CITY OF VANCOUVER
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
A Special Meeting of the Council of the City of Vancouver was held
on Thursday, March 12, 1996, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber, Third
Floor, City Hall, for the purpose of holding a Public Hearing to amend
the Zoning and Development By-law.
PRESENT: Mayor Owen
Councillors Bellamy, Chiavario, Clarke
Hemer, Kwan, Price, Puil and
Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor Ip
Councillor Kennedy
CLERK TO THE COUNCIL: Gary MacIsaac
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
SECONDED by Cllr. Puil,
THAT this Council resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mayor
Owen in the Chair, to consider proposed amendments to the Zoning and
Development By-law and to consider a proposed Heritage Revitalization
Agreement.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
1. Rezoning: 2897 West 41st Avenue
An application by Chandler/Rasmussen Architects was considered as
follows:
The proposed rezoning from RS-1 One Family Dwelling District, to
CD-1 Comprehensive Development District, would:
- permit a 103.9 m› (1,118 sq. ft.) main floor dental office, or
other professional office uses;
- permit a 93.8 m› (1,010 sq. ft.) dwelling unit above;
- limit density to a maximum floor space ratio of 0.60;
- limit height to a maximum of 10.7 m (35 ft.);
- require a minimum of 5 underground parking spaces; and
- require amendments to the Sign By-law and consequential
amendments.
cont'd....Clause
No. 1 (cont'd)
The Director of Land Use and Development recommended refusal of
this application. However, should Council approve this application, the
Director of Land Use and Development would recommend that the following
conditions be adopted by resolution of Council:
(a) That the proposed form of development be approved by Council
in principle, generally as prepared by Chandler/Rasmussen
Architects, and stamped "Received City Planning Department,
May 24, 1994", provided that the Director of Planning may
allow minor alterations to this form of development when
approving the detailed scheme of development as outlined in
(b) below.
(b) That, prior to approval by Council of the form of development,
the applicant shall obtain approval of a development
application by the Director of Planning, who shall have
particular regard to the following:
i) provision of six new street trees, four along West 41st
Avenue and two along MacKenzie Street;
ii) a separate application (one copy of Landscape plan) to
Engineering for the approval of locating plant material
on public property;
iii) reduced width of the entry walkway from West 41st Avenue;
iv) clarification of proposed fencing;
v) secure the rear yard and deck from the entry/ramp area;
vi) reduced extent of sidewalks in the front yard (MacKenzie
Street frontage);
vii) provision of a partial trellis over the ramp to screen
the opening and extent of concrete;
viii) the interior side yard should be heavily landscaped to
provide an adequate buffer to the adjacent property; and
cont'd....Clause
No. 1 (cont'd)
ix) provision of separate and distinct entries for
office/commercial and residential uses.
x) parking ramp grade cannot exceed 10% in the first 6
metres and should not exceed 12.5% thereafter. It should
be noted however that the secondary ramp grade can be
increased to a maximum of 15% if the design of the
development or the site peculiarities dictate.
(c) That, prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the registered
owner shall:
i) make arrangements for all electrical and telephone
services to be underground within and adjacent the site
from the closest existing suitable service point; and
ii) execute a legal agreement satisfactory to the Director of
Legal Services providing that owners will not
discriminate against families with children in the sale
of their property.
Staff Opening Comments
Mr. Tom Phipps, Planner, advised the proposed zoning involves two
separate principal uses, of which one is a dwelling unit, and the second
is a commercial office. The application does not involve live/work or a
home occupation use.
Staff do no recommend approval of a commercial office use in this
otherwise residential area. The critical test of any rezoning
application is to show there is a need for more land to be zoned for the
type of use proposed, in this case more commercial development
potential. The applicant has not demonstrated there is a lack of
development potential available in the nearby commercial districts. To
the contrary, there is an apparent surplus of commercial sites nearby.
If in the future there was a demand for additional commercial zoning,
staff would not recommend capacity be increased by rezoning individual
sites, but would seek locations which are contiguous with the existing
commercial zoning.
cont'd....Clause
No. 1 (cont'd)
Staff feel the architects have created a good design for this site
given its limitations, but the parking requirements leave too little
room for a normal residential setback, resulting in a reduced rear-yard
setback which is less than the RS-1 requirement. The height will also
exceed the normal RS-1 height limit. However, should Council approve
this application, staff recommend these limitations be accepted to allow
the building to work properly and to achieve a suitable roof form.
Also, should Council approve this application, staff recommend a broader
list of professional uses to prevent the need for future text amendments
on this site.
Mr. Phipps also advised this approval may send a signal that
Council is open to other rezonings in the area, and on arterial streets
around the City.
Mr. Phipps also noted an error in the Public Hearing agenda and
asked the agenda be amended to reflect that the form of development
drawings were received on August 9, 1995.
Applicant Opening Comments
Mr. Soren Rasmussen, architect, advised the application proposes
three levels with the lowest being for parking, the main floor
comprising a 1,100 square foot dentist office, and the upper floor being
a two-bedroom apartment of approximately 1,000 square feet. At present
there is a single-family dwelling on the site with vehicular access on
41st Avenue. The Engineering Department has insisted this access be
relocated onto MacKenzie Street. The overall character of the
development will look like a single-family dwelling and be in keeping
with the surrounding neighbourhood.
Dr. Saida Rasul provided background on her dental practice which is
community-based and has been in the neighbourhood for 20 years. Dr.
Rasul has owned the practice for past 10 years and operates a two-person
office comprised of herself and her receptionist. All of the basic
dentistry work is done by Dr. Rasul and her patients come from the
Kerrisdale neighbourhood and many are within walking distance.
cont'd....Clause
No. 1 (cont'd)
The rezoning application was initiated due to leasing problems at
her present location. Currently Dr. Rasul is on a year-to-year lease,
which is not healthy for either the dental practice or the patients. In
response to the statements that there is adequate commercial space
elsewhere in Kerrisdale, Dr. Rasul advised she has looked at many
locations in Kerrisdale, and cannot afford the building and leasehold
improvement costs. Parking is also a prohibitive factor in securing
space.
Dr. Rasul advised she has undertaken an extensive community
consultation process, including two open houses. The input received
from these forums was incorporated into a new design which was approved
by the Urban Design Panel in August 1995.
Approval of this application will allow Dr. Rasul to maintain her
small neighbourhood practice in the Kerrisdale area, and also allow her
elderly parents to continue living at their present location.
Summary of Correspondence
The following correspondence was received:
- 16 form letters in favour of the application;
- 6 additional letters in favour of the application;
- petition containing 55 names in favour of the application;
- 5 letters supporting the application outlining traffic and
safety concerns which need to be addressed;
- 15 form letters, one containing 21 signatures, opposing the
application;
- 21 additional letters opposing the application, of which one
was signed by 17 people;
- petition containing 75 names opposing the application.
Speakers
Mayor Owen called for speakers for and against the application.
The following were in favour of the application to rezone 2897 West 41st
Avenue:
- Bruce Higgs
- Art Cowie
- Robert Otway-Ruthven
- Dr. Omar Kassam
cont'd....Clause
No. 1 (cont'd)
- Dr. Nurdin Ahmed
- John O'Neil
- Barbara Glick
- Harry Brodie
- Diana Maughan
- Craig Rowland.
The foregoing speakers supported the application on one or more of
the following grounds:
- The application allows easy access for seniors and the disabled;
- This is a small low-key, community-based practice which will not
generate a lot of traffic or disruption to the neighbourhood;
- This type of use is serving a public need and should be viewed as a
neighbourhood amenity;
- The application will improve upon the look of the immediate area
which is becoming run-down, and the proposed design will ensure the
development will blend in with the existing neighbourhood;
- The City needs to address safety concerns arising from the busy
flow of traffic on 41st Avenue;
- This application has the support of the neighbours;
- The City needs to find alternative ways to accommodate our growing
population, and this presents an opportunity to be creative;
- The proposed design is better than what could result under the
existing RS-1 zoning.
The following speakers opposed the application:
- James Moroney
- Robert Gilley.
cont'd....Clause
No. 1 (cont'dl)
The foregoing speakers opposed the application for one or more of
the following reasons:
- This is a non-commercial family neighbourhood, and this type of
development is not appropriate;
- There is no evidence of public need, other than the singular need
of the applicant;
- There are numerous other spaces in the neighbourhood which could be
leased, which already have the appropriate zoning in place;
- References to a live/work application are incorrect, as the dentist
will not occupy the residential space;
- Changes required to make a commercial building into a residential
building result in size, form and height problems;
- Approval of this application will start a trend which will result
in the erosion of the residential neighbourhood.
Applicant Closing Comments
Dr. Rasul confirmed that the petition in favour of the application
was completed after the open houses were held in March 1995.
Staff Closing Comments
Mr. Tom Phipps agreed there are many strong arguments in favour of
developing local commercial uses that would allow upper storey
residential uses. This is a desirable objective, but it is already
achieved in C-1 and C-2 commercial districts. In this particular
instance, there are already sites available in the existing commercial
districts in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Phipps reiterated that staff recommend refusal of this
application.
cont'd....Clause
No. 1 (cont'd)
Council Discussion
During Council discussion of this item, a member of Council
commented that the issue of traffic safety at 41st Avenue and MacKenzie
was referenced by several delegations and in several pieces of
correspondence. It was requested this matter be referred to the
Vancouver Traffic Commission.
MOVED by Cllr. Hemer,
THAT the application be approved, subject to the conditions as set
out in this minute of the Public Hearing.
- carried
MOVED by Cllr. Puil (in amendment),
THAT only one dentist and two dental chairs be permitted on this
site.
- LOST
(Councillors Bellamy, Chiavario, Clarke, Hemer, Price
Sullivan and the Mayor opposed)
MOVED by Cllr. Clarke (in amendment),
THAT the health care office referred to in the draft by-law be
restricted to dental use only.
- LOST
(Councillors Bellamy, Hemer, Kwan, Price, Sullivan
and the Mayor opposed)
MOVED by Cllr. Clarke (in amendment),
THAT item 2(b) in the draft by-law relating to general office uses
be deleted from the by-law.
- LOST
(Councillors Bellamy, Hemer, Kwan, Puil, Sullivan
and the Mayor opposed)
The amendments having lost, the motion by Councillor Hemer was put
and CARRIED with Councillors Puil and Sullivan opposed.
2. Heritage Revitalization Agreement:
2015 West 8th Avenue (St. Augustine's Church)
An application was considered as follows:
The proposed by-law would authorize Council to enter into a
Heritage Revitalization Agreement with the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Vancouver.
The proposed Heritage Revitalization Agreement includes an increase
in the maximum height and floor space, and the protection and
conservation of the historic St. Augustine's Church at 2015 West
8th Avenue for 99 years. This report is before Council at a public
hearing pursuant to section 592(8) of the Vancouver Charter.
The Director of Land Use and Development recommended approval of
this application.
Staff Opening Comments
Mr. Robert Lemon, Heritage Planner, advised the building in
question is listed in 'A' category of the City's Heritage Register. The
application before Council is for a Heritage Revitalization Agreement
for the church building itself.
The application to build a new parish centre received support from
the Development Permit Board in September 1995, with the condition that
it be subject to the applicant entering into a Heritage Revitalization
Agreement as a form of protection for the church building. This
agreement will be for 99 years.
Mr. Lemon advised there have been a number of issues related to
this application, and controversy has revolved around the loss of four
heritage houses on the property which are listed in the 'C' category of
the Vancouver Heritage Register. Nonetheless, the Vancouver Heritage
Commission supports this application because it involves retention of
the landmark church building. There have been many enquiries as to the
relocation of the houses on the site, and there is one current
application to relocate at least three of the four houses to another
site in Kitsilano, at the corner of 11th Avenue and Burrard Street.
cont'd....Clause
No. 2 (cont'd)
St. Augustine's Church Opening Comments
Mr. Bud King, on behalf of St. Augustine's Church, advised St.
Augustine's is the only church of this age and size in Vancouver that
does not have an activity centre. The centre is needed for all of the
activity groups and it is intended that it will also be available for
use by other non-profit agencies in the Kitsilano area.
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver has entered into this
Heritage Revitalization Agreement which will provide for a complete
class 'A' heritage designation of the church for a 99-year term. This
is in return for a minor adjustment to the height and floor space ratio
requirements of the activity centre.
Mr. King advised the church is aware and mindful of community
concerns about the houses which will have to be removed to make way for
this development, and have worked with the community to find people who
are interested in moving these buildings.
Summary of Correspondence
A review of the correspondence in this matter indicated the
following:
- one letter in favour of the application;
- one letter opposing any demolitions on site;
- one petition containing over 700 signatures opposing any
demolitions on site.
Speakers
Mayor Owen called for speakers for and against the application.
The following speakers spoke in favour of the Heritage Revitalization
Agreement:
- Lynne Bryson, Chair, Vancouver Heritage Commission
- Anne Tickle
- Sandra Price-Hosie
- Pat Battle
- Sheila Colwill
- Sidwell McLeod
- Bill Clarke
- Stanley Paulus
cont'd....Clause
No. 2 (cont'd)
- Peter Dunlop
- Catherine Kaye
- Dr. Patrick Foran
- Sterling Colwill
- Anna Dwyer
- Dr. Desmond Viegas
- Lawrence Pillon
- Bill Phillips
- Christopher Stanbury.
The foregoing speakers supported the application on one or more of
the following grounds:
- Over 1,500 families comprise St. Augustine's Church. The proposed
application will benefit not only the church but also the
neighbourhood at large;
- The church is badly in need of an activity centre, with the current
situation being untenable;
- This project will meet both the present and future needs of St.
Augustine's Church;
- The activity centre will provide a space for people to meet and
foster spirituality and a sense of community;
- There is little or no cost to the City involved with this
application;
- The church building plans are in part subjected to the terms of a
legacy which was left to St. Augustine's. This legacy directs that
the funding must be allocated to a new activity centre;
- The church is exceeding the City's parking standards, and there are
additional spaces off-site.
The following speakers opposed the application:
- Shelley Johnson
- Mike Douglas
- Michael Tureski
- Marilyn Kalman
- Fred Renk
- Rhonda Carriere.
cont'd....Clause
No. 2 (cont'd)
The foregoing speakers opposed the application on one or more of
the following grounds:
- The increased activity associated with the centre will use the
existing street parking, thus leaving no parking for nearby
residents;
- Traffic in the neighbourhood will increase, and add further to the
greater volume which has resulted from traffic diversion methods on
neighbouring streets;
- One of the houses on the site was built in 1896, and is the oldest
home in Kitsilano. This house is an asset to the City and the
church should find a way to retain this house;
- The majority of Kitsilano residents favour retention and no one
supports demolition. The City should not sacrifice one heritage
building for another, and the demolition of houses which will end
up in the landfill should not be permitted;
- The spirit of the community is also represented in this building;
- As a compromise, the City could allow this heritage house to be
situated on its lands which the Engineering Department presently
has reserved for transportation uses which are unlikely to happen.
MOVED by Cllr. Clarke,
THAT the application be approved.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MOVED by Cllr. Kwan,
THAT, in the event the demolition of the heritage houses is
inevitable, staff report back on options available to permanently save
the houses.
- deferred
cont'd....Clause
No. 2 (cont'd)
MOVED by Cllr. Puil,
THAT the motion by Councillor Kwan be deferred indefinitely.
- CARRIED
(Councillor Kwan opposed)
The motion to defer having CARRIED, Councillor Kwan's motion was
deferred indefinitely.
3. Text Amendments: Various Central Area Districts -
Transfer of Heritage Density Potential
An application by the Director of Land Use and Development was
considered as follows:
The proposed amendment to the RM-5, RM-5A, RM-5B, RM-5C, C-3A, C-5
and C-6 District schedules and the Downtown Official Development
Plan would:
give the Development Permit Board the authority to approve a
maximum 10% extra density on a receiver development site in
parts of the Central Area, where this extra density is derived
from one or more heritage donor site(s) in the same parts of
the Central Area.
The Director of Land Use and Development recommended approval of
this application.
Staff Opening Comments
Mr. Robert Lemon, Heritage Planner, advised the rezoning amendments
being considered are the last in a series of adjustments to the transfer
of density policies that have occurred in the past couple of years.
These amendments focus on the receiver sites. At the moment, a rezoning
is necessary for a receiver site to absorb density, but the proposed
amendments would allow a receiver site to absorb up to ten percent of
the density from a heritage site, through approval of the Development
Permit Board rather than through a public hearing.
cont'd....Clause
No. 3 (cont'd)
Mr. Lemon advised that for heritage sites, the ability to remove
development pressures from a site is a significant incentive for
preservation of important heritage buildings and the central area.
Mr. Rick Scobie, Director of Land Use and Development, responded to
questions from members of Council by advising that the amendments before
Council deal with the receiver site, rather than the heritage site. At
present, the Development Permit Board can approve a ten percent increase
on the heritage site, but this proposal allows the Board to approve up
to ten percent increase on the receiver site without going through a
formal rezoning process.
Responding to another question from a member of Council, Mr. Lemon
advised that staff estimate that if the existing amount of committed
bonus density were sold to receiver sites for residential purposes, it
will result in approximately 400 residential units or 500 additional
people in the Downtown area. Projections indicate that on an annual
basis this could result in approximately 70-90 additional persons per
year.
Summary of Correspondence
A review of correspondence on this subject indicated one letter
received in support of the application from the Chinatown Historic Area
Planning Committee.
Speakers
Mayor Owen called for speakers for and against the application, and
none were present.
MOVED by Cllr. Sullivan,
THAT the application be approved.
- CARRIED
(Councillors Kwan and Puil opposed)
RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Moved by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT the Committee of the Whole rise and report.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPT REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Sullivan,
SECONDED by Cllr. Clarke,
THAT the report of the Committee of the Whole be adopted, and the
Director of Legal Services be instructed to prepare and bring forward
the necessary by-law amendments.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
* * *
The Special Council Meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.