Revised Balcony Enclosure By-laws, Policies and Guidelines

POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

Date: June 6, 1995
Dept. File No. RRS

TO: Vancouver City Council

FROM: Associate Director of Planning - Land Use and Development
Division

SUBJECT: Revised Balcony Enclosure By-laws, Policies and Guidelines

RECOMMENDATIONS

A1. THAT the Associate Director of Planning - Land Use and
Development be instructed to make application to amend the
balcony exclusion provision in the applicable District
Schedules of the Zoning and Development By-law and Official
Development Plans (ODPs), to not allow any of the permitted
residential floor area to be excluded from Floor Space Ratio
(FSR) for enclosed balconies except in buildings existing
prior to April 23, 1985 in which case the present regulations
would apply;

FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to
prepare the necessary by-law;

AND FURTHER THAT the application and by-law be referred to a
Public Hearing;

B. THAT the Associate Director of Planning - Land Use and
Development be instructed to make application to amend those
District Schedules and CD-1 by-laws containing an acoustic
regulation, to delete the acoustic requirement for on-site
open space (i.e., balconies, terraces, patios, etc.)
(generally as outlined in Appendix A);

FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to
prepare the necessary by-law;

AND FURTHER THAT the application and by-law be referred to a
Public Hearing.

C. THAT the Balcony Enclosure Guidelines and Policies, amended as
noted in Appendix B to reflect more practical utilization by
residents, be approved.As an alternative to A1, the Associate
Director of Planning submits the following for CONSIDERATION:

A2. THAT the Associate Director of Planning - Land Use and
Development be instructed to make application to amend the
balcony exclusion provision in the applicable District
Schedules of the Zoning and Development By-law and Official
Development Plans (ODPs) to continue to permit a maximum of 8
percent of permitted residential floor area to be excluded
from Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for balconies BUT to permit no
more than half of excluded floor area to be enclosed
(generally as outlined in Appendix A);

FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to
prepare the necessary by-law;

AND FURTHER THAT the application and by-law be referred to a
Public Hearing;

A3. THAT the Associate Director of Planning - Land Use and
Development be instructed to make application to amend the
balcony exclusion provision in the applicable District
Schedules of the Zoning and Development By-law and Official
Development Plans (ODPs) to permit no more than 8 percent of
permitted residential floor area to be excluded from Floor
Space Ratio (FSR) for enclosed balconies;

FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to
prepare the necessary by-law;

AND FURTHER THAT the application and by-law be referred to a
Public Hearing;

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of
A1, B and C but submits A2 and A3 for CONSIDERATION as alternatives
to A1.

COUNCIL POLICY

Council policy pertaining to balconies includes the following:

- Balcony Enclosure Guidelines; and
- Zoning and Development By-law (certain zones) and ODPs.

Council policy pertaining to acoustic standards includes the following:

- Zoning and Development By-law (certain zones) and numerous CD-1 By-
laws.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

Brook Development Planning was retained by the Planning Department to
undertake a balcony enclosure study to formulate options and to
recommend changes to current by-laws, guidelines and associated
policies.

As a means of encouraging provision of private open space for all
residents in multiple dwellings, many District Schedules and ODPs
provide for open balconies to be excluded from FSR, to a maximum of 8
percent of permitted residential floor area of the building. Enclosure
of these balconies is permitted, with the floor space ratio exclusions
still applying, provided parameters defined in the Balcony Enclosure
Guidelines such as minimization of view obstruction and additional
building bulk, and convertibility back to open balconies, are adhered
to.

Staff recommend retention of the balcony exclusion from FSR of up to 8
percent of the residential floor area but that this exclusion from FSR
be limited to open balconies, except that enclosed balconies in existing
buildings having development permits issued prior to April 23, 1985
would continue to qualify for exclusion, as originally intended. Should
Council wish to bonus, for both existing and new construction, the
provision of "enclosed balconies", that are tending to be less balcony-
like and simply extra interior floor area, two alternatives are
presented for consideration (A2, A3).

Regardless of the balcony option selected, staff recommend deletion of
the acoustic requirement for balconies, terraces and other open space
provided in multiple dwellings. Where balconies are to be enclosed
(whether included in or excluded from FSR), revised guidelines are
proposed to permit more complete, interior-type finishes.

BACKGROUND

On July 27, 1993, Council RESOLVED:

"THAT staff report back on the broader issues of balconies including
the status of noise from the street."

Prior to the 1960s, most multi-family residential development in
Vancouver did not provide balconies. In 1964, in an effort to encourage
developers to construct balconies as a means of providing private open
space for all multiple dwellings, Council introduced a floor space ratio
exemption for residential balconies, to a maximum of 8 percent of the
gross maximum residential floor area. Many residential buildings
developed with balconies in the 1960s and 1970s were, however, poorly
constructed, and had single glazing and poor insulation.

Consequently, many dwelling owners requested approval to enclose their
balconies in order to reduce drafts, noise, condensation and other
interior problems, and at the same time make balcony space more usable
year round and an improvement acoustically in noisy locations (adjacent
to ALRT or busy arterials). In 1985, Council adopted "Balcony Enclosure
Guidelines" to control these enclosures on existing buildings.
Subsequently, and primarily in response to the development industry's
request for equity, Council permitted enclosure of balconies for new
construction, provided the balcony continued to be separate and distinct
from the interior of the dwelling. Since then, numerous new
developments have incorporated "enclosed balconies" as extra floor space
that is virtually indistinguishable from other interior space and with
little resemblance to open space.

Zoning and Development By-laws and Official Development Plans (ODPs):
District Schedules and ODPs which allow 8 percent of the residential
floor space to be excluded for enclosed balconies include: RM-5, RM-5A,
RM-5B, RM-5C, RM-6, C-1, C-2, C-2B, C-2C, C-2C1, C-3A, C-5, C-6, FC-1,
and DD. In addition, many CD-1s allow the exclusion.

In these districts, the floor space ratio regulation contains an
exclusion, as follows:

"The Director of Planning may permit the following to be excluded in the
computation of floor space ratio:

(a) enclosed residential balconies, provided that the Director of
Planning first considers all applicable policies and guidelines
adopted by Council and approves the design of any balcony
enclosure, and provided further that the total area of all open and
enclosed balcony or sundeck exclusions does not exceed eight
percent of the residential floor area being provided."

The issue of whether residential balconies should be enclosed in new
construction has become an increasingly troublesome matter for staff and
the Development Permit Board to deal with. Since the current by-laws
and guidelines governing enclosed balconies apply to both existing
buildings and new construction, and deal with highly qualitative aspects
which may vary from site to site, it has been difficult to maintain
consistency in interpretation/ application of the guidelines. These
problems are amplified in new construction by the fact that enclosed
balcony area, in contrast to open balcony area, can be marketed by
developers at the full per square foot selling price of the unit,
thereby creating a compelling incentive for some developers to enclose
all balconies. These factors have generated uncertainty for numerous
developers/applicants in terms of the prospect of approval of enclosed
balconies to the full 8 percent exclusion, thereby affecting dwelling
unit design, marketing and, consequently, economic proforma and has
caused considerable tension between the development community and staff.

Acoustic Regulations: Many District Schedules and CD-1 By-laws specify
acoustic standards to be achieved for dwelling units as well as on-site
open space, specifically balconies, terraces, and patios. While
acoustic treatment of balconies (solid as opposed to open guard rails,
glass screens, acoustic absorbing treatment of balcony soffits, etc.)
are useful in reducing noise levels, and will continue to be encouraged,
the 60 dBA standard specified for on-site open space is often
unachievable on open balconies along heavily travelled arterials and in
other circumstances such as in some areas of the downtown where general
noise levels are increasing. This requirement has forced some
developers to enclose balconies even when this is not desired. Health
Department staff note, through the low incidence of complaints, that
while a proportion of open balconies may be exposed to higher than
optimum noise levels there appears to be an acceptance by residents of
this negative impact as the trade-off for the benefits of the open space
that their balconies provide.

Further, while enclosing balconies does improve acoustic performance
many noise complaints are about short-duration noise events that
enclosed balconies do not overcome. This brings into question the need
to require balcony enclosure to meet acoustic regulations when the open
space is more valued by many residents.

Consultant Study: The Development Permit Board and Urban Design Panel
as well as Council have requested that staff review balcony enclosures
with a view to determining a more consistent and predictable policy.

The Planning Department contracted Brook Development Planning to
undertake a balcony enclosure study. Included in the terms of reference
were directives to:

- review the history and rationale of existing policies, bylaws
and guidelines;
- review built projects;
- consult with other City departments; and
- consult with the Urban Development Institute, Architectural
Institute of B.C., Urban Design Panel, Development Permit Board
and development industry representatives.

DISCUSSION

The major design issues raised by applications for new construction
which propose enclosed balconies include the following:

- enclosed balconies are often proposed as or become extensions,
or replacements of living/dining rooms and are, defacto, bonus
density rather than the "private open space" amenity for which
exclusion of FSR was intended; and

- enclosed balconies add to building bulk and increase view
blockage and shadowing on neighbours; and
- enclosed balconies can reduce residential building character,
giving buildings a commercial or office tower appearance.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, some developers have expressed a strong
belief that in providing enclosed balconies they are satisfying the
desire of the marketplace that they argue places a low value on open
balconies which, in our increasingly urban environment, are exposed to
noise, pollution and wind and are, in any event, unusable much of the
year in our climate. Their preference is to permit outright the full 8
percent balcony exclusion as enclosed balconies, to allow them to
respond to the intended market on any given development. This option is
put forward for CONSIDERATION under RECOMMENDATION A3.

The consultant study presented four options for new construction that
offer a broad range of responses:

Option 1: Eliminate 8 percent FSR Exclusion for Enclosed Balconies

This option is a return to first principles, and most closely
follows the original intent of providing FSR exclusions for
open balconies. It is consistent with the policies of the
majority of other municipal jurisdictions in the region.

Option 2: Offer a bonus of 1 percent of additional floor area for every
1 percent of open balcony provided, to an overall maximum of
10 percent excluded from FSR. This will likely result in an
additional 5 percent floor area/5 percent open balcony
configuration in new buildings.

Option 3: Retain the existing 8 percent FSR exclusion for open
balconies, and substitute "solarium" instead of "enclosed
balcony" as an acceptable alternative to the traditional open
balcony. A "solarium" would be defined as a subordinate space
within a dwelling unit which is glazed on two exterior sides,
has large openable windows, and a floor with an impervious
finish but would not be separated from the remainder of the
unit by walls, doors or glass.

Option 4: Eliminate Balcony Exclusions and increase the allowable FSR in
all residential zoning districts and CD-1 schedules that
currently permit balconies by 8 percent.

The consultant study recommended Option 3. In addition, it recommended:

- Amendment of the RM-4 District Schedule (3-4 storey medium density
apartment zone) which currently has no provision for balcony
enclosures to permit Option 3, in line with other multi-family
zoning districts.

- Encouragement of the provision of "step-out" balconies with
generous openings in exterior walls to provide fresh air and
sunlight in units. Minor extensions in floor slabs (up to 18")
would be excluded from FSR if provided in conjunction with a slider
and railing to create a step-out balcony.

- Deletion of all requirements that balcony enclosures be demountable
and have drains (to permit conversion to open balconies), and that
the space be unheated.

- For existing open balconies, that balcony enclosures be permitted
only for buildings having development permits issued prior to April
23, 1985 - the date upon which Council adopted the current Balcony
Enclosure Guidelines.

Staff Assessment of Consultant Options and Recommendations:

Option 1 has the attributes of simplicity and clarity. It also suggests
that the extra living area offered by enclosed balconies does not
justify the resulting displacement of open space and the complexity that
has been generated by excluding them from FSR. Option 1 is recommended
(A1) by staff.

Options 2 and 4, which provide for further density increases, are not
supported by staff as additional density is not considered warranted in
this context.

Staff do not support Option 3 for two reasons:

- As discussed previously, allowing all balconies to be enclosed
typically fills out the massing of towers and diminishes
residential building character.

- The proposed elimination of walls, doors or glass between
enclosed balconies and the dwelling unit will encourage this
area to be used simply as extensions of living rooms or eating
areas, indistinguishable as an amenity from the rest of the
dwelling unit, as opposed to the open space for which the
balcony exclusion has always been intended.

In regard to allowing balcony enclosures in RM-4 districts, this had
been specifically omitted previously because experience in this zone
demonstrated that achieving maximum density of 1.45 FSR is often already
difficult in terms of building bulk and negative impact on adjacent
development. To increase building bulk by allowing FSR exclusions for
enclosed balconies would aggravate this circumstance.

In regard to the consultant's recommendation to permit a further FSR
balcony exclusion beyond the present 8 percent for floor slab extensions
for "step out" balconies, staff are concerned that this further increase
to the allowable FSR will be difficult to administer and will further
increase building bulk and impact on neighbours.

Staff support recommended revisions to the Balcony Enclosure Guidelines
that would no longer require demountable exterior glazing, among other
things, in order to reflect a more practical utilization of enclosed
balcony space by a resident. These revisions will simplify a number of
design and administrative problems that have arisen over time.

Staff also support the recommendation that balcony enclosures in
existing buildings be permitted only for buildings having development
permits issued prior to April 23, 1985, on the basis that after the
introduction of the Balcony Enclosure Guidelines, developments would be
purpose-designed to include all the enclosed balconies that should be
enclosed.

While staff support a number of aspects of the consultant's report, any
refinements to the FSR exclusion should not lose sight of the intent,
which is to secure improved livability by encouraging the provision of
private open space for dwelling units that might not otherwise be
provided by developers. Staff are concerned that elimination of the
demarkation between excludable "balcony" area and non-excludable floor
area, as would occur under the consultant's "solarium" recommendation
(Option 3) will encourage developers to utilize the entire 8 percent
"balcony" exclusion as floor area that is virtually indistinguishable
from other space in the dwelling unit. With the current trend towards
smaller units, some developers may compromise on the basic functional
space of dwelling units (i.e., living rooms, dining rooms) and rely on
the 8 percent "balcony" exclusion to augment and achieve functional
space.

Urban Design Panel:

The Panel reviewed the draft consultant report in February 1994 (see
minutes Appendix C). The Panel's comments were wide-ranging but
generally supportive of the benefits of enclosed balconies for specific
purposes such as acoustics. One key urban design comment was as
follows:

"While recognizing there are fine examples of buildings without
balconies, the Panel has recently seen a lot of buildings that
suffer greatly from lack of articulation potential if the balconies
had been open."

Health Department Comments:

With respect to noise levels in the city, the Health Department notes
that, generally, noise levels are increasing. The main factor is the
increase in the number of residents and vehicular traffic. Other

factors include construction noise and heating and air conditioning
equipment. It is also important to note that while acoustical report
decibel levels are given as 24 hour equivalent levels (the average of
all noise events measured in a 24-hour period), many noise complaints
are about short duration noise events not dealt with in the reports and
that are difficult or impossible to overcome through acoustic measures
such as balcony enclosures.

The Health Department concurs with deletion of acoustic requirements for
balconies on the basis that whenever possible alternate on-site common
outdoor space is provided in a location least impacted by noise. Such
common or semi-private open space is already sought in most higher
density residential guidelines.

Industry Comments

Comments from the Urban Development Institute (UDI) and Architectural
Institute of British Columbia (AIBC) as well as two individual letters
from a developer and an architect are attached as Appendix E.

In summary, both UDI and the AIBC as well as the two individuals support
Recommendation A2 or variations of it, with UDI and AIBC proposing
amendments as contained in their submissions.

Recommended Option

In response to the issues noted above, staff recommend the consultant's
Option 1 to retain the 8% FSR exclusion for open balconies but eliminate
the FSR exclusion for any enclosed balconies, except for buildings
existing before April 23, 1985 (RECOMMENDATION A1). This is on the
basis that the exclusion was intended to encourage provision of private
open space and it is apparent that the enclosed balcony is working
against this intent by actually reducing the amount of private open
space.

Alternatively, should Council wish to encourage enclosed balconies
through FSR exclusion, staff submit the following for CONSIDERATION, as
contained in RECOMMENDATION A2:

- Maintain the present 8 percent balcony exclusion provision but
limit FSR exclusions for enclosed balconies to no more than half of
the floor area excludable under this provision (i.e., at least half
of the balconies must be open).

The rationale in this alternative for specifying a maximum amount of
floor area exclusion for enclosed balconies is to provide certainty for
developers. While the proportion of enclosed to open balconies varies
widely in approved or built developments (refer to Table 1, Appendix D),
the recommended half open-half enclosed split has, beyond simplicity and
clarity, the following attributes:

- Requiring at least half of the excluded balcony area in a
development to be open provides some amount of private open space
(at least for some of the dwellings) while still allowing the
developer considerable latitude to respond to that segment of the
market not seeking open balconies.

- An urban design review of recently built, high density residential
developments indicates that typically those with a high proportion
of enclosed balconies are perceivably bulkier and less residential
in character than those developments with a notable proportion of
open balconies (see photos on page 11). While a specific threshold
of open-to-enclosed/balconies is difficult to pinpoint for purposes
of urban design quality, it is clear that a minimum "half open
balconyformula" would provide architects with a valuable design
element with which to produce less bulky buildings with more

residential character. This element, given the compelling
financial incentive to enclose balconies under the present
regulations, is often denied to the designers shaping our high
density residential neighbourhoods.

- Acoustically, permitting up to half of excluded balconies in a
development to be enclosed allows sufficient latitude for enclosure
of those balconies most exposed to noisy streets (i.e. those
balconies at lower levels and/or directly facing the street).

CONCLUSION

In view of the increasing trend under the present balcony FSR exclusion
provision to enclose all or almost all balconies in residential
development, and the consequent loss of private open space for which the
exclusion had been intended, as well as urban design impacts (increased
building bulk and loss of residential building character), staff
recommend elimination of the FSR exclusion for enclosed balconies.
Staff do recommend retention of this exclusion for older residential
buildings having their development permits issued prior to April 23,
1985 (RECOMMENDATION A1).

The recommendation to delete acoustic requirements for on-site open
space, including balconies (RECOMMENDATION B), is an acknowledgement of
our increasingly urban environment, noting that most residents in higher
density areas accept that the ability to step outdoors onto their open
balcony may result in a potentially noisy experience.

The recommendation to revise the Balcony Enclosure Guidelines in regard
to a number of detailed items (RECOMMENDATION C) will clarify and
facilitate the design and administrative review of enclosed balconies.

Should Council wish to continue to encourage enclosed balconies, staff
submit for CONSIDERATION A2 as an alternative to A1, to permit no more
than half of balcony floor area excludable under the present FSR
exclusion to be used for enclosed balconies. This would provide greater
certainty as to what floor space is excludable and substantially reduce
the degree of administrative discretion, while maintaining some of the
urban design/livability benefits of private open space for which the
exclusion was intended in the first place.

Also submitted for CONSIDERATION is A3 which would permit all excludable
balcony area to be enclosed.

186 Smith: The building at left (Phase 1) This residential tower is considerably
with all balconies enclosed suffers from more bulky as a result of having all
an office-like character and noticeably of its balconies enclosed.
increased bulk. The Phase 2 tower at
right with just a minimal amount of open
corner balconies has reduced bulk and
more residential character.

This tower's open balconies A predominance of open balconies
diminishes its overall bulk and allows has added to this tower's
views through from buildings behind. articulation and slimness.
APPENDIX A

Pursuant to RECOMMENDATION B:

Amend Section 4.15.1 of District Schedules and acoustic provisions of
CD-1 By-laws to delete acoustic performance standard pertaining to open
space, (namely balconies, terraces and patios, etc.) to read as follows:

4.15.1 A development permit application for dwelling uses shall require
evidence in the form of a report and recommendations prepared by
persons trained in acoustics and current techniques of noise
measurements demonstrating that the noise levels in those
portions of the dwelling units listed below shall not exceed the
noise levels expressed in decibels set opposite such portions of
the dwelling units. For the purpose of this section the noise
level is the A-weighed 24-hour equivalent (Leg) sound level and
will be defined simply as the noise level in decibels.

Portion of Noise Level
Dwelling Unit Decibles

bedrooms 35
living, dining, recreation rooms 40
kitchen, bathrooms, hallways 45
terraces, patios, balconies 60 (deleted)

Pursuant to CONSIDERATION A2:

Amend Balcony Enclosure provision of applicable District Schedules of
Zoning and Development By-law and Official Development Plans as follows
(underlining indicates amendment):

"The Director of Planning may permit the following to be excluded in the
computation of floor space ratio:

(i) the total area of all open and enclosed balcony or sundeck
exclusions does not exceed eight percent of the residential
floor area being provided; and further

(ii)
no more than half of any balcony floor area approved under this
clause may be enclosed.TABLE 1:
SAMPLING OF RECENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
APPENDIX D
ENCLOSED VS. OPEN BALCONIES
(PERCENT OF PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA)

DATE PERMITTED OPEN BALCONY ENCLOSED TOTAL OPEN
ADDRESS DP MAXIMUM AREA BALCONY AREA AND ENCLOSED
ISSUED (8%) (percent of (percent of
ZONE Res area) Res area)
186 Smithe, Oct 17,020 sq. 0 17,020 sq. 17,020 sq.
Phase 1 17/90 ft. ft. ft.
(built) DD 8.0% 8.0%

186 Smithe, Apr 10,652 sq. 2,240 sq. 8,412 sq. 10,652
Phase 2 13/92 ft. ft. ft. sq.ft.
(built) CD-1 1.68% 6.32% 8.0%

953 Beatty St. Sep 20,254 sq. 0 18,123 sq. 18,123 sq.
29/93 ft. ft. ft.
DD 7.16% 7.16%
1147 Homer Dec 10,486 sq. 0 10,486.20 10,486.20
(built) 11/91 ft. sq. ft. sq. ft.
City Crest DD 8.0% 8.0%

1238 Seymour Mar 12,000 sq. 1826.96 sq. 9443.52 sq. 11,270.48
(under 16/95 ft. ft. ft. sq. ft.
construction) DD 1.22% 6.29% 7.51%

1301 W Pender Mar 21,530 sq. 3,910 sq. ft 17,748 sq. 21,658 sq.
(built) 31/93 ft 1.45% ft. ft.
Harbourside CD-1 6.59% 8.04%*

1333 Pacific Jun 2/92 2327.6 m� 436.0 m� 1793.74 m� 2229.74 m�
(built) CD-1 1.50% 6.16% 7.66%
Yaletown Edge
1201 Marinaside Mar 2/94 1311 m� 281 m� 932 m� 1213 m�
(under FCN ODP 1.71% 5.69% 7.4%
construction)

899 Helmcken Dec 13,193.2 3199.7 sq. 9,941.0 sq. 13,140.7 sq.
14/94 sq. ft. ft. ft. ft.
DD 1.94% 6.03% 7.97%

1383 Marinaside Apr 1345 m� 326.6 m� 1018.5 m� 1345.1 m�
27/94 1.94% 6.06% 8.0%
FCN ODP
1151 Pacific Mar 3/92 2003 m� 490.89 m� 1439.70 m� 1930.59 m�
(built) CD-1 1.96% 5.75% 7.71%
Yaletown Edge

1146 Melville Aug 10,460 sq. 2638 sq. ft. 7466 sq. ft. 10,104 sq.
17/94 ft. 2.02% 5.71% ft.
DD 7.73%

1700 W 6th Ave Jun 7/89 14,112 sq. 3,667 sq. 3,921 sq. 7,588 sq.
(built) C-3A ft. ft. ft. ft.
2.08% 2.22% 4.30%

1230 Pacific Jan 5/95 746 m� 200 m� 362 m� 562 m�
(under FCN ODP 2.15% 3.88% 6.03%
construction)
1200 Marinaside Mar 2/94 2103.5 m� 624.4 m� 1199.3 m� 1823.7 m�
(under FCN ODP 2.38% 4.56% 6.94%
construction)

1251 Pacific Nov 2387.11 m� 769.7 m� 1683.6 m� 2,453.3 m�
(built) 28/91 2.58% 5.64% 8.22%
Yaletown Edge CD-1

1000 Burrard Dec 3/92 17,009 sq. 6,292 sq. 6,720 sq. 13,012 sq.
(built) DD ft. ft. ft. ft.
Wall Centre 2.96% 3.16% 6.12%
1150 Quebec May 15,659 sq. 6,889 sq. 6,254 sq. 13,143 sq.
(built) 28/92 ft. ft. ft. ft.
City Gate CD-1 3.52% 3.19% 6.71%

598 Cardero Sept 2279 m� 1260.27 m� 620.73 m� 1881 m�
(built) 12/94 4.42% 2.18% 6.6%
Coal Harbour CD-1

1095 Howe Dec 8,200 sq. 4,156 sq. 3,935 sq. 8.091 sq.
(built) 19/91 ft. ft. ft. ft.
CD-1 4.05% 3.84% 7.89%
909 Beach Feb 8,653 sq. 4,940 sq. 0 4,940 sq.
(built) 20/91 ft. ft. ft.
CD-1 4.57% 4.57%

1250 Melville May 16,537 sq. 9, 774 sq. 5,272 sq. 15,046 sq.
(built) 26/92 ft. ft. ft. ft.
CD-1 4.73% 2.55% 7.28%

1900 W Georgia Oct 9,510 sq. 5,905 sq. 3,969 sq. 9,874 sq.
10/90 ft. ft. ft. ft.
RM-6 4.97% 3.34% 8.31%*

849 Homer Feb 6,700 sq. 4,640 sq. 625 sq. ft. 5,265 sq.
(built) 27/90 ft. ft. 0.75% ft.
DD 5.54% 6.29%
888 Beach May 28,848 sq. 20,038 sq. 8,793 sq. 28,831 sq.
(built) 30/90 ft. ft. ft. ft.
CD-1 5.55% 2.44% 7.99%

500 Abbott Sep 1760.8 m� 1400.83 m� 368.66 m� 1769.49 m�
Int'l Village 13/93 6.36% 1.68% 8.04%*
CD-1

599 Abbott June 92 1387.2 m� 1140.25 m� 241.25 m� 1381.5 m�
(built) CD-1 6.58% 1.39% 7.97%
Paris Place
(International
Village)
1067 Seymour Dec 5,040 sq. 4,360 sq. 0 4,360 sq.
New Continental 20/89 ft. ft. ft.
DD 6.92% 6.92%

1581 W Broadway Feb 8/90 7,918 sq. 7,372 sq. 521 sq. ft. 7,893 sq.
(built) C-3A ft. ft. 0.53% ft.
Manhattan West 7.44% 7.97%

1662 Alberni Jun 1,522 sq. 1,700 sq. 0 1,700 sq.
(built) 19/89 ft. ft. ft.
RM-5C 8.94% 8.94%*

BAR\011-6372

* Balcony area > 8% charged to FSR

Note:

Bold italics indicate
additions

Strikeout indicates
deletion

APPENDIX B

DRAFT AMENDMENTS

and June 1995