CITY OF VANCOUVER
M E M O R A N D U M February 18, 2003 | |
TO: |
City Council (at Public Hearing) |
COPY TO: |
J. Rogers, City Manager
|
FROM: |
F. (Rick) Scobie, Approving Officer |
SUBJECT: |
Proposed Amendment to Various `RT' District Schedules re: Relaxation for Burned Buildings |
During the Council discussion in referral of the proposed amendment to Public Hearing, a question was posed as to the number of units affected. Simply put, the amendment is largely a housekeeping matter. The issue it addresses is of very limited scope since it is peculiar to smaller sites in certain zones as a result of how older building retention incentives are structured in these zoning district schedules. However, if not addressed it may undermine the viability of older building retention on 33 ft.-wide sites in these zones. The nature and scope of the issue is more fully explained below.
Many Two-Family Dwelling Districts (RT zones) encourage the retention of existing, older buildings, primarily due to their architectural character and positive contribution to streetscape character in these established neighbourhoods. This encouragement takes the form of zoning incentives such as greater FSR, conversion of the existing building into more than two dwelling units, and/or potential for residential infill. All of these incentives are predicated on retention of the older, "existing building".
Presently, if an owner/developer of a smaller site takes advantage of the available incentive(s) and the "existing building" is subsequently destroyed, permit approval can no longer be given incorporating the earlier incentives since the "existing building" no longer remains. The net effect is that the replacement building that could be permitted would contain fewer units and/or smaller units.
Clearly, tenants would be affected if the existing building was destroyed. The owner would also be impacted if the same number of the units could not be reconstructed and/or the units would have to be smaller. The impact becomes more troublesome if the units on the property are in multiple ownership as a result of strata titling. If strata units are owner occupied (as believed to be most common), inability to reconstruct the same development would jeopardize both their shelter and their most significant financial asset if it could not be reconstructed to replicate what had been lost.
The likelihood of destruction by fire is substantially diminished if the existing building is retained and sprinklers have been installed. Installation of sprinklers is usually required due to the extentof building alterations/additions undertaken. Sprinklering would be required prior to strata titling. Although diminished through the installation of sprinklers, the risk of destruction remains.
Prior to July 2001, the Condominium Act established the municipal Council as the "approving authority" for conversion of previously occupied buildings to strata title ownership. In considering the first strata title conversion application with the foregoing characteristics in an RT zone, Council established the requirement that applicants enter into a covenant, as a condition of approval, when the zoning incentives resulted in more dwelling units than could be permitted without retention of the older building. This covenant, registered on title, serves to alert prospective strata lot owners of the zoning constraint on reconstruction should the existing building be destroyed. In the absence of such a covenant it is most unlikely that a prospective buyer, their solicitor, or mortgage lender, would have sufficient knowledge of the zoning limitations precluding reconstruction in a replicating form.
Since July 2001 when the Condonimium Act was replaced by the Strata Property Act, Council has delegated to the Approving Officer its "approving authority" for applications involving strata title conversion involving less than six dwelling units (as well as non-residential strata conversions). I have continued to require a covenant when the building is in one of the RT zones where reconstruction to create the same number of strata units would be precluded. This requirement has been of concern to owners/developers as a consequence of its perceived impact on dwelling unit sales. To date, three sites, comprising a total of nine residential strata lots, are subject to such a covenant.
We do not have hard data as to the number of developments in these RT zones that have taken advantage of the zoning incentives but not subsequently strata titled the development (i.e., retained the building under single ownership and provided rental accommodation). Nonetheless, strata titling is believed to be the option pursued in all but the rarest of cases, even if the strata units may be rented in the short term.
The proposed amendments to the RT District Schedules are recommended irrespective of strata titling as they will provide certainty of reconstruction, in a replicating form, if an older, "existing building" previously benefiting from the zoning incentives is destroyed by fire. Enactment of the amendment would also eliminate the covenant as a condition of strata titling.
F. A. (Rick) Scobie
FAS/fas
Q:\Public\Rick_S\RT burned bldgs.wpd