POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING
Date: June 6, 2000
Author/Local: LChallis/7135
RTS No. 01525 CC File No. 5304-1
Council: June 20, 2000 TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of Current Planning
SUBJECT: CD-1 Rezoning - 1055 West 41st Avenue (Louis Brier Home and Hospital)
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT the application by Neale Staniszkis Doll Adams Architects, to rezone 1055 West 41st Avenue (Lot 29, Block 915, DL 526, Plan 11811) from RS-5 One-family Dwelling District to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District, to permit an expansion of the existing Louis Brier Home and Hospital (LBHH), be referred to Public Hearing, together with:
(i) plans received December 22, 1999;
(ii) draft CD-1 By-law provisions, generally as contained in Appendix A; and
(iii) the recommendation of the Director of Current Planning to approve, subject to conditions (a) to (c)(iv) contained in Appendix B.
FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to prepare the necessary draft CD-1 By-law for consideration at Public Hearing.
B. THAT the General Manager of Engineering Services further recommends the additional condition (c) (v) pertaining to widening Oak Street, contained in Appendix B.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A and B.
COUNCIL POLICY
Oakridge Langara Policy Statement (OLPS), approved July 25, 1995;
Oakridge Langara Public Benefit Strategy, approved June 13, 1996;
Oakridge Langara Development Cost Levy By-law, adopted September 25, 1996; and
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 an expansion of the existing Louis Brier Home and Hospital. A proposed three-storey addition on the west side of the site would contain:
20 multi-level care beds (Special Needs Residential Facility - Community Care -Class B); and
40 residential units (Special Needs Residential Facility - Congregate Housing).The proposal meets all the parameters set out in the OLPS. Location of the additional density along the western side of the site is not ideal but it utilizes a vacant portion of the site, avoiding demolition of part of the existing facility and dislocation of some of the facility's current residents. The applicant has endeavored to address neighbours' concerns but there are still outstanding issues which need to be addressed at the development application stage. It is highly likely that a number of individuals will still speak in opposition to the rezoning at the Public Hearing because concerns about continued expansion of the institution remain unresolved. A group of residents have also raised issues about the OLPS and lack of input from those living just outside the study area.
The Director of Current Planning recommends that the application be referred to Public Hearing, and that it be approved, subject to conditions. The General Manager of Engineering Services further recommends an additional condition to seek a dedication along Oak Street.
BACKGROUND
In 1963, subdivision of Shaughnessy Golf Course occurred making provision for a private hospital site. In December 1967, a development permit was issued to construct a one-storey private hospital and personal care home. In 1976, Council approved an amendment to the Zoning and Development By-law to allow the Director of Planning to consider additions which exceeded 30 percent of the area of an existing building. This by-law amendmentallowed a development permit to be issued to add a one-storey east wing which increased the building's size by over 31 percent.
In October 1982, staff recommended refusal of a development application to permit a two-storey addition to the west side of the site, underground parking and a second storey addition to the existing west wing. However, Council approved the application subject to further review of the traffic on Osler Street, ingress and egress being from 41st Avenue and provision of a landscape buffer to protect the neighbourhood to the west. Staff met with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives between June 1983 and January 1984 to see that concerns were addressed. In January 1985, a development permit was issued. The development permit was extended for almost three years but the expansion ultimately did not proceed.
In September 1988, a new application was received to add a second storey addition to the existing one-storey building and surface parking along the west side of the site. The development permit was approved in March 1989 and the addition was built. Two subsequent development permits were issued in 1993 and 1994 for interior and exterior alterations.
During the processing of these development permits, neighbourhood concerns have included:
traffic and parking impacts;
lack of compatibility with the adjacent residential area;
loss of landscaping; and
devaluation of property values.DISCUSSION
Use: The application proposes an expansion of the existing Louis Brier Home and Hospital (LBHH) to provide an additional 20 multi-level care beds and 40 congregate housing units. The care beds would help reduce the long waiting list for the facility. The congregate housing would offer a continuum of care by acting as a bridge between independent housing and multi-level care. The congregate units are also expected to serve some people on the waiting list who must move from their home because they cannot manage without some support services but do not yet require the level of care provided by the multi-level care facility. Staff support the uses which will increase housing opportunities for the City's aging population.
Density: The application proposes an overall density of 0.90 FSR (floor space ratio) with all the new development located on the west side of the site. The OLPS supports the proposed density for the expansion of institutional and residential uses on this site. Some residents in the neighbourhood to the west of the site are concerned because they were not specifically consulted about the Oakridge Langara policies which apply to this site.
Staff and the residential neighbourhood to the west would have preferred to see the additional density located along Oak Street where it would have less impact. However, the applicant has not pursued redevelopment along Oak Street because:
the building on the east side (Oak Street) of the site has recently been upgraded for extended care;
adding development above the building on the east side would trigger non-combustible construction and seismic upgrading to the existing building;
development on the west side of the site would be less disruptive to the facility's residents;
the proposed development would not result in temporary downsizing or relocating any of the current residents; and
development on the parking lot (vacant land) would be less costly than adding development to the built areas of the site.Staff recognize the advantage of developing a portion of the site which will not require demolition of portions of the existing facility and dislocation of its residents, and for this reason support the general location of the development as proposed.
Although the current proposal would use up almost all the density recommended for the site in the OLPS, the local community is concerned that, in the future, the facility will seek additional density to redevelop the Oak Street portion of the site. The applicant has indicated that it is not the intention to expand beyond the floor area recommended in the OLPS.
Height: The OLPS recommends a maximum height limit of 9.14 m (30 ft.) along the western side of the site (Osler Street) and a maximum height of 12.19 m (40 ft.) on the eastern side of the site (Oak Street). Initially, the application proposed a building of 10.7 m (35 ft.) along Osler Street; however, in response to staff and neighbourhood concerns about compatibility, the building height has been reduced to 9.2 m (30 ft.) which is consistent with the height permitted in RS-5. The RS-5 also permits a maximum height of 10.7 m (35 ft.) for development which includes pitched roofs but limits the height to two and a half storeys. Although the proposed building is three storeys in height, Planning staff find this acceptable because the building includes pitched roofs as an element to improve the development's compatibility with the adjacent residential area and has integrated the third storey into the roof form to lower the building height and reduce the impact of the third storey.
Form of Development: Generally, staff support the proposed form of development with further changes recommended to reduce the massing and improve its residential character. Making the building appear as two buildings will make it less institutional in appearance. However, it is difficult for the proposed building to conform to a more residential building form because these facilities typically require a larger floorplate for efficient operation. The proposal has already included some residential elements such as dormers, pitched roofs and landscaping in an effort to foster a residential character. Staff have recommended further refinements as specified as design development conditions in Appendix B.
Setbacks: Since originally proposed, the building setback along Osler Street has been increased to a minimum depth of 5.4 m (18 ft.) near the centre of the building to 8.6 m (28.5 ft.) at the north end of the site. Although staff are satisfied with the northerly setback which is equal to the front yard depth of the neighbouring house to the north, a minimum setback of 6.0 m (20 ft.) along Osler Street is recommended. This setback is consistent with the minimum depth requirement for most multiple dwellings built in the city.
Staff consider the proposed 7.6 m (25 ft.) setback along 41st Avenue as supportable, as it is compatible with the typical setback for residential properties along 41st Avenue.
Traffic and Parking: Many of the neighbourhood's concerns about this project (outlined in Appendix D) are related to existing traffic and parking impacts, which they expect to increase significantly. The application included a comprehensive parking and traffic study which documents current and expected parking and traffic impacts. The study indicates that the proposed off-street parking would exceed the demand, there will likely remain an element of on-street parking (on 41st Avenue and on Osler Street) and the traffic impact is expected to be quite minor.
To address residents' concerns, the applicant has proposed that a member of Louis BrierHome and Hospital staff would be appointed to serve as a Neighbourhood Traffic Coordinator to work with the community to resolve parking and traffic issues. As well, this person would take the lead role at LBHH to encourage staff to reduce automobile travel by promoting alternative modes such as transit, cycling and car-pooling. Staff support this proposal which is consistent with our efforts to encourage institutional facilities to better manage their transportation needs and improve their relations with surrounding neighbours.
Even with this initiative, staff expect there will continue to be traffic and parking concerns from the local residents if the principal access to the congregate housing facility is located on Osler Street. Therefore, staff recommend as a design development condition that the principal entrance be relocated to the 41st Avenue entry court. All that would remain on Osler would be the required fire exit.A parking requirement of one parking space for every four care beds and one space for every two congregate housing units is recommended which is consistent with the parking standard applied to similar uses in the city. To further address the neighbourhood's parking concerns, the applicant has proposed 113 parking spaces (equivalent to approximately one space for every 2.45 care beds and congregate housing units) which is well in excess of the proposed requirement and exceeds the site's current parking ratio of one space for every 2.6 care beds.
The applicant has also proposed alterations to improve the operation and reduce the impacts of the loading area which will continue to be accessed from Osler Street. The proposed changes would free up more open pavement area within the loading area which would assist truck manoeuvring. The facility will also request that their suppliers use only small delivery vehicles. Staff expect that the Neighbourhood Traffic Coordinator would also have the responsibility of ensuring that the loading area operates effectively.
Landscape: The OLPS recommends protection of Louis Brier Home and Hospital's perimeter trees. The proposal retains or relocates most of the significant trees on the site, including portions of a large, 2.0 to 3.0 m (6 to 10 ft.) high cedar hedge along the west side of the property. The hedge currently provides a buffer between the surface parking lot and the adjacent residential area. The application proposes to retain sections of the hedge which will not affect lighting, visibility and security for the new units. Staff and the Urban Design Panel recognize that the hedge is a significant landscape feature of the site and staff support the applicant's retention of the hedge. Currently, the applicant has retained the hedge next to the larger open spaces. Staff recommend as a condition of approval that portions of the hedge be retained in locations that do not screen the site's open space from public view. Staff also expect that the hedge would provide a buffer between adjacent houses and the proposed addition.
Engineering Services has recommended, as an additional condition of rezoning approval [Appendix B: Condition (c)(v)], dedication of a portion of the site along Oak Street for thelong-term planning of Oak Street. To prevent the loss of trees along Oak Street, Engineering Services also proposes a right-of-way through the site to allow for relocation of the sidewalk. The OLPS identifies these trees as significant private site vegetation which should be protected. Landscape staff expect that future road widening and sidewalk relocation would result in the removal of some trees and damage to a significant number of the trees currently located adjacent the existing sidewalk.
Engineering Services has reviewed the dedication and right-of-way requirements on Oak Street and Planning's landscape assessment of the impact of widening on the trees along Oak Street. Engineering agrees that any construction will affect the health of the trees yet wishes to retain the ability to widen the road in the future if the opportunity presents itself by seeking the dedication and right-of-way at this time. Recognizing City Council's wish to protect the trees, Engineering does not intend to do any road construction at this time. The Planning Department is very concerned about the mature trees but recognizes that any future widening will be subject to a Council decision. The protection of the trees will be a part of any future consideration, pursuant to the Oakridge Langara Policy Statement (OLPS).
Public Process: The local community has been quite concerned that this rezoning proposal has been guided by the OLPS to which they felt they provided minimal input. Staff acknowledge that, in hindsight, the neighbourhood should have been consulted during the OLPS with respect to policies which apply to this site. However, it is normal with community planning programs that residents outside of a study area may be affected by policies adopted for sites within the study area. Although the OLPS suggests there be additional density on the site, the policies are meant to provide a framework for Council and the community to guide rezoning decisions in the area. The policy notes that density targets for specific sites are meant to guide the direction of large site rezonings and that more specific policies can be proposed once detailed proposals are submitted by applicants for public response. The rezoning process provides the community with the opportunity to raise their concerns.
The OLPS density targets for specific sites assume an acceptable form of development which is sympathetic with the existing neighbourhood and minimizes community impacts. While it is unfortunate that residents in the immediate surrounding area were not directly involved in the formulation of the OLPS, staff believe that the rezoning proposal meets the standards for acceptance, notwithstanding the Policy Statement.
Although some community members feel that the City does not listen to their concerns and in the past has approved expansion of LBHH despite community objections, records show that staff have invested considerable time in meetings with the community to achieve development on this site that responds to neighbours' concerns.
The community has been given a number of opportunities to comment on the application during processing. In addition to the standard notification letter and rezoning signs which invite members of the public to comment on an application, the applicant held an open house and staff held two public meetings. The public meetings were well attended and raised many of the issues that this report has tried to address. Staff have received 189 letters and e-mails of support for the proposal and numerous individuals spoke in support at the public meetings. Nevertheless, there continues to be a number of individuals who remain opposed to the proposed expansion of the facility. There are 31 letters in opposition to the rezoning on file.
The following highlights the principal issues. A summary response from staff is indicated in italics:
(i) the scale, massing and neighbourliness of the building:
The building's height has been reduced, setbacks have been increased and a more residential character is to be achieved at the development permit stage;
(ii) the building's location on the west side of the site:
Staff support the general location because developing this portion of the site will not require demolition of portions of the existing facility and dislocation of its residents;
(iii) traffic and parking impacts on Osler Street and neighbouring streets:
Access to the project will continue to be from 41st Avenue, additional parking will be provided and a Neighbourhood Traffic Co-ordinator will work with the community to resolve traffic and parking issues;
(iv) loss of open space and landscaping:
Most trees will be retained or relocated, portions of the hedge will be retained, and visual access will be provided to remaining open space;
(v) negative impacts on property values:
Staff do not expect property values in general to be negatively affected. Studies done in June 1986 (New Neighbours, Vancouver Planning Department) and February 1996 (Toward More Inclusive Neighbours, B.C. Ministry of Housing) demonstrated that property values for single-family homes generally were not affected by new, neighbouring multiple dwelling development; and
(vi) expectation of further expansion in the future:
Although LBHH has indicated that it does not intend further expansion in the future, certainty about the long-term future of the site cannot be assured because the decisions of future Council's cannot be predicted.
Overall, staff feel that the majority of the community's issues have been sufficiently addressed by this rezoning proposal.
CONCLUSION
Staff support the proposed rezoning which provides additional housing opportunities for seniors. The proposed expansion is generally compatible with the adjacent residential neighbourhood. The Director of Current Planning recommends that the application be referred to Public Hearing, subject to the proposed conditions of approval (a) to (c)(iv) presented in Appendix B. The Manager of Engineering Services recommends an additional condition (c)(v) to seek dedication along Oak Street.
- - - - -
APPENDIX A
DRAFT CD-1 BY-LAW PROVISIONS
Use
Special Needs Residential Facility - Community Care - Class B;
Special Needs Residential Facility - Congregate Housing; and
Accessory Uses customarily ancillary to the above uses.Density
Maximum floor space ratio of 0.90 FSR.
Height
Maximum height of 9.2 m (30 ft.).
Relaxation for decorative roof (per Section 10.11).Setback
Minimum setback of 6.0 m (20 ft.) along Osler Street.
Parking and Loading
Minimum of 113 off-street parking spaces in accordance with the ParkingBy-law, including the relaxation provisions of section 3.2
Acoustics
Per RM-4N District Schedule.
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(a) THAT the proposed form of development be approved by Council in principle, generally as prepared by Neale Staniszkis Doll Adams Architects, and stamped "Received City Planning Department, December 22, 1999", 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 achieve a more residential building character with variations in the massing, materials, dormers, windows and colour;
(ii) design development to achieve setbacks to the streets similar to surrounding housing;
(iii) design development to achieve street edge landscape treatment compatible with neighbouring properties (comparable to RS-5) and provide public exposure to on-site front yard open space;
(iv) design development to delete the entrance lobby to congregate housing from Osler Street and to replace entry ramp and stairs with soft landscaping;
(v) design development, generally in accordance with draft congregate housing guidelines, to:
provide laundry facilities for the use of the residents of the congregate housing units;
provide usable and accessible storage for large personal items belonging to residents of the congregate housing units;
provide bathrooms designed to accommodate mobility aids;
ensure that the building's life safety systems provide a safe environment for its residents of the congregate housing units, by takinginto account the eventual change in their mental and physical state;(vi) 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. Exit stairs should not be visible to the street or lane;
Note to Applicant: Clarification is required regarding gating of the underground. Elevation plans indicate gating, main floor plans do not.
increasing safety and visibility in the underground in accordance with section 4.12 of the Parking By-law and giving consideration to painting the walls and ceiling white;
Note to Applicant: Elevator lobbies and exit stairs should be partially glazed for visibility.
reducing opportunities for break and enter to the ground floor;
Note to Applicant: Design (stone faced wall and metal picket fence) and landscaping should be visually permeable allowing a combination of privacy and natural views.
(vii) design development to provide a layered planting strip within the inside boulevard (between the sidewalk and the property line) along Osler Street, as per joint Planning and Engineering policies for "Special City Boulevard Treatment". The planting strip shall be comprised of layered low planting (mature height and width not to exceed three ft. by three ft.) with a minimum one foot grass or ground cover strip adjacent to the sidewalk;
(viii) relocation of transplanted trees on site, as noted in the Arborist Report;
Note to Applicant: If any trees cannot be transplanted on site, contact the Park Board to inform that the trees are available for transplanting elsewhere.
(ix) provision of written confirmation that a Certified Arborist will be retained for site supervision during the excavation around the two Western Red Cedars to be retained on Osler Street;
(x) retention of greater portions of the mature cedar hedge along Osler Street in locations that provide a buffer to adjacent houses and do not screen open space from public view; and
(xi) provision of additional permanent seating adjacent to the main entry and in the "figure eight" walking path.
(c) THAT, prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the registered owner shall, at no cost to the City:
(i) make arrangements to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services and Director of Legal Services for:
(1) clarification of all charges registered in the Land Title Office against title to the lands (a charge summary, including copies of all charges, must be provided) and the modification, extension or release of any charges deemed necessary by the Director of Legal Services;
(2) upgrading of the City water system to meet the fire protection demands of the development;
(3) provision of a sidewalk on the east side of Osler Street for the length of the site;(ii) make suitable arrangements, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services, for:
(1) all new electrical and telephone services to be undergrounded within and adjacent the site from the closest existing suitable service point including a review of overhead plant upgrading that may be necessary to serve this project in order to determine its impact on the surrounding neighbourhood (this may result in the telephone and/or electrical service points being changed in order to reduce the impact on the neighbourhood);
(2) provision of a Transportation Management Plan to address impacts of traffic on the surrounding neighbourhood;(iii) make suitable arrangements, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services and the General Manager of the Park Board, for the provision of street trees on Osler Street where space permits;
(iv) register a legal agreement against title to the lands in a form satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services, providing that the owner of the rental congregate housing development shall not strata-title any of the units; and
(v) make arrangements to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services and Director of Legal Services for dedication of a portion of the site adjacent Oak Street for road (1.83 m north from 41st Avenue for 90 m and then a varied amount that tapers from 1.83 m to nil an additional 54.9 m further north) and a 3.0 m by 3.0 m corner cut-off at the south-east corner of the site (measured from the dedication line) and the registration of a statutory right-of-way against title to the lands to accommodate pedestrians on a relocated City sidewalk if and when Oak Street is widened. This will result inthe preservation of the existing trees adjacent the east property line of the site that would be affected by the widening.
Where the Director of Legal Services deems appropriate, the preceding agreements are to be drawn, not only as personal covenants of the property owner, but also as Covenants pursuant to Section 219 of the Land Title Act.
Such agreements are to be registered in the appropriate Land Title Office, with priority over such other liens, charges and encumbrances effecting the subject site as is considered advisable by the Director of Legal Services, and otherwise to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services prior to enactment of the by-law; provided, however, the Director of Legal Services may, in her sole discretion and on terms she considers advisable, accept tendering of the preceding agreements for registration in the appropriate Land Title Office, to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services, prior to enactment of the by-law.
The Preceding agreements shall provide security to the City including indemnities, warranties, equitable charges, letters of credit and withholding of permits, as deemed necessary by and in a form satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services.
The timing of all required payments shall be determined by the appropriate City official having responsibility for each particular agreement, who may consult other City officials and City Council.
APPENDIX C
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Site, Surrounding Zoning and Development: The site consists of one legal parcel with an area of 16 180 mū (174,165 sq.ft.) and is bounded by Oak Street to the east, West 41st Avenue to the south, Osler Street to the west and a lane and abutting development to the north. The site has a frontage of 142.7 m (468 ft.) and a depth of 110.2 m (362 ft.) and slopes down slightly from west to east by about 3.5 m (11.5 ft.) along 41st Avenue. The site is presently occupied by the existing Louis Brier Home and Hospital (LBHH), a one to two-storey multi-level care facility with surface parking for 82 vehicles (along Osler Street). The 217-bed multi-level care facility provides kosher meals and other services for members of the Jewish faith. LBHH has a waiting list of over 140 people who wait up to two years for a bed.
Lands to the south, west and northwest of the site are zoned RS-5 and developed with 2 to 2-storey single family homes. North of the site is zoned CD-1 and developed with two-storey multiple dwellings at a density of 0.60 FSR (the Shawn Oaks complex). The northeast and southwest corners of Oak Street and 41st Avenue are zoned C-1 and developed with gasoline service stations. East of the site, across Oak Street was zoned CD-1 in 1996 for multiple dwelling and accessible units, at a density of 1.55 FSR. The southeast corner of Oak Street and 41st Avenue is zoned CD-1 and is being redeveloped with a 5-storey mixed use building (Lubavitch Centre and residential uses) at a density of 1.98 FSR.
Proposed Development: The proposed rezoning would allow a three-storey addition to the west side of the LBHH. The application proposes 20 multi-level care beds on the north half of the main floor of the addition and 40 congregate housing units on the second and third floors. The congregate units would include a mix of studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. The dining and common amenity areas for the congregate units would be located on the south half of the main floor.
One level of underground parking would provide 106 parking spaces, and seven existing surface parking spaces would be retained. Access to the underground parking would continue to be from West 41st Avenue. Service and loading access would continue to be from Osler Street.
The proposed congregate housing generally conforms to the draft congregate housing guidelines which staff have been preparing, in terms of unit size and common area. However, the proposal should include more storage and laundry facilities and meet fire and safety concerns, as recommended in the proposed conditions of approval (Appendix B).
Use: The OLPS supports the proposed expansion of institutional uses on this site. The proposed care beds and congregate units both increase the housing options available to seniors.
There are also sound economic arguments for expanding the uses on this site, in that facilities such as the kitchen and laundry and the staffing for these services can be shared throughout the site. This will reduce the potential construction and operating costs associated with the new care beds and congregate units.
The facility 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 Special Needs Residential Facilities (SNRF), although multi-level care and congregate housing are normally excepted from this criteria.
Although LBHH is a Jewish facility, it is a government-funded facility that is open to and occupied by residents that are not of the Jewish faith. The congregate housing facility willnot receive any government funding therefore its building and operation must be paid for by funding-raising and the future residents. Access to the congregate housing units will be available to anyone who wants to live in the facility, although first choice will go to people who donate to the development. This will include local residents, if they choose to contribute to the cost of expansion.
Utilities and Servicing: Engineering staff have reviewed the site's servicing needs and determined that the water system may require upgrading to meet the fire protection demands of the proposal. The developer would have to pay this cost. No sewer system upgrading is necessary.
In addition, Engineering staff are asking for hydro servicing information to determine if any new overhead hydro wires are necessary to provide service for the development and will assess the impact of new wires on the neighbourhood. Engineering's Utilities Branch is trying to reduce the impact of this kind of overhead servicing by requiring the development to take service from a location which results in less overhead wires being installed in the neighbourhood.
Public Benefit: Real Estate Services reviewed the pro forma for the proposed development and concluded that the project would generate insufficient revenue to be able to make a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) contribution. A Development Cost Levy (DCL) of $34.98 per mū ($3.25 per sq. ft.) will be payable at the building permit stage.
Environmental Implications The proposed rezoning neither contributes to nor detracts from the objective of reducing atmospheric pollution.
Social Implications The proposal would increase the range of housing opportunities available to seniors.
There are no implications with respect to the Vancouver Children's Policy or Statement of Children's Entitlements.
APPENDIX D
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE APPLICANT
Public Input: On January 14, 1999, a rezoning information sign was posted on the site and a notification letter was sent to 436 nearby property owners. On February 24, 1999, theapplicant sponsored an Open House at LBHH which was attended by about a dozen local residents. On May 25, 1999, staff held a public meeting to address issues raised by concerned neighbours. Over 60 local residents, along with the applicant, consultants and other representatives for LBHH, attended this meeting.
On May 10, 2000, staff held a second public meeting to present our tentative conclusions on the rezoning proposal and to hear the community's response. More than 130 members of the public attended the meeting. At the request of the South Shaughnessy Neighbourhood Association, a third public meeting is expected before a Public Hearing.
Since receiving the original application, staff have received fifteen telephone calls, 220 letters (including emails), and six visits to City Hall. Many of the letters (189) were from friends and relatives of LBHH residents and other individuals expressing support for the proposed rezoning and noting the need for expansion of the facility. Thirty-one letters were from local residents who were opposed to the proposal. The opposition was based on the following concerns:
Uses:
uncertainty regarding the proposed uses and programming;
further expansion of LBHH facilities expected in the future;
whether the additional care beds and congregate housing units would be available to the community; and
whether there was a need for congregate housing.Density:
density along Osler would be three times the density currently along Oak Street; and
new development should be occurring along Oak Street.Form of Development:
proposed building too close to Osler, with inadequate buffer zone or setbacks;
proposal covers too much of west side of site;
height and building massing inconsistent with character of the adjacent single-family neighbourhood;
roof surfaces overly massive;
excessive 3-storey height;
development should conform to RS-5; and
development should not be larger than the building that the community did not support in 1982.Traffic and Parking:
existing traffic and parking impacts will increase;
staff already park on street and situation will get worse;
insufficient parking being provided for intended uses;
building entrance on Osler Street will attract more parking, traffic and congestion on neighbourhood streets;
underground parking will not be used because of fear, poor visibility and uncertainty about space availability;
limited access to site would result in increased traffic and parking in neighbourhood;
natural disincentive to access parking from 41st Avenue as it is effectively limited to one direction (west) at this point;
"Resident Parking Only" generally does not work and would reduce property values; and
service and loading area is too small for the vehicles required to use it.Landscaping:
new development will result in further loss of open space, trees and landscaping along western edge of the site; and
insufficient landscape screening proposed between LBHH and residential neighbourhood.Servicing:
whether there would be adequate utility servicing capacity for the proposal.Financial:
rezoning would negatively impact property values.Process:
community west of LBHH was not included in Oakridge-Langara policy planning; and
inadequate public input because many neighbours are not English-speaking and notification letter and Open House invitation were only available in English.Comments of the City Engineer: The City Engineer has no objection to the proposed rezoning, provided that the applicant complies with conditions as shown in Appendix B.
Urban Design Panel Comment: The Urban Design Panel reviewed the original proposal on April 8, 1998, and offered the following comments:
"The Panel unanimously supported this rezoning application. The Panel strongly supported the proposed use and acknowledged the lack of government funding for the project. The Panel also agreed that a project of this type warranted the proposeddensity and felt this was likely the only way it could be accommodated.
The applicant was commended for the high quality of the design. The architectural expression was considered to be quite neighbourly and compatible with the adjacent RS-5 zone while being distinct from the existing building on the site. One Panel member noted that while it would be possible to reduce the slope of the roof in order to lower the overall height it would adversely affect its visual quality and was not recommended. Given the length of the building along Osler Street it was recommended that every effort be made to further break down the scale of this elevation. There were mixed comments about the setback along 41st Avenue. It was generally thought to be a bit tight, although the efforts to retain the large tree at the end were appreciated. One suggestion was to reconfigure the building to have its main address and entry court on 41st Avenue, and to consider more carefully how the tightness of this condition could be improved. While the Panel supported retaining the tree, it was also suggested that perhaps this should ultimately be a neighbourhood decision.The majority of Panel members thought the setback on Osler Street was quite tight, but acceptable. One Panel member commented that it really only impacts one house on Osler Street, and the proposed new brick wall and hedge provides an attractive outlook. One Panel member said he would support a recommendation to increase the setback on Osler Street if the neighbours were strongly opposed.
With respect to the floor plans, it was noted there are a number of internal dens or bedrooms with no windows.
The Panel expressed regret about the loss of the mature hedge, although acknowledged the rationale for its removal in terms of creating a sense of security for the residents. There were several suggestions to look for opportunities to relocate some of it elsewhere on the site, particularly on the lane side. There was strong support for the proposed low wall and hedge treatment, which will go a long way to alleviating the loss of the original hedge. It also has the added benefit of providing some noise attenuation. In general, the Panel felt quite positively about the landscape and open space treatment.
Comments of the Applicant: The applicant has been provided with a copy of this report and has provided the following comments:
"Thank you for the report you faxed to us this afternoon.
With regards to the City staff report dated June 6, 2000, specifically staff recommendation that ". . . as a design development condition that the principalentrance for the congregate housing be relocated from Osler Street to the internal courtyard area."
We firmly believe that the Osler Street entrance as a principal entry for the congregate housing is the most optimal and appropriate location for this facility. An entrance in this location will enable the seniors to have a direct access to the neighbourhood, provide "eyes" on the street, and increase the security aspect of the facility. Given the building frontage along Osler Street we feel it is not unreasonable to have a pedestrian entry into the building. In an integrated congregate senior's care facility, it is common practice to provide separate and private entrances to both components within such a facility, for example, Hollyburn House in West Vancouver and Southview Terrace in Vancouver.
We would like to submit further documentation regarding this particular item at the public hearing."
APPENDIX F
APPLICANT, PROPERTY, AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION
Street Address 1055 West 41st Avenue Legal Description Lot 29, Block 915, DL 526, Plan 11811 Applicant/Architect Neale Staniszkis Doll Adams Architects Property Owner/Developer Louis Brier Home and Hospital SITE STATISTICS
GROSS DEDICATIONS NET SITE AREA 16 180 mū (174,166 sq.ft.) to be determined
16 180 mū (174,166 sq.ft.) DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS
DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT (if different than proposed) ZONING RS-5 CD-1 USES One-family dwellings, plus two-family dwellings, MCDs, multiple dwellings and Special Needs Residential Facilities (SNRF) under certain conditions. SNRF - Community Care -Class B, SNRF -Congregate Housing MAX. FLOOR SPACE RATIO 0.60 FSR 0.90 FSR MAXIMUM HEIGHT 10.7 m (35 ft.) under certain conditions 9.2 m (30 ft.) SETBACK 5.4 m (18 ft.) along Osler Street 6.0 m (20 ft.) along Osler Street
PARKING SPACES Per Parking By-law 113 parking spaces * * * * *
Comments or questions? You can send us email.
(c) 1998 City of Vancouver