POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING
Date: May 24, 1995
Dept. File No. TWP
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Associate Director of Planning - Land Use and
Development
SUBJECT: CD-1 Rezoning Rationale - 705 West Broadway
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT in considering a rezoning application for 705 West
Broadway to accommodate the existing hotel and
additional development, Planning staff should, in
accordance with usual policy, seek public amenities
generally equal in value to the development potential
that rezoning would confer to the site.
CONSIDERATION
B. THAT in considering a rezoning application for 705 West
Broadway to accommodate the existing hotel and
additional development, Planning staff should give a
high priority to the combined public benefits of West
8th Avenue residential development and a public
amenity, and disregard the increased non-conformity of
the hotel.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS
approval of A above and submits B as an alternative for
Council's CONSIDERATION.
PURPOSE
This report seeks Council direction in assessing a proposed
rezoning for increased density at 705 West Broadway. In this
instance, the existing hotel exceeds the permitted FSR in the
C-3A District. To consider a further increase in density on this
site staff would normally apply a public amenity or heritage
bonus analysis. The applicant disagrees with this approach.
There is no policy framework to provide an alternate rationale.
Therefore, staff have outlined alternate approaches for Council's
consideration.
BACKGROUND
Context The Holiday Inn was approved in 1972 with a density
currently calculated at 3.36 FSR on the site extending from West
8th Avenue to West Broadway. The northerly portion of the site
fronting West 8th Avenue is developed with surface parking that
is surplus to the needs of the hotel. At the time, the C-3
zoning on the Broadway frontage permitted a maximum FSR of 5.0
FSR, and the C-2 zoning of the 8th Avenue frontage permitted 3.0
FSR. The hotel achieved its current non-conforming density by
utilizing development potential from both parts of the site. The
C-2 and C-3 Districts became C-3A in 1975. The most significant
change was a reduction in permitted FSR to a maximum of 3.0.
If the site could be subdivided to create northerly and southerly
parcels without providing the normal 6.0 m (20 ft.) east-west
lane, the portion of the site fronting West Broadway would have a
density of 5.97 FSR, which would dramatically increase the
existing non-conformity. By comparison, adjacent C-3A zoned
sites along West Broadway are permitted an outright density of
1.0 FSR which may be increased, conditionally, to 3.0 FSR.
Therefore, subdivision approval would be highly unlikely without
rezoning.
Of interest in the consideration of the current proposal is the
October 1986 rezoning of a nearby site at 777 West Broadway from
C-3A to CD-1 permitted a transfer of density from the adjacent
site at 2440 Willow Street, which fronts the same block on 8th
Avenue which the Holiday Inn proposes to develop. While
increasing the density on the Broadway frontage to 4.85 FSR, the
1.14 FSR permitted adjacent to 8th Avenue results in a combined
density of 3.0 FSR, equivalent to the maximum density permitted
under C-3A.
Proposed Rezoning The owner has applied for a CD-1 rezoning to
permit retention of the existing hotel at 5.97 FSR (site to be
subdivided) and development of the surface parking area to a
density of 2.6 FSR (on its own site) in a 4-storey building
containing market dwelling units. The combined density on the
whole site would be 4.5 FSR. Two benefits are proposed. First,
the parking lot would be replaced by a development which would
improve the West 8th Avenue streetscape. Secondly, a 565 m›
(6,081.8 sq. ft.) assembly space would be made available for
neighbourhood use.
Benefit of Community Space The desirability of the proposed
assembly space as a public benefit will be evaluated by Vancouver
Park Board and Community Services staff, who will consider the
following factors:
(i) the lack of an identified need for this facility;
(ii) the City's cost of equipping the facility;
(iii) the cost of facility maintenance;
(iv) the programming needs and costs;
(v) necessary City ownership and administrative structure;
(vi) suitability of location; and
(vii) extent of need and benefit to the general public.
Applicant's Rationale The applicant believes that eliminating
the parking lot and providing the 565 m› public assembly space
offers sufficient public benefit to justify support for a
4-storey market residential development at a density of 2.34 FSR.
He argues that the value of this facility would exceed the value
of a typical Community Amenity Contribution in Downtown South or
Burrard Slopes. Further, he notes that proposed land use changes
are themselves often of sufficient benefit to justify a rezoning.
These points are addressed below. Under current policy and
noting the hotel requires the full site area to West 8th Avenue
to sustain its already non-conforming FSR, staff believe these
arguments offer insufficient justification for the proposed
density. Land use is not an issue.
ALTERNATE RATIONALES
The following headings identify the nature of public benefits
normally considered by staff and Council to favour a rezoning
proposal. The inclusion or absence of such benefits in the 705
West Broadway application is noted.
Land Use Benefits If a change in land use, density or form of
development would improve the permitted pattern of development,
or generate at least as compatible and stable a long term
transition among zoning districts as presently exists, the change
in land use itself may present a reason to support a rezoning.
For instance, the remainder of a block may be zoned for larger
scale developments than the site of a proposed rezoning. The
rezoning should not generate further pressure for rezoning of
adjacent lands by creating an incongruity of uses, densities or
building forms.
In retrospect, it is unfortunate that the original development
did not address the 8th Avenue streetscape in a more appropriate
fashion. A landscaping response would in itself only marginally
improve the compatibility of this parking area. Replacing the
parking lot on the northerly portion of the Holiday Inn site with
a residential building would improve the streetscape on West 8th
Avenue and should be duly credited in assessing site rezoning.
Two- and a half-storey townhouses developed at 0.6 to 0.75 FSR
could be developed to create a more compatible streetscape. A
four-storey structure is not necessary.
The Holiday Inn site is not readily distinguished from many other
C-3A zoned sites along both sides of West Broadway from Vine
Street to Kingsway that extend or could be assembled to extend a
full block in depth (i.e., to West 8th or West 10th Avenue),
except by the fact that it presents a poor image to its
neighbours to the north. Staff do not believe this lack of
neighbourliness should be seen as a positive factor that in
itself warrants further development beyond the density permitted
on this or other comparable sites.
To rezone this site to permit approximately 6.0 FSR on the West
Broadway fronting hotel portion of the site and 2.6 FSR on the
north portion raises the question of why the whole C-3A District
should not be increased to comparable densities, unless other
public benefits justify the proposed FSR increase. Without an
area-wide analysis to determine whether the area could sustain an
approximate doubling of density, staff would have serious
concerns about street capacities and overcrowding of buildings.
Policy Benefits Various Council policies provide for priority
processing and a Council predisposition to support applications
incorporating certain uses (e.g., non-market housing or rental
units, SNRF including community care facilities, daycare).
Heritage retention is also an explicit Council priority. In some
instances, specific public amenities have also been identified by
staff and supported by Council as desirable objectives to be
achieved through rezonings. Even if a rezoning application
embodies one or more of these priority public objectives, the
density and form of the proposed development must achieve
sufficient compatibility with surrounding development if Council
approval is to be obtained.
Council policy also indicates that priority should be given to
rezoning applications that are submitted with evidence of having
secured support from the surrounding neighbourhood.
The rezoning application submitted for the Holiday Inn site does
not include any of the uses or public amenities encompassed by
current Council policy as being priority City objectives. The
applicant has, however, proposed an assembly space, to be made
available for use by Fairview Slopes residents, and indicated
that local support for the rezoning has been obtained on the
basis of this local amenity.
Density Transfer Density may be transferred under Council's
"Transfer of Density Guidelines", from other sites within the
central area. Therefore, an applicant may purchase density to be
used on this site if there is a public purpose to be achieved.
Such a transfer could increase the density available on the site,
as in the recent case of 1098 Robson Street, where "banked"
heritage density bonus FSR was purchased from the former B.C.
Hydro building. No density from a "donor" site is proposed in
this application.
Public Benefit Bonus When an applicant offers to provide a
public benefit such as retaining and upgrading a heritage
building or where there is a demonstrated need for creating a
social, cultural or recreational facility, the normal approach
taken by Council has been to support an increase in dwelling unit
density or floor space sufficient to offset the cost of
developing that benefit, to ensure that the owner is made neither
better nor worse off. This "quid pro quo" approach seeks to
ensure that the value of the public objective to be provided by
the rezoning is equal to the value of the private benefits
conferred by the rezoning. Marginally greater densities may be
supported if the project will also achieve urban design
advantages.
Staff believe this approach is appropriate in the case of the
Holiday Inn because the site's allowable density has already been
more than fully utilized by the existing hotel. Any additional
density allowed through rezoning is a "bonus" that should
generally be matched by "public benefits" of equal value.
However, the applicant states that this method offers
insufficient density to make the project attractive to the owner.
Multiple Benefits The public benefit bonus approach described
above does not preclude other benefits of a project from also
contributing to the rezoning rationale in addition to that
justified by the FSR bonus. For example, pedestrian oriented
streetscape improvements to the hotel frontage on West Broadway
would also be a public benefit, any cost of which exceeded the
value of floor space gained could be factored into the bonus
calculation. Additional density could also be transferred to the
site from a suitable "donor" site.
CAC Equivalent The applicant contends that as long as the
public benefit of the rezoning has a value exceeding what would
otherwise be levied as a Community Amenity Contribution, it
should be sufficient to justify the maximum density considered
physically compatible on the site. Staff do not support this
proposition as it discounts entirely the existing development's
non-conformity that would be exacerbated by further site
development. This is a completely different type of rezoning
which does not involve conversion of previously industrial or
commercial densities to residential densities with their inherent
servicing needs. Council
policy requires CAC payments to offset those needs. An amenity
provided as a public benefit of rezoning is a separate
consideration.
CONCLUSION
In order to assess the merits of the rezoning application, staff
are seeking Council direction regarding the appropriate public
benefit rationale which should be used for this type of rezoning.
Staff believe that land use compatibility alone is an
insufficient reason to support a rezoning given the major
precedent implications for other sites in the Broadway corridor.
To distinguish this site from other comparable sites requires a
rationale based on some combination of specific public benefits.
Previous applications which appear relevant suggest that the cost
of providing a specific and desirable public benefit should
justify a corresponding FSR increase. If other physical or
policy benefits are identified, these may also be factored into
the "quid pro quo" pro forma analysis.
* * *