Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

 

Date: December 11, 2000
 

Author/Local: RWhitlock/7814
  RTS No. 01674
 

CC File No. 5304
  Council: January 30, 2001

TO: Vancouver City Council

FROM: Director of Current Planning

SUBJECT: CD-1 Text Amendment: 650 West 41st Avenue (Oakridge Shopping Centre)

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

… CD-1(1) By-law No. 3568, enacted April 10, 1956, and as amended up to February 24, 2000.

… Policy on Entertainment Centres, adopted December 14, 1999.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report assesses an application to amend the CD-1 zoning for the Oakridge Shopping Centre. Modifications are proposed to permit the development of another department store and for other changes which cannot proceed under the structure of the existing CD-1 by-law. No new floor area would be permitted; however, the changes would provide greater flexibility for the applicant to proceed with 11 613 m¾ (125,000 sq. ft.) approved in 1991 and not yet built. The proposed changes are fully explained in Appendix C.

The Director of Current Planning recommends that the application be referred to a Public Hearing and approved.


DISCUSSION

The application proposes two amendments to the CD-1 By-law that would not increase the overall floor area approved in 1991 to provide for an expanded shopping centre, but would alter the way uses and floor area calculations have been considered and approved through the years. Essentially, the application proposes that department store retail would no longer be separated out from other retail, and that the separate floor area calculation for commercial space minus non-revenue generating space would be eliminated. A table illustrating the existing CD-1 By-law provisions and the recommended provisions is shown in Appendix C. Staff support both amendments, with minor adjustments as described in the followingsections.

Department Store and Food Floor Uses: The current CD-1 By-law has a combined floor area limit for department stores and food floors and a separate combined limit for other retail, service and entertainment uses. It was thought that by restricting general retail, service and entertainment uses this would limit direct competition with other retail districts such as Kerrisdale and South Granville, while permitting additional commercial space thought not to be in competition (department stores and food floors). The application proposes to combine the permitted floor area for all commercial uses except for food floors that would remain separate.

Since the 1991 approval of the yet-to-be-built expansion, the nature of department store retailing has changed. At Oakridge, the former Woodwards store was replaced by two smaller department stores (The Bay and Zellers). Elsewhere, other department stores, except perhaps Sears, are tending to specialize in clothing, home furnishings and other market niches. Whether these retailers compete more or less with neighbourhood shopping districts as compared with smaller retailers in the mall is unknown.

Through the years, the department store use has created problems for development permit inquiries and processing because it is not defined and it is not used elsewhere in the Zoning and Development By-law.

Staff conclude that because there is so much blending of retail types, and because of the confusion created by maintaining department stores as a separate use, that it no longer makes sense to maintain separate floor area limits for different commercial uses. Staff therefore support deleting department store from the By-law while increasing the floor area limit for other retail by the amount now permitted for department store.

Staff and the applicant agree, however, that food floor should remain as a separate category because it is in the public interest to maintain this use for the surrounding community who would otherwise have to travel a long distance to a large food floor. Staff recommend that the CD-1 By-law be further amended to require a minimum of the existing 4 639.4 m¾ (49,940 sq. ft.) be maintained and provided for this use. The applicant is not opposed to this recommendation.

Entertainment Uses: Currently the CD-1 By-law has no floor area limit for entertainment use within the combined limit for other retail, service and entertainment uses. Some residents have raised the concern about the possibility of a mega-theatre, and there is also the possibility of an entertainment centre that would be contrary to Council policy adopted in 1999 that such a use only be approved through a rezoning process.

Staff recommend the CD-1 By-law be further amended to specify that entertainment use doesnot include family sports or entertainment centres and is limited to a maximum of 2 400 m¾ (25,834 sq. ft.) that now exists as a movie theatre. Any proposed increases would require a public process and a further amendment to the CD-1 By-law. The applicant is not opposed to this recommendation.

Density (Gross Floor Area/Gross Leasable Area): The current CD-1 By-law places limits on gross floor area for all uses, and a further limit on gross leasable area for all retail, service commercial and entertainment uses. Gross leasable area is the gross floor area minus non-revenue generating space such as staff rooms, storage space and circulation space. The reason for the limit on gross leasable area was again intended to limit possible retail competition with other shopping districts. The application proposes to delete the gross leasable area limits from the By-law.

Through the years, calculations for development permit processing have been complex, confusing and inaccurate resulting from the two types of limits on floor area.

Staff conclude that the space needed for circulation, storage, staff facilities and similar "non-retail" areas tends to be self regulating and, as this space is not controlled for commercial uses in other zoning districts, deleting the control on gross leasable area from the CD-1 By-law is acceptable and supported.

Status of Outstanding Obligations: In approving the additional floor area at the 1991 Public Hearing, Council established a number of conditions related to engineering services and a provision for seniors' housing, detailed in Appendix D. In 1992 and 1993, changes to those conditions were approved for the City to acquire a site for non-market housing. Transfer of the housing site to the City must occur before any further expansion to the shopping centre can proceed. The shopping centre owners expect to proceed with expansion plans in the near future.

The need for a major park dedication or equivalent payment in lieu, already deferred by Council and on title resulting from a previous 1983 subdivision, was identified as being again required as a result of a subdivision to create the housing site. Council resolved to agree to defer the park dedication to the earlier date of the next subdivision or 15 years.

There remains an uncertainty about the timing of the park dedication. It is unclear whether Council intended to obtain dedication 15 years following changes to the conditions approved in 1993, or 15 years following the subdivision of the housing site, which is still not registered.

Council may wish to use this opportunity to clarify this requirement, and staff have provided wording of a suitable condition if Council wishes to act. The effect of the condition set out in Appendix B is to effectively back date the start of the 15 year period to 1993, with a fulldedication or payment in lieu by 2008.

CACs and DCLs: No Community Amenity Contribution [CAC] will apply, as no new density is created by the proposed amenity.

In respect to Development Cost Levies [DCLs] , the applicant puts forward the proposition that they contribute all the costs established as part of the 1991 rezoning conditions, or the DCL, but not both, as this would be "double-dipping". Staff disagree for the following reasons:

- the park requirement derives from an earlier subdivision, and is not a condition of rezoning;
- the non-market housing site requirement was derived from the applicant's original 1991 commitment to create 96 seniors' units (prior to any requirement for CACs). The City will pay 10% of the market value to the owner while the remaining value of the commitment will be credited against the park requirement of the earlier subdivision. This amounts to a pay-in-lieu for 0.256 acres of the outstanding 3.086 acres of park, reducing the outstanding park requirement to 2.829 acres. The value of the 0.256 acres is $1.54 million. Internally, the Park Board's debt to the Property Endowment Fund will be reduced by that amount; and
- rezoning applicants pay direct costs for street and infrastructure improvements associated with the proposed development which is separate from DCLs that pay for broader community amenities.

Staff recommend no change to the 1991 and 1993 requirements and no further off-setting of the DCLs that will be required by by-law to be paid.

CONCLUSION

The Director of Current Planning supports this application as it accommodates the immediate needs of the applicant, as well as simplifies administration of the CD-1 By-law including further changes to require a minimum amount of foodfloor space be provided and to limit the amount of entertainment space. Neither change is opposed by the applicant. Staff further recommend no adjustments to previously-required rezoning related payments to off-set required DCLs.

- - - - -

APPENDIX A
DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO CD-1[1] BY-LAW No. 3568

Use: Replace Table A in Section 3 [Floor Areas] with the following:

USE

GROSS FLOOR AREA
Food floor

Min. of 4 639.0 m¾
[49,940 sq. ft.]
Retail, service commercial and entertainment [limiting entertainment to a maximum of 2 400 m¾ (25,834 sq. ft.) and not to include family sports or entertainment centre]

Max. 64 481.0 m¾
[694,084 sq. ft.]
Office

11 762.0 m¾
[126,600 sq. ft.]
Enclosed public pedestrian circulation, service and exit corridors

13 086.0 m¾
[140,856.8 sq. ft.]
Apartment building for senior citizens and handicapped persons

4 553.0 m¾
[49,000 sq. ft.]
Townhouses or apartment dwelling units

14 323.0 m¾
[154,170 sq. ft.]
Dwelling units in commercial/residential building

4 683.0 m¾
[50, 400 sq. ft.]
Congregate/
rental residential building

9 290.0 m¾
[100,000 sq. ft.]
TOTAL

126 817.0 m¾
[1,365,091.0 sq. ft.]

Parking: Replace clause (a) in Section 4 [Off-Street Parking and Loading] with the following:

APPENDIX B
PROPOSED CONDITION OF APPROVAL

(a) 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.

(b) THAT prior to enactment of the CD-1 amendment, the registered owner shall make arrangements to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services to establish the date for the full outstanding park dedication, or payment-in-lieu, as September 30, 2008.

APPENDIX C

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Site and Surrounding Development:

CD-1 Zoning: Oakridge Shopping Centre is zoned CD-1 Comprehensive Development District (1) which permits, first and foremost, a regional shopping centre composed of department stores, food floors, other retail uses, service commercial and entertainment uses, and office uses. In addition, the CD-1 site accommodates a number of residential developments.

Background: Oakridge Shopping Centre was the City's first CD-1 district. The centre has expanded considerably, and has evolved from an outdoor mall with a row of mid-rise residential buildings along Tisdall Street, to its current indoor mall format with additional multiple dwellings, seniors housing and day care.

1956: Original CD-1 zoning approved;
1980: Expansion not approved by Council;
1982: Expansion approved by City Council, subject to subdivision and park dedication;
1985: Amendment approved to permit flexibility between commercial uses;
1991: Expansion of retail uses by 11 568.3 m¾ (124,524 sq. ft.) approved by Council, subject to conditions and agreements;
1992: Following the rezoning, a subdivision application brought to light the park dedication requirement. Council agreed to a further deferment for 15 years, or the next subdivision; and
1993: Council further deliberates on the 1991conditions of approval and amends the conditions in accordance with Appendix D.

Proposed Development: If the proposed amendment is approved, the owners intend to proceed to develop the floor area approved in 1991 with some adjustments of space, as follows:

… a new anchor retail store of 3 716.0 m¾ (40,000 sq. ft.), tenant not yet determined;
… a new second level to the mall, to include additional retail space of approximately 7 432 m¾ (80,000 sq. ft.) which may include one or two retail units of 929.0 to 1 394.0 m¾ (10,000 to 15,000 sq. ft.); and
… replacement of the existing Cineplex Odeon movie theatre space of 2 043.8 m¾ (22,000 sq. ft.).

The main differences between the proposed use of space in 1991 and the new proposal is additional department store space and elimination of three theaters. The form of development had not been approved in principal by Council in 1991.

Table Showing Existing CD-1 By-law Requirements under Section 3, and Proposed Changes (shaded text summarizes proposed amended by-law)

EXISTING CD-1 BY-LAW GROSS FLOOR AREA GROSS LEASABLE AREA * PROPOSED BY-LAW GROSS FLOOR AREA
Department stores and food floors 30 843.7 m¾
[332,010 sq. ft.]		 26 390.1 m¾
[284,070 sq.  ft.]		 Food floors 4 639.0 m¾
[49,940 sq. ft.]
Other retail, service commercial and entertainment, provided that in no instance shall other retail exceed 26 511.7 m¾ (285,379 sq. ft.)
Gross Leasable Area		 38 276.1 m¾
[412,014 sq. ft.]		 32 007.2 m¾
[344,534 sq.  ft.]		 Retail, service commercial and entertainment
(limiting entertainment to a maximum
of 2 400 m¾
[25,834 sq. ft.] and not to include family sports or entertainment centre)		 64 481.0 m¾
[694,084 sq. ft.]
SUB-TOTAL 69 119.8 m¾
[744,024 sq. ft.]		 58 397.3 m¾
[592,604 sq. ft.]		   69 120.0 m¾
[744,024 sq. ft.]
Office, circulation and residential uses 57 693.2 m¾
[621,024.4 sq. ft.]		 n/a Office, circulation and residential uses 57 693.2 m¾
[621,024.4 sq. ft.]
TOTAL 126 813.0 m¾
[1,365,048.4 sq.ft.]		 n/a   126 817.0 m¾
[1,365,091.0 sq. ft.]

* Category would be deleted.

Conditions of Approval (1991 to 1993): Conditions were established at the January 15, 1991 Public Hearing related to street and infrastructure improvements, proposed 96 seniors units, public art and soil remediation. Subsequently, the conditions were changed on two occasions, largely to incorporate subdivision requirements for the dedication of park land, and to revise the nature of the housing requirement. Specific details of the conditions and subsequent changes are contained in Appendix D.

All conditions except that related to park dedication are properly secured through registered "no development" agreements. Background to the park dedication and housing commitment are outlined as follows:

Park Dedication: The Vancouver Charter requires that where a subdivision of lands over 8.1 h (20 ac.) occurs, 10 percent of the lands are to be dedicated for park purposes, or a payment-in-lieu of dedication. The size of the original park dedication requirement of 3.085 acres will be reduced by 0.256 acres, the equivalent of the difference in value between 10% of market value of the housing site, which the City will pay, and 33.3% of market value ofthe housing site, which City and Cambridge agreed to as purchase price in the 1991 rezoning. The remainder of the park dedication is 2.829 acres. Internally, the Park Board's debt to the Property Endowment Fund will be reduced by the value of these 0.256 acres, that is $1.54 Million."

The 10 percent park dedication requirement was not cited as part of the 1991 rezoning process, but as part of a subsequent subdivision application needed to create the housing site for City purchase. A 1983 covenant still remains on title identifying the need to dedicate for park and recreational purposes upon the next subdivision.

In the registered draft park covenant, to be fully registered at the same time with the housing site subdivision, the Approving Officer would have jurisdiction over the size and location of the park parcel and the City could accept pay-in-lieu, equivalent to the fair market value immediately prior to the park subdivision occurring [value to be established at the point of the subdivision of lands for the park site]. Park Board staff have indicated a willingness to pursue a payment-in-lieu option, but prefer to keep their options open.

In part because of the significant burden the park dedication imposed on the owners, Council agreed in 1992 to defer the dedication requirement until the first subdivision, or 15 years from the "date of the agreement".

Due to this wording, confusion exists about the intended starting point of the 15 year time-period. One interpretation is that the time period effectively began as of the registration date of the "no build" covenant [i.e., September 1993]. The owners feel that the 15 years time-period should not begin until a covenant addressing the park obligation is registered and Legal Services agrees with their position, whatever Council's intent may have been in 1993.

Staff recommend that if it is Council's intent to see the park acquisition 15 years from the date of the "no build" covenant, as a condition of rezoning, the registered owner make arrangements to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services to confirm resolution of this requirement on or before September 30, 2008.

Affordable Housing Site: As a component of the 1991 rezoning, the owners proposed to provide 64 units of congregate housing and 32 seniors' rental units. These units were considered to be a significant public benefit. Council subsequently accepted an alternative approach wherein the owners agreed to subdivide (as noted above) and convey to the City a 0.445 h [1.1 ac.] site along 45th Avenue, west of Cambie Street, to be utilized for affordable housing [alternatively, the City may elect not to acquire the site and accept cash-in-lieu]. The City can withhold the issuance of any building permit creating additional floor area on the shopping centre until registration of the subdivision has occurred.

Agreement has been reached on a preferred location for this affordable housing at the north-west corner of the site [westerly corner along West 41st Avenue]. Cambridge has agreed tosell the site to the City at 10 percent Market Value [$0.66 million] with the remaining 23 percent [$1.54 million] being credited against the park obligation. Internally, the money is credited against the Park Board's debt to the Property Endowment Fund.

The proposed text amendment will not affect the timing or outcome of this transaction.

Engineering Services: Engineering Services has no objection to the proposed rezoning.

Vancouver/Richmond Health Board: Health Board staff indicate that the proposed change will not affect present commercial usage and consequently will have no effect on the Noise By-law.

Public Input: A notification letter was sent to 989 nearby property owners on April 4th, 2000 and rezoning information signs were posted on the site on February 29th, 2000. Four phone calls indicated concerns only with respect to the possibility of a large entertainment centre component being situated at the shopping centre. Resolution of this issue is discussed in the body of the report.

Letters were also addressed to neighbouring business associations, including Kerrisdale and Fraser Street. No responses were received.

Environmental Implications: The proposed text amendments neither contribute significantly to, nor detract from, the objective of reducing atmospheric pollution.

Social Implications: There are no major positive or negative social implications to this proposal.

Comments of the Applicant: The applicant provides the following comments:

"Department stores and general retail stores can no longer be distinguished according to the different types of goods they sell. The notion of a `department store' that carries a wide variety of merchandise - automotive, clothing, housewares, furniture, hardware, electronics, etc. - has become obsolete. The retail industry in Canada has undergone a dramatic change in the 35 years since the Oakridge CD Bylaw was first introduced. Entire retail chains have disappeared - Bretton's, Woodward's, and most recently Eaton's - while the very nature of retailing has been transformed.

The Comprehensive Development (CD-1) Bylaw for Oakridge Centre was the first zoning of its kind when approved by the City of Vancouver back in 1965. As well, we understand that the term `department store' is unique to Oakridge Centre, and has never been properly defined elsewhere in the zoning bylaw. Over the years, City staff and the Centre's owners and consultants have discussed simplifying and modernizing the Bylaw to better reflect today's marketplace realities. The proposed text amendment does this while at the same time protecting certain elements which are important to the City and/orthe owners.

While Cambridge is very supportive of the general intent of the text amendment, there remains a few areas where a consensus has not yet been reached.

We continue to be concerned with the equity and fairness of the City's position regarding the application of Development Cost Levies (DCLs). Poor regional economic conditions have delayed the project for nearly a decade. This misfortune is made greater by the possibility that the development economics of the project may bear the added burden of the area-specific Oakridge/ Langara Development Cost Levy of ±$400,000 ($3.25 sq. ft. x 125,000 sq. ft.). In 1991, when the rezoning was being negotiated - which resulted in the commitment for the senior's housing site and the infrastructure package - DCLs were not contemplated.

We therefore propose an alternate recommendation for Council's consideration:

Cambridge remains committed to providing the seniors' housing site and recognizes the obligation for the park dedication. However, it is important to remember why Council deferred the park dedication in 1992 - that is, it emerged as a `late item' following the negotiations for the rezoning. Council recognized, and appreciated, these unfortunate circumstances and endorsed the concept of a 15-year "window" between each of these obligations. We believe that this principle is still important - for the expansion program to be successful, time is needed between each of these significant obligations.

Cambridge agrees that clarity is needed on this issue and concurs with the opinion of the City's Law Dept. that the 15-year time period should begin when the covenant addressing the park obligation is registered at the time of the subdivision of the proposed seniors' housing site. Staff's Proposed Condition of Approval `B' does not reflect this position and we would therefore ask Council to consider the following alternate condition:

We thank both Council and staff for considering our comments."

APPENDIX D

Oakridge Shopping Centre: Status of Conditions of Approval from January 15, 1991 Public Hearing
Engineering Services

NO. ORIGINAL CONDITION JUNE 8, 1993 AMENDMENTS STATUS
(b)(i) ensure all hydro and electrical services will be undergrounded within an adjacent to the site from the closest existing suitable service point    
(b)(ii) provide an additional southbound lane approaching 41st Avenue on Cambie Street for through or right-turn movement; replace conditions (b)(ii) and (b)(iv) with traffic and water improvements with an amended condition (b)(ii) as follows:

"provide a registered legal agreement to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services which commits the applicant to provide either a Letter of Credit or cash deposit to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, for provision of water main upgrading to service increased fire protection needs and provision of an additional southbound lane approaching 41st Avenue on Cambie Street for through or right-turn movements prior to issuance of a development permit for any additional floor space (Phase 2);"

 No-Build Agreement BG316670 and BG316671
(b)(iii) provide signalized left turn protection for westbound entrance into Oakridge Centre interconnected with the signal at 41st Avenue and Cambie St., including pedestrian signalization. Provision by the applicant of all signalization is subject to the approval of City Council, upon recommendation by the City Engineer as part of an Annual Traffic Program within five years of occupancy; amending condition (b)(iii) dealing with left turn protection and signalization for westbound 41st Avenue traffic by adding before the word "provide" the words:

"provide a registered legal agreement to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services which commits the applicant to make arrangements prior to issuance of a development permit for any additional floor space (Phase 2) to"

 No-Build Agreement BG316670 and BG316671
(b)(iv) provide upgraded water service to serve the increased fire protection needs. The potential need for service upgrading is currently under review and will be reported to the applicant. This work will be done at the applicant's expense. amalgamated with (b)(ii) above  

Oakridge Shopping Centre - Status of Conditions of Approval from January 15, 1991 Public Hearing
Housing

NO. ORIGINAL CONDITION JUNE 8, 1993 AMENDMENTS STATUS
(c)(i) provide an undertaking*, satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services, which provides flexibility to congregate residents, enabling flexibility to congregate residents, enabling them to contract for a given number of meals in the dining-room/restaurant, and to alter that arrangement as circumstances dictate, without physical relocations from one phase of the project to the other; See Resolution B

"FURTHER, THAT Council rescind conditions (c)(i) and (c)(iii) [Appendix A, Page 1, of the Policy Report dated May 19, 1993], dealing with congregate and rental units, effective upon sale of the housing site to the City"

 No-Build Agreement BG316670 and BG316671

The owners shall not erect upon the New Safeway Area any structure until the Subdivision has been approved by the approving officer, the application for the Subdivision has been fully registered in the appropriate Land Title Office, the Owners have executed...and either the Subdivided Area has been transferred to the City or the City has elected not to acquire the Subdivided Area
(c)(ii) Public Art condition, see page 6    
(c)(iii) execute a Section 215 covenant, satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services, to ensure that the owner of the 96 unit seniors' congregate and rental residential building shall not strata title any of these units. Monthly rental dwelling unit prices shall be set in 1991* at a maximum of $1.25 per square foot and may increase annually by no more than the Consumer Price Index, except that following vacancy of a unit, the monthly rental dwelling unit price for that unit may be increased, in the first year of re-occupancy only, by an additional 2 percent.* See Resolution B

"FURTHER, THAT Council rescind conditions (c)(i) and (c)(iii) [Appendix A, Page 1, of the Policy Report dated May 19, 1993], dealing with congregate and rental units, effective upon sale of the housing site to the City."

 No-Build Agreement BG316670 and BG316671
B. THAT prior to presentation of the draft by-law for enactment, the Director of Legal Services be instructed to incorporate a further provision whereby any development of the shopping centre expansion shall not be permitted unless the 96-uni seniors congregate and rental residential building is, in the opinion of the Development Permit Board, to be developed concurrently with such expansion as far as practicable. THAT Council amend Resolution B dealing with the seniors' congregate and rental residential building approved at Public Hearing January 15, 1991 [Appendix A, page 3, of the Policy Report dated May 19, 1993], and combine it with Resolution B approved February 20, 1992 [Appendix B of the Policy Report dated May 19, 1993], as follows:

"THAT prior to enactment of the amending CD-1 By-law, the registered property owner register a covenant to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services providing that no rental floor space beyond the existing building will be added to the shopping centre until a housing site of equivalent size to that identified for 96 seniors' congregate and rental units at Public Hearing on January 15, 1991, is transferred to the City at 10 percent ($660,000) of estimated market value.

FURTHER, THAT Council rescind conditions (c)(i) and (c)(iii) [Appendix A, Page 1, of the Policy Report dated May 19, 1993], dealing with congregate and rental units, effective upon sale of the housing site to the City."

 No-Build Agreement BG316670 and BG316671

*Amendments adopted at the Public Hearing

Oakridge Shopping Centre - Status of Conditions of Approval from January 15, 1991 Hearing
Public Art

NO. ORIGINAL CONDITION JUNE 8, 1993 AMENDMENT STATUS
(c)(ii) execute a legal agreement, satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services, to ensure participation in the City of Vancouver public art program, including the contribution of $1 per square foot of revenue-producing commercial and residential floor space; amending condition (c)(ii) dealing with public art contribution by adding before the words "legal agreement" the word "registered" and after the word "space" the words:

"prior to issuance of a development permit for any additional second-floor retail floor space (Phase 3)."

 Public Art Agreement
BG316672 and BG316673

Oakridge Shopping Centre - Status of Conditions of Approval from January 15, 1991 Hearing
Soil Remediation

NO. ORIGINAL CONDITION AMENDMENTS STATUS
(c)(iv) obtain and submit from the B.C. Ministry of Environment indication that a soils analysis has been completed by a professional recognized in this field; and either:

mcmxcvii) has identified no unacceptable hazard for the proposed use of this site resulting from potential contamination of soil or building materials; or

mcmxcviii) stating that a remediation program, concurred with by the B.C. Ministry of Environment as being adequate to eliminate such a hazard, has been completed as certified by such a professional

The requirement to complete remediation prior to enactment contained in part (b) of this condition shall not apply if legal agreements are provided, to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services, to provide for a program of remediation approved by the B.C. Ministry of Environment during construction in a sequence of steps to be prescribed, monitored and certified complete by such a professional.

   Soils Agreement
BG316674 through BG316677

February 26, 1992 Planning and Environment Committee of Council/Council Resolutions

NO. RECOMMENDATIONS JUNE 8, 1993 AMENDMENTS STATUS
A. The City discharge the covenant requiring dedication to permit subdivision of the housing site, and replace it with an agreement registered against the title, requiring fulfillment of the remaining park obligation at the earlier of the next subdivision, or fifteen years from the date of the agreement.   See "No-Build Agreement"
BG316670 and BG316671
B. The City purchase the housing site at 10 percent of estimated market value. Amalgamated with Resolution B from January 15, 1991 Public Hearing "No-Build Agreement" BG316670 and BG316671
C. The difference between 33.3 percent of the market value and 10 percent of market value be applied to the debt owed by the Park Board to the PEF.    
D. Agreements documenting this arrangement be to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services.    

APPENDIX E

APPLICANT, PROPERTY, AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INFORMATION

APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION

Street Address 650 West 41st Avenue
Legal Description Rem. 7, Block 892, DL 526, Plan 20424
Applicant Dwight Ecklund, Moodie Consultants Ltd.
Property Owner Cambridge Shopping Centres Ltd.

SITE STATISTICS

  GROSS DEDICATIONS NET
SITE AREA 11.69 h [28.9 acres] NIL 11.69 h [28.9 acres]

DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

  DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
ZONING CD-1 CD-1 [Amended]
USES Department stores and food floors

Other retail, service, commercial and entertainment, provided that in no instance shall other retail exceed 26 511.7 m¾ [285,379 sq. ft.]
Gross Leasable Area

 Food floors, minimum of
4 639.4 m¾ [49,940 sq. ft.]

Retail, service commercial and entertainment (limiting entertainment to a maximum of 2 400 m¾ [25,834 sq. ft.] and not to include family sports or entertainment centre)
MAX. FLOOR AREA Maximum limits on various uses in terms of both gross floor areas and gross leasable areas Eliminate references to net and gross leasable floor areas as overly complicated system to regulate
MAXIMUM HEIGHT   No change
PARKING SPACES 5.66 spaces for each 100 m¾
[5.26 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. gross leasable area]		 No change

* * * * *

ph010308.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.

[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver