SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 3
P&E COMMITTEE AGENDA
NOVEMBER 28, 1996
POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING
Date: November 6, 1996
Dept. File: PEM-95017
TO: Standing Committee on Planning & Environment
FROM: Director of Land Use & Development
SUBJECT: Proposed Rezoning of 6691-6699 Victoria Drive
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the application by Edward de Grey, Architect, to rezone the
site at 6691-6699 Victoria Drive (Lots 24 to 26, Block 2, D.L. 735,
Plan 3421) from RT-2 to CD-1, for a three-storey, mixed-use
development providing commercial floor area at grade and dwelling
units above, be REFUSED.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of
the foregoing.
COUNCIL POLICY
- RT-2 Two-Family Dwelling District Schedule and RT-2 Multiple
Dwelling Guidelines,
- C-2 Commercial District Schedule, and
- RS-1 and RS-1S One-Family Dwelling Districts Schedule.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
This report assesses an application to rezone the three lots at
6691-6699 Victoria Drive from RT-2 to CD-1, to allow a mixed-use,
three-storey development containing commercial uses at grade and
dwelling uses above. (Additional information is provided in Appendix A,
plans in Appendix D and statistical information in Appendix E.)
Planning staff recommend that the application be refused, for the
following reasons:
- there is no acceptable justification for increasing commercial
potential in this area,
- the proposed floor space ratio and residential unit density are too
high for this location,
- the proposed form of development is incompatible with the adjoining
RS-1S and RT-2 Districts, and
- neighbours who telephoned, or came in to look at the plans of
proposed development, did not indicate any support for the
application but expressed various concerns about it.
The application and drawings reviewed in this report were submitted in
April, 1995 by Kenneth King, Architect who requested in September, 1995
that the application be put on hold while he and the property owner
considered staff s non-support. The application is now represented by
Edward de Grey, Architect, who wishes to significantly revise the plans
(see Background information in Appendix A and Applicant s Comment in
Appendix B). However, staff are reluctant to assess a revised
application from Mr. de Grey as it would still propose commercial floor
space at grade and because it would have to be reviewed anew, as if a
new application, but with no fee being collected to recover staff costs.
Because Planning staff recommend that the application be refused, draft
CD-1 By-law provisions and conditions of rezoning approval have not been
prepared for referral to a Public Hearing.
DISCUSSION
Land Use As the city generally has an over-supply of commercially-zoned
land, staff advised the original applicant, and earlier enquirers, that
a rationale for additional commercially-zoned land in this neighbourhood
would have to be demonstrated. The original applicant provided
information and analysis about the adjoining C-2 commercial district and
stated that the proposed commercial space is "supported by population
estimates and the review of existing and potential development". (see
Further Discussion in Appendix B)
Staff concluded that there was not a good case for increasing the
potential for commercial space in this district:
- The observed 7.6 percent vacancy rate for grade-level commercial
space is a healthy one. The additional commercial floor area would
almost double that rate, to 13 percent. This would likely delay
the assembly and redevelopment of under-utilized or redevelopable
sites in the C-2 District.
- The original applicant identified redevelopment potential on
under-utilized sites and sites with buildings in poor condition.
However, staff think the two gasoline station sites are also
redevelopable. On this basis there is a total potential to
increase grade-level commercial space in this area by about 25
percent, without any rezoning required.
The available data indicate there is vacant space and redevelopment
potential for almost three times as much grade-level commercial space as
the application proposes. This should be more than adequate for a
neighbourhood whose population has been growing at a rate of just 1.2
percent per year. Therefore, no public benefit would be achieved by
enlarging the local-serving commercial district in this area.
Density and Form of Development The proposed FSR of 1.7 is almost three
times the maximum (0.60) in the adjoining RT-2 and RS-1S Districts.
Staff have concluded that this is unacceptable, for at least two
reasons:
- The proposed development would have significantly more bulk than
buildings in the adjoining RS-1S and RT-2 Districts, resulting in a
form of development which is not in scale and character with
surrounding residential buildings.
- The proposed development would not maintain the open space
character of the surrounding neighbourhood (the site coverage would
far exceed the maximum permitted in the RT-2 District and most of
the undeveloped site area would be used for surface parking rather
than providing landscaped open space).
The Urban Design Panel did not support the application because it "had
serious concerns about the form of development and the density being
proposed". The Panel "felt that a reduction in density would lead to a
more interesting form that would be more responsive to the residential
neighbourhood".
The original applicant stated that rezoning would complement adjacent
retail and service uses and consolidate the blockface, that a three- or
four-storey building would be more in scale with the width of the street
and with adjoining C-2 zoning, and that proposed development could more
properly interface with the blank wall of adjoining development.
Staff fail to see how the proposed development addresses the fact of a
0.76 m (2.5 ft.) sideyard on the abutting site to the north. More
importantly, correcting a mid-block C-2/RT-2 zoning boundary is a
questionable benefit and does not outweigh the potential negative
impacts of proposed development. Mid-block zoning boundaries are not
unusual in the city and result in a variety of mid-block changes in land
use, density and building height. There is no unique factor on this
site to justify extending the commercial district to the south end of
the block.
Proposed Revisions The new applicant requests that Council refer the
application to a Public Hearing with the following revisions that he
proposes to make beforehand:
- reduction in commercial floor area (amount unspecified),
- reduction in FSR (amount unspecified),
- revision of form of development according to Urban Design Panel
advice, and
- provision of a dwelling unit with modifications to accommodate
persons with special needs .
Both the original applicant and then the new applicant requested an
opportunity to revise the application after the staff report was
completed. Staff did not support these requests because the revisions
would not address the issue of increased commercial potential.
Furthermore, a revised application would have had to be reviewed anew,
as if a new application, including renotification of surrounding
neighbours and a review by the Urban Design Panel but with no fee being
collected to recover staff costs.
If Council is prepared to consider some commercial floor space on this
site, staff suggest that the applicant should submit a new application
which staff would then process in the usual manner. (Note: A new
application which proposes little or no commercial space, a
significantly reduced floor space ratio, increased open space, and an
adaptable dwelling unit would be sufficiently different from the present
application that Council would have the legal authority to consider it
within a year s time of its refusal of the present application.)
CONCLUSION
Planning staff do not support the commercial use, density and form of
development proposed in this rezoning application and therefore
recommend that it be refused.
If Council wishes to consider a revised application, as requested by the
present applicant, staff suggest that Council refuse the present
application, as recommended in this report, and that it indicate that it
is prepared to consider a wholly new rezoning application by the present
applicant.
* * * * *
APPENDIX A
Page 1 of 2
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Background An earlier rezoning report was completed and given to the
original applicant for comment on September 8, 1995. The application
was subsequently on hold for more than a year awaiting an applicant
comment that was received on October 16, 1996 (preliminary comments were
received on October 1, 1996).
In April 1996, the original applicant and the property owner met with
staff to propose some revisions to the application, but with commercial
space retained at grade. A Retail and Occupancy Study was also
submitted in an effort to provide further support of the proposed
commercial space. After a review of this study, staff concluded there
was no basis for changing the conclusion and recommendation of the 1995
staff report. (see Further Discussion in Appendix B)
In August 1996, staff were informed that another architect would take
over the application. This was confirmed in a letter dated September
24, 1996 from Edward de Grey, Architect, and a letter dated October 23,
1996 from the original applicant, Kenneth E. King, Architect.
Site, Surrounding Zoning and Development The site consists of three
lots, each being 7.9 m (26 ft.) by 34.4 m (113 ft.) in size, with a
total width of 23.8 m (78 ft.). The site is developed with two
one-family dwellings.
The site is at the north-west corner of Victoria Drive and East 51st
Avenue. It abuts a C-2 district which extends north, to East 48th
Avenue on the east side of Victoria Drive and East 47th Avenue on the
west side (see map on page 3 of Appendix B). The surrounding area is
generally zoned RS-1 east of this corridor, and RS-1S to the west.
South Vancouver Neighbourhood House is located at 6470 Victoria Drive.
Gordon Park is located one block to the west between East 49th Avenue
and East 53rd Avenue.
The abutting site to the north, which occupies the balance of the
block-face, was rezoned from RT-2 to C-2 in 1959 and developed with a
two-storey building containing commercial uses at grade with dwellings
above and surface parking at the rear. This development has provided a
0.76 m (2.5 ft.) sideyard setback from the south property boundary which
may need to be gated for crime prevention purposes if development on the
proposed rezoning site does not provide a setback from its north
property boundary.
Proposed Development A three-storey, mixed-use development is proposed,
containing commercial floor area at grade for retail, service, and
office uses and 12 dwelling units in two upper storeys. A building
height of 9.2 m (30 ft.) is proposed and a floor space ratio (FSR) of
1.7. Underground and surface parking would provide 31 parking spaces.
APPENDIX A
Page 2 of 2
About 36 percent of the total floor area, or 509.4 m2(5,483 sq. ft.),
would be for commercial uses. This floor space would be oriented to
Victoria Drive while the dwelling units on the upper two floors would
have their street entrance on East 51st Avenue. The commercial floor
area would be occupied by the property owner who presently operates two
retail premises in the adjoining development, Teemway Seafood Co. and
Teemway Meat Market Ltd. at 6645 and 6653 Victoria Drive respectively.
A 2.43 m (8 ft.) sideyard setback is proposed on East 51st and a 6.1 m
(20 ft.) setback at the rear. The rear yard would provide surface
parking as would a portion of the sideyard near the lane. No sideyard
from the north property line is proposed although the adjoining
development has a 0.76 m (2.5 ft.) sideyard.
Proposed Revisions In April 1996, the original applicant and property
owner met with staff to propose some revisions to the original
application:
commercial floor area reduced to 371.6 m2(4,000 sq. ft.),
FSR reduced from 1.7 to 1.5,
form of development revised according to Urban Design Panel Advice,
including a reduction in surface parking and increased underground
parking so as to provide increased open space, and
provision of an assured rental, accessible/adaptable dwelling at
grade for the physically disabled (entry on East 51st Avenue).
As these proposed revisions still included commercial floor area and did
not address other staff concerns described in the 1995 report, staff
were not prepared to reassess the application.
In October 1996, the new applicant requested an opportunity to make the
following revisions:
reduction in commercial floor area (amount unspecified),
reduction in FSR (amount unspecified),
revision of form of development according to Urban Design Panel and
staff advice, and
provision of a dwelling unit with modifications to accommodate
persons with special needs .
Staff did not support this request because the proposed revisions would
not address the issue of increased commercial potential and because a
revised application would have had to be reviewed anew, as if a new
application, including renotification of surrounding neighbours and a
review by the Urban Design Panel but with no fee being collected to
recover staff costs.
* * * * *
APPENDIX B
Page 1 of 4
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMERCIAL SPACE
Commercial Feasibility Study (1995) To assess the potential impact of
the proposed rezoning on the adjoining commercial district, the original
applicant was requested to submit information and analysis which
justified a need for additional commercial space in this neighbourhood.
Staff reviewed the material submitted with the original rezoning
application and make the following observations.
1. Existing Commercial Space: The original applicant identified
9 935 m2 (106,943 sq. ft.) of commercial floor area in the small C-2
commercial strip centered at East 49th Avenue and Victoria Drive (see
map on page 3 of this Appendix). As shown in the table below, most of
the space is occupied by retail uses.
Supply of Commercial Space
Retail/Service 7 026.1 m2 (75,630 sq. ft.) 70.7 %
Office/Other 2 253.0 m2 (24,252 sq. ft.) 22.7 %
Vacant 655.9 m2 ( 7,060 sq. ft.) 6.6 %
TOTAL 9 935.0 m2 (106,942 sq. ft.) 100.0 %
Most of the commercial space (87 percent), or 8 656.6 m2
(93,181.9 sq. ft.), is provided at grade. About 43 percent of
the office space, or 974.6 m2 (10,491.0 sq. ft.), is provided at
grade. South Vancouver Neighbourhood House and Elizabeth Fry
Society Family Support Services are included in the estimate of
office space, occupying 782.3 m2 (8,421 sq. ft.) or 35 percent of
the office space in this area.
Most of the commercial space consists of small premises providing
convenience retail or services catering to the daily needs of
surrounding residents. These include pharmacy, grocery stores,
produce stores, delicatessen, barber shop, beauty salon, coffee
shop, restaurant, drycleaning, and video store. Also included
are two gasoline stations and a large, 1 384 m2 (14,900 sq. ft.),
Value Village second-hand store which serves a wider city area.
2. Existing Commercial Potential: The original applicant
identified 655.9 m2 (7,060 sq. ft.) of the commercial space at
grade as being vacant and available for lease. This is 7.0
percent of the total commercial floor space at grade in this C-2
District. He also identified two sites which have good potential
for redevelopment, enabling a net increase of 800 m2 (8,611
sq. ft.) in grade-level commercial floor space.
APPENDIX B
Page 2 of 4
The total amount of vacant space and redevelopment potential
identified by the original applicant is 1 455 m2 (15,672 sq.
ft.), representing about 16.8 percent of existing grade-level
commercial floor area. This is almost three times as much floor
space as the rezoning application proposes.
3. Additional Potential Identified by Staff: Staff have
identified some additional potential. First, office uses at
grade might be relocated to upper stories. Second, there are two
gasoline service station sites in the district, at 49th &
Victoria, which could be redeveloped.
Potential Vacant and Additional Commercial Floor Area at
Grade
Existing Vacant Space 656 m2 ( 7,060 sq. ft.)
Redevelopment Potential 800 m2 ( 8,611 sq. ft.)
Sub-Total (applicant estimate) 1 455 m2 (15,672 sq. ft.)
Office Space 975 m2 (10,493 sq. ft.)
Redevelopment Potential* 1 139 m2 (12,260 sq. ft.)
Sub-Total (staff estimate) 2 114 m2 (22,754 sq. ft.)
TOTAL 3 569 m2 (38,418 sq. ft.)
*Assuming an FSR of 0.5 and 50 percent site coverage on a total site
area of 2278 m2 (24,521 sq. ft.), or, alternatively, an FSR of 1.0 and
100 percent site coverage on only one service station site.
Staff have identified a potential for an additional 2 114 m2
(22,754 sq. ft.) of grade-level commercial space. This is
equivalent to 26.5 percent of existing occupied space and might
be expected to materialize as the immediate potential identified
by the applicant is absorbed.
4. Retail Demand: Census data for the years 1981, 1986 and 1991
indicate that population and households in the census tract (14)
surrounding the site have increased at a rate of about 1.2
percent per year. Given this growth rate, the vacant space and
immediate redevelopment potential should be sufficient to address
neighbourhood needs for the next decade or two.
Over the longer term, the maximum FSR of 3.0 and 100 percent site
coverage permitted in the C-2 District represent a potential of
approximately 60 000 m2 (645,000 sq. ft.) in this area. While it
is both likely and preferred that most of this potential will be
developed in multiple dwelling use (in upper storeys of mixed-use
developments), the overall potential is so large that rezoning to
increase commercial development potential is very difficult to
justify at this time.
APPENDIX B
Page 3 of 4
West 49th Avenue and Victoria Drive
C-2 Commercial District (showing building outlines)
APPENDIX B
Page 4 of 4
Retail and Occupancy Study (1996) In April 1996, the original
applicant submitted a study by Burgess, Austin & Associates (Real
Estate Appraisers and Market Analysts) to provide further
justification for the proposed commercial space (on file in
Planning Department). The study s main conclusion follows:
While it may be fair to observe that the area in question is
not fully developed with regards to the available
retail/commercial space which could be constructed, there is
very little opportunity ... to construct a modern contiguous
retail unit of some 4,000 sq. ft., given the patterns of
ownership, present property usage and the general economic
viability associated with existing uses.
Staff think that the study s criteria were overly restrictive as
it deemed any site less than 6,000 sq. ft. to be unsuitable for
commercial redevelopment and also any site with near 100 percent
site coverage. These criteria removed from consideration all but
three of the 25 sites in this C-2 district. These three sites in
turn were judged to be uneconomical to redevelop for at least 10
years.
Staff believe there is opportunity in this area of predominantly
small one-storey commercial buildings to assemble small lots for
redevelopment, as was recently achieved at 6201-6255 Victoria
Drive for a four-storey development having commercial uses at
grade and dwelling units above. By using the criteria in this
study, it could be argued that virtually all small, local-serving
commercial areas throughout the city should be enlarged by
rezoning adjoining residential sites to commercial use.
Staff also question the study s observation about vacancy rates.
These are reported to have declined from 7 percent in May, 1995
to 4.7 percent in November, 1995. The study states that the
vacancy rate should be between 5 and 8 percent to be considered
healthy and balanced . Staff think that the amount of vacant
commercial space in the area will naturally fluctuate, from year
to year, and possibly on a seasonal basis as well.
Staff also note that the property owner presently rents
commercial space at 6645 and 6653 Victoria Drive. If rezoning is
approved and the proposed development is undertaken, this 167 m2
(1,800 sq. ft.) would be added to the supply of vacant space in
the area, which was 656 m2 ( 7,060 sq. ft.) as of November,
1995.
Based on the foregoing concerns, Planning staff concluded there
was no basis for changing the conclusion and recommendation of
the September, 1995 staff report.
* * * * *
APPENDIX C
Page 1 of 2
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE APPLICANT
Urban Design Panel In its review of the application on June 7,
1995, the Urban Design Panel felt that commercial uses at grade
could be compatible with surrounding uses but the Panel did not
support the application because it "had serious concerns about
the form of development and the density being proposed" and "felt
that a reduction in density would lead to a more interesting form
that would be more responsive to the residential neighbourhood."
Specific improvements were recommended: provision of a dwelling
unit at grade off 51st Avenue, provision of a larger setback from
51st Avenue, removal of parking from this setback area, and
setting back the third storey from the front property line.
Interior dens and bedrooms without windows must also be avoided.
Public Input An application information sign was installed on
the site on June 8, 1995. On June 14, 1995, staff mailed a
notification letter to 256 property owners in the surrounding
area.
The original applicant undertook some public consultation prior
to submitting the application, including interviews with
immediate neighbours and an Open House on April 4, 1995. The
application states that results indicate generally that the
neighbourhood is supportive of the proposal.
Planning staff have received telephone calls from several
residents and some have come in to look at the plans of proposed
development. All have expressed concerns about the increased
traffic and on-street parking which they anticipate from the
proposed commercial and residential development. Planning staff
have not received any communication from neighbours in support of
the application.
Applicant's Comment
Planning staff completed this report and provided it to the
original applicant, Mr. Kenneth King, Architect, for comment on
September 8, 1995. Written applicant s comment for inclusion in
the report was received from the new applicant, Mr. Edward de
Grey, Architect, on October 8, 1996. (Note: The original
applicant, Mr. King, confirmed on October 23, 1996, that he was
no longer the applicant representing this application.)
APPENDIX C
Page 2 of 2
The following comment is from Mr. de Grey s letter of October 8,
1996:
The applicant and the owner believe that it is reasonable
to request the opportunity to go to Public Hearing for this
rezoning application on the basis of the cumulative number
of factors which together act to favour the obtaining of
specific direct evaluation of neighbourhood response to the
proposed rezoning. That is to say that while each of the
factors considered favourable may not tip the balance
unquestionably when considered only individually, but all of
the cumulative factors when considered together appear as a
package to be sufficiently compelling to support the request
for the application be forwarded to a Public Hearing. The
application includes commercial use space at grade level in
a mixed-use residential building. In response to the
concerns of the Planning Department about the commercial
use, the owner hired Burgess Austin & Associates, consultant
land use economists, to review the commercial district
around Victoria Drive and East 49th Avenue. In his report
of November 24, 1995, Geoffrey Burgess concludes that there
are no suitable suites available within the survey area for
this client s needs, and that, if the clients needs are to
be accommodated, the proposed additional commercial spaces
will have no impact on the commercial viability of this
neighbourhood retail node.
On October 16, 1996, Mr. de Grey provided a five-page letter of
additional comment. (Copies will be made available to the
Committee.)
* * * * *
APPENDIX E
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
APPLICATION BY Edward de Grey, Architect
PLANS BY Kenneth E. King, Architect (Original Applicant)
PROPERTY OWNER Teemway Holdings Ltd.
DEVELOPER Teemway Holdings Ltd.
SITE INFORMATION AND STATISTICS
STREET ADDRESS 6691-6699 Victoria Drive
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 24 to 26, Block 2, D.L. 735, Plan 3421
SITE AREA 827.5 m2(8,904 sq. ft.)
WIDTH 23.8 m (78 ft.) [3 lots x 7.9 m (26 ft.)]
DEPTH 34.4 m (113 ft.)
DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS
DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED PROPOSED RECOMMENDED
UNDER RT-2 ZONING DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
(see NOTE 3)
FLOOR AREA
Commercial (At Grade) 509.4 m2( 5,483 ft2) STAFF
Residential (Above) TOTAL 902.9 m2( 9,719 ft2)
1412.3 m2(15,202 ft2) RECOMMEND
MAX. FLOOR SPACE RATIO 0.60 (see NOTE 1) 1.7
THAT
DWELLING UNITS 3 (see NOTE 2 12
THIS
MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE 45 % 61.5 %
APPLICATION MAXIMUM HEIGHT 9.2 m (30 ft.)
BE FRONT YARD SETBACK 7.3 m (24 ft.) 0 m ( 0 ft.)
REFUSED REAR YARD SETBACK 7.6 m (25 ft.) 6.1 m (20 ft.)
SIDE YARD SETBACKS
from south property line 3.7 m (12.1 ft.) 2.43 m (8 ft.) but with
surface parking near lane
0 m (0 ft.) although
from north property line 1.5 m (4.9 ft.) abutting site provides 0.76
m (2.5 ft.)
PARKING 31
NOTES: (1) The maximum FSR is 0.75 for multiple dwellings, but the site does not meet the requirements for
approval of this conditional approval use as set out in the RT-2 Multiple Dwelling Guidelines.
(2) The three individual lots are restricted to one-family dwelling development as they do not meet
the minimum site area requirements in the RT-2 District for two-family dwellings.
(3) These statistics represent the application as submitted in 1995 by the original
applicant.