Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

 

Date: May 7, 2001

 

Author/Local: RWhitlock/7814

 

RTS No.: 1921

 

CC File No.: 5306

 

Council: May 15, 2001

TO: Vancouver City Council

FROM: Director of Current Planning

SUBJECT: CD-1 Rezoning - 7250 Oak Street

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT the application by Sunrise Assisted Living Inc., to rezone the southerly approximately 59.74 m (196 ft.) of 7250 Oak Street (Lot 7, Block 16A, D.L. 526 ) from RS-1 to CD-1, to permit a 92-unit Special Needs Residential Facility, be referred to a Public Hearing, together with:

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

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

COUNCIL POLICY

Relevant Council policies for this site include:

· Oakridge Langara Policy Statement (OLPS), approved July 25, 1995; specifically the policy pertaining to "reserve sub-areas":

"Properties within the reserve sub-areas are not encouraged to apply for rezoning until either: a transit decision results in the property being within 500 m of a transit station; or, there is demonstrated unanimous desire by property owners within a block to apply for rezoning. If applications from reserve sub-areas are received under these conditions, they will be considered based on their individual merits and the general policies in this document..."

· On June 13, 1996, Council adopted the Oakridge/Langara Public Benefit Strategy, which uses Development Cost Levies (DCLs), Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) and the OLPS density bonus provisions towards neighbourhood amenities.

· On January 8, 1998, in dealing with a request from the Lubavitch Centre to substitute market residential in place of un-used replacement institutional floor space in the rezoning of 5750 Oak Street, Council approved the following:

"THAT the Oakridge Langara Policy Statement institutional FSR replacement policy be interpreted to allow only replacement of existing institutional floor space and no other substitution."

· On March 10, 1998, in dealing with a staff report entitled (a) Oakridge Langara Policy Statement: Reserve Sub-Area Policy; and (b) Proposed Rezoning of 915-55 West 57th Avenue & 7225-35 Laurel Street, Council approved the following:

"A(i) THAT Council confirm the policy for reserve sub-areas in Oakridge/Langara requiring `demonstrated unanimous desire by property owners within a block to apply for rezoning';

A(ii) THAT `demonstrated unanimous desire' be interpreted to mean that all property owners support a rezoning initiative, but that all properties need not be included in the rezoning;

A(iii) THAT the reserve sub-area on the north side of the West 57th Avenue between Oak and Laurel Streets could be divided into two sub-areas, with the dividing line established between Salvation Army and the subject rezoning site; and

B. THAT the applicant for 915-55 West 57th Avenue and 7225-35 Laurel Street be advised to withdraw the application, until such time as all owners in the easterly reserve sub-area are supportive of a rezoning proposal."

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
This report assesses an application to rezone the southerly portion of the site at 7250 Oak Street from RS-1 One-family Dwelling District to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District, to develop a 92-unit Special Needs Residential Facility (SNRF) - Class B for frail seniors. The site is part of a "reserve sub-area" identified in the OLPS.
The Director of Current Planning recommends that the application be referred to Public Hearing and approved.


DISCUSSION
Background: The site is located in a separate "reserve sub-area" created as the consequence of a 1997 rezoning application for five properties immediately east of the site. As a distinct reserve sub-area, consideration of a rezoning application can proceed with the support of property owners within the sub-area. Background to this policy is outlined in Appendix C.
Use: The proposal is for a 92-unit SNRF - Class B, which will focus on housing and services for frail seniors. The applicant has volunteered limitations on this definition of SNRF - Class B which would be incorporated in the draft CD-1 By-law, shown in Appendix A.
The Oak Street site is presently used by the Salvation Army for the Maywood and Homestead facilities. Both have provided for the care and accommodation of unwed mothers, now expanded to care for homeless women and children, including some with chemical dependencies. The Maywood is now closed and it is proposed to be demolished as part of this rezoning, if successful. The Homestead will remain in operation on a separate site.
The OLPS expresses concern about the loss of private care facilities through redevelopment. Facilities such as Oakherst (54th and Oak Street) and Orion Hospitals (59th and Oak Street) were described in 1995 as being vulnerable and their loss would reduce the number of care spaces in the area. Both of these facilities have since been demolished. The rezoning responds in part to that loss. The proposed SNRF is therefore consistent with the direction of the OLPS.
Density: The application is seeking a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.10, all of which would be utilized for SNRF - Class B.
The OLPS provides no direction on uses or regulations for possible rezonings within reserve sub-areas. Staff have generally advised potential applicants that nearby OLPS high-priority sites for rezoning will be used for guidance, and each proposal will be assessed on its individual merit.
The former Oakherst Hospital site, to the south on Oak Street, between 58th and 59th Avenues, was allocated a density of 0.8 to 1.0 FSR in the OLPS. An FSR of 0.90 was approved under CD-1#355. The former Orion Hospital site at 54th Avenue and Oak Street, to the north, was allocated a density of 0.8 to 1.0 FSR in the OLPS. An FSR of 1.15 was approved under CD-1#381 as the applicant chose to pursue the potential 20% extra FSR for the "provision of City-desired public benefits".
The proposed density is assessed as follows:
· the rezoning site and the proposed development are consistent in size and scale with residential and institutional sites to the north;
· the rezoning site does not border on any adjoining site presently developed with one-family dwellings; and
· an FSR of 1.0 compares reasonably with the allocations in the OLPS for nearby high priority rezoning sites, and the proposed additional 0.1 FSR is supported under the provisions of the OLPS which provide for a 20% increase in FSR subject to the provision of City-identified public benefits in the form of a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC).
Institutional Replacement: The applicant is seeking approximately 557.4 m² (6,000 sq. ft.) or 0.1 FSR, as institutional replacement floor space so as not to pay a CAC on density above 1.0 FSR. The OLPS institutional replacement policy 6.2 states:
"Increases in overall site density beyond the residential FSR outlined in chapter 3 may be considered in order to retain the institutional use, but only if the mixed-use proposal is shown to minimize impact on the community while providing city-desired public benefits in return."
Three institutions have utilized this benefit: St. John Ambulance (6111 Cambie Street), Peretz Institute (6184 Ash Street) and the Lubavitch Centre (5750 Oak Street). In January 1998, in considering a request from the Lubavitch Centre to utilize unused institutional floor space for market housing (in order to establish an operational endowment), Council rejected the proposal and established the following policy:
"THAT the Oakridge Langara Policy Statement institutional FSR replacement policy be interpreted to allow only replacement of existing institutional floor space and no other substitution."
In keeping with Council's stated policy, staff recommend that Council not accept the increased floor space as institutional replacement, as the applicant is not proposing to replace the non-profit services to disadvantaged women provided by the Maywood and therefore does not meet Council policy to allow only replacement of the existing institutional floor space and no other substitution. Sunrise will function as a private facility, catering to middle- and upper-income seniors.
Height: The application seeks a height of 14.63 m (48 ft.).
In looking to the nearby OLPS high-priority rezoning sites once again, heights in the range of 9.14 to 12.9 m (30 to 40 ft.) are recommended. Existing residential and institutional buildings to the north of the site, fronting Oak Street, range in height from 10.7 to 13.1 m (35 to 43 ft).
While the 14.63 m (48 ft.) height is taller than other buildings along Oak Street, a height reduction of a full floor would significantly increase site coverage and result in the loss of the mature trees and landscape existing on the site. However, the applicant is asked to revisit the treatment of the fourth floor as part of the subsequent development permit review. Staffrecommend the applicant de-emphasize the fourth floor with the use of setbacks and different and lighter coloured materials for the fourth floor.
Community Amenity Contribution: As noted under "Density", the OLPS provides for up to a 20% increase in density over the recommended maximum density in the priority rezoning areas subject to the provision of a City identified public benefit in the form of a CAC. Using nearby high priority rezoning areas as a guide for the maximum 1.0 FSR on the subject site, the proposed additional 0.10 FSR, or 576.0 m² (6,200 sq. ft.) would be supported subject to a CAC. The applicant proposed that this floor area be exempt from a CAC, based on the applicant's interpretation of the OLPS institutional replacement policy. Staff disagree with this interpretation.
Staff conclude that the additional density can be accepted on this site as long as there is a return to the community in terms of "city-desired public benefit." A condition of approval has been established in Appendix B [condition c(iv)] for the necessary CAC payment.
Two other options are available to the applicant. The CAC could be provided "in kind", for example, through the accommodation of a portion of seniors on moderate or low-incomes. Alternatively, the development could be reduced to 1.0 FSR, thereby eliminating the 0.10 FSR which is the basis for the CAC. The applicant has indicated that the project would not proceed at the reduced FSR of 1.0.
Form of Development (Note Plans: Appendix D): The plans were reviewed by the Urban Design Panel on January 24, 2001, and supported unanimously.
Proposed conditions are recommended to further develop the design to diminish the appearance of the 4th floor, and to ensure preservation of existing trees and mature landscape. The applicant has been asked to enter into an agreement to ensure preservation of these trees and produce the necessary inventory and schedule for retention at the development permit stage.
Parking: Parking for the proposed development will be underground. An easement providing 15 parking spaces and an access driveway will be provided on-grade for the benefit of the adjoining Salvation Army Homestead operation. Staff support this approach as long as the Homestead continues operation. However, Planning staff feel that if the Homestead should be closed and redevelopment of the northerly portion of Lot 7 occur, the required parking to serve that development should be provided on that site, and the 15 parking spaces on this site eliminated and the area landscaped. The driveway access from West 57th Avenue may be retained. Continued use of the parking will be monitored through issuance of a development permit for an interim use, on five year periods.
CONCLUSION
Planning staff conclude that this proposal is consistent with the intent and objectives contained in the Oakridge Langara Policy Statement by proposing a desired seniors carefacility within a density consistent with nearby high-priority rezoning sites. There is only one property owner in this reserve sub-area (the Salvation Army) and they have no objection to the proposal. Some work is recommended as a condition of rezoning to reduce the impact of the fourth floor and reduce height if possible. Staff disagree with the applicant that a CAC should be waived on the proposed density beyond 1.0 FSR. There has been general community support for the rezoning.
The Director of Current Planning recommends that the application be referred to Public Hearing and that it be approved.

- - - - -

APPENDIX A

DRAFT CD-1 BY-LAW PROVISIONS

Use: · Special Needs Residential Facility - Community Care - Class B, which means any facility which is licensed under the Community Care Facility Act and provides accommodation for seven or more persons in care; except that for this by-law, the following will be added to the definition:

Density: · Maximum floor space ratio of 1.10;
Height: · A maximum of 14.63 m (48 ft.) and four storeys, taking into consideration the following:

Setback: · A minimum setback of 12.2 m (40 ft.) from the west property line;

Parking: · Per Parking By-law, except that:

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 Mithun Partners, Inc. Architects, and stamped "Received Planning Department, August 10, 2000", 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) further design development to reduce the overall bulk of the building through the consideration of fourth floor setbacks and different and lighter materials for the fourth floor;
(ii) a 2.74 m x 2.74 m (9 ft. x 9 ft.) corner cut-off will be necessary at the right angle turn at the bottom of the parking ramp;
(iii) recycling storage and pickup should be clearly shown on the plans;
(iv) submission of a legal survey illustrating the following information:

(v) submission of a Certified Arborist assessment of all the existing trees on site, to the satisfaction of the Landscape Architectural Technician;
(vi) submission of a detailed Landscape Plan illustrating both common and botanical name, size and quantity of all proposed plant material. Proposed plant material should be clearly illustrated on the Landscape Plan;
(vii) parking is to be rearranged in order to retain the existing Douglas Fir tree located between parking spaces 5 and 6.; and

(c) That, prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the registered owner shall:
(i) make arrangements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director of Legal Services for provision for the following:

(ii) make arrangements for all new hydro, telephone and cablevision services to the site from the closest existing suitable service point, including a review of the 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 servicing points to the site being changed to reduce neighbourhood impacts); and
(iii) provide security to the City in an amount determined by the Director of Current Planning to be sufficient to cover the value of the retained and relocated trees prior to the issuance of the development permit, or prior to any site work, whichever is sooner. The security will be held until following occupancy, when a certified Arborist confirms with the City, in a Site Inspection Report, that the retained and relocated trees are in healthy condition and that the longer term management guidelines have been confirmed. The security will be 150% of an estimated dollar value for the replacement cost of the retained and relocated trees completed by a certified Arborist. This security obligation will be a separate written agreement between the applicant and the City. Such security to be satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services in her sole discretion and may include, without limitation, a letter of credit; and
(iv) pay a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) based on the following:

APPENDIX C

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Site, Surrounding Zoning and Development: Lot 7 is owned by the Salvation Army and has an area of 1.02 h (2.52 acres; 10 197.7 m² or 109,771 sq. ft.). The rezoning siterepresents the southerly 5 098.8 m² (54,885 sq. ft.) of Lot 7, with 59.74 m (196 ft.) frontage along Oak Street, and a frontage on West 57th Avenue of 85.8 m (281.38 ft.).

The Salvation Army has operated two homes on the site, its Maywood facility and the Homestead. The Homestead will be retained on the northerly portion of Lot 7. The Maywood will be demolished to make way for the new development.

Lands to the west, east and south of the site are generally zoned and developed under the RS-1 One-family Dwelling District. Immediately east of the site is a large vacant lot which has been the subject of a number of rezoning and development inquiries. Because of its depth of almost 121.9 m (400 feet), development of the lot as a single family dwelling is impractical. The lot has been included in two failed rezonings in the last 20 years. Presently, it is part of a separate reserve sub-area which relies on the support of five other owners. One owner has been adamantly opposed to any rezoning and Council has continued to require unanimous support.

Lands north of the site are zoned and developed as follows:

· 7190 Oak Street is zoned RS-1 and occupied by Temple Shalom;
· 7160 Oak Street and 976 West 54th Avenue are zoned CD-1 and developed with multiple dwellings.

Background: The properties along the north side of West 57th Avenue between Oak and Laurel Streets are defined within the Oakridge Langara Policy Statement as a "reserve sub-area". The OLPS states that zoning in about 87% of Oakridge Langara will be retained. "High priority" sub-areas are those which "are suitable for rezoning." "Reserve sub-areas" are those that are not encouraged to apply for rezonings until either:

"a transit decision results in the property being within approximately 500 m of a transit station, or, there is demonstrated support by property owners within a block for rezoning."

This category was created in recognition that not all property owners were in agreement with designation as high-priority for rezoning; however, if the owners should agree then consideration would be given to rezoning. As a consequence, draft regulations were not established for these sites. Staff have looked to nearby high-priority sites as models for appropriate regulations.

In 1997, an application was submitted to rezone five properties at 915-55 West 57th Avenue and 7225-35 Laurel Street. An owner of a property on Laurel Street did not support the application and an issue report was forwarded to Council on March 10, 1998, entitled (a) Oakridge Langara Policy Statement: Reserve Sub-Area Policy; and (b) Proposed Rezoningof 915-55 West 57th Avenue & 7225-35 Laurel Street. Council resolved the following:
"A(i) THAT Council confirm the policy for reserve sub-areas in Oakridge/Langara requiring `demonstrated unanimous desire by property owners within a block to apply for rezoning';
A(ii) THAT `demonstrated unanimous desire' be interpreted to mean that all property owners support a rezoning initiative, but that all properties need not be included in the rezoning; and
A(iii) THAT the reserve sub-area on the north side of the West 57th Avenue between Oak and Laurel Streets could be divided into two sub-areas, with the dividing line established between Salvation Army and the subject rezoning site; and
B. THAT the applicant for 915-55 West 57th Avenue and 7225-35 Laurel Street be advised to withdraw the application, until such time as all owners in the easterly reserve sub-area are supportive of a rezoning proposal."
The application was subsequently withdrawn.

Proposed Development: The proposed CD-1 seeks approval for a 92-unit Special Needs Residential Facility Class B, at a maximum FSR of 1.1 and a height of 14.65 m (48 feet).

The proposal is described by the applicant as an "assisted living facility containing dining, amenity and care facilities for seniors who can no longer live on their own, but do not require complex medical care. Residents will have available the full range of assisted living services, from help with activities such as eating, bathing, dressing and medication management, to a specially designed program for residents with Alzheimer's Disease and other forms of memory impairment."

The development will be licensed for Intermediate Care levels 1, 2 and 3 under the Community Care Facilities Act.

Public Input: A notification letter was sent to nearby property owners on December 15, 2000. Rezoning information signs were posted on the site on December 14, 2000.

An open house was held on January 10, 2001. Sixteen residents attended the meeting. Only one concern was expressed about the height and whether it would disrupt views to the south from condominium owners to the north. The applicant has met with this owner and satisfied these concerns. Staff have recommended modifications to the fourth floor and possibly to the height which will ensure that the owner is consulted at the development permit stage.

Subsequent to the meeting, staff have been advised that a property owner in the RS-1 block to the south of the site has collected signatures in opposition to the rezoning. No documentation was received during the preparation of this report.

Letters from four property owners representing five of the six lots in the now-separate reserve sub-area to the east of the subject reserve sub-area were submitted to the Mayor and Councillors. The owners requested that a new sub-area be created to include the five lots but not including the sixth lot, 7255 Laurel Street, that would form a separate sub-area containing a listed heritage building (whose owner has not supported past rezoning initiatives). The four owners further asked that the required "unanimous" support for rezoning be changed to "majority" support and that any density approvals for the rezoning of the Salvation Army site be applied to any future proposals in their sub-area. Staff, who were asked to respond to the letters, advised that as circumstances had not changed since Council resolved to split the original reserve sub-area into two and had re-confirmed that "unanimous" support for rezoning would be required, staff would not be recommending any change to the reserve sub-area policies. Staff further advised that the amount of density that might be supported on a reserve sub-area site is determined by reviewing each rezoning application on it's own merits against local site conditions, public input and other pertinent variables.

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

Health Board: The City's acoustical criteria shall form part of the Zoning By-law, and an Acoustical Consultant's report shall be required which assesses noise impacts on the site and recommends noise mitigating measures.

If a Community Care Facility (adult or child care) is proposed, plans will have to be submitted for approval to Community Care Facilities Act and the Adult Care Regulations.

The Noise Control By-law requires amendment at time of enactment of Zoning By-law to include this CD-1 in Schedule B.

Fire Services: This building shall be developed and constructed as a care facility (Group B-2) under the Vancouver Building By-law.

(Note to applicant: Should this be a four-storey care facility, as a Group B-2 building it is required to be of non-combustible construction and be designed with high-rise measures.)

Environmental Services: There are no requirements for soil remediation.

Seniors' Advisory Committee Comments: The proposal was reviewed on September 29, 2000, resulting in the following motions:

"Motion 1: THAT the Committee supports the proposed new definition for this licensed care facility, thereby recognizing the unique services offered by this new facility devoted to comprehensive senior care; and, recognizing this type of facility already has widespread application throughout North America.

Proposed new land use definition for rezoning application by Sunrise Development Inc.
`SNRF/CD-1: which means a facility licensed under the Community Care Facilities Act, which provides residential accommodation for six or more frail seniors in care aged 65 years or older, who are not a family, where shared kitchen, dining, and amenity areas are provided; and, where staff may provide care, supervision, guidance, or counselling related to physical disabilities, and/or, mental disabilities arising from Alzheimer's Disease or related dementia.'

Motion 2: THAT the Committee encourage the Planning and Social Planning Departments to recognize the unusually high number of desirable amenities provided in this project related to frail adult care, by having the Planning and Social Planning Departments support density exclusions for amenity, meeting and recreational facilities. Inclusion of these types of amenities is a welcome precedent in new senior care facilities and should be encouraged in this and other similar projects through density exclusions which are supported by the Planning and Social Planning Departments.

Included amenity, meeting and recreational facilities in this project include: a `bistro', an enclosed `three season porch', a `parlour', a `library', a `living room', a `video room', a `hair salon', a `toilet spa', a `residents' laundry', a `quiet room', an `activity room', and a portion of the project's dining room and private dining room. All of these facilities are in excess of the basic functioning of the project; however, they provide a valuable amenity and a type of therapy for the residents, by lessening the institutional impact of this type of care facility."

Planning staff note that areas which provide amenity to the residents of this development can be included as excluded floor area; services functions, such as a laundry and a spa will be counted as floor space, in accordance with normal practice. Agreement has been reached with the applicant on these inclusions and exclusions.

Social Planning: The development will be licensed under the Community Care Facilities Act for Intermediate Care levels I, II and III. It will provide a range of levels of personal and nursing care similar to those found in older Personal Care homes, and to other Intermediate Care Facilities (staff note, for clarification, that the term "assisted living" generally implies the need for assistance with basic activities of living, e.g. eating, dressing, etc., and that this level of support is well beyond what can be accommodated in congregate housing.) Seniors with dementia would typically be assessed at IC III, the highest level of Intermediate Care.

Landscape Review: The applicant is to provide the following information:

1) a legal survey illustrating the following information:

- existing trees 20 cm caliper or greater on the development site; and
- the public realm (property line to curb), including existing street trees, street utilities such as lamp posts, fire hydrants, etc. adjacent to the development site;

2) a Certified Arborist assessment of the all the existing trees on site, to the satisfaction of the Landscape Architectural Technician; and

3) a detailed Landscape Plan illustrating both common and botanical name, size and quantity of all proposed plant material. Proposed plant material should be clearly illustrated on the Landscape Plan;

Parking is to be rearranged in order to retain the existing Douglas Fir tree located between parking spaces 5 and 6.

Public Benefit: The requirement of the applicant to pay both Development cost Levy (DCL) for 100% of the development and a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC), for the portion of the development over 1.0 FSR, are seen as satisfactory public benefits.

Urban Design Panel Comment: The Urban Design Panel reviewed this proposal on January 24, 2001, and supported the proposed use, density and form of development and offered the following comments:

EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)

· Introduction: This proposal was presented by Rob Whitlock, Rezoning Planner. The application seeks to change the zoning from RS-1 to CD-1 to develop 92 sustained living units. FSR is 1.1, height 48 ft. The use will be formally classified as Special Needs Residential Facility (SNRF). The site is located on the northeast corner of 57th Avenue and Oak Street. It is proposed to subdivide the 2.5 acre rezoning site into two equal parts. The northerly portion is to remain occupied by The Homestead, owned and operated by the Salvation Army, and the existing Maywood Home will be demolished. Mr. Whitlock briefly reviewed the context. The site is included in the Oakridge/Langara Policy Statement and is in a Reserve Sub Area. Staff have indicated the FSR should be between 0.8 and 1.0, with consideration for a further 20 percent for the provision of a City-desired public amenity. Consistent with the Plan, height recommendations have been in the order of 30 ft., with consideration for greater height if it produces better design and retention of more of the significant landscaping on this site.

The Development Planner, Eric Fiss, reviewed the form of development, which is a 4-storey concrete frame building. The basic expression of the building is a 3-storey brick clad base with a set back, articulated fourth level. Typical floor plates in this L-shaped building are about 17,000 sq. ft. Low brick retaining walls are proposed on the property line, with retention of the mature trees on Oak Street. Parking access is from 57th Avenue, with two curb cuts, one leading to a landscaped courtyard and porte-cochere, the other to underground parking. Areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought include:

- use;
- overall siting including setbacks, compatibility with the Oak streetscape and relationship to neighbours;
- height;
- density and massing on the site;
- parking, both the porte-cochere and entry court as well as the surface parking and access to underground parking along the property lines;
- landscape proposal including the retention of trees; and
- architectural expression; appropriateness of the overall architectural character.
· Applicant's Opening Comments: Dan Zemanek briefly reviewed the history and philosophy of Sunrise, noting it is an operating company and not a development company. Gerry McDevitt, Architect, briefly described the design rationale. The building is an L-shaped configuration with the massing far from the corner, which allows for a comfortable entry and retention of trees. The emphasis has been on creating residential character, minimizing height and bulk. Patricia Campbell, Landscape Architect, reviewed the landscape plan.

· Panel's Comments: After reviewing the model and posted materials, the Panel commented as follows:

The Panel unanimously supported this application for rezoning. The applicant was commended for the high quality of the presentation materials.

The Panel supported the proposed use and density.

There were a few minor concerns about the apparent height of the building which begins to feel a bit institutional. The Panel strongly endorsed the need to emphasize the residential character of the building and suggested ways to further architecturally mitigate the height, including taking another look at floor-to-floor heights and creating greater transparency at the fourth floor by pulling it back a little further, particularly at the two pinnacle elements on the corners. Anything that helps bring down theperceived vertical scale of the building and reinforce the residential expression would be beneficial.

One Panel member cautioned the applicant to ensure the porte-cochere is high enough to accommodate emergency vehicles.

There were no concerns about parking.

The landscape plan was strongly supported and the applicant was commended for the proposal to retain much of the existing mature vegetation on the site. There was a recommendation to thin out some of the trees to improve light access to this currently rather dark corner. The Panel agreed strongly with the benefits of providing a complete circuit pathway in the outdoor open space. A recommendation was made to continue the pathway system to link the outdoor porches. A suggestion was also made to look at ending the pathway that runs parallel to Oak Street so that it terminates in a gazebo or garden rather than continuing into the service areas.

In general, the Panel was very supportive of the proposal and a comment was made that it looks like a classy hotel. It was stressed that the facade elements should be kept simple. A recommendation was made to include shadow diagrams at the Public Hearing stage, to confirm the amount of sun that will reach the garden space at the northeast corner.

· Applicant's Response: Mr. McDevitt said he was encouraged by the Panel's comments. He acknowledged they are grappling with an all brick facade or introducing another material.

Environmental Implications: This development with a singular focus on frail seniors will represent a low impact on traffic and general activity patterns in the area.

Social Implications: In accordance with the OLPS, the addition of a seniors care facility is socially beneficial to the area that has lost other seniors care facility. There are no implications with respect to the Vancouver Children's Policy or Statement of Children's Entitlements.

Subdivision By-law Amendment: If the proposed rezoning is approved, an amendment to the Subdivision By-law will be needed at the time of enactment to delete the Category D standards which currently apply to this RS-1-zoned parcel.

Comments of the Applicant: The applicant has been provided with a copy of this report and has provided comments as follows:

" `On May 4th there was a meeting between Mr. Larry Beasley, Director of Planning, Mr. David Thomsett, Manager, Rezoning Division, Mr. Rob Whitlock, new Housing Planner, Mr. Dan Zamenek, Sunrise Development Manager Western Canada and North-Western United States, Mr. Brian Barber, Sunrise Development Officer, B.C. Region, and Mr. Jim Lehto, UD & D Ltd. During this meeting we discussed the April 24, 2001 Policy Report/Development & Building, regarding the Sunrise Assisted Living rezoning application at 7250 Oak Street.

Agreement Between the Planning Department & Sunrise Assisted Living Inc. Concerning a Revised Height condition

We are pleased to report that the Planning Department and Sunrise Assisted Living came to agreement on a revised height condition which is to appear in a Revised Policy Report* concerning this CD-1 Rezoning Application. Sunrise no longer has any objection to the height condition as we understand it to be represented in a revised Policy Report, which will be before Council on May 15th. Sunrise had previously objected to the height condition in the Sunrise letter of April 30, 2001 to Council.

The Singular Remaining Disagreement Between the Planning Department & Sunrise Assisted Living Inc.
(For Specifics Please Refer to Previous Sunrise Letter of April 30, 2001
to Mayor Owen and Members of Council):
Interpretation of Sec. 6.2 Oakridge Langara Policy Statement (i.e. OLPS): Consideration of Density Increases in Order "...to retain the institutional use..."

After an open and helpful discussion it remained apparent the two parties retained two different understandings of potential Council action flowing from Sec. 6.2 noted above. Sunrise respectfully requests Mayor and Council to delete Condition (c)(iv) in Appendix B in conformity with Sec. 6.2 of the OLPS. The proposed Condition requires Sunrise to pay a CAC. Sunrise believes this Condition to be a literal and unwarranted application of the 1998 anti-substitution clause, which Sunrise believes does not apply in this case

Sunrise's position is as stated in its letter of April 30th to Mayor and Council:
The Oakridge Langara Policy Statement specifies under Sec. 6.2:
"Increases to overall density beyond the residential FSR outlined in Chapter 3 may be considered in order to retain the institutional use..."

The literal application of the January 1998 Lubavitch motion "...to allow only replacement of existing institutional floor space and no other substitution" is not appropriate in this case. Presently, a SNRF (operated by the Salvation army) is being retained by a SNRF from Sunrise. This is consistent with the intent of Sec. 6.2 of the OLPS. Planning suggests that only the same Salvation Army SNRF use could be considered for a density increase.

In this case, the Sunrise SNRF is a contemporary SNRF with a growing need, while the Salvation Army SNRF (as a home for unwed mothers) is a diminishing need. A contemporary SNRF should not be discriminated against through literal application of the 1998 Motion. The Sunrise SNRF catering to frail seniors represents a growing need. Ironically the Sunrise SNRF application comes at a time when care beds for frail seniors are being closed down at an alarming rate within the area.

The meeting with Planning established the site was capable of holding a density of 1.1 FSR; however, reaching this density was subject to two different paths. The Planning Department wished to apply a CAC fee for 0.1 FSR above the 1.0 FSR already prescribed to the site; while Sunrise respectfully asks Council to carefully review the intent of Sec. 6.2 in the OLPS; concur with Sunrise that this project does in fact `retain' the institutional use; and, further that Sunrise now proposes a more relevant contemporary SNRF use in the process.
It is not appropriate to literally apply the January 1998 Motion against Sunrise. Considering a density increase for retention of a diminishing Salvation Army SNRF is counterproductive to the SNRF needs of Oakridge Langara. Considering a density increase for a contemporary SNRF use, applauded by the Seniors Committee, makes sense, and is already contemplated in Sec. 6.2 of the Oakridge Langara Policy Statement.

Sunrise is not asking for special consideration. Sunrise is asking Council to consider Sec. 6.2 of its Policy Statement in its own right. Although this may be the first institutional example like this, it represents a positive example whereby the City will retain a SNRF use and upgrade a diminishing SNRF use with a contemporary one. What Policy purpose is served in retaining a diminishing need SNRF use?

Sec. 6.2 of the OLPS permits Council to acknowledge the public benefit of retaining an institutional use on a given site; and, also allowing a contemporary institutional use to replace a diminishing one.

Sunrise therefore respectfully asks Council:

(i) to favourably consider the Sunrise proposal, and to adopt Recommendation A; and,
(ii) to delete Condition (c)(iv) in Appendix B.'"

*This report dated May 7, 2001 reflects the revised height condition.

APPENDIX D (on file in City Clerk's Office)

APPENDIX E

APPLICANT, PROPERTY, AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INFORMATION

APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION

Street Address

7250 Oak Street

Legal Description

Lot 7, Block 16A, D.L. 626

Applicant

Sunrise Developments Inc.

Architect

Jerry McDevitt, Muthen Architects [Seattle], in conjunction with Graham Crockart

Property Owner

Salvation Army

Developer

Sunrise Developments Inc.

SITE STATISTICS

 

GROSS

DEDICATIONS

NET

SITE AREA

5 098.8 m² (54,885 ft.²)

None

5 098.8 m² (54,885 ft.²)

DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

 

DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EXISTING ZONING

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

ZONING

RS-1

CD-1

USES

One-family dwellings, family suite, caretaker suite plus a variety of cultural recreational and institutional uses

Special Needs Residential Facility - Class B

DWELLING UNITS

One unit with a family suite and
caretaker suite

92 units

MAXIMUM FLOOR SPACE RATIO

0.60 maximum, less in many situations

1.1

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

9.2 m (30 ft.) maximum plus a prescribed envelope (relaxation to 10.7 m
[see Zoning and Dev. By-law])

14.65 m (48 ft.)

MAXIMUM NO. OF STOREYS

2 ½

4

PARKING SPACES

As per Parking By-law

As outlined in Appendix A

FRONT YARD SETBACK

20% with averaging related to adjacent sites

12.2 m (40 ft.)

SIDE YARD SETBACK

Never less than 10%,
never more than 20%

7.62 m [25 ft.] (s. property line)
6.1 m [20 ft.](n. property line)

REAR YARD SETBACK

45 % general with several considerations based on site and adjacent sites

16 m (52 ft.)

* * * * *

ag010515.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver