CD-1 Text Amendment: 2855 Sophia St & 296 E 12th Ave.

POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

Date: January 27, 1999
Author/Local: LChallis/7135
LU&D No. 97028
RTS No. 00501
CC File No. 5307

TO: Vancouver City Council

FROM: Director of Central Area Planning, on behalf of Land Use & Development

SUBJECT: CD-1 Text Amendment - 2855 Sophia Street and 296 East 12th Avenue

NOTE: Appendices E and F on file in City Clerk’s Office.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application by Hywel Jones, Architect, to amend CD-1 By-law No. 7655 for 2855 Sophia Street and 296 E 12th Avenue (Pcl 1, Block 114, DL 301, Plan LMP 25293 & Lot 1, Block 114, DL 301, Plan LMP 25725) to allow Special Needs Residential Facility - Congregate Housing as a permitted use for this site, be referred to a Public Hearing, together with:

(i) plans received November 3, 1998;

(ii) draft CD-1 By-law amendments, generally as contained in Appendix A; and

(iii) the recommendation of the Director of Central Area Planning on behalf of Land Use and Development to approve, subject to conditions contained in Appendix B; and

FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to prepare the necessary by-law for consideration at Public Hearing.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of the foregoing.

COUNCIL POLICY

Zoning and Development By-law No. 3575 defines congregate housing as follows:

“Special Needs Residential Facility - Congregate Housing, which means any facility that provides residential units for six or more persons aged fifty-five years or over who are not a family, where shared separate kitchen and dining areas are provided and where accommodation for a resident housekeeper may be provided”.

On May 8, 1989, Council approved the following community development objectives as the basis of the City’s social housing policy:

· Maintain and expand housing opportunities in Vancouver for low and moderate income households, with priority being given to Downtown lodging-house residents, elderly people on fixed and limited incomes, the physically and mentally disabled, and single-parent families with children.

· Encourage the distribution of acceptable housing forms and affordable shelter costs equally among all residential neighbourhoods of Vancouver.

Other relevant Council policies for the site include:

· the Mount Pleasant Community Development Plan (adopted in October 1987);

· the Special Needs Residential Facility Guidelines (adopted in February 1992) which are intended to ensure that a special needs residential facility is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report assesses an application to permit the use “Special Needs Residential Facility -Congregate Housing” to allow construction of 130 units of rental congregate housing on the site shown on the map on the next page.

In November 1996, the site was rezoned from RM-4 and RM-4N to CD-1 to permit Special Needs Residential Facility - Community Care - Class B (for a 97-bed multi-level care facility). Following rezoning, there were changes to the Provincial health care policy which resulted in the loss of funding for the multi-level care facility. Because the current CD-1 By-law only permits a care facility and there are no funds available to provide this use, the application is seeking a use that would allow a housing alternative for seniors.

The application proposes to replace two vacant buildings, Edith Cavell Hospital, a former seniors extended care facility, located south of the lane, and a former commercial building located north of the lane with a development which would include two buildings connected by a bridge over the lane. The proposed development would be within the same maximum floor space ratio (2.75 FSR) and at less height than previously approved.

Staff support the proposal which will increase moderately-priced rental housing opportunities for seniors in Mount Pleasant on a site that can accommodate the form of development required for the proposed use.

Staff recommend that the application be referred to a Public Hearing, with a recommendation that it be approved subject to conditions.

MAP

DISCUSSION

Use: Classified as a SNRF (Special Needs Residential Facility), congregate housing fills a significant gap in providing housing for seniors who wish to vacate a house or are lonely and tired of preparing their meals, but who do not require multi-level care. The use involves the provision of housing with communal meal service, usually complemented by on-site laundry and light housekeeping services and 24-hour emergency monitoring. In addition, homemakers and health care services may be provided by outside agencies one or more days a week as needed. Unlike licensed care facilities, no medical staff are available on-site.

Consequently, this housing is not licensed or regulated nor is there presently any public financial assistance provided. Staff support this use which fills the gap between independent housing and multi-level care, provides a type of housing that presently is not available in this area of the city, and responds to the trend toward significant increases in the proportion of seniors who may be seeking rental, serviced housing.

Density: The CD-1 By-law permits a density of 2.75 FSR which is almost double the maximum density permitted in the surrounding RM-4 and RM-4N Districts (1.45 FSR). The higher density was considered necessary to meet the space requirements for the previously approved multi-level care facility and justified by the public benefit offered by a care facility, and it was felt that the development would not unduly impact on the livability of existing or future adjacent development.

Staff have been struggling with accepting the same density for a different use. It has been difficult for staff to evaluate the public benefit offered by congregate housing because of our limited experience with the proposed use although as noted in the “Use” section above, we expect an increasing demand for this type of housing. Because there is no government subsidy, congregate housing cannot be financially accessible to low-income seniors in the same way as is facility care in an Intermediate, Multi-level or Extended Care facility. Some existing Vancouver projects do provide units in the $1,150 to $1,300 range. These would be too expensive for more than 50% of seniors who currently receive SAFER (Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters), but could be affordable to seniors with incomes in the upper levels of SAFER qualification ($16,000 to $19,000). Other projects are considerably more expensive, up to $5,000/month. The projects with the more affordable units are generally run by non-profit societies. The development proposed on Sophia Street would be owned and operated by a private operator, but will provide 20 shared units at $1,300 per person.

Staff recognize that in the RM-4/4N District Schedule the density permitted for congregate housing (0.75 FSR) is less than for multiple dwellings (relaxable to 1.45 FSR), although congregate housing has greater space requirements. For example, congregate housing must provide significantly more common areas (kitchen, dining room, lounges), most of which are included in the floor space calculations. Staff have calculated that while a multiple dwelling building can be built at about 85% efficiency (15% of floor area lost to circulation, lobby, and other common areas), a congregate housing building will likely be built at about 70% efficiency if adequate communal space is provided. Based on these observations, staff recommend that congregate housing should qualify for a density equivalent to multiple dwelling use, plus an additional 15% floor space for common areas (including kitchen, dining areas and housekeeping services). This would result in a maximum FSR of 1.67 without other considerations related to unit costs and tenure.

The proposed density is also intended to provide the proposal with the financial viability necessary to provide moderately-priced rental units. Real Estate Services has reviewed the cost and revenue estimates for this proposal and concluded that the proposed density does not provide windfall profit to the applicant. The proposed rents which include meals, are $1,300 per person for a shared unit, $1,650 a month for a studio unit, and $2,050 for a 1-bedroom unit, and are reasonably priced in comparison to other market, rental congregate housing developments. To ensure that the applicant provides rental units, it is proposed that a non-stratification agreement be required.

Affordability: The applicant has offered to rent units to five seniors in receipt of SAFER assistance. Seniors who would qualify for SAFER assistance may have incomes up to $1,695 per month for singles and $1,865 for couples. This would ensure that a small percentage of the seniors living in the project would have household incomes close to B.C. Housing’s Core Need Income Threshold ($19,200 per annum for a single person). Staff recommend that a Housing Agreement be sought, where five of the occupants must be in receipt of SAFER assistance. Staff also note that at the currently proposed rent level of $1,300 per person, all the shared units could be accessible for seniors receiving SAFER assistance.

Unit Mix: The proposal includes 130 units with a mix of 59 studio units at approximately 31 m² (340 sq. ft.) in area, 51 one-bedroom units at approximately 46 m² (500 sq. ft.) in area and 20 shared units, with two separate living quarters and bathrooms and a shared kitchen, at approximately 31 m² (340 sq. ft.) for each living area. All of the units are designed to be wheelchair friendly and include in-suite storage areas for seniors to store a walker, for example, and other personal effects.

Amenity Space: Supplementary amenity spaces are critical to the operation of congregate housing facilities, for dining, socializing and other activities. The dining area is generally permanently set up, requiring separate spaces for other activities, such as reading, TV watching, cards and other game playing. Separate and adequate lounge spaces are required on every floor. The proposed development provides reasonable dining room, activity spaces and lounges.

Form of Development: Staff have determined that although the proposed bulk and height of the development is greater than the surrounding buildings, it can be accommodated on the site with minor impact on adjacent properties in terms of shadowing and privacy. The impact of the development is also alleviated by a west sideyard which is more than double the normally-required depth. Staff and the Urban Design Panel are supportive of the proposed form of development given the intended quality of materials and design response to the Mount Pleasant context. Further details on the form of development are provided in Appendix C and design development conditions to enhance the form of development are provided in Appendix B.

- 6 -

Parking: Engineering staff have reviewed parking standards and will be recommending, as part of a future issues report on congregate housing, a reduction of the current standard of one space for every 70 m² (753 sq. ft.). This existing requirement is high, considering the average age and level of car ownership among residents in congregate housing. For this proposal staff recommend 32 off-street parking spaces which is equivalent to a standard of one parking space for every four units. The current proposal includes only 29 parking spaces but the applicant confirms that the required 32 spaces can be provided, including provision of a minimum of 2 disability spaces. A class B (handidart) passenger space will also be provided.

CONCLUSION

Staff support the use, density and form of development proposed in this application. The proposed congregate housing offers a type of moderately-priced, rental housing that currently is not available in this area of the city and in a form that will not unduly impact on the livability of adjacent buildings. Staff recommend that the application be referred to a Public Hearing with a recommendation by the Director of Central Area Planning, on behalf of Land Use & Development, to approve it, subject to proposed conditions of approval presented in Appendix B.

* * * * *

APPENDIX A
Page 1 of 2

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO CD-1 BY-LAW NO. 7655

1. Amend section 2, Uses, by

· deleting clauses (a) and (b),
· inserting the following new clause (a):

“(a) Special Needs Residential Facility - Congregate Housing, and”,

· relettering clauses (c) to (b), and
· deleting section 2.2.

2. Amend section 3.3, Floor Space Ratio, by:

· deleting the word “and” at the end of clause (d),
· deleting the period at the end of sub-clause (ii) of clause (e) and inserting a comma followed by the word “and”,
· inserting the following new clause (f):

“(f) residential storage space provided that where the space is provided at or above base surface, the maximum exclusion shall be 3.7 m² per dwelling unit.”

3. Amend section 4, Height, by deleting the figures “18.6 m” and “21.9 m” and replacing with the figures “16.2 m” and “21.1 m” respectively.

4. Amend section 5.1, Setbacks, by deleting the figures “2.3 m”, “6.1 m” and “4.3 m” and replacing with the figures “2.1 m”, “4.3 m” and “8.2 m” respectively.

5. Amend section 5.2, Setbacks, by replacing the figure “5.5 m” with the figure “9.7 m”.

APPENDIX A
Page 2 of 2

6. Delete section 6, Off-Street Parking and Loading, and replace with the following new section:

“6. Off-Street Parking and Loading

6.1 Off-street parking, loading and bicycle spaces must be provided, developed and maintained in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Parking By-law, except that for a Special Needs Residential Facility - Congregate Housing:

(a) a minimum of 32 off-street parking spaces must be provided;

(b) a minimum of one off-street loading space must be provided; and

6.2 The Director of Planning, on advice of the City Engineer, may grant a relaxation in the requirements of section 6.1 where enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship and where he is of the opinion that such relaxation will not adversely impact surrounding developments and residents or the parking needs of residents or visitors to the site.”

APPENDIX B
Page 1 of 4

PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

(a) THAT the proposed form of development be approved by Council in principle, generally as prepared by Hywel Jones Architect and stamped “Received City Planning Department, November 3, 1998", 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) design development to improve safety aspects of proposed open spaces as well as resident and pedestrian routes to ensure clear separation from lane vehicular activity and to generally meet CPTED principles for clear surveillance;

Note to applicant: Lower fence height for greater visual permeability and clear identification of public, semi-public and private open space is required. Revisions to entry locations to facilitate better awareness of lane traffic is also required.

(ii) design development to proposed landscaping to clarify the more localized characteristics and features of the intended Wellness Walkways and how the proposal will enhance the Walkways’ intent through integrated site specific design;

Note to applicant: Opportunities for Wellness Walkways’ references on 13th Avenue should be considered.

Note to applicant: Landscape design should provide for street trees on Sophia. Mini-bus lay-by locations along Sophia should be minimized to increase landscape opportunities for both public and private property.

(iii) design development to the at grade parking exit stair to better integrate the stair into the building or landscape;

Note to applicant: The exit stair should be better integrated and disguised in the landscape and should be secured at grade.

(iv) provision of a trellis over the parking ramp to reduce visual impact for adjacent development;

APPENDIX B
Page 2 of 4

(v) design development to the lane elevations and the 12th Avenue elevation of the north building to improve visual appearance;

Note to applicant: Additional glazing for both elevations should be considered.

(vi) design development to achieve a more distinguished 4-storey expression for the south building;

Note to applicant: Refinement of materials and the introduction of a setback for the entire perimeter of the south building should be considered.

(vii) clarification of all proposed exterior materials;

(viii) consideration should be given to reducing points of entry to ensure better control of on-site activities and simplify circulation patterns;

(ix) design development, in consultation with the City Engineer, to minimize the width of the portion of the development which bridges the lane to provide a pedestrian connection only;

(x) clarification of the need or intent to regrade the City lane below the proposed bridge;

(xi) design development to take into consideration the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), having particular regard to reducing opportunities for:

· theft in the underground parking area. This can be achieved by gating the entrance to the underground parking. Further design development is needed to the stairs from the underground which should not be exposed to the street or the lane.

· fear in the underground by improving visibility and security in the underground in accordance with section 4.12 of the Parking By-law and consideration to painting the walls and ceiling white.

· break and enters. Ground level units are most susceptible to break and enter. Opportunities can be reduced by deleting areas of concealment outside of windows and patios.

APPENDIX B
Page 3 of 4

· mischief in the lane and alcoves. Exits on the lane should be designed so an alcove is not created. This can be achieved by opening the roof over alcoves, or moving the exit doors flush with the building.

· graffiti. Graffiti is prevalent in Vancouver. Opportunities can be mitigated by reducing areas of exposed wall, by covering these walls with vines, hedges or lattice or by using a protective coating material. Contact Helen Chomolok, Graffiti Coordinator at 873-7927 for further information and resource.

Note to applicant: Landscape plans have not been provided.

Clarification is needed regarding the function of the room beside parking stall 8.
Clarification is needed regarding the stairs on the ground floor of the north development, where do the down stairs go?
Clarification is required regarding resolution of the space east of the parking ramp.

(xii) provision of an Arborist report by a certified Arborist assessing all the trees over 8 inches in diameter, indicating their health, location, size and species, and including recommendations for retention, relocation and removal;

(xiii) provision of a landscape plan which:

(A) reflects all trees over 8 inches in diameter to be retained, relocated or removed, and

(B) includes additional street trees, where possible, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services and the General Manager of the Park Board.

(i) make arrangements to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services and the Director of Legal Services for encroachment of the proposed bridge (at a reduced width) over the lane;

APPENDIX B
Page 4 of 4

(ii) make arrangements to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services and the Director of Legal Services for improvements to Sophia Street between 13th and 12th Avenues in general conformance with the greenways (Wellness Walkways)/traffic calming plan for the area;

(iii) make suitable arrangements to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services and the Director of Legal Services for clarification of charges shown on title (a charge summary should be provided);

(iv) make arrangements for all electrical and telephone services to be undergrounded within and adjacent the site from the closest existing suitable point;

(v) make arrangements to the satisfaction of the Manager of the Housing Centre and the Director of Legal Services by way of a Housing Agreement, to secure affordable residential units (five of the occupants be in receipt of SAFER assistance), for the life of the building;

(vi) register a Section 219 Covenant, to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services, providing that the owner of the rental congregate housing development shall not strata-title any of the units.

APPENDIX C
Page 1 of 3

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Site, Surrounding Zoning and Development: The site is located on the west side of Sophia Street between East 12th and 13th Avenues and consists of two individual parcels separated by a City lane. On the south parcel is the vacant, 2-storey Edith Cavell Hospital and on the north site is a vacant, 1-storey building which was formerly occupied by Hodgson Orthotics Ltd.

The site is near the northern edge of the RM-4 and RM-4N Multiple Dwelling Districts and south of the Broadway/Main/Kingsway commercial centre of the Mount Pleasant neighbourhood. The surrounding area is generally developed with 3-storey multiple dwellings, including the buildings immediately west, south and east of the site.

To the north across 12th Avenue is the 2-storey Salvation Army Social Service Centre and Thrift Store which is also zoned RM-4N. To the north-east near Kingsway is a funeral home and an automotive repair business. Further east across Kingsway is the 7-storey Biltmore Hotel which is zoned CD-1 and developed at a density of 3.15 FSR. A block and a half south-east of the site is the 5-storey Mount Saint Joseph’s Hospital.

The site is located along the proposed Mount Pleasant Wellness Walkways. The purpose of the Walkways is to demonstrate how the public realm can be retrofitted to contribute to community health in general and more specifically to respond to the special needs of those with challenges posed by illness, disability or age. The Walkways would connect health care facilities in the area whose patients and residents have a wide range of mobility restrictions.

Background: The site was rezoned from RM-4 and RM-4N to CD-1 in November 1996 to permit a Special Needs Residential Facility- Community Care - Class B. The proposal was to replace the Edith Cavell Hospital which provided 62 beds for seniors extended care, with a 97-bed multi-level care facility. The facility would have included a 5-storey building south of the lane and a 6-storey building north of the land, joined by development at the upper 4 storeys bridging the lane.

Following rezoning, there were changes to the provincial health care policy which resulted in the loss of funding for the multi-level care facility and, without the funding, development of the site could not proceed. The owner-operator of the former Edith Cavell Hospital wants to continue providing a housing alternative for seniors at this location.

APPENDIX C
Page 2 of 3

Congregate Housing: In a recent report to Council, staff noted the increasing interest in this type of accommodation and the City’s lack of established guidelines for this use. Staff also outlined some minimum standards that are being considered in order to ensure livability of each residential unit and to ensure the adequacy of communal spaces for groups and individuals. Staff’s review of this proposal indicates that the unit sizes and common areas (dining room, lounges, etc.) are generally greater than the minimum standards being considered. The proposal also includes a reasonable amount of at-grade open space.

The proposed facility is a type of housing which satisfies housing, tenure and affordability goals identified in the Mount Pleasant Community Development Plan. The development is also consistent with the Special Needs Residential Facility Guidelines which seek to ensure that Special Needs Residential Facilities are compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The Guidelines also recommend that in a predominantly residential area there should be at least 200 m (656 ft.) between SNRFs, although congregate housing is normally excepted from this criteria.

Proposed Development: The application proposes 130 units of congregate housing, that is housing for seniors with meals provided in a shared dining room. Although the congregate housing would not include care, it would provide other services such as laundry, housekeeping, social programmes, outings and 24-hour emergency monitoring.

The facility would include two buildings which would contain 59 studio units, 51 one-bedroom units and 20 shared units. At least 150 residents would be accommodated. The north building would also include a dining room and most of the other common amenity areas which would be shared by residents of both buildings.

Underground parking for 32 vehicles would be provided under the south building with access from the lane. The application also proposes street and sidewalk improvements along Sophia Street which are intended to complement the proposed Mount Pleasant Wellness Walkways.

Form of Development: The proposed building massing consists of a 5-storey building south of the lane and a 7-storey building north of the lane. The buildings are connected at the third storey by a narrow 1-storey bridge over the lane. Bridging over the lane is acceptable to the Manager of Engineering Services if the width is decreased to provide a pedestrian connection only (width of approximately 3.6 m)[see Appendix B].

APPENDIX C
Page 3 of 3

In comparison to the form of development previously approved for this site, the height of the buildings has been decreased from 18.6 m to 16.2 m on the south parcel and from 21.9 m to 21.1 m on the north parcel. The height reductions would be achieved through the lower ceiling height requirements for congregate housing. For example, the north building’s height decreases by 0.8 m although the building is 1-storey higher than the previous proposal.

Setbacks have also been reduced along 12th and 13th Avenues. Along 12th Avenue, the setback has been reduced from 2.3 to 2.1 m. While less than required in RM-4/4N Districts (6.1 m), the setback improves upon the existing situation, noting that the existing building north of the lane and the Salvation Army building across the street provide no setbacks.

The setback along 13th Avenue has been reduced from 6.1 m which is required for multiple dwelling developments in the RM-4 District, to 4.3 m. Staff consider this setback acceptable for the proposed form of development which responds to the goals of the Mount Pleasant Community Development Plan for this area which encourage new development with an urban character.

The setback from the west property line has been increased from 4.3 m to 8.2 m which is significantly greater than the 2.1 m setback required in the RM-4/4N District. This generous sideyard helps minimize the shadow and privacy impacts on adjoining properties that would otherwise result from the shallow front yard, and provides substantial open space along the west side of the buildings.

Environmental Implications: The operator of the facility proposes to include a shuttle bus to provide residents transportation to a variety of locations and events. Nearby access to transit and commercial services may also reduce dependence on the use of automobiles.

Social Implications: The proposal would provide a moderately-priced type of rental, seniors housing that presently is not available in this part of the city.

There are no implications with respect to the Vancouver Children’s Policy or Statement of Children’s Entitlements.

APPENDIX D
Page 1 of 3

COMMENTS FROM REVIEWING AGENCIES,
THE PUBLIC AND THE APPLICANT

Public Input: Notification letters were sent to 217 nearby property owners on September 23, 1997, April 3, 1998 and November 9, 1998. A rezoning information sign was posted on the site on August 15, 1997 and revised on April 8, 1998 and again on November 17, 1998. The applicant held a public information meeting on November 19, 1998 at Mount Saint Joseph’s Hospital.

Two residents telephoned staff to comment on the application. They were both concerned about the potential parking impacts from the development. One of the callers was also concerned about the height of the two buildings.

Two residents attended the public information meeting. They both wanted assurance that the development would be limited to the proposed use and could not be converted to a conventional market apartment. Staff confirmed that multiple dwelling use would not be permitted.

Comments of Engineering Services: Engineering Services has no objection to the proposed rezoning provided that the applicant complies with the conditions as shown in Appendix B.

Housing Centre Comments: “The Housing Centre supports this development because it provides a range of choice for seniors living in this neighbourhood, which does not now offer the level of service being proposed by the applicant. To ensure that there be some measure of affordability for the project, it is proposed that the applicant enter into a housing agreement with the City which ensures that a minimum of five tenants be in receipt of SAFER at any one point in time for the life of the project. In addition, the Housing Centre recommends that a Section 219 covenant be struck which ensures that the complex of both buildings be unstratified for the life of the project.”

Comments of Social Planning: “Social Planning supports this development because it provides liveable unit sizes and adequate amenity space, and also provides a public benefit in that the smallest units, which provide about 340 sq. ft. per person, are to be available at a price which is affordable to a portion of the seniors whose incomes are within the range covered by SAFER. The washroom sizes and design, and unit layout provide maneuvering room and space for personal effects.”

APPENDIX D
Page 2 of 3

Real Estate Services Comments: “We have reviewed the applicant’s economic proforma for the increase in density from 1.45 to 2.75. Our conclusions are subject to the following provisos:

· Revenue estimates have been provided to us by the Housing Centre and are assumed to be reasonable.

· Cost estimates have not been reviewed by a quantity surveyor, as suggested by Real Estate. The Housing Centre accepts the applicant’s costs.

Our analysis suggests that the value of this density bonus does not provide windfall profit to the applicant. Any suites which are provided as “safer” units will be to the benefit of the City.”

Special Advisory Committee on Seniors: On November 6, 1998, the Committee reviewed the application and supported the proposal.

Urban Design Panel Comments: On December 2, 1998, the Urban Design Panel reviewed this proposal and offered the following comments:

“The Panel unanimously supported this application. It was seen as a considerable improvement over the previous proposal.

The proposed density was supported and there was very strong support for the proposed use, as long as it is guaranteed. The applicant was commended for the efforts made to ensure this congregate housing project works. Given the increasing need for this type of housing, the City was urged to investigate how more such projects can be facilitated.

With respect to the architectural expression, the Panel thought the strong urban character would be a good precedent for the neighbourhood and could be a catalyst for some much needed revitalization in the area.

The Panel agreed that the crisp, modernist approach to the massing is very appropriate here and that there would be very little benefit to be gained from stepping either of the buildings. There was one suggestion to consider greater articulation at the top of the building, and two Panel members thought the 12th Avenue elevation might be given greater consideration. The setback on 13th Avenue was considered unnecessary, and even undesirable given that the larger setbacks of the adjacent buildings contribute to security problems in the area.

APPENDIX D
Page 3 of 3

Lack of a firm design for the proposed Wellness Walk made it difficult for the Panel to comment on how it might fit into this project, although it was noted it appears as if it can be easily accommodated. The large front yard on 13th Avenue was noted as having potential for contribution to the streetscape.

There were concerns about the security aspects of the outdoor open space. A greater sense of enclosure was urged for the outdoor spaces, as well as ensuring they have as much sun access as possible. Solar access should also be considered for the indoor amenity areas. There were thought to be an excessive number of entry points that may prove difficult to monitor and control, and consideration might be given to shifting the entry to the south building further south, away from the lane, not unlike the north building entry. The number of doors that open directly onto the lane were also of concern, for safety reasons.

Much of the Panel’s commentary focused on the treatment of the lane. There will be a lot of pedestrian traffic between the two buildings, as well as a fair amount of vehicular traffic in the lane. Several Panel members strongly urged the applicant to work with the City to get the lane closed off (except for emergency access) or re-routed. It would allow the ground floor connection to work to its full potential and possibly allow the creation of more open space. Local area traffic control measures might also be considered for Sophia Street.

With respect to the bridge element, there were suggestions to expand its use to be more a part of the building and to have a presence on Sophia Street. Expanding it vertically as well as horizontally should be looked at, to achieve as many connections as possible between the two buildings.

Overall, the Panel found the proposal to be an exemplary approach to the congregate style of living and one which will be an asset to this neighbourhood.”

Comments of the Applicant: The applicant has been provided with a copy of this report and has provided the comments attached as Appendix E.

APPENDIX G

APPLICANT, PROPERTY, AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INFORMATION

APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION

Street Addresses

2855 Sophia Street and 296 East 12th Avenue

Applicant/Architect

Hywel Jones Architect

Property Owner/Developer

Kevin Plaza Holdings Ltd.

SITE STATISTICS

2855 Sophia Street

296 E. 12th Avenue

Total Site

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

Pcl 1, Block 114, DL 301, Plan LMP 25293

Lot 1, Block 114, DL 301, Plan LMP 25725

SITE AREA

1 122 m² (12,078 sq. ft.)

1 099 m² (11,830 sq. ft.)

2 221 m² (23,907 sq. ft.)

DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EXISTING ZONING

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

RECOMMENDED
DEVELOPMENT (if different than proposed)

ZONING

CD-1

CD-1 (Amended)

USES

Special Needs Residential Facility - Community Care - Class B

Special Needs Residential Facility - Congregate Housing

MAX. FLOOR SPACE RATIO

2.75 FSR

2.75 FSR

SETBACKS
from East 12th Avenue
from East 13th Avenue
from Sophia Street
from west property line

2.3 m (7.5 ft.)
6.1 m (20 ft.)
1.5 m (5 ft.)
4.3 m (14 ft.)

2.1 m(7 ft.)
4.3 m (14 ft.)
1.5 m (5 ft.)
8.2 m (27 ft.)

MAXIMUM HEIGHT
South Lot
North Lot

18.6 m (61 ft.)
21.9 m (72 ft.)

16.2 m (53 ft.)
21.1 m (69 ft.)

PARKING SPACES

1 space/6 beds for employees and 1 space/10 beds for visitors

29 spaces

32 spaces
(1 space/4 dwelling units)

Comments or questions? You can send us email.

Street Addresses	2855 Sophia Street and 296 East 12th Avenue
Applicant/Architect	Hywel Jones Architect
Property Owner/Developer	Kevin Plaza Holdings Ltd.

	2855 Sophia Street	296 E. 12th Avenue	Total Site
LEGAL DESCRIPTION	Pcl 1, Block 114, DL 301, Plan LMP 25293	Lot 1, Block 114, DL 301, Plan LMP 25725
SITE AREA	1 122 m² (12,078 sq. ft.)	1 099 m² (11,830 sq. ft.)	2 221 m² (23,907 sq. ft.)

	DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EXISTING ZONING	PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT	RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT (if different than proposed)
ZONING	CD-1	CD-1 (Amended)
USES	Special Needs Residential Facility - Community Care - Class B	Special Needs Residential Facility - Congregate Housing
MAX. FLOOR SPACE RATIO	2.75 FSR	2.75 FSR
SETBACKS from East 12th Avenue from East 13th Avenue from Sophia Street from west property line	2.3 m (7.5 ft.) 6.1 m (20 ft.) 1.5 m (5 ft.) 4.3 m (14 ft.)	2.1 m(7 ft.) 4.3 m (14 ft.) 1.5 m (5 ft.) 8.2 m (27 ft.)
MAXIMUM HEIGHT South Lot North Lot	18.6 m (61 ft.) 21.9 m (72 ft.)	16.2 m (53 ft.) 21.1 m (69 ft.)
PARKING SPACES	1 space/6 beds for employees and 1 space/10 beds for visitors	29 spaces	32 spaces (1 space/4 dwelling units)