POLICY REPORT
                           DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

                                           Date: March 24, 1997
                                           Dept. File No.95020-PEM
                                           C.C. File No. 5308-1


   TO:       Vancouver City Council

   FROM:     Director of Land Use and Development in consultation with the
             General Manager of Engineering Services, the Assistant Fire
             Chief (Fire Prevention) and the Manager of Real Estate
             Services

   SUBJECT:  Proposed Rezoning of 2669 and 2675 Vanness Avenue


   RECOMMENDATION

        A.   THAT the application by Inder Bir Sarai, to rezone 2669 and
             2675 Vanness Avenue (Lots A & B, Block B, Plan 7248, D.L.
             South Half of Section 46, THSL) from RS-1S to CD-1 to permit
             an infill one-family dwelling at the rear of each of these two
             lots, be referred to a Public Hearing, together with:

             (i)   plans prepared by Allan Diamond, Architect, and
                   received April 28, 1995,

             (ii)  draft CD-1 By-law provisions, generally as contained in
                   Appendix A, and

             (iii) recommended approval conditions contained in Appendix
                   B, including a requirement to pay fifty percent of the
                   cost of extending Vanness Avenue to Penticton Street
                   through City-owned Lots 8 and 9 on the east side of the
                   4200 Block of Penticton Street;

             FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to
             prepare the necessary CD-1 By-law for consideration at Public
             Hearing.

        B.   THAT, subject to approval of the rezoning at a Public Hearing,
             the Subdivision By-law be amended to delete the site from the
             maps forming part of Table 1 of Schedule A;
             FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to
             bring forward the amendment to the Subdivision By-law at the
             time of enactment of the CD-1 By-law.

   CONSIDERATION

        C.   THAT, prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the registered
             property owner shall, at no cost to the City, make
             arrangements to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal
             Services, Manager of Real Estate Services and Manager of Parks
             and Recreation to pay fifty percent of the cost of purchasing
             and conveying to the Board of Parks and Recreation the balance
             of City-owned Lots 8 and 9 on the east side of the 4200 Block
             Penticton Street, after a 10 m right-of-way abutting the BC
             Hydro corridor has been obtained.

   GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

        The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A
        and B and submits C for CONSIDERATION at Public Hearing.

   COUNCIL POLICY

   Council policy for this site is reflected in the RS-1 and RS-1S District
   Schedule of the Zoning and Development By-law, and also the standards
   for minimum parcel size and configuration in category "A" of the RS-1S
   District set out in Table 1, Schedule A, of the Subdivision By-law.

   In July 1990, City Council adopted RS-1S Strata Title Guidelines to
   prohibit the strata titling of existing and new two-family dwellings and
   multiple dwellings in the RS-1S District.

   The Nanaimo/29th Avenue Station Areas Plan was approved by City Council
   in May, 1987.  It encouraged the development of multiple family housing
   on twelve City-owned or under-utilized sites in the area (but not
   including the subject site).  The Plan also identified three sites to be
   retained for park use, including two lots at the Penticton Street end
   immediately west of Vanness Avenue which were to be retained as part of
   the B.C. Parkway system.

   PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

   This report assesses an application to rezone the two lots at 2669 and
   2675 Vanness Avenue from RS-1S to CD-1 to allow an infill one-family
   dwelling at the rear of each lot.  The lots were developed with
   two-family dwellings in 1992.  (See map below, plans in Appendix E, and
   statistics in Appendix F.)

   The Director of Land Use and Development recommends approval of the
   application as the addition of infill dwellings on the two large lots
   would not exceed the maximum floor space ratio now permitted on the
   site.  Several conditions of rezoning approval are recommended,
   including a recommendation from the General Manager of Engineering
   Services, in consultation with the Assistant Fire Chief (Fire
   Prevention) and the Manager of Real Estate Services, that the property
   owner pay his share of the cost of extending Vanness Avenue to Penticton
   Street, such extension to provide permanent street access to the site if
   and when a leased right-of-way to these properties from Slocan Street is
   closed.

   As the recommended Vanness Avenue extension through two City-owned lots
   would halve the area of an informal park and children s play space and
   would significantly diminish its developability and market value, staff
   present for Council consideration a resolution that the property owner
   pay his share of the cost of purchasing and conveying to the Board of
   Parks and Recreation the balance of the City-owned Lots 8 and 9 on the
   east side of the 4200 Block of Penticton Street.

   DISCUSSION

   Previous Rezoning Application:  This rezoning application was previously
   considered at Public Hearing on October 5, 1993.  Planning staff
   recommended that it be refused because it offered little public benefit,
   it was strongly opposed by surrounding neighbours, and its approval
   would delay an opportunity for a comprehensive development of the site
   and surrounding properties in this enclave.  Planning staff presented
   additional recommendations at Public Hearing to provide for permanent
   street access, in case Council wished to approve the application.

   Council refused the application, but some Councillors indicated they
   were prepared to reconsider the proposed rezoning if cost-sharing
   arrangements for permanent street access could be identified.  (The
   staff report dated June 28, 1993 and Public Hearing minutes of October
   5, 1993 are on file in City Clerk's Office.)

   Present Application is Supported:  Planning staff have reconsidered
   their previous objections to this application and believe their previous
   conclusion unfairly discounted the site s potential by virtue of its
   size.  The two lots which comprise the site are so large that the
   addition of infill dwellings would not exceed the maximum floor space
   ratio which is permitted.

   Nearly 929 m2 (10,000 sq. ft.) in size, the lots are almost three times
   the size of the 307 m2 (3,300 sq. ft.) lots to the west and fronting
   Penticton Street, and the 394 m2 (4,240 sq. ft.) lots to the east and
   fronting Slocan Street.  The two lots also have an average depth of 70.4
   m (231 ft.) and 75.9 m (249 ft.) respectively, which is about twice the
   depth of a typical RS-1 lot. Further subdivision of these lots is not
   possible due to the lack of street access to proposed new lots on the
   rear half of the existing lots.

   The FSR (floor space ratio) of existing development is 0.36 and the FSR
   of proposed infill development is 0.24, for a total of 0.60.  Since the
   proposed development would have the same FSR as is permitted in the
   surrounding RS-1 area, staff believe that rezoning can be supported if
   other issues are addressed.  Although the neighbours strongly object to
   the application, these objections unfairly deny the property owner an
   opportunity to utilize relatively large parcels in a way that would
   provide additional housing opportunities in a compatible form of
   development.

   Issues:  The application raises several engineering issues.  Staff
   recommend several conditions of approval to address them:

   (1) On-Site Building Access:  The Fire Protection Engineer has several
   concerns about the required pedestrian access path from the front street
   to the rear lane in terms of adequate fire fighting access.  Several
   measures are recommended to ensure its adequacy [condition b(ii) in
   Appendix B].

   (2) Off-Street Parking:  The required parking spaces for the three
   dwellings on each lot (one space per dwelling) were initially proposed
   to be provided at the rear of the lots, with access from the lane north
   of the site, as required by the Parking By-law.   Parking for the
   existing two-family dwellings is presently provided in the front yard of
   each lot, in contravention of the Parking By-law.  The property owner
   has justified this arrangement as a temporary one until the site is
   rezoned, the infill dwellings are constructed, and the parking area in
   the rear yard can be paved.  Staff note that the front yard parking
   might also be explained by the long distance from the rear of the lots
   to the existing dwellings at the front.

   Staff have withheld enforcement action on the front yard parking pending
   a decision on the rezoning application.  The applicant has subsequently
   requested that parking in the front yard for the existing dwellings be
   permitted, while parking for the infill dwellings only would be provided
   at the rear of the lots.  Staff have considered this request in light of
   the site s unique location across the street from the SkyTrain alignment
   which is significantly below grade at this location.  Staff are now
   prepared to recommend that parking be permitted in the front yard, only
   for the two-family dwellings located at the front of the site, and also
   that landscaping and other measures be provided to mitigate the reduced
   green space [condition b(iii) in Appendix B].

   (3) Street Access:  The General Manager of Engineering Services advises
   that street access to the 2600 Block Vanness Avenue is substandard and
   nonpermanent (see discussion on Vehicular Access in Appendix C, Pages
   4-6).  He recommends that permanent street access, by extending Vanness
   Avenue west to Penticton Street through City-owned land, be obtained at
   no cost to the City [condition c(i) in Appendix B, representing a cost
   of $102,500 to the applicant].  The Assistant Fire Chief (Fire
   Prevention), the Manager of Real Estate Services, and the Director of
   Land Use and Development concur with this recommendation.

   The extension of Vanness Avenue to Penticton Street was one of two
   alternatives which staff considered for providing permanent street
   access to the four properties on the 2600 Block Vanness Avenue.  (See
   more detailed discussion in Appendix C, Pages 5 and 6).  Although it is
   less costly and less disruptive than an extension to Slocan Street, it
   would halve the informal recreation and children s play area now
   provided by the City site.  The residual site would also become
   undevelopable and suffer considerable loss in market value.  Staff thus
   present for Council consideration an additional rezoning approval
   condition whereby the balance of the City-owned Lots 8 and 9, after a
   right-of-way is provided, be acquired as a permanent park site
   [condition c(iv) in Appendix B, representing an additional cost of
   $87,500].

   CONCLUSION

   The Director of Land Use and Development recommends approval of the
   application, subject to draft CD-1 By-law provisions and proposed
   approval conditions.  A further condition of approval is presented for
   Council consideration.

                                 *  *  *  *  *
                                                                 APPENDIX A
                                                                Page 1 of 2

                         DRAFT CD-1 BY-LAW PROVISIONS
                         2669 and 2675 Vanness Avenue

   USES

        Two-Family Dwelling, provided that access is available from one
        dwelling unit to the other dwelling unit within the building;

        Infill One-Family Dwelling, provided it is located within the rear
        yard; and

        Accessory Uses customarily ancillary to the foregoing.

        The number of dwellings on the site is not to exceed six.

   FLOOR SPACE RATIO

        Maximum of 0.6 and provided that the floor area of any infill
        one-family dwelling shall not exceed 40 percent of the total floor
        area (i.e., FSR 0.24).  Computation of the floor space ratio shall
        be generally based on the provisions of Sections 4.7.2 and 4.7.3 of
        the RS-1B District Schedule.  For the purpose of computing floor
        space ratio, the site is all parcels covered by this By-law, and is
        deemed to be 1 810.9 m2 (19,492 sq. ft.), being the site size at
        time of application for rezoning, prior to any dedications.

   BUILDING HEIGHT

        Maximum of 2 storeys or 9.2 m (30.0 ft.), except that the maximum
        height of an infill one-family dwelling shall be the lesser of 1
        storeys or 8.0 m (27 ft.) and shall be subject to the additional
        regulations of Section 4.3 of the RS-1B District Schedule.

   FRONT YARD SETBACK

        Minimum of 7.3 m (24.0 ft.), and not providing any parking area.

   SIDE YARD SETBACK

        Minimum of 1.5 m (5.0 ft), except that one side may have a minimum
        width of 10 percent of the width of the site ([i.e., 1.34 m (4.4
        ft.)].

                                                                 APPENDIX A
                                                                Page 2 of 2


   REAR YARD SETBACK

        Minimum depth of 10.7 m (35 ft.) from the ultimate centre line of
        the lane shall be maintained for any infill one-family dwelling
        located at the rear of the site.  Principal and infill dwellings
        shall be separated by a yard with a minimum depth of 10.7 m (35
        ft.).

   SITE COVERAGE

        Maximum of 40 percent of the site area for buildings and 30 percent
        for any portion of the site used as parking area.

   AREA OF TRANSPARENT SURFACE

        Where principal and infill dwellings are separated by a yard less
        than 12.2 m (40.0 ft.) in depth, the facing wall of each dwelling
        shall not consist of more than 20 percent transparent surface.

   ACCESS

        Pedestrian access from the front street to the lane shall be
        provided and maintained for all dwellings. [Note: The Assistant
        Chief, Fire Prevention, requires this access to have a minimum
        width of 2.0 m (6.6 ft.).]

   OFF-STREET PARKING

        As per Parking By-law, except that parking may be located in the
        required front yard. [Section 4.7.6, which requires that all
        parking spaces be located a minimum of 4.6 m (15.1 ft.) from any
        window, vent or door, will apply.]


                                   * * * * *
                                                                 APPENDIX B
                                                                Page 1 of 2


                   PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF REZONING APPROVAL
                         2669 and 2675 Vanness Avenue


   (a) THAT the  proposed form  of development  be approved  by Council  in
       principle, generally  as prepared by  Allan Diamond, Architect,  and
       stamped  "Received  City   Planning  Department,  April  28,  1995",
       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)    further design development to maximize the amount and utility
              of  the  amenity space  provided  in  the  yards  between the
              existing  two-family  dwellings  and   the  proposed   infill
              dwellings;

       (ii)   adequate fire prevention measures, to the satisfaction of the
              Assistant Chief Fire Prevention, including:

              (1) paved pedestrian  access route  from the front  street to
                  the rear lane, in the flanking sideyards of the two lots,
                  approximately 2.0 m (6.6  ft.) wide with 24-hour lighting
                  and no fencing to obstruct Fire Department  access to the
                  existing and new buildings on either side,

              (2) off-site   sprinkler   monitoring  and   installation  of
                  exterior gongs, and

              (3) a see-through  fence  along the  lane,  with a  gate  for
                  access from lane;

       (iii)  treatment  of  parking area  in  the  front  yards, including
              landscaping and fencing, to mitigate the impact of parking in
              the front yard; and

       (iv)   a landscape plan which shows, among other things, response to
              the requirements in (i), (ii), and (iii).

                                                                 APPENDIX B
                                                                Page 2 of 2


   (c) THAT, prior  to enactment of the  CD-1 By-law,  the registered owner
       shall, at no cost to the City:

       (i)    make  arrangements to  the  satisfaction of  the  Director of
              Legal Services,  Manager of Real Estate  Services and General
              Manager of Engineering Services  to pay fifty percent of  the
              cost of acquiring a 10 m (33 ft.) right-of-way through Lots 8
              and  9 on the east side of the 4200 Block of Penticton Street
              ($87,500) and  fifty  percent of  the cost  of  installing  a
              roadway which  extends the 2600 Block  Vanness Avenue through
              the right-of-way to Penticton Street ($15,000);

       (ii)   make  arrangements  for the  undergrounding of  all utilities
              from the closest existing suitable service point; and

       (iii)  make  arrangements, to  the satisfaction  of the  Director of
              Legal  Services  and Director  of  Planning,  for  a covenant
              pursuant  to  Section  215  of  the  Land  Title  Act  to  be
              registered, restricting subdivision or  strata titling of the
              two-family dwellings at 2669 and 2675 Vanness Avenue.


   CONSIDERATION

       (iv)   make  arrangements to  the  satisfaction of  the  Director of
              Legal Services,  Manager of Real Estate  Services and Manager
              of Parks and Recreation to pay  fifty percent of the  cost of
              purchasing and conveying to the Board of Parks and Recreation
              the balance  of Lots 8 and  9 on  the east side  of the  4200
              Block  of Penticton Street  ($87,500), after a 10  m (33 ft.)
              right-of-way  abutting   the  BC  Hydro   corridor  has  been
              obtained.


                                   * * * * *
   SITE, SURROUNDING AREA, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND NON-MAJOR ELEMENTS

   Site and Existing Development:   The site is located about half  a block
   west  of Slocan  Street, on  the north  side of  Vanness Avenue,  a city
   street which  abuts the  Skytrain corridor.   The site  consists of  two
   large,  irregularly-shaped lots  with  a combined  area  of 1  810.9  m2
   (19,942 sq. ft.).  About 12.2  m (40 ft.) wide, the lots are  very long,
   an  average of  70.4 m  (231 ft.)  and 75.9  m (249  ft.), respectively.
   Nearly 929 m2 (10,000 sq. ft.) in size,  the lots are almost three times
   the size  of the 307 m2  (3,300 sq. ft.)  lots to the  west and fronting
   Penticton Street  and the 394 m2  (4,240 sq. ft.)  lots to the  east and
   fronting Slocan Street.

   The  site was  previously  occupied by  a  multiple conversion  dwelling
   containing five suites.  Subdivision to create two lots was approved  in
   February 1992, but not a proposal to create four lots.  In April 1992, a
   permit was  issued to allow a  two-family dwelling at the  front of each
   lot.  Construction is completed and the dwellings are now occupied.

   During  the  processing  of  the previous  application,  the  neighbours
   described  a  history of  problems  with  this site,  including  several
   possible violations of  the Zoning  By-law and  other City  regulations,
   which staff subsequently investigated, as follows:

   (1) Three  families or  households  in  each  two-family  dwelling:    A
       property use inspection  confirmed this violation of the Zoning  and
       Development  By-law.   Enforcement  action  was  initiated  and  the
       property  owner  subsequently  removed  a  third  kitchen   in  each
       two-family dwelling.

   (2) Paved parking in the  front yard of both two-family dwellings: Staff
       confirmed this  By-law violation, but  enforcement has been  delayed
       pending outcome of rezoning application.

   (3) Encroachment upon  City  lane of  the  fence  on the  east  property
       boundary of  2675 Vanness  Avenue:   Engineering staff  subsequently
       reported  that  the  fence  was  satisfactorily  relocated   to  the
       property line.

   (4) Non-conforming  sideyard at  2675 Vanness  Avenue next to  the lane:
       Staff confirmed that the sideyard measured 1.1 to 1.2 m  (3.5 to 3.7
       feet) from  the  building to  the  (relocated)  fence, and  not  the
       required  1.5 m  (4.9  ft.).   Enforcement  action was  not proposed
       because relocation  of the building would  be needed  to provide the
       required sideyard.

   (5) Substandard  sewer line  installation:   Engineering staff confirmed
       that the  sewer connection  is satisfactory, both  the "dog-leg"  in
       the  alignment  and  the  joining of  separate  storm  and  sanitary
       connections to one pipe (combined sewer).

   Surrounding  Zoning and Development:   The site and  surrounding area to
   the  west, north and east  is generally zoned  RS-1S One-Family Dwelling
   District.    The area  on the  south side  of  the SkyTrain  corridor is
   generally zoned RS-1.   In a July 1990  opinion survey in Sub-area 4  of
   the Renfrew-Collingwood Neighbourhood, north of the SkyTrain corridor, a
   56-percent majority  supported the option  of RS-1S zoning  that permits
   one-family, two-family and multiple-conversion dwellings (limited to two
   dwelling units).

   Several C-1 zoned properties are located along Slocan Street adjacent to
   the BC  Hydro right-of-way and  developed with two  commercial buildings
   and three one-family dwellings.

   The site is within the area addressed by the Nanaimo/29th Avenue Station
   Areas Plan approved by Council in May, 1987.  The thrust of station area
   planning  was to  encourage  higher density  residential development  on
   vacant City-owned and other  under-utilized sites near SkyTrain stations
   to attract riders and provide more housing for families, to maintain the
   family  character  of  the  station  areas,  and  to  upgrade  community
   facilities and services where  required to accommodate future population
   increases.

   Twelve  sites  were  determined to  be  suitable,  and  have since  been
   rezoned, for multiple dwelling development (nine at FSR 1.0 and three at
   FSR  0.75).  The subject  site and adjoining  properties were considered
   but not selected due to lack of neighbourhood support.

   The Station Area Plan also identified a  City-owned site to be developed
   as a park to serve the local community (the site is located south of the
   lane south of 25th Avenue and west of the lane west of Penticton Street,
   and  shown on the map on  page 3 of the report).   Two other City-owned,
   undeveloped sites, used by  surrounding residents as informal recreation
   and children s  play area  and forming  part of  the BC  Parkway (linear
   pedestrian and bicycle path along the  SkyTrain corridor), were proposed
   to  remain undeveloped  and  continue  to  be  used  for  informal  park
   purposes.

   One of these sites is comprised of Lots  8 and 9 on the east side of the
   4200  Block  Penticton Street  and abutting  the  SkyTrain corridor.   A
   proposed  lease agreement  prepared  by the  City was  not signed  by BC
   Transit and the site  was not formally  incorporated in the BC  Parkway.
   The  lots, which  the Manager of  real Estate Services  estimates have a
   combined  value  of $350,000,  remain in  the City s  Property Endowment
   Fund.

   Proposed Development:  Each lot is presently developed with a two-family
   dwelling, for a  total of four  dwelling units on  the site.  An  infill
   one-family dwelling is proposed at the  rear of each of the two lots  on
   this site, increasing the total number of dwellings to six.   (See plans
   in Appendix E and site and development statistics in Appendix F.)
   (1) Use:  One- and two-family dwellings are permitted in the surrounding
   RS-1S district, but not infill dwellings which are permitted only in the
   RS-2, RS-4 and several RT and RM Districts.  However, given the size and
   configuration  of the lots, Planning staff believe that infill dwellings
   are more  appropriate  than  additions to  the  existing  dwellings  for
   developing  the unused FSR  on this site (see  discussion of density and
   FSR below).

   (2)  Density:  The  dwelling  unit  density  of  existing  and  proposed
   development combined would be 12.8 dwelling  units per acre (DUA) on the
   lot at  2669 Vanness  Avenue and  14.1 DUA  on the lot  at 2675  Vanness
   Avenue,  or  13.5 DUA  overall.   This  is much  less  than the  DUA for
   two-family  dwelling  development  on  surrounding  sites  which,  under
   current  RS-1S zoning, would be  about 24 DUA on  the many small lots to
   the west on Penticton Street and to the east on  Slocan Street, and 14.5
   DUA  on the four larger lots to the north of the lane fronting East 26th
   Avenue.

   (3) Floor Space Ratio:   No change in  the existing maximum FSR of  0.60
   now permitted on the site is requested.  The FSR of existing development
   is 0.36 and the  FSR of proposed infill development is 0.24.   The gross
   floor area of the proposed  infill dwellings would be 40 percent  of the
   total  gross floor area on the site (the  same as permitted in the RS-1B
   District  Schedule  which  was  specifically  created  to  allow  infill
   dwellings). 

   (4) Form of  Development: The  maximum height  of  the infill  dwellings
   would be 1-1/2 storeys or 8.0 m  (26.24 ft.), 75 percent of the  maximum
   height of 2-1/2 storeys or 9.2 m (30.0 ft.) for the principal dwellings.
   The  proposed site coverage is  35 percent, lower  than the maximum site
   coverage of 40 percent in the RS-1S District.

   (5) Strata-Titling:   The property  owner proposes to  strata title  the
   site in  order to sell  the infill  dwellings.  The  RS-1S Strata  Title
   Guidelines prohibit the  strata titling of  existing and new  two-family
   dwellings and multiple dwellings  in the RS-1S district.   Staff believe
   that  the guidelines should continue to apply to the existing two-family
   dwellings on the site, and recommend that strata titling be allowed only
   for the infill dwellings [condition c(iii) in Appendix B].

   Vehicular Access:  The site  fronts a  gravel street which  is only  one
   block long,  narrow [10.1  m (33 feet)]  and without curbs,  gutters, or
   sidewalks.   Adjacent to the SkyTrain  corridor, it is linked  to Slocan
   Street by a  leased right-of-way, about  7 m (23  ft.) wide, within  and
   along the north edge of the SkyTrain corridor.  Two issues are raised by
   the foregoing:
      street  access is sub-standard  -- the right-of-way is narrower than
       the 9 m (30 ft.) minimum required  by the Vancouver Building  By-law
       for  providing  fire truck  access  to  any  site.   However,  staff
       determined  in November  1993 and  confirmed again  in  October 1995
       that this access poses  no risk to the lives or property of  Vanness
       Avenue  residents  as  the  right-of-way  functions  adequately  for
       emergency vehicle access.

      street access  is non-permanent -- the  right-of-way is leased  from
       BC  Hydro  ($1 per  year)  through an  unregistered lease  agreement
       which can be  terminated by  3-month written  notice.   BC Hydro  is
       unwilling to  give up,  dedicate, or  sell any  easements along  the
       Central  Park   Corridor,  or  alter   their  termination   clauses.
       However, it  also has no policy,  program, or  intention to reclaim,
       revoke, or  terminate any easements  or similar agreements along the
       corridor.  Therefore, although  it is not  possible for the City  to
       secure the right-of-way for the longer  term, the access route  does
       not appear to be in jeopardy in the short to medium term.

   Although the  existing  right-of-way  is  acceptable, it  is  less  than
   optimal  and every opportunity should be taken to improve the situation,
   in particular to secure a permanent means of access.   However, there is
   neither  City  funding  available  for  this  purpose,  nor  can  street
   improvement  costs  be  recovered  from development  applicants.    Only
   rezoning applications, which can be approved subject to conditions which
   Council deems appropriate, provide this cost-recovery opportunity.  As a
   fundamental  condition of  any rezoning  approval for  this site,  staff
   recommend  that the  owner of  the subject  site and  the owners  of the
   adjoining  two lots  to the  west, if  and when  they seek  rezoning for
   similar  infill development, should  share in the  costs associated with
   providing more permanent street access to the 2600 Block Vanness Avenue.

   Staff  have identified  two  alternatives for  providing more  permanent
   street access to Vanness Avenue:

      extending  Vanness Avenue  easterly  to  Slocan Street  through  the
       gasoline  service station  site and  adjoining property at  4289 and
       4291-4293 Slocan Street and abutting the SkyTrain corridor:

       This alternative would re-align the present  route to Vanness Avenue
       from  Slocan  Street.    This  would  improve  lane  access  for the
       remaining C-1 properties to the north,  but it would also  eliminate
       most of  the  commercial uses  in  this  small district  (the  three
       northern-most  C-1 properties  are  still developed  with one-family
       dwellings).

       The  cost  of acquiring  the  necessary  land  is  estimated by  the
       Manager of Real estate Services  at $900,000 (Note:  recent building
       improvements  were  made to  the gasoline  service  station  at 4293
       Slocan Street).   Staff do not  favour this  alternative due to  its
       cost and the impact on existing commercial establishments.

      extending Vanness  Avenue by  means of  a 10  m (33  feet)   roadway
       westerly  to Penticton Street through the City-owned Lots 8 and 9 on
       the east  side  of 4200  Block  Penticton  Street and  abutting  the
       SkyTrain corridor:

       These two lots, having  a total site area of 640 m2 (6,890 sq. ft.),
       are undeveloped  and the Manager of  Real Estate Services  estimates
       that their  value is $350,000.  Staff favour this alternative due to
       its lower cost and  no disruption of  existing development. However,
       this alternative has two negative consequences.

       First,  construction of  a roadway through  a portion  of these lots
       would compromise  existing informal park space and some mature trees
       could be jeopardized.   The extension of Vanness Avenue to Penticton
       Street  would not  "compensate" the  surrounding residents  for  the
       loss  of  informal  recreation  and  children s  play  area  as  the
       extension would  directly benefit  only the  four properties on  the
       2600 Block Vanness Avenue.

       On the other hand,  the City-owned lots were not intended to provide
       a neighbourhood  park like  the City-owned  site two  blocks to  the
       west  (see  map on  Page  3  of  the main  report).    Although  the
       Nanaimo/29th Avenue Station Area  Plan (1987) directed that the lots
       remain  undeveloped and  their park space  continue to  form part of
       the  BC Parkway  (pedestrian  and bicycle  path along  the  Skytrain
       corridor), a proposed lease agreement prepared  by the City was  not
       signed by  BC Transit  and the lots  remain in  the City s  Property
       Endowment  Fund  and  could  be  sold  at  any  time  with Council s
       approval.

       Second, a 10 m (33 feet) roadway through Lots 8  and 9 would leave a
       residual  parcel  of triangular  configuration  which  is  276.5  m2
       (2,976.2  sq. ft.) in size.   This parcel would not meet  the 334 m2
       (3,600 sq.  ft.)   minimum site  area requirement  for a  one-family
       dwelling and  because of  its triangular configuration would  not be
       developable unless  combined with  the  abutting lot  to the  north.
       The market  value of the residual  site would  thus be significantly
       reduced.

   The cost of providing permanent street access to  Vanness Avenue will be
   considerable.   The least-cost alternative, extending  Vanness Avenue to
   Penticton  Street, would have a total cost of  $205,000: a 10 m (33 ft.)
   roadway to be installed at a cost of $30,000, and land acquisition costs
   of $175,000.  Divided among the four properties fronting Vanness Avenue,
   the  cost would  be $51,250   each.   The cost  to the  present rezoning
   applicant would be $102,500.

   Staff recommend that  the property  owner make arrangements  to pay  his
   share of costs now  [condition c(i) in Appendix B].   The owners of 2625
   and 2659 Vanness Avenue would be required to pay their share if and when
   they  seek  and  obtain a  similar  rezoning  to  allow infill  dwelling
   development.  However, the roadway extending Vanness Avenue to Penticton
   Street would not be  constructed until BC Hydro terminates  the lease to
   the existing right-of-way from Slocan Street to Vanness Avenue.  

   The Manager of Real Estate Services advises that if rezoning is approved   and the property owner satisfies the recommended conditions of approval,
   Council approval would be sought for the right-of-way through City-owned
   Lots 8 and 9 but disposition of the residual site would be delayed until
   BC Hydro terminates the lease to the existing right-of-way.  The Manager
   of Real Estate Services further advises that  if the lease is terminated
   prior to  rezoning application and  approval for the  sites at  2625 and
   2659  Vanness Avenue, the City would have  to pay 50 percent of the cost
   of  constructing the  roadway  to Penticton  Street  and would  have  to
   recover land and  road construction  costs from the  owners of 2625  and
   2659 Vanness Avenue through later rezoning.

   City Site:  The recommended right-of-way through City-owned Lots 8 and 9
   to  extend  Vanness Avenue  to  Penticton  Street  has  two  significant
   consequences:  site area  for  informal recreation  and children s  play
   space would  be halved and  the developability  and market value  of the
   residual site would be considerably reduced.

   Council may  wish to consider recovering the loss in market value of the
   City-owned lots and dedicating the residual site as park land.  Purchase
   of the residual site  from the Property Endowment Fund and conveyance to
   the Board  of Parks and Recreation  could be achieved as  a condition of
   rezoning  approval (with a cost of $175,000  to be shared among the four
   properties fronting Vanness Avenue).   A condition of approval  for this
   purpose  site is presented for consideration [see D. and condition c(iv)
   in Appendix  B].  This measure  would increase the cost  to the property
   owner  of 2669  and 2675  Vanness  Avenue to  $190,000, which  may be  a
   prohibitive additional cost for developing two infill dwellings.

   Should Council wish  to recover the anticipated loss  in market value of
   the City-owned site and convey  the residual site to the Board  of Parks
   and  Recreation,  the Manager  of  Real  Estate  Services  advises  that
   conveyance be  delayed until such time  as the other two  properties are
   similarly rezoned and monies collected.

   Environmental  Implications:    The   proposed  rezoning  would  neither
   contribute to  nor detract  from the  objective of  reducing atmospheric
   pollution.

   Social Implications:  The proposed  rezoning would have  no implications
   with  respect to Council's Children's  Policy or Statement of Children's
   Entitlements.

   COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE APPLICANT

   Public  Input:  Planning  staff  mailed  a notification  letter  to  107
   property owners  in  the  surrounding area  on  August 10,  1995.    The
   applicant installed an information sign on the site on August 22, 1995.

   Staff received  several telephone  calls indicating that  the neighbours
   remained opposed  to this application,  as they had been  opposed to the
   previous  one.   In  a  letter  dated  October 6,  1996,  one  neighbour
   protested that  City staff were processing a  rezoning application which
   had been previously  opposed by  the neighbourhood and  refused by  City
   Council.

   Comments  of the General Manager of  Engineering Services:  The  General
   Manager  of  Engineering Services  has  no  objections  to the  proposed
   rezoning provided  that the  applicant complies  with conditions (i)  to
   (iii) listed in section (c) of Appendix B.

   The General Manager  of Engineering Services  advises that upgrading  or
   expansion of water, sewer  and drainage infrastructure is not  needed in
   this  part of  the city  to accommodate  the  small increase  in housing
   density proposed in the application, and  for similar infill development
   which might be considered and approved in the  future on the lots to the
   west and north.

   The General  Manager of  Engineering Services  also advises  that street
   improvements  abutting the site, which  would normally be  obtained as a
   condition of  rezoning approval,  including street trees,  curb, gutter,
   sidewalk, and paving, are  not recommended.  Such improvements  would be
   impractical  and  inappropriate while  the  balance  of the  2600  Block
   Vanness Avenue remains a narrow gravel roadway without curbs, gutters or
   sidewalks.

   Comments of the Assistant Chief, Fire Prevention:  The  Assistant Chief,
   Fire Prevention,  has no  objections to  the proposed  rezoning provided
   that  fire prevention measures are provided as listed in condition b(ii)
   of Appendix B.

   Urban Design Panel:  The Panel  supported  the previous  application  on
   March  3,  1993,  agreeing  with  the  concept  of  infill  housing  and
   concluding  that the additional dwellings  would be livable  and have no
   negative  impact on  the neighbours.    One member  did not  support the
   proposal because of the site's poor access, and another recommended that
   amenity  space  between  the  existing and  proposed  new  dwellings  be
   maximized.

   Applicant's Comment:  The applicant has been given a copy of this report
   and provides the following comments in a letter dated April 3, 1997:

   "1. The Proposed Conditions of Rezoning Approval

       The  proposed conditions noted as Articles (a) and (b) of Appendix B
       are accepted as representative of the  consensus of our most  recent
       meeting with City staff.  The conditions  and terms of Article  (c),
       inclusive of Sub-Articles (i), (ii) and  (iii) are also accepted  as
       previously discussed.

   2.  The Proposed Condition for Consideration:

       The  proposed condition  noted  for  Consideration of  Council,  and
       noted as  Article (c)(iv) is most  definitely not  acceptable to the
       applicant as the agent for the property owner.

       This proposed  condition prepared by  Planning Department staff  has
       been put forward  to respond to a  concern for the disruption of  an
       informal park  at the  west end of  the 2600  block Vanness  Avenue.
       (See Appendix C, Page 5, Paragraph 4) 

   The  response to  this proposed  condition for  rezoning approval  is as
   noted below:

   -   The sites  were not  purchased to  provide a  neighbourhood park  in
       this area and were  in fact intended to  become part of the  parkway
       system .   No  lease  has to  date  been signed  for  such  purposes
       although  some 10  years has  passed.     (See  Appendix C,  Page 5,
       Paragraph 4)

   -   The   existing   empty  lots   have   been   adapted   as   informal
       park/recreation space  by the  neighbourhood residents although  the
       space has not been officially appropriated for such use.

   -   Under the terms of the conditions  proposed within Appendix B,  [See
       Article (c)],  and the discussion  on pages 5 and  6 of Appendix  C,
       the roadway  may never be constructed,  and the existing  "adaptive"
       use  of these  two  lots may  remain in  perpetuity with  no further
       capital expenditure and no  further maintenance costs to the City of
       Vancouver.  (See Appendix C, Page 4, Paragraph 2)

   -   It is identified within the Policy  Report that the residual  parcel
       of land (after the creation of a road allowance) has no  development
       potential,  and  that  the  value  of  the  property  would  thus be
       significantly reduced.   (See Appendix C, Page 5, Paragraph 5)
       It  would seem  to  this  writer that  there  is  an opportunity  to
       construct  a  single family  dwelling on  this residual  site albeit
       marginally smaller  than the  adjacent lots.   The  approval of  the
       construction of  such a  single  family  dwelling will  require  the
       approval by discretionary powers from the  Director of Planning, but
       it is reasonable to believe  that an alternate form of housing could
       be provided  on such  a site  of slightly  less than  3,000 sq.  ft.
       Please refer  to City  of Vancouver  Zoning and  Development By-law,
       RS-1 and  RS-1S districts  Schedule, Section  5,  Article 5.2.,  for
       such  discretionary powers.    (Please  see attached  letter  [dated
       March 26, 1997, on  file in Planning Dept.] and sketches to describe
       this alternative).

   -   If the  residual lot  is further  found to  have no  potential as  a
       development  site  why could  it  not  be  maintained  in a  fashion
       similar state to that existent on the two  lots to date?  The parcel
       would be no less  appropriate for informal adaptive use and although
       the parcel would be smaller there  would be no capital  expenditures
       necessary by the City Vancouver.

   The position of  the applicant, as the Agent for  the Property Owner, is
   that  the implementation of such  an imposed condition  of rezoning will
   prove  to defeat  the intent  of  the proposed  development.   There  is
   absolutely  no economic  viability to  such a  proposal should  there be
   increased development charges above and  beyond the conditions noted  in
   Articles (a),  (b) and (c)(i), (ii),  (iii), of Appendix B  of the staff
   report.  The  enactment of such an imposed  condition would disable this
   incremental housing  development project  through the process  of unjust
   ransom and undue financial hardship.

   It is requested by this writer and my client, that City staff present to
   Council the above stated  concern for the unjust economic  hardship that
   would  be imposed by the  implementation of such  a condition as Article
   (c)(iv).  It is also requested by this writer that staff acknowledge the
   concern of the property owner that the time spent to date by all parties
   is not well served by furthering this  condition into the Public Hearing
   process.  After the many  months of negotiation to date and  the lengthy
   process  to  achieve staff  approval, the  monies  that will  be further
   expended in  the Public Hearing  process would be  wasted.  The  lack of
   economic  feasibility for the  project would render  useless any Council
   approval during the Public Hearing that would include such a condition.

   Based upon the above noted concerns expressed for the hardship  based on
   economic feasibility, I ask  on behalf of my Client,  that any reference
   to the consideration of Sub-Article (c)(iv) be deleted from presentation
   in the Public Hearing documentation.  I would also ask that City Council
   be advised of our request for  this deletion to the text of the  report.
   The inclusion of this condition I believe does not indicate the positive
   attitude that is otherwise noted in the staff report."
   Staff  Comment  on  Applicant's Comment:    Some  comments  made by  the
   applicant, and two requests, require comment from staff:

   1.  The applicant raises the possibility that the residual of City-owned
   Lots 8 and 9 might be  developed with a one-family dwelling, whereas the
   report states the residual would not be developable unless combined with
   the abutting lot to the north.   The applicant is correct: the  RS-1 and
   RS-1S zoning  provides that a one-family  dwelling may be approved  on a
   lot  smaller than 334  m2 (3,600 sq.  ft.), if the  Director of Planning
   first  approves its  design.   However,  the  276.5 m2  (2,976 sq.  ft.)
   residual would still be slightly smaller than the minimum size of  278.7
   m2 (3,000 sq. ft.)  required by the  Subdivision By-law for an RS-1S lot
   in sub-area A.  If the recommended right-of way through Lots 8 and 9 was
   slightly narrower, it could meet the minimum parcel area required by the
   Subdivision  by-law.   Furthermore,  Section 5  of  the RS-1  and  RS-1S
   Districts  Schedule  also provides  for relaxation  of the  various yard
   provisions in Section 4 and this would make it theoretically possible to
   consider development on the triangular parcel.

   Although the residual parcel appears to have some development potential,
   it is dependent upon  several factors which make the  outcome uncertain.
   It is on this basis that the report states, on pages 5 and 6 of Appendix
   C, that the market value of Lots 8  and 9, which are now an asset in the
   Property Endowment Fund, would be considerably reduced by a right-of-way
   through them.

   2. The applicant asks why  the residual parcel could not be  retained as
   informal park/recreation space,  noting that there  would be no  capital
   expenditure needed,  Staff agree that the residual could be retained for
   this purpose, however there would be a cost.  Lots 8 and 9 are presently
   developable  and marketable,  but this  asset would  suffer considerable
   loss in value at  taxpayer expense if the City recovers only the cost of
   the proposed right-of-way.

   3.  The applicant  asks  that  Council  be  informed  that  approval  of
   Consideration  item  C   would  cause  considerable financial  hardship.
   Staff draw  Council s  attention to  page  6 of  Appendix C  which  does
   describe  the additional cost as "prohibitive".  This, and the uncertain
   role of Lots 8 and 9 in the BC Parkway, are the reasons that disposition
   of the residual  parcel is addressed by a condition of rezoning approval
   which is offered for Consideration rather than recommended.

   4.  The  applicant  requests that  the  condition  of rezoning  approval
   offered for Consideration  (C) not  be presented at  Public Hearing  and
   that  it be deleted  from the text  of this  report.  Staff  advise that
   Council  could decide  on item C  at this  time, in  its role concerning
   Property  Endowment Fund matters, however  if the matter  is referred to
   Public Hearing, as proposed, the  affected public can be heard and  City
   Council s options will not be prematurely foreclosed.

                                   * * * * *
                                                                 APPENDIX F

      APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND DEVELOPER INFORMATION

       APPLICANT                         Mr. Inder Bir Sarai
       ARCHITECT                         Allan Diamond, Architect

       PROPERTY OWNER                    Mr. Inder Bir Sarai

       DEVELOPER                         Mr. Inder Bir Sarai


      SITE INFORMATION AND STATISTICS

       STREET ADDRESS                    2669-2675 Vanness Avenue
       LEGAL DESCRIPTION                 Lots A & B, Block B, Plan 7248, D.L. South Half of Sec. 46, THSL

       SITE AREA
          2669 Vanness Avenue              864.2 m2 ( 9,302 sq. ft.)
          2675 Vanness Avenue              946.7 m2 (10,190 sq. ft.)
          Total                          1 810.9 m2 (19,492 sq. ft.)

       LOT WIDTH                         12.2 m (40 ft.)
       AVERAGE DEPTH 
          2669 Vanness Avenue            70.4 m (231 ft.)
          2675 Vanness Avenue            75.9 m (249 ft.)


      
     DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS
                                         PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT                 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
                                         (RS-1S District)

       LAND USES                         One-Family Dwelling                   Two-Family Dwelling
                                         Two-Family Dwelling                   Infill Dwelling


       MAXIMUM FLOOR SPACE RATIO
          principal dwellings            0.6 (0.20 FSR + 130.1 m2)             0.36 principal dwelling
          infill dwelling                                                      0.24 infill dwelling (40 % of      
                                                                               total FSR)

       MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
          principal dwelling             9.2 m (30.2 ft.)                      9.2 m (30.2 ft.)
          infill dwelling                                                      8.3 m (27 ft.)
       MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE             40 percent                            35 percent

       FRONT YARD SETBACK                20 % of site depth                    7.3 m (24 ft.), but including
                                         [i.e. 8.4 m (27.5 ft.)]               parking area
                                         7.3 m [24 ft.)

       SIDE YARD SETBACK                 11 % of site width
                                         [lot width 12.2 m would require       1.5 m [5 ft.)
                                         1.34 m (4.4 ft.) setback.]            1.2 m [4 ft.)
       REAR YARD SETBACK                 45 % of site depth                    10.7 m (35 ft.) from centre line
                                         [lot depth of 70.4 m (231 ft.)        of lane [i.e. 7.6 m (25 ft.) from
                                         would require 31.7 m setback; lot     property line]
                                         depth of 75.9 m would require 34.m
                                                                               yard depth of 10.7 m (35 ft.)                                         setback.]
                                                                               would separate principal and
                                                                               infill dwellings

       PARKING SPACES                    4                                     6