POLICY REPORT
BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT
Date: 15 July 1997
Dept. File No. JH
CC File No. 5051
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of CityPlans, in consultation with the Director of
Legal Services
SUBJECT: Heritage Density Bonus Policy and Transfer of Density Policy -
Proposed Amendments
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT the Bonus for Heritage Preservation provisions as
contained in the "Heritage Policies and Guidelines", be
amended to specify that increases in density are to be
determined at the time the building is protected and not be
awarded for prior improvements to the building.
B. THAT the "Transfer of Density Policy and Procedure" be amended
so that all references to "rezoning", also include the option
of a Heritage Revitalization Agreement, as contained in
Appendix A.
C. THAT various non-consequential changes be made to the
"Transfer of Density Policy and Procedure" in order to clarify
current wording and procedures, as contained in Appendix A.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A,
B and C.
COUNCIL POLICY
Council first established a policy and procedure to create a heritage
density bonus in July 1987. The ability to apply for a heritage density
bonus exists in the West End (RM-5, RM-5A, RM-5B and RM-5C) and the
downtown (Downtown Official Development Plan). Increases in density are
also possible in other district schedules, through Section 3.2.5 of the
Zoning and Development By-law, in cases where "literal enforcement would
result in unnecessary hardship in carrying out any restoration or
renovation of a building or site on the Heritage Register."
Council first established a transfer of density policy and procedure in
January 1983. It has been amended a number of times. Current policy and
regulation usually requires rezoning of both the donor site and the
receiver site.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
1. Timing of Density Bonus Calculation
The calculation for transferable density bonus has always been
determined for the loss in market value or the hardship of restoring a
heritage building as per the condition of the building or site at the
time of designation or protection. Compensation for a loss in market
value is consistent with Council's legal obligation for designation as
specified in the Vancouver Charter.
Two enquiries have been received requesting transferrable density bonus
that raise the issue of timing of this incentive.
The first enquiry requests transferrable density bonus for restoration
work completed 1 1/2 years ago on a designated building. Staff see
several shortfalls with processing this request.
It could set a precedent for the City to provide voluntary
compensation, outside of our legal obligation, and the
possibility of the City being obligated to treat all such
bonus density requests equally.
It could set a precedent for other property owners, whose
properties were designated many years ago, to also now seek
compensation for designation.
It forgoes several opportunities for staff to negotiate in
advance the nature and standard of conservation work being
done:
- negotiating an acceptable level of preservation;
- negotiating an economic conservation approach;
- defining which heritage features are to be conserved;
- ensuring optimum use of land in order to avoid
unnecessarily adding to the supply of transferrable
density; and
- ensuring optimum use of other, possibly preferable, land
use incentives.
Staff therefore recommend against retroactive compensation for past
improvements to heritage buildings or sites.
The second enquiry presents a more workable request, to process a
transferable bonus density request concurrently, but not interdependent
with a development application to conserve a heritage building. If a
request to seek compensation is identified at the beginning of the
development application process, it puts staff and the Heritage
Commission in a position to identify an appropriate level of
conservation, to ensure the optimum amount of density is used on-site
and to ensure that other land use incentives are considered.
This concurrent process differs from past practice in that protection by
designation or an HRA is not a condition of DP approval for the
restoration work on the building. Protection of the building would be
required as a condition of the approval of the bonus in a subsequent
application. The advantage of this approval is it allows an owner or
developer to proceed with their building programme without waiting for
the additional step of the Public Hearing. Staff have some minor
concerns with this. The neighbourhood is not made aware of the
possibility of a bonus density during the development application
process - although there is a process for the public to comment on the
acceptability of bonus density on a subsequent receiver site. Secondly,
the owner or developer also must carry the risk of knowing that their
bonus request may not be approved.
Given that this approach would provide another benefit to owners of
heritage buildings, and that there are minimal concerns, it is
recommended that the Heritage Policy and Procedure be amended to
include the following: "Any intention to pursue an increase in density
is to be confirmed in writing to the Heritage Planner at the same time,
or prior to, the submission of the development application for
conservation."
2. Using Heritage Revitalization Agreements to Achieve Transfer of
Density
When the "Transfer of Density Policy and Procedure" was first approved,
the only legal tool available to "fix" the density on the donor site and
on the receiver site was rezoning. With 1994 changes to the Vancouver
Charter, a new tool, a Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA), can also
be considered. We can now use a Development Limitation Covenant
(Section 219 Covenant) to "hold" density on a donor site for future
transfer.
Use of an HRA, instead of rezoning, has a number of advantages:
- an HRA can comprehensively tie a number of objectives and
agreements together: restoration standards, interpretation
requirements, amount of bonus density, maintenance standards,
protection beyond designation of the heritage building, etc.;
- an HRA that varies use or density requires a Public Hearing,
like a rezoning, but HRAs can be processed more quickly as
there is no referral report;
- there is no fee for an HRA, except fees for an associated
development application, which is significantly less than for
a rezoning, and therefore acts as an incentive for heritage
preservation.
Staff have the following concerns about regularly using HRAs instead of
rezonings:
- there is no fee collected for an HRA, whereas the fee
collected for a rezoning has been set to provide for cost
recovery;
- HRAs require involvement of the Land Title Office, thereby
incurring greater legal staff time than a rezoning;
- since HRAs are attached to the property title, some owners,
who prefer unencumbered titles, may not wish to use this
option; and
- unlike a CD-1 by-law, an HRA cannot be amended without the
consent of the land owner, thereby reducing the City s ability
to legislate the use of that particular property.
An HRA could be used to establish an amount of density eligible for
transfer. In cases where the receiver site would accept more than a 10%
increase in density, rezoning would still be necessary. Based on the
experience of the past few years, a change in policy is estimated to
affect about 5 or 6 sites annually. The difference in cost between an
HRA, achieved through a Development Permit and a Rezoning varies widely.
As one example, the proposal for 440 Cambie would cost $1,781 for a
development application that could include an HRA, whereas a separate
rezoning application to set an amount of transferable density would cost
$ 16,500. The loss of fees (estimated to be $70,000 annually), will be
offset by generally quicker processing which is consistent with Council
policy to expedite applications involving heritage.
In order to provide an alternative way to achieve a transfer of density,
which will add to the list of heritage incentives, staff recommend that
the Transfer of Density Policy be amended so that an HRA can be used
instead of rezoning, when appropriate.
3. Non-consequential Changes to Transfer of Heritage Density
a) The current wording of the "Transfer of Density Policy and
Procedure, clearly permits consideration of transfers involving
heritage sites located within, and between, the areas generally
defined as the Downtown Peninsula and the C-3A zone along West
Broadway between Main and Burrard Streets. The wording for other
transfers is not as clear. It is recommended that the policy be
clarified so that it is clear that both donor and receiver sites
can be:
- within the same zoning district;
- within the same use density or height boundary in an ODP;
- within the same block, regardless of zoning district or ODP;
or
- the donor site is in the 800-1200 blocks of Granville Street
and the recipient site is in Downtown South.
b) Concern has been expressed by a lawyer, who has represented clients
involved in various heritage density transfers, regarding certainty
of payment to the owner of the donor site. It was suggested that a
problem might arise if the City issued a development permit, for a
receiver site, with the resultant decrease in available bonus
density to the donor site, without the owner of the vendor donor
site acknowledging that payment for the density has been received.
This possibility has not happened, as staff have arranged for
Council to consider amendments to the CD-1 by-law on the donor
site, immediately after the successful rezoning of a receiver site.
If the increase in density on a receiver site is less than 10%, the
Director of Planning makes it a condition of issuing the
development permit for the new building, that density potential
has been reduced on the donor site, by way of either a CD-1 text
amendment or a revised Development Limitation Covenant. In either
case, the donor site owner is made aware of the process. This
procedural arrangement, currently in place, should be made clear in
the Transfer of Density Policy and Procedure.
CONCLUSIONS
This report recommends some fine tuning and adjustment to two policy
documents so that the guidelines affecting heritage properties will be
clearer and more effective. The policy for heritage density bonus is
proposed to be amended to make it clear that proposals will only be
entertained at the time of restoration and protection. The transfer of
density policy is proposed to be amended so that Heritage Revitalization
Agreements could be used as a tool, instead of rezoning, in order to set
the amount of density that could be transferred off a donor site. As
well, clearer wording is introduced regarding heritage density transfers
and wording is introduced to describe the current procedure, whereby
density is reduced on a donor site. These proposed changes are shown in
Appendix A.
* * * * *
Appendix A
Proposed Revisions to Transfer of Density Policy and Procedure
(new wording indicated by underlining)
Rezoning applications, or Heritage Revitalization Agreements in the case
of (1) below, which involve the transfer of density from one site to
another site will be considered, provided that such a transfer will
assist in achieving one or more of the following public objectives:
(1) To preserve heritage buildings or sites, listed on the Vancouver
Heritage Register, particularly where it is demonstrated that
residual and/or bonus density required for the buildings'
rehabilitation cannot be used on the heritage site;
(2) To create desirable public open space or park land;
(3) To facilitate development in areas with mixed use zoning;
(4) To achieve and improve urban design;
(5) To help implement Council-approved view protection policy in
Downtown South:
(6) To help protect existing Single Room Occupancy Stock in Downtown
South; and
provided further, that the following limitations are respected:
(a) Except for heritage sites as defined in (b), both the donor and
receiver sites are:
- within the same zoning district boundary; or
- within the same use, density or height district boundary in an
ODP; or
- within the same block, regardless of zoning district or ODP;
or
- the donor site is in the 800-1200 blocks of Granville Street
and the recipient site is in Downtown South.
(b) Transfer of density may be considered for approval by the
Development Permit Board involving heritage sites located within
and between the various zones of the Central Area including:
Downtown District ODP, RM-5, RM-5A, RM-5B, C-5, C-6, HA-1, HA-1A,
and CD-1, and those portions of C-3A located west of Main Street,
north of 16th Avenue, and east of Burrard Street, except that no
heritage density may be transferred onto sites located in the HA-1
and HA-1A Districts.
(c) to (i) no changes
The following procedure is to be followed in applying the density
transfer policy:
(1) For transfers to achieve heritage objectives:
(i) Heritage features to be preserved on the donor site shall be
defined by the Director of Planning or the Development Permit
Board on the advice of the Vancouver Heritage Commission;
(ii) Residual (and bonus) density may be held on a heritage donor
site through the use of a development limitation covenant
which shall be amended as density is disbursed and ultimately
discharged when all density is transferred;
(iii)Preference will be given to proposals which use heritage bu
il
di
ng
s
fo
r
cu
lt
ur
al
,
so
ci
al
,
re
cr
ea
ti
on
al
an
d
ed
uc
at
io
na
l
us
es
, es
pe
ci
al
ly
wh
en
th
at
us
e
is
hi
st
or
ic
al
ly
as
so
ci
at
ed
wi
th
th
e
bu
il
di
ng
.
(iv) For any site located within the HA-1 District, where a
development application is submitted to establish density
available for transfer to another site, Council approval for
the creation of the transferable density will be required as a
condition of development permit issuance, although rezoning of
the donor site is not required;
(v) Within the Central Area as defined in (b) above, the following
steps (2) to (8) involve either the rezoning or the
establishment of a Heritage Revitalization Agreement on the
heritage donor site only; the receiver site is approved by the
Development Permit Board;
(vi) Density on receiver sites shall be sensitive to the impact of
additional density on shadowing, floor plate shape and size,
height and view corridors; and
(vii)The following shall be excluded as receiver sites within th
e
Ce
nt
ra
l
Ar
ea
[a
s
de
fi
ne
d
in
(b
)]
;
- sites already receiving a 15 percent hotel bonus;
- sites already receiving a heritage density bonus;
- sites containing a single room occupancy (SRO) hotel,
unless arrangements are made to secure or replace units;
and
- sites zoned CD-1, unless a provision is included in the
CD-1 by-law.
(2) Developer reviews his proposals with the Director of Planning.
(3) Developer make formal application for rezoning or enters into
negotiations for a Heritage Revitalization Agreement, with
appropriate supporting material to indicate details of and
rationale for the proposal and analysis of relevant impacts. In
the case of a rezoning, the Director of Planning may require that
the developer concurrently file a preliminary development permit
application.
(4) Director of Planning coordinates staff review of proposal in
consultation with Engineering, Social Planning, Park Board staff as
required, including whatever public review process he deems
appropriate to the specific proposal, and may include consideration
of a preliminary development permit application by the Development
Permit Board and Urban Design Panel.
(5) Council consider the proposal and staff review at Public Hearing
and gives decision.
(6) Appropriate legal agreements are drawn up according to
recommendations in staff review of proposal.
(7) In the case of rezoning, Council enacts by-law.
(8) In the case of rezoning, development permit application process is
followed as in CD-1 development sites.
(9) As a condition of rezoning a receiver site, the Director of
Planning will require that either the CD-1 zoning be amended or the
Development Limitation Covenant be amended in order to reduce the
permitted density on the donor site. In the case of a receiver
site using less than a 10% increase in density, the Director of
Planning will require, as a condition of approval prior to the
issuance of a development permit, that either the CD-1 zoning be
amended or the Development Limitation Covenant be amended in order
to reduce the permitted density on the donor site.
(10) The Central Address File for the donor site be updated to reflect
the reduced allowable density.