CD-1 Text Amendments: 3418 and 3550 Vanness Avenue (Colling...

POLICY REPORT
BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT

Date: December 20, 1996
Dept. File No.96033 & 96044-PP/LC

TO: Vancouver City Council

FROM: Director of Land Use and Development, in consultation with the
General Manager of Engineering Services

SUBJECT: CD-1 Text Amendments: 3418 and 3550 Vanness Avenue
(Collingwood Village); Amendment of Parking Requirement for
Multi-family Residential Use

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the applications by Greystone Properties Ltd. to amend CD-1
By-laws No. 7204 and No. 7639 to reduce the parking requirement for
multi-family residential use be referred to Public Hearing,
together with:

(i) the draft CD-1 By-law amendments, generally as contained in
Appendix A; and

(ii) the recommendation of the Director of Land Use and Development
to approve the applications;

FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to
prepare the necessary by-laws for consideration at the Public
Hearing.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of
the foregoing.

COUNCIL POLICY

Relevant Council policy includes:

* City Plan (1995)
* The Collingwood Village CD-1 By-laws No. 7204 (1993) and No. 7639
(1996)
* Housing Opportunities Strategy (1990)
* Joyce Station Area Plan (JSAP) (1987).

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report evaluates two applications by Greystone Properties Ltd. to
amend the existing CD-1 By-laws for Collingwood Village and an adjacent
site in the Joyce Station Area. The proposed amendments would reduce
the amount of parking required for (market) multi-family residential
use.

DISCUSSION

Background: On November 2, 1993, Council approved the application by
VLC Properties (now Greystone Properties) for the rezoning of the
Joyce/Vanness Industrial Area for the development of Collingwood
Village. The Collingwood Village development ultimately would include
up to 192 000 m2 in a maximum of 2,800 dwelling units. Development was
to occur in four phases over 10 to 12 years. Phase I, with 685 dwelling
units and consisting of 50 099 m2, has been built and occupied. Another
127 dwelling units (7 996 m2) at 3418 Vanness Avenue, contiguous with
the Collingwood Village CD-1, were approved in a separate rezoning
enacted October 22, 1996.

The parking requirement for market multi-family residential use at
Collingwood Village is:

a minimum of 1 space for each 200 m2 of gross floor area plus 1
space for each dwelling unit, except that no more than 1.1 spaces
per dwelling unit need be provided for each dwelling unit less than
50 m2 of gross floor area;

and for 3418 Vanness Avenue is:

a minimum of one off-street parking space for every dwelling unit
plus one space for each 200 m2 of gross residential floor area must
be provided.

The parking standard for Collingwood Village is illustrated in Figure 1
(see Appendix B).

In recognition of proximity to SkyTrain, this standard is 0.1 space per
unit lower than the RM-4 standard that is used for similar residential
development in many areas of the city. The standard also assumes that
half of the customary 0.2 space per unit visitor parking requirement
will be satisfied on the street. Overall, the standard requires
approximately 1.35 parking spaces per dwelling unit.

With the occupancy of nearby Wellington Mews, 3450 Wellington Avenue and
the first phase of Collingwood Village, it became apparent that parking
demand is not as high as had been expected. Consequently, Greystone
applied for an amendment to the CD-1 zoning to require less parking. To
document the true demand for parking, Greystone secured the services of
a consultant, Paul Bunt & Associates Engineering Ltd. The City
participated jointly in the ensuing study.

Parking Study: The investigation of parking demands for Collingwood
Village is documented in the Collingwood Village Parking Study ,
prepared by the consultant and available through the office of the
General Manager of Engineering Services. The following summarizes the
study and its findings.

A survey was completed by residents from 52 recently developed
multiple-unit housing sites in east Vancouver or west Burnaby in summer,
1996. Thirty-three of the sites were within 300 m (approximately 1,000
ft.) of SkyTrain; the remainder were at least 1 000 m (3,280 ft.)
removed. City staff also surveyed residents in 7 additional locations
and augmented coverage at one of the original 52 sites. In addition,
occupancy counts of on-street and underground parking were conducted.
Finally, license plates were recorded and then traced to determine where
the owners of vehicles on the street lived.

Study Findings: The car ownership levels determined from the surveys
(see Table 1 below) were significantly lower than anticipated in the
current CD 1 by-laws. The average ownership overall was almost exactly
1.0 vehicle per household. Those residences near SkyTrain averaged 0.96
vehicle per household.

TABLE 1 - HOUSEHOLD VEHICLE OWNERSHIP

No. of Near SkyTrain Remote from SkyTrain All Households
Vehicles
# Households Percentage # Households Percentage # Households Percentage Owned

0 86 24% 33 17% 119 21%
1 213 59% 125 64% 338 61%
2 54 15% 31 16% 85 15%
3 7 1.9% 4 2% 11 2.0%
4 1 0.3% 1 1% 2 0.4%

TOTAL 361 100% 194 100% 555 100%
AVERAGE 0.96 1.05 0.99

21% of all households (24% near SkyTrain) did not have a vehicle.

Residents of Collingwood Village/Wellington Mews reported vehicle
ownership averaging 0.99 vehicle/household.

A clear relationship between the size of the dwelling and the level
of vehicle ownership was established; i.e., the larger the unit the
higher the number of vehicles.

Frequency of use of the SkyTrain has a strong, inverse link with
the level of vehicle ownership; e.g. those surveyed who use
SkyTrain less than twice per month own an average of 1.14 vehicles,
while those using it more than ten times per month own only 0.82
vehicle per household. Overall, those living closer to SkyTrain
were higher users, as expected.

Household income and the number of household residents also showed
direct links with vehicle ownership.

While vehicle ownership among owner-occupied households was
slightly higher than found in rental households, there was no
difference when units of the same size were compared.

Some 11% of residents vehicles were regularly parked on-street,
for various reasons; regardless of cost or parking availability, it
is expected that 5% to 7% of vehicles will be parked on-street due
to overheight vehicles, safety concerns, etc.

Late-night occupancy at Collingwood Village, correcting for
unoccupied units, was observed at 0.57 stall per unit. This cannot
be used to determine a parking requirement since several demand
components are missing or under-represented, but does indicate an
excess of parking provision.

While on-street parking was fairly evenly distributed in the four
quadrants surrounding Joyce Station at night, during the day the
southeast quadrant (Collingwood Village) had significantly more
vehicles than other areas. This likely indicates parking by
commuters using SkyTrain or employees of local businesses or
institutions, using the unrestricted curb space.

Reduction in Parking Standard: Based on the study s findings, staff
recommend that the parking requirement be amended as follows:

0.75 space per dwelling unit plus one space per 250 m2 of gross
floor area of residential use.

The requirement represents a 20 to 25% reduction in the amount of
residential parking, and could ultimately reduce parking provision by
some 700 spaces for Collingwood Village at build out. Figure 1
illustrates the proposed standard and how, for example, a typical 70 m2
unit would yield 1.03 space instead of 1.35 space. While on-site
parking for visitors may at first appear limited, additional spaces
could be made available (as a result of ongoing parking of residents
vehicles on the street) with proper management of on-site resources.

Financial Implications of Reduced Parking Standard: The rezoning of 3418
Vanness Avenue (formerly 5104-5156 Joyce Street) included a density
bonus for the provision of a crime prevention office. The bonus was
based on a financial evaluation of the project by the City s Real Estate
Division. A reduction in the parking requirement will affect the
financial evaluation for this project; however, due to the timing
constraints of this application, staff have not reviewed the financial
evaluation. Staff will present the results of the review and a possible
recommendation of a condition of approval to reflect this cost
differential to the developers at the Public Hearing.

Further Parking Review: Staff note that the study findings will be
discussed with the public and revisions to multi-family residential
parking standards for other zoning districts may be proposed in the
future.

CONCLUSION

Greystone Properties, consultant Bunt & Associates, City staff, and
Joyce Area residents have worked together to determine a more
appropriate standard for requiring parking for multi-family residential
use in Collingwood Village. A reduced standard is recommended for
Collingwood Village and an adjacent site. Staff recommend that the two
applications be referred to a Public Hearing with a recommendation from
the Director of Land Use and Development, in consultation with the
General Manager of Engineering Services, that they be approved subject
to draft CD-1 By-law provisions generally as shown in Appendix A. The
study also provides valuable information for further review of market
multi-family residential parking standards.

* * * * *

APPENDIX A

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS

3550 Vanness Avenue

Amend Section 10(a), Parking, of CD-1 By-law No. 7204, as follows:
(strikeout indicates deletions and italics indicates insertions)

(a) multiple dwelling uses shall provide a minimum of 1 space for
each 200 250 m2 of gross residential floor area plus 1 .75
space for each dwelling unit, except that no more than 1.1
spaces per dwelling unit need be provided for each dwelling
unit less than 50 m2 of gross floor area;

3418 Vanness Avenue

Amend Section 5(a), Parking, of CD-1 By-law No. 7639, as follows:
(strikeout indicates deletions and italics indicates insertions)

"(a) a minimum of one .75 off-street parking space for every
dwelling unit plus one space for each 200 250 m2 of gross
residential floor area must be provided,"

APPENDIX C

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND THE APPLICANT

Public Input: Greystone and the City have involved the community
throughout the review process. The Joyce Area Planning Association and
Greystone distributed notices throughout the Joyce Station area for a
Public Information Meeting held November 21, 1996, in the community. In
response to the presentation by the consultant and City staff, the
twenty residents attending voiced support for the proposed parking
requirement reduction.

The major concern expressed by residents was need for signed,
short-term, on-street parking in Collingwood Village, with adequate
enforcement, in light of the documentation of heavy parking by outsiders
likely using the SkyTrain. An application from Greystone for
time-limited on-street parking is currently being processed.

Applicant s Comments:

Greystone Properties, together with the Joyce Street Area Planning
Committee, community representatives, the City staff, have worked
conscientiously and diligently to review and compare existing
residential parking requirements with actual parking demand at
Collingwood Village. Input from purchasers of our residential product
together with our staff monitoring of our Collingwood projects over the
last three years resulted in the comprehensive review of this issue by
Bunt and Associates in cooperation with the City and community.

We are all satisfied that the Bunt parking study accurately reflects the
need to revise the City parking standards for multi-family residential
uses at Collingwood Village, given the close proximity to the SkyTrain.

We concur with the Staff report recommendation and welcome the
community s complete support of the recommendation, and are looking
forward to appearing together with staff and community representatives
to review the recommended Text Amendment with Council at the scheduled
Public Hearing.
APPENDIX D

APPLICANT, PROPERTY, AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INFORMATION

APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION
Street Address 3148 Vanness Avenue 3550 Vanness Avenue

Legal Description Parcel 1, Blk 158, D.L. 37, PL27237 Blk. N, D.L. 36, PL12495

Applicant Bob Heaslip Brian McCauley

Property Owners 377417 B.C. Ltd. Crowley Drive Holdings Ltd.
Developer Greystone Properties Ltd.

DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS (for both applications)
DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED RECOMMENDED
UNDER EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (if
DEVELOPMENT different than proposed)

PARKING SPACES 1 space per dwelling unit .75 space per plus 1 space per 200 m2; dwelling unit 1.1 space per dwelling plus 1 space unit less than 50 m2 per 250 m2 (applies to 3550 Vanness only) ZONING CD-1 CD-1 Amended