SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 3
P&E COMMITTE AGENDA
JULY 20, 1995
POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE
Date: June 20, 1995
Dept. File No. IS
TO: Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
FROM: Associate Director of Planning - Central Area, in consultation
with General Manager of Engineer Services, Director of Social
Planning, General Manager of Parks and Recreation, and Manager
of Housing Centre
SUBJECT: Concord Pacific's Request to Remove the Unit Cap in False
Creek North
RECOMMENDATION
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.
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.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A
and B.
COUNCIL POLICY
Relevant Council policy includes:
- False Creek Policy Statement, approved by Council in August
1988.
- False Creek North Official Development Plan approved by
Council in November 1989.
SUMMARY
Concord has requested that the maximum unit limitation or Unit Cap be
removed from the False Creek North Official Development Plan (FCN ODP).
This would give them complete flexibility to adjust the size of units to
respond to both present and future market conditions. At minimum By-law
unit size, this could result in a total of 13,000 units on site.
Staff are supportive of increasing housing close to the downtown
providing that it does not compromise public objectives. Recognizing
that increasing the number of units has significant implications on both
unit diversity and on urban design, rather than removing the cap
entirely, staff recommend that a new maximum be set at 10,000 units.
Increasing the unit total past this point would start to endanger the
overall principle of unit diversity set out in the Policy Statement and
the ODP by increasing the number of smaller units to more than 50% of
the unbuilt total, or limiting the number of unit types. In addition,
as the unit count increases, urban design objectives could be
compromised, resulting in larger floorplates affecting views, higher
street-wall (a particular concern adjacent to parks and the waterfront),
longer sections of unbroken street-wall, less usable on-site open space,
and could lead to a request for more and/or higher towers.
As the public requirements for False Creek North were based on
population, any increase in unit count increases the requirements for
amenities and facilities. Some items are adequate as now planned, even
with 1,500 additional units. These include community space, which would
still be at an excess, the school sites, and the infrastructure.
Other requirements such as market family housing can probably be planned
into a more densely developed site. This may also be the case with the
non-market adult and family requirements; however, this will have to be
verified during the rezoning processes for the sub-areas. Should
providing stand-alone sites become a problem, a pay-in-lieu could be
considered for some or all of the additional non-market units. Should
it become necessary, options for deploying this payment-in-lieu will be
presented in a separate report.
For requirements such as child care, the extent of the take-up of
additional units will determine whether the projected increase in
children justifies an additional facility. Until this becomes clear, a
payment-in-lieu should be accepted and held in reserve for future
capital or operating costs.
The largest and most contentious requirement is the increase in park.
As it is impossible to provide additional park without a major
replotting, which would impact development sites, staff recommend that a
payment-in-lieu be considered instead, to secure additional parklands in
the vicinity. Noting that there has been a variety of approaches used
in determining both park and payment-in-lieu requirements (as set out in
Appendix 'B'), Council is asked to authorize staff to negotiate with
Concord and report back prior to, or at the referral of the required
zoning amendment.
In accordance with present policy, public requirements will be
determined and secured at sub-area rezoning; delivery, however, could
occur at development application or building occupancy.
Concord believes that the public amenities already required are
extensive and that they should be allowed to develop the market floor
area established in the ODP with flexibility to respond to the
marketplace, without further additions to park, social housing, or other
public requirements. A detailed description of their position is
included as Appendix 'C'.
If Council is prepared to consider an application to increase the Unit
Cap, Concord will be advised to submit an ODP text amendment. This will
initiate full public consultation and a report on the status of
negotiations of the pay-in-lieu for park and possibly other public
benefits as part of the Public Hearing referral report. If they wish to
adjust unit counts in areas already zoned, text amendments to sub-area
rezonings will also be necessary.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
In 1989 Council approved the FCN ODP with a maximum of 7,650 units. At
Concord's request in 1993, Council amended the ODP to increase the
number to 8,500. Due to an excess of park and community facility space
and Concord's agreement to pay-in-lieu for daycare and provide
additional family and non-market housing units, the standards for public
requirements in False Creek North were maintained mostly on-site.
In May 1994, Concord wrote to the City (see Appendix A) advising that it
wishes to eliminate the restriction on the maximum number of dwelling
units (Unit Cap) in the FCN ODP. This does not involve an increase in
building area. Concord is seeking maximum flexibility to respond to
market conditions. Initial analysis was done by the City, however
Concord requested further dialogue on outstanding issues which led to
more detailed analysis. Following these further discussions and with
agreement on the basic parameters, it is now timely to report on their
request.
DISCUSSION
Unit Cap
In preparing the ODP, the maximum number of units and the resulting
population determined the required public goods, including park
dedication, community facilities, infrastructure, daycare, and school
sites.
As well, the Unit Cap ensured a range of unit sizes, both family and
non-family, to accommodate a diversity of households as set out in the
False Creek Policies and the ODP. If the Unit Cap was removed and all
market non-family (65% of the total) units were built at the 37.2 m›
(400 sq.ft.) minimum by-law requirement, up to 13,000 units might be
developed on False Creek North. While this is a "worst case" scenario,
even a lesser increase would limit unit mix and diversity on the site.
Unlimited increases in units could also compromise the ODP's urban
design objectives and result in a form of development markedly different
from and likely worse than that intended in the ODP's Illustrative Plan
and approved sub-area zonings.
However, recognizing that increasing housing close to the downtown is an
important civic goal, and flexibility to respond to market conditions is
supportable, staff believe that an increase in units is worthy of
consideration, providing that it does not compromise public objectives.
Accordingly, staff feel that while an increase can be supported, a Unit
Cap remains an absolute requirement. To determine an upper limit, staff
have undertaken a comprehensive analysis of unit mix and urban design.
Unit Mix
The False Creek North ODP and the earlier Policy Statement were built
upon a broad and extensive public process. One of the key principles
was that FCN should be an inclusive community and a diversity of people
should be accommodated in each neighbourhood including seniors, families
with children, special needs, singles and couples. The ODP's
requirements for both family and non-market units (representing 35% of
all units) stem from this principle. However, the policy of diversity
and inclusion went much further. For the balance of market units
(representing 65% of the total) a broad range of sizes was facilitated
by the average unit size. For example, at the current maximum of 8,500
units the average net unit size of 90.5 m› (975 sq.ft.) provides a great
deal of latitude to accommodate both larger and smaller units. As the
unit count goes up, so does the percentage of smaller units,
increasingly polarizing or limiting diversity in unit mix across the
site and within individual projects.
To provide a variety of unit sizes in order to encourage a diverse
population, unit mix options were analyzed ranging from two or more
bedrooms to studios at minimum by-law requirements. The preferred
option would allow about 10,000 units, at an average net unit size of
about 80 m› (810 sq.ft.). Increasing the unit count substantially above
this point would increase one-bedroom or smaller units above 50 percent
of the unbuilt total and start to seriously impact diversity on the
site.
When faced with the same concern in the Arbutus and Collingwood Village
rezonings, Council limited units smaller than two-bedroom to 50% of the
total. The Unit Cap recommended by Staff for False Creek North would
lead to a similar result.
At 10,000 units when ODP requirements are considered across the site,
about one-third of the units would be large, one-third medium and one-
third small. Of the unbuilt units one-half would be large and one-half
small.
Built Form and Urban Design
There are numerous urban design objectives incorporated into the
Illustrative Plan and the Guidelines for the approved sub-areas.
Buildings along parks and the waterfront should be lower in scale, with
heights generally limited to four storeys. Towers should be slim and
heights varied to respect identified public views and to provide a
diverse, interesting skyline. Upper floors of towers should be stepped
to provide a sense of slimming and interest. As well, housing for
families with children should be of a minimum size and located in lower
buildings with good physical and visual access to grade-level play
areas. Unit configurations that provide many doors and windows along
the street facilitate safety and security and provide positive,
interesting streetscapes.
In analysing urban design implications, where sub-areas were rezoned,
but not built, the approved form of development was used and where sub-
area rezonings have not occurred, the ODP's Illustrative Plan was used.
In low-rise buildings flexibility is constrained by the family
requirements. In towers, floor plate limitations and view
considerations determine the maximum number of units which can
practically be provided.
Staff conclude that about 9,900 units could be developed without
significantly compromising the ODP's urban design objectives. Beyond
this threshold, changes in form become increasingly necessary such as:
larger floorplates affecting views, higher street-walls (a particular
concern adjacent to parks and the waterfront), longer sections of
unbroken streetwall, fewer row houses with direct sidewalk access, less
usable on-site open space and very likely a request by the developer to
increase the height of towers and/or their number.
"Natural" Cap
Unit diversity and urban design considerations were combined to
determine a "natural" cap for the site. As the numbers were close, and
to permit some flexibility, staff recommend that should Council wish to
consider an increase, it should be limited
to a site total of 10,000 units, or an additional 1,500 units. At
maximum build-out, this would increase the site population by about
2,600 people for a total projected at about 17,500.
This total only reflects an internal reconfiguration of the current
residential floor area allowance. The conversion of commercial space to
residential, as is being proposed in International Village, is a
different issue, as it could substantially increase the residential
building area. This proposed conversion is the subject of a separate
report on International Village replanning. Such conversion would
generate an increase in units over this suggested maximum.
Public Requirements
If an increase in units is considered, staff recommend that public
amenities be required in accordance with existing standards for False
Creek North, at 10,000 units these would be:
1. Park - Based on the FCN ODP requirement of 2.75 acres/1,000
population, there is currently an excess of 0.49 ha (1.2 acres) of
dedicated park space on the site. If all 10,000 units were built,
the park requirement would increase by 2.92 ha (7.2 acres),
resulting in a deficiency of about 2.43 ha (6.0 acres).
While the Park Board would still prefer to provide additional park
on-site, as the overall site has been comprehensively planned, it
would be impossible to include this additional park space without a
major replotting affecting urban design and other public
objectives, as well as resulting in significantly higher net
densities for the remaining development parcels. Rather than
requiring the park to be provided on-site, staff recommend that a
payment-in-lieu be considered to help secure additional park in the
vicinity.
In the downtown, where a payment-in-lieu for park has been
accepted, it has been based on adjacent land values and the cost of
park development. On the Bosa (East False Creek) site, adjacent
industrial land was close to the value of the site itself. On the
Bayshore, adjacent land values were much higher, but the cost was
discounted by park provided on the site and by the amount of land
provided outside the dedicated parks for the waterfront
pedestrian/bicycle system.
On major projects outside the downtown area, a different standard
for park was required. In Collingwood Village, 1.5 acres/1,000
population of park was provided on site and in the Arbutus
Industrial Lands 1.24 acres/1,000 of population was required.
Based on past policy both the amount of park and the value could be
set in a variety of ways. If a full park requirement and adjacent
land value were considered, along with park development costs, the
total payment-in-lieu could be as much as $41 million. If a
reduced park standard is considered for the additional units, the
total would be between $14 and $19 million, and if a discount for
the pedestrian/bicycle system was factored in, the payment could be
eliminated. Perhaps the only consistency in these options is that
they were very much negotiated deals to provide the maximum amount
of park, or funds possible without jeopardizing the development
economics. A range of options, based on past payment-in-lieu and
park requirements approved by Council is included in Appendix B.
Concord is adamantly opposed to a requirement for any additional
park whether on-site or through a payment-in-lieu. They argue that
the site has more than adequate park space, that the park standard
is a generalized estimate with a margin of error within the range
of any unit increase they may propose, and that the requirement
should be based on the particular nature of downtown demand rather
than general City demands.
Rather than decide upon a figure at this time, staff suggest
Council confirm that a park provision relative to the new
population will be required, that it may be provided through
payment-in-lieu, and authorize continued negotiations with the
developer to set the value of such payment. The results would be
presented to Council before or at the same time as consideration of
any application to amend the ODP to increase the unit count.
2. Community Facilities - The FCN ODP requires 4,273 m› (46,000
sq.ft.) of community space to be provided in the Roundhouse
Community Centre and in association with International Village
School. At maximum unit take-up there would still be in excess of
550 m› (5 925 sq.ft.) of community space on site. This was part of
the original negotiated deal. Concord has not been credited for
this extra provision in regard to other requirements.
3. Non-market and Family Housing - With an increase of 1,500 units,
375 additional family units would be required, of which 150 would
be non-market. An additional 150 non-market adult units would also
be required. The additional non-market requirements would reduce
the overall market building area. While these increases and their
locational requirements were considered in the development of the
"natural" cap, the provision of additional non-market sites could
affect overall urban design and constrain the size of market
parcels leading to higher net densities. This will be carefully
reviewed as zonings based on the new Unit Cap are proposed.
The additional requirement for market family units can probably be
met on-site as it requires only subtle adjustments to built form.
This may not be so easy for non-market units. While the intent
should continue to be to accommodate non-market units within the
site, with families given a high priority, if providing stand-alone
sites becomes a problem, pay-in-lieu might be considered for some
of the additional non-market units. If necessary, possibilities on
how to deploy this payment-in-lieu will be presented in a separate
report.
4. Daycare - The extent of take-up of additional units should
determine how the daycare requirement is met. At 9,500 units, the
projected increase in children would not justify an additional
facility and this should be accepted as a payment-in-lieu held in
reserve for future capital or operating costs. If units are fully
taken up, an additional 55 daycare spaces would be required. This
would justify an additional facility on-site which is not expected
to present a site planning problem. As it is unlikely that we will
know the final unit total until late in the development process,
reserving the funds now will keep future options open.
5. School - The School Board has confirmed that school needs can be
accommodated on the two sites already set aside.
6. Library - The Library Board has requested a payment-in-lieu for the
additional population. At their standard rate, this results in up
to $123,000 at maximum unit take up. This could be considered a
change of policy from the provisions of the ODP, which requires
Concord to provide a site and half the construction costs of a new
library facility, should such a facility be deemed necessary on-
site. This requirement, however, was set for the original unit and
population count.
7. Infrastructure - the street, water, sewer and other services
systems as now planned will be able to serve the needs of the
additional population. The exception is area 6A which has no
potential for increase due to street access limitations. This area
was excluded from the analysis.
Concord believes that the public amenities established in the ODP are
extensive and that they should be allowed to develop the permitted
market floor area in a manner which responds to the market without
further additions to park, social housing or other public requirements.
A more detailed explanation of their position is included as Appendix
'C'.
Timing of Public Requirements
Staff recommend that should Council wish to consider an application to
increase the Unit Cap, that Concord be advised that any additional
public requirements will continue to be generally determined and secured
at the sub-area rezoning stage, as per existing policy. The timing of
any pay-in-lieu payments, however, could be set at either development
permit or building occupancy stage.
CONCLUSION
Council's advice is sought as to whether it is prepared to entertain a
further amendment to the FCN ODP to permit an increased number of units
in False Creek North. Rather than removing the Unit Cap entirely with
no additional public requirements, as Concord proposes, staff recommend
that a maximum unit cap be set at 10,000 units and that existing
standards for public requirements be maintained and secured through the
sub-area rezoning process with options for payments-in-lieu. Further
negotiations on the value of payment-in-lieu for additional park
requirements is needed to determine an equitable amount.
If Council is prepared to consider an application to increase the Unit
Cap, Concord will be advised to submit an ODP text amendment. This will
initiate full public consultation and a report on the status of
negotiations on the park payment-in-lieu as part of the review, followed
by referral of the amendment to a Public Hearing.
* * * * * * * APPENDIX B
Page 1 of 2
OPTIONS FOR DETERMINING THE PAYMENT-IN-LIEU OF PARK BASED ON PREVIOUS
1. WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN MAJOR PROJECTS
(a) City Gate
BOSA was required to make a payment-in-lieu for park based on:
- the park requirement based on 2.75 acres per 1,000 population.
For 1,500 additional units the park requirement would increase
by 2.92 ha (7.2 acres). As there is currently an excess of
0.49 ha (1.2 acres) on site, the resulting shortfall would be
about 2.43 ha (6.0 acres);
- adjacent land value, which in the vicinity of the western end
of Concord's site, where most of the units would be added, is
approximately $150 per sq.ft.; and
- the cost of developing the land for park which is about $7.50
per sq.ft.
Using the City Gate approach a payment-in-lieu for park
shortfall in False Creek North would be about $41M.
(b) Bayshore
The park requirement on the Bayshore, as was the case with City
Gate, was calculated at 2.75 acres per 1,000 population. It was
then reduced by the amount of park provided on the site and by
the area of the waterfront pedestrian bicycle system, which was
not included in the park. As was the case with City Gate,
adjacent land value was considered along with a park improvement
cost. If the Bayshore approach was used no park payment-in-lieu
would be required in False Creek North.
2. MAJOR PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE DOWNTOWN
(a) Collingwood Village
While a payment-in-lieu was not calculated for park in the
Collingwood Village redevelopment, a lesser park standard was
required, set at 1.5 acres per 1,000 population. If this
approach was used in False Creek North:
i) over the entire site the cost would be $0.00;
ii) for the additional units at maximum build-out (10,000)
the shortfall on the site would be 1.1 ha (2.74 acres).
A payment-in-lieu based on the City Gate approach would
be about $19M. APPENDIX B
Page 2 of 2
(b) Arbutus Industrial Lands
A lesser park requirement of 1.24 acres per 1,000 population,
was also required in the Arbutus Industrial Lands. If this
requirement was used in False Creek North:
i) over the entire site the cost would be $0.00;
ii) for the additional units at maximum build-out (10,000
units) the shortfall on site would be 0.8 ha (2 acres).
Using the City Gate approach for adjacent land value
and park development, the required payment-in-lieu
would be about $14M.