CITY OF VANCOUVER
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
A Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Vancouver was held
on Thursday, July 20, 1995, at 5:40 p.m., in Committee Room No. 1, Third
Floor, City Hall, following the Standing Committee on Planning and
Environment meeting, to consider the recommendations of the Committee.
PRESENT: Mayor Owen
Councillors Chiavario, Clarke, Hemer, Ip, Kennedy
Kwan, Price, Puil, Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor Bellamy (Sick Leave)
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE: Ken Dobell, City Manager
CLERK: Nancy Largent
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Puil,
SECONDED by Cllr. Kennedy,
THAT this Council resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mayor
Owen in the Chair.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Report of the Standing Committee
on Planning and Environment
July 20, 1995
The Council considered the recommendations of the Committee as
contained in the following clauses of the attached report:
Cl.1 Significant Rezoning and Development Applications
Cl.2 Eligibility for Heritage Density Bonus -
1482-1490 West Broadway (The Dick Building)
Cl.3 Concord Pacific's Request to Remove the Unit
Cap in False Creek North
Cl.4 Barnet-Hastings People-Moving Project/Left Turn
Bays on Hastings at Boundary
Cl.5 PNE Area Resident Parking Program
COMMITTEE REPORT (CONT'D)
Report of the Standing Committee
on Planning and Environment
July 20, 1995 Continued
Clause 1 and Clause 5
MOVED by Cllr. Puil,
THAT the recommendations of the Committee, as set out in Clauses 1
and 5 of the attached report, be approved.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Eligibility for Heritage Density Bonus -
1482 - 1490 West Broadway (The Dick Building)
(Clause 2)
MOVED by Cllr. Kennedy,
THAT Council alter its policy concerning Heritage Density Bonuses
so that the building at 1482-1490 West Broadway (The Dick Building),
listed on the Vancouver Heritage Register in the A category and
municipally designated, be eligible for consideration for Heritage
Density Bonus, subject to the transfer of density policy.
- LOST
(Councillors Clarke, Hemer, Kwan, Price and Puil opposed)
Concord Pacific's Request to Remove the Unit
Cap in False Creek North
(Clause 3)
MOVED by Cllr. Hemer,
THAT the recommendations of the Committee, as set out in Clause 3
of the attached report, be approved.
- CARRIED
(Councillors Chiavario, Kwan and Puil opposed to
Recommendation A. Councillor Chiavario opposed to
Recommendation B)
COMMITTEE REPORT CONT'D
Report of the Standing Committee
on Planning and Environment
July 20, 1995 Continued
Barnet-Hastings People-Moving Project/Left Turn
Bays on Hastings at Boundary
(Clause 4)
MOVED by Cllr. Puil,
THAT the recommendations of the Committee, as set out in Clause 4
of the attached report, be approved.
- CARRIED
(Councillor Chiavario opposed to " 2 or
more occupant vehicle" in Recommendation A)
RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Puil,
THAT the Committee of the Whole rise and report.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPT REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Puil,
SECONDED by Cllr. Kennedy,
THAT the report of the Committee of the Whole be adopted.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
* * * * *
Council adjourned at approximately 5:45 p.m.
* * * * *
REPORT TO COUNCIL
STANDING COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL
ON PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
JULY 20, 1995
A meeting of the Standing Committee of Council on Planning and
Environment was held on Thursday, July 20, 1995, at 2:00 p.m., in
Committee Room No. 1, Third Floor, City Hall.
PRESENT: Councillor Price, Chair
Mayor Owen
Councillor Chiavario
Councillor Clarke
Councillor Hemer
Councillor Ip
Councillor Kennedy
Councillor Kwan
Councillor Puil
Councillor Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor Bellamy (Sick Leave)
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE:
Ken Dobell, City Manager
Dave Rudberg, General Manager of Engineering
Services
CLERK: Nancy Largent
Recorded Vote
Unless otherwise indicated, votes of the Committee on all items are
unanimous.
Adoption of Minutes
The Minutes of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
meeting of June 22, 1995, were adopted as circulated.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Significant Rezoning and Development
Applications File: 5303-2
The Committee had before it a list of Significant rezoning and
development applications, prepared by the Planning Department (on file).
Mr. Jonathan Barrett, Planner, reviewed a development application
by Urban Design Group to develop 2422 Burrard Street with a nine storey
mixed use development. Issues include various provisions of the Burrard
Slopes C3A guidelines and Central Area Plan, land use, density, height
and setback.
Mr. Dave Thomsett, Planner, reviewed an application by Derek Neil
to rezone 5625 Semlac Street from RS-1 to CD-1 to develop twenty-eight
stacked townhouse units. Mr. Thomsett clarified the location, and noted
issues including retention of a post office structure, density and
height, security, privacy and parking.
The following motion by Councillor Hemer was put and CARRIED.
Therefore, the Committee
RECOMMENDED
THAT the Planning Department presentation on significant rezoning
and development applications be received for information.
CONSIDERATION
2. Eligibility for Heritage Density Bonus -
1482-1490 West Broadway (The Dick Building) File: 5051-3
The Committee had before it a Policy Report dated June 6, 1995 (on
file), in which the Associate Director of Planning - Land Use &
Development sought Council's approval to consider a heritage density
bonus for the rehabilitation of the Dick Building, a designated heritage
building located at the Southeast corner of Broadway and Granville
Streets. The City sold the building last year, and the new owner wishes
to rehabilitate and upgrade it and restore its exterior. To help defray
rehabilitation costs, the owner wishes the site to be considered for a
heritage density bonus to be transferred off-site through a rezoning
process. Heritage characteristics of the building and its proposed
rehabilitation were discussed.
Clause No. 2 Continued
Council's direction with respect to the buildings eligibility for
heritage density bonus was sought for two reasons. First, the
building is located in a zone which does not have a heritage density
bonus provision. Second, the building is already protected through
heritage designation. This is the first instance where an
already designated building has sought post-designation compensation.
Nevertheless, staff supported the requested heritage bonus for reasons
outlined in the Policy Report, including the building's landmark
importance. Therefore, the Associate Director of Planning and General
Manager of Community Services recommended approval.
Also, before the Committee was a memorandum from the Vancouver
Heritage Commission, advising the following motion was adopted at its
meeting on June 12, 1995:
"THAT the Vancouver Heritage Commission requests Council that
portions of the interior of the Dick Building and the Pitman sign
be preserved intact."
Mr. Robert Lemon, Senior Heritage Planner, reviewed the Policy
Report and rationale for recommending a density bonus be considered.
The building was owned by the City when it was designated in 1986;
therefore, compensation was not an issue. Queried whether compensation
would establish a precedent, Mr. Lemon noted the Dick Building is the
only building in the City designated after 1977 which does not have a
compensation waiver on file. Buildings designated prior to 1977 by the
Province may be regarded as a different class of building. The density
bonus, if approved, would be calculated as a portion of the cost for
restoring the exterior only.
Mr. Lemon also responded to queries regarding preservation of the
Pitman sign, which is not designated. It was his understanding Pitman
College and the owner are prepared to leave the sign on the Dick
Building, provided the name is changed and the sign no longer reads
"Pitman". Although prepared to work with the building owner and with
Pitman to determine whether the exact sign can be retained, Mr. Lemon
felt this was unlikely. Retention of the sign would be highly desirable
from a heritage point of view. Issues pertinent to a change of name were
discussed.
Clause No. 2 Continued
Mr. Rick Scobie, Associate Director of Planning - Land Use &
Development, noted that Chalmers Church and some buildings in Chinatown,
which were designated prior to 1977, have subsequently received
compensation. Restoration of a heritage building is a
significant component of its preservation, but was not considered prior
to 1977. Council could decide to entertain broader consideration of
compensation because there are no letters of waiver on file for pre-1977
designated buildings. Mr. Scobie also confirmed there is no existing
residual density remaining on the
site. Any additional density approved through public hearings would
have to be used in another location. If a density bonus is not
approved, the owner may decide to use it as is, to upgrade it to achieve
the desired use, or to undertake some heritage restoration work although
this is unlikely without a bonus. Mr. Scobie also noted Council does
not have the authority to require the Pitman sign to be retained.
Mr. Ken Dobell, City Manager, commented that there is no legal
obligation to provide compensation. The Dick Building was sold already
designated. The question is whether Council wishes to support this
restoration.
Mr. Bruce Maitland, Manager of Real Estate, responded to questions
regarding the sale. Mr. Maitland noted all advertisements stated that
the building was designated, and materials provided to prospective
purchasers included the Heritage By-law to ensure their awareness of
restrictions. The current purchaser had an opportunity to inspect the
site and factor anticipated costs, with more time than usual allotted to
ensure adequate time for inspection.
Ms. Charlotte Murray, The Iredale Partnership, requested
consideration of a heritage bonus on the owner's behalf. When the
building was purchased, it was the owner's intention to do the minimum
and retain the building essentially as is. When the Iredale Partnership
was commissioned to work on a rental feasibility study, it learned of
the heritage potential, and recommended upgrading. The owner is
prepared to restore the building to its original configuration and
character on the basis that the City is willing to provide support. The
Dick Building can never be a top rental space because there is so little
parking available in the area. The owner is also willing to retain the
sign hardware, but what it says would have to be negotiated by all
parties and it is understood Pitman wishes to retain control of the
name.Clause No. 2 Continued
Ms. Jo Scott-B, Vancouver Heritage Commission, confirmed the
Commission has struck a task force to review the Sign By-law for
heritage sign purposes, and to research North American guidelines. Ms.
Scott-B indicated the Commission supports the General Manager of
Community Services recommendation, and is concerned that restoration may
not proceed if it is not approved.
In discussion, some Committee members opposed consideration of a
heritage density bonus, since the building was sold as is and
restoration costs should have been factored in at that time. Concern
was expressed about banking of density, and possible
creation of a precedent. It was suggested the restoration should have
been dealt with in the conditions of sale.
Other members were prepared to consider a heritage density bonus,
since restoration of this heritage building would constitute a public
benefit. The building is presently in unattractive condition and the
City cannot otherwise ensure its restoration. Also, Council must
approve the location or transfer of any additional density.
The following motion by Councillor Kennedy was put and resulted in
a TIE VOTE.
THAT Council alter its policy concerning heritage density bonuses
so that the building at 1482-1490 West Broadway (the Dick
Building), listed on the Vancouver Heritage Register in the A
category and municipally designated, be eligible for consideration
for a heritage density bonus, subject to the Transfer of Density
Policy.
(Councillors Clarke, Hemer, Kwan, Price and Puil opposed)
RECOMMENDATION
3. Concord Pacific's Request to Remove the Unit
Cap in False Creek North File: 8010-5
Prior to discussion of this item, Councillor Ip declared a conflict
of interest because of her purchase of a unit in the False Creek North
development. The Councillor then left the meeting.Clause No. 3
Continued
The Committee had before it a Policy Report dated June 20, 1995 (on
file), in which the Associate Director of Planning - Central Area, in
consultation with the General Manager of Engineering Services, Director
of Social Planning, General Manager of Parks and Recreation, and Manager
of Housing Centre, responded to Concord Pacific's request that the
maximum unit limitation (unit cap) be removed from the False Creek North
Official Development Plan (FCN ODP). Staff also responded to the
developer's request to be excused from any further requirement to
provide public amenities.
The General Manager of Community Services recommended the developer
be advised Council is prepared to consider applications to amend the FCN
ODP and previously approved zonings to increase the number of dwelling
units permitted to a maximum of 10,000, subject to conditions reflected
in recommendation A of this report. The General Manager also recommended
Concord Pacific be advised the ODP standards for all public requirements
will be applied to any increase in units, with possible consideration of
payment in lieu for amenities not practical to provide within the site
boundaries, as reflected in recommendation B of this report. Should
these recommendations be approved, staff would initiate full public
consultation and report on the status of negotiations regarding public
benefits as part of a Public Hearing referral report.
Also before the Committee was a July 18, 1995 memorandum from the
General Manager of Parks and Recreation (on file), conveying the
following resolutions approved by the Park Board at its meeting on July
17th:
That if increased density in False Creek North is approved by
Council, after public process is contemplated, the Vancouver Park
Board recommends that a condition of such increase be:
a) New developed park land, approved by the Park Board, at
2.75 acres per one thousand to serve the new density.
OR
b) Subject to Park Board approval, its equivalent, in land and
cash in-lieu, or cash in-lieu.
Mr. Larry Beasley, Associate Director of Planning - Central Area,
explained staff submitted a report in order to determine whether Council
would be prepared to consider increasing the unit cap. If so, staff
would then initiate the normal public process leading to Public Hearing.
Mr. Beasley reviewed the history of the site including its community
amenities. Concord Pacific has asked that Council consider removing the
unit cap altogether
Clause No. 3 Continued
without requiring any further amenities. Based on the preliminary
calculations, staff are prepared to support an increase up to 10,000
units, but not total removal of the cap. Staff also believe the
amenities should continue to calculated in accordance with the FCN ODP.
Any number of units above 10,000 would lead to fundamental changes. Mr.
Beasley responded to queries regarding the figure of 10,000 units,
potential affect on unit values, and possible impact on amenities.
Mr. Ian Smith, Planner, explained the factors used in calculating
the maximum acceptable number of units. The original figures were
calculated very conservatively, and city staff have now had more
experience with this type of development. Mr. Smith was confident the
figure of 10,000 would produce an acceptable development providing
public contributions are included. Mr. Smith also reviewed Urban Design
issues including design configurations, and confirmed the proposed
increase will not jeopardize ground level units.
Commissioner Duncan Wilson, Vice-Chair, Park Board, explained the
Board's position that park land must be approved commensurate with
development on the site. High density apartment area residents make
three times as much use of their park space as do residents of single
family areas. The population density of this development should not be
exacerbated without locking up some additional green space; the Park
Board feels its standard of 2.75 acres per thousand inhabitants should
be adhered to. Commissioner Wilson reiterated the aforementioned Park
Board resolution of July 17th.
Commissioner David Chesman, Chair, Park Board, noted Commissioners
Alan Fetherstonhaugh and Donna Morgan were also present to support the
Park Board's position, an indication of the seriousness with which this
issue is regarded by the Board. It will not be possible to later
retrofit a park from a high-rise; it must be provided for up front.
Further, the needed acres of park must be developed in this area, not
elsewhere in the city, in order to enhance its livability. Commission
Chesman responded to queries regarding the Park Board's standard.
Mr. Dugal Purdie, Concord Pacific, explained the developer's desire
for the greatest possible flexibility to respond to market demand. The
FCN ODP controls massing of the development in two ways, through floor
area and through the number of units. Units currently average about
1100 square feet in area, but today's homeowner is looking for something
more affordable. Mr. Purdie passed out plans (on file) illustrating
building locations and Clause No. 3 Continued
approved and proposed units per floor. City staff believe an extra
1,500 units will increase the population of the development by 2,600
people, but Concord believes this calculation may be flawed because
there is no additional floor area. There will still be the same number
of bedrooms per floor, and Concord believes the population will be
substantially lower than predicted. Staff's proposed increased would
not confer the needed flexibility. On the question of additional public
benefits, this development already has one of the highest amenity per
density ratios in the city. Substantial benefits have been negotiated
under the ODP, and additional units are unlikely to increase revenue
available for payment-in-lieu.
Responding to queries, Mr. Beasley pointed out that as unit numbers
go up, you will have at least one person per unit; staff expect 1.2 to
1.3 additional persons. Population has been re-projected over the
entire site. It may be possible to provide additional flexibility for
the developer at the rezoning stage, by setting specific numbers per
sub-area rather than individual building. There is no rationale to
change the amenity standard of the ODP.
Mrs. Eleanor Hadley noted large numbers of the public had attended
previous Public Hearings on this site, and their views and concerns were
taken into consideration by both Council and Staff. The public will
have to live in these communities and knows what it wants; Park space
was a significant public concern at that time and was achieved. Mr.
Hadley expressed concern that Council would consider changing the good
plans for the area arrived at through that public process, and that
Concord wants unlimited development without providing any more
amenities. To accept cash in-lieu of public benefits would not be in
the best interests of the people of Vancouver who will live in this
area, since it places the livability of the community in question. Mrs
Hadley urged Council not to consider increasing the number of units, or
to accept cash in-lieu of services to which the public is entitled.
The Chair drew to the Committees attention a letter from the
Tenants Rights Action Coalition (on file) supporting the
recommendations.
Several members were not prepared to support the staff's
recommendations, noting the existing FCN ODP was approved following a
lengthy and extensive public process. Concern was expressed that
liveability would be compromised by putting more people into the area
that it was designed for. Concern was also expressed thatClause No. 3
Continued
payment-in-lieu would not meet the needs of people living in the area.
This will be a much-visited area, in addition to its residents, and park
space may not be adequate for all visitors to an area without enough
parks. It was also felt unnecessary to change the number of units in
order to accommodate a variety of sizes and lifestyles.
However, the majority supported City staff's recommendations,
noting this only indicates Council is prepared to consider making a
change to the ODP, not that the change will be made. The City has
gained more experience with Mega-Projects over the seven years since
False Creek North was approved, and there will always be a
need for amendments to Mega-Projects. Diversity and cost of units was
regarded as an important consideration. It was also pointed out there
are environmental advantages to the location of 1,500 additional units
close to downtown, saving approximately 400 acres from traditional
development.
The following motion by Councillor Chiavario was put and LOST.
THAT Recommendation B of the General Manager of Community Services
not be supported unless it is explicit that Council will not
negotiate away the appropriate amounts of amenities, as a first
choice, on-site, and as a second choice, at full Market Value in
the immediate vicinity.
(Councillors Clarke, Hemer, Ip, Kennedy,
Price, Puil, Sullivan and the Mayor opposed)
Those members opposed felt it is already explicit in the
recommendation that Council will not consider any reduction in public
amenities required under the ODP.
The following motions by Councillor Hemer were put and CARRIED.
Therefore the Committee
RECOMMENDED
A. THAT Concord Pacific be advised that Council is prepared to
consider applications to amend the False Creek North Official
Development Plan (FCN ODP) and previously approved rezonings
to increase the number of dwelling units permitted to a
maximum of 10,000, subject to no change in the overall
building area, the submission of applications, and full public
consultation as part of the review process.
(Councillors Chiavario, Kwan and Puil opposed)
Clause No. 3 Continued
B. THAT Concord Pacific be advised that the ODP standards for all
public requirements will be applied to any increase in units,
although a payment-in-lieu to be secured at the sub-area
rezoning stage will be considered for amenities not previously
planned for in current development plans and not practical to
provide within the site boundaries.
(Councillor Chiavario opposed)
Councillor Ip returned to the meeting at the conclusion of the vote
on the foregoing item.
4. Barnet-Hastings People-Moving Project/Left Turn
Bays on Hastings at Boundary File: 5761-2
The Committee had before it an Administrative Report dated June 28,
1995, in which the General Manager of Engineering Services recommended
dedication of a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane and construction of
left turn bays on Hastings Street between Renfrew and Boundary, as
reflected in recommendations A and B of this report. This will
facilitate implementation of the Provincial Government's Barnet-Hastings
People-Moving Project.
Mr. Ian Adam, Assistant City Engineer - Transportation, noted this
proposal achieves both GVRD and Provincial objectives to utilize transit
and carpools for transport rather than single occupancy vehicles.
Mr. Don Henderson, Senior Transportation Engineer, briefly reviewed
features of the project, and noted it is broadly supported by the
community.
Queried regarding the recommendation to permit two or more occupant
vehicles in the HOV lane, Mr. Adam explained the Provincial standard is
currently two. In addition, the City of Seattle started at three
occupant vehicles in carpools and eventually moved to two.
It was suggested two occupants is not enough to constitute a high
occupancy vehicle. It was also suggested the number can always be
increased once people are more in the habit of carpooling. Clause No. 4
Continued
Mr. Tom Tasaka, Project Director, Barnet-Hastings People Moving
Project, was present to answer questions.
The following motions by Councillor Hemer were put and CARRIED.
Therefore, the Committee
RECOMMENDED
A. THAT Council approve the dedication of a peak period peak
direction HOV lane (Bus, 2 or more occupant vehicle, bicycle)
on Hastings Street between Renfrew and Boundary with signage
to be funded by the Province.
B. THAT Council approve the construction of left turn bays on
Hastings at Boundary and on Boundary (south to east) as
described in this report, with funding from the Provincial
Government.
(Councillor Chiavario opposed to " 2 or more
occupant vehicle" in Recommendation A)
5. PNE Area Resident Parking Program File: 5653-2
The Committee had before it an Administrative Report dated July 4,
1995 (on file), in which the General Manager of Engineering Services
reviewed the PNE Area Resident Parking Program. Revised provisions were
recommended to reflect the changes occurring on the PNE site and the
changing needs of the community, and to levy a decal fee for cost
recovery where permits are issued, as reflected in recommendations A
though C of this report.
Mr. Bob MacDonald, Parking Engineer, advised this is a program with
built-in flexibility, and Engineering Services intends to continue
dealing with the community and monitor its progress. Queried why the
RPO zone would be kept now that the PNE is departing the site, Mr.
MacDonald noted there are other events occurring on the site which
impact on parking available to residents. The program can be reduced,
and probably half will disappear once the fair is gone.
Staff were requested to refer to the site as Hastings Park in the
future, rather than the PNE.
The following motion by Councillor Hemer was put and CARRIED.
Therefore, the Committee
Clause No. 5 Continued
RECOMMENDED
A. THAT Council approve a revised resident parking program as
detailed in the Administrative Report dated July 4, 1995 and
illustrated in appendix A, and authorize the General Manager
of Engineering Services to continue monitoring the program and
make necessary adjustments after discussions with local
residents.
B. THAT the estimated cost of $25,000 to change the signing be
approved with costs offset by any net decal fee revenues and
the balance provided from contingency reserve.
C. THAT Council approve the annual operating costs, estimated to
be $ 20,000, to be recovered by a decal fee of $16.00 for
area A and $8.00 for a two year permit for those residents
only affected by the annual fair and in areas where the permit
program is to be phased out (areas B and C).
* * * * * * * * * *
The Committee adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * *