Agenda Index City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

Director of Current Planning

SUBJECT:

Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Designation - 1605 West 14th Avenue

 

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

Council's Heritage Policies and Guidelines state that buildings "identified in the Vancouver Heritage Register have heritage significance" and that "the City's long-term goal is to protect through voluntary designation as many resources on the Vancouver Heritage Register as possible."

Council's policy on heritage designation states, in part, that legal designation will be a prerequisite to accepting certain bonuses and incentives.

Purpose and Summary

A development application (Appendix B) proposing heritage retention and an eight-storey tower was received on November 26, 2001. Based on public feedback and staff review, the Director of Planning determined that the heritage retention and requested density bonus are supportable, but the proposed tower form is not. Staff are recommending that the City enter into an Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) that would prescribe a thinner and taller tower form (still within the outright height limit of 120 ft.) and an improved siting, thereby significantly mitigating impacts (see illustrations Appendix C). The HRA would authorize the requested floor space ratio increase from approximately 1.8 permitted to 2.57 in exchange for the rehabilitation and protection of the two "C"- listed buildings at 1605-1617 West 14th Avenue. If Council approves the HRA, the applicant will amend the developmentapplication, generally as depicted in Appendix C, to be more consistent with the RM-3 zoning in combination with the proposed HRA variances.

Figure 1: Site Map

DISCUSSION

Site and Zoning

The site is located at the north-west corner of West 14th Avenue and Fir Street, with the two heritage buildings facing West 14th Avenue. It is zoned RM-3 and is approximately 100 feet wide and 125 feet deep.

The intent of the RM-3 District Schedule is to

The outright FSR is determined by a formula which is primarily governed by lot size and site coverage. Typically, the width and depth of a tower is established by a complex vertical angle of daylight formula related to proximities to site boundaries. For example, the closer a tower is to a site boundary, the narrower it must be.

The net result is that outright RM-3 towers on corner lots of this size typically achieve:
· floor space ratios ranging from 1.7 to 1.9;
· 2,000 square foot floor plates (i.e. 37 feet wide by 54 feet deep); and
· 120 feet maximum height.

A number of siting opportunities exist for an outright high- rise building on corner lots. While most buildings are centered on the lot to maximize views and density, it is possible for buildings to be positioned to take advantage of site conditions, views, or sun angles. In addition to the vertical angle of daylight controls, corner sites of this size are also controlled by the following yard setback requirements: 20-foot front yard, 25-foot rear yard, 20-foot outside sideyard and 7-foot inside sideyard.

The design of outright towers is not reviewed through the approval process as there are no design guidelines nor landscape guidelines for RM-3 towers.

Heritage Value

The Granville Park Lawn Bowling Club (formerly Terminal City) and the civic park are located directly south and across the street from the subject site. Historically, this park was bordered along West 14th Avenue by modest, low-rise duplexes built in the 1920-40 era. These English Builder duplexes, with their stylized details and their front doors, porches and stairs opening out towards the street, created a pedestrian friendly scale and architectural interest.

These lands bordering the park have since undergone significant change with large apartment buildings replacing the early duplexes. The two heritage buildings at 1605-7 and 1615-1 West 14th Avenue are the only duplexes that remain on the West 14th park streetscape. They are good examples of English Builder duplexes from the late 1930's with their identicalmassing. Their centred gables over the front entrances and flanking shed dormers are typical of their builder origins (see Appendix A). Stylistic details include half-timbering, leaded glass and dentiled trim. As a pair, these two "C" Heritage Register Buildings reinforce each other and their relationship to the park evokes a memorable historic street scape experience.

Development Application (not recommended by staff in its current form)

The applicant has come forward with a development application to retain and relocate the two `C' listed heritage buildings towards the front of the site and to construct a new multiple family development at the rear (see Appendix B). The average unit size is two bedroom and 850 square feet to target couples and young families. The proposal includes 43 underground parking stalls serving the 29 units.

The total floor space ratio (FSR) requested, including the heritage bonus density, is 2.57. The bonus amount required to offset conservation costs equals the floorspace contained in the heritage houses. The remaining density available on site would be approximately 1.9 FSR which is at the upper limit of what could be achieved in an outright tower.

To help make the revitalization of this heritage site viable, the applicant has pursued a wide, eight- storey building form with a 3,225 sq. ft. floor plate. This lower and wider form creates a more efficient floor plate (ie. a higher net to gross ratio) than the typical RM-3 point tower and enables use of a cost saving steel floor and wall systems. This form also has an urban design advantage over a tall thin outright tower by the stepping down of building mass from the existing 10 storey tower, to the north across the lane, down to the open park across West 14th Avenue.

The challenge of this form of development has been to find measures to mitigate impacts created by the broad north facade on the neighbouring properties directly to the north. By orienting proposed units to the south, carving away at the building corners, and substituting hard surfaces with planting, staff feel the applicant has designed the building to perform as well as a building of this type can perform. Notwithstanding these efforts, staff's analysis, as described below, is that the resulting urban design impacts are not acceptable.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

As part of the development application review process, staff notified 236 surrounding households and held a subsequent open house co-hosted by the applicant. Sixteen written responses were received, all opposed, and approximately 16 neighbours attended the open house with a strong majority opposed. Issues raised (in bold italics), in order of level of concern, are listed below followed by staff's analysis and recommendations. The recommendations that follow call for a new tower form and re-siting. Subject to Council's approval of the HRA, the applicant will submit a revised development application. Illustrations in Appendix C depict the applicant's revised design responding to staff'srecommended changes, which, with further refinement through the development application process, will be submitted as the final form of development.

"Adhere to the 25 foot rear yard setback"

Analysis - RM-3 zoning requires a 25-foot rear yard setback. The ground floor of the tower in the development application is set at the property line while the bulk of the building is set eight to ten feet back. This will result in view and openness impacts on neighbours to the north, loss of the green belt that separates and buffers the typical RM-3 tower from the lane and increased reflection of lane noises.

Recommendation - Staff recommend the tower be sited to conform to the RM-3 25-foot rear yard setback.

"The tower width reduces openness and views for Granville Gardens residences to the north"

Analysis - The proposed development, in combination with the existing four storey structure to the west, would result in the 1st to 4th floor Granville Gardens residents (1616 West 13th Avenue) directly facing a continuous building mass to the south. The 4th to 8th storey Granville Garden residents would face an 84-foot wide mass across the lane. This will create substantial view and openness impacts beyond what is reasonable.

It is a challenge to mitigate these impacts in the context of retaining the heritage structures. In addition to re-siting the building 25 feet back from the lane, staff recommend the tower component be made taller and thinner such that its floor plate is reduced from the 3,225 sq. ft. submitted in the application to a typical outright floor plate of 2,000 sq.ft.. Staff propose that the tower adhere to the RM-3 outright 120 ft. height limit and a 16 foot minimum separation between it and the principal living spaces in the heritage structures and that the heritage buildings be moved 1.6 ft. forward from their siting in the development application.

Working within these parameters, the resulting east-west tower width is 60 feet. While this is greater than the 35 to 38 foot width of an outright tower, the 29% reduction in width from that proposed in the development application improves views from the Granville Gardens units considerably. This is because the primary living spaces of these units are not oriented directly to the south, but rather obliquely off in the south-west and south-east directions.
Recommendation - Staff recommend that the tower be made taller and thinner by requiring the east and west side yards to be a minimum of 20-feet so that, together with the recommended rear yard setback, openness is improved and view impacts are reduced.

"Loss of green space"

Analysis - The above recommendations calling for a taller, thinner tower set back from the lane will result in more green space. However, four of the required 43 parking spaces are currently proposed to be at-grade accessed off the lane. Staff's assessment is that the benefit to surrounding neighbours of replacing the four surface parking spaces with green space outweighs the minor impact of the loss of four parking spaces. The Director of Planning has the authority and is prepared to relax the parking for the 29 dwelling units from the 43 spaces required to 39. Engineering staff advise that this reduction results in a parking/unit ratio of 1.34, which should be adequate for the future residents, with a limited amount available for visitors.

There is a recognized trade-off between open space (i.e. low site coverage) and heritage retention. Staff conclude that the displacement of open space by the heritage structures is offset by the architectural merit of the heritage resources and the historic streetscape they reinforce.

Recommendation - In addition to increasing the rear and side yards setbacks as identified above, staff recommend relaxing the parking and eliminating the four surface parking spaces.

"Traffic congestion in lane"

Analysis - Half the respondents identified that existing congestion in the lane is a problem and will be exacerbated with the new load created by this development and in particular the four surface parking spaces located off of the lane.

Staff feel this site cannot be expected to resolve existing traffic problems in the lane. The proposed 29 units are expected to contribute only a minimal additional amount of traffic, perhaps one vehicle every four minutes during peak times. It is noted an outright building would generate additional traffic as well. Lane congestion will be less as a result of eliminating the rear surface parking. With the increased building setback, visibility to and from vehicles using the ramp would be improved ensuring underground parking ingress and egress is efficient and safe.

Recommendation - In response to issues raised about existing lane congestion, Engineering staff are prepared to look at the existing condition of the whole lane and meet with building owners and strata council representatives to determine if there are measures the City and/or property owner can take to improve lane safety and traffic flow.

"Density bonus not merited"

Analysis - Staff's assessment is that the conservation of the two heritage buildings justify the requested bonus density both in terms of public benefit and economics:
· Council policy is to encourage the retention of heritage buildings whenever possible through zoning relaxations. The two `C' buildings have streetscapes value as a pair and in combination with the mature trees and historic lawn bowling club across West 14th Avenue, they evoke images of the original historic setting;
· the bonus area is contained in these two heritage structures, and the residual density (i.e. density not used in the heritage buildings) manifests itself in a tower of approximately 1.9 FSR which is achievable on an outright basis; and
· Real Estate Services' analysis concludes that the requested bonus density and other variances are justified as compensation for the extra costs the owner will incur to conserve the two heritage buildings and will not provided him with a windfall profit.

Recommendation - Staff recommend Council support the requested density bonus for a total site density of 2.57 FSR, provided impacts on surrounding properties identified are addressed as prescribed.

"Unacceptable setbacks and views along Fir Street"

Analysis - The development application proposes a building mass set back 10 feet from the east property line. Staff assessment is this would intrude substantially into the views along Fir Street as all other existing building towers on this side of Fir Street are well set back.

Recommendation - Staff recommend that the exterior (east) side yard set back requirement, of approximately 19.7 feet, not be relaxed.

Vancouver Heritage Commission

At its January 28, 2002 meeting, the Vancouver Heritage Commission commended the applicant for its efforts and supported the requested zoning variances, subject to threerevisions. The applicant is prepared to eliminate the proposed roof decks in the heritage buildings and reduce paved areas on site, as requested. He will also endeavour to address the third change requested to maintain the existing building-to-grade height relationship from grade to house porches. However, the applicant is not certain this can be fully achieved in the context of other changes recommended and building by-law requirements.

Zoning Variances

Variances to the RM-3 Zoning District Schedule are listed in the table below:

 

Required Min. or Permitted Max.

Development Application (not recommended)

HRA variances recommended by staff

Front Yard Depth

6.10 m (20.01 ft.) min.

3.71 m (12.17 ft.) for heritage buildings

3.20 m (10.5 ft.) for heritage buildings _;

Interior Side Yard

2.1 m (6.89 ft.) min.;

135°containing angle

1.85 m (6.1 ft.) for heritage buildings;
1.52 m (5.00 ft) for tower

1.85 m (6.08 ft.) for heritage building _;
6.10 (20.00 ft.) for tower

Exterior Side Yard
Corner site)

6.0 m (19.7 ft.)

1.17 m (3.83 ft.) heritage building;
0.91m (3.00 ft.) tower

1.17 m (3.83 ft.) heritage building _;
tower to conform

Rear Yard Depth

7.65 m (25.10 ft.) min.

0.0 m (0.0 ft.)

to conform

Floor Space Ratio

1. 7 to 1.9 max.

2.57

2.57

Horizontal Angle of Daylight

50% or 2 angles = 70° unobstructed over
24 m (79.7 ft.)

not to be required

not to be required

Vertical Angle of Daylight

25° to centre line of street and lane; 30° to interior property line

not to be required

not to be required

Principal Building

maximum one

three

three

Balcony projection into side yards

1.2 m (4.9 ft.)

to conform

2.74 m (9.0 ft.)

*Because the siting of two heritage buildings is technically complex, these variances may necessitate minor change, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

After carefully analyzing the proposed development scheme vis a vis Council policy, urban design principles and feedback from surrounding neighbours, staff's assessment is:

· retention of the two English Builder heritage houses in the context of the mature street trees and the historic lawn bowling club across the street would preserve an evocative earlier historic setting and provide high pedestrian interest;
· the costs of retaining the heritage buildings justify the requested density bonus (approximately equivalent to the floor space contained in the heritage buildings); and
· in response to general neighbourhood concerns, in particular concerns from the significantly impacted group of neighbours to the north and detailed staff analysis, it is recommended the multiple dwelling tower mass be reshaped into a taller, thinner tower form with a typical 2,000 sq. ft. RM-3 tower floor plate, 120 ft. height limit and sited in conformance with the RM-3 rear and side yard setbacks.

Based on the reconfigured tower form and siting, staff recommend that the City enter into an HRA with the owner to secure the protection of the two heritage buildings and vary the RM-3 zoning provisions as defined in the table above. The owner, John Xinos, has advised that while these changes challenge the economics of the project, he supports a solution which better fits the surrounding context. Mr. Xinos is prepared to enter into the Heritage Revitalization Agreement with the City and to designate the two heritage buildings. He accepts the revised set of variances as just and fair compensation.

Link to Appendices A, B and C

* * * * *

ph020613.htm

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

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver