, as described in Section

8.1.10 and 8.1.11.

8.1.10 The City should prioritize public investments to Growth Priority Areas, including capital investments in

transit, biking/walking infrastructure, streetscape improvements, parks and other public open spaces...

8.1.11 …the City should prioritize neighbourhood planning in and around Growth Priority areas. These plans should

take a “complete community” approach, including situating the plan area in the context of the surrounding urban

structure…and relating residential development and densities to the urban structure and to design principles for

walkable communities.

The characteristics of the bowl area are ideal for alternative transportation options. The small residential lots are laid

out in an efficient grid-like pattern nearby common destinations such as downtown, community facilities, parks and

trails, places of work, and schools. New infill development only helps to enhance the viability and uptake of the

pedestrian, cycling and transit networks that have long existed in this area (see Schedule B-12: Cycle Network and

Schedule B-13: Pedestrian Network).

The subject neighbourhoods feature an extensive system of lanes fronting the rear yard of residential properties. Policy

8.3.48 states that “the City should explore required upgrades and maintenance to lanes to make them safe primary

access points for more intensive residential development.” The importance of lanes is that they provide rear yard

parking access to mitigate the visual impacts of the vehicle and to improve the curb appeal of the street. Avoiding front

yard driveways also improves the flow of traffic and pedestrians using the street and sidewalk, and maintains on-street

parking opportunities by maintaining the erect curb.

Form and Character

The lands shown on Schedule D-5: Intensive Residential Development Permit Areas are designated as an

Intensive Residential Development Permit Area. In these areas, Policy 8.3.2 describes the support for new narrow

lot housing:

To expand the range of single-family housing options, facilitate redevelopment of areas close to

downtown, and encourage attractive development, the City should permit narrow lot developments

within areas identified in Schedule D-5: Intensive Residential Development Permit Area…

Currently, an Intensive Residential Development Permit is needed to facilitate the construction of a single detached

home on a lot that is less than 9 m wide with lane access. As part of the development permit process, the developer

must demonstrate that the project is consistent with the intensive residential guidelines under Section 8.7 of the

Zoning Bylaw. Design considerations include façade design, exterior finishes, setbacks, building heights and parking.

The development permit process provides a valuable opportunity for Administration to work with the land owner on an

attractive site and house design that respects the positive characteristics and scale of the surrounding neighbourhood.

A significant portion of residential lots in the subject neighbourhoods are slightly wider than 9 m, and therefore, do not

require a development permit as part of new home construction. Increasing the width of what is considered intensive

residential narrow lot housing would trigger the development permit review for more small lot development projects.

Administration could then ensure an attractive design that is pedestrian-oriented and consistent with the

nieghbourhood character. Therefore, Administration recommends that the definition for Intensive Residential

Development Permit Areas be amended to include narrow lots up to 11 m wide (see Appendix “A” to CP100099).

To date, only three (3) Intensive Residential Development Permits have been received that meet the 9 m wide and

under requirement since its designation in June 2012. Increasing the maximum width of lots that require a

development permit from 9 m wide to 11 m wide should not adversely impact staff resources or residents interests in

efficiently developing their land. Administration is committed to processing a complete Intensive Residential

7

Development Permit application in 4 to 6 weeks. Further, the limited staff resources needed to review and issue the

permit allow for a new application fee of $150, to cover the costs of the administrative process.

Administration further recommends that Schedule D-5: Intensive Residential Development Permit Areas be amended to

include the Crescents area (see Appendix “A” to Bylaw No. 8602). The Crescents is centrally located in the bowl area

with narrow single residential lots that can be developed under the RS2, RS3 or RS4 zone. Including the Crescents into

the Intensive Residential Development Permit Area allows Administration to review these narrow lot housing projects

through the development permit process. The development permit area guidelines aim for a high standard of design

that retains or improves the character of the neighbourhood.

Conclusion

Encouraging small lot infill development in areas zoned for single detached homes and with access to existing

infrastructure, servicing, and lanes is consistent with the Official Community Plan.

Crescents Neighbourhood Plan

The Crescents Neighbourhood Plan is intended to provide more specific land use policy direction under the Official

Community Plan and to be the guiding document for rezoning and development. The Crescents neighbourhood includes

residential areas as well as University Hospital of Northern B.C., Phoenix Medical Centre, Duchess Park Secondary

School and seniors housing complexes. The area contains a mix of older homes, some newer town homes and duplexes

interspersed, and multifamily development.

The policy direction in the Crescents Neighbourhood Plan supports the intent of the RS4 zone. The plan states that

where redevelopment does occur, lower impact housing that is sympathetic to existing housing should be utilized. Policy

in Section 5.1 states “the neighbourhood area will continue to provide a range of single family and two family (duplex)

dwellings.” Narrow lot housing completes the objective to provide an increase in housing choices while complementing

the established form and character of the neighbourhood and the policies provided by the Neighbourhood Plan.

Therefore, the application to rezone portions of the subject neighbourhoods to RS4: Urban Residential is consistent with

the Crescents Neighbourhood Plan.

REGULATORY ANALYSIS:

Zoning Bylaw

At present, the existing RS4 zone is assigned to 27 residential properties in the subject neighbourhoods. The RS4 zone

is commonly supported by policy based on the system of lanes, and the existing infrastructure and servicing in the bowl

area.

The majority of the residential properties within the bowl area are zoned RS2: Single Residential. The RS2 zone has the

purpose “to foster an urban lifestyle on properties larger than 500 m2.” There are also a small portion of properties in

the bowl area zoned RS3, which has the purpose to “foster an urban lifestyle on properties larger than 400 m2 primarily

with lanes, for innovative, cluster housing, and compact housing.”

Table 1 below identifies the number of lots zoned RS2, RS3 and RS4 in the bowl area and their different

development and subdivision regulations.

8

Table 1

RS2 Zone RS3 Zone Existing RS4 Zone

Total Lots in Subject

Neighbourhoods

Legal Parcels 554 21 27

Development Regulations

Max. Site Coverage 40% 45% 50%

Building Height 10.0 m 10.0 m 9.0 m

Max Accessory Building 90.0 m2 70.0 m2 60.0 m2

Subdivision Regulations

Minimum Lot Width 15.0 m 12.0 m 9.0 m

Lot Area (min. - max.) 500– 2000 m2 400 – 845 m2 300 – 400 m2

When considering the expansion of the RS4 zone, Administration undertook extensive public consultation and research.

Out of this work, Administration recommends the adoption of an updated RS4: Urban Residential zone that has

different regulations based on the dimensions of each lot. The updated RS4 zone would replace the current RS2, RS3

and RS4 zones within the subject neighbourhoods (see Appendix “A” and Appendix “B” to Bylaw 8603). The regulations

of the proposed RS4 zone are summarized in the table below:

Table 2

Proposed RS4:Urban Residential Zone

Development Regulations >12 m

wide lot

9 m - 12 m

wide lot

<9 m

wide lot

Max. Site Coverage 40% 45% 50%*

Building Height 10.0 m 10.0 m 9.0 m

Max Accessory Building* 90.0 m2 70.0 m2 60.0 m2

Subdivision Regulations

Minimum Lot Width 7.5 m 7.5 m 7.5 m

Lot Area (min. - max.) 225 – 600m2 225 –600 m2 225 – 600 m2

*maximum site coverage of 45% for lots less than 9 m wide without lane access

*gross floor area of accessory buildings shall not exceed the greater of 50% of the ground floor are of the principle

building or the area stated above

The updated RS4 zone directly responds to the comments received during public consultation on narrow lot housing

initiative. There was some public concern that the expansion of the RS4 zone would increase densities, strain City water

and sanitary capacity, limit green space, over-crowd parking, reduce neighbourhood character, and create a uniformity

of housing. The updated RS4 zone attempts to address all of these concerns while also reflecting the positive input

received during the public consultation. Those in support of the initiative stated that small lot residential infill could

positively increase density near downtown, utilize existing City services, and improve the affordability of new builds.

Density

The expansion of the proposed RS4 zone does not significantly increase the density that is already permitted in the RS2

and RS3 zones. Any of the aforementioned zones facilitate the construction of a single detached house on lots as small

as 225 m2. The increase in building site coverage from RS2 (40%) to RS4 (up to 50%) simply provides more flexibility

for a land owner to construct a house with an attached or detached garage on a small lot.

The proposed RS4 zone reduces the minimum lot width at subdivision from 9.0 m to 7.5 m. Reducing the minimum lot

width to 7.5 m gives land owners more ability to adjust their lot lines for infill development. For example, if a land owner

has two adjacent lots that are 9 m wide and 7 m wide, the proposed RS4 zone would allow for the re-location of the

interior lot line to create two 8 m wide lots. There is limited opportunity for further subdivision in the subject

neighbourhoods because most of the lots average +9 m wide.

9

Without any significant increases in density, the impact of the RS4 zone on the capacity of City services is negligible.

Green Space

An increase in building site coverage results in a loss of landscaped yard space. The proposed RS4 zone aims to retain

yard space throughout the neighbourhood by limiting site coverage on larger lots. Allowable site coverage is as follows:

Lots > 12 m wide - 40% site coverage; Lots > 9 m and < 12 m wide - 45% site coverage; Lots < 9 m wide - 50% site

coverage. Reducing site coverage for wider and larger lots prevents the construction of massive homes that detract

from the available yard space and prevailing neighbourhood character.

Parking

Infill development increases the overall demand for residential parking spaces on a block. Section 7.1.20 of the Zoning

Bylaw states that “all off-street parking spaces required or provided for residential uses shall be located on the same

site… they are intended for.” A minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces is required for a single detached house, or

three (3) parking spaces with the presence of a secondary suite. For single detached housing on narrow lots, Section

8.7 of the Zoning Bylaw directs off-street parking to the rear of the property to be accessed from the lane. Accessing off-

street parking from the lane has several key benefits:

The rear yard provides essential space for required off-street parking spaces on small lots.

The overall streetscape is more appealing and pedestrian friendly when the presence of vehicles is mitigated

and screened behind housing.

Parking from the lane avoids the need for driveways or garages fronting the street. Less driveway curb cuts

results in fewer interruptions to the sidewalk and enable more space for on-street parking.

There are some lane right-of-ways within the subject neighbourhods that are undeveloped and function more as

greenspace. Parking cannot be accommodated in the rear yard of narrow lots without lane access. If lane access is not

established to an acceptable gravel or asphalt surface standard, the RS4 zone proposes to reduce the allowable site

coverage from 50% to 45%. Reducing site coverage to 45% encourages the retention of greenspace for lots that are

unable to access a rear yard parking garage, and therefore will require a front drive.

For the reasons above, the use of lanes to access rear yard parking is a fundamental component of small lot residential

infill. As infill development occurs, Administration will continue to monitor and address the increase in service demands

for the lanes (e.g. general maintenance and snow clearing).

Neighbourhood Character

It is important that narrow lot development respect the form and character of the surrounding neighbourhood. The

Intensive Residential Development Permit process helps to guide the exterior design and scale of small lot

development. As stated in the Official Community Plan section of this report (page 5), Administration is recommending

that the trigger for this development permit process be expanded from lots up to 9 m wide to lots up to 11 m wide. This

amendment captures many small lots that are just over 9 m.

When a development permit is triggered, the project must demonstrate consistency with the Intensive Residential

Development Permit Guidelines under Section 8.7 of the Zoning Bylaw. The current guidelines are fairly prescriptive and

focus primarily on the preferred exterior features of the house. Administration has revamped the guidelines in line with

OCP Implementation Policy 13.3.32 to be more flexible, to encourage more variation in housing design, and to add new

content on topics such as parking, landscaping and neighbourhood character (see Appendix “C” to Bylaw 8603). Some

of the major themes and changes to the guidelines are summarized as follows:

10

Front Façade:

A wider list of façade features are encouraged to enhance the curb appeal of the house,

including verandas, porches, balconies, covered entries, pitched roofs, varied rooflines, bay

windows, dormers, eaves brackets, and dormers.

Exterior Materials:

Preferred exterior materials are listed and include brick, stone hardiplank, shakes, shingles and

weather board. The character and finish of the house should be considered for accessory

buildings.

Site Design:

Houses should be sited a maximum of 4.5 m from the street, with accessory buildings clearly

incidental in size and massing to the house.

Parking:

Parking spaces, to be provided off the lane, are encouraged to use permeable alternatives to

asphalt or concrete. For example, using aqua pavers rather than asphalt surfacing softens the

aesthetic of the backyard and doubles as usable recreation space when vehicles are not present.

Landscaping:

To create a welcome curb appeal, front yard landscaping and fencing should be limited to a

height of 1.2 m; fences should not be fully opaque (e.g. picket fences are encouraged)

Streetscape:

To establish a varied and visually interesting streetscape there should be no more than six

narrow lot housing developments constructed adjacent to each other. Adjacent narrow lot

developments must not have a mirrored exterior design.

Massing: Narrow lot housing projects on lots less than 9 m wide are restricted to a height of 9 m for a

maximum of two storeys. Lots wider than 9 m are restricted to a height of 10 m for a maximum

of 2.5 storeys. The guidelines encourage the second storey to be proportionally smaller than the

first with character elements that soften the massing of the house.

The proposed guidelines are intended to guide new infill development in a manner that respects and compliments the

character of the surrounding neighbourhoods.

Site Layout

Using a set of site plans, the proposed RS4 zone is compared with the RS2 zone on the following page in Figure 2. The

site plans demonstrates how narrow lot housing can be developed using either zone. The proposed RS4 zone differs by

allowing some additional site coverage on small lots, which can be needed to provide rear yard garages.

11

Garage

53 m2

Lots > 12 m wide

Proposed RS4 Zone

Max Site Coverage: 40%

A large 158 m2 house

and double car garage

easily fit within the

maximum site coverage

of 40% for lots that are

12 m wide.

Existing RS2 Zone

Max Site Coverage: 40%

The proposed RS4 zone

replicates the regulations

of the RS2 zone for lots

that are wider than 12 m.

Garage

40 m2

House

85 m2 House

158 m2

Lots 9 to 12 m wide

Proposed RS4 Zone

Max Site Coverage: 45%

An 86 m2 house and

single to double car

garage fit within the

maximum site coverage

of 45% for lots that are 9

m wide.

Existing RS2 Zone

Max Site Coverage: 40%

An 86 m2 house and a

smaller single car garage

could be constructed

under the RS2 zone.

Lots < 9 m wide, Option 1

Proposed RS4 Zone

Max Site Coverage: 50%

An 85 m2 house and a

two car tandem garage fit

within the maximum site

coverage of 50% for lots

that are 7.5 m wide. The

second tandem parking

space could also be

provided as surface

parking in front of the

detached garage door.

Existing RS2 Zone

Max Site Coverage: 40%

The 85 m2 house and a

smaller 20 m2 single car

garage could be

constructed under the

RS2 zone.

Lots > 9 m wide, Option 2

Proposed RS4 Zone

Max Site Coverage: 50%

A 114 m2 house with 2

surface parking stalls fits

within the maximum site

coverage of 50% for lots

that are 7.5 m wide. The

increased site coverage

could facilitate the

development of an

attached garage

accessed off the lane.

For a secondary suite, a

third parking space will

need to be provided.

Existing RS2 Zone

Max Site Coverage: 40%

A 105 m2 house could be

constructed under the

RS2 zone.

House

85 m2

House

114 m2

Garage

40 m2

NOTE: Measurements are based on the building footprint/envelope and do not include the total floor area of two-storey homes.

Figure 2

• • 35 m 35 m

1 .. 12 m ..1 f.-- 9 m ----J

l - rn 35 m 35 m

' ~ 7 .5 m ----J ~ 7.5 m -J

12

Comparable Communities As part of the RS4 zone draft process, Administration reviewed comparable communities and researched case studies in the

Lower Mainland, B.C., and other provinces. Many communities in B.C. and western Canada have adopted zones that

accommodate small lot infill housing. The table below displays different zones in communities that allow for narrow lot

housing as well as the regulations used to regulate lot dimensions, site coverage, minimum building setbacks, and the

maximum height allowable. The lot dimensions and site coverages permitted in other communities is generally

consistent with the regulations of the proposed RS4 zone.

Table 3

City Zone

Min

Dimensions /

Area

Site

Coverage

Setbacks

(Principle)

Max Height of

Building

Calgary R-C1N: Contextual

Narrow Parcel One

Dwelling

Width: 7.5 m

Area: 233 m2 50%

Front: 3.0 m

Side: 1.2 m

Rear: 7.5 m

Principal: 10.0 m

Regina R4A: Residential

Infill Housing

Width: 7.5 m

Area: 250 m2 50%

Front: 6.0 m

Side: 1.2 m

Rear: 5.0 m

Principal: 13.0 m

Surrey

RF-9: Single Family

Residential (9)

Width: 9.0 m

Area: 250 m2 52%

Front: 3.5 m

Side: 1.2 m

Rear: 6.5 m

Principal: 9.5 m

Accessory: 5.0 m

RF-12: Single Family

Residential (12)

Width: 12.0 m

Area: 320 m2 50%

Front: 3.5 m

Side: 1.2 m

Rear: 7.5 m

Principal: 9.5 m

Accessory: 5.0 m

Winnipeg R1-Small:

Residential Single-

Family

Width: 7.6 m

Area: 232 m2 45%

Front: 4.6 m

Side: 0.9 m

Rear: 7.6 m

Principal: 10.6 m

Conclusion

The proposed RS4 zone captures the intent of single residential development on a range of lot sizes. Only lots less than

9 m wide with lane access are permitted the maximum site coverage of 50%. For larger lots wider than 12 m, the site

coverage is reduced to 40%. Therefore, the proposed RS4 zone is more responsive to the specific characteristics and

lot dimensions of each lot. The proposed residential development permit area guidelines compliment the regulations

with guidance on how to achieve a high quality exterior design that respects the surrounding neighbourhood.

The proposed RS4 zone and updated intensive residential development permit guidelines aim to address concerns with

small lot development that were received during the public consultation period of this initiative. At the same time, the

proposed amendments effectively implement policy direction in the OCP that is in support of respectful infill

development within established neighbourhoods. Therefore, Administration supports the proposed amendments to the

Zoning Bylaw.

FINANCIAL AND STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS:

Section 1.5 of the Official Community Plan considers how land use issues may impact the financial health of the City.

These issues are as follows:

a) avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be

provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner;

b) settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and efficient use

of public transit;

c) economic development that supports the unique character of this community;

d) reducing and preventing air, land and water pollution;

e) providing adequate inventories of suitable land and resources for future settlement, including sufficient lands

and amenities such as public facilities, waste treatment and disposal, parks and recreation;

f) settlement patterns that reduce the risk associated with hazards; and,

g) planning for energy supply and promoting the efficient use, conservation and alternate forms of energy.

The Core Services Review Implementation Plan was approved by Council at their regular meeting on July 8, 2013. With

respect to development, Section 2.57 of the Implementation Plan states the Council Decision:

13

That Administration continue to ensure that recommendations in land use and spending decisions align

with Asset Management Policy and OCP Growth Management Objectives and Policies to prioritize

development within existing urban areas…”

The 2012-2014 Council Priorities, approved by Council at their regular meeting on January 23, 2012, states the

following asset management goal:

Sustainable Infrastructure: The City efficiently manages the procurement, construction, maintenance,

rehabilitation, and replacement of its physical assets considering lifecycle cost, risk, and service level

continuity.

The excerpts above demonstrate the City’s financial and strategic commitment to infill development that uses existing

services and infrastructure. The alternative form of residential growth is sprawl development. The term sprawl often

refers to settlement patterns that feature some or all of the following characteristics: subdivision of unused agricultural

land; large residential lots; tie-in to municipal services; lack of public transit and pedestrian connections; and,

considerable distance to other land uses. The proposed rezoning and subsequent subdivision combats sprawl by

focusing new growth in established neighbourhoods near major services and amenities.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Approve the application

2. Refuse the application

3. Approve the application as amended

4. Defer or otherwise deal with the application

The Department recommends that Council approve this application.

Sequence of Adoption for the Official Community Plan

Pursuant to the Local Government Act, the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 8383, 2011 was

adopted by considering the Financial Plan, Solid Waste Management Plan and Strategic Framework. Therefore, any

amending bylaws to the Official Community Plan must also consider these plans.

Section 882 of the Local Government Act identifies the adoption procedures for the development, repeal or

amendment to the Official Community Plan bylaw. This sets in motion the following sequence which identifies the Local

Government Act requirements and the City’s own procedures:

1. After a bylaw has been given first reading the following must occur:

a) Consideration of the plan in conjunction with the current Financial Plan

b) Consideration of the plan in conjunction with the current Regional District Solid Waste

Management Plan

c) Consideration of any other plan and policies that the local government considers relevant (i.e.

Strategic Framework for a Sustainable Prince George)

d) Referral to the Agricultural Land Commission if the Plan applies to Agricultural Land Reserve

land (not applicable to these applications)

e) Second Reading

f) Public notice of the Public Hearing

g) Public Hearing

2. Third Reading of the bylaws

3. Adoption of the bylaw

The Local Government Act requires that each reading of the OCP bylaw must receive an affirmative vote of a majority of

all Council members. The adoption procedures found in Section 882 of the Local Government Act are required, and

should any changes occur to the bylaw, the sequence of steps would be repeated.

14

Statutory Consultation

The Department recommends that Council approve the consultation plan as outlined in the Official Community Plan

Amendment Consultation Checklist, including:

Two Citywide Newspaper advertisement requesting written comments.

This consultation would occur after first and second reading of the application’s corresponding bylaws and

prior to the Public Hearing.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

Administration has prepared a bylaw recommending an updated RS4 zone for all single residential lots within Crescents

Neighbourhood, East Central Fort George, Quinson, and Millar Addition, VLA and Van Bow subdivisions. The

amendments that are proposed to support this initiative include an updated RS4 zone, updated Intensive Residential

Development Permit Guidelines, and expanded triggers of when and where an Intensive Residential Development

Permit is required. The intent of the proposed amendments is to reflect best practices for infill residential housing while

addressing public input and concern regarding narrow lot housing within established neighbourhoods. The proposed

OCP and Zoning Bylaw amendments are consistent with policy direction in the Official Community Plan that supports

infill development in growth priority areas where there are existing services and amenities.

Administration recommends that Council support the proposed Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw

amendments.

Respectfully submitted:

_____________________________

Ian Wells, Director of Planning and Development

_____________________________

Report Prepared by Jesse Dill, Planner

Community Planning Division

Planning and Development Department

Report support by Dana Hawkins, Planning Technician

To: Mayor and Council