CITY OF VANCOUVER
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Planning Department
City Plans

M E M O R A N D U M March 11, 2002
TO:	Mayor and Council
COPY TO:	Judy Rogers, City Manager Syd Baxter, City Clerk Ann McAfee, Director of City Plans Larry Beasley, Director of Current Planning Brent MacGregor, Deputy City Manager Celeste Curran, Solicitor, Legal Services Mr. Chuck Brook, Brook Development Planning Inc. (Owners' Representative) Ms. Ann Roberts, KCC CityPlan Committee
FROM:	Trish French, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:	POSSIBLE FUTURE REZONINGS: 1402 and 1420 Kingsway and 4050 Knight Street

Background

A decision on the Director of City Plans' application to rezone the former Safeway site at Kingsway and Knight from C-2 to CD-1 has not yet been made by City Council. At referral, Council resolved that staff would consider a second, future rezoning to achieve the ultimate development potential on the site.

This memo describes alternative routes to a future rezoning, if the current rezoning is approved (or a restrictive covenant is placed on title, as described in a separate memo). This is for Council information, and requires no action at present. It has no bearing on the current rezoning decision.

There are two alternative approaches.

Alternative 1. Determine the ultimate development potential on the site.

Based on the KCC Community Vision and negotiations on previous development proposals, there are a range of options for the site. For example, there might be potential for height over 4 storeys, additional density to achieve public benefits, and different contributions towards a replacement branch library. The feasible developments and extend of public support for any of them is unknown at present.

There are two ways to determine the ultimate development potential on the site: an owner-initiated rezoning application, or a joint owner and City process leading to adopted site-specific rezoning policies. These are summarized below, with more detail in the Appendix.

1 A. A standard owner-initiated rezoning application.

Currently it takes an average of 9 months for rezonings from application to Public Hearing. The rezoning fee for a CD-1 would be $25,000, and the owner would have thecost of consultants and public consultation. Rezonings involve the applicant making one proposal, with staff and the public responding to it, the applicant revising etc.

1 B A joint owner and City process leading to Council-adopted, site-specific rezoning policies.
This is similar to what the City has done on sites in the Oakridge/Langara area, where adopted rezoning policies allow the sites to be sold on the basis of development potential, prior to a rezoning, which would be undertaken by the future owner. This route would take about 6 months (assuming neither party delays for some reason during the process). It would not involve a rezoning fee, but the owner would still have the cost of consultants, as he would in 1A. Various options would be created by the owner, with public consultation led by the City.

Alternative 2. Rezone the site back to a CD-1 similar to C-2, but without the problematic C-2 uses and densities

Such a CD-1 would include provision for residential/mixed use development; a maximum height of 4 or 5 storeys; densities as normally achievable under C-2, and guidelines rather than a specific form of development. It would include no significant additional height, density, CACs, or other public amenity such as the library branch.

The owner may want to ask Council to instruct the Director of City Plans to make application for this, based on the fact that the Director of City Plans initiated the current rezoning. If so, the request should be made by letter after the current zoning decision is made. It would be up to Council to decide whether to instruct the Director of City Plans to make application. If so, there would be no rezoning fee, and it would take approximately 3 months from application to Public Hearing, assuming Council instructs that there be no public consultation other than the usual rezoning notification.

If Council chose not to so instruct, the applicant could still apply for such a rezoning himself, in which case timing, fees etc would be similar to route 1A described above.

Conclusion

The owner may choose to pursue any of the routes discussed above. Option 1B, developing site-specific rezoning policies, has the best chance of resulting in increased development potential, while being shorter and less costly than an owner-initiated rezoning.

It is possible that the owner may choose not to proceed with any of these routes. If so, the pending Neighbourhood Centre Delivery Program would provide a "fall back" option. The Program, which will be forwarded for Council approval in the next few months, would address Vision Directions for the Kingsway and Knight shopping area and surrounding new housing. It would include a work item similar to 1B; however, the City would be responsible for the creation and testing of the development options, and the owner's involvement would be less.

I trust this provides Council with adequate information regarding possible future processes on this site.

Trish French
Senior Planner

TF/tf
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Possible Future Rezonings 1402 1420 Kingsway and 4050 Knight Street.wpd

Appendix

Two Options to Determine Ultimate Development Potential

For both of the options below, staff would provide a "rezoning framework" document that outlines the broad parameters of what the city would consider on the site, based on the KCC Community Vision Directions and previous negotiations on the site. Staff would also prepare a report to Council as soon as possible dealing with how Community Amenity Contributions on this site should be handled.

Option 1A: Owner-initiated Rezoning

In this option, the owner prepares a single proposal, makes a written inquiry to staff for initial response, prepares drawings and documentation, and files the rezoning application. The applicant is responsible for public consultation. Staff are responsible for standard processing: obtaining reviews from other departments; checking facts and proformas; negotiating with the applicant for revisions; writing the zoning conditions, referral report and recommendation; and arranging for the Public Hearing.

The rezoning fee for a CD-1 on this site would be about $25,000. Time from rezoning application to Public Hearing varies considerably, but 6 months would be a minimum, and about 9 months is the current average. There is also time and cost for the owner on the front end to develop the proposal. The product is an approved (or refused) rezoning, usually with substantial conditions that have to be met before it is enacted.

This process does not result in the exploration of options for the site-rather, the owner comes in with one proposal. Because the process works through response and reaction, it can be confrontational, which usually extends the time.

Option 1B Site-Specific Rezoning Policies

The owner, in consultation with staff, creates a number of initial options, does economic analyses, reviews with staff, and refines and packages the options for review. Staff are responsible for organizing and executing full public consultation; for obtaining input from other departments, and for reviewing the options. Based on the preferred option (or options), staff write a report to Council recommending adoption of site-specific rezoning policies that describe the uses, density, guidelines for the form of development (maximum height, etc), and CACs. Council formally adopts these policies as requirements for future rezoning, which is undertaken by a future owner intending to develop.

There is no rezoning fee. The owner is responsible for costs of his consultants developing the options. The City is responsible for public consultation costs. Time required could vary depending on how fast the owner wants to proceed, but assuming steady activity, an estimate from the time he starts developing options to Council approval of policies would be about 6 months.

Because this process involves reviewing options, which have identified trade-offs, and people can express preferences, there is less scope for confrontation and conflict to hold up the process.

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver