Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

The Director of Current Planning, in consultation with the General Manager of Engineering Services, the Directors of Cultural Affairs, the Housing Centre, and Legal Services

SUBJECT:

Proposed False Creek South Official Development Plan

 

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

In March 1995, Council approved the Industrial Lands Policy framework to guide future decisions on the use of industrial land. Section 2.4 of this Policy states:

In October 1999, Council approved the Policy Statement for Southeast False Creek (SEFC). It includes specific directions for the redevelopment and zoning of the study area within the SEFC site (see Appendix C for specific references). The key reference to the vision for the lands between 1st and 2nd Avenues is found in Part A, Section 1.4:

The Policy Statement also outlines the vision for Southeast False Creek, including the lands between 1st and 2nd Avenues, as a model for sustainable development, as addressed on Page 4:

PURPOSE

This report responds to the January 24, 2002 Council motion requesting that staff work together with the SEFC private owners in developing a new zoning for referral to Public Hearing. In that motion Council endorsed the strategy of a City-initiated rezoning (given the completion of an urban design study) to help set density, height, and streetscape parameters.

This report summarizes the work over the past months that has led to the recommendation to create a new ODP for the M-2 zoned lands located generally between 1st and 2nd Avenues and Wylie and Main Streets, as well as an underlying Comprehensive Development District By-law (CD-1) through which this ODP would be applied via Development Permits and Council approval of the individual forms of development.

This report also addresses work to be completed prior to Public Hearing on two other important pieces of the proposed zoning. The first is the completion of a consultancy study on the value of a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC). This will be addressed in a report to Council on or before the day of Public Hearing. The second is the completion of the Urban Design Guidelines (draft in Appendix E) to ensure that development conforms to the recommendations in the urban design study and the objectives in the Southeast False Creek Policy Statement and the environmental plans. Work will continue on these guidelines up until zoning enactment.

Figure 1. Proposed Southeast False Creek Study Area and area to be rezoned.
BACKGROUND

The area under consideration is currently zoned M-2 and in 1990 was designated as a "let go" industrial area and consequently not included in the I-zone initiatives in the mid-to-late 1990's. When addressed in Council, the property owners requested the land remain M-2 in consideration of its future potential as a mixed-use area as part of the City's redevelopment of SEFC.

When approving the SEFC Policy Statement, Council was receptive to allowing this area to serve as a catalyst for redevelopment in SEFC and to achieving the goals of sustainable development in SEFC (see Appendix C). In March 2000, Council approved the continued planning process for SEFC including a rezoning process for the study area.

In 2001, three serious rezoning inquiries within the designated area (see Appendix D) were brought to the attention of Planning staff. The proponents for these sites were eager to move ahead, and were prepared to submit individual CD-1 rezoning applications. Through a meeting with property owners within the area, it was agreed that it would be advantageous to the owners, while providing the City with a greater level of assurance that the vision of the SEFC Policy Statement for the area would be met, if a process leading to an area-wide rezoning was undertaken.

This meeting led to the approval by Council in January 2002 of both an urban design study and area-specific Development Cost Levy (DCL) study for the area, as well as Council direction to withhold the processing of any site-specific CD-1 applications submitted in thearea. It was hoped by both staff and the property owners that this rezoning would be brought to Public Hearing prior to the summer break. While not completely able to meet this timing, staff have managed to bring this referral report to Council prior to the summer break and, if approved, to Public Hearing in September.

As requested by Council in January, staff have maintained an on-going dialogue with the property owners to define their needs and wishes for the site in keeping with the vision for SEFC. Initial meetings provided the background to initiate the urban design consultancy and a team comprised of planning, architectural, and development consultants was hired to perform the work. The goal of the study was to test the principles put forward in the SEFC Policy Statement, especially notions concerning height, density, and built form. To do this, the team produced several potential development scenarios which have formed the framework for decision-making in finalizing the heights, densities, and form of development for the proposed new False Creek South Official Development Plan (FCS ODP) and the Urban Design Guidelines (Appendix E). All of this has been shared with the private property owners in a number of meetings, as well as with the general public and concerned stakeholders in a public meeting on April 29, 2002.

In the January 2002 report, Council also recommended undertaking an economic analysis to determine an acceptable charge for the area-specific DCL. This work has recently been completed by Coriolis Consulting Corporation. The results of the study and the new direction to proceed with a CAC instead of a DCL (outlined below) will be brought to Council on or before the day of Public Hearing.

DISCUSSION

Choice of Zoning and Contribution Toward Growth

When Council instructed staff to meet with the owners and develop a new zoning in January, the intent was to develop a new district schedule (FC-2) for the area which would be initiated by the City together with an area-specific DCL to contribute toward the costs of growth generated by new residential use. Discussions proceeded in this direction until recent legal complications resulted in a change of strategy.

The first issue relates to necessary infrastructure upgrades required by the new population. While on-site water and sewer upgrades can be required as a condition of development permit approval in a district zoning, this would not extend to off-site water and sewer upgrades or transportation improvements. To solve this and give the City the ability to seek funding for any infrastructure and transportation improvements required for the development, staff recommend the creation of an ODP to regulate the site with an underlying CD-1 area-wide zoning, as the vehicle through which it will be applied.

This new direction solves another problem with the original approach. Rather than an area-specific DCL, we are now able to arrange contributions by utilizing a CAC. As there is currently no housing in the area to be rezoned, we would not have been able to designate funds toward "replacement" housing under a DCL. But with a CAC, spending on non-market or affordable housing in line with the requirements of the Policy Statement is possible. As equity of housing access is important in realizing social sustainability in this area, Council is asked to adopt a target of 20% non-market and/or affordable housing for this area to be provided by a share of the CAC funds and whatever other monies may come available. This housing may be provided in the area to be rezoned, or may be realized as an increase in the non-market component on the City-owned lands to the north, given that this will unfold as one integrated community.

Agreements to Date

Through meetings with property owners, the general public, and stakeholders, and the work of our Urban Design Consultancy, we have been able to bring considerable resolution to a development strategy for land use and general form as outlined below.

Land Use: A highly mixed-use area is supported, given a preference to allow retention of some existing uses, while incorporating residential needs and associated service and commercial components. The urban design consultancy felt that this flexibility of choice for land use and building typology was essential in creating economically viable development with a successful design in this transition area.

Built Form: The general character of the built form should be expressed through some variety of shape, height, and frontage characteristics, but with strong references to the local precinct's historical built form and facade characteristics. The urban design study explored the traditional "tower/podium" form of the downtown peninsula as well as a "fine grain" structure that would result out of small-lot incremental growth. This study led to a "hybrid" built form incorporating both approaches that seeks to modulate street wall and height throughout the block, while respecting substantial consolidation of sites and larger lots in the study area. The zoning anticipates higher buildings on large sites at block ends with a maximum of two (2) towers per block. The "hybrid" approach will accommodate a variety of uses in a visually interesting environment, while promoting design goals illustrated in the SEFC Policy Statement (solar exposure, view priorities, mixed-use, variety of housing types, etc.). The associated guidelines would address requirements for new and existing buildings to ensure compatibility and enhancement of the precinct's built form.

Streets, Lanes, and Open Space: There is positive support for a public realm that promotes pedestrian friendly environments of the highest quality. Lanes that fulfill their utilitarianrequirements and enhance open space opportunities will be explored further in the Urban Design Guidelines. While conceptual work has been done on 1st and 2nd Avenues as part of the Urban Design Study, the street network and hierarchy in the SEFC study area is subject to the completion of the SEFC Transportation Study scheduled for early this fall.

Cultural and Heritage Provisions and Green Buildings: Strategies to encourage the retention or replacement of existing heritage resources, the provision of cultural amenities and to secure the sustainable vision of SEFC have been investigated in the ODP process. The results are as follows:

(i). Cultural Bonusing:
A bonusing strategy for Cultural Amenities has been recommended based on the Downtown District. It is expected that the uptake on this provision will be limited. Smaller initiatives that are supported would likely be able to be accommodated within the form and heights envisioned in the Urban Design Guidelines and in the new FCS ODP and underlying CD-1. On larger sites which might accommodate larger facilities, this might not be possible, and as a result the facility itself may not be supported. There is currently a proposal for a large facility on a large site that is strongly supported by staff and by the SEFC Policy Statement. The Vancouver Playhouse Theatre Company has entered into a partnership with a developer to replace their existing production and rehearsal facility with a new performance and production centre on their First Avenue site (see map in Appendix D). Due to the size of the facility and the programmatic requirements it is unlikely that the required density bonus will fit within the 45.7 m (150 ft. height limit). As a result, Staff recommend that it be dealt with as a separate CD-1 rezoning. This will allow staff to carefully consider the required bonus and the overall urban design both on the site and in the context of the surrounding development. As the developer has participated fully in the process and has patiently awaited the outcome, and because of the important public and cultural objective, the Director of Current Planning has initiated a CD-1 application.

(ii) Heritage Retention:
The retention of heritage buildings will be a relatively small factor in the redevelopment of this area, as there are presently only two listed buildings. It is recommended that these buildings be secured by the evaluation and bonus available through a Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA). Such an initiative is currently being considered on the Opsal Steel Building at Second Avenue and Quebec Street and should a proposal be received it will be evaluated and reported to Council following the enactment of the FCS ODP.

(iii) Securing Better Performing (Green) Buildings:
It has been resolved that achieving the maximum density in the FCS ODP will be partially based upon the inclusion of key, easily administrable, and implementable green building parameters, on the basis that achieving such parameters will constitute or create an amenity. It is hoped that the inclusion of these recommendations in the Urban Design Guidelines will move development in this area in a sustainable direction consistent with the vision of the SEFC Policy Statement. Conformance to some of the guidelines is required as part of the development permit process. Other guidelines which relate to the building permit are voluntary as we cannot require standards above those set out in our Building By-law. A process that will further investigate by-law issues with respect to greener buildings is recommended in a report on green buildings and LEED, which will be considered by Council on July 25, 2002. This review is part of a process which will span 9 months. In the interim, staff believe that at least one step is worth pursuing which would have a positive environmental impact on this area and the entire city: it has been over 10 years since the Energy By-law was adopted, and while it was "cutting-edge" at the time, the standard is now easily achievable. With this in mind, a recommendation has been included in this report to review the Energy By-law with the intent of raising the current standard.

With respect to the Guidelines proposed for this area, it is expected that existing staff will be able to implement them with little or no training.

Additional Agreements Required

While there is substantial agreement between staff and the private property owners on much of the proposed FCS ODP, two major issues remain unresolved, relating to the maximum density and height permitted.

Private Property Owners' Position: From the beginning of our discussion, and as confirmed in a letter of February 27th, 2002, the property owners and development interests proposed a maximum height of 76.2 m (250 ft.) and a maximum density of 5.0 FSR.

Recently, after a series of discussions with staff on both the urban design and the development economics for the area, the owners have modified their position to request a maximum height of 60.9 m (200 ft.) and a maximum density of 4.5 FSR. Considering soil and water table issues on their lands, the objectives of the urban design analysis, and the development economics, the owners believe that this is a responsive and fair compromise. Their letter of June 21, 2002, explaining their position, is attached as Appendix F.

Staff Positions:
(i). Density:
Over the past few years staff and the property owners have had a number of general discussions with respect to both density and height. It has only been within the last year - based on a growing understanding of both the structure and form that will comprise a preliminary ODP submission on the city lands and with the completion of the urban design analysis for the private lands that staff have been able to move these discussions towards a conclusion.

With respect to density, staff recommend an "outright" density of 1.0 FSR with a maximum conditional density of 3.5 FSR. While there are a number of ways to put uses together to achieve this maximum density, it is expected that in most cases a sizeable component - up to 3.0 FSR - will be residential. This maximum is consistent with the surrounding area. To the west, the South False Creek area approaches 3 FSR as it nears the Cambie bridge. On Cambie, C-3A zoning permits up to 3 FSR. The same is true for the I-1 industrial area immediately to the south across Second Avenue and for the new high-tech area to the east in the False Creek Flats. There is an existing density of about 3.5 FSR in City Gate and a net density of just under 3.5 FSR is anticipated on the City-owned lands to the north.

While the contextual argument is compelling, the main reason that staff support a maximum of 3.5 FSR is that it will achieve the urban design objectives recommended in the consultant's study and secured in the draft Urban Design Guidelines. The vision is for a variety of building types and heights with strong definition on the streets and higher tower elements up to 47.5 m (150 ft) on larger sites.

Just as important as the design quality expected at 3.5 FSR, are concerns about the detrimental effects of higher densities. If densities rise, either street defining buildings increase in height to an 8-12 storey form which expressed over 8 blocks could be considered oppressive and unrelenting, or towers increase in number and/or height. Our consultant's modelling has shown that the latter is a particular concern if the density for this area approaches 5.0 FSR. Instead of two towers per block there would likely be four. While this form works in the Downtown South neighbourhood it would not be appropriate here, given the smaller blocks. Minimal tower separation would be a threat to privacy and livability as well as a significant shading factor for semi-private open space.

Finally, staff feel that a density of 3.5 FSR will encourage redevelopment of those sites in which buildings have outlived their useful lives, while still preserving viable buildings and uses on other sites.

(ii). Height:
Staff recommend an "outright" height of 18.3 m (60 ft.) with a maximum conditional height up to 45.7 m (150 ft.). On smaller sites, buildings will strongly define the street and relate directly to the I-1 area across Second Avenue. On larger sites the streets will also be defined but in addition, higher elements up to 47.5 m (150 ft.) will facilitate a successful transition between the higher buildings contemplated or existing to the northeast of the subject site, andthe maximum height of 18.3 m (60 ft.) permitted in the Mount Pleasant industrial area across Second Avenue. It is important to note that on the larger sites, the 47.5 m (150 ft.) height limit will accommodate the maximum density within standard tower floor plates.

(iii). Development Potential:
Throughout the discussions with the private owners development economics have been a concern. From the owners' perspective, they want to ensure that their land will increase in value and that development will occur. From the staff perspective, we want a form which will bring the best quality of urban design and contextual fit. Both groups want to see the redevelopment of vacant lands and those buildings which have outlived their useful lives.

To further understand the development economics of the area, the owners submitted a general proforma analysis which has been reviewed by our Real Estate Division. The proforma was found to be well done and generally accurate. The main variables, as always, are land values and the sale value per sq. ft. of finished product. With even a conservative final sale value of $260-$270/sq. ft., development should be facilitated on some sites and some real estate professionals are predicting higher initial sale values - up to $325/ sq. ft has been suggested. With increased values which can be expected with the clean up and provision of public amenities on the City-owned lands, more sites should become candidates for development. The owners would like a higher density up front to encourage more development earlier, whereas staff are not prepared to trade-off design quality when it appears that both our objectives and the owners' obligations will be met in ample time.

Owners' Participation in the ODP

While it has not been mentioned in either of the owners' letters, there has been some discussion at the meetings about the possibility of withdrawing from the FCS ODP initiative if the owners' heights and densities are not achieved. Staff note that the existing M-2 Heavy Industrial zoning on the site was maintained as a holding zone, pending the completion of this process. In even the short term it is not appropriate, given the context of the adjacent I-1 light industrial zoning and the anticipated residential development and Olympic athletes' village, to leave the M-2 zone in this area with the dirty and noisy industrial uses which can be approved. It is therefore recommended that all properties in the designated area be included in the FCS ODP and CD-1 zoned area.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the FCS ODP and the underlying CD-1 zone be referred to Public Hearing. With the new zoning in place, it is expected that the many buildings in the area which have outlived their useful life will be redeveloped thus providing a catalyst for theSEFC Neighbourhood, and with the CAC, funds will be provided toward affordable housing and amenities required by the new population.

- - - - -

APPENDIX A

Draft Official Development Plan

FALSE CREEK SOUTH
OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Table of Contents

page

Section 1 Application and Intent 2

Section 2 Definitions 3

Section 3 Land Use 4

Section 4 Regulations 7

Section 5 Relaxation of Regulations 10

Section 6 Cultural Bonuses 10

1 Application and Intent

1.1 Application

Figure 1 - Proposed FCS ODP Area

1.2 Intent

1.3 Development and Permit Applications

2 Definitions

3 Land Uses

3.1.1 Accessory Buildings customarily ancillary to any of the uses listed in this

3.2.2 [Cultural and Recreational]

3.2.3 [Dwelling]

3.2.4 [Institutional]

3.2.5 [Manufacturing]

3.2.6 [Office]

3.2.7 [Retail]

2.2.S [Service]

3.2.9 [Transportation and Storage]

3.2.10 [Utility and Communication]

3.2.11 [Wholesale]

3.2.12 Any other use which is not specifically listed and defined as a use in section 2 of the Zoning and Development By-law but which the Development Permit Board considers comparable in nature to the uses listed in this By-law, having regard to the intent of this By-law.

4 Regulations

4.1 Site Area -- Not Applicable.

4.2 Frontage

4.2.1 For all uses permitted, and located on the ground level, the maximum frontage shall be 15.3 m.

4.2.2 The Director of Planning or the Development Permit Board, as the case may be, may permit an increase in the maximum frontage located on the ground level, to 30.5m.

4.3 Height

4.3.1 The maximum height of a building shall be 18.3 m.

4.3.2 The Development Permit Board may permit an increase in the maximum height of a building to a height not exceeding 45.7 m with respect to any development, provided that it first considers:

4.4 Front Yard

4.4.1 No front yard shall be required.

4.5 Side Yards

4.5.1 No side yard shall be required.

4.6 Rear Yard

4.6.1 No rear yard shall be required.

4.7 Floor Space Ratio

4.7.1 The floor space ratio shall not exceed 1.0, but the Development Permit Board may permit an increase up to and including 3.5 provided that it first considers:

4.7.2 The permitted floor space ratio shall not exceed 3.5, subject to the following:

4.7.3 The following shall be included in the computation of floor space ratio:

4.7.4 The following shall be excluded in the computation of floor space ratio:

4.7.5 The Director of Planning or the Development Permit Board, as the case may be, may permit the following to be excluded in the computation of floor space ratio:

4.8 Parking and Loading

4.8.1 Off-street parking, loading, bicycles, and passenger spaces shall be provided, developed and maintained in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Parking By-law, except as follows:

4.8.2 A visitors component of up to 1.0 space per dwelling or live-work unit may be located off-site provided it is located no further than 150m away from the site containing the dwelling or live-work units.

4.8.3 Off-street loading shall be provided, developed and maintained in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Parking By-law, except that a minimum of one Class B loading space shall be provided per 200 units (ie. No requirment up to 99 units, one loading space for 100-299 units, two loading spaces for 300-499 units, etc.)

4.8.4 The relaxation and exemption provisions of the Parking By-law shall be available

5 Relaxation of Regulations

5.1 The Development Permit Board or the Director of Planning, as the case may be, may relax the use conditions of section 3.2.7 and 3.2.8 to permit the outdoor seating and outdoor display of retail goods, and may include such other conditions as is deemed necessary, having regard to the type of merchandise, the area and location of the display with respect to adjoining sites, the hours of operation and the intent of this By-law.

6 Bonuses for Cultural Facilities

6.1 Where a need for any public or cultural facility has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Development Permit Board, the Board may relax for any one building, which includes one or more of such facilities, the maximum floor space ratio of the building.

APPENDIX B

Draft Zoning By-Law

By-Law No.

A By-law to Amend By-law No. 3575, being the Zoning and Development By-law.

(Amended )

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VANCOUVER, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

1. The "Zoning and District Plan" annexed to By-law No. 3575 as Schedule D is hereby amended according to the plan marginally numbered ??? and attached to this By-law as Schedule A, and in accordance with the explanatory legends, notations and references inscribed thereon, so that the boundaries and districts shown on the Zoning District Plan are varied, amended or substituted to the extent shown on Schedule A of this By-law, and Schedule A of this By-law is hereby incorporated as an integral part of Schedule D of By-law No. 3575.

2 The area shown outlined in black on the said plan is rezoned to a Comprehensive Development District to be known and described as "False Creek South (FCS))", and the only uses permitted within the said area and the only uses for which development permits may be issued are:

3. Any person wishing to carry out any development in the said district shall submit such plans and specifications as may be required by the Director of Planning together with a development permit application.

4. No development permit shall be issued for any development unless such permit shall have received the approval of the Development Permit Board.

5. This By-law comes into force and takes effect on the date of its passing.

DONE AND PASSED in open Council this

See also the False Creek South Official Development Plan.

APPENDIX C

SEFC Policy Statement - Excerpts Regarding Study Area

Adopted by Council October, 1999

Section 1.3 Objectives and Intent
To set densities in the sub-areas of SEFC so as to integrate with the adjacent context, recognizing that, over the next 50 years, the surrounding neighbourhoods will likely redevelop to higher densities.

Section 1.4 New Policy
On the blocks between 1st and 2nd avenues, a new land-use zone should be created, in consultation with the property owners, which introduces residential and live-work uses and mixes with non-residential uses, including those already present. This zone should permit clean industrial uses and promote a mixture of land uses at a density that encourages redevelopment of those buildings needing replacement, but encourages the retention of viable, existing industrial buildings and uses.

The privately owned lands should be a mixed-use area. Existing clean industrial use is encouraged and can remain and/or be gradually replaced by retail and service, live-work or residential uses.

Section 4.4 New Policy
Retail and service uses should be permitted on portions of 1st and 2nd avenues.

2nd Avenue should have commercial or industrial use at grade.

Section 9.4 New Policy
Height and massing should be integrated with what is proposed on the City lands to the north as follows:

All street edges in this area should be defined with lower building elements having a minimum height of two storeys along 2nd Avenue.

Section 9.4 Heritage
The retention of privately owned, economically viable buildings with heritage merit should be encouraged. The City should explore methods to achieve this by supporting a mixture of use, including live-work, and by considering building code relaxations and the use of Heritage Density Bonuses

APPENDIX D

Proposed Development Inquiries - 2001

APPENDIX E

Draft Urban Design Guidelines

A. Built Form & Character

1. Overall Neighbourhood Form &Character
· encourage a high degree of variation in massing, heights and character of buildings throughout the FCS ODP area to reflect the diverse history and form of the area.
· allow unique characteristics to emerge, especially on sites which may receive a bonus for provision of cultural amenity and heritage retention.
· capitalize on opportunities to retain the ad-hoc nature of existing industrial uses.

2. Development Block Form & Character
· within each block, promote a high level of diversity in built form, architectural expression, and street wall heights.
· construct perimeter block level built form with diversity in heights from two to ten storeys with higher points at opposing corners up to a maximum height of 45.7m .
· ensure that built form allows public and/or visual permeability through all sides of the block.
· consider addressing buildings into internal courtyard spaces (off the lane).
· maximize view opportunities along north-south streets and from the north face of buildings on 2nd Avenue across the 1st Avenue buildings.
· create near views into landscaped courtyards from all internal units.

3. Building Typologies
· achieve an appearance of diversity and mix of building types within each block giving the impression of the street developing incrementally over time.
· encourage a fine scale and diversity in building expression -i.e. no facades with limited articulation.
· ensure that streetscape massing appears to be broken down horizontally.
· encourage horizontal expression of ground and second floor base, four to six storey street wall and varying roof forms.
· capitalize on the benefits of large volume spaces at ground level to encourage a highly-diverse mix of uses including commercial, live/work, institutional and community amenity.
· tower forms to be limited to a maximum 650 m2 footprint.
· higher elements should be generally positioned on the corners and be no closer than 25 m apart.

4. Architectural Expression
· incorporate the generous vocabulary and elements of existing industrial buildings including punched openings, large sliding delivery doors, two-storey volumes with multi-paned windows, cladding evoking an industrial application such as masonry or corrugated metal and other building elements associated with industry such as clerestories and ventilation towers.
· the more recent modern movement character of many existing buildings is also encouraged as a vocabulary that includes sleek stucco walls, strip windows and simple, sculpted entrances.

B. Definition of Public Realm

1. Overall
· achieve a distinct streetscape character that fits with the predominantly residential character of the proposed SEFC neighbourhood.
· achieve a diversity of open spaces that reflect the mix of uses and activities on the area.
· recognize that streets, lanes and open spaces are to be considered as part of an integrated public realm and provide a framework for overall neighbourhood form and character.
· establish public realm improvements on surrounding street frontages along with laneway environments.

2. 2nd Avenue
· on 2nd Avenue, achieve a street wall that is predominantly expressed at a four-storey 12.2m height, similar in scale to the south side of the street, and with higher elements stepped back and distinct in character from the main street wall.
· explore opportunities to improve the public realm and pedestrian environment on 2nd Avenue as further defined by the SEFC Transportation Study.

3. 1st Avenue
· on 1st Avenue, achieve a typical southern street wall height of 3 storeys or 9.1m to ensure that the street and north-side pedestrian realm is in sun at most times, with allowances for higher buildings at block ends or stepped back so as to not further impact on shading of 1st Avenue.
· 1st Avenue should be a pedestrian friendly street with both commercial and residential use at grade where residential use is developed at grade, doors and windows should provide activity and security. Occasionally, on the north side of 1st Avenue, a larger green boulevard and pedestrian area should be explored. The possibility of using this space for community events or outdoor seating and display should be allowed.

4. North/South Cross Streets
· on north/south streets, achieve streetscapes that are defined by built form and that frame the street with a 1:1 building wall to street ratio.
· consider increased planting on the north/south streets that provide links through the community to the waterfront and park.

5. Mid-Block Courtyards (Lanes)
· create near view environments into landscaped courtyards from lower internal facing units.
· ensure that internal courts evidence a rich mix of activities including the day-to-day movement of commercial goods, outdoor seating for restaurants, residential front doors and yards, parking and well landscaped areas for relaxation and play.
· encourage a diversity of courts that provide identity to each block and respond to the variety of uses and built form, also achieving an environment that does not look or feel like a common lane.
· NOTE: Additional guidelines regarding the public realm of the streets in and bordering the FCS ODP area are subject to the completion of the SEFC transportation study.

C. Land Use

1. Overall
· plan for flexible land uses in each development, especially at grade along 2nd Avenue where residential use is discouraged a variety of commercial, industrial or live/work uses are appropriate.
· encourage an integration of commercial uses with residential at-grade along 1st Avenue to provide a diversity of activities and character.

2. Suitable Uses
· suitable uses may include light industrial and clean manufacturing, retail, office, service, cultural and recreational, wholesale, small scale utility and communication, institutional, and parking.
· this diverse mix of uses should be integrated with dwelling uses to achieve a rich and textured urban fabric that provides for new and emerging associations between uses such that typical live/work arrangements are supported by a wider diversity of similar mixes that can be accommodated in flexible spaces.

D. Environmental Performance

1. Stormwater Management
· The pervious surface area should consist of no less than 40% of the total site area. In this calculation, landscaped areas over parking facilities and on roof tops can be included.

2. Open Space/Roof Design
· Soft landscape on at least 30% of non-roof impervious surface on the site, including drop-off areas, walkways, plazas etc.
· An extensive or intensive "green roof" should be installed for at least 50% of the roof area
· NOTE: compliance to conditions 1 and 2 should be demonstrated in a Landscape Plan submitted as part of the Development Permit.

3. Recycling and Waste
· Provide an easily accessible area that serves the entire building and is dedicated to the seperation, collection and storage of garbage, recyclable materials including (at aminimum) paper, glass, plastics and metals, and organics. Recyclables, garbage and organics collection containers should be located together at grade or, if underground, in a location that can be accessed by a large truck.

4. Sustainable Transportation
· Implement a transportation strategy that incorporates sustainable best practices such as co op cars, transit passes for residents, preferred parking for car pool, van pool and

Voluntary Compliance: It is Council's intent that the SEFC study area, of which these lands form a part move in a more sustainable direction. While we at present cannot mandate compliance with standards which exceed our Building By-Law, all applicants are strongly encouraged to consider meeting the following voluntary standards.

1. Water Conservation
· Current best practices for efficient kitchen and bathroom fixtures and laundry machines should utlilized. This could include, but is not limited to, 3 and 6 litre dual-flush toilets, showerheads that reduce flow to 5.7 LPM, faucets that reduce flow to 3.8 LPM and low-consumption laundry machines.

2. Landscaping/Irrigation
· High efficiency irrigation technology, xeriscaping, and captured rain or recycled site water should be used to lower potable water consumption for irrigation
· Where possible, choice of planting and rain collection should replace permanent landscape irrigation systems

3. Energy Efficiency
· Buildings should be oriented to reduce energy requirements for lighting, heating and cooling
· Buildings should be designed with a target of exceeding building energy efficiency requirements of the Model National Energy Code for Buildings 1997 by 35%

· participation in the CBIP program should be considered Energy design assistance, provided by BC Hydro, BC Gas or NRCan, as should

4. Building Materials
· A target of 10% post consumer recycled materials should be utilized in construction
· Building materials with low embodied energy (such as high fly-ash concrete) should be utilized
· Where possible, these materials should be acquired locally

5. Indoor Air Quality
· A permanent carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring system should be installed to provide feedback on space ventilation performance
· Low-emitting materials (in products such as: adhesives, sealants, paints, carpets, composite wood) should be utilized to reduce the quantity of indoor air contaminants

6. Urban Agriculture
· an appropriately sized space for the size of the development should be reserved for resident gardening.

APPENDIX F

Letter From Property Owners to City


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

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver