POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE
Date: July 9, 2001
Author/Local: Heike Roth/871-6115
RTS No. 02183
CC File No. 4661
P&E: July 26, 2001
TO: |
Standing Committee on Planning and Environment |
FROM: |
Director of City Plans, the Director of the Housing Centre and the Director of Social Planning, in consultation with the Chief Building Official, the General Manager of Engineering Services, and the Director of Legal Services |
SUBJECT: |
Congregate Housing for Seniors |
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT the Director of Current Planning be instructed to make application to amend the Zoning and Development By-law, generally in accordance with Appendix A, to amend the definition of Special Needs Residential Facility - Congregate Housing to require common areas, support services, and design to accommodate seniors as they age, and that the application be referred to Public Hearing;
FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to prepare the necessary amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law for consideration at the Public Hearing; and
B. THAT, if approved at Public Hearing, the by-law be accompanied at the time of enactment by the Guidelines for Congregate Housing for Seniors, in accordance with Appendix B, and amendments to the Parking By-law, as outlined in Appendix C .
FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to bring forward the necessary amendments to the Parking By-law for enactment.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of the foregoing.
COUNCIL POLICY
In June 2000, Council instructed staff to undertake public consultation and report back on proposed amendments to the definition of congregate housing, parking standards for congregate housing, and draft guidelines regarding design and function of congregate housing for seniors.
Zoning and Development By-law No. 3575 defines congregate housing as follows:
"Special Needs Residential Facility - Congregate Housing, which means any facility that provides residential units for six or more persons aged fifty-five years or over who are not a family, where shared separate kitchen and dining areas are provided and where accommodation for a resident housekeeper may be provided."
In February, 1992, Council adopted Special Needs Residential Facility Guidelines to ensure that a special needs residential facility is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.
SUMMARY AND PURPOSE
Congregate housing is housing and a package of non-medical services for seniors. It typically includes individual residential units, large communal areas for dining, socializing, and activities, and services such as meals, housekeeping and recreation. The projects are designed to accommodate seniors as they age. There are currently eight congregate housing projects in Vancouver, and five proposals in the rezoning or development process.
In June 2000, Council considered a report on congregate housing, and its increasing importance due to an aging society, shifts in provincial funding, and increased development interest. The report noted the difficulties in making congregate housing affordable to low and modest income seniors, in the absence of government subsidy. Without funding support, the tension between affordability and livability remains a fundamental dilemma. Council wrote to the Province asking them to consider an expansion of the Shelter Allowance for Elderly Renters program, or other funding supports.
In the June 2000 report, staff proposed a revised definition of congregate housing, detailed the requirements of this use, and introduced a set of guidelines to clarify the City's expectations regarding key features of a livable residential environment that supports seniors as they age. Revisions to existing parking standards were also proposed. Council instructed staff to consult the public and report back.
The report and guidelines were sent out to approximately 50 organizations and individuals involved in or interested in supportive housing for seniors. This mailing was followed by a public open house, and a presentation to the Seniors Advisory Committee. Seventeen responses were received, from diverse respondents, including the Vancouver Richmond Health Board, the Urban Development Institute, Simon Fraser University - Gerontology Research Centre, seniors groups, architects, and housing groups. (Complete mailing and response list in Appendix D)
Most comments were in support of the proposed amendments and the guidelines, particularly with respect to ensuring livability and aging in place design. Affordability was the overarching concern. Many respondents commented on the difficulty of providing this housing option for lower income seniors, and suggested ways to increase affordability: through increased government support and cooperation, and/or through relaxations in the design guidelines and other City requirements. Additional concerns focussed on the definition of congregate housing as a Special Needs Residential Facility (SNRF), an institutional rather than a dwelling use, and issues such as conversion of rental housing to congregate housing, congregate housing in single family zones, and strata-titling. Further, there were many comments received about various aspects of the guidelines.
The purpose of the report is to share with Council the results of the public consultation, and to seek Council approval for a revised set of guidelines that respond to the public comments. Staff note that the proposed changes to the definition of congregate housing, and the proposed amendments to the Parking By-law remain unchanged from the June 2000 report.
DISCUSSION
a) Introduction
Congregate housing for seniors is evolving in response to a diverse, aging population. The guidelines and policy directions have been developed in the context of existing and proposed congregate housing projects. Further changes to the way congregate housing is developed and operated will occur, but what those changes will look like, and what their impact will be is not known at this time. For this reason, the guidelines will need to evolve as staff gain more experience with this use.
The following pages provide a discussion of affordability and related issues, the role of government, and the definition of congregate housing, as well as revisions to the guidelines and issues requiring monitoring.
b) Affordability
Affordability is an overarching concern. The June 2000 report to Council noted that congregate housing is typically not an affordable housing option, given the high cost of land, new construction, and staffing, as well as the lack of government funding which means all costs must be met by residents. A number of respondents raised this same point and commented on ways that affordability could be increased. Two general areas were discussed: increased government support and cooperation, and relaxations in the design guidelines and other City requirements. Suggestions ranged from FSR exclusions and changes to unit size and common space requirements to waiving permit and DCL fees. At the same time, most respondents noted that attempts to achieve affordability should not compromise livability and echoed the guidelines in the importance of aging in place design.
As with other City guidelines, the congregate housing guidelines focus on design and livability issues. Their primary purpose is to ensure that all congregate projects meet livability and aging in place design criteria, resulting in residential units and common areas that are livable and functional for seniors. Aging in place design means not only design details, but adequate space in the living and bathroom areas to accommodate the use of mobility aids (e.g. walkers) and to enable a support worker to assist a resident. While the guidelines apply to all congregate projects, high end and low end, their effect is to establish minimum standards that preclude the development of inadequate or inappropriate congregate housing.
The impetus for the guidelines is the concern that the lack of funding for congregate housing could lead to the development of unlivable and dysfunctional congregate housing for low and modest income seniors. In balancing the issues of livability and affordability, the staff approach has been to allow some flexibility for projects which demonstrate affordability, but not to support relaxations to the point where livability and usability are lost. The guidelines cannot replace the need for government funding, but will assist in the assessment of affordability/livability tradeoffs in individual projects. However, the basic aging in place design considerations required in congregate housing may mean that it is generally not viable
for low and modest income seniors, except in special circumstances, such as free land and charitable contributions, in the absence of senior government subsidies.
Staff note that work is currently underway at the provincial level and by the Vancouver/Richmond Health Board, toward promoting affordability. Initiatives include the Homes BC Supportive Housing program, a recent program which has funded 15 supportivehousing projects in the Province, release of policy reports and design discussions on supportive housing and, at the Health Board level, some funding for services within congregate or supportive housing projects.
c) Role of Government
The June 2000 report resulted in letters from the City to the Provincial Ministers responsible for health and housing, urging the Province to:
_ consider funding congregate housing for middle and lower income seniors;
_ pursue consumer protection initiatives; and
_ explore amendments to the B.C. Building Code to provide enhanced life-safety features.
As well as supporting Provincial and V/RHB involvement in funding congregate housing, some respondents identified actions the City could take. These included increased collaboration and coordination between the City, the Province and V/RHB; City waiving of DCLs, permit fees and property taxes; and City negotiation of a percentage of affordable units in all market projects.
City staff are currently participating in a review of the Province's supported housing program and City and V/RHB staff have agreed on the need to work jointly on any congregate projects the Health Board may intend to support with operating funding. Other opportunities to collaborate may present themselves. Staff do not agree with waiving development fees or property taxes for this use, based on equity with other land uses. Dedication of a percentage of units for lower income seniors, and restriction to rental tenure are approaches that the City has used in rezonings requesting significant increases in density. The City's standard policies for assisting non-market housing are available for congregate housing serving low and modest income seniors.
With respect to interim City-wide DCLs and CACs, these are typically applied to congregate housing projects. DCLs and CACs are not applied to social housing projects, but the definition generally excludes unsubsidized congregate housing. As part of the Financing Growth review, staff are currently reviewing how CAC and DCL policy might be applied to housing projects which are developed by non-profit groups and which provide some degree of affordability, but do not qualify under the present policy. This would include some congregate housing projects. It is possible that, for CACs, an in-kind contribution may be accepted, e.g. affordable congregate housing secured by a Housing Agreement.
d) Defining Congregate Housing as a SNRF
The proposed definition of congregate housing aims to better describe the congregate housing use as a form of supportive housing for seniors. One respondent agreed that the revised definition better describes the congregate housing use; two others noted concerns related to congregate housing being classified as an institutional use - Special Needs Residential Facility (SNRF), in the Zoning and Development By-law. They noted that because congregate housing is a housing option for independent seniors, the SNRF designation inappropriately links it with licensed residential facilities with higher levels of care. Congregate housing would likely be better designated as a dwelling use.
Staff agree that a review of the most appropriate land use category for congregate housing is needed, and that this should be done in the context of the overall SNRF classifications. Staff note that a full review of the SNRF classification system is warranted, since these classifications are now close to 15 years old. However, a full review would require significant staff time and is beyond current resources.
e) The Guidelines
In addition to the general comments related to affordability and livability, most respondents also had specific comments about various aspects of the guidelines. In general, most respondents were supportive of the direction of the guidelines, their focus on livability within the project, and compatibility with the surrounding land use. Some aspects of the guidelines received no comment at all, such as outdoor open space. Many of the comments were aimed at improving affordability by moderating the cost impact of the guidelines.
The following sections provide a discussion of the key topic areas covered. They are organized as follows: a summary of what the guideline currently states, comments received, and staff response.
i) Minimum Unit Size
Background: The guidelines note that the unit size and design should be suitable for people using mobility aids, and provide for aging in place. Dwelling units of at least 28 m² (300 sq.ft.) are needed to ensure that they are functionally usable, can accommodate the resident, and belongings, and provide adequate space for a support provider to assist the resident Comments: In general, most respondents felt that the minimum unit size of 28 m² (300 sq.ft.) was too small to accommodate the needs of an aging senior, but supported small units if they could ensure affordability. An additional concern was whether home support assistance could be effectively delivered in this small space. There was one comment that units as small as 200 sq.ft. should be allowed. Most respondents felt that units should include some kitchenfacilities to allow the senior to prepare beverages and snacks, regardless of the meal service provided.
Response: For now, staff recommend that no change be made to the suggested minimum unit size of 28 m². The guidelines already provide for smaller units if they can be shown to be functionally useable, and offer increased affordability. As experience with this use increases, the suitability of this guideline will become clearer, as will the suggestion for kitchen facilities in every unit (not required currently in the guidelines). Staff note that it is a considerable challenge to design a livable unit with an adequately sized bathroom and some storage space, within 28 m².
ii) Common Space Requirements
Background: The guidelines state that common areas should be adequately sized and designed to foster social interaction and activities, and to provide for visitors. Size standards for the dining and common lounge areas are included. With respect to common lounge space, the guidelines call for one large space as well as smaller common areas and single purpose rooms, and note that lounges should be provided on residential floors, especially where the units are small or where there are many units per floor.
Comments: A few respondents noted that the guidelines require too much common lounge space: it is expensive to provide, non-revenue producing, and not well used. Further, it was suggested that the requirement for lounges on residential floors should be optional where main floor lounge space is adequate. One respondent felt that the location of lounges is not as important as having a number of them, flexible in design with different functions suggested/provided, so they can serve seniors in a variety of ways: entertaining visitors, playing cards, having coffee, reading the paper, etc.
With respect to the dining room, a few people suggested that choice around dining options is very important, for example, restaurant style seating was more appropriate than timed sittings. These are operational choices and are outside the scope of the design guidelines. One person suggested that having two or three small dining rooms was more pleasant and less institutional than one large dining room.
Several respondents commented on the need for FSR exclusions. They felt that common space/non-revenue producing space should be excludable from FSR calculations, particularly where this would aid in the provision of affordable housing. This would be seen as an incentive on the part of the City to encourage developers to build this type of housing.
Response: Staff note that common space is necessary to fulfill the congregate aspects of successful congregate housing. It is part of the principal use, not an incidental amenity space.However, the guidelines have been revised to respond to these concerns. The guidelines now stipulate a total amount of common space to be provided, with less emphasis on where it is provided. With respect to the dining room, no changes to the guidelines are recommended, as they already provide for variations in size. Staff note that both of the two recently completed projects, serving lower to modest income seniors, were able to exceed the common space and dining room requirements.
As for FSR exclusions, since most congregate housing projects require rezoning, total FSR and how it is used is negotiated on an individual project basis, aided by a pro forma analysis. In this way, projects are assessed individually, and FSR is determined on a case by case basis. In this way, staff can include factors such as neighbourhood compatibility, affordability, and livability in their review. This approach is consistent with other uses that have large common spaces, such as SNRF - Community Care - Class B.
iii) Bulk Storage Space
Background: The guidelines currently note that all bulk storage space should be well lit, easy to access and have electrical outlets. It is desirable to provide it within the unit, where possible. The June 2000 report suggested that the FSR exclusion for bulk storage space that typically applies to multiple dwellings also apply to congregate housing.
Comments: Several people commented that bulk storage was a necessity for seniors - for large personal effects as well as the storage of mobility aids. They called for greater clarity and suggested that the exclusion be stated in the guidelines. It is interesting to note that one respondent felt that the bulk storage space exclusion be doubled, while one other respondent felt that bulk storage space was not needed and a useless expense.
Response: The guidelines and the amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law have been revised to include the FSR exclusion outlined in the past Council report. Further, a guideline has been included to provide for scooter storage and charging.
iv) Staffing for 24 Hour Emergency Response
Background: The June 2000 report notes that there is no category in the Building By-law specifically for the congregate housing use, which, from a fire and safety perspective, could be viewed as being in between institutional and residential, given the age and needs of the residents. To address this gap, congregate housing projects to date have been accepted under the residential classification, but with some additional enhancements, including an emergency call system that is monitored 24 hours a day by on-site staff, a fire safety plan, and having two or more fire compartments on the same floor to address the lesser mobilityof the typical congregate housing resident. The two recently completed developments have been able and willing to provide these enhancements.
Comments: Three respondents provided a range of comments on this topic. One person felt that there is a large group of seniors whose main need is to feel safe, and having a person on site at all times provides this feeling of security. This on-site person was seen as more important than meals or recreation programming, which were seen to be more appropriate for the higher support levels found in care facilities than in congregate housing. Two others felt that an emergency call system was adequate; having a person on site around the clock was very expensive, beyond what most providers of affordable projects can afford, and is not needed.
Response: The guideline requiring an emergency call system that is monitored 24 hours a day by on-site staff provides for some assistance in case of an emergency, given the advanced age of most of the residents in congregate housing. Staff envision that this monitoring function be undertaken by non-professional staff residing on site. Projects that currently provide this service tend to have resident managers who respond to emergency calls. Staff recommend proceeding with the guidelines as written, noting that the need for on-site staff for monitoring can be reassessed as experience with this use increases.
v) Parking Standards
Background: The proposed parking standards are based on net unit size. Congregate housing projects with small units and residents over age 65 could provide one space per four units; the larger units proposed in some recent applications would be required to provide more parking. Studies done in Vancouver have shown a strong correlation between unit size and vehicle ownership, and hence support a parking standard based on unit size. It should be noted that this standard determines the total number of parking spaces to be provided to meet the parking needs of the project's residents, visitors, volunteers and staff. Ensuring the provision of adequate parking will ease neighbourhood concerns about impacts.
Comments: Most respondents felt that the proposed parking standards were too high, as many seniors do not drive. Providing underground parking is very expensive, and significant savings could be achieved if the standards were lower, assisting in the development of affordable projects. One respondent noted that trading parking spaces for a greater amount of usable common space should be considered. Basing a parking standard on unit size did not seem valid to some respondents.
Response: Staff recommend proceeding with the parking by-law amendment plus
relaxations as described in the guidelines (Appendices B and C). Relaxations are already available for projects for low income or older seniors. As experience with this use increases, the suitability of the parking standards will become known.
As part of a study on disability parking standards, Council will be considering a revised standard for congregate housing, which would increase the number of parking spaces dedicated for the use of persons with a physical disability from the currently proposed one space per twenty to one space per fifteen. Should Council approve this direction, these guidelines will be revised accordingly.
F) Issues Requiring Monitoring
A number of issues identified in the June 2000 report were identified for monitoring. The following sections of the report are organized in the same manner as the section above.
i) Conversion of Rental to Congregate Housing
Background: The June 2000 report to Council noted concerns about the possible loss of rental capacity, particularly affordable rental, due to conversion of units to market congregate housing, some of which might be strata-titled.
Comments: A few respondents supported allowing conversion of seniors rental housing to seniors congregate housing, and viewing it as enhanced rental. They noted that these conversions may be necessary due to the increasing seniors population, and their desire for a range of housing options, especially options which are affordable.
Response: Staff note that congregate housing is not just enhanced rental housing; it is a different product serving a different need. The loss of rental housing remains a loss, even if it is converted to congregate housing, as both types of housing are needed. Staff will continue to monitor the interest in conversions, and impact on existing rental housing stock, and will seek replacement rental housing where possible.
ii) Congregate Housing in Single Family Zones
Background: While most current congregate housing projects are large (100 or more units), smaller projects in single family areas may become attractive as the market evolves. Staff concerns regarding the development of congregate housing projects in single family areas, within the parameters of the existing zoning, are focussed on two themes: how well the congregate housing projects fits into the neighbourhood, and how suitable the location is for seniors. The guidelines deal with latter, suitability of the location. To deal with theneighbourhood compatibility concerns, the June 2000 report proposed prohibiting lot consolidation in single family areas for the purpose of developing congregate housing, while still allowing it to be developed on existing large lots, and on lots consolidated as part of a rezoning.
Comments: Many comments were received on this direction. While all those responding agreed that congregate housing should be compatible with the character and streetscape of single family areas, they were generally opposed to the blanket prohibition approach recommended. Rather they suggested that in some cases, small or medium sized projects could be designed to fit into single family neighbourhoods, and therefore, each project should be evaluated on its own merit. Further, most respondents confirmed the importance of enabling seniors to remain in their neighbourhoods, with familiar surroundings, relationships and services, as long as proximity to transit, shops and services can be achieved. They noted that large portions of Vancouver have primarily single family dwellings, and high concentrations of seniors; in order for these seniors to age in their communities, opportunities for congregate housing should not be too restrictive.
Response: Staff agree with evaluating each individual project, and note that this is in keeping with the current zoning designation, which allows this use, conditionally, in most areas of the City. In addition, staff will continue to monitor the location of congregate housing projects.
iii) Strata-Titling of Congregate Housing Units
Background: The past report to Council noted concerns about the impacts of strata-titling and multiple ownership on the ongoing operation of congregate housing projects due to the lack of clarity regarding financial and legal relationships, and impacts related to real estate transactions. Further, the Province is working on consumer protection legislation related to supportive housing.
Comments: A few respondents provided a variety of comments regarding strata-titling. Most agreed with the concerns expressed above. In addition, one respondent added a concern about the additional cost of monthly payments which can be difficult for seniors on fixed incomes. Also mentioned was that living "under" a strata Council could curtail freedom. On the other hand, one respondent felt that strata-titled congregate housing units should be an option available to those seniors who do not wish to rent, noting that being able to own a unit is important to some people.
Response: Staff will continue to monitor tenure arrangements as projects are developed and occupied.
CONCLUSION
The comments received through the public consultation process have helped to refine the guidelines as well as confirm previous directions, and concerns. While the balance between affordability and livability formed the bulk of comments, many remarks focussed on the importance of choice to seniors, and the need to provide environments that foster independence. Staff will continue to monitor this use as it evolves to serve an increasing, diverse, aging population. Staff recommend that the application to amend the Zoning and Development By-law be referred to Public Hearing and that the application be approved.
* * * * *
APPENDIX A
Page 1 of 1
PROPOSED ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT BY-LAW AMENDMENTS
ZONING
SECTION 2 (DEFINITIONS)
2.0 Amend existing Special Needs Residential Facility (SNRF) - Congregate Housing definition, as follows;
"A building, containing residential units designed specifically to accommodate seniors as they age, with separate common areas for dining and socializing, and where support services are provided."
SECTION 10 (GENERAL REGULATIONS)
Add Section 10.32, as follows:
10.32 Congregate Housing for Seniors.
10.32.1 All residential units shall contain a three piece bathroom.
10.32.2 All congregate housing projects shall provide meal service and 24 hour on site emergency response assistance.
10.32.3 For the purposes of calculating FSR, common areas such as the communal dining room, and common areas on the main and residential floors are not excludable. Only common space provided in excess of what is required in the guidelines can be considered as an exclusion within the maximum 10 percent amenity exclusion.
APPENDIX B
Page 1 of 9
GUIDELINES FOR CONGREGATE HOUSING FOR SENIORS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Application and Intent
2. General Design Considerations
2.1 Neighbourhood Compatibility
2.2 Site Selection
2.3 Building Characteristics
2.4 Access
3. Internal Design and Facilities
3.1 Unit Size and Design
3.2 Common Areas
3.2.1 Dining Room and Kitchen
3.2.2 Common Lounges/Rooms
3.2.3 Laundry
3.2.4 Reception/Administration Areas
4. Bulk Storage
5. Circulation
6. Safety Features
7. Open Space
8. Parking and Loading
APPENDIX B
Page 2 of 9
1. APPLICATION AND INTENT
Congregate housing for seniors is housing in which there are individual residential units (which could be sleeping, housekeeping or dwelling units) and large common areas, including a large communal dining room and common areas for activities and socializing. It is designed to meet the needs of an elderly population, and to accommodate aging in place. It features a package of non-medical services, typically including meals, house-keeping, laundry and activities. It does not include medical care. The City recognizes that congregate housing is an important component of the continuum of housing choice for seniors, one which allows seniors to maintain and maximize their independence.
These guidelines are intended only for congregate housing for seniors projects. Where projects fall under the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act, these guidelines will not apply.
These guidelines are to be used in conjunction with a district schedule of the Zoning and Development By-law, and official development plan by-laws for development permit applications for congregate housing for seniors. They are intended to provide direction primarily related to the livability and usability of congregate housing for seniors. The guidelines address the issues of project location and siting, unit design and features, common space design, and safety features, to allow for aging in place. In zoning districts where design guidelines exist, these too should be consulted.
The guidelines are to assist applicants in their planning and design, and City staff in their evaluation. All applications should be accompanied by an operating plan, which should include, but may not be limited to information on details such as the following:
- anticipated resident profile (target market)
- proposed tenure of the units, i.e. rental, strata-title, or mix
- meals service
- other services provided on site
- how the common spaces will be used and programmed
- staffing, in particular, how 24 hour on-site emergency response will be achieved
APPENDIX B
Page 3 of 9
While there is room for variety and creativity in the design of the components of congregate housing for seniors, the total package should:
- support the dignity and independence of seniors, while providing the physical environment and services which maintain the quality of life for the senior, and allow for aging in place;
- promote a sense of community within the development; and
- be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.
The City, at its discretion, may consider exemptions in the application of guidelines when a Housing Agreement is entered into between the owner and the City where at least a portion of the units are restricted to occupancy by residents of low and modest incomes. Further, where at least a portion of the units are restricted to occupancy by residents 65 years of age or older, a parking relaxation may be considered.
2. GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 NEIGHBOURHOOD COMPATIBILITY
OBJECTIVE: Congregate housing for seniors should be compatible in density, scale, architectural character and operation with the surrounding neighbourhood.
a) Congregate housing projects should contribute to the objectives outlined in approved area plans and policies, and should enhance the overall character of the neighbourhood; and
b) Traffic impacts, parking demands, and servicing requirements should not adversely affect the surrounding neighbourhood.
2.2 SITE SELECTION
OBJECTIVE: Congregate housing should be located so that seniors can safely and
independently access needed services, facilities and activities outside the project.
a) Sites selected for congregate housing for seniors should have good access to public transit, shopping, and community services; and
b) The area surrounding the site should have a comfortable walking environment, e.g., sidewalks in good condition, crosswalks, walkways clearly marked and separated from vehicle traffic; areas with a steep slope should be avoided.
APPENDIX B
Page 4 of 9
2.3 BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
OBJECTIVE: Congregate housing should be designed to look, feel and function as a residential use for seniors of varying ages and abilities. The design should support aging in place without being institutional in appearance.
a) Aging in place design features should be incorporated throughout, such as wider doorways, wider hallways, handrails, appropriate door handles, lower window sills (to allow viewing when seated), lower light switches, raised electrical sockets, and appropriate washroom fixtures;
b) Natural light is important to the creation of suitable residential space; the project should be oriented to take advantage of direct sunlight;
c) Weather protection should be provided at all entrances;
d) The site and building design should take into consideration the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED); and
e) Site planning and building construction techniques should aim to ensure noise levels acceptable for a residential use.
2.4 ACCESS
OBJECTIVE: Congregate housing should be designed to provide safe and easy access to its residents and visitors.
a) Parking for persons with disabilities should be provided near the main entrance. When provided at grade, there should be a covered drop-off area;
b) Pedestrian access to the project should be safe, well lit, and designed to accommodate people with disabilities; and
c) Security lighting should be provided outside the building to illuminate pathways and access to the street.
3. INTERNAL DESIGN AND FACILITIES
3.1 UNIT SIZE AND DESIGN
OBJECTIVE: Residential unit size and design should provide for aging in place. Suitability for people using wheelchairs, walkers and other mobility aids should be demonstrated.
NOTE: Residential units of at least 28 m² (300 sq.ft.) are preferred but smaller units may be considered if they are functionally useable. Units must not be so tightly
APPENDIX B
Page 5 of 9
programmed that they can only be used in very restricted ways. Sleeping or housekeeping units may be provided if they include a three piece bathroom. Units which include cooking facilities must be of a suitable size to accommodate these facilities and an eating area.
a) The unit size and design should accommodate, as a minimum: a bed (not a Murphy bed or a sofa bed), a dresser, two chairs, desk, and space for personal furnishings;
b) The unit design should include closet space of adequate size to store clothing, including outerwear and seasonal wear, and miscellaneous household effects. Hanger rods and shelves should be adjustable. Adequate circulation space should be provided at the doors to permit access and manoeuvring. Bulk storage space within the unit is desirable (see Section 4 Bulk Storage Areas for details and FSR exclusions);
c) The unit should be of adequate size and design to allow for a support provider to enter the unit and carry out their work while the resident is in the unit;
d) The bathroom should be designed to accommodate mobility aids, and enable a support provider to assist the resident. Walls should be reinforced to allow for easy installation of grab bars;
e) Services should include jacks for TV cable, telephone, and emergency call system; and
f) Thermostats in individual rooms are encouraged.
3.2 COMMON AREAS
OBJECTIVE: Common areas should be designed to foster the social interaction and activities that are key to successful congregate housing for seniors. They should be adequately sized to allow residents to move around comfortably, engage in activities, and provide space for guests and visitors.
NOTE: 1) The operating plan submitted with the congregate housing proposal should include a plan for the use and function of all common areas, with attention to ease of access for residents.
2) Common space of 4.0 m² (43 sq.ft.) per unit is not excludable from FSR calculations; common space provided in excess of that amount is excludable to a maximum of total of 10 percent of the total building floor area.
APPENDIX B
Page 6 of 9
3.2.1 COMMON DINING ROOM AND KITCHEN
a) To accommodate one sitting of residents with mobility aids, and visitors, the size of the dining room should be 2 m² (21.5 sq. ft.) per unit. Requests for variation in this guideline should be accompanied by an operating plan, outlining the proposed meal services and demonstrating seating, access and circulation;
b) An area for the temporary storage/parking of walkers and other mobility aids should be provided in or near the dining room;
c) Fully wheelchair accessible washrooms should be located close to the dining room; and
d) The project should have an on-site kitchen, which could be shared in cases where congregate housing for seniors is part of a larger complex. The kitchen size and design should be in accordance with the Vancouver Health By-law.
3.2.2 COMMON LOUNGES/ROOMS
a) The project should provide at least 2 m² (21.5 sq. ft.) of common space per unit. One large space should be provided to accommodate large gatherings; it should be located on the same floor as the dining room. Smaller common areas and single purpose rooms should also be provided, such as a library or a billiards room, a computer room, a meeting room , a television room, a recreation room, and a chapel. Wherever possible, opportunities of linking indoor amenity areas with adjacent outdoor open space should be pursued;
b) Fully wheelchair accessible washrooms should be located near the activity areas. They may be shared with the dining area if located nearby;
c) Lounges should be provided on residential floors in projects with small units, or many units per floor. Lounges are best located near central circulation elements. They become more usable when they include a small kitchen, and built in storage space for games and crafts;
d) Where the residential floor includes sleeping units, the lounge space on that floor should be increased and common kitchen/eating areas should be provided; and
e) Lounges should have natural light.
3.2.3 LAUNDRY
a) Laundry facilities should be provided for the use of the residents. They can be either ensuite or in common laundry rooms;
b) Provision of lounge space adjacent to laundry facilities is desirable, as is locating at several locations in the building rather than at one central location; and
c) There should be manoeuvring space for people with mobility aids in front of washers and dryers, and a work surface to accommodate people both sitting and standing.
APPENDIX B
Page 7 of 9
3.2.4 RECEPTION/ADMINISTRATION
a) A waiting/rest area, with seating, should be provided near the main entrance. In larger projects, a reception function should also be located here;
b) Project design should include adequate space for staff providing 24 hour emergency response assistance; and
c) Consideration should be given to providing space for a health office, where residents can be seen by visiting health professionals.
4. BULK STORAGE AREAS
OBJECTIVE: To provide usable and accessible storage for large personal items.
NOTE: Residential bulk storage space can be excluded in the computation of the floor space ratio, as outlined in the District Schedules of the Zoning and Development By-law.
a) All bulk storage areas should be well lit, easy to access, and have electrical outlets. They should be configured to minimize reaching, lifting and bending;
b) When not provided within the unit, storage for large personal items and mobility aids should be available within the building. Access and security are improved when the storage space is provided on the same floor as the suites served; and
c) The provision of space for scooter storage and charging is encouraged. This is best provided in the suite, but an alternative place that allows for easy access by residents may also be acceptable.
5. CIRCULATION
OBJECTIVE: The congregate housing project should be designed to accommodate movement of individuals including those with mobility, visual and hearing impairments.
a) Hallways should be at least 1.5 m wide (5 ft.), to comfortably accommodate two-way pedestrian traffic, allowing for residents using mobility aids. They should be well lit with clearly marked exits;
b) Travel distances from residential units to amenities should not be overly long, and within a comfortable walking range for an elderly person;
c) The project should be designed so that the circulation system is separate from activity areas. For example, direct travel routes from the main entrance to the elevator should not cut through the dining room or other common areas; and
d) Elevators should be designed to accommodate people with various disabilities. Floor lighting is beneficial.
APPENDIX B
Page 8 of 9
6. SAFETY FEATURES
OBJECTIVE: The building's life safety systems should provide a safe environment for its residents, by taking into account the age of the residents and change over time in their mental and/or physical state.
Staff review will include, but may not be limited to, enhancements such as the following:
a) Provision of horizontal exiting by having two or more fire compartments within a floor area, to allow residents to remain on the floor in a safe compartment while awaiting evacuation assistance;
b) Provision of visual fire alarm signals in the units and the building, in addition to audible signals;
c) Provision of an emergency call system that is monitored 24 hours a day by on-site staff;
d) Provision of a fire safety plan that includes staff assistance to residents in case of emergency;
e) Provision of emergency power for a longer duration than a typical residential building;
f) Provision of adequate emergency lighting (100 lux); and
g) Provision of at least one elevator designed to fire fighters' specifications in buildings above three storeys, to assist with evacuation. Note: This will require installation of an emergency generator, as well as ongoing maintenance and monitoring.
7. OPEN SPACE
OBJECTIVE: On-site open space should be designed and of adequate size to provide a variety of outdoor activities and experiences for congregate housing residents.
a) Private open space for each unit is encouraged (balconies, patios). Where provided, it should be designed to maximize light into the unit;
b) Common outdoor space should be provided and designed for usability and safety/security, such as smooth walking surfaces with non-glare finishes, outdoor seating and rest areas. Approximately 25 percent of this space should be protected from sun, wind and rain. Wherever possible, outdoor common space should be provided adjacent to or immediately accessible from indoor common space;
c) On-site gardening using raised beds or other design accessible to people with limited mobility is encouraged; and
d) Existing trees and significant landscape features should be retained where possible. Landscaping should contribute to resident and pedestrian interest, and to screen and provide privacy for at-grade residential units.
APPENDIX B
Page 9 of 9
8. PARKING AND LOADING
OBJECTIVE: Parking should be designed to be safely and easily used by seniors. The number of parking spaces provided on-site should be adequate to serve residents and employees of the project, as well as visitors.
Note: Specific requirements for parking, passenger loading and bicycle parking are in the Parking By-law. In addition, the following guidelines recognize the special needs of an elderly population.
a) Five percent of off-street parking spaces but at least two spaces, whichever is greater, should be designated as parking for persons with disabilities;
b) The parking spaces should be designed to be of a width suitable for use by elderly residents. Small car spaces should be limited to 25 percent of total spaces but have standard car width. Reductions in aisle width may be considered in connection with widening spaces beyond the standard car width;
c) Where a bus or van is provided for outings, then a parking space for it should be provided in addition to the other requirements;
d) Electrical outlets should be provided in the Bicycle room to provide for scooter recharging; and
e) Relaxation of the off-street parking requirement may be considered in the following circumstances:
· where a Housing Agreement is in effect restricting a portion of the residents to being 65 years of age or older, or to being low and modest income renters; or
· where the project is located close to frequent public transit, shopping and community services.
Where a relaxation is supported, it should not be less than:
· 1 space per 4 units, where the unit is less than 70 m² in size; and
· 1 space per 100 m² (1,076 sq. ft.) where the unit is 70 m² (754+ sq. ft.) in size or greater.
Further relaxations may be considered where heritage preservation is a factor.
APPENDIX C
Page 1 of 1
PROPOSED PARKING BY-LAW AMENDMENTS
SECTION 4 - Off-Street Parking
Size of Residential Unit (Net)
Less than 50 m² |
1 space per 100 m² |
50 m² - 70 m² |
1 space per 70m² |
Over 70m² |
1 space per 70m² except that no more than
|
SECTION 5 - Loading
One standard loading space, and one additional standard loading space for every 200 residential units.
SECTION 6 - Bicycle Parking
Class A: Size of Residential Unit
Less than 50m² |
A minimum of 0.10 space for every residential unit |
50 m² and greater |
A minimum of 0.25 spaces for every residential unit |
Class B: No requirement.
SECTION 7 - Passenger Loading
Class A: A minimum of one space for any facility with 80 or more residential units up to a maximum of 159 units, a minimum of two spaces for any facility with 160 or more units up to a maximum of 199 units, and one additional space for any portion of each additional 80 units.
Class B: A minimum of one space for any facility with 15 or more residential units up to a maximum of 119 units, and a minimum of two spaces for any facility with 120 or more beds.
APPENDIX D
Page 1 of 2
MAILING LIST/COMMENTS RECEIVED
The following individuals, organizations and companies received a copy of the June 2000 report to Council and draft guidelines, and were invited to comment, in written form, by telephone, or by attending an Open House. Those who commented are noted by an asterisk *.
· Arbutus Manor *
· Crofton Manor
· Southview Terrace
· Chalmers Lodge
· Abbeyfield Houses of Vancouver Society
· Chinese Mennonite Church
· Columbus Charities *
· Concert Properties Ltd.
· Hearthstone Retirement Services
· Louis Brier Home and Hospital
· Architectural Institute of B.C.
· Urban Development Institute *
· Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association
· Senior Living Group
· Hywel Jones Architects
· Isaac-Renton Architects
· Neale, Staniskis, Doll Architects *
· Studio One Architecture
· Jan Timmer, Architect
· Saar Architecture
· KG Terriss Architects
· Rick Balfour *
· Duncan Elliott Appraisals
· Nora Stevenson
· Harry Kitzmann, Health Care Facility Consultant
· James Watzke & Christine Flegal, consultants on gerontology *
· Seniors' Housing Information Program *
· West End Seniors Network
· South Granville Seniors Friendship Centre
· Strathcona Adult Day Care Centre
· 411 Seniors Society
· Seniors Summit - Housing Working Group *
APPENDIX D
Page 2 of 2
· National Academy of Older Canadians Society
· Vancouver/Richmond Health Board *
· V/RHB Community Audiology Centre *
· Seniors Population Health Advisory Committee, Raven Song Community Health Centre *
· B.C. Housing
· Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors *
· Regional Director, Seniors' Health, Capital Health Region *
· Housing Policy Branch, Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security
· Gerontology Research Centre, SFU at Harbour Centre *
· Lower Mainland Network for Affordable Housing *
· Tenants' Rights Action Coalition *
· Special Advisory Committee on Seniors *
· Irma Matheson, Community Health Committee #6 *
· Margaret McPhee, Sunrise Community Population Health Advisory Committee *
APPENDIX E
Page 1 of 9
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
(On June 28, 2000, Congregate Housing Report and Guidelines)
1) Affordability
· it is a 'right' to have appropriate shelter, food, and heat to enable a healthy lifestyle, according to one's changing needs;
· affordability should not become a barrier to access, nor compromise the livability of the housing;
· congregate housing is not an affordable housing option for a majority of seniors, and current SAFER subsidies would not enable anyone below the poverty level to afford congregate housing;
· market appears to be meeting the needs of the high end user' it is the middle to low income senior that is not being served;
· report does not address the real problems of providing affordable housing to the large number of seniors in the lowest income brackets living in Vancouver; and
· guidelines are not, but should have been a source of encouragement to the development industry to build more affordable congregate housing units.
Suggested ways to deal with affordability issues include FSR exclusions, government involvement, changes to unit sizes, common space requirements, parking standards, and staffing. These are outlined in the following pages.
2) FSR Exclusions
· exclusion of common spaces from the FSR calculation should be considered where this will result in the provision of affordable congregate housing. A variation on this idea was suggested where the amount of the exclusion is linked to the degree of affordability;
· FSR exclusions should be ample as incentives to developers to build this type of housing, and demonstrate the City's willingness to assist developers in building affordable congregate housing units; and
· non-revenue producing components of projects should be excludable from FSR calculations, to help developers qualify for CMHC guarantee.
3) Increased government leadership and involvement
· options for addressing affordability in Congregate housing should be no different than options in other multi-family housing -- city should use the SNRF category and conditional approval nature of the use as a lever to negotiate some level of affordability in the projects, with a percentage of affordable units being dedicated;
APPENDIX E
Page 2 of 9
· City should waive DCLs and permit fees, as well as property taxes for affordable projects;
· City staff working on congregate housing projects should provide a written opinion of support or non-support for a project within 6 months of an initial rezoning inquiry;
· charities and municipalities adopt a creative approach to this issue; demand for this type of housing is increasing. Need to be realistic about availability of funds from other levels of gov't - it is not realistic to think that there will be any significant increase;
· staff need to become better informed about CMHC financing requirements and work with developer to meet Federal program requirements permitting a lower long term interest rate;
· governments should work together to make this type of housing affordable: City should continue discussions with the provincial government and local health region on their respective potential roles in closing the affordability gap; City should encourage the Province and the VRHB to increase funding or provide increased subsidies for seniors needing additional healthcare support so that they can remain in the community rather than multi-level care;
· Health Board should share in costs because CH will keep seniors out of facilities/hospital care;
· report should have recognized funding for seniors supportive housing projects in B.C. from the Province, through the New Homes Initiative; and
· closer working relationship between City and VRHB staff in assessing applications would result in improved projects.
4) Definition of Congregate Housing
· congregate housing should be viewed as another form of living independently, not unlike a house or an apartment, with services needed being brought in (like home support, home nursing). It is not an intermediate option between living independently and a care environment; it is just another way of living independently;
· should not be classified as a SNRF - gives the wrong message. Congregate housing is independent housing (with the same access to home support and home nursing services as others who live independently outside congregate housing), and designating it as a SNRF inappropriately lumps it with 24hr. licensed residential facilities;
APPENDIX E
Page 3 of 9
· not clear where staff think congregate housing fits in the overall supportive housing continuum - the guidelines seem to apply more to assisted living than congregate housing. In particular, the guideline related to 24 hr. onsite emergency assistance seems more appropriate for the higher support levels found in care than in congregate housing;
· should include words "self-contained" in the definition to close the loophole of having buildings qualify as congregate housing with SRO type rooms that are considered as residential units. Seeing as we establish the requirements for being self-contained in Section 10.32, we should reference it in the definition;
· congregate housing is not synonymous with congregate care, assisted living, and not all supportive seniors projects will be affected by the guidelines; and
· the report and guidelines call the people who live in congregate housing "residents" which suggests a care model; it would be better to call them tenants
5) Conversion of Rental to Congregate Housing
· conversions may be necessary due to the growing seniors population and the need for increased capacity of a number of housing options, especially affordable options; part of providing affordable options should include physical conversion of seniors rental housing to add enhanced design options, such as lounge space, dining spaces, and health offices. This should be viewed not as loss of rental capacity, but rather, as retention of rental capacity with enhancements that will increase opportunities for seniors to live independently; and
· guidelines should not discourage conversions by being too prescriptive.
6) Aging in place vs. aging in the community
· need to be clear that we mean aging in the community; aging in place would require health services which are not part of congregate housing; and
· congregate housing should have the built in capacity to accommodate changing needs of its residents - both the physical design and the service package must be designed to accommodate changing needs over time. For example, there should be a "health office" incorporated in each congregate housing project, so that health issues can be dealt with by visiting professionals; provision of services on an "a la carte" basis.
7) Congregate housing should not be disallowed in single family areas
· congregate housing projects must be compatible with the character and streetscape of existing single family areas;
· there may be cases where congregate housing should be allowed on single family sites, in single family areas,
APPENDIX E
Page 4 of 9
· small or medium sized congregate housing projects can be designed to fit into and be compatible with single family neighbourhoods;
· prohibition of all consolidation is not the right approach. Lot consolidation through a rezoning application process should be permitted;
· each project should be evaluated on its' own merit and whether it fits into the neighbourhood (scale and compatibility issues);
· South Vancouver and the Westside have primarily single family dwellings as well as high concentrations of seniors. In order for these seniors to age in place and remain in their communities, opportunities for congregate housing should not be too restrictive;
· congregate housing should be integrated into all residential areas throughout the city. It can assist seniors in remaining in their neighbourhoods if it is widely available. It is desirable for seniors to remain in their neighbourhood; the key is to preserve familiar surroundings, relationships, patterns, supports and services;
· Congregate housing projects should only be located in single-family areas if they can be located near transit, shops, services. Location is key - seniors want to stay in an area they know but they don't want to be stranded away from public amenities, services, transit.
8) Strata-title ownership of congregate housing units
· concern is about how to protect all congregate housing residents involved, like service provision where some units are owned and some are rented; and other short and long term operational, legal and financial issues; maybe a housing agreement or covenant could help to sort out responsibilities;
· should be allowed as a choice for seniors who do not wish to rent. The option of being able to own a unit is important for some people, and may result in folks moving in earlier and staying longer (if combined with remaining in the same neighbourhood and with close proximity to activities and services);
· concern about the high additional cost of monthly payments which can be difficult for seniors on a fixed income;
· living under a strata Council takes away one's freedom of independence and quality of life (unless one has high income in the household); and
· Provincial ministries are continuing work on resolving some of the concerns regarding consumer protection and security of tenure.
APPENDIX E
Page 5 of 9
9) Emergency Response Staffing
· require an emergency call system, but not 24 hr. monitoring - it is too expensive, and not needed. It should be left to the consumer to decide what level of emergency response assistance he requires. Operators generally contract out this service due to liability concerns. It is unfair to impose this requirement and corresponding risk on non-profit operators;
· in general, allow operators to keep staffing costs to a minimum - do not require 24 hour staffing;
· the guideline related to 24 hr. onsite emergency assistance seems more appropriate for the higher support levels found in care facilities than in congregate housing;
· there is a large group of seniors whose main need is to feel safe, yet they do not require the elaborate type of congregate housing described by the report and guidelines; they only need 24 hour on site staffing; and
· it is not clear that a person has to be on site 24 hours/day/7 days/week for emergency response assistance.
10) Residential Units
· if affordability can be achieved by having a 300 sq.ft. unit, then this unit size is supported. However, if the units are not targetted for lower income seniors, then the 300 sq.ft. suggested in the guidelines is too small. The minimum unit size for market congregate units falls in the range of 350 - 400 sq.ft. to meet the requirements of an aging senior;
· minimum unit size should not be reduced below 28m2; VRHB assert that the unit size must be adequate so that the home support work can function effectively while the resident is in the unit - units smaller than 28m2 would hinder the provision of home support;
· unit sizes must be relaxable for affordable projects; unit size should be permitted as low as 200 - 225 sq.ft. for a single occupant if there is a full meal plan in place, with a 3 ft. convenience counter with a bar fridge, bar sink, microwave and counter space;
· allow for a mix of unit sizes, starting at 200 sq.ft.;
· should all include some kitchen facilities, regardless of meal package;
· toilets should be off bedrooms if possible for safety during the night;
· unit size of 300 sq.ft. is assumed to be a typical bed-sit room. Perhaps there should be a statement of the minimum size for one bedroom units in the order of 40 sq.m. /425 sq.ft.
APPENDIX E
Page 6 of 9
11) Common space - General
· location of common spaces isn't as important as having a number of them, loosely designed and programmed so that they can serve a number of seniors in a number of ways;
· communal spaces should never be tucked away (at the end of halls), unless there is a reason that people have to go there (eg. laundry);
· amenity spaces should be of a size that minimizes the overall cost of the building. This common space is expensive to provide and only a very small % of it is used. Small cozy spaces are preferred to large open areas; and
· common areas should be designed with acoustics in mind, to allow communication; including assistive listening devices.
Lounges on Residential Floors -
· lounges are not needed on residential floors when adequate amount is provided on the main floor;
· requirement for lounges on all residential floors should be optional in projects where the developer has met or exceeded all other amenity space requirements;
· common spaces on residential floors generally aren't used. The location of the lounges isn't the key concern. What's more important than having them on residential floors is having spaces available to residents to use when they want to and for whatever purpose: entertaining visitors, a coffee and a snack with a visitor, or playing cards, reading the paper, or doing some work together. Lounges should be flexible in design, and different functions should be suggested/provided. Programming activities in common spaces helps get people to use them. However, common spaces that are socialization points should not be "over-designed". The more that is built into them the more task specific and single purpose they become. Think of them as stages where props can be set up and taken away. Communal needs change over time and across people. Designs that last are not prescriptive, they are open-ended. Consider the computer room - soon to be redundant with the advance of web TV. It is more important that buildings provide adequate cabling to each unit, not just for cable TV, but a backbone that enables integration and control of video, stereo, household appliances, lights, etc.
Main Floor Lounge Space -
· pay attention to demonstrated preferences of occupants in existing facilities and reduce the design requirements for large amenity spaces on the ground floor.
8 sq.ft. of main floor amenity space per resident is adequate.
APPENDIX E
Page 7 of 9
Dining Areas -
· dining room - size required in guidelines is prescriptive and could easily translate into an institutional formula. "Restaurant style" seating where the resident chooses the timing of dining is preferred, and suggests a more residential character;
· smaller dining rooms should be allowed if the operator plans on having 2 sittings for each meal; and
· in large projects, three 50 seat dining rooms are preferable to one 150 seat dining room; when 2 seatings are offered, they should be 1.5 hours apart to let people at the first sitting have a leisurely meal.
12) Parking requirements
· parking requirements are too high for seniors in congregate housing; after the age of 75, most seniors do not hold a driver's license or own a vehicle. Most low income seniors cannot afford a vehicle. Therefore off-street parking is not as essential as that required for non-senior housing - few people drive;
· parking requirements impedes affordability; significant savings could be achieved by relaxing the parking by-law, as providing underground parking is one of the most expensive building components, with each parking stall costing about $10,000 to $12,000;
· parking requirements should be based on number of units and not unit size - whether a senior lives in a 50 sq.m. or 65 sq.m. unit will not impact on the total number of cars they have or drive. Requirement should be 1 stall per 3 units , excluding a relaxation; and
· use money saved by providing less parking for common spaces -- faced with restricted budgets, housing providers would rather provide more usable and programmable space than half empty parking garages.
13) In-suite storage / exclusion
· bulk storage areas are needed for storage of walkers and other mobility aids;
· the 40 sq.ft. proposed is the standard exclusion for multiple dwellings, and should be available for congregate housing projects. For market projects, it should be increased to a minimum of 80 sq.ft.;
· if in-suite storage cannot be provided in the suite, it should be provided on the same floor as the suite, to improve access and security;
· the 40 sq.ft. exclusion described in the report should be in the guidelines;
· when not provided in the unit, clarify bulk storage exclusion. In some cases, the most efficient use of this space would be to allow the operator to offer bulk storage to the residents who really need it; and
APPENDIX E
Page 8 of 9
· delete bulk storage as a requirement - there is very low demand for this type of storage, and it is expensive to provide, even at the basement level.
14) Bicycle storage
· few congregate housing residents will be riding bicycles, and storage should be required only for staff and visitors. It could be easily provided in a covered area close to entrances (a bicycle storage room is not required);
· should be renamed scooter parking cause that's how it will be used; and
· a bicycle storage room would be better used for something which would benefit seniors directly, like additional bulk storage or larger in-unit storage.
15) Scooters and Wheelchairs
· scooter usage is increasing, and space for storage and charging should be provided, as this is needed on a regular basis. For market projects, this is best provided in the suite, but an alternative place that allows for easy access by residents would work.
16) Laundry
· it is desirable to incorporate laundry and associated social spaces on alternative floors of facilities that have a larger "footprint", but for those facilities that have a smaller core (like a high-rise building) this is neither recommended nor necessary because the walking distance to the laundry is not a factor; and
· in projects where laundry facilities are provided in the units, additional in-floor laundry facilities should not be required.
17) Miscellaneous
· sit down showers with hand held nozzles should be specified as frail seniors are more prone to fall in a bathtub than in a sit down shower;
· height of passenger loading should allow for clearance for HandiDart vehicles
· kitchen appliances should not require excessive bending or reaching for the senior;
· shared common computer rooms are good, and some suites should be designed to include a space in the suite for a personal computer;
· should be a building evaluation and rating system - make it voluntary;
· guidelines should say "access" to meal service;
· design should take into account the needs of visually and hearing impaired;
· planning, design and construction of congregate housing should aim to ensure acceptable noise levels and acoustics for residential use;
APPENDIX E
Page 9 of 9
· eliminate references to a looping circulation pattern; guideline should address orientation, natural light in the corridors, the creation of places along the corridor, the articulation of unit entrances;
· report has an assumption in it that all people will need different stages of housing and this isn't true;
· there should be a people manager in congregate housing, in additional to a building manager;
· concern about consumer protection from rent increases, and increases to the cost of the service package (not under Residential Tenancy Act);
· report bottom of Page. 6 - should be clear that SAFER is not income in the same way as OAS and GIS benefits;
· concern that the same guidelines cannot work well for the diversity of congregate housing proposals coming forward. e.g. the amount of common space needed for projects with small units and no kitchens is considerably greater than that required for "market-like condominiums";
· guidelines must be based on the principle that projects must have a "home-like", non-institutional atmosphere, both inside and out;
· concern that there is adequate flexibility in the interpretation of the proposed guidelines that will result in the best projects being designed and built for seniors;
· promoting independence is all about promoting inter-dependence. People are not independent, they mediate, reciprocate and control their inter-dependence;
· the guidelines don't, but should, provide for mechanisms for resident input into the management of the facility;
· location/site - 1st level consideration; type of building form, overall external design -2nd level consideration; internal design and operation/management - 3rd level consideration; and
· loading wording needs clarification - do you mean 1 standard loading space up to 199 residential units and one additional space from 200 - 400 units etc?
* * * * *