CITY OF VANCOUVER
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 12, 1997
A Special Meeting of the Council of the City of Vancouver was held
on Wednesday, March 12, 1997, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber,
third Floor, City Hall, for the purpose of holding a Public Hearing to
consider proposed amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law and
Heritage By-law.
PRESENT: Mayor Philip Owen
Councillor Don Bellamy
Councillor Jennifer Clarke
Councillor Alan Herbert
Councillor Lynne Kennedy
Councillor Daniel Lee
Councillor Don Lee
Councillor George Puil
Councillor Sam Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor Nancy A. Chiavario (Sick Leave)
Councillor Gordon Price
CLERK TO THE
COUNCIL: Nancy Largent
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Mayor acknowledged the presence in the Chamber of members of
the Pacific Immigrant Resources Society.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
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 and Heritage By-law.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
1. Rezoning: 1235 West Pender
An application by Paul Merrick Architects was considered as
follows:
Summary: The proposed rezoning would permit the development of 112
dwelling units in a 25-storey residential tower on the northeast
portion of the site and three 2-storey townhouse units along West
Hastings Street.
The Director of Central Area Planning recommended approval of the
application, subject to the following conditions as proposed for
adoption by resolution of Council:
(a) THAT the proposed form of development be approved by Council in
principle, generally as prepared by Paul Merrick Architects and
stamped Received City Planning Department, July 31, 1996" provided
that the Director of Planning may allow minor alterations to this
form of development when approving the detailed scheme of
development as outlined in (b) below.
(b) THAT, prior to approval by Council of the form of development, the
applicant shall obtain approval of a development application by the
Director of Planning, who shall have particular regard to the
following:
(i) design development to the tower location to provide minimum
setbacks as outlined in the CD-1 By-law;
(ii) design development to reduce the maximum east-west dimension
of the tower floorplate (including balconies) to 29.6 m (97
ft.) to reduce the extent of noon hour shadowing on the family
housing site to the north, and to be consistent with tower
width guidelines adopted for the Marathon Coal Harbour site to
the north;
(iii)design development to the lower level townhouses along
Hastings Street to provide a minimum setback, as outlined in
the CD-1 By-law, to accommodate landscaping and a transition
zone from the public sidewalk;
(iv) design development to the stairs accessing Hastings Street
from the private open space, to address security concerns and
to maximize the sense of greening and variety of landscape
treatment when viewed from the street and above;
Note to the Applicant: A gate should be provided at the setback
line.
(v) design development to the townhouses along Hastings Street to
provide eyes on the street by the introduction of doors and
bay windows facing the street;
(vi) design development to the townhouses on Hastings Street to
improve livability, defensibility and surveillance;
Note to the applicant: This can be achieved by the provision of
low, formal landscaping and fencing, without areas of concealment
on the street; ground floor levels maintained slightly above grade;
and separate, secured parking with direct access stairs to the
townhouses.
(vii)design development to the orientation and glazing of
lower level tower units (levels 2-9) located adjacent to the
east property line, to address privacy and overlook concerns
into the neighbouring office building;
(viii)design development to take into consideration the
principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) to reduce opportunities for theft and fear in the
underground parking, residential break and enter, mischief
such as graffiti, loitering and skateboarding;
(ix) design development to the main entrance to the tower, to
provide a greater sense of address and direct
visibility/surveillance of the entry lobby from the street,
and to address Fire Department concerns;
(x) design development to the open lattice fence and trellis
structure along the Pender Street frontage to align a portion
of it with the property line to strengthen the continuity of
streetscape consistent with the character of this block of
Pender Street, while allowing views into the private open
space from the Pender Street sidewalk;
(xi) design development to the Hastings and Pender Streets
landscape concept to better relate to the Triangle West
Streetscape Plan and future improvements proposed for the Coal
Harbour neighbourhood development;
Note to the Applicant: Tree species should take into account those
already planted adjacent to the site, in consultation with
Engineering and Park Board staff.
(c) THAT, prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the registered owner
shall, at no cost to the City:
(i) execute an agreement, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Legal Services, not to discriminate against families with
children in the sale of residential units;
(ii) consolidate the site;
(iii)make suitable arrangements, to the satisfaction of the
General Manager of Engineering Services, for any new
electrical and telephone services to be undergrounded within
and adjacent to the site from the closest, existing suitable
service point;
(iv) make suitable arrangements, to the satisfaction of the General
Manager of Engineering Services for the provision of sidewalk
and curbing along West Hastings Street for the length of the
site;
(v) make suitable arrangements, to the satisfaction of the General
Manager of Engineering Services for the provision of garbage
and recycling facilities, noting that since no lane exists to
serve this site, pick-up must be secured from either West
Pender Street or West Hastings Street;
(vi) make suitable arrangements, to the satisfaction of the General
Manager of Engineering Services for the provision of sidewalk
treatment and boulevard trees to be provided;
(vii)pay to the City $738,270 as a community amenity
contribution or, as the City Manager may approve, enter into
an agreement with the City to pay such amount plus interest
thereon, from the date of the rezoning public hearing adopting
this condition until paid, at the per annum rate of prime plus
2% with principal and interest due and secured as the City
Manager shall approve.
Staff Opening Comments
Ian Smith, Planner, reviewed the application, describing buildings
and f.s.r., location, context and topography. The residential use and
f.s.r. are consistent with the area plan, and there is precedent for
such development in Triangle West. However, there are concerns with the
form, relating to location and shadowing impacts on the non-market
housing site to the north. To reduce shadowing, the recommended
conditions include shifting the tower seven feet to the south and making
it about seven feet narrower. There are also recommended conditions
pertaining to townhouse setback for landscaping and reorientation of
rooms on the northeast. The Director of Central Area Planning
recommended approval subject to these and other conditions noted. Mr.
Smith also responded to questions regarding width guidelines and the
effect of the recommended changes; how community amenity contributions
are calculated; and parking access.
In response to a query, Rick Scobie, Director of Land Use and
Development, advised Triangle West is expected to become totally
residential in time. There have been other residential developments at
6.0 f.s.r. in Triangle West. Recommendations for the Triangle West area
as a whole are forthcoming, and the as-yet-unconcluded Skyline Study may
also have a bearing on the development of Triangle West. Council
certainly has the prerogative to defer this application pending
conclusion of the broader report on Triangle West , but there is
precedent for a CD-1 rezoning.
Applicant Opening Comments
Paul Merrick, Paul Merrick Architects, advised the applicant has no
objection to the conditions proposed by staff. However, Mr. Merrick
noted the draft by-law does not exclude balcony enclosures from
computation of floor space, and requested the normal provision be
included.
Mr. Smith advised staff have no objection to the inclusion of
standard wording to this effect.
Summary of Correspondence
A review of the correspondence indicated the following:
- one (1) letter expressing concern with the parking spaces
proposed for the site; and
- one (1) letter expressing several concerns with the
application.
Speakers
Mayor Owen called for speakers for and against the application, and
none came forward.
Applicant Closing Comments
The applicant made no closing comments.
Staff Closing Comments
Mr. Smith advised that the proposed 6.0 f.s.r. is consistent with
the forthcoming recommendations for Triangle West
Mr. Scobie clarified that if Council approves a skyline policy as a
result of the Skyline Study, staff will still have to review any
application on its individual merits, having regard to such issues as
shadowing.
Council Discussion
The majority of Council felt there is a demonstrated need for
high-density residential, while no one is building commercial space in
Triangle West. A development of this nature may improve safety in the
downtown peninsula. It was also noted other 6.0 f.s.r. buildings have
been approved for the area. However, one member felt market conditions
should not dictate design of the city.
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT the application be approved, subject to the conditions set out
in this minute of Public Hearing;
AND THAT the following provision be included in the by-law brought
forward for adoption:
3.4 The Director of Planning may permit the following to be
excluded in the computation of floor space ratio:
(a) enclosed residential balconies, provided that the
Director of Planning first considers all applicable
policies and guidelines adopted by Council and approves
the design of any balcony enclosure, subject to the
following:
(i) the total area of all open and enclosed balcony or
sundeck exclusions does not exceed eight percent of
the residential floor area being provided; and
(ii) no more than fifty percent of the excluded balcony
floor area may be enclosed.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2. CD-1 Text Amendment: 3624 Fraser Street
(Lord Nelson Legion)
An application by the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch #68, was
considered as follows:
Summary: The proposed text amendment would delete requirements that
every unit in the multiple dwelling be occupied by a household with
one member at least 55 years of age and that a minimum of eight
dwelling units be eligible for government funding.
The Manager of the Housing Centre and the Director of Land Use and
Development put forward the following resolution for Council's
consideration:
THAT, provided the registered owner contributes $50,000 to the
City's Affordable Housing Fund, Council rescind Condition c (iii)
of the CD-1 rezoning of this site, approved at Public Hearing on
January 28, 1993, requiring that 8 units in this development be
rental units, and enact amendments to By-law No. 7157 as shown in
the draft by-law posted at Public Hearing on March 12, 1997.
Staff Opening Comments
Tom Phipps, Planner, noted that the requirements now proposed for
deletion were strongly supported by staff at the time of the original
rezoning. Indeed, the rezoning would not have been supported without
theses rental and seniors housing requirements. While staff are
reluctant to see them dropped now, it is recognized that there are
serious financial constraints on the Legion. Mr. Phipps pointed out a
$50,000 payment to the City's Affordable Housing Fund is recommended as
a condition of the proposed text amendment.
Applicant Opening Comments
Ken Curry, Royal Canadian Legion, Branch #68, explained the
circumstances which have resulted in financial difficulties for the
project, including cancellation of the Provincial Government rental
supplement program, higher costs and a softening condominium market.
The Legion supports senior citizens and tries to respond to their needs.
The long-term hope is to buy back as many units as possible for seniors'
use. Dr. Curry indicated the project will result in a financial loss,
and even the proposed $50,000 payment will be onerous. However, with
the proposed amendments, it is hoped the project can be made to work.
Cameron Gray, Manager of the Housing Centre, responded to questions
concerning the proposed $50,000 contribution to the Affordable Housing
Fund. If this were a private, for-profit development, staff would not
recommend the conditions be changed. Therefore, it was felt a quid pro
quo was required in order to change such significant conditions after
the fact, even for a development of this nature. Hence, this
contribution to social housing is recommended.
Rick Scobie, Director of Land Use and Development, pointed out the
site received more floor space than would have been permitted without
the requirements now proposed to be deleted. To remove these
requirements now without the contribution would allow greater density
with no offset.
Summary of Correspondence
No correspondence was received on this application.
Speakers
Mayor Owen called for speakers for and against the application and
one speaker appeared in support of the application.
Kathryne Holm, area resident, advised she had originally opposed
the application because of the critical importance of senior's housing.
However, in researching this issue, she learned of the requirement to
remove PCBs, loss of Provincial funding, and other enormous costs to the
Legion, and also learned many fund-raising measures available to Legions
in other provinces are not permitted in B.C., making volunteer
fund-raising difficult. The Pacific Command is well-known for fiscal
responsibility, and Ms. Holm both supported the application to delete
the requirements, and urged Council to forgive the Legion the proposed
$50,000 contribution which will only increase its financial
difficulties.
Applicant Closing Comments
The applicant offered no further comments.
Staff Closing Comments
Mr. Phipps pointed out that although the Legion is a non-profit
organization, this cannot be strictly construed as a non-profit
development.
Responding to queries, Mr. Gray advised he is satisfied the Legion
is experiencing legitimate financial difficulties. The Legion now has a
$200,000 mortgage, and the recommended contribution would raise its debt
another $50,000. Nevertheless, staff are concerned about precedent if
the Legion is simply forgiven the requirements without any compensation
being required.
Council Discussion
Some Council members felt it would set an undesirable precedent not
to require the recommended contribution to the Affordable Housing Fund,
or at least $10,000. Even the recommended sum was considered quite
nominal to forgive such significant conditions.
However, most Council members felt these are clearly unusual
circumstances which are not comparable to a private development, and
were not disposed to add to the Legion's financial difficulties. Nothing
will be gained if the Legion fails, while keeping it going is also a
benefit. In response to staff's concerns about precedent, it was
suggested a one dollar contribution might be required.
Mr. Scobie clarified the precedent at issue is moral rather than
legal.
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT Council rescind Condition c (iii) of the CD-1 rezoning of this
site, approved at Public Hearing on January 28, 1993, requiring that 8
units in this development be rental units, and enact amendments to
By-law No. 7157 as shown in the draft by-law posted at Public Hearing on
March 12, 1997.
- CARRIED
(Councillors Puil, Sullivan and the Mayor opposed)
3. Heritage Designation: 1429 Maple Street
An application by the Director of Land Use and Development to amend
the Heritage By-law was considered as follows:
Summary: The proposed amendment to the Heritage By-law would:
- designate the heritage house listed in the 'C' evaluation
category on the Vancouver Heritage Register (formerly located
at 2024 West 7th Avenue and now located and open to public
view at Nickel Bros. storage lot, 2860 Airport Road, Richmond,
B.C.) at its proposed new 1429/31 Maple Street location as
protected heritage property;
- ensure the protection of the building from inappropriate
alterations and demolition in the future; and
- be in exchange for approval of a floor space increase from the
RM-4 outright permitted floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.75 to a
conditionally permitted FSR of 1.4, rear yard and other RM-4
zoning relaxations; and a width of parking access relaxation.
The Director of Land Use and Development recommended approval of
the application.
Staff Opening Comments
Gerry McGeough, Heritage Planner, reviewed the history of this
application which arose from the designation of St. Augustine Church.
Four houses on the parish site were slated for demolition as a result of
that application, which gave rise to public interest in their
preservation. Three were demolished, but the "blue house" deemed the
most meritorious is the subject of the application before Council. A
"C" listing on the Heritage Inventory, it has now been established to be
of 1902 or earlier construction, and as such is one of the oldest, if
not the oldest, houses in Kitsilano. The blue house could not be
retained on the parish site, but was acquired by a private owner and
removed to a holding site in Richmond. The owners wish to move it to
1429 Maple Street and have it designated as a condition of development,
with details as set out in the agenda before Council. The site is zoned
RM-4, and the applicant is not asking for anything which could not be
approved under RM-4.
Mr. McGeough acknowledged that staff would not normally support
moving a heritage house, but in this case it was the only alternative to
demolition. Some authenticity will be lost due to the move, and there is
some question about how well it fits into the Kits Point neighbourhood.
However, a number of similar houses in the area reinforce its character.
An interpretive plaque will be one requirement if the application is
approved.
Ralph Segal, Planner, advised RM-4 encourages retention of
individual houses with a variety of housing forms. The typical form is a
four storey apartment building. Examples were pointed out of similar
infill projects done with the aim of preserving heritage, as well as
examples of non-heritage circumstances indicative of the aims of RM-4.
Mr. Segal reviewed the particulars of the application and proposed
relaxations, all acceptable to staff granting the legitimacy of the
heritage benefit and approvable under RM-4. Mr. Segal also reviewed the
type of development which might take place in a consolidated site (there
are single-family-developed lots on both sides of the subject site)
under normal RM-4 development, and compared its impacts on the
neighbourhood to those which would occur under the proposed development.
The proposed development may have more light and space than would occur
with a consolidated development.
Mr. Segal answered questions pertaining to rear yards, setbacks and
shadowing. It was noted that this development proposes a two-foot lane
setback for one building, whereas the normal requirement for the area is
25 feet. Mr. Segal also confirmed there are not many consolidations in
Kits Point.
In response to a question, Mary Beth Rondeau, Planner, confirmed
the lot to the north was recently sold. The lot to the south is not for
sale.
Rick Scobie, Director of Land Use and Development, pointed out lane
setbacks are not uniform but jog in and out across the subdivision.
Such a pattern is not unique, occurring in other areas where infill
development has been accommodated.
Applicant Opening Comments
Larry MacFarland, Larry MacFarland Architects, described the
proposed development, which consists of one heritage house and two
infill houses in a location similar to the original location of the
heritage house. As much as possible of the original construction and
structure will be maintained; particulars were reviewed. Density will
be lower than the maximum for RM-4. Mr. MacFarland pointed out
successive floors have been stepped back in response to concerns about
overlooking, and design throughout is oriented toward Maple Street
rather than the rear lane. There are also opportunities for looking
through the development, which would not occur with an apartment
building. In response to concerns about the lane setback, Mr.
MacFarland noted the 25-foot setback normally required in RM-4 is for
the main dwelling; garages are permitted a two-foot setback. Therefore,
there is no guarantee there would not be a building blocking part of the
view even without the infill.
Earl Lawson, one of the property owners, assured Council he and his
fellow owners intend to reside there with their families after the
development is completed. Mr. Lawson reviewed his involvement with the
building since he first became aware of efforts to preserve it. They
were unable to save all four buildings, so focused their efforts on the
oldest house as having the most heritage significance. The Planning
Department indicated a relocation site in an RM-3 or RM-4 zone, and the
owners were able to secure only one suitable lot. They would have
preferred not to move the house until approval was given, but were
forced to do so because of the St. Augustine construction schedule. The
owners videotaped the house being moved, and were approached at the time
by a number of persons who condemned the demolition of the other houses
and expressed support for their efforts. Mr. Lawson asked Council to
support their efforts to preserve history while making a home for their
families.
Summary of Correspondence
A review of the correspondence indicated the following:
- one (1) letter expressing concerns with community
consultation;
- 22 letters opposed to the application;
- seven (7) letters in support of the application.
Speakers
Mayor Owen called for speakers for and against the application.
There were five speakers opposed to the application and three speakers
in favour.
The following speakers opposed the application:
- Jonathan Baker, Jonathan Baker & Associates (brief filed;
letter from Seelig
Consultants Ltd. to Vancouver Heritage Commission filed)
- Larry Sutton, area resident
- Margo Dunn, area resident (brief filed, including photographs
and nine
attached letters)
- Irving M. Kirsch, owner of numerous properties in the 1400
Block
Maple Street
- Steve Zibin, Kitsilano Point Residents Association.
The foregoing opposed the application on one or more of the
following grounds:
The proposed development would offer substantial relaxations
which would not be considered except for a substantial public
benefit. The public benefit is ostensibly heritage, but the
"heritage value" of this house is highly dubious because:
- the house was only a low "C" listing on the Vancouver
Heritage Inventory, and does not merit the proposed
relaxations;
- heritage value is very much a matter of context, and was
substantially lost when the house was moved;
- the house has been cut in half, and what remains is a
gutted shell;
- the pioneer kitchen and the porch, important heritage
features of the house, have been completely destroyed;
- the proposed reconstruction will include various features
which were not part of the house historically, including
new windows and french doors;
Vancouver City Council cannot feasibly designate a building
which is not even located in Vancouver, but lying in pieces on
a site in Richmond;
If the owners of this building truly wish to preserve the
City's heritage, they should buy an old house and renovate it
on its original site, without adding infill buildings;
The proposed development will have negative impacts on its
neighbours, including loss of views, shadowing, loss of
privacy, and an ugly wall to stare at right across the lane;
The proposed development is not in keeping with the area
streetscape;
The house is proposed to be moved from one area, Kitsilano, to
a quite different area, Kits Point, where it shares neither
history nor commonality of design;
The owners probably intend to sell the houses and profit from
the increased property values;
Approval of this development would set a bad precedent,
resulting in developers buying up dilapidated "C" class
buildings and moving them around the City to obtain so-called
heritage relaxations;
The Kitsilano Point Residents Association opposes the
application, as do many neighbours, and the wishes of the
neighbourhood should have considerable weight;
Several of the foregoing speakers were asked whether they were
concerned about the possibility of a consolidated development.
They were less concerned about that possibility than by the
application for several reasons:
- if an application were approved under the usual RM-4
requirements, it would at least be following the rules,
not asking for relaxations on dubious grounds, and the
neighbourhood would just have to live with that;
- consolidations are very rare in the Kits Point
neighbourhood;
- the owner of most of the properties in the 1400 block
Maple Street assured Council he has no intention of
selling any of his properties, makes a point of
preserving them in their original condition, has just
acquired the property to the north and plans to acquire
the property to the south should it go on sale.
Therefore, there will be no property available for
consolidation.
The following speakers supported the application:
- Don Yen, area businessman
- Robert Lemon, Architect
- Robert Degrasse, co-owner of the subject property.
The foregoing speakers supported the application on one or more of
the following grounds:
the project is a good example of urban housing;
the building will be relocated only nine blocks from its
original site, and although smaller and of an older
"craftsman" style than its new neighbouring buildings, shares
their character in several respects including roof form,
porches, wood detailing and use of a variety of materials;
the owners have had to struggle to save the house and persist
thus far, indicating they have a sense of neighbourhood values
stronger than just built form;
the building has heritage merit regardless of its having been
moved, and could not have been preserved on its original site;
there was considerable public concern around preserving the
four houses on the St. Augustine site, and the applicants have
tried to do something positive in response to that concern,
and to build a home for their families;
the building is salvageable and repairable:
- the primary building material, wood, can be readily
patched;
- the owners are paying to keep the building well secured
on a holding lot in Richmond, it is not deteriorating on
a junk heap;
- heritage buildings which are the subject of development
always require very extensive renovations to bring them
up to code, so a considerable amount of material would
have to be removed from the house in any case;
- added windows, french doors, and other features have been
permitted in other stratified heritage buildings;
- at the time the building was moved, the contractor
ascertained that the pioneer kitchen was a later
addition, not part of the original building;
the Kits Point community previously opposed the Evans House,
which was turned down accordingly; the community subsequently
vehemently opposed a duplex proposed for the site.
Applicant Closing Comments
Mr. Lawson pointed out the house was deemed to have heritage merit
before this process ever began; otherwise it would not have been
undertaken. It was reiterated that the owners intend to live in the
houses, not to sell them.
Staff Closing Comments
Mr. McGeough clarified the role of the Vancouver Heritage
Commission.
Mr. Segal clarified that all conditions must be carried out for the
application to be completed, and reiterated that the relaxations are all
approvable under RM-4 at the discretion of the Director of Land Use and
Development. Relaxations are earned by good design or other public
benefits. Staff believe this to be a legitimate heritage exercise and
are, therefore, recommending designation.
Mr. Scobie clarified that the definition of a building cited in
opposition to the application occurs in the Building By-law, and is not
applicable to a zoning matter.
Council Discussion
Council members generally felt they were faced with a difficult
decision in dealing with this application. The applicants' desire to
preserve a heritage house was generally viewed as a worthy one, but
there were a number of concerns. Although there was community interest
in preserving the house at its original 7th and Arbutus site, that was a
different section of he city and there appears to be considerable
opposition from the Kits Point neighbourhood through delegations and
correspondence. Letters of support are not from the area, and the
Kitsilano Point Residents Association does not support the application.
Also, the house appears to have been severely gutted, not to mention cut
in half, making it difficult to think in terms of restoration. It would
be more like a new house trying to look like an old house in a new
location. There is also some question how well the house would fit into
its new neighbourhood. Some members felt heritage may be supported in
many forms, and were prepared to support the designation, but they were
in the minority.
MOVED by Cllr.. Puil,
THAT the application to designate the heritage house formerly
located at 2024 West 7th Avenue as protected heritage property be
refused.
- CARRIED
(Councillors Herbert, Kennedy and Sullivan opposed)
RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT the Committee of the Whole rise and report.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPT REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
SECONDED BY Cllr. Clarke,
THAT the report of the Committee of the Whole be adopted, and the
Director of Legal Services be instructed to prepare and bring forward
the necessary by-law amendments.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
* * * * *
The Special Council adjourned at 11:10 p.m.