ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Date: May 14, 1997 Dept. File No. GL C.C. File: 5311-1 TO: Vancouver City Council FROM: Director of Land Use and Development SUBJECT: Re-approval of Strata Title Conversion: 611 Main Street RECOMMENDATION THAT the application to convert the premises at 611 Main Street (Lots 1 to 5, Block 18, D.L. 196, Plan 184) to strata title ownership be re-approved in principle, but that pursuant to Section 9(1) of the Condominium Act, the Certificate of Approval (Form 10) shall not be issued unless the following condition has been met within one year of this re-approval: Completion of all work required by the City Building Inspector, under the required permits, at no cost to the City, in order that this previously-occupied building substantially complies with all relevant by-laws. GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of the foregoing. COUNCIL POLICY Council policy is reflected in the City s Strata Title and Cooperative Conversion Guidelines, which outline factors which Council will consider in reviewing applications for converting previously-occupied buildings to strata title or cooperative ownership. PURPOSE Council re-approval is requested for the application to convert the previously-occupied building at 611 Main Street (Lots 1 to 5, Block 18, D.L. 196, Plan 184) to strata title ownership. BACKGROUND The site is zoned HA-1 and is developed with a three-storey, 24-unit commercial building, with two levels of underground parking, constructed in 1970. The building consists of retail and office uses on the first and second floors and a casino on the third floor. The location of the site is shown in Figure No. 1, below. Figure 1 On December 13, 1994, Council granted approval in principle to an application to convert this building to 24 strata lots. Pursuant to Council policy, the approval in principle lapsed in December, 1995. Council subsequently re-approved in principle the conversion on January 11, 1996. This re-approval lapsed in January of this year. The approval in principle was subject to completion of one condition, which required that significant building, fire, plumbing, electrical and structural upgrading be completed, in order to bring the building into substantial compliance with all relevant City by-laws. Pursuant to Building Permit No. BU400377 (issued December 20, 1995) and related trades permits, the majority of this work has now been completed. STAFF ANALYSIS The intent in establishing the one-year limit for completion of Council-imposed conditions was not to necessarily expect that in every instance, all conditions of approval could be completed within a year. Rather, the intent was to terminate approvals in principle where applicants clearly had no plans to proceed toward final approval by completing the required works. In this case, the applicant has demonstrated a clear intention to complete the required work, and has indicated that strata plans for the building are now being prepared and will be submitted in the near future. According to the applicant, the delay in completing the work is primarily a result of an attempt to minimize disruption to tenant businesses during the construction process. The introduction of new tenants during a lengthy conversion process would typically be of concern in the case of a residential building, since the tenants may not have been properly included in the process or advised of the approval in principle. This building, however, contains only commercial tenants. The City Building Inspector reports that it is reasonable to believe that the remaining work can be completed within six months. The Director of Land Use and Development notes that although the applicant has assured staff that the outstanding work will be completed within six months, in order to eliminate the need to report back to Council if for some reason further delays are experienced, an additional one-year period for completion is recommended. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Director of Land Use and Development supports this application for re-approval in principle and recommends that a further one-year limit be imposed. * * * * *