POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

Date: April 24, 2001
Author/Local: Gerry McGeough/7091

RTS No.01986

CC File No. PH 1401-32

Hearing: June 5, 2001

TO:	Vancouver City Council
FROM:	Director of Current Planning in consultation with the Subdivision Approving Officer
SUBJECT:	Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Designation - 3838 Cypress Street (Greencroft)

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT Council authorize the Director of Legal Services to enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement for the property at 3838 Cypress Street (Greencroft) to:

· secure the rehabilitation, protection and on-going maintenance of this "A" category Vancouver Heritage Register building;
· vary the First Shaughnessy Official Development Plan By-law to permit and limit the form of development on the Greencroft site to that generally described in Development Application DE404889;
· vary the Subdivision By-law to permit subdivision of the site into three parcels; and
· assign the site a density bonus of 2 694 m² (29,000 sq.ft.) of floor space and authorize its transfer from First Shaughnessy to the Central Area.

B. THAT Council designate Greencroft as Protected Heritage Property under Schedule A of the Heritage By-law;

C. THAT Council require that an agreement be registered to secure the heritage building until it is rehabilitated and prohibit the transfer of the bonus density and the occupancy of the two new infill dwellings until Greencroft and the landscaping for the whole site are rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and the Director of Legal Services, unless the owners secure such rehabilitation work by separate agreement;

D. THAT Council require that a Landscape Management agreement be registered to secure the on-going maintenance of the Greencroft landscape and on-going adherence to the landscape plan which forms part of Development Application DE404889, (draft agreement is on file with the City Clerk);

E. THAT the agreements be given priority over all other charges on title, except those already held by the City, to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services; and

F. THAT the Director of Legal Services bring forth the by-law to authorize the Heritage Revitalization Agreement and the by-law to designate Greencroft as protected heritage property.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A to F.

COUNCIL POLICY

· First Shaughnessy District Official Development Plan By-law: The intent of the FSODP is to "protect and preserve Shaughnessy's unique pre-1940 character."
· Heritage Policies and Guidelines: This policy requires that legal designation be a prerequisite to accepting certain bonuses and incentives.
· Transfer of Density Policy: This policy permits the transfer of density from donor sites with heritage buildings to receiver sites.
· Relevant Council Resolutions: On October 3, 2000, Council passed the following resolutions:

"A. THAT Council is prepared to consider a transfer of density to a location outside Shaughnessy from the heritage property at 3838 Cypress Street (Greencroft) following the normal procedures, including a staff report back on the specifics of the Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) proposal and ultimately the designation of the heritage building, as a pilot project to study the implications of the application of this policy generally for "A" registered buildings in the Shaughnessy area.
B. FURTHER THAT the Director of Current Planning be instructed to report back on the question of the general application of the transfer of density policy for "A" registered properties in the Shaughnessy area after further discussion with the community and further analysis of the concerns raised by community people or from the experience of the pilot project."

SUMMARY

Through their architect, a group of five owners have submitted a revised Development Application (DE404889) and a preliminary subdivision plan as a means to conserve this "A" listed Vancouver Heritage Register building. This report assesses those proposals and puts forward for Council approval the requisite Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) and designation by-laws.

The revised development application proposes to:

· rehabilitate the exterior of Greencroft and convert it into two dwelling units, which would ultimately be held under strata ownership, in a total of two strata lots;
· construct two infill one-family dwellings, for a total site density (including Greencroft) of 0.45 FSR; and
· transfer 29,000 sq.ft. of bonus density from First Shaughnessy to the Central Area.

The development application conforms to the First Shaughnessy Official Development Plan (FSODP) regulations, regarding development on a single site, with three exceptions, for which the FSODP provides discretion to the Director of Planning to relax:

· the number of infill dwellings;
· the height of the infill dwellings and the principal building; and
· the distance between the infill dwellings and the principal building.

The concurrent preliminary subdivision plan proposes to subdivide the land into three parcels, subject to the approval of the proposed form of development. Two of the three proposed parcels do not meet the minimum required parcel width and area and therefore, variance of Section 9.1 of the Subdivision By-law is requested. In addition, subdivision as proposed would create non-conformities with respect to the existing building when considered in the context of the centre parcel. As a result, variance of Section 9.9 is also requested.

The revised development application addresses the most frequently raised concerns expressed by neighbouring property owners regarding the initial application (February 2000), by:

· reducing the on-site density to conform to the zoning;
· eliminating two of the four proposed infill dwellings; and
· preserving and rehabilitating far more of the estate character of the landscaping.

Despite these revisions, it appears that many neighbours continue to be opposed to this revised scheme. They generally do not support the conservation approach which staff arerecommending, nor the required variances to the zoning and subdivision regulations. However, both the zoning and the Vancouver Charter have specific provisions to relax or vary the regulations to help offset the economic hardship incurred when conserving a heritage building. Also, the tangible impact on neighbouring properties has been mitigated.

The First Shaughnessy Advisory Design Panel, the Vancouver Heritage Commission and staff have concluded that the conservation approach outlined in this report is appropriate, the variances are supportable and further, that the project is compatible with the intent of the zoning.

Therefore, the Director of Current Planning, in consultation with the Subdivision Approving Officer, recommends that Council approve the HRA, designation by-law and legal agreements to:

· secure the prompt rehabilitation of the heritage building and landscaping;
· secure the long term protection, conservation and maintenance of the heritage building, new dwellings and landscaping;
· fix the form of development and restrict future alterations;
· make bonus density available for transfer out of First Shaughnessy; and
· vary the zoning and subdivision by-laws so the respective applications are approvable.

If Council approves the by-laws and legal agreements, the Director of Planning is inclined to support the development application with the conditions as generally described in this report and which address specific conservation and impact issues. Similarly, the Subdivision Approving Officer is inclined to grant preliminary subdivision approval.

PURPOSE

Through their architect, the five owners of Greencroft have submitted a revised Development Application, which proposes the retention and restoration of the "A" listed heritage building, and the associated consequential landscaping, and the construction of two infill one-family dwellings. A concurrent application to subdivide the site into three parcels, to facilitate the ownership and financing interests of the parties, has also been submitted. This report provides an assessment of the proposal and recommends that Council authorize the necessary variances to the First Shaughnessy Official Development Plan (FSODP) and the Subdivision By-law and also approve a transfer of bonus density out of First Shaughnessy, in order that this development can proceed. A site location map, a description of the revised development application, a site plan and selected drawings are contained in Appendix A.

HERITAGE VALUE OF GREENCROFT

The large house on this estate in First Shaughnessy was built by Hugh McLean in 1912 and purchased by Eric Hamber, who named it Greencroft, in 1913. Hamber was Lieutenant Governor of BC from 1936 - 1941. The architect is unknown. The house has a massive hipped roof (rising to over 50 feet in height) with large hipped dormers, a distinctive two storey turret with a steep conical roof, a porte cochère and large ballroom (latterly a sunroom) addition (by Ross Lort dating from 1936). It has a stucco-clad main floor with banded wood shingle cladding on the upper floor and iron eave brackets. The house is of an eclectic mix of styles with predominant English Arts and Crafts elements as well as some Tudor Revival and Gothic Revival detailing. Arts and Crafts elements are found in the stucco cladding, tapered porte cochère columns, curved bay elements and iron eave brackets. There is a circular drive from Cypress Street, and remnants of a formal landscape design (stone well, colonnade), dense perimeter landscaping and a low stucco wall with a wooden fence along the perimeter. Archival photos are included as Appendixes B and C.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

Under the terms of the Vancouver Charter, the only means for the City, acting unilaterally, to legally protect a heritage building is through designation. It has not been Council practice to impose designation, as that requires the City pay compensation for the resulting loss in market value. The challenge has been, therefore, to find an economically viable way to preserve heritage buildings while meeting both heritage conservation, zoning, community and the applicant's objectives.

In the case of properties in First Shaughnessy, Section 1.5 of the FSODP anticipates this situation by allowing the Director of Planning to relax any provision of the FSODP where "literal enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship in carrying out any preservation, restoration and renovation" of a building on any heritage register adopted by Council.

The provisions of the Vancouver Charter related to Heritage Revitalization Agreements (HRAs) permit Council to vary any land use by-law to help revitalize a heritage resource. An HRA also provides legal protection and can secure other interests.

INITIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

In February 2000, Robert G. Lemon Architecture & Preservation submitted Development Application DE404889, proposing to convert the "A" listed heritage building at 3838 Cypress Street into three dwelling units (one of which would be a family suite) and to construct four infill one-family dwellings around the heritage building, for a total site density 0.566 Floor Space Ratio (FSR).

Both the First Shaughnessy Advisory Design Panel and the Vancouver Heritage Commission supported the proposed scheme. When the surrounding property owners were notified of theproposal, however, a significant level of concern was raised about the amount of density proposed on the site, and the resulting perceived erosion of the site's estate character.

After extensive additional consultation with affected property owners, the Director of Planning advised the applicant that he would not support the application as submitted. Discussions seeking alternative opportunities to retain the heritage building were held between the applicant, staff and affected neighbours. Those discussions resulted in a report to Council, dated August 25, 2000, recommending an amendment to the City's Transfer of Density policy to include the First Shaughnessy District in the areas to which the policy applies.

On October 3, 2000, Council resolved that it was prepared to consider a transfer of density from the Greencroft site to a site outside of First Shaughnessy, as a "pilot project" to study the implications of such a policy. Staff are to report back on the specifics of an HRA and ultimately, the designation of the heritage building. In addition, Council requested that the Director of Current Planning report back on the question of the general application of the transfer of density policy for "A" registered properties, after the pilot is in place and has been evaluated.

CURRENT REVISED PROPOSAL

Revised drawings submitted December 18, 2000, propose the following:

Building Conservation

Greencroft is proposed to be preserved and rehabilitated as a three-unit multiple conversion dwelling (one unit would be a family suite). The applicant has subsequently revised their submission to a two-unit multiple conversion dwelling by eliminating the proposed family suite. Access to the two units will be via the original porte cochère and front door on the west elevation. The existing basement will be converted to a six-car parking garage, in addition to mechanical and storage space. A new passenger lift will connect the basement parking through to the attic level and will be shared by both units.

The majority of the principal rooms (featuring original wood panelling, fireplaces, plaster work and decorative detailing) and the main stairwell, will be preserved and restored. The ballroom (sunroom) addition on the south side of the building will be removed, along with a small conservatory, and the south elevation will be restored to a state closer to its original appearance. A kitchen addition on the north side of the building, which is also not original, will be removed.

Although the exterior will be fully restored, some changes are planned. These include:
· the reconstruction of an approximation of the original south porch element (to replace the ballroom and conservatory);
· the addition of several "bullseye" dormers in the turret roof element;
· the addition of new dormers on the east and south sides of the building in the attic level; and
· the addition of a small roof deck on the north face of the roof, with access from the existing roof dormer.

Landscaping Conservation

Much of the landscaping was neglected by the previous owner and is in poor condition, however, ruins and fragments of the Greencroft gardens still exist. The overgrown perimeter plantings, broken garden elements and remaining ornamental plant material all hold promise. The landscape architect proposes to use the garden as a unifying element - creating the appearance of a single estate. The design draws upon the existing design vocabulary to inspire the final design and restores the following historic landscape features:

· the boxwood hedging, perimeter wall and perimeter planters;
· the urns, ornamental planters and benches;
· the wood arbors and gazebo; and
· the wishing well and water fountain.

The plan also preserves and restores the primary relationships of the estate with the street: the formal semi-circular Cypress Street driveway accessing the porte cochère; the axial vista of the colonnade, water feature and south porch (see historic photo Appendix C); and the gazebo.

With respect to specimen tree conservation, the revised landscape plans indicate the following:

· 40 specimen trees are to be retained (in addition to a significant number of non-specimen plants);
· 15 specimen trees are to be removed (2 are in very poor condition and 13 are displaced by new construction; and
· 78 new specimen trees are to be planted.

The 13 healthy trees to be removed are all located at the rear of the site and currently provide screening for/from the neighbouring property. The new plantings proposed for that area have been selected and located to provide an even denser screen, to ensure privacy for both the residents of the neighbouring property and the residents of the north infill dwelling.

New Construction

The revised development application proposes two infill one-family dwellings, both located at the rear of the site. The floor area of each infill dwelling is approximately 279 m² (3,000 sq. ft.), which is the maximum permitted in the FSODP. The design of the infill dwellings is intended to minimize their scale. The hipped roof shapes are derived from Greencroft, but are softened with a flared eave to reduce the bulk of the roof form and bring the eave line closer to the ground, reinforcing the storey-and-a-half appearance of the buildings.

Transfer of Density

The original development proposal for the Greencroft site requested 415 m² (4,473 sq.ft.) of density bonus to be used on-site in a third and fourth infill unit. In response to Council's support for considering Greencroft as a transfer of density pilot project, the applicant has reduced the number of infill dwellings from four to two and requested that all of the remaining bonus density be transferred out of First Shaughnessy. This would enable the on-site FSR to conform to the maximum permitted (0.45 FSR) under the FSODP, which is the density that new developments typically achieve. Staff in Real Estate Services have determined that the value of this bonus density, taken together with the carrying costs of the project during the transfer of density policy process (last July through October) equals to approximately 528 m² (5,690 sq.ft.) of density if used in First Shaughnessy. Because the bonus is to be transferred outside the area, this amount translates to approximately 2 694 m² (29,000 sq.ft.) of density if sold in the current downtown market.

Subdivision

The subdivision proposal as submitted seeks approval to create three parcels - one each for the infill dwellings and a large central parcel to contain Greencroft, which would subsequently be the subject of an application to convert to a two-unit strata title ownership.

ZONING RELAXATIONS REQUESTED

The following table lists the regulations which the Director of Planning would be required to relax (as allowed for in the FSODP), in order to approve the revised application:

	ALLOWANCES under FSODP*	PROPOSED
Max. number of infill dwellings	1	2
Minimum setback between infill dwelling and principal building	9 m (29.53 ft.)	south infill = approx. 8.6 m (28.40 ft.) north infill = approx. 6.8 m (22.27 ft.)
Max. height for infill dwelling	7.6 m (24.93 ft.)	south infill = approx. 8.9 m (29.11 ft.) north infill = approx. 8.6 m (28.12 ft.)
Max. height for principal bldg.	10.7 m (35.10 ft.)	Greencroft = approx.15.9 m (52.18 ft.) This is an existing, unaltered, non-conformity

+ The HRA will not be used for the relaxations of regulations beyond the provisions of the ODP.

The HRA is necessary to authorize the transfer of density outside of the FSD.
Number of Infill Dwellings: The site is large enough to qualify for one infill dwelling unit, but not the two requested. The infill dwelling unit calculation in the FSODP is based on a combination of the site area and the floor area of the heritage building. Given the substantial size of the Greencroft mansion, the site is approximately 9% smaller than the size necessary to qualify for a second infill dwelling.

Distance Between Buildings: This relaxation request is a result of the relatively limited side yards that exist on either side of Greencroft. Further, the distance between the south infill dwelling and Greencroft would be further diminished if staff's recommendation that the south porch on Greencroft be enlarged, is approved.

Height: The height of the infill dwellings shown on the original four-infill proposal, conformed to the FSODP infill height limit of 7.6 m (24.93 ft.). The applicant was subsequently encouraged to raise the roof peaks by approximately 0.6 m (2.0 ft.) by the Vancouver Heritage Commission, in order to create a steeper roof pitch more in keeping with the very prominent roof on Greencroft. Height figures have also been increased by an additional foot and two feet on the south and north infill dwellings respectively, because staff revised their approach for this technical calculation.

SUBDIVISION VARIANCES REQUESTED

With respect to the preliminary subdivision proposal, two of the three parcels proposed do not comply with the minimum parcel size standards prescribed in the Subdivision By-law. In addition, Greencroft would not comply with several aspects of the FSODP when taken in the context of the centre parcel that is proposed. As a result, variance of Section 9.9 is also required. The following table summarizes the parcel size variances that would be required.

	MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE PERMITTED	MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE PROPOSED
Proposed north (infill) parcel	30.48 m (100.00 ft.) width 1 207.70 m2 (13,000.00 sq. ft.) area	14.81 m (48.60 ft.) width 865.08 m2 (9,312.00 sq. ft.) area
Proposed south (infill) parcel	as above	21.94 m (72.00 ft.) width 1 062.87 m2 (11,441.00 sq. ft.) area

It is important to note, however, that the actual HRA, if approved, will authorize a different set of variances, even though the form of development is identical. This is because the subdivision plan, if approved, would be registered in advance of issuance of the development permit. Staff believe that it is imperative that the HRA deliver the zoning by-law variances required by the subdivision (assuming that Council approves the variances to the Subdivision By-law) in order to provide clarity to future owners, financiers and City staff who will be dealing with this site in the years to come. Therefore, the HRA before Council has been drafted to anticipate the subdivision registration, as previous HRAs have done. Appendix D, describes the three buildings in the context of the three separate legal parcels and sets out the specific variances required on that basis.

ADVICE OF ADVISORY GROUPS AND COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

The Vancouver Heritage Commission and the First Shaughnessy Advisory Design Panel are both satisfied that the level of conservation proposed in this project is acceptable, the form of development is compatible with the character of the area and the incentives are supportable. For detailed committee resolutions and a summary of public comments, see Appendix E.

ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSAL, THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND THE PUBLIC'S COMMENTS

Public feedback received in response to this and the earlier submission indicates that it is clear that all parties, including the neighbourhood, advisory bodies, applicant and staff, share the vision that First Shaughnessy is a significant character area and further, that the estate and heritage character should be preserved. Furthermore there is general agreement that efforts should be made to preserve the area's important heritage buildings, such as Greencroft.

The Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners' Association (SHPOA) and many neighbouring property owners have advised that the revised proposal is deficient in a number of areas. These are discussed below.

Level of Building Conservation

Many neighbours have been critical of the proposal to remove the south facing ballroom (sunroom) from Greencroft. Although not original, staff acknowledge that it has important historic value, because it was added (c. 1936) by the owner, Mr. Eric Hamber, to be used for entertaining his guests while executing his role as Lieutenant Governor of BC (1936 - 1941).

The revised development application proposal would result in Greencroft being returned to both an external footprint and an internal configuration that is closer to its original state. Reintroducing a porch on the south elevation, albeit slightly smaller than the original, would contribute a significant strengthening of the overall architectural character of Greencroft. The trade-off, of course, is the loss of an important layer of history, in exchange for moving closer to the original architectural character.

It is consistent with accepted heritage practices and principles to either retain or remove the ballroom (with sensitive restoration to the original or near original form), having regard to the practical parameters for adaptive re-use. Moreover, the introduction of a porch element reminiscent of the original structure, also has heritage conservation value. The applicant has determined that the retention of the ballroom encumbers the adaptive re-use of the estate with a very large floor area that is both awkward to access and use and which would contribute little economic return to the project. The construction of a reminiscent element in its place is not viable as it denies the potential to build the infill unit that is essential to the economics of the conservation strategy.

Accordingly, the approach to remove the ballroom and restore the area as close as possible to its original state is supported by staff, but it is essential that it be very carefully completed.

Therefore, staff would recommend as an amendment to the development application, the enlargement of the proposed south porch, to bring it closer to its original depth.

The conservation approach for the whole of Greencroft achieves the following important criteria:
· the vast majority of the original exterior building fabric and many heritage interiors will be retained and restored;
· all character defining elements of the original Greencroft will be conserved and restored; and
· interventions to the exterior are kept to a minimum, sensitively handled and are necessary for the livability of the adjacent rooms.

The restored exterior of the house will be encompassed in the recommended Heritage Designation and Heritage Revitalization Agreement.

Landscape Conservation

The public has commented that there would be a loss of too many trees and, further, that the landscaping will not be maintained as common, estate-like, grounds, but following subdivision, will be divided into private areas with the use of fencing and hedging.

Staff support the overall concept of the landscaping plan, as it retains many of the historic aspects of the garden and will serve to knit the project together with the look of a single estate. The plan will retain and restore all the historic landscape features that are sufficiently intact to be restored. The plan will also preserve and restore the primary relationships between the estate and the street: the formal semi-circular Cypress Street driveway to front entrance; the axial vista of the colonnade, water feature and south porch (see historic photo Appendix C) and most important, the large continuous estate landscaping surrounding Greencroft on three sides.

Staff are, however, recommending restrictions, in the HRA, to:
a) limit the height of perimeter planting to six feet to ensure upper levels views of Greencroft from both Matthews Avenue and Cypress Street, in accordance with the First Shaughnessy Design Guidelines; and
b) prohibit the installation of fences or tall plantings to delineate the three properties to be created through the subdivision.

Relaxations to the FSODP

Many public respondents believe that development on the Greencroft site should comply with the strictest interpretation of the FSODP, with no contemplation of relaxations.

Staff note that the FSODP contemplates relaxations, such as those proposed, as an integral part of the provisions of the ODP, in the interests of heritage conservation. They are expressed in clause 1.5 of the ODP. The proposal does not include any zoning relaxations beyond those permissible in the ODP through discretion given to the Director of Planning.

1) Number of Infill Dwellings
Constructing a second infill dwelling is a preferred alternative to adding an additional dwelling unit and floorspace to Greencroft. The second infill scheme has several benefits for treatment of Greencroft itself:
· The conversion of Greencroft as proposed is the most logical adaptive re-use approach which maximizes the retention of valuable heritage interiors and minimizes the amount of structural and circulation change needed within the building. Increasing the number of dwelling units in Greencroft beyond what is proposed would make circulation difficult and compete with the existing interior layout.
· The appearance of Greencroft as a one-family dwelling will be maintained and the unsympathetic kitchen addition will be removed to make way for the north infill dwelling;
· A second infill dwelling on a separate parcel, versus adding a fourth strata titled unit within Greencroft, greatly improves the economics of the project, thereby reducing the amount of bonus density generated for transfer.

To ensure that Greencroft remains prominent in a large continuous estate landscape setting, the applicant has located both infill dwellings to the rear of the site, in the most private and discreet areas.

Staff support the relaxation needed to provide the second infill dwelling on the basis that:
· the site is only marginally (about 9 %) smaller that what is required to support a second infill dwelling;
· the two infill dwellings are sensitively located and designed to minimize impacts on, and maximize retention of, the estate character of Greencroft and the site;
· this approach has conservation and economic benefits.

2) Building Height
The height relaxations for the infills are primarily needed to provide steeper roof pitches that are more in keeping with the character of buildings in the area. However, staff have recommended a condition to lower the entire north infill structure by 0.30 m (1.0 ft.) to make the structure less prominent on the site and to reduce privacy and view impacts on the neighbours to the east.

The design of the infill units also minimizes their scale. The hipped roof shapes of the infills are derived from that of Greencroft, but are softened with a flared eave to reduce the bulk of the roof form and bring the eave line closer to the ground, reinforcing a storey and a half appearance for the buildings.

3) Distance between buildings
The relaxations being requested pertain only to the distances between buildings on the Greencroft site. The yard requirements for buildings on the Greencroft site and adjoining properties will be met in accordance with the FSODP.

Staff support the relaxations needed to approve the siting of the two infill dwellings as proposed, on the basis that :
· the proposed infill dwellings have been sited in the rear yard of the property to minimize their impact on the heritage building; and
· the siting would preserve the views of the two main facades of Greencroft from both Cypress Street and Matthews Avenue, and provide the opportunity to create formal garden areas - based on the original layout - surrounding Greencroft.

Subdivision

Many public respondents believe the development of the Greencroft site should comply with the strictest interpretation of the Subdivision By-law.

Some respondents support all aspects of the proposal except subdivision. It has been commented that it will set a dangerous precedent and erode the estate character of the area, and, further, that fee simple ownership will not create the same collective responsibility that strata titling does for maintaining the heritage house and estate landscaping.

The owners advise that subdivision, as opposed to strata title ownership over the whole site, is a significant advantage to the property owners in terms of their ability to register separate construction financing "up front". Several strata title options were also explored, but none would allow for individual construction financing for the separate components of this project, and would therefore increase conservation costs accordingly.

Across the city, subdivision has been used as a tool to assist in the retention of important heritage resources. Often the resultant parcel configurations have been unusual, in order to respond to the siting of the heritage building. Greencroft is not unique in this regard. The Subdivision Approving Officer has indicated that he is inclined to support the subdivision as proposed, subject of course to Council's approval of the requisite HRA. Legal Services has provided advice confirming that despite the subdivision and separate ownership, maintenance of the landscaping as a common "estate" can be made a legal requirement.

One of the Housing Goals under Section 1.2 of the FSODP is "to limit further subdivision to protect the character of the area". However, the intent of the FSODP was to prevent subdivision opportunities which could result in the demolition of pre-1940 structures and weaken the estate image prevalent throughout much of Shaughnessy. The proposed subdivision will not erode the estate character of the area but will facilitate retention of the pre-1940s structure, because the proposed HRAfixes the form of development over the whole site as per the planned development, thereby nullifying the development freedom normally inherent in separate ownership.

The second concern raised is that subdivided ownership does not establish the shared responsibility for the upkeep and uniformity of the outdoor areas that goes with a conventional form of strata title ownership. To address this concern, staff have recommended that the following provisions be included in the HRA and registered agreements:
a) a Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP) must be required for any exterior alteration to any building or significant landscape features;
b) provision in the HRA for ongoing maintenance of all buildings; and
c) all owners must be jointly and severally responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the landscaping and for adhering to the landscape plan.

Failure to comply with HAP or HRA provisions allows the City to enforce remedies under the Heritage Conservation section of the Charter that are more punitive and expeditious than the City's standard enforcement by-laws. Staff believe the above set of measures provide reasonable assurance that the estate landscaping layout will be maintained.

Transfer of Density

There were various opinions submitted by the public on this topic. Some respondents believe that transferring more density away from Greencroft would be desirable, thereby leaving only a one-family dwelling on the site, which in their mind, is more compatible with the FSODP. Others indicated that they are concerned that opening up such additional opportunities within First Shaughnessy would only encourage further development.

The owners maintain that moving density downtown and eliminating both proposed infill dwellings, would make their project unfeasible. In addition, staff feel it is not equitable to burden the downtown community with more density from a distant neighbourhood, than is absolutely necessary, particularly when the density in the two-infill scheme is approvable under the discretionary provisions of the ODP.

Staff advise that the amount of the heritage density bonus to be transferred away from the Greencroft site has been derived from the cost of the financial hardship of preserving the heritage building. The previous development proposal called for the density bonus to be used on site in the third and fourth infill units. Staff in Real Estate Services have determined that the value of this bonus density, taken together with the carrying costs of the project during the transfer of density policy process (last July through October) equals to approximately 528 m² (5,690 sq.ft.) of density if used in First Shaughnessy. While Council transfer of density policy permits transfer ofdensity within First Shaughnessy, the recommended HRA has been explicidely drafted to prohibit transfer within First Shaunessy in responce to strong nieghbourhood concerns. Because the bonus is to be transferred outside the area, this amount translates to approximately 2 694 m² (29,000 sq.ft.) of density if sold in the current downtown market. Real Estate Services staff have reviewed the applicant's financial analysis and conducted their own independent analysis. The Director of Real Estate Services advises that the proposed development, including the proposed subdivision and zoning by-law variances and transferable bonus density, would in no way provide the owners with an excessive developers' profit.

Council instructed staff to report back on the question of a general application of the transfer of density policy for "A" listed properties in First Shaughnessy, using this project as a pilot. Staff advise that the report back will be scheduled in reference to the following:
a) after this project has been constructed and evaluated; and
b) after CityPlan Visioning, scheduled to begin in late 2002, is complete.

The Visioning process, scheduled to be completed in 2004, is likely to provide the neighbourhood, staff and Council some general direction on the preferred range of heritage conservation tools and incentives for the area. If the concept of transfer of density is deemed worth pursuing, policy development could then proceed.

Staff also advise that if the City is approached in the interim with a development proposal to transfer density from a First Shaughnessy "A" listed site, staff will immediately report it to Council for direction.

Overlook and Privacy Issues

The public expressed concern that there would be a loss of privacy by the occupants of the "coach house" on the abutting site to the east, given the proximity of the north infill unit.

Staff are proposing two development application conditions that would address this issue by requiring the proposed north infill unit to be lowered by one foot and the landscape plan to be amended to address privacy and view issues between the two neighbours.

Compatibility of the (revised) proposal with the Intent of the Zoning

Many public respondents believe that development on the Greencroft site should comply with the strictest interpretation of the FSODP, with no contemplation of relaxations. Staff note that the relaxations that are being requested, are accommodated in the discretions allowed in the ODP.

The proposal meets the overall intent of the FSODP in that it seeks to preserve and restore the pre-1940 building, as well as significant aspects of the existing estate character and landscape.

Greencroft will be returned to a configuration close to its original plan and the two infill one-family dwellings are proposed to be sited to the rear of the site so as to decrease their impact on the heritage building. This form of development enables Greencroft to be restored in a sensitive manner, without inappropriate additions, while allowing additional floor area and units, which result in retention and restoration being economically viable.

The two infill buildings are designed and detailed in a sensitive manner and, while requiring a modest height relaxations, are still clearly secondary in character to the principal building.

Access to Greencroft and the north infill dwelling will be provided from the existing main driveway on Cypress Street, with one additional crossing and driveway at the southeast corner of the site providing access to the south infill dwelling from Matthews Avenue. As a result, the sense of the existing building being surrounded by landscaping is largely retained. Adequate parking is provided on site, with all but two spaces being underground.

Major sight lines to Greencroft from surrounding streets are preserved through the siting of the infill buildings to the rear of the site, and actual views of the building are improved through judicious reduction of some of the densely-hedged areas along Matthews and Cypress. The existing garden areas between the principal building and both streets are to be retained and restored in an appropriate manner.

While subdivision may be discouraged in First Shaughnessy, as noted in the Intent section of the FSODP, that intent is meant primarily to prevent subdivision opportunities which could result in the demolition of pre-1940 structures and weaken the estate image prevalent throughout much of Shaughnessy. The proposed subdivision of the Greencroft site is intended to accommodate the retention of the heritage building and merely reflects the ownership pattern of the planned development and the parties involved. All aspects of the development - the built form, materials, landscaping, maintenance, etc. - will be protected if Council approves the HRA and side agreements to be registered on title. Without this specific form of development and the relaxations of an HRA, the subdivision would not be contemplated.

Comments related to the broader issues affecting First Shaughnessy are itemized below. Staff's response to those comments follow in italics.
a) projects like this will lead to the loss of the neighbourhood's single family character and will have a negative effect on traffic.

The intent section of the FSODP identifies that First Shaughnessy is intended to remain a low-density residential area that is predominantly single-family in character, with specific provisions to allow some large pre-1940 houses to be redeveloped as multiple conversion dwellings with infills. Although the ODP has permitted this form of development since 1984, this is the first multiple conversion dwelling plus infill development in 13 years. This is in sharp contrast to the significant number of one-family dwellings being developed annually, 10 in 2000 alone. Staff believe the proposed unit density is supportable because it is under what the ODP permits for this site, the form of development has been configured to maximize the single-family estate character and the proposed four units will have a marginal impact on traffic given the predominant trend for new developments is in First Shaughnessy is for single-family dwellings.

b) additional development in First Shaughnessy will strain the `ancient' sewer system

The sanitary flow from most dwellings is minimal compared with the storm flow, therefore storm water runoff would be the main factor if capacity of the sewer mains became an issue. The Greencroft development would include onsite storm water retention systems to address this issue. On this basis, Engineering staff do not feel that sewer capacity of the existing system is a concern.

(c) the project, if approved, will set a dangerous precedent for First Shaughnessy

As stated above, the proposed form of development, while not often employed, has been available under the FSODP for almost two decades. HRAs, which are a relatively new tool to assist in furthering the goals of heritage conservation, are considered on case by case basis, each one requiring a public hearing and Council approval. A total of four HRAs have been considered and approved in First Shaughnessy since 1995. What differs in this instance, is the use of Greencroft as a pilot project for consideration of a Transfer of Density policy for First Shaughnessy -but no further projects will happen until a complete review has been undertaken.

LEGAL PROTECTION

Designation and HRA:

If approved, the draft HRA and designation by-law will:

· designate Greencroft thereby ensuring it is protected from demolition and unsympathetic alterations in the future;
· secure the long term protection, conservation and maintenance of the heritage building and new dwellings;
· fix the form of development and restrict future alterations to all buildings on the site;
· make requested bonus density available for transfer outside of First Shaughnessy; and
· vary the subdivision and zoning by-laws so the respective applications are approvable.

If Council supports the necessary variances, the owners are prepared to enter into the requisite HRA and have Greencroft designated as Protected Heritage Property. They agree that the proposed land use variances provide sufficient compensation for any loss in market value that may occur as a result of designation and they are prepared to waive any future claim to compensation. Notification requirements as stipulated under the Charter have been met.

Rehabilitation Covenant

If Recommendation C is approved, the agreement to be registered will:
· require the heritage building to remain occupied until construction begins to secure it from vandalism;
· prohibit occupancy of the two new infill dwellings until Greencroft and the landscaping are rehabilitated ; and
· prohibit transfer of the bonus density until Greencroft and the landscaping for the whole site are rehabilitated, unless the owners secure such rehabilitation work by separate agreement. This is typically achieved by the owners providing a letter of credit for the value of the bonus density to be transferred, plus 15%.

Heritage Landscape Covenant

If Recommendation D is approved , the agreement to be registered will make all owners jointly and severally responsible for on-going maintenance of the estate landscape and for compliance with the landscape plan. Failure to do so will permit the City to access the site, undertake the work and charge the owners for all expenses plus 15 %. The City has applied this approach to secure landscape maintenance on major rezoning projects such as the Arbutus Gardens.

CONCLUSION

Staff support this proposed development scheme as an opportunity to revitalize an important Shaughnessy and Vancouver landmark. Staff believe that the end result will be a development which achieves the goals of the FSODP in virtually all aspects. The proposalalso addresses the challenge of conserving a large heritage house on a very large site, by converting it into viable units, and by locating two sensitively designed infill dwellings at the rear of the site. This conservation approach preserves both the exterior and interior fabric of the original Greencroft and retains its prominence in the estate landscape. Furthermore, staff have determined that, given the particulars of this site, the proposed zoning and subdivision variances and transferable density bonus are necessary and justified incentives to help off-set the cost of conservation and to mitigate the impacts on adjacent properties.

The Director of Current Planning recommends that Council support the requisite HRA, designation and registered agreements to ensure the long-term retention and protection of this "A" listed heritage building. It is also recommended that general application of the transfer of density policy for "A" listed properties in Shaughnessy be considered after City Plan Visioning for the area is complete and that any interim request to transfer of density be reported to Council at an early stage with an issues report.

- - - - -

APPENDIX A

Site Location and Development Application Information
The site has total area of 3 582.8 m² (38,565 sq.ft.) with a 73.84 m (242.27 ft.) Cypress Street frontage and a 48.98 m (160.7 ft.) Matthews Avenue frontage.
The revised application submission proposes a "conditional" use according to the Zoning and Development By-law and includes the following main components:
· the provision of one (1) additional driveway access at the southeast corner of the site, off Matthews Avenue.
· rehabilitation of the existing one-family dwelling, known as "Greencroft", to its pre-1929 floor area and its change of use to a multiple conversion dwelling containing two dwelling units, with a total floor area of approximately 11,200 square feet. The applicant has subsequently revised their submission to a two-unit multiple conversion dwelling by eliminating the proposed family suite. The overall height of this building will remain unaltered at approximately 52.18 feet. The basement level would be converted into parking for six cars, storage and mechanical space.
· the construction of two (2) infill one-family dwellings, at the east side of this site, as follows:

· The infill unit in the southeast corner of the site, approximately 2,998 square feet, with an attached two-car garage having vehicular access from Matthews Avenue, and approximately 29.11 feet in height; and
· The infill unit in the northeast corner of the site, approximately 2,996 square feet, with an underground two-car garage having vehicular access from the existing driveway on Cypress Street, and approximately 28.12 feet in height.

Map here (on file in City Clerk's Office)

Site Plan from Revised Application (on file in City Clerk's Office)

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

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

APPENDIX D

PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN and VARIANCES

Preliminary Subdivision Plan (on file in City Clerk's Office)

Subdivision By-law Variances
Variances will be required pursuant to section 9.1, to allow parcels having lesser widths and areas than minimums prescribed in Table 1 of Schedule A.

	Minimum Required	Proposed
Parcel Width Lot C (north)	30.480 m (100 ft.)	14.807 m (48.58 ft.)
Lot E (south)	30.480 m (100 ft.)	21.946 m (72.00 ft.)
Parcel Area Lot C (north)	1 207.70 m² (13,000 sq. ft.)	865.085 m² (9,312 sq. ft.)
Lot E (south)	1 207.70 m² (13,000 sq. ft.)	1 062.870 m² (11,441 sq. ft.)

Variances will also be required pursuant to section 9.9, as the existing building and proposed two new single family dwellings, following subdivision, will not conform to the following provisions of the First Shaughnessy Official Development Plan and Zoning and Development By-laws.

(i) First Shaughnessy Official Development Plan

Required minimums, permitted maximums and approximate proposed variations for the heritage house situate on the proposed middle parcel and for its conversion to a multiple conversion dwelling:

Required Minimum or Permitted Maximum

Proposed Variation

· height maximum · storeys maximum · side yard minimum depth · rear yard minimum depth · floor space ratio

10.7 m (35.10 ft) 2.5 4.50 m (14.76 ft) 10.70 m (35.10 ft) 0.45 FSR / 744.63 m² (8,015.40 ft²)

15.90 m (52.18 ft) 3 north: 2.64 m (8.65 ft) south: 3.35 m (11.00 ft) 10.06 m (33.00 ft) 0.46 FSR / 767.85 m² (8,265.30 ft²)

Required minimums, permitted maximums and approximate proposed variations for the north one-family dwelling as situate on the proposed north parcel:

	Required Minimum or Permitted Maximum	Proposed Variation
· rear yard minimum depth · side yard minimum depth	10.70 m (35.10 ft) 4.50 m (14.76 ft)	4.57 m (15.00 ft) south: 1.65 m (5.42 ft)

Required minimums, permitted maximums and approximate proposed variations for south one-family dwelling as situate on the proposed south parcel:

	Required Minimum or Permitted Maximum	Proposed Variation
· rear yard minimum depth	10.70 m (35.10 ft)	4.61 m (15.11 ft)
· side yard minimum depth	4.50 m (14.76 ft)	north: 2.29 m (7.50 ft)

(ii) Zoning and Development By-law

	Permitted Maximum	Proposed Variation
· Section 10.16.3: maximum height of fences or similar structures	1.9 m (6.23 ft)	2.74 m (9.02 ft.) (proposed arbour on the south parcel) 3.58 m (11.75 ft.) (gazebo on the north parcel)

APPENDIX E

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC and ADVISORY BODIES

Public Input: Given the level of neighbourhood concern, the standard development application notification for this project was augmented. A detailed notification letter and a City information booth provided the First Shaughnessy neighbourhood with a thorough understanding of the proposal, process, applicable policy and requested incentives. Of the 146 residents notified, 88 responses were received, 84 opposed and 4 in support.

The majority of objections centred on area-wide concerns, as follows:
· no deviations from the FSODP and Subdivision By-law should be permitted;
· destruction of portions of the house and the garden is not `heritage conservation' - heritage properties should be retained intact;
· approval will set a precedent for similar development and/or subdivision and/or Transfer of Density proposals;
· approval of projects like this will lead to the loss of single family character in the neighbourhood; and
· additional development will strain the `ancient' sewer system.

Specific concerns about the project itself are as follows:
· there is insufficient space between the buildings;
· there would be a loss of privacy by the coach house neighbour to the east;
· the applicant is being compensated too generously (infill + Transfer of Density);
· the project is too dense - there are too many buildings on site;
· some don't like the additional dormer or the addition of the row of `eye brow' windows in the roof; and
· some question how the City can ensure that Greencroft and the gardens will be restored.

Among the 84 letters of opposition, many were form letter responses. The eight objections laid out in the form letter are as follows:

· The negative effect on the character of the neighbourhood, on the streetscape and on traffic;
· The possible subdivision into irregular lots not meeting the minimum frontage and parcel size standards;
· The demolition of some portions of the building (e.g. the ballroom) built before 1940 by the Hambers, which are of historical and architectural significance;
· The removal of too many trees and shrubs;
· Heritage properties of significance should be preserved intact, including buildings, landscaping and topography;
· The City should adhere to the intent of the FSODP and the Subdivision By-law;
· The City should not reward people who violate the FSODP and the Subdivision By-laws by giving them transfers of density; and
· The project, if approved, will set a dangerous precedent for First Shaughnessy.

Vancouver Heritage Commission: On February 12, 2001 the Commission resolved:

THAT the Vancouver Heritage Commission is supportive of the proposed interventions to the historic house and gardens, although it regrets the intended demolition of Lieutenant-Governor Hamber's ballroom;

FURTHER THAT the Commission supports the proposal to allow a variance to the Subdivision By-law to subdivide the property into three parcels, conditional on the Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA):
(a) requiring the rehabilitation of the historic house to proceed before the construction of the new houses;
(b) stipulating that there be no additional development rights on any of the three properties; and
(c) controlling closely the kind of landscaping and changes to the exterior appearances of the houses that can be made in the future, so that all the components will continue to look like a single development;

FURTHER THAT approval is conditional on a 219 Covenant requiring that the rehabilitation of the historic building be complete and an occupancy permit granted, prior to occupancy permits being granted for the new building; and

FURTHER THAT the Commission is supportive of the zoning relaxations to height and building separations as presented, the siting of the three buildings as proposed, and the 29,000 sq.ft. transfer-of-density bonus.

First Shaughnessy Advisory Design Panel: February 1, 2001 Panel Comments:

1.0.1 Commendable project. Response to last meeting is great. Sensitive handling of site, great to see building protected and preserved. Different scheme, also excellent. Preserves estate legacy, very gracious in terms of buildings and landscape.

1.0.2 Removal of ballroom and restoration of south facade is good.

1.0.3 Lot lines don't correspond to landscape plans or model. Is subdivision really necessary? 4 strata-conversion units might be beneficial to preserving estate-like character and main house intact.

1.0.4 Units A & D - Massing of infills is good. Good way of dealing with automobiles, not too much driveway, no huge tunnels or drops. Too many divisions on infill windows. 6 X 9 inch divisions are appropriate for leaded windows, not wood. Either change to lead or reduce divisions. Shape and size of windows is good. Jog in driveway from Matthews St. looks nice from street. Turnaround for surface parking at A should be curved to indicate court rather than parking lot. Too much hard surface between unit A and main house. Planting could be reconsidered. Pots and trees could enhance gravel area behind unit A. Treliss seems to interrupt flow of unit A's side yard.

The panel would like to see more thought out detail here - competes with water element. More thinning at corner of Cypress St. and Matthews St. would be beneficial. Ensure enough screening between the east property line and neighbours.

1.0.5 Accessibility to landscape from unit B needs to be reconsidered. There needs to be access from main house to lawns. It is strange that largest unit should have no access to lawns and estate feel. Colour scheme is fine, with or without scrapings.

The panel is in support of the project with these issues addressed. Moved: Mamie, Seconded: Henry, Carried unanimously (Brent Scott & Sam Carter, although not present had previously indicated their support).

First Shaughnessy Advisory Design Panel: February 22, 2001 Meetings

Motion: The panel is in support of the proposal to subdivide the 3838 Cypress St. lot provided: Legal agreements are placed on title to restrict the subdivided parcels from being developed in any way other than the form of development that is approved and documented in the Heritage Revitalization Agreement; Adequate legal means are provided in the HRA to ensure the thorough and approved rehabilitation of the existing heritage house on the property; The landscape plan, which is to form part of the development permit for the project (the DP is in turn to be cross referenced to the HRA), is to show to any future owners of the newly created sub-divided parcels that hedging or fencing to delineate the new parcels is prohibited.

Moved: Robert, Second: Larry. Carried unanimously with one abstention

Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners' Association:

#1 SHPOA Motion of Wednesday, January 10, 2001 (later discussed at the February 10, 2001 Board meeting)

WHEREAS
Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners' Association supports the principle of preservation and protection of meritorious properties, and

WHEREAS
Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners' Association recognizes the value of and supports the First Shaughnessy Official Development Plan (By-law 5546) in:

· conserving and preserving pre-1940 homes in Shaughnessy;

· preserving the predominantly single family character of First Shaughnessy;
· preserving the heritage houses and gardens in First Shaughnessy;
· preserving the streetscape character of First Shaughnessy, and

WHEREAS

The Board of Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners' Association has sought and considered information about Transfer of Density and about Heritage Revitalization Agreements;

THEREFORE
Having discussed this matter, the Board has resolved:

THAT the pilot project at 3838 Cypress Street (Greencroft) should adhere strictly to the First Shaughnessy Official Development Plan (By-law 5546); and

THAT the pilot project restores the principal building to its pre-1940's architecture; and

THAT the pilot project restores and preserves the heritage gardens, and

THAT all future developments in First Shaughnessy of properties which are on the Vancouver Heritage Register adhere strictly to the First Shaughnessy Official Development Plan, with no relaxations of the number of infill units and of setbacks being permitted.

All were in favour of the Amended Motion / One abstention / CARRIED.

#2 SHPOA Motion of February 10, 2001
Again, it was suggested to reword the motion to read as follows:

WHEREAS
The First Shaughnessy Official Development Plan (By-law 5546) is a heritage protection by-law, and

WHEREAS
This Association fully supports this by-law, and

WHEREAS

This by-law protects First Shaughnessy heritage properties from inappropriate development and subdivision, and

WHEREAS

The Subdivision By-Law (By-law 5208) sets out a minimum parcel size for First Shaughnessy of 13,000 square feet, and a minimum street frontage of 100 feet, and

WHEREAS

The FSODP preserves the heritage character of First Shaughnessy District and permits orderly development by:
· allowing for the construction of infill buildings where subdivision is not permitted or impractical but the total property area is big enough to allow setting aside 10,000 square feet of area per infill building, and is
· establishing minimum setbacks between buildings and between buildings and lot lines;

THEREFORE

This board resolves that it support the First Shaughnessy Official Development Plan and the Sub Division Bylaws for First Shaughnessy.
All were in favour of Motion / One abstention / CARRIED

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver