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