Vancouver City Council

POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

Date: December 24, 2003
Author/Local: A. Duncan/6269
RTS No. 03661
CC File No. 5304/5308
Meeting Date: January 13, 2004

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

Director of Current Planning

SUBJECT:

CD-1 Rezoning: 745-749 West 42^nd Avenue and 5816-5818 Tisdall Street

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT the application by Mosaic Avenue Lands Ltd. to rezone 745-749 West 42^nd Avenue and 5816-5818 Tisdall Street (Lots 17 and 18, Block E of Block 1008, DL 526, Plan 10698; PID 004778952 and 009309772) from RT-1 to CD-1, to permit 25 two-and a half and three-storey townhouses at a floor space ratio of 1.0, be referred to a Public Hearing, together with:

(i) plans received August 18, 2003;

(ii) draft CD-1 By-law provisions, generally as presented in Appendix A; and

(iii) the recommendation of the Director of Current Planning to approve, subject to conditions contained in Appendix B.

FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to prepare the necessary CD-1 By-law generally in accordance with Appendix A for consideration at the Public Hearing.

B. THAT, subject to approval of the rezoning at the Public Hearing, the Noise Control By-law be amended to include this Comprehensive District in Schedule B as set out in Appendix C.

FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to bring forward the amendment to the Noise Control By-law at the time of enactment of the rezoning by-law.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A and B.

COUNCIL POLICY

Relevant Council Policies for this site include:
· Oakridge Langara Policy Statement, approved by Council on July 25, 1995.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report assesses an application to rezone two parcels from RT-1 to CD-1 to permit development of 25 two-and a half and three-storey multiple dwellings in a townhouse form at a 1.0 floor space ratio (FSR). The site is located within an area identified in the Oakridge Langara Policy Statement (OLPS) where rezoning to this use and density is supported by this policy.

Staff recommend that the application be referred to a Public Hearing and be approved with conditions.

DISCUSSION

Background: The OLPS divides lands into three general categories related to rezoning possibilities: (a) high-priority sub-areas, which are considered suitable for rezoning; (b) reserve sub-areas, where unanimous support is required of property owners; and (c) remaining areas where no changes are supported.

The subject site is located in a sub-area designated as a high priority for rezoning.

Use: The proposed Multiple Dwelling use in a townhouse form is consistent with the OLPS for this sub-area.

Density and Public Benefits: The proposed density of 1.0 FSR is consistent with the OLPS. The applicant has chosen not to seek an available 20% density bonus for City-desired public benefits. A required Development Cost Levy (DCL) of $3.25 per square foot will be paid towards public benefits at the building permit stage. Generally, proposals with a density of 1.0 FSR or less will not economically be able to pay a CAC in addition to the DCL and this is the case with this application.

Form of Development: (Note Plans: Appendix E) The proposed form of development is three blocks of two-and a half and three-storey townhouses. Pedestrian access to the northerly block will be accessed by a fire lane from 42^nd Avenue while pedestrian access to the other two southerly blocks will be from a mews opening out to Tisdall Street.

Parking: The applicant proposes 45 parking stalls. The units backing onto the east-west lane will have at-grade accessed individual garages. The parking for the remainder of the units will be from an underground garage accessed from the north-south lane. Parking for 32 bicycles will be provided.

Public Input: There were no concerns raised in response to neighbourhood notification, signs posted on the site and an open house held by the applicant.

CONCLUSION

Planning staff conclude that the application is consistent with the OLPS in terms of achieving a compatible and livable ground-oriented townhouse development and recommend that the application be referred to Public Hearing and be approved with conditions.

- - - - -

APPENDIX A

DRAFT CD-1 BY-LAW PROVISIONS

Note: A By-law will be prepared generally in accordance with the provisions listed below, subject to change and refinement prior to posting.

Use

· Multiple Dwellings containing a maximum of 25 dwelling units.

Density

· Maximum floor space ratio of 1.0, based on calculation provisions of the RM-4 District Schedule.

Height

· A maximum of 9.2 m (30 ft.) but may be increased to 11.5 m (37.7 ft.) to allow for a pitched roof form.

Setback

· A minimum setback of 2.3 m (7.5 ft.) from the north rear property line.

· A minimum setback of 2.8 m (9.2 ft.) from the east rear property line.

· A minimum setback of 2.0 m (6.6 ft.) from the west side yard property line.

· A minimum setback of 4.7 m (15.4 ft.) from the south side yard property line.

· A minimum setback of 4.8 m (15.8 ft.) from Tisdall Street and 42nd Avenue.

Parking

· Per Parking By-law, except that a minimum of the lesser of one parking space per each 70 m² of gross floor area or 1.6 parking spaces per dwelling unit must be provided.

Acoustics

· Per RM-4N District Schedule.

APPENDIX B

PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Note: Recommended approved conditions will be prepared generally in accordance with the draft conditions listed below, subject to change and refinement prior to finalization of the agenda for the Public Hearing.

FORM OF DEVELOPMENT

Note: Blocks A, B and C as shown on the drawings are referred to here as Buildings A, B and C.

(a) That the proposed form of development be approved by Council in principle, generally as prepared by Hollifield Architect Inc. and stamped "Received City Planning Department, August 18, 2003", provided that the Director of Planning may allow minor alterations to this form of development when approving the detailed scheme of development as outlined in (b) below.

(b) That, prior to approval by Council of the form of development, the applicant shall obtain approval of a development application by the Director of Planning, who shall have particular regard to the following:

Design Development:

(i) design development to the streetscape as seen from Tisdall and West 42^nd Avenue, improving building visibility and relationship to the street of Building A, and improving building identity for all three buildings;

(ii) design development to the architectural treatment of Building A, north and east elevation, as seen from West 41st Avenue;

Note to applicant: Proposed redevelopment of the property to the immediate north across the lane will result in the north and east elevations of Building A being highly visible from West 41^st Avenue.

(iii) design development to the roof form and detailing of Building A, to be more compatible with that of Buildings B and C;

(iv) design development to improve the grade relationship of Buildings B and C to adjacent grades, by lowering the finish grade adjacent to the southerly neighbouring property, as well as to the proposed garden area north of Building B.

Note to applicant: Greater grade compatibility is related to issues of neighbourliness. This may require lowering of the structured parking.

(v) design development to exterior finishes so that the predominate material for all three buildings is brick as seen from the street;

(vi) design development to the parking entries and related structure, to better integrate them into the building design;

(vii) design development to provide all units with on-site access to the mail kiosk and garbage area;

(viii) design development to the parking garage exit stair, relocating it away from the front property line and integrating it into the landscaping;

Note to applicant: Refer to related the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) conditions. Consider enclosing the stairwell.

CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design):

(ix) design development to take into consideration the principles of CPTED having particular regard for reducing opportunities for:

- unintended cut-throughs;
- theft in the underground parking by relocating perimeter exit stair out of the front yard;
- break and enter; and
- nuisance activity such as graffiti on the lane;

Landscape:

(x) design development to provide more common open space on site;

(xi) design development to provide high quality finishes (such as unit pavers) for all hard surfaces such as walkways and patios;

(xii) design development to provide coniferous trees along the lane in order to visually mitigate the loss of existing trees along the eastern edge of the site;
Fire:

(xiv) design development to have all townhouse units sprinklered to NFPA 13 and to include a 64 mm standpipe connection along the 2 m wide access pathway at the gate or property line.

Note to applicant: A request for equivalency for the three buildings on site must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief prior to issuance of a development permit.

AGREEMENTS:

(c) That, prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the registered owner shall, at no cost to the City:

Engineering Services:

(i) Make arrangements to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services and the Director of Legal Services for:

(1) consolidation of Lots 17 and 18, Block E of Block 1008, D.L. 526, Plan 10698; and
(2) provision of street trees adjacent the site where space permits.

(ii) Make arrangements to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services for all new Hydro and Telus services to be undergrounded within and adjacent to the site from the closest existing suitable service point, including a review of any necessary overhead cabling to determine any impact, if any, on the neighbourhood.

APPENDIX C

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO NOISE BY-LAW NO. 6555

Amend Schedule B by adding the following:

"[CD-1 #] [By-law #] 745-749 West 42^ndAvenue and 5816-5818 Tisdall Street".

APPENDIX D

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Site, Surrounding Zoning and Development: This irregular-shaped 3117.4 m² (33,556.5 sq. ft.) site is comprised of 2 parcels on the north-east side of 42nd Avenue and Tisdall Street. The site has a frontage of 35.3 m (116 ft.) and a depth along the common property line between the two parcels of 61.7 m (202.5 ft.).

There are low-rise multiple dwellings to the south (zoned CD-1); Oakridge Shopping Centre to the east (also zoned CD-1); one and two-family dwellings to the west (zoned RT-1); and a new school is proposed for the vacant site to the north (to be built under RT-1 zoning).

Proposed Development: The proposed form of development is three blocks of two-and a half and three-storey multiple dwellings in a townhouse form. The density is proposed to be 1.0 FSR, the upper range of the density supported by the Oakridge Langara Policy Statement, achieved through high quality design.

The height of the townhouses will be relaxable up to 11.5 m (37.7 ft.) to accommodate steep roof forms that are supported by staff. Pedestrian access to the northernmost block of townhouses will be from a fire lane from 42nd Avenue. Pedestrian access to the other two blocks of townhouses will be from a landscaped mews opening out onto Tisdall Street.

Each unit has some private open space associated with it and there is limited common landscaped open space.

Parking: The applicant proposes 45 parking stalls. The units backing onto the east-west lane will have at-grade accessed individual garages. The parking for the remainder of the units will be from an underground garage. Parking for 32 bicycles will be provided.

Public Input: The applicants held a public open house on July 24, 2003 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the Oakridge Centre Auditorium in the Oakridge Centre Mall. Eight people attended, most of whom were immediate neighbours, and sought information about the proposed development. There were no negative responses to the proposal and no questionnaires distributed to the attendees were returned.

A notification letter was sent by staff to property owners within an approximate two-block radius on September 3, 2003 and rezoning information signs were posted on the site on September 6, 2003. No phone calls were received from residents. One interested neighbour came to City Hall to view plans but had no concerns with the proposal.

Comments of the General Manager of Engineering Services: The General Manager of Engineering Services has no objection to the proposed rezoning, provided that the applicantcomplies with conditions as shown in Appendix B.

Public Benefit: A required Development Cost Levy (DCL) of $3.25 per square foot will be paid towards public benefits.

Urban Design Panel Comments: The Urban Design Panel reviewed this proposal on October 15, 2003 and supported the proposed use, density and form of development and offered the following comments:

"With one exception, the Panel considered the proposed density to be appropriate and there were no concerns with height and setbacks.

The row house form was strongly supported by the Panel. The double facing units work very efficiently and are very livable. Some reservations were expressed by one Panel member that this form seems out of context with the neighbourhood, however, the majority of Panel members thought it was an appropriate means of increasing densification in the city. It was acknowledged that it may be anomaly now but may not remain so for long given this area is undergoing some transition. Panel members expressed the hope that this project will set a precedent for future development in the area. To provide greater benefit to the city for this rezoning one Panel member strongly urged that the project include a few units that offer real affordability, possibly by using lower quality finishes.

With respect to the layout of the rows, the Panel thought there may be another level of development that has not yet been explored. Some of the comments were:

· the rows have no sense of terminus;
· consider a bend in Building A;
· the three rows themselves could be more strongly related to each other, or more different from each other;
· the ends of Buildings B and C should engage better with Tisdall and have a stronger relationship to the row housing behind;
· the grade change between Building A and B and C is a little unfortunate but it is fine;
· the highly regimented space between Buildings B and C seems to be dictated by the underground parking;
· the view between Buildings B and C is a bit formidable;
· the end units could be different;
· the space between Buildings B and C and the lane could be tightened up and widened in the middle to provide some character;
· it might be a more neighbourly if all the kitchens and entrances faced each other, with the private spaces on the other side;
· some manipulation of Building B might achieve greater sun penetration between the buildings;
· the raised area between Buildings A and B is really well handled; it creates someinterest and provides some privacy between the two buildings;
· entry elements and orientation devices are extremely well handled;
· access from the underground parking to Building C needs improvement for residents to get conveniently to their front doors;
· there is room to create a small intimate public space with a bench where the neighbours can socialize. This may be appropriate close to the gate element between Building A and B;
· it is unfortunate that the roof areas are not used within the units;
· there has been some creativity in the garage planning;
· the lane elevation is less resolved than other elevations;
· the concrete wall at the parking entry could be better integrated into the design;
· the project fails to relate in any way to the curve of the site; and
· it is important that the quality of the development is adhered to throughout the development permit process.

The Panel recommended very strongly opening the mews to the general public and eliminating the locked gate, at least to make it possible for people to enter and get to individual front doors. In general, it should be much more welcoming and offer something more to the neighbourhood. The Panel felt strongly that the mews concept works best if it can be experienced at the pedestrian level.

The Panel strongly recommended eliminating the fake chimneys on the project, or providing real fireplaces. There was also a recommendation to reconsider the decorative dormers that serve no function.

With respect to the architectural expression, some Panel members were opposed to fake heritage, preferring to see a more contemporary vocabulary.

The Panel questioned the use of materials and recommended one material palette per building rather than two-sided - either a combination of materials or all one material. Some Panel members thought the form and style of the buildings could handle all brick."

Environmental Implications: Nearby access to transit and commercial services may reduce dependence on use of automobiles.

Social Implications: There are no major positive or negative social implications to this proposal. There are no implications with respect to the Vancouver Children's Policy or Statement of Children's Entitlements.

Comments of the Applicant: The applicant has been provided with a copy of this report and has no further comments.

APPENDIX E

13 pages of architectural drawings

APPENDIX F

APPLICANT, PROPERTY, AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INFORMATION

APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION

Street Address

745-749 West 42nd Avenue and 5612-5618 Tisdall Street

Legal Description

Lots 17 and 18, Block E of Block 1008, DL 526, Plan 10698; PID 004778952 and 009309772

Applicant

Mosaic Avenue Lands Ltd.

Architect

Hollifield Architect Inc.

Property Owner

8^th Avenue Land Ltd.

Developer

Mosaic Avenue Lands Ltd.

SITE STATISTICS

GROSS

DEDICATIONS

NET

SITE AREA

3 117.4 m² (33,556.5 sq. ft.)

0

3 117.4 m² (33,556.5 sq. ft.)

DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EXISTING ZONING

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

RECOMMENDED
DEVELOPMENT (if different than proposed)

ZONING

RT-1

CD-1

USES

One-and Two-family Dwellings

Multiple Dwellings

DWELLING UNITS

4

25

MAX. FLOOR SPACE RATIO

0.6

1

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

6.1 m (20 ft.)

Relaxable to 11.5 m (37.7 ft.)

PARKING SPACES

1 per D.U

45 (Min. 40 required)

FRONT YARD SETBACK

7.3 m (24 ft.)

4.8 m (15.8 ft.)

SIDE YARD SETBACK

1.5 m (5 ft.)

West 2.0 m (6.6 ft.)
South 4.7 m (15.4 ft.)

REAR YARD SETBACK

10.7 m (35 ft.)

North 2.3 m (7.5 ft.)
East 2.8 m (9.2 ft.)

* * * * *


TO:	Vancouver City Council
FROM:	Director of Current Planning
SUBJECT:	CD-1 Rezoning: 745-749 West 42^nd Avenue and 5816-5818 Tisdall Street

Street Address	745-749 West 42nd Avenue and 5612-5618 Tisdall Street
Legal Description	Lots 17 and 18, Block E of Block 1008, DL 526, Plan 10698; PID 004778952 and 009309772
Applicant	Mosaic Avenue Lands Ltd.
Architect	Hollifield Architect Inc.
Property Owner	8^th Avenue Land Ltd.
Developer	Mosaic Avenue Lands Ltd.

	GROSS	DEDICATIONS	NET
SITE AREA	3 117.4 m² (33,556.5 sq. ft.)	0	3 117.4 m² (33,556.5 sq. ft.)

	DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EXISTING ZONING	PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT	RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT (if different than proposed)
ZONING	RT-1	CD-1
USES	One-and Two-family Dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
DWELLING UNITS	4	25
MAX. FLOOR SPACE RATIO	0.6	1
MAXIMUM HEIGHT	6.1 m (20 ft.)	Relaxable to 11.5 m (37.7 ft.)
PARKING SPACES	1 per D.U	45 (Min. 40 required)
FRONT YARD SETBACK	7.3 m (24 ft.)	4.8 m (15.8 ft.)
SIDE YARD SETBACK	1.5 m (5 ft.)	West 2.0 m (6.6 ft.) South 4.7 m (15.4 ft.)
REAR YARD SETBACK	10.7 m (35 ft.)	North 2.3 m (7.5 ft.) East 2.8 m (9.2 ft.)