CITY OF VANCOUVER
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
A Special Meeting of the Council of the City of Vancouver was held
on Thursday, January 18, 1996, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber,
Third Floor, City Hall, for the purpose of holding a Public Hearing to
amend the Zoning and Development By-law.
The meeting subsequently reconvened at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
February 6, 1996, in the Council Chamber.
PRESENT: Mayor Owen
Councillors Chiavario, Clarke, Hemer, Ip,
Kwan, Price, Puil and Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor Bellamy (Civic Business)
Councillor Kennedy (Civic Business
CLERK TO THE COUNCIL: Gary MacIsaac
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Hemer,
SECONDED by Cllr. Puil,
THAT this Council resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mayor
Owen in the Chair, to consider proposed amendments to the Zoning and
Development By-law.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
1. Text Amendment: 300 Cardero Street
(Coal Harbour, Marina Neighbourhood)
An application by the Director of Land Use and Development was
considered as follows:
The proposed amendment to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District
by-law No. 7200 would permit a 99-unit mixed-income family housing
co-operative, in lieu of 122 designated dwelling units, 41 of which
were family units and 81 of which were non-family. This would
consequently reduce the overall maximum number of dwelling units
allowed in the Coal Harbour Marina Neighbourhood from 850 to 827.
The Director of Land Use and Development recommended approval of
this application.
cont'd....
Clause No. 1 (cont'd)
Staff Opening Comments
Mr. Cameron Gray, Manager of Housing Centre, and Mr. Ian Smith,
Central Area Planner, advised they were available to respond to
questions from members of Council.
Correspondence
There was no correspondence received on this application.
Speakers
Mayor Owen called for speakers for and against the application.
Ms. Gillian Watson-Donald, on behalf of the Special Advisory
Committee on Seniors, advised the Committee is concerned with the loss
of non-family or seniors housing units. Ms. Watson-Donald stressed the
Committee is not opposed to the addition of family units, but rather is
concerned with the lack of provision for seniors now and in the future.
Also, the existing housing stock does not permit seniors to age in
place, so unless more housing is available, seniors will be forced to
leave their neighbourhoods.
Responding to questions from members of Council, Mr. Cameron Gray
confirmed that Provincial funding allocations give a higher priority to
family housing, on the belief there is a greater sense of urgency for
family housing rather than seniors housing. The City is in agreement
with the point of view.
Discussion
During discussion, members of Council acknowledged the concerns of
the Seniors Committee, but agreed with the view that single family
housing is a greater priority at this time.
MOVED by Cllr. Hemer,
THAT the application be approved.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Items 2(a) and 2(b) were read into the record and considered
concurrently.
2(a). Text Amendment: RS-6 One-Family Dwelling District
An application by the Director of Land Use and Development was
considered as follows:
This proposed amendment to the text of Zoning and Development By-
law No. 3575 would:
- Establish an RS-6 District Schedule. The intent of the
proposed RS-6 zoning is to provide more flexibility for
designers and builders by enlarging the current RS-1 building
envelope, establishing some minimum standards for landscape
development through impermeability regulations and design
guidelines, establishing some standards for selected design
items through external design regulations, and providing
additional relaxations from regulations for
renovations/additions to existing houses. RS-6 also permits
more floor area for new and existing buildings, on a
conditional approval basis, up to 0.24 Floor Space Ratio plus
130 m› above grade, provided a minimum of 0.04 FSR is located
above the second storey under a pitched roof and minimum
standards for site landscaping are met. An option to exclude
basement floor area from floor space ratio to permit full
basements for houses on small lots with a proportional
reduction of above basement FSR is put forward for Council's
consideration; and
- Require consequential amendments, including the Sign, Parking
and Subdivision By-laws.
The Director of Land Use and Development recommended approval,
subject to the condition that if approved at Public Hearing, the by-laws
be accompanied at the time of enactment by the "RS-6 Design Guidelines"
to be adopted by resolution of Council for the RS-6 District.
cont'd....
2(b) Rezoning: South Shaughnessy/Granville RS-6
An application by the Director of Land Use and Development was
considered as follows:
Rezone the area generally bounded by Granville Street, West 57th
Avenue, East Boulevard, West 42nd Avenue, Maple Street, West 41st
Avenue, Cypress Street and West 49th Avenue from RS-1 One-Family
Dwelling District to RS-6 One-Family Dwelling District.
The Director of Land Use and Development recommended approval.
Also before Council was a memorandum dated January 5, 1996 from Mr.
Bob McGilvray, Planner, which recommended a proposed revision to the
Council Option "A" section 4.7.4 of the draft RS-6 zoning which allows
basement floor space to be excluded from FSR calculations provided that
an area 1/3 times the excluded basement area is deducted from the floor
area allowed on the first and second storeys.
Mr. McGilvray recommended that section 4.7.4(a)(i) be amended to
read:
"(1) an amount equal to one-half times the basement and cellar area
excluded shall be deducted from the area allowed on the first
and second storeys as defined by section 4.7.1; and".
Staff Opening Comments
Ms. Jacquie Forbes-Roberts, Director of Community Planning, advised
the application before Council applies to the South
Shaughnessy/Granville West sub-area only. There has been some
discussion about the possibility of RS-6 serving as an interim zoning
measure to deal with character issues in single-family neighbourhoods
until the Neighbourhood Centre planning can get underway as part of
Cityplan, but this will be the subject of a separate report to Council.
In addition, Planning staff will report to Council later this
Spring on broader issues which have been raised, such as the complexity
and the administration of the RS schedules generally. Staff are
proposing to look at a revised format for the RS schedule so a more
user-friendly and flexible organization can be created.
cont'd....
Clause 2(a) and (b) (cont'd)
Mr. Bob McGilvray, Planner, advised the proposed RS-6 zoning
responds to the objectives identified and debated by a Working Group
which includes residents of varying ages, family status, cultural
backgrounds, and planning concerns as well as design professionals. In
addition to the working group, the consultation process has included
public information meetings, a mail survey, and meetings with trade and
professional groups.
In preparing this draft by-law, the Working Group defined five
major objectives:
. No significant alterations to property values;
. Encourage landscaping and tree retention;
. Foster a wider variety of house designs and improved external
design standards;
. Foster the retention and renovation of existing housing stock;
. Minimize zoning complexity, permitting cost and time.
Mr. McGilvray explained that a typical RS zone has a district
schedule which regulates quantitative issues and some have design
guidelines which address the external design objectives or qualitative
issues of the project. The proposed RS-6 is slightly different in that
design control is primarily achieved using mandatory external design
regulations rather than through design guidelines. Using this approach
the working group accepted that RS-6 would be more specific and less
flexible than if they used a discretionary design guideline approach in
return for more predictability and shorter processing times.
In an attempt to address this less flexible nature of this zoning
approach, the Working Group supported developing design guidelines.
These guidelines establish criteria for Director of Planning relaxations
of external design regulations where an application proposes an element
that is determined to meet the general intent of the RS-6 by-law but is,
nevertheless, contrary to a specific regulation. This somewhat
innovative use of design guidelines will allow, in some cases, a broader
palette of design options while insuring the Working Groups' objectives
are met.
Landscaping is addressed solely in the design guidelines. These
guidelines are flexible and are applicable where an application seeks an
allowable discretionary increase to floor area under RS-6.
With the aid of a slide presentation, Mr. McGilvray summarized the
proposed RS-6 zoning and highlighted the major differences from other RS
schedules.
cont'd....
Clause 2(a) and (b) (cont'd)
Summary of Correspondence
A review of the correspondence received over the course of the two
evenings indicated the following:
. 8 letters in favour of the application;
. 1 letter in favour of the application, subject to amending Section
4.43 of the draft by-law which deals with front-yard setbacks;
. 1 letter (containing 15 signatures) requesting extension of RS-6
zoning to another area;
. 1 letter requesting deferral;
. 7 letters opposing the application;
. 1 letter expressing concern with detailed design control and
neighbourhood design panels;
. 1 letter urging that architects design all buildings.
Speakers
Mayor Owen called for speakers for and against the application, and
a total of 21 speakers addressed Council over the course of the two
evenings.
The following individuals spoke in favour of the application:
. Mr. James Brailey, 1900 Block West 42nd Avenue
. Mr. Bill Farish, 5900 Block Trafalgar Street
. Ms. Betty Anderson, 6800 Block Laburnum Street
. Ms. Robbie McKenzie, 5900 Block Maple Street
. Ms. Patricia Daum, 6500 Block Maple Street
. Mr. Eric Watt, 6200 Block Adera Street
. Ms. Claire Hurley.
The foregoing supported the application on one or more of the
following grounds:
. The Working Group members were selected from a large community
meeting, and the membership of the group reflected the diversity of
the neighbourhood;
cont'd....
Clause 2(a) and (b) (cont'd)
. The Working Group engaged in a consensus building project. Not
all members of the Group are completely satisfied with every aspect
of the new zoning, but RS-6 is a good compromise that has majority
support from the Working Group;
. The present RS-1 zoning is inadequate and is not meeting the needs
of the neighbourhood. There is wide dissatisfaction with the
status-quo. RS-6 is reflective of the wishes of the neighbourhood;
. Many people were attracted to this neighbourhood because of
characteristics such as historical houses and good landscaping, but
the area is losing these valuable features;
. The Working Group does not support neighbourhood design panels,
either in a decision-making or advisory capacity;
. It was noted that a survey advanced by the Architectural Institute
of B.C., which differs from the City survey, may be misleading. Of
the nine Working Group members, only one member was contacted for
the AIBC survey, and it was observed that the architectural student
conducting the survey provided a biased slant on the questions;
. Council should listen to the voice of the neighbourhood on this
issue, rather than the voice of special interest groups from
outside the neighbourhood;
. The objectives identified by the Working Group were laudable, and
the draft RS-6 by-law fulfills these objectives.
Mr. Harley Rothstein, 3800 Block West 21st Avenue, supported the
application, but suggested a preference that "box-like" houses should
not be permitted at all. Mr. Rothstein favoured neighbourhood design
panels.
The following speakers opposed the application because of the
negative impact it would have on B.C glass artists:
. Mr. Robert Studer, B.C Glass Arts Association;
. Mr. Brian Baxter, B.C. Glass Arts Association
(brief on file).
cont'd....
Clause 2(a) and (b) (cont'd)
The foregoing speakers opposed the application on the following
grounds:
. This application will unfairly limit business opportunities for
B.C. glass artists;
. The proposed by-law will not result in a display of good taste. As
written, it will produce safe, mediocrity in glass work, if indeed
glass is used at all;
. The present proposal is punitive in that applicants wanting to use
art glass will have to go through a separate approval scheme which
will result in increased processing time and higher permit fees.
Rather than bother with the time and expenses associated with this
stream, applicants will not bother with art glass;
. This proposal would require glass artists to design windows before
a building begins, and clients to pay design fees for windows
before construction begins;
. The submitted designs would be judged by staff at City Hall who do
not have this expertise;
. A listing of approved artists promotes favouritism.
The following speakers, who are members of the Architectural
Institute of B.C., were opposed to the application:
. Mr. Robert Turecki (survey results on file)
. Ms. Patricia Bourque
. Mr. Stuart Howard
. Mr. Joe May.
The foregoing opposed the application on one or more of the
following grounds:
. This by-law is another band-aid solution for single-family zoning
in the City, and does not address the issue of neighbourhood
control, but instead leaves control with the Planning Department;
cont'd....
Clause 2(a) and (b) (cont'd)
. AIBC conducted its own survey in the area which resulted in
findings that a substantial number of residents do not agree or did
not know about the proposed zoning;
. The Planning Department prefers to write new by-laws rather than
fix the existing ones. Also, this by-law is similar to ones the
Planning Department tried to bring forward on previous occasions.
RS-6 is a new twist on an old theme;
. This proposed by-law will increase the cost of new homes as well as
the length of time necessary to obtain permits;
. The by-law will be administered by the least experienced Planning
staff who will "play it safe", and be governed by the principles of
precedent. This will stifle creativity and innovation and
encourage all houses to look alike;
. The process used by the Planning Department to arrive at this stage
did not include adequate public and professional consultation, and
too much credibility was given to individuals and groups who were
not representative of the entire neighbourhood;
. The AIBC survey also included results indicating that 64% of
respondents support local residents having greater influence over
the design of houses in their residential area through a
neighbourhood-based design panel;
. A fundamental change is required in the manner in which permits are
processed. The City should move to a system which allows
neighbourhood control through residential design panels which have
approving authority;
. Neighbourhood design panels are an effective form of neighbourhood
control because they are not governed by consistency or precedent,
as are Planning staff, and are able to support applications which
may be innovative and a good fit with the community.
The following speakers representing the Greater Vancouver
Homebuilders Association opposed the application:
. Mr. Dan Funaro
. Mr. Gordon Tait.
cont'd....
Clause 2(a) and (b) (cont'd)
The foregoing speakers opposed the application on the following
grounds:
. The City already has too many regulations for housing construction,
and this by-law will only worsen the situation;
. RS-6 will result in increased housing costs. In Vancouver,
administrative costs have risen faster than building costs;
. The by-law should be rejected outright because zoning by-laws
should not legislate taste. Creativity and innovation will be
stifled;
. This by-law will be difficult to enforce;
. The Greater Vancouver Homebuilders Association was not adequately
consulted about this draft by-law.
Mr. James Horwood, 2000 Block West 45th Avenue, opposed the
application on the grounds that no zoning of any kind is necessary
because it is expensive and represents an infringement on human rights.
Mr. Phil Spicer, 2000 Block West 47th Avenue, stated a preference
for RS-5 rather than RS-6. In addition the City should amend its RS-1
guidelines to allow for a 40% building depth, rather than the 35%
building depth which is currently permitted.
Ms. Karin Hung, 2000 Block West 43rd Avenue, presented a brief (on
file) on behalf of Ms. Lillian Lim, who was a member of the RS-6 Working
Group. Ms Lim opposed the current RS-6 draft by-law because the changes
in the by-law meant to address the issues of "ugly" houses will instead
lead to further decline in the quality of house design in
neighbourhoods. If Council does proceed with RS-6, amendments should be
made to allow architects greater freedom in design after consultation
with the inhabitants of the affected neighbourhood.
Mr. Kingsley Lo, 6700 Block Montgomery Street (briefs on file),
advised he was a member of the RS-6 Working Group, and identified errors
which exist in the current draft by-law which need to be corrected, or
the by-law should not be adopted. Mr. Lo also submitted another option
(on file), for Council's consideration which incorporated these
amendments. Responding to
cont'd....
Clause 2(a) and (b) (cont'd)
questions from a member of Council, Mr. Lo stated that in his opinion,
the Working Group was not truly representative of the neighbourhood.
Mr. Lo also reported on the results of the most recent meeting of
the RS-6 Working Group which had been held after the conclusion of the
first evening of the Public Hearing. On behalf of the Working Group Mr.
Lo advised:
"In response to the heavy protest of the glass artist in the last
Public Hearing, Planning Department called another meeting with the
RS-6 Working Group on Tuesday, January 30, 1996. At the end of the
meeting I was delegated by the Group to report to Council as
follows: that when the matter of the stained glass was actually
put to formal vote, the true result was that the Group unanimously
wanted to allow stained glass in house design. Council is also
hereby further advised that the majority of the RS-6 Working Group
members actually voted to have Section 4.17.33 regarding windows be
entirely deleted."
Mr. Charles Dobson, on behalf of the Vancouver Citizens Committee,
urged Council to adopt neighbourhood design panels with approving
authority. Consultation and citizen involvement does take more time,
but it is worth the effort as citizens feel there are some issues best
dealt with at the neighbourhood level. The present application before
Council which recommends new rules and additional staff resources to
enforce these rules is out of context with the City's Better City
Government approach.
Conclusion
At the conclusion of the hearing of the speakers, Mayor Owen
advised that a final decision on this application would be made at a
future Regular Council meeting.
NOTE FROM CLERK: This item is scheduled for the February 27, 1996
Regular Council Meeting as Unfinished Business.
cont'd....
Clause 2(a) and (b) (cont'd)
Staff were requested to provide additional information on
enforcement issues associated with this draft by-law, as well as
information on the number of Designated Heritage houses in this
neighbourhood as well as the number of houses on the heritage inventory.
Staff were also requested to provide information on the heritage
designation process.
RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Moved by Cllr. Hemer,
THAT the Committee of the Whole rise and report.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPT REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Hemer,
SECONDED by Cllr. Ip,
THAT the report of the Committee of the Whole be adopted.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
* * *
The Special Council Meeting adjourned on February 6, 1996
at 10:50 p.m.