POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE
Date: July 3, 2003
Author/Local: Trish French/7041
RTS No. 03504
CC File No. 8002
Meeting Date: July 22, 2003
TO: |
Vancouver City Council |
FROM: |
Director of City Plans |
SUBJECT: |
Amendments to the MC-1 and MC-2 Guidelines for Cedar Cottage |
RECOMMENDATION
THAT City Council approve amendment to the MC-1 and MC-2 Guidelines for Cedar Cottage, Hudson Street, and East Hastings (Clark to Semlin) Areas, as outlined in Appendix A, to allow multiple dwellings to be considered in the 34/3500 and 36/37/3800 blocks of Commercial Street in Cedar Cottage.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of the foregoing.
COUNCIL POLICY
The MC-1 District Schedule and Guidelines currently in place require residential development in the 34/3500 and 36/37/3800 Blocks Commercial Street to be mixed use, and do not permit multiple dwellings (i.e. "all residential"), as is permitted on other MC-1 zoned sites.
PURPOSE
This report recommends amendment to the Guidelines for two MC-1 zoned blocks in the Cedar Cottage area as outlined in Appendix A and illustrated in the map below.
BACKGROUND
In 1990, the 3 block Cedar Cottage MC-1 area was among a number of industrial areas identified as possible "let go" areas, to be reviewed for suitability for new land uses, including residential. In 1996 a planning study was completed, planning policies adopted, and the MC-1 District Schedule and Guidelines subsequently amended. MC-1 permits 4 storey development, and a mix of commercial, light industrial, and residential uses.
For the two blocks of Commercial Street from East18th Avenue to East 22nd Avenue, the policies and the zoning continued to require non-residential at grade along the street front. Multiple dwelling (i.e. all-residential) is a conditional use, but the guidelines indicate that it should only be considered in the adjacent 18/1900 Block of Stainsbury Street to the east.
DISCUSSION
At the time the planning study was done, a retail consultant study was completed. The study indicated that it was unlikely that significant amounts of retail would be attracted to the area, because it is located between two local commercial areas (Broadway and Commercial, and Kingsway and Knight) that provide a full range of local retail and services.
Nevertheless, in order to try and ensure a diversity of uses in keeping with the existing character of the area, the policies and zoning stopped short of allowing all-residential in the Commercial Street blocks. They call for new developments to have non-residential (i.e. office, service, retail or industrial) at grade.
The policy has not been a success. There appears to be very little market demand for ground level commercial. A mixed use development that was completed just as the planning study was getting underway has never successfully occupied its commercial ground floor. In the 7 years since the revised zoning was adopted, only one (33 ft. frontage) mixed use development has proceeded. A number developers interested in purchasing property have requested the City reconsider the all-residential question.
In addition, the City has since zoned two more areas MC-1 (East Hastings Street and Hudson Street) and has allowed all-residential to be located on similar frontages that are not on noisy arterials.
In May 2003, in response to another inquiry from a property owner, a mail survey of all the property owners in the two blocks was conducted. It asked whether they would support allowing multiple dwellings (i.e. all-residential) in these two blocks on the same basis as in the adjoining Stainsbury block. The survey response was clearly positive. (See Appendix B).
Staff also discussed the issue with the KCC CityPlan Committee, at its June meeting. They had no objection to the change.
Permitting all-residential would have two benefits:
· it may encourage the development of needed residential units in an area that is pleasant and livable, as well as close to a community centre, parks, and transit; and
· for the residential properties across the lane from these sites, it may result in development that has less impact than mixed use with commercial would have.
Lastly, it is important to note that this change would not eliminate the option of doing mixed use, or indeed of doing all commercial or maintaining current light industrial businesses. Neither does it involve an increase in the permitted residential density.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommend revising the MC-1 Guidelines in Cedar Cottage to permit multiple dwellings (i.e. all-residential) to be considered in the two blocks along Commercial Street because:
· the property owners and KCC CityPlan Committee support it
· other similar MC-1 locations have been given this option recently
· it adds development options and may encourage housing, without removing the mixed use, commercial, or light industrial development options.
- - - - -
APPENDIX A
Proposed Changes to MC-1 and MC-2 Guidelines for Cedar Cottage, Hudson Street, and East Hastings (Clark to Semlin) Areas
3.2 All Residential Buildings (Multiple Dwelling)
Section 3.2 of the District s Schedule requires non-residential uses at grade. However, buildings with residential uses at grade may be considered in the following locations in the Cedar Cottage, Hudson Street and East Hastings (Clark to Semlin) MC-1 Areas.
(a) In the Cedar Cottage Area, buildings with residential uses at grade may be considered along the north side of Stainsbury Avenue between Porter Street and the Victoria Diversion, and on Commercial Street between East 18th Avenue and East 22nd Avenue
(b) In the Hudson Street Area, buildings with residential uses at grade may be considered throughout the area; and
(c) In the East Hastings (Clark to Semlin) MC-1 District Area, residential uses at grade may be considered along the Pender Street frontage.
3.3 Uses at Grade
As noted above, Where non-residential uses are generally required at grade. These , they may be retail uses, as well as service, office and industrial uses, as long as pedestrian interest is provided (as suggested in section 5 Architectural Components).
APPENDIX B
34/3500 and 36/37/3800 BLOCKS COMMERCIAL STREET SURVEY RESULTS
34/3500 Block
Total parcels surveyed: 16
Parcels |
In proportion to parcel area | ||
Of total |
Of responders | ||
Responses |
|||
yes |
7.29* |
44% |
69% |
no |
4.00 |
20% |
31% |
No Response |
4.71* |
36% |
n.a. |
36/37/3800 Block
Total parcels surveyed: 24
Parcels |
In proportion to parcel area | ||
Of total |
Of responders | ||
Responses |
|||
yes |
11.67* |
61% |
81% |
no |
6.00 |
15% |
19% |
No Response |
6.33* |
24% |
n.a. |
* Fractional returns refer to the proportion of strata units in strata-titled parcels that voted yes, no, or did not respond.
