Divi f6h Manager y- /f Deputy' Director Director CAO The Corporation of THE CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT To: Mayor Darrell R. Mussatto and Members of Council From: Wendy Tse, Planner 1 SUBJECT: ZONING AMENDMENT TO PERMIT SECONDARY SUITES AND COACH HOUSES ON ONE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL USE LOTS Date: January 4,2017 File No: 08-3360-01-0001/2016 The following is a suggested recommendation only. Please refer to Council Minutes for adopted resolution. RECOMMENDATION: PURSUANT to the report of the Planner 1, dated January 4, 2017, entitled Zoning Amendment to Permit Secondary Suites and Coach Houses on One-Unit Residential Use Lots : THAT Zoning Bylaw, 1995, No. 6700, Amendment Bylaw, 2016, No. 8529 (Secondary Suites and Coach Houses on One-Unit Residential Use Lots) be considered and referred to a Public Hearing; AND THAT staff be directed to implement the notification strategy outlined in the report prior to scheduling a Public Hearing. REPORT: Zoning Amendment to Permit Secondary Suites and Coach Houses on One-Unit Residential Lots Date: January 4, 2017 Page 1 of 10 Document: 1481893-v1
ATTACHMENTS: 1. CityShaping Official Community Plan Update Town Hall #3 Summary Report: Two Suites Policy (Doc#i 164998) 2. Letter from Burgess, Cawley, Sullivan & Associates Ltd. re: Single Family Dwellings: Provision for Both a Secondary Suite and Coach House Property Tax Consequence dated April 11, 2014 (Doc #1481401) 3. Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 8529 (Doc#i460644) 4. City of North Vancouver Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines (Doc#1315400) 5. Map of One-Unit Residential (RS) Properties and Bus Stops in the City (Doc #1481676) 6. City of New Westminster Resolutions from Regular Meeting of City Council in Open Workshop Session November 28, 2016 (Doc#i48i894) PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to introduce Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 8529 to permit both an accessory secondary suite and an accessory coach house on lots with a One- Unit Residential Use in the City of North Vancouver. BACKGROUND: In 1993, the City legalized secondary suites in all single family dwellings to increase rental options in lower density neighbourhoods. In 2010, to further diversify the City s rental stock and to increase ground-oriented housing options, Council adopted a coach house program for RS zoned properties as a detached secondary suite option. Based on the success of both initiatives, the number of ground-oriented rental units available has increased. The 2014 Official Community Plan (OCP) specifically contemplated the introduction of secondary suites and coach houses on properties designated Residential Level One to further increase housing choice in the City (Figure #1). The 2002 OCP did not include specific policy language relating to secondary suites and coach houses on the same property, but did not preclude this possibility. The decision to incorporate policy language contemplating a secondary suite and a coach house was reached following extensive consultation with the public during the OCP update process. A dedicated Town Hall Meeting on this topic was held in April 2014. A summary of the Town Hall Meeting, including questions and comments received from community members at the event, is provided as Attachment #1. Notably, housing diversity and affordability was identified as the most important issue to the community during the OCP update process. REPORT: Zoning Amendment to Permit Secondary Suites and Coach Houses on One-Unit Residential Lots Date: January 4, 2017 Page 2 of 10 Document: 1481893-vl
Figure #1: Official Community Plan Residential Level One Land Use Designation Purpose To provide for ground-oriented housing with nonstrata accessory uses. Secondary Suites and Coach Houses may not be stratified as per the Condominium Act. Form Detached single family dwellings with secondary suites/coach houses. Max Density 0.5 FSR Bonus n/a Following the adoption of the OCR in 2015, the City created a Fiousing Action Plan (FIAP) to establish strategies and actions to address the housing needs of City residents. One of the strategies, Diversity of Rental Suites, focused on implementing the provision of two accessory suites on RS zoned properties within the current floor area allowance. As part of the engagement for the FIAP, an online survey was created to engage the community. On the question of permitting two accessory units on single family properties, 67 percent of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with this direction (Figure #2). Figure #2: Housing Action Plan Survey Response on Two Accessory Units To create more rental housing and to provide homeowners with greater rental income, permit two accessory units on a single family lot in different configurations (e.g. principal house with a secondary suite and coach house, principal house with two smaller coach houses, etc.) within the current floor area allowance. 3.6% 1.5% Strong Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strong Disagree No Answer Survey Responses = 138 REPORT: Zoning Amendment to Permit Secondary Suites and Coach Houses on One-Unit Residential Lots Date: January 4, 2017 Page 3 of 10 Document: 1481893-v1
Council unanimously endorsed the HAP on October 17, 2016 through the following resolution: PURSUANT to the report of the Planner 1, dated October 12, 2016, entitled Endorsement of the City of North Vancouver Housing Action Plan : THAT the City of North Vancouver Housing Action Plan, dated October 2016, be endorsed; THAT staff be directed to explore the implementation of the actions outlined in the Housing Action Plan, with immediate focus on identifying a partnership to provide for an affordable housing project, and to leverage for senior government funding in 2017; AND THAT staff bring forward bylaws in support of the implementation of the Housing Action Plan. DISCUSSION: Zoning Regulations All properties zoned for One-Unit Residential Use in the City are currently allowed to have either an Accessory Secondary Suite Use or an Accessory Coach House Use, but not both. The permitted maximum Gross Floor Area (GFA) for RS zoned properties is set in the Zoning Bylaw and does not change whether a secondary suite or a coach house is present on site. Instead, the permitted buildable area is distributed accordingly so that buildings remain respectful in size and massing to surrounding properties. The proposed Zoning Bylaw changes would allow both a secondary suite and a coach house without an increase in the current GFA maximums for RS zoned properties. As such, the visible impact of a property with both an accessory suite and a coach house will not appear any different from a detached house with an accessory coach house (Figure #3). Both secondary suites and coach houses may be rented or be for family use, but cannot be stratified or sold separately. Under the existing Zoning Bylaw, a secondary suite is only permitted if the owner resides in the principal dwelling. For a coach house, the owner may reside in either the principal dwelling or the coach house. At this time, staff does not suggest eliminating the requirement for owner occupancy. A minor revision is being proposed in the Zoning Amendment Bylaw to clarify that the owner may reside in any dwelling unit on the property (Attachment #3). A review into the effectiveness and legality for requiring owner occupancy will be explored by staff at a later date as recommended in the HAP. REPORT: Zoning Amendment to Permit Secondary Suites and Coach Houses on One-Unit Residential Lots Date: January 4, 2017 Page 4 of 10 Document: 1481893-vl
Figure #3: Current and Proposed Gross Floor Area (GFA) Allowance for One-Unit Residential Properties with Secondary Suite or Coach House Detached House * Secondary Suite Zoning GFA Maximum = Lesser of 03 x Lot Area + 929 sq m. (1,000 sq ft) or 05 x Lot Area Secondary Suite GFA Maximum = 90 sq. m (969 sq ft) Currently Permitted or Detached House + Coach House Zoning GFA Maximum = Lesser of 0.3 x Lot Area + 92 9 sq It (1,000 sq ft) or 0.5 x Lot Area Coach House GFA Maximum = 92 9 sq. ft (1,000 sq ft) Proposed : Coach House Secondary Suite Detached House + Secondary Suite + Coach House Zoning GFA Maximum = Lesser of 0 3 x Lot Area + 92 9 sq ft (1,000 sq ft) or 0.5 x Lot Area Secondary Suite GFA Maximum = 90 sq m (969 sq ft) Coach House GFA Maximum = 92 9 sq ft (1,000 sq ft) No strata / No change in Gross Floor Area Affordability Considerations The affordability challenges faced by City residents today are severe with the cost of purchasing property escalating at unprecedented rates, rents at record high levels, and the current rental vacancy rate in the City at 0.3 percent, one of the lowest vacancy rates in Metro Vancouver. A healthy vacancy rate is typically defined as being between three and five percent. Accessory secondary suites and coach houses have helped to bolster the City s rental stock, as well as to diversify the type and location of rental housing in the City. With 46 percent of households in the City being renters, the demand for quality rental accommodations is substantial, as demonstrated by the near zero vacancy rate in the City. In addition, rental demand is anticipated to increase in coming years due to strong regional employment, migration, and increased barriers to homeownership, including stricter mortgage lending regulations and high homeownership costs. As such, efforts to increase rental units in the City are necessary to ensure appropriate accommodations are added to the housing stock, ensuring residents of all income levels can afford to live in the City. REPORT: Zoning Amendment to Permit Secondary Suites and Coach Houses on One-Unit Residential Lots Date: January 4, 2017 Page 5 of 10 Document: 1481893-v1
In addition to increasing housing options for renters, allowing both a secondary suite and a coach house can also benefit homeowners. Homeowners could potentially better meet the needs of their extended families by accommodating them on-site. Homeowners could also derive rental income by leasing one or both of the accessory units. An analysis conducted of housing needs and gaps in the City, as part of the creation of the HAP, found that an increasing number of City homeowners are spending greater than 50 percent of their gross income towards housing costs. These homeowners are vulnerable to fluctuations in household costs, including housing, transportation, child care, energy, and food, as well as to changes in their financial situation. As the price of housing escalates beyond the reach of many residents, the provision of two rental units can help individuals entering the homeownership market do so with greater financial security. The provision of two rental units also allows greater flexibility for homeowners as their housing needs change over time. During the OCR update process, questions were raised regarding the property value and property tax implications of allowing both a secondary suite and a coach house on properties designated Residential Level One. To determine the impact, a third-party consulting firm specializing in real estate appraisal and market analysis was retained. Through its analysis, the consulting firm concluded that while property owners who choose to undergo significant improvements to their property may see an increase in the improvement value of their assessment and a corresponding tax increase, the allowance for two accessory suites will not in itself result in causing the underlying land value to increase (Attachment #2). The limited impact of the proposed change from one to two suites is due to the fact that no additional floor area is proposed and that the amendment to the Zoning Bylaw is city-wide. Currently, if an owner has a house that contains a secondary suite, they cannot build a coach house without removing the suite and displacing the tenants. The proposed change would eliminate this hardship. Livability Considerations Secondary suites and coach houses provide ground-oriented rental housing options in established neighbourhoods, often in close proximity to schools, parks, and other community amenities. As such, both rental options are well suited to seniors wanting to age in place in their community, families with children, multi-generational households, and households with caregivers. Other livability benefits associated with groundoriented housing include: Increased diversity and choice in the housing stock; Greater privacy and independence for both the owner and the tenant(s); Improved connections to nature through access to outdoor living space; and, Ability to incorporate accessible features / universal design for at-grade units. REPORT: Zoning Amendment to Permit Secondary Suites and Coach Houses on One-Unit Residential Lots Date: January 4, 2017 Page 6 of 10 Document: 1481893-v1
Parking and Access Considerations The Zoning Bylaw currently requires one parking space for a One-Unit Residential Use and an additional parking stall for a secondary suite or a coach house. If this standard was applied to the proposed combination of a coach house and a secondary suite, a minimum of three spaces would be required. Accommodating three spaces would consume an excessive amount of the site and impact the massing and even viability of adding a coach house on some sites. Currently, coach houses are typically designed with two on-site parking spaces. The City s Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines have been prepared with this amount of parking anticipated (Attachment #3). By requiring a third parking space, more land is required for parking, taking site area away for the coach house. Particularly on smaller lots, a third parking space would force more floor area to be located on the second storey. Three parking spaces would have the effect of making one-storey coach houses unviable on some lots. One-storey coach houses have the benefit of reduced visual impact on surrounding properties, as well the ability to incorporate accessibility features that support individuals with mobility limitations and seniors. Since enclosed parking is counted in GFA, the additional parking would likely consume some of the allowable floor area, reducing the habitable space available for people. Additional parking will also limit the amount of functional outdoor space that can be provided, and thus the livability of the principal and secondary units. For these reasons, staff recommend that two parking spaces be required on properties with a principal dwelling unit, secondary suite, and coach house. The City s compact geography and highly connected trails, greenways, and transit routes makes the City a very walkable, bike-friendly, and transit-friendly community. A review of RS zoned properties and their proximity to local bus stops indicates that few One-Unit Residential properties in the City are beyond 400 metres, or approximately a 5-minute walk, to a bus stop (Attachment #4). The City s partnership with multiple local car share organizations provides additional mobility options to residents. In 2016, Metro Vancouver conducted a study on the combined financial burden of housing and transportation costs to present a broader definition of affordability. In light of the high housing and transportation costs in the region, many households, particularly renters, are now opting not to own a personal vehicle and instead rely on public transit in order to afford the high cost of living in the region. Metro Vancouver further conducted an Apartment Parking Study and found that parking demand for renters is generally lower than for owners. Parking requirements in the City already reflect this trend with a lower parking requirement for purpose-built rental apartments at 0.75 spaces per unit, as opposed to 1.2 spaces per unit for stratified multiple-unit developments. As such, a reduced parking requirement for accessory rental suites would be in line with existing City practice. REPORT: Zoning Amendment to Permit Secondary Suites and Coach Houses on One-Unit Residential Lots Date: January 4, 2017 Page 7 of 10 Document: 1481893-v1
Secondary Suite and Coach House Provisions in Metro Vancouver The City of North Vancouver is considered a leader in housing policy development and was an early adopter of both secondary suites and a coach house program in Metro Vancouver. While most Metro Vancouver municipalities now permit secondary suites, and an increasing number of municipalities are adopting coach houses programs, the only municipality to currently permit two accessory suites on the same property is the City of Vancouver. The City of Vancouver permits laneway houses with a maximum floor area of 0.16 times the lot area, up to a maximum size of 900 square feet. In Vancouver, the buildable floor area for a laneway house is in addition to the maximum GFA permitted for a principal dwelling, which may also contain a secondary suite. Based on this separation of GFA between the principal dwelling and laneway house, the City of Vancouver has had much greater uptake of laneway housing construction. Furthermore, the City of Vancouver requires a minimum of only one parking space for the three dwelling units on site. The City of New Westminster is currently exploring infill housing options, including laneway and carriage houses, as part of its OCR update process. Similarly to the City of North Vancouver, City of New Westminster is determining whether to permit three units (i.e., the principal home, a secondary suite, and a laneway/carriage house), as well as the appropriate number of parking stalls to be provided on site. Following an Open Workshop Session with New Westminster City Council on November 28, 2016, New Westminster Council supported the direction of two parking spaces for three dwelling units (Attachment #5). Options for Consideration This report seeks to implement a Zoning Bylaw change that has long been anticipated. Both an accessory secondary suite and an accessory coach house are proposed to be allowed with no increase in the permitted Gross Floor Area. The processing of Coach House Development Permits, including verifying compliance with the Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines and requiring consultation with neighbours, will remain unchanged. Three options are presented for Council s consideration: Option #1 - Allow a Secondary Suite and a Coach House, with a required minimum of two parking spaces (RECOMMENDED) This is the staff recommended option. If Council supports this option, the recommendation presented in this report can be adopted. Option #2 - Direct staff to explore more options Should Council not wish to support Option #1, Council may direct staff to explore other options and return with a revised Zoning Amendment Bylaw. REPORT: Zoning Amendment to Permit Secondary Suites and Coach Houses on One-Unit Residential Lots Date: January 4, 2017 Page 8 of 10 Document: 1481893-v1
Option #3 - No change - maintain current Zoning Bylaw regulation of permitting either a Secondary Suite or a Coach House, but not both Should Council wish not to proceed with changes at this time, no further action is required in order to maintain the current Zoning Bylaw regulations which allow either a secondary suite or a coach house, accessory to a principal dwelling. A motion to Receive and File this report would have this effect. Notification Strategy Permitting both a secondary suite and coach house on lots with One-Unit Residential Use requires a Zoning Bylaw change that will impact numerous residents in the City. Staff recommend an enhanced notification strategy to be implemented prior to the Public Hearing to ensure residents are aware of the proposed change. The notification strategy is proposed to include: Extended notification period of at least one month; Creation of a dedicated webpage on the City s website on Secondary Suites and Coach Houses ; Advertisement in the City s online newsletter, CityView; City email notifications via CityConnect; and, Availability of Planning staff to answer any questions during the extended notification period; Please note that the notification efforts suggested above are in addition to the standard notification procedure required in the Local Government Act, including newspaper advertisements. ADVISORY BODY INPUT Staff brought forward the allowance of both a secondary suite and a coach house on properties with a One-Unit Residential Use to the Advisory Planning Commission (APC) on November 9, 2016. The following resolution was carried unanimously by APC: It was regularly moved and seconded THAT the Advisory Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed policy of secondary suites and coach houses on single family lots and supports the overall direction. The Commission commends staff for a thorough presentation. REPORT: Zoning Amendment to Permit Secondary Suites and Coach Houses on One-Unit Residential Lots Date: January 4, 2017 Page 9 of 10 Document: 1481893-v1
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no anticipated financial costs to the City as a result of this change. INTER-DEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: This report was reviewed and endorsed by the Major Projects Committee on January 3, 2017. CORPORATE PLAN AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The 2014 Official Community Plan establishes a long-term vision for the community, in which diverse and affordable housing is a key component to achieving this vision. Allowing the combination of a secondary suite and a coach house was anticipated in the OCP 2014 process. There are a variety of OCP objectives that would be achieved related to housing diversity, affordability, and social benefits, including: Complete and Compact - Accommodate Planned Growth Healthy and Inclusive - Safe, Socially Inclusive and Supportive Community Diverse and Affordable - Housing Diversity and Affordability 1.5.1 Provide opportunities for a range of housing densities, diversified in type, size and location; Expanding housing options by allowing both a secondary suite and a coach house on lots with a One-Unit Residential Use further aligns with the vision of the Housing Action Plan: To ensure there are diverse and appropriate housing options for current and future residents of all ages, incomes, and abilities. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Wendy ise Planner 1 Attachments WT/ REPORT: Zoning Amendment to Permit Secondary Suites and Coach Houses on One-Unit Residential Lots Date: January 4, 2017 Page 10 of 10 Document: 1481893-v1
ROCKANDEL&ASSOCIATES Building Success Through Process Facilitation Community & Organizational Engagement Partnership Planning CITY SHAPING TOWN HALL SUMMARY REPORT: TWO SUITES POLICY To: Suzanne Smith, Planner, City of North Vancouver E: SSmith@cnv.org T: 604-990-4240 From: Catherine Rockandel, IAF Certified Professional Facilitator, Rockandel & Associates Tel: 1-604-898-4614 E: cat@growpartnerships.com Re: City of North Vancouver City Shaping Town Hall - Two Suites Policy I. EVENT DETAILS Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 Time: 6:30 PM 10:00 PM Location: Queen Mary School Gymnasium, 230 West Keith Road, North Vancouver Attendees: 227 Notification: Stand-alone ads ran in the North Shore News on February 28 th, April 2 nd 9 th, 16 th and North Shore Outlook in Citiviews on March 6 th, 20 th, 27 th, April 6 th, 13 th. Promotion was included on the City of North Vancouver website, Facebook sites and tweeted as well as the CityShaping website. The event was also promoted with passport sized cards featuring upcoming event dates (in coffee shops and community centres in Central and Lower Lonsdale, at the City Hall counters). Team in Attendance: City of North Vancouver Mayor, Darrell Mussatto Councillor, Pam Bookham Councillor, Linda Buchanan Councillor, Rod Clark Councillor, Don Bell Councillor, Guy Heywood Gary Penway, Director, Community Development Emile Adin, Deputy Director, Community Development Neal LaMontage, Manager, Long Range & Community Planning Dragana Mitic, Assistant City Engineer, Transportation Suzanne Smith, Planner 2, Policy and Special Events Brian Willock, Section Manager, Streets & Fleet Mike Hunter, Manager Parks & Environment Paul Penner, Community Planner Tessa Forrest, Planning Analyst, Community Development
City of North Vancouver City Shaping Town Hall: Two Suites Policy Thursday, April 15, 2014 Barbara Westmacott, Planning Technician II, Community Development Michael van der Laan, Planning Technician 1, Community Development Erin Black, Vancouver Coastal Health Paul Sutton, Professional Property Appraiser Facilitator Catherine Rockandel, Rockandel & Associates, IAF Certified Professional Facilitator II. TOWN HALL MEETING PROGRAM The purpose of the Town Hall Meeting was for citizens to provide feedback, to identify concerns and aspirations as part of the City Shaping community engagement process to update the City s Official Community Plan. Citizens were invited to review presentation boards about the proposed Two Suites policy (Coach House and Secondary Suite) set up in an Open House format from 6:30 to 7pm. At 7:00pm the facilitator welcomed citizens, provided an overview of the process and participation guidelines for the session. She introduced Neal LaMontage, Manager, Long Range & Community Planning to begin the presentation, followed by Gary Penway, Director of Community Development. The 30-minute presentation was followed by a facilitated Q&A that continued until 9:05pm. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: Q & A Index: Q: Questions C: Comment A: Answers Q1: In essence there will be more renters in North Vancouver, which to my understanding, already has one of the highest percentages of renters vs. homeowners. As homeowners, is this a good thing for us? In my option, it is not a benefit. Coach House vs. Secondary Suite is a better liveable option in my opinion but not necessarily more affordable. Other than the City of Vancouver, what other municipalities in the Lower Mainland, allow a Secondary Suite and Coach House on the same lot? A1: We are proposing to do what Vancouver is doing. I am not aware of any other municipalities out there that are doing this besides Vancouver. C2: We will have the potential for building an addition 30% more square footage. Why can t we get the FSR increased, because the banks are looking at it saying you have already extended all the money for your house now you want a Secondary Suite and a Coach House. People have to get financing, so the FSR needs to be increased by 10-15% to move this forward. Q3: Does the FSR include the basement? A3: A cellar (5 feet below grade) is excluded from calculations but a basement (just a little below grade) would be included. 2
City of North Vancouver City Shaping Town Hall: Two Suites Policy Thursday, April 15, 2014 Q4: Is the Coach House only for back lane land like Vancouver or for all? A4: Most of the City is developed in lanes but it is not a specific requirement that there must be a lane. Sometimes the access is from the front. C5: I agree that if there is both a Coach House and a Secondary Suite, the FSR needs to be increased. Q6: My concern is about enforcement of the bylaws if you do have both a Suite and a Coach House. A few years back we reported, in writing to City staff, a house that was not owner occupied and they refused to act on it. If we agree to both Coach Houses and Suites, and bylaws are not enforced, what is to stop people from perhaps doing two Suites and a Coach House? A6: If there are additional Suites, that is very enforceable. Owner occupancy is trickier. There is enforcement, it does happen, people have had to remove Suites. Q7: How big are the Coach Houses allowed to be in Vancouver because I think they are not as big as ours? A7: We allow 800 to 1000 square feet and believe that most would be around 900. Q8: Concerned about housing stock being torn down and replaced with big complexes. Does the City allow Suites in cellars? A8: Yes we do. Q9: We have noticed a brand new house with two Suites in the cellar. In September 2013, the Traffic Advisory Committee was looking at issues with parking involving the addition of Coach Houses and Suites in the single-family areas. One of the possibilities was parking in the lanes. Is this being looked at by the City? A9: Currently you are not allowed to park and interrupt the travel movement in lanes, which is generally 20 feet wide. There is a Council resolution to look into parking in the laneway and they will need to report to Council and we plan to do so. Q10: Currently if you are the owner, you must live in the house, Suite, or Coach House. I have heard that the City is looking at taking that rule away, is there anything involved in that? A10: Staff are investigating that option, but have been given no direction. C11: I am concerned that if we do add this extra density, people trying to get into the market will not be able to afford it, as they will have to try to outbid the builders. We might be moving people that we want, out of the market. C12: Parking is already an issue so thought needs to be given as to where the people who will be living in the Suites and Coach Houses will park. C13: I believe controlled growth will bring positive things like affordable housing for seniors and young people. I like the idea of being able to have a Suite and a Coach House on my property. Q14: Will there be a limit to the number of Coach Houses in one neighbourhood block? 3
City of North Vancouver City Shaping Town Hall: Two Suites Policy Thursday, April 15, 2014 A14: If your property is large enough, there is no restriction. In theory, if all the properties are big enough they could all have a Coach House. Q15: Concerned about potential fire spread. What is the setback between the Coach Houses? A15: It is the same as houses, so there is a required 5-foot separation from the lot line. The fire department does vet the plans that come through. C16: I am excited about the opportunity of being able to have a basement Suite and a Coach House. I would be able to have my in-laws move into the Coach House, which would not only help with mortgage but also with childcare. Having a Suite would allow my children a place to stay when they go to university as well as when they start their own families. Q17: I like the idea of what is being proposed, my concern is with infrastructure support with relationship to the back lanes. I don t support parking in the back lanes. My laneway was blocked off, due to a development, the City has since resolved this with a turn around. Our lane way is fire support for the large multi density development, it is power, garbage and refuse access, transit access and I have not seen any planning regarding this. What integrated planning have you done in regards to back lanes and increased densification? A17: We are aware of your unique situation. When turn a rounds get blocked, it is a problem because it doesn t function. Yet, this is not the case for most laneways. Q18: I am excited about the proposed increase in alternative residential uses on our property. I find it interesting that although allowed, very few Coach Houses are being built. When Coach Houses were first introduced, did the City have any projections of how many would be built? A18: We really didn t have any projections. We knew that it was much cheaper to build a Suite within a house, than a house with a Coach House. We are four years into it and we are seeing more Coach Houses. It is about giving people choices. A Suite might be a mortgage helper that would then help people to build a Coach House. Q19: I am not clear as to why this is being proposed, is it more to keep with what Vancouver is doing? A19: We wouldn t see it lead to a dramatic change in terms of numbers of Coach Houses but for people who are able to use it, it is a significant opportunity. It has been hard for us to get rental housing built and this is a good way to do it. C20: From the City s perspective, it would create more taxes and that is a good thing. When I look around at current infrastructure, we are not ready. I am not in favour of this proposal. We will see the potential of three times more cars in what was originally a single-family home. C21: I see two pros, income for homeowners and taxes for the City. Cons are infrastructure and traffic. C22: Between 2001 and 2011 there has been a 5% decrease in single-family dwellings. Is there a goal in your OCP, where at a certain percentage you start to protect the single-family dwellings where there can only be a single family on a lot? 4
City of North Vancouver City Shaping Town Hall: Two Suites Policy Thursday, April 15, 2014 A22: Since the first official 1980 OCP, the yellow single-family area has stayed largely the same. There has been very little encroachment in the single-family area in terms of higher density. Where you are seeing a decline, it is primarily the single-family houses on duplex lots that were there for decades gradually being demolished and replaced by duplexes over time. Q23: Is there a market or a need to have single-family dwellings remain? A23: If you mean a single-family dwelling without the potential of a Suite, the answer is no. It has been a standard policy since 1994 for homes to have the option of Suites if they choose. Q24: Is there any way you can confirm that the 66% of people who responded to your internet survey are actually residents of North Vancouver, that they haven t responded more than one time, that they don t own a construction company or have some sort of interest. How do you maintain the integrity of your survey? A24: The survey is not a referendum. We were out talking to people, at events such as this, and came up with four or five different ideas where growth could be accommodated. This one (Suites) got the second most support. So in terms of who responded, we typically have people sign into these meetings, so can see that they are City residents. At the end of the day, it will be Council s decision with more of these kinds of events as stepping-stones. C25: I cannot support having a Suite and a Coach House on every lot in the neighbourhood. Q26: I am the perfect candidate for a Suite and Coach House but don t like this idea. I have a large lot, once I have a Suite and a Coach House, what is to stop me from coming in and sub dividing it? A26: The zoning bylaw. Q27: What is the difference between three units on a property and a triplex? Ultimately, there is a choice between what a single family home is and what a triplex is. I think if we move down this path we will lose that distinction. A27: There is a fundamental difference. The strata units are something that is built as duplexes, triplexes or townhouses. Triplexes are often on higher density sites and can be stratified. C28: We don t seem to talk about people density i.e. how many people will live in these units. We lose more and more green space as people start to build more on their properties. Property affordability vs. housing affordability is a concern to me. Q29: You recently had a delegation from the BC assessment attend a function and discuss the effects of taxation. The delegation brought with it a private developer consultant that I understand was retained by the City to attend. Is that correct? A29: Because Council has had a few questions about taxation and the effects of taxation on different policy, the Assessment Authority and a professional property appraiser were brought in. 5
City of North Vancouver City Shaping Town Hall: Two Suites Policy Thursday, April 15, 2014 Q30: Why was the data for Vancouver city properties given instead of North Vancouver when there are different FSRs? A30: We wanted to give you actual information about sales. Since there have been no sales of homes with Coach Houses in North Vancouver, no information is available. The opinion of the professional property appraiser is that, the underlying value of land would not be impacted by this development form. Q31: Is the square footage of fully below ground basements factored into the FSR of the home structure? A31 As mentioned previously, single-family zones are allowed a certain size of above ground space and then we exclude spaces called cellars. You also have to achieve an energy standard above the building code to get that exclusion. Q32: If I were to build a new home and move my 1500 square feet of basement that is half above and half underground and fully depress it, I could in fact free up FSR space to build that Coach House and really have a much larger house and achieve the increased FSR without having it counted. Is that correct? A32: Yes, it would qualify if it was deep enough in the ground. Q33: If someone comes along and buys my house, knocks it down and builds with a fully below ground basement and the same size ground floor and built a Coach House, they could then put a Suite in the basement? A33: Basically if you are going to do a Coach House, your house has to be smaller. You take up to a thousand square feet out of the upper floor and put it to the back. We virtually are not seeing developers come in and do what you are saying. Ninety three percent of people are doing it for themselves. C34: The only way I can afford to own my home is to have a Suite in it. It is important for me to be able to put a Coach House in as well. This will create income for me when I retire without a pension. I would like to see the FSR get increased to 1.6. After talking to a real estate agent, putting in a Coach House only seems to add about $100,000 to the house value. There are so few Coach Houses I don t think we are going to see one on every lot. C35: I think that people who are going to put in Suites will do it legally or illegally. Density to me means how many cars are parked on my street and how many people are looking into my back yard. What kind of plans does the City have to improve the infrastructure like traffic, parking, sewers, sidewalks etc? I don t see the City keeping up with the infrastructure now so don t have much faith that they will with more people. A35: We have a long-term transportation plan that was endorsed back in 2008. We do many traffic and transportation studies to determine what the needs and improvements are. On an annual basis, we do various improvements such as pedestrian crossings, overpasses, cycling improvements. The priority is for pedestrian, cyclists and transit users. 6
City of North Vancouver City Shaping Town Hall: Two Suites Policy Thursday, April 15, 2014 C36: Between 3 rd and Keith traffic has increased so much and there is not enough traffic lights to help you make a left hand turn. The City is not keeping up with traffic infrastructure. Do you have any plans for more streetlights, stoplights and sidewalks? A36: We do have a plan for sidewalks and are looking at street light improvements. Several traffic lights have been installed over the last couple of years. Q37: Almost all of those changes were to the Lonsdale corridor, what are you planning for the single-family areas? A37: For single-family areas, we have traffic calming plans in place and are looking at how we can improve liveability in the neighbourhoods. We do have many improvements in residential neighbourhoods as well. Q38: When the highway was upgraded, we actually had our lane way removed. I am in support of the Coach Houses because I will be looking after my parents and they would have their own place that would be much cheaper than a senior s community would be. I want to know if there has been a study or survey to assess the number of eligible existing properties that will be able to physically add a coach home? A38: Our analysis is about 30% Q39: After being away from the City for a few years and coming back, I am shocked at the traffic and totally understand people s concerns with parking. How are you going to marry a Coach House, Suite, home and business run out of a home and parking requirements? A39: We look at home businesses and how many employees they have. Home businesses that require a lot of coming and going are not approved. Q40: Has Vancouver Coastal Health given you 3-5 specific actions that they are going to take to address the current issues at Lions Gate Hospital? A41: Vancouver Coastal Health responded. VCH does look at population growth and estimates in all of our health planning. For Lions Gate Hospital, we have a master plan that we are developing right now which takes into consideration the growth of the City of North Vancouver as well as the rest of the North Shore. We serve the local health area of Deep Cove up to Pemberton, Sunshine Coast, Sechelt as well so all of those growth areas are also taken into consideration for the plan. Q42: What specific plans do you have knowing that you have all this population growth including visitors up to Whistler? A42: In our master plan, we have conversations with the province as well that helps support our funding. The master plan is in draft form right now and can be found on the Vancouver Coastal Health website. You can post your questions in the feedback section and they should be answered. Q43: I am curious about your idea of shrinking a current house (2,200 square feet) to allow for a Coach House (1,000 square feet). You wouldn t be shrinking it at all because you would have 3,200 square feet. 7
City of North Vancouver City Shaping Town Hall: Two Suites Policy Thursday, April 15, 2014 A43: It is hard to describe in words. Basically if you were starting with a vacant site and you are building a new house, your new house would have to be smaller by as much as the size your Coach House was going to be. If you have an existing house, then all you have is the square footage that is unused. C44: I am here to speak in support of this and think it is a fantastic thing. This would enable people to have a mortgage helper. For people with concerns about this, even if it goes through you are probably only going to see a few. I don t think it is going to be a mad rush. The parking is addressed in those requirements I think it is like two spots? A44: Currently we require one spot for a Secondary Suite. At this level, we are just talking about the concept and providing for it in the plan. Details about parking would come through in the future planning which might occur next year. C45: I understand that there seems to be a lot of fear that if this passes, everyone is going to build a Coach House. I want to drive down the point that only about 30% of the singlefamily homes are able to have a Coach House. I hear everyone talking about fear of traffic and wondering what the City is going to do about it. I think it is time that we start looking at ourselves and how many cars we have because people, you, me, we are traffic. People should maybe car share or use public transit more. C46: I am concerned about the special study designation, I would like to see stronger wording in the OCP and support for the possible retention of the fields. As a community I believe we need to consider our long-term requirements in our limited ability to acquire lands such as fields and parks in our communities especially when we are densifying. The idea of 50 plus single family homes on either site, this is density that the School Board is talking about and presenting concepts to the community that aren t represented in the current OCP that is about to go forward. C47: I am here to speak against the proposal. I am happy to consider it once a new transportation plan has been done because the last one is from 2008. C48: Why isn t city staff looking at the infrastructure and traffic issues before adding something like this to the OCP? Traffic at Keith and Grand Boulevard is crazy and the flashing red light that will never go green is not a good thing. If we make people pay for parking on any city street, they will quickly find space on their property. Maybe this would discourage people building with so much density and plan for parking on their own lots instead of the street. We need clear examples of how taxes will be increased before we can make an informed decision. Q49: Can you give me an idea, off the top of your head, how many projects are on the go right now on Lower Lonsdale that will be built in the next two or three years? Is Third Street the main corridor through the City? A49: Next Tuesday is the Lower Lonsdale Town Hall Meeting where we will be discussing these issues. There are several corridors through the City. Yes, Third Street is part of the major arterial network. 8
City of North Vancouver City Shaping Town Hall: Two Suites Policy Thursday, April 15, 2014 C50: We are packing the people into the City. We cannot, cannot, cannot keep building the way we are going. People have to understand what is going on, wake up, slow things down or stop it for ten years and then rethink it. C51: This is a community has such a cross section of the poor. 1,830 single parent families, over 3,000 living on welfare, over 3,000 unemployed. We have 16% child poverty and almost 5,000 people at risk of homelessness right now. This is a community that is in crisis. We need an alternative to town houses, to condos to whatever that may be. Therefore, I want to throw my support into Coach Houses and Secondary Suites. This is the future and we need to embrace it. C52: I am here representing my mother who has lived in North Van her whole life but could not come. I live in an area in Vancouver where there have been Coach Houses around for a long time. The area has fourplexes, sixplexes, single-family homes and group homes and we have an amazing community. If you limit yourselves to single-family homes, I think you limit yourself to a wealth of cultures, people and events that enhance our lives. Q53: Does the City of North Vancouver already have the predication of population growth? A53: We don t have our own but Metro Vancouver provides population growth projections for the entire region. Their estimate for the City of North Vancouver is 62,000 by 2031 and we are at about 51,000 right now. C54: I live in rental housing and walk everywhere so I am very aware of the traffic. Vehicles do not stop at cross walks and I feel that we do not have a very pedestrian friendly city right now. My understanding is that the City legally cannot endorse Secondary Suites so I am concerned that they are not telling us that or putting it in any of the materials. Will the City actually inspect Secondary Suites and Coach Houses? The City has also not said that new pay parking on streets has been at a cost to residents on those streets. I have concerns about infrastructure, health care, transit, parking and the fact that the City does not enforce business licences. C55: I am a homeowner that just recently built a Coach House. The young family we rent to loves it and could never afford a home of their own in our area. I want the City to explore this option and think it is incredibly important for our future generations. C66: Younger families cannot afford to live in North Vancouver due to real-estate prices. This may be part of the reason that two more schools are scheduled to be closed due to low enrolment. I am fully in support of this option because it will allow younger families to move to North Vancouver, therefore continue to build our infrastructure. Q67: What is the rationale behind owner occupied i.e. must live in the Coach House, Suite or home? A67: That goes back to 1994. Prior to that, you weren t allowed to have Suites but they existed anyway. A working group of residents got together to discuss how we could go about legalizing Suites and that was one of the recommendations that came forward. It was adopted by Council and through a zoning bylaw. The rationale was that an owner on the property was more likely to take care of the property. 9
City of North Vancouver City Shaping Town Hall: Two Suites Policy Thursday, April 15, 2014 C68: The Globe and Mail data shows that 76% of housing that is being bought in Metro Vancouver is international investors/developers that don t live in the community. They get an average return of 20% on their money. Q69: Why, if or when are we going to get advanced traffic lights at 13 th, 15 th, 17 th and traffic calming in Lower Lonsdale? A69: Advanced traffic signals with left turn movements are being implementing at various intersections where needed over the next couple of months. For example, 13 th will have a left hand turn lane as well as a left hand turn traffic light. Lower Lonsdale East just went through the Council and the budget was approved. We are hoping to start this year. Q70: Why do you call it Lower Lonsdale East? It is not what the area really is and as a community association, we want to know how we can have it properly named? A70: When we developed the traffic-calming plan 15 years ago, that is how we divided it and that is why it is called Lower Lonsdale East. C71: I believe the reason there are more Coach Houses in Vancouver is because they don t have the owner occupancy requirement. I would like the City to consider this and look into the owner occupancy. I am totally in support of Coach Houses and Suites and I don t see an issue if it is properly managed and done to the bylaws. C72: I have concerns with traffic and parking. Find the biggest issue is with construction workers, hospital workers and people parking and heading to the airport via transit. Q73: How are we addressing or enforcing payment of city services with all these rental Suites, some of which are illegal? Do you know how many there are? A73: For legal Suites, there is an extra utility charge. It was decided years ago that enforcement will be on a complaint basis for illegal Suites. If staff receives a written complaint we enforce and charge the utility fees. If you are curious if a home has a legal Suite, you can check with our office of Community Development. 10
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER BYLAW NO. 8529 A Bylaw to amend Zoning Bylaw, 1995, No. 6700 to permit Accessory Secondary Suites and Coach Houses on One-Unit Residential Use Lots The Council of The Corporation of the City of North Vancouver, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw shall be known and cited for all purposes as Zoning Bylaw, 1995, No. 6700, Amendment Bylaw, 2017, No. 8529 (Secondary Suites and Coach Houses on One- Unit Residential Use Lots). 2. Division I: Administration of Zoning Bylaw, 1995, No. 6700 is hereby amended as follows: A. In Part 2: Interpretation, replacing the definition of Accessory Secondary Suite as follows: Accessory Secondary Suite Use means an attached non-stratified residential use accessory to a One-Unit Residential Use that may contain a toilet, bathroom, sleeping and living areas and cooking facilities subject to the provision of Section 507(10) of the Bylaw; 3. Division III: Zone Standards of Zoning Bylaw, 1995, No. 6700 is hereby amended as follows: A. In Part 5: Residential Zone Regulations, add Section 503(1)(g) as follows: (g) Accessory Coach House Use, subject to Section 507(12) of this Bylaw; B. In Part 5: Residential Zone Regulations, replace Section 507(5)(i) as follows: (i) On a Lot containing either: an approved Accessory Secondary Suite Use; an Accessory Coach House Use; or, an Accessory Dwelling Unit; each Dwelling Unit may independently contain only one Accessory Home Occupation Use; C. In Part 5: Residential Zone Regulations, replace Section 507(10) as follows: (10) Accessory Secondary Suite Use An Accessory Secondary Suite Use: (a) (b) (c) shall be accessory to a One-Unit Residential Use; shall be completely Enclosed within the Principal Building; shall not be less than 37.16 square metres (400 square feet) in area; nor more than 90 square metres (969 square feet) or 40% of the total Gross Floor Area, whichever is the lesser; The Corporation of the City of North Vancouver Page 1 Bylaw, 2017, No. 8529 Document: 1460644-v1
(d) (e) shall be limited to one Accessory Secondary Suite Use within a One-Unit Residential Use; and, shall be permitted where the owner resides on the property. D. In Part 5: Residential Zone Regulations, replace Section 507(12) as follows: (12) Accessory Coach House Use An Accessory Coach House Use: (a) (b) (c) shall be accessory to a One-Unit Residential Use; shall be permitted where the owner resides on the property; and, shall not be stratified as per the Strata Property Act. 4. Division IV: Parking and Loading Standards of Zoning Bylaw, 1995, No. 6700 is hereby amended as follows: A. In Part 9: Parking and Access Regulations, delete from Figure 9-3 as follows: Accessory Coach House Use Accessory Secondary Suite Use 1 space 1 space B. In Part 9: Parking and Access Regulations, add in Figure 9-3 as follows: Accessory Coach House Use, Accessory Secondary Suite Use, or both Accessory Coach House Use and Accessory Secondary Suite Use 1 space READ a first time on the <> day of <>, 2017. READ a second time on the <> day of <>, 2017. READ a third time on the <> day of <>, 2017. FINALLY PASSED AND ADOPTED on the <> day of <>, 2017. MAYOR CITY CLERK The Corporation of the City of North Vancouver Page 2 Bylaw, 2017, No. 8529 Document: 1460644-v1
Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines 1 Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C.
Contents Part I General Reglations 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Intent and Use of the Guidelines 4 1.2 Guiding Principles 4 2 Approval Process 5 2.1 Exemptions 5 2.2 Application Requirements 5 2.3 Amendments 5 Part II Environmental Guidelines 3 Energy Conservation 6 4 Rainwater Management 6 5 Waste and Recycling 6 Part III - Form and Character Guidelines 6 Site Requirements 7 7 Building Scale and Massing 7 7.1 Maximum Gross Floor Area 7 7.2 Height Envelope 8 8 Site Design 9 8.1 General 9 8.2 Lot coverage 9 8.3 Corner Lots 9 8.4 Landscape 9 9 Size, Shape and Siting 10 9.1 Setbacks and Yards 10 10 Building Design 11 10.1 Habitable Space at Grade 11 10.2 Relationship to Neighbours 12 10.3 Sloping Sites 12 10.4 Unit Identity 12 10.5 Architectural Elements 12 10.6 Heritage 13 11 Parking and Access 14 11.1 Required Parking Stalls 14 11.2 Parking Access and Location 14 11.3 Driveways 14 12 Servicing 15 13 Accessory Uses 15 Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C. Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines 2
Part I General Regulations 1 Introduction Coach Houses are detached non-strata units also known as granny suites, lane way housing, garden suites and carriage houses. Coach houses have been present in the community over the last century. In the early 1900s, a coach house was sometimes the first unit built on a lot to house the owners while the principal residence was constructed. The coach house sometimes survived afterwards at the rear of the lot. Usually they were replaced by a garage. Other times they were built to provide housing for expanding or extended families. All lots zoned RS or lots with a zoning designation that permits one-unit residential are allowed to have one principal dwelling unit and one accessory secondary suite which is contained within the existing dwelling. Coach houses are similar to secondary suites except they are detached from the principal residence usually located at the rear of the lot. COACH HOUSE BENEFITS There are a number of benefits that coach houses can offer to the community including: Additional diversity and choice in the housing stock; More opportunities for rental housing units; Greater privacy and independence for both the owner and the tenant; Ground-oriented living with garden access; A more livable alternative to basement suites; Potential accommodation for extended family or caregivers; Rental income for homeowners; Opportunities for people to age in place and stay on their properties as their lifestyles change over time; Rental housing for young people, seniors and families; Improvement to the streetscape and character of our existing laneways. ACCESSORY COACH HOUSE UNITS VS. INFILL UNITS The City distinguishes between accessory coach houses and infill units. An infill unit is a full principal dwelling unit in a duplex or higher density zoning category that is detached, and may be stratified. A coach house is detached unit that is subordinate in size to the principal home, and must be non-stratified (both units under common ownership). The owner must reside on the property. In effect, an Accessory Coach House is a detached accessory secondary suite. 3 Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C.
Accessory Coach House Guidelines 1.1 INTENT AND USE OF THE GUIDELINES These Guidelines apply to Accessory Coach House development applications on Lots with a One-Unit Residential Use as designated in Zoning Bylaw 1995, No. 6700 for the purpose of establishing objectives for the form and character of Intensive Residential Development. Accessory Coach Houses may be up to 1,000 square feet and two storeys / 22.0 feet high and may contain a toilet, bathroom, sleeping and living areas and cooking facilities. Coach Houses should be subordinate in size to the one-unit principal residence on the property and may not be stratified. Applications are reviewed against these Guidelines. Applications which are not consistent with the guidelines may require revisions or a Development Variance Permit or Rezoning at Council s discretion. The objective is to introduce detached accessory secondary suites into the housing mix in a way that integrates and blends these buildings into existing one unit neighbourhoods as secondary buildings that add value and provide a new form of rental housing. Applicants and designers are asked to consider the appropriate size and massing, and potential impact on adjacent neighbours, in order to achieve this integration into the existing residential fabric. These Guidelines have been created to guide applicants through the design process for developing Accessory Coach Houses. Related Zoning Bylaw requirements have also been included (in italics and bold) for the convenience of an applicant and designer. Refer to Divisions II - IV of Zoning Bylaw 1995, No. 6700 for all applicable regulations. 1.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES Coach houses introduce more detached accessory secondary suites into the housing mix in a way that integrates and blends into existing single family neighbourhoods. A variety of coach house sizes and forms is encouraged to optimize choices for extended families, aging-in-place, and to serve as possible mortgage helpers. Coach Houses should: Be subordinate in size to the principal or future residence on the property; Compliment but not replicate the principal residence; Respect the scale and built form of neighbouring properties; Respect the privacy of adjacent neighbours by trying to minimize overlook and shadowing impacts; Animate the lane and/or adjacent streets by locating habitable space at ground level and providing articulation in the facades; Respect prominent existing trees and landscape features; Incorporate sustainable design elements into site and building design and construction; Exhibit design excellence. Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C. Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines 4
2 Approval Process 2.1 EXEMPTIONS Minor exterior renovations to existing coach houses which do not significantly alter the footprint or character of the building may be exempted from Development Permit requirements at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. 2.2 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Every application for a Development Permit must be accompanied by relevant development information in the form prescribed by the City. This information includes, but is not limited to: 1) Plans demonstrating: a. the proposed location of all buildings and structures; b. the proposed siting of parking areas; c. the extent and nature of existing and proposed landscaping, including details of trees to be maintained or proposed to be planted; d. the proposed exterior finish, materials, and colour of buildings and roofs; e. the proposed locations of all exterior lighting. 2) Detailed descriptions of how the development will comply with the environmental guidelines; 3) Supporting information demonstrating that neighbours within 40 metres have been notified; 4) A checklist indicating how the proposal complies with the Guidelines. Where some element of the design does not comply with a Guideline, a justification describing the divergence and the reason must be provided. 2.3 AMENDMENTS A Development Permit amendment may be required for minor amendments to Development Permits already issued and registered on title, at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. 5 Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C.
Accessory Coach House Guidelines Part II Environmental Guidelines 3 Energy Conservation Guideline 3.1 Install energy star appliances. Guideline 3.2 Guideline 3.3 Engage in energy testing to determine efficiency of coach house performance and construction. Consider incorporating solar energy systems or pre-plumbing for future installation. Any portion of a mechanical room containing a Green Building System, up to a maximum of 9.29 square meters (100 square feet) for each building, provided that the system be located in an accessible location within the building, having a minimum headroom clearance of 2.0 meters (6.5 feet); [Part II: Interpretation Gross Floor Area (Coach House, Accessory)] 4 Rainwater Management Guideline 4.1 Natural filtration of rainwater into the site is encouraged. Guideline 4.2 Guideline 4.3 Guideline 4.4 All uncovered parking areas should be constructed of permeable materials. To facilitate the natural filtration of rainwater into the ground, install water retention components by discharging rainwater runoff from roof areas and hard surfaces into rain gardens, rainwater collection systems, bioswales or rock pits. For hard surface areas (other than roofs) where discharge to infiltration facilities is not practical, permeable paving materials that allow rainwater to filter into the ground should be used. 5 Waste and Recycling Guideline 5.1 Waste and recycling bins should be provided for each unit. Guideline 5.2 Bins should be screened and secured within an enclosed structure that is set back a minimum of 1.5 metres (5.0 feet) from the rear property line. Waste and recycling bins integrated into the coach house building with no interior access may be excluded from Gross Floor Area calculations to a maximum of 4.6 square metres (50 square feet). Gross Floor Area (Coach House, Accessory) means the total areas of all of the floors excluding floor areas with no access from the interior of the Building up to a maximum 4.6 square metres (50 square feet) for the purpose of storing recycling and waste bins; [Part II: Interpretation Gross Floor Area (Coach House, Accessory)] Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C. Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines 6
Part III - Form and Character Guidelines 6 Site Requirements MINIMUM LOT AREA - Accessory Coach Houses are permitted on lots that are a minimum 33.0 feet in width and are at least 3,900 square feet. Lane access is not required. An Accessory Coach House shall not be permitted on a Lot of less than 362.3 square metres (3,900 square feet) or on a Lot with a width of less than 10.1 metres (33.0 feet) based upon the original survey dimensions; [S.509(6)(a)] MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS - A property may have one secondary unit, either as part of the principal residence (Accessory Secondary Suite) or a detached Accessory Coach House, but may not have both. An Accessory Coach House Use shall not be permitted on a Lot with an Accessory Secondary Suite Use; [S.507(12)(d)] OWNER OCCUPANCY - The owner must reside on the lot, either in the Accessory Coach House or in the Principal Building. An Accessory Coach House Use shall be permitted where the One-Unit Residential building or the Accessory Coach building is Owner-occupied; [S.507(12)(b)] MAXIMUM SITE LOT COVERAGE - Maximum of 40% for all buildings on the lot of which the coach house should not exceed 15%. Lot Coverage (Principal Building plus Accessory Coach House Building) shall not exceed a maximum total combined Lot Coverage of 40% of which the Principal Building shall not exceed 30%; [S.509(3)] 7 Building Scale and Massing 7.1 MAXIMUM GROSS FLOOR AREA Accessory Coach House Gross Floor Area is limited by both (a) the total Gross Floor Area permitted on a Lot with a One-Unit Residential Use AND (b) by the maximum allowable Gross Floor Area for an Accessory Coach House building. Please note that the GFA of the Principal Building and Lot Coverage may limit the potential size of the Accessory Coach House. MAXIMUM SITE GROSS FLOOR AREA - The total density for a lot may not exceed the lesser of 0.5 x lot area or 0.3 x lot area + 1,000 square feet. AND The total combined Gross Floor Area (One-Unit Residential) and Gross Floor Area (Accessory Coach House) shall not exceed the lesser of either: 0.5 times the Lot Area; or 0.3 times the Lot Area plus 92.9 square metres (1,000 square feet); [S. 509(2)] MAXIMUM GROSS FLOOR AREA (COACH HOUSE, ACCESSORY) - The total Gross Floor Area of an Accessory Coach House is limited to the lesser of 0.17 times the Lot Area, or 92.9 square metres (1,000 square feet);...the maximum Gross Floor Area (Accessory Coach House) shall not exceed the lesser of either 0.17 times the Lot Area, or 92.9 square metres (1,000 sq. ft.) [S. 509(2)] 7 Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C.
Accessory Coach House Guidelines 7.2 HEIGHT ENVELOPE Height shall not exceed a Height Envelope of 3.048 metres (10.0 feet) which may increase at an inward angle of 45 degrees to the horizontal to reach a maximum 6.71 metres (22.0 feet). shall not exceed a Height Envelope of 3.05 metres (10 feet) which may increase at an inward angle of 45 degrees to the horizontal to be higher than the geodetic height of the top of plate of any Storey, to reach a maximum of 6.71 metres (22 feet) as shown in Figure 5-4; [S. 509(6)(b)] Figure 1. Height Envelope Diagram Example of an Accessory Coach House Guideline 7.2.1 Height shall not exceed one storey and a partial second storey. The second storey shall not exceed 60% of the total area of the floor beneath it. For example, the maximum coach house floor area of 92.9 sq. m. (1,000 sq. ft.) could be divided between a 58 sq. m. ground floor (625 sq. ft.) and a 35 sq. m (375 sq. ft.) upper floor. Guideline 7.2.2 Coach houses with a one-storey form must be built lower, generally to a maximum of 4.57 m (15 feet). Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C. Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines 8
8 Site Design 8.1 GENERAL Guideline 8.1.1 Guideline 8.1.2 Guideline 8.1.3 Guideline 8.1.4 Guideline 8.1.5 Identify and maximize usable and private outdoor space associated with both the Accessory Coach House and the Principal Building. Coach houses should be located in the rear 25% of the lot. Coach houses should be visible from the street if site conditions allow. Buildings should be no wider than 70% of the linear distance constituting the rear lot line. Minimize the amount of shadow cast on to private open space of adjacent properties. 8.2 LOT COVERAGE Lot Coverage - should not exceed a Lot Coverage of 15%, or 92.9 square metres (1,000.0 square feet) whichever is less. The total combined Lot Coverage (Principal Building plus Accessory Coach House Building) shall not exceed a maximum of 40%. Lot Coverage (Principal Building plus Accessory Coach House Building) shall not exceed a maximum total combined Lot Coverage of 40% of which the Principal Building shall not exceed 30%; [S.509(3)] 8.3 CORNER LOTS Guideline 8.3.1 Guideline 8.3.2 Guideline 8.3.3 Accessory Coach Houses at the rear of corner lots should front the flanking street; Living space should front the flanking street and parking uses should be located off the lane towards the interior side yard; Create transition in the massing by increasing the scale from the interior side property line to the flanking street. 8.4 LANDSCAPE Guideline 8.4.1 Guideline 8.4.2 Guideline 8.4.3 Prominent existing trees and landscape features outside of the coach house footprint should be retained unless proven to be diseased by a certified arborist or in conflict with utilities and services. Tree protection fencing should be installed before land clearing, demolition or construction phases are commenced. Conserve existing significant vegetation through flexible and innovative design and siting of the coach house. 9 Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C.
Accessory Coach House Guidelines Guideline 8.4.4 Guideline 8.4.5 Guideline 8.4.6 Guideline 8.4.7 Guideline 8.4.8 Private outdoor spaces with direct connection to habitable space should be provided for each unit. Define and screen outdoor spaces through the use of landscaping: plantings, architectural elements such as trellises, low fencing or planters; and changes in grade or elevation. Rear space between a coach house and the rear property line should be enhanced by incorporating, low maintenance soft landscaping and/or high quality permeable paving materials. Side yards should be attractively landscaped and integrated with usable outdoor spaces. Narrow side yard spaces should be landscaped using permeable surfaces and drought resistant plant materials. Exterior side yards on corner lots should be designed and treated as the front yard to the coach house development using high quality soft and hard surface treatments. Screening and landscaping between the street and the outdoor space should be incorporated to define the transition between public and private spaces. 9 Size, Shape and Siting 9.1 SETBACKS Guideline 9.1.1 Accessory Coach Houses should be sited not less than: (a) 1.52 metres (5 feet) from the Rear Lot Line; (b) 1.52 metres (5 feet) from the Interior Side Lot Line; (c) 3.05 metres (10 feet) or 0.2 times the Lot width; whichever is less, from the Exterior Side Lot Line. On corner lots with a lot width of 10.0 metres (33 feet) or less, a setback of 1.5 metres (5.0 feet) from the Exterior Lot Side Lot Line may be considered; (d) 6.07 metres (20 feet) from a Principal Building including porches and balconies; (e) 7.62 metres (25 feet) from the intersection of the Lot lines along two Streets; (f) 4.52 metres (15 feet) from the intersection from the point of intersection of two lanes, or of a Street and a Lane. All driveway crossings providing ingress and egress to a Parking or Loading area shall be located at a minimum distance of 7.62 metres (25 feet) from the point of intersection of two streets, or 4.52 metres (15 feet) from the point of intersection of two lanes, or of a Street and a lane, when such road allowances intersect at an interior angle of 135 degrees or less; [S. 906(4)(h)] Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C. Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines 10
Guideline 9.1.2 For upper storey: at least 50% of the rear façade fronting the lane should be set back a minimum of 3.0 metres (10 feet) from the rear property line. 50% setback at least 3m OKAY OKAY Guideline 9.1.3 Allowable projections into the recommended setbacks include eaves, cornices, leaders, gutters, canopies or sunlight control projections, which may project beyond the face of the Accessory Coach House Building; the minimum distance to an abutting Lot Line as recommend elsewhere in the Guidelines may be reduced by: (a) 0.91 metres (3.0 feet) from an abutting Rear Lot Line; (b) 0.91 metres (3.0 feet) from an abutting Interior Side Lot Line; (c) 1.52 metres (5.0 feet) from an abutting Exterior Lot Line; (d) 1.52 metres (5.0 feet) from a Principal Building. Guideline 9.1.4 Where Unenclosed balconies, Unenclosed porches or steps project beyond the face of the Accessory Coach House Building, the minimum distance to an abutting Lot Line as permitted elsewhere in the Guidelines may be reduced by: (a) 0.76 metres (2.5 feet) from an abutting Rear Lot Line; (b) 0.76 metres (2.5 feet) from an abutting Interior Side Lot Line; (c) 1.52 metres (5.0 feet) from an abutting Exterior Lot Line; (d) 1.52 metres (5.0 feet) from a Principal Building. 11 Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C.
Accessory Coach House Guidelines 10 Building Design 10.1 HABITABLE SPACE AT GRADE Guideline 10.1.1 Guideline 10.1.2 Guideline 10.1.3 Guideline 10.1.4 A minimum of 30% of the total habitable floor area of an Accessory Coach House should be located on the ground floor, with habitable space fronting the rear lot line. A minimum of 30% of the width of the façade facing the rear lot line should be designed to communicate the residential use behind it, which can be achieved by placing windows and doors facing the lane. Articulation of all facades including the lane façade are encouraged. Direct connections between indoor living spaces and usable outdoor landscaped spaces are also encouraged. Any floor areas with a ceiling of over 4.57 metres (15 feet) that unnecessarily contributes to the massing of the building will be counted twice towards Gross Floor Area. Open to below areas except when they are double height with a dimension exceeding 4.57 metres (15 feet) measured from the floor to the ceiling directly above, at which point the open to below area will be counted twice in Gross Floor Area (Coach House, Accessory) calculations; [Part II: Interpretation Gross Floor Area (Coach House, Accessory)] 10.2 RELATIONSHIP TO NEIGHBOURS Guideline 10.2.1 Guideline 10.2.2 Guideline 10.2.3 Respect the rhythm, scale and height of the existing streetscape and lanescape. Create visual interest by providing variations in height and massing within the design. Incorporate living areas within the volume of sloped roofs and eliminate enclosed parking to reduce massing. 10.3 SLOPING SITES Guideline 10.3.1 On steeply sloping sites, the views from adjacent properties should be respected by adapting the scale, massing and location of the coach house development to follow the topography and natural features of the site. 10.4 UNIT IDENTITY Guideline 10.4.1 Guideline 10.4.2 Guideline 10.4.3 Accessory Coach Houses must have an individual address or a unit identity number clearly visible from the street and illuminated at night. The primary entrance should be accessible directly from the street. For all lots, a minimum 1.0 metre (3.28 feet) clearance for emergency pedestrian access must be provided from the street to the coach house unit and be illuminated at night. Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C. Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines 12
10.5 ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS Guideline 10.5.1 Guideline 10.5.2 Guideline 10.5.3 Guideline 10.5.4 Guideline 10.5.5 Guideline 10.5.6 Guideline 10.5.7 Guideline 10.5.8 Guideline 10.5.9 Guideline 10.5.10 All roof shapes are considered providing they comply with the height envelope. (See Section 7.2 Height Envelope). Dormers of no more than 1.219 metres (4.0 feet) in width and gable ends may project beyond the Height Envelope, but in no way shall these projections exceed the maximum Height Envelope of 6.71 metres (22.0 feet). Accessory Coach House elevations should be articulated to create depth and architectural interest. Garage doors should be designed to minimize the visual impact to the lane through careful detailing and sensitive design. Design and locate windows to maximize light penetration into the coach house interior while mitigating overlook into other units. To mitigate privacy concerns, a maximum of 3.7 square metres (40 square feet) of covered porches at grade and 7.4 square metres (80 square feet) of balcony or deck over 1.0 metres (3.28 feet) will be considered. Balconies and decks should be screened and located to provide privacy for both the coach house unit and to minimize overlook on to adjacent units or properties. Building products should demonstrate sustainable principles with high quality design and detailing. Architectural style should not imitate the style of the principal residence but should respect its character; One storey Accessory Coach Houses are encouraged to be designed to meet Level 2 of the City of North Vancouver Adaptable Design Guidelines. 10.6 HERITAGE Guideline 10.6.1 Guideline 10.6.2 Accessory Coach House development proposed for a property that is listed on the Heritage Register should be designed to respect the architectural character of the heritage listed home without replicating the original house; Legally protecting heritage homes listed on the City s Heritage Registry is encouraged as part of the application process. 13 Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C.
Accessory Coach House Guidelines 11 Parking and Access 11.1 REQUIRED PARKING STALLS Two on-site parking spaces are required (one parking space for each unit); Two off-street parking stalls are required. [S.908(8) Figure 9-3] One Accessory Off-Street Parking Space shall be provided for the exclusive use of the Accessory Coach House [S.507(12)(c)] A maximum of one enclosed stall in the Accessory Coach House is permitted. Accessory Coach Houses shall be permitted a maximum of one enclosed or covered parking stall; [S.509(6)(e)] 11.2 PARKING ACCESS AND LOCATION Guideline 11.2.1 Guideline 11.2.2 Guideline 11.2.3 All parking is encourage to be provided in open stalls. Parking should be located in the rear 25% of the lot, with direct access from the lane, where a lane exists. Parking should be accessed from a lane, and existing driveways providing access from a street should be removed. For a Lot abutting on both an opened Street and an opened lane, vehicular access shall be from the lane. No access will be permitted from the Street... [S.906(4)(c)(i)] Guideline 11.2.4 For corner lots with no lane access, parking should be located in the rear yard with access via a driveway from the flanking street. 11.3 DRIVEWAYS Guideline 11.3.1 Guideline 11.3.2 Should be minimized in width and surface area and shared between units with a maximum width of 3.0 metres (9.8 feet); Permeable surfaces such as grasscrete or narrow wheel lanes with planting in the middle are encouraged; Driveways should be accessed off the lane and minimum 4.57 metres (15 feet) from the intersection of the lane and street. Driveways shall provide an unobstructed view of pedestrians and traffic where such driveways intersect a street. Not withstanding Principal Buildings, Accessory Buildings, or Accessory Coach House Buildings otherwise permitted in this Bylaw, no Structure or landscaping except high-branched trees shall exceed 0.914 metres (3 feet) in Height within the area Bounded By the driveway, the Lot line, and a line joining points along said lines 4.572 metres (15 feet) from their point of intersection; [S.906(4)(h)] Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C. Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines 14
12 Servicing Servicing and off-site improvements will be determined through the Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw No. 6200, 1991. Guideline 12.1.1 Guideline 12.1.1 Sanitary, storm and water connection servicing requirements will be evaluated according to their ability to serve the entire site and not only the coach house unit; Undergrounding of hydro and communication service lines is preferred. Site conditions may require additional works to conform to the Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw 6200. 13 Accessory Uses ACCESSORY HOME OCCUPATIONS USE The number of Accessory Home Occupation Uses on a Lot is limited to one. On a Lot containing an approved Accessory Secondary Suite Use or an Accessory Coach House Use both the principal Dwelling Unit and the Accessory Secondary Suite/Accessory Coach House may independently contain only one Accessory Home Occupation Use... [S.507(6)(b)] ACCESSORY HOME OFFICE USE An Accessory Home Office Use is permitted in both the Principal Building and Accessory Coach House Building....Accessory Home Office Uses are allowed in both Dwelling Units; [S.507(6)(b)] 15 Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C.
W 20th St Westmoreland Cr W 24th Cl W 24th St W 23rd St W 22nd St W 21st St Larson Rd Carson Ct Larson Cr Jones Ave W 28th St W 26th St Western Ave E 28th St Tempe Cr Brand St Somerset St E 27th St E 26th St E 25th St E 22nd St E 21st St Tempe Glen Dr 26th Cr Wilding Pl City of North Vancouver Bus Stops & RS-1, RS-2, & RS-3 Zoning Legend Bus Stops Areas Outside of a 400m Buffer of Bus Stops RS-1, RS-2, & RS-3 Zoning Park City Boundary W 19th St Keith Rd Cumberland Cr Fir St W 18th St E 18th St Hamilton Ave W 3rd St W 17th St Tobruck Ave W 16th St Donaghy Ave Fell Ave Mosquito Creek Ln W 15th St W 14th St Delbruck Ave Forbes Ave W 6th St W Keith Rd W 13th St W Victoria Park Ave W 12th St Eastern Ave E 8th St E 17th St E 16th St E 14th St E 13th St E 12th St Sutherland Ave E 15th St Note: The 'Areas Outside of a 400m Buffer of Bus Stops' data was created from the inverse of a 400m buffer of Translink bus stops in the City and the District of North Vancouver. For display purposes, the District of North Vancouver data has been excluded from the map. Automall Dr Harbourside Dr Harbourside Pl Gostick Pl Sea Bus Ferry Connection Mahon Ave Semisch Ave W 2nd St Rogers Ave Carrie Cates Ct W 4th St W 5th St E 1st St E 2nd St Victory Ship Way E 4th St E 5th St E 6th St St George's Ave E Keith Rd St Andrew's Ave Alder St Low Level Rd St Patrick's Ave St David's Ave Ridgeway Ave E 10th St E 9th St Lyon Pl E 7th St Grand Blvd E 3rd St Hendry Ave Cloverley St Kennard Ave Gladstone Ave DISCLAIMER This map was produced on the City of North Vancouver's Geographic Information System. Data provided herein is derived from sources with varying levels of accuracy and detail. The City of North Vancouver disclaims all responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of information contained herein. GIS Division, Information Technology, City of North Vancouver PLOTTED: 11/24/2016 0 100 200 300 400 Meters FILE: BusStops.mxd PATH: H:\CNV_Maps\Comm_Devt\20161121_BusStops\ COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N