Development review
This review is based solely on developing the proposed lower 0.508-hectare parcel, while keeping the upper 0.144-hectare parcel and existing house unchanged. The likely outcome is 26–28 well-designed townhouses, with the upper house remaining undisturbed and separately marketable.
Site
4900 Pleasant Valley Road, Vernon, BC
Parcels
Lower 0.508 ha · Upper 0.144 ha (retained)
Zoning capacity
0.508 ha × 60 units/ha = 30.48 → ≈ 30 units ceiling
Recommended target
26–28 three-storey townhouses, accessed from 18th Street
Executive conclusion — density targets
Preferred concept
26–28 townhouses
Maximum-density concept
30 townhouses
Lower-risk concept
22–24 townhouses
Duplex concept
≈ 18–22 units
The best balance of density, construction cost and marketability is likely a 26–28-unit, three-storey townhouse development accessed exclusively from 18th Street.
Site strategy
The upper house should remain completely separate from the development. The lower parcel would function as an independent townhouse site with its primary entrance from 18th Street.
Recommended 28-unit concept
Each building should remain below the MUS maximum continuous building frontage of 30 metres. The exact orientation should follow the contours rather than forcing the buildings into a rigid rectangular grid.
| Building | Units |
|---|---|
| Building A | 5 |
| Building B | 5 |
| Building C | 5 |
| Building D | 5 |
| Building E | 4 |
| Building F | 4 |
| Total | 28 |
Suggested site organization
Development options
| Option | Form | Units | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Larger duplex homes | 18–22 | Lower density, larger homes and yards |
| B | Conventional townhouses | 22–24 | Lowest entitlement and servicing risk |
| C | Compact family townhouses | 26–28 | Best overall option (recommended) |
| D | Maximum-density townhouses | 30 | Possible zoning maximum, but tight |
| E | Mixed conventional and stacked townhouses | 28–30 | Highest efficiency, more code complexity |
Lower density, larger homes and yards
Advantages
Disadvantages
Not recommended unless market research shows a significant price premium for larger duplex homes.
Lowest entitlement and servicing risk
Advantages
Disadvantages
The safest concept, but may leave valuable density unused.
Best overall option (recommended)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Recommended concept — the best balance of density, construction cost and marketability.
Possible zoning maximum, but tight
Advantages
Disadvantages
Test, but do not use as the initial financial underwriting assumption.
Highest efficiency, more code complexity
Advantages
Disadvantages
Highest efficiency but more code complexity.
Principal zoning controls (MUS)
| Maximum density | 60 units/ha |
| Lower-parcel density ceiling | ≈ 30 units |
| Maximum height | 11 m / 3 storeys |
| Street setback | 4.0 m |
| Street-facing garage setback | 6.0 m |
| Residential side/rear setback | Generally 1.5 m |
| Maximum building frontage | 30 m |
| Minimum landscaping | ≈ 30% |
| Vehicle access | Normally one access per site |
| Pedestrian pathway | 1.5 m wide to unit entrances |
| Amenity area | Required for developments of 5+ units |
Amenity-area calculation
For family-sized units with more than one bedroom, the bylaw requires approximately 15 m² of amenity area per unit. A 28-unit development could therefore require approximately:
28 × 15 m² = 420 m²
This can generally be divided between private patios/yards and common amenity space, subject to the City's interpretation.
Major physical constraints
The townhouse buildings should straddle or step with the grades. Extensive mass grading to create one flat development pad would likely be unnecessarily expensive and could produce large retaining walls along neighbouring properties.
Important lot-size issue
The lower parcel is approximately 5,080 m², while MUS identifies a maximum subdivision lot area of 4,050 m². The City's PLR nevertheless supports creating this lower development parcel. Before finalizing the project, obtain written confirmation that:
If the City does require compliance with the 4,050 m² maximum, the alternative would be to divide the lower property into two development parcels of approximately 2,540 m². Each could theoretically support about 15 units, using a shared entrance and reciprocal access agreement.
Recommended development program
| Development area | Lower 0.508 ha parcel only |
| Upper property | Retain existing house and yard |
| Target density | 28 units |
| Density range | 26–30 units |
| Housing form | Three-storey ground-oriented townhouses |
| Building count | ≈ six buildings |
| Building size | Four to five units per building |
| Access | Single entrance from 18th Street |
| Parking | Garages plus surface/driveway and visitor spaces |
| Ownership | Conventional strata |
| Construction | Stepped/walkout buildings following contours |
| Upper boundary | Landscape buffer, fencing and controlled drainage |
| Future connection | Pedestrian only unless otherwise required |
Final recommendation
The primary design and financial model.
To identify the true density ceiling.
To establish downside economics if grading, parking or fire access reduce yield.
The likely outcome is 26–28 well-designed townhouses, while the upper house remains undisturbed and separately marketable. A full 30 units should be treated as an achievable target to test, rather than a guaranteed approval.
This review is a planning-level development assessment, not a survey, appraisal, zoning opinion, or development approval. Parcel boundaries, dimensions, servicing, title matters, environmental conditions, and development potential should be confirmed through current professional and municipal due diligence, including written confirmation from the City of Vernon on lot registration and density.