I met with the City Planner responsible for rezoning applications for a second time. I’d met with him much earlier in the process to present our small lot subdivision concept. This second meeting was to update him on our progress and to establish whether the planning department had a preference for the small lot subdivision or the attached duplex path. I had already poured over the respective rezoning requirements for both options, but I found that the duplex design guidelines were much less detailed than the small lot design guidelines.
The planner confirmed that, in terms of design, a small lot subdivision and duplex application are evaluated similarly. In neither case does his department judge a project based on whether it is a contemporary or a traditional design. They look more at elements like scale, form, variation in materials, and landscaping that reference dominant features in the neighbourhood. So that was good news.
I also followed up with calls to other city departments that will be reviewing our application. Here’s what I learned:
- For the small lot subdivision, we can either add two curb cuts or one larger curb cut to serve both properties. The city has a slight preference for a single larger curb cut because it takes up less overall street parking space. An attached duplex will need two curb cuts spaced a minimum distance apart. We’ll want to have these details worked out before we submit to minimize redesign work.
- Here’s an interesting one: For the small lot subdivision, the city will ask for up to 1.5 meters of the depth of our lot as a dedication for widening the street. This is because our street is only 15 m wide and their standard is 18 m. So the city uses the subdivision as an opportunity to gain back up to half the missing road width, which they can then use to widen the boulevard or plant additional street trees. Here’s roughly what that would look like:
- The takeaway: make sure the small lot meets the minimum 300 sq m area with a 1.5 m swathe removed from it. With the current proposed property line location, one lot would dip below the minimum with that strip removed, and could potentially be rejected.
- For the attached duplex option, this would not be a requirement. Score one for Plan B.
I hope that I will soon reach a point when I stop learning surprising new things every time I talk with someone about how to make our project happen. What I will say about working with the City of Victoria is that, while the rezoning process is an onerous one, its staff are available and willing to provide guidance. It’s easy to set up a meeting and if I call someone, they call me back within a couple of days. The trick is to figure out what questions you need to ask.
As we find answers and continue to hear input from others, Matt and I are solidifying our plan and feeling confident in our path forward. More to come soon!
Cam Maltby says
We had to dedicate 10 feet of our property to the City of North Vancouver for the lane at the rear of the property, however the City doesn’t penalize us for the loss of lot area. All FSR calculations are based upon the lot size before dedicating for the lane. You might confirm with your municipality if, in fact, the 1.5m dedication is deducted from your lot area for calculations related to the development.
Another point; increasing the road width will not serve anyone but the motorist. Wider streets encourage faster speeds (regardless of the posted limit) and make roads less safe for cyclist and pedestrians. I would encourage you to get local slow streets advocates on board to encourage your city to rethink their plans for road widening. Research Vision Zero and other initiatives which are being adapted by other municipalities to reduce speeds and increase safety for all road users.
clove says
Hi Cam. Thanks for sharing your experience with North Van. I will check that point with Victoria. And agreed re: street widening!