SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 2
P&E COMMITTEE AGENDA
JULY 31, 1997
POLICY REPORT
Urban Structure
Date: July 21, 1997
Dept. File No. IS
C.C. File No.: 5053
TO: Standing Committee of Planning and Environment
FROM: Director of Central Area Planning, in consultation with
Manager of the Housing Centre, Director of Social Planning and
General Manager of Engineering Services
SUBJECT: Planning Principles and Concept Plan for Mole Hill
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT the principles for the development of Mole Hill put
forward by staff, as set out in Appendix B, be endorsed by
Council;
B. THAT the Concept Plan based on staff's principles as shown on
Appendix B page 3, be adopted by Council as the basis for the
next phase of planning;
C. THAT the adoption of A and B above, constitute the end of
Phase I of the planning of Mole Hill and that Phase II
commence immediately, involving the Mole Hill Working Group
and the general public in further refining the plan and
implementation strategies;
D. THAT funding for Phase II of Mole Hill planning, in the amount
of $50,000 as described in this report be approved;
FURTHER THAT the 1997 portion of this, in the amount of
$25,000, come from Contingency Reserve Fund and the balance be
included in the 1998 departmental operating budget; and
E. THAT to expedite the first phase of the Mole Hill childcare
development already approved by Council (i.e. the new
construction of a childcare facility and an infill family
dwelling unit suitable for licensed family childcare) being
undertaken by the B.C. Wood Specialities Group, and to extend
the useful life of the existing two adjacent houses, Council
authorize the Manager of Real Estate and Director of Facility
Development in consultation with staff from Heritage Planning
to proceed with required service and life safety building
upgrade work, basic maintenance, and minor heritage
"revealing" work to the exteriors of the existing houses at
1129 and 1137 Pendrell;
FURTHER THAT Council direct staff to work with B.C. Wood
Specialities Group to explore sources for donated materials
which will facilitate the current and future exterior heritage
work in Mole Hill; and
F. THAT Engineering and Planning staff report back on the
treatment of the public lane, taking into consideration infill
sites, services, pedestrian use, and vehicular access.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services recommends approval of
the foregoing.
COUNCIL POLICY
- On April 2, 1996, Council adopted a number of resolutions to guide
the planning of Mole Hill. A commitment was made to retaining the
land and the heritage listed buildings as well as accommodating all
existing residents on site. While priority was to be given to low
end of market rental, the City's policy for mixed-use communities
was to be maintained. Options for public facilities as well as
CityPlan policies for infill and new forms of housing, were also to
be considered. The complete list of Council s resolutions is
included as Appendix A.
- On May 26, 1997 Council reserved the site at Comox and Thurlow for
the Dr. Peter Centre.
- On June 3, 1997 Council reserved the sites as 1129, 1133, and 1137
Pendrell Street for Child care and Family Daycare.
SUMMARY
Following Council's decisions on Mole Hill in the Spring of 1996, staff
set up a Working Group to develop a concept plan for the block. The
group included a broad base of heritage and community organizations
which had long been involved in the Mole Hill process. All members
volunteered their time and made a substantial commitment and effort in
identifying principles and developing the Working Group Option. This
report presents the results of Phase I of the planning program.
Areas of agreement between staff and the Working Group include:
reserving sites for the Dr. Peter Centre; reserving sites for daycare
facilities (53 total spaces); maintaining all listed heritage houses on
their sites; narrowing the paving and creating a pedestrian environment
in the lane; developing community and heritage gardens; developing
criteria for considering demolition of building additions; agreement on
the notion of minimizing parking; and agreement on maintaining the
existing tenants on-site, including the option of moving off during
renovation and returning to an upgraded unit.
There have also been some areas of differing viewpoints, which have
resulted in different principles for development and concept plans put
forward in this report by the Working Group and staff respectively.
Staff principles are included in Appendix B, with the Working Group
principles included in Appendix C.
With the exception of implementing the agreements above, the Working
Group would like to limit physical change at this time. In their concept
plan (illustrated in Appendix C page 6), they propose to retain all of
the existing houses, and reserve all the 165 existing units for
affordable rental. They believe that this block represents a heritage
resource and a supply of affordable housing which must be preserved. In
the context of the West End, they feel that affordable rental housing is
important in maintaining a mixed community. They are not prepared to
consider infill at this time or on-site parking, preferring instead to
reclaim and reserve the majority of the yards for public use in heritage
and community gardens. Renovations would be limited to the ongoing
maintenance with incremental housing upgrades, as more units are rented
and the revenue stream increases. If existing rents are maintained as
supported by the Working Group, the period of renovation could extend to
over 20 years. On this basis, however, the Working Group feels their
plan would break even. If we were to pursue an accelerated period of
renovation with low-end-of-market rents for new tenants as proposed by
staff, this option would lose about $4.0 million.
Staff's Concept Plan (illustrated in Appendix B, page 3) is not
substantially different in terms of the physical layout from the Working
Group s. In accordance with Council s direction, we have given priority
to low-end-of-market rental by setting aside at least 96 units for
existing and new tenants. In addition, to respond to the goals of
CityPlan for mixed communities, we have increased both housing diversity
and tenure to accommodate middle and upper income earners, including
families with children. Given that all units are ground-oriented and
adjacent to a park and a school with daycare in the Block, we feel that
we can do much better than the 12% of the units that are currently
suitable for families with children.
Staff's plan also permits limited demolition of 2 non-listed houses and
demolition of some building additions, which have deteriorated to the
point where necessary upgrades are economically unfeasible or are not
technically possible under today s building code. In these locations,
sensitive infill can achieve non-market and family objectives.
Most importantly, staff recommend a level of renovation to preserve and
enhance this heritage resource. Upgrades to the basics including wiring,
plumbing, heating, foundation, interiors, and exteriors are needed to
provide safe, decent accommodation. This needs to happen soon, given the
potential risks. Staff's plan would see all renovations occur within 5
years, controlled by design guidelines to be developed in the next phase
of planning. This option would result in a return of about $4.0 million.
A third option (illustrated in Appendix D) is put forward for Council's
information and demonstrates a maximum return from the site, estimated
at about $7.0 million, while still responding to Council's resolutions
and staff's principles. This option is not supported by staff due to
the loss of four additional houses, the movement of a C listed house,
the reduction of community/heritage garden space, and the limited
housing diversity for existing tenants.
The estimates for all options do not include consideration of the
unencumbered land value of approximately $18.0 million.
All three options are well below the development potential of the
existing zoning of 2.75 FSR, ranging from about 1.0-1.2 FSR. Regardless
of which option Council decides to pursue, staff recommend the creation
of a heritage density bank. This could be done as a rezoning defined in
the next phase. As this bank would be quite substantial, it should be
held in reserve at this time, so as not to flood the market and
potentially jeopardize other current heritage initiatives. The value of
the heritage density bonus could range from $6.0 - $8.0 million if sold
over time without market saturation.
To complete the next stage of planning which will take approximately a
year, a budget of $50,000 is required, and the funds are recommended
from contingency reserve and 1998 departmental budgets.
PURPOSE
This report provides a summary of the Mole Hill planning process to
date, including development principles and concept plans generated by
both the Mole Hill Working Group and by City staff. Council is asked to
adopt staff's principles and concept plan as completion of phase I of
the planning process and as a basis for the next stage.
BACKGROUND
The City of Vancouver owns 3.30 acres of land in Mole Hill, which is
presently zoned RM-5B. If assembled into developable sites, the Manager
of Real Estate estimates the current market value of the unencumbered
land to be approximately $18 million. The sites were purchased between
the 1950s and early 1980s for park space. The opportunity cost of the
actual purchase prices of the individual lots as of 1996 is
approximately $15 million. In other words, if the City had either
invested the purchase price of each individual lot at the time of
purchase or not borrowed the money to make the purchase, the City would
now have about $15 million.
Shortly after Council adopted the initial development principles in
1996, work began on a community based planning process. A working group
was set up representing 13 community organizations, including private
property owners and tenants. Six staff members were also assigned on a
part-time basis to coordinate the group and provide information and
advice. Staff did not vote on the working group's motions and reserved
the right to present a different position to Council.
The Working Group has met almost 20 times to consider issues related to
the block. Information has been gathered and presented to the group
describing the size and condition of the existing houses, a profile of
the existing tenants, and a consultant's report outlining options for
daycare. The Working Group adopted a number of principles to guide the
development of the site, and based on these principles, has put together
a concept plan. Staff have also proposed principles for development and
a concept plan for the block.
DISCUSSION
Existing Site Development and Context
The block designated as Mole Hill is bounded by Comox Street, Thurlow
Street, Pendrell Street, and Bute Street. The site RM-5B zoning permits
a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 2.75. The existing scale of
development on the City-owned property is well below that, with most
sites containing 3,000 - 4,000 sq. ft. houses at about 0.8 FSR. The
exception is the Strathmore, a privately owned apartment building at the
corner of Bute and Comox, which at 6 storeys contains 99 units at about
5.0 FSR.
The City owns a majority of the block, including 28 houses, 1 temporary
daycare facility, and the vacant sites at 1132 Comox Street and on the
corner of Comox and Thurlow Streets. Of the 28 houses, 20 are listed on
the Heritage Register. Although the 8 remaining non-listed houses were
built at approximately the same time, modifications to the exteriors,
including building additions, have compromised the heritage merit. Only
the Watson House on Pendrell Street has been fully renovated and it is
currently being used as a Special Needs Residential Facility. The site
plan below illustrates building locations, ownership, and whether the
building is listed on the Heritage Register.
Figure 1. Site Plan - Existing Situation
Areas of Agreement Between Staff and the Working Group
Summary
location for Dr. Peter and the YMCA Daycare facilities;
maintaining heritage listed houses on their current site;
consideration of demolition of substandard building additions;
creating a pedestrian environment in the lane;
minimizing parking by removing rear yard rental parking;
preserving open space in the rear yards, including space for
community gardens;
developing heritage gardens;
maintaining existing tenants, including an option to relocate
off-site during renovations; and
banking heritage density.
Since last summer, the Working Group and staff have achieved consensus
on a number of significant items. Two facilities, both represented by
members on the Working Group, have been located on the block. A site for
the Dr. Peter Centre has been reserved on the vacant lot at Comox and
Thurlow Streets, as well as the rear portions of the two lots to the
west. The replacement of the existing childcare centre and the addition
of 28 new family childcare spaces have been accommodated in an
innovative way, making use of the current location at 1133 Pendrell, as
well as the existing homes and rear yards at 1129 Pendrell and 1137
Pendrell. The project can be achieved in two phases through construction
of a new custom designed childcare facility (25 spaces) and a new 3
bedroom infill home suitable for 7 spaces of licensed family childcare.
The second phase would be the conversion of the two existing houses into
five dwelling units, three of which would be suitable for 7 licensed
family childcare spaces each. With the support of the Working Group,
both Dr. Peter and Phase I of the childcare facilities have been
expedited, reported, and approved separately by Council.
With respect to the childcare facility, Council also approved a proposal
from the B.C. Wood Specialties Group to construct the new facility and
infill home, in return for use of these buildings for a two year period
as a display centre for wood value added products. As part of this first
phase, 1129, 1133, and 1137 Pendrell must be consolidated into one
parcel to meet zoning requirements. The existing houses must be upgraded
to meet certain life safety Building-Bylaw requirements, including
sprinklering. It also makes sense to proceed concurrently with some
minor heritage and maintenance work which includes revealing the
original wood siding, possible re-roofing with non-combustible wood
shingles to be donated through the B.C. Wood Specialities Group, and
rebuilding of the porches if required. The Manager of Real Estate has
advised that this work is within the regular scope of what is necessary
to extend the useful life of these houses, but that the immediacy of the
timelines for the B.C. Wood Specialities Group project is simply
accelerating the timeframe for the work. Council is therefore asked to
endorse expediting this work in recommendation "E". The conversion of
the existing houses (Phase II of the childcare development) will not
proceed until a plan for tenant relocation is in place and the funding
for work related to making the units suitable for licensed family
childcare is secured.
Possibly the most significant area of agreement is on maintaining
heritage listed houses on their current sites, with the possibility of
only minor movement on their lots. We have also both agreed to consider
demolition of building additions, if they are unable to provide safe and
adequate accommodation, they do not enhance the original heritage
character, and it is too expensive to renovate and/or not possible to
upgrade to code.
We have reached consensus on the concept of creating a more comfortable
pedestrian environment in the lane, with the detailed design to be
completed in the next phase. The working group recommended a reduction
in the width of the lane dedication. A narrowed lane dedication would
increase the ability of the sites to accommodate infill, such as coach
houses, Dr. Peter, and the daycare, in addition to increasing usable
open space. There are, however, concerns about location and access to
utilities and the sharing of the lane with service vehicles and
pedestrians which may require the full existing lane dedication. Staff support narrowing the paved portion of the lane for vehicular travel and
providing space for pedestrian walks and utility access behind the paved
portion. The design of the lane and its resultant lane dedication width
will be the subject of a report back to Council as suggested in
recommendation F.
Staff and the Working Group also agree on the notion of minimizing
parking requirements. While adequate parking would be provided for Dr.
Peter, Watson House, and the daycare, staff and the Working Group would
like to see the rear yard rental parking removed in order to maximize
open space and minimize lane traffic. Existing resident permit parking
(approximately 12 spaces) would be retained.
No decisions have been made on specific traffic calming and greenway
designs as they will be addressed in the next phase of planning. It was
agreed however, that overhead wiring would not be undergrounded because
of the cost (approximately $550,000) and because of its historical
character. Money has been set aside in existing capital budgets for
necessary upgrades to existing sewer lines in the lane. Approximately
$400,000 for special lane treatments and Comox Street greenway
development have been allocated in the Staff and Working Group Options,
but not in the High Return Option.
Both staff and the Working Group feel that the plan should increase the
open space currently available to residents and the public by preserving
a significant amount of the rear yards as heritage gardens (showcasing
heritage plantings and landscape designs that have historical
connections to the block) and community gardens. Reducing rear yard
rental parking will help to achieve this goal.
Finally, in accordance with Council's resolution to accommodate existing
tenants on-site as renovations proceed, both staff and the Working Group
agree that tenants should be given the choice to move off-site during
renovations with the option to move back upon completion.
As all options are well below the development potential for the existing
density, there is an opportunity to create a heritage density bank
on-site. This would be done as part of the next phase of planning and be
secured through rezoning and heritage agreements. As the amount is quite
substantial, representing $6-8 million in todays dollars, it is
recommended that once created, it be held in reserve until the heritage
density already banked is used up. Even then, we may want to release
density incrementally so as not to jeopardize other heritage
initiatives. The creation of a bank is strongly supported by both staff
and the Working Group.
Areas of Different Viewpoints
Summary
diversity in housing types and tenure;
the social and economic mix, including housing for families;
possible demolition of some non-listed houses;
consideration of residential infill;
level of renovations;
pace of renovation; and
provision of parking
Differing viewpoints mainly centre around the Council resolutions of
April 2, 1996 which were adopted to guide the planning process. These
resolutions included direction that the City's existing policy of mixed
communities would be maintained, giving a priority to housing for
low-end-of-market rental.
The Working Group has passed a motion that would designate all of the
City's housing in Mole Hill as "affordable rental". This is defined by
the Working Group to mean rental housing similar to the existing unit
mix on the block and suitable for the current tenant income levels, and
results in a combination of suites rented at $1.00/sq.ft. to existing
tenants and $1.25/sq.ft. to new tenants. In the context of the City, the
Working Group feels that affordable rental housing in heritage houses is
a resource which should be preserved. In the context of the West End,
they believe affordable housing in Mole Hill is vital to maintaining a
healthy mixed community. Staff, on the other hand, believe that Council
intended a social and economic mix on the block, noting that
historically the block has had a mix of people. As well, there are only
about 20 units now that are suitable for families out of 165 units of
City-owned housing. Noting the 25% target in major projects, staff feel
that we should do better than 12% in Mole Hill.
To achieve income and social mixes, including family housing, staff
propose to increase housing diversity and tenures on the block.
Respecting Council's commitment to the residents and to giving a
priority to low-end-of-market housing, staff believe that at least 96
units (reflecting the total number of residents as of the April 19, 1996
meeting) should be maintained for low-income and low-end-of-market
rental. This represents the majority of units and would accommodate all
of the 82 tenants now on site in upgraded accommodation and at rental
rates suitable to their incomes.
In staff's option, two non-listed houses could be demolished for infill
sites and 13 houses would be leased for 99 years for single-family or
multiple conversion use with an appropriate standard of renovation
required in the leases. Where access can be achieved from the adjacent
streets, these leased houses would have the potential for "coach house"
or side-yard style infill. All of these houses plus the Child Care
Facility houses would provide units suitable for families. This results
in 26% of the units being suitable for families in staff's option,
compared to 14% in the Working Group's option.
The possible demolition of the non-listed houses is an issue. The
Working Group would like to see all houses on the block retained. While
recognizing this is a worthwhile goal, staff feel that it may be
necessary to move or demolish some houses because of extremely high
costs of renovation, the inability to upgrade to building code, and the
inability to provide acceptable living accommodation. This includes a
non-listed house and additions at 1157 Pendrell and 1154 Comox, as well
as the additions at 1147 Pendrell. The accommodation in these buildings
is substandard. They are limited by the layout, and either cannot be
brought up to code, and/or would be approximately twice the average cost
of renovation to achieve acceptable livability standards. The staff
option will keep the non-listed house at 1147 Pendrell, even though the
cost is slightly higher, as it was one of the grandest houses on the
block and could be once again. It is substantially intact and has a
functional internal layout for small units. It would be separated from
a small addition and moved to the east side of the site with new
buildings added to provide small self contained units. There is an
opportunity to pursue non-market funding and Housing staff believe that
considering proposed changes to the unit allocation levels and our
ownership of the land, we stand a good chance of securing funding. The
new construction would be in scale with the existing houses. As well,
additional care would be taken in drafting guidelines for the site to
ensure both sensitivity and compatibility of design.
The level of renovation has also been an issue. The Working Group would
prefer a minimal level of on-going renovation in order to decrease
costs, maintain existing rents, and limit the economic justification
for change. Staff feel that there is a need to provide a standard of
housing that is both acceptable to the tenants and efficiently preserves
and enhances the resource of the houses on Mole Hill, including
important heritage features. This means basic repairs to bring the
buildings up to code (or equivalencies) and restoring the houses to a
level where only minor maintenance will preserve these structures for
the next 30+ years. These are not full "heritage level" restorations,
but rather exterior repairs and seismic upgrading, as well as new
wiring, heating, gyproc, flooring, plumbing, and sprinklers. The new
walls and plumbing would provide an opportunity to enlarge and add
bathrooms to most of the smaller units. This was strongly supported by
the tenants at their meeting last year and in a recent tenants survey.
Original materials will be restored if possible, or new materials will
be compatible with the heritage character. Based on the current work to
reveal the original siding on 1129 Pendrell, it is important in the
future that we fully identify what is there before proceeding with
renovations. Costs for this type of renovation/restoration are around
$110/sq. ft. A lessor cost option for renovation of $65/sq. ft. which
was discussed with the Working Group is not recommended, as it would
preserve the houses for a shorter period and would not be as sympathetic
to heritage features. For comparison purposes, both options are listed
in Appendix E.
While staff agree with parking relaxations in accordance with the
provisions of our Parking By-law, we do not support eliminating it for
the residential units entirely as recommended by the Working Group. At
present, 10% of the tenants use rear yard rental parking. In both the
staff and high return options, facilities, non-market, market, and
condominium developments would provide underground parking as required
by the by-law. With heritage relaxations, we could reduce the parking
requirements on-site and still achieve the goal of having a significant
amount of the rear yards for open space. The summary table in Appendix E
projects a supply of 66 parking spaces under the staff option. This is
conservatively expected to be 30 spaces short of the demand. However,
this deficiency may encourage reduced care ownership, thereby reducing
the shortfall somewhat.
The last major area at issue centres around the phasing-in period for
renovation and redevelopment in the block. The Working Group would like
to see the renovation done incrementally over time, paid for by revenue
generated from rental income. To that end, they would like to see an
increase in the units rented. While renting some of these units would be
possible, staff note that the vacant units allow existing tenants to be
moved easily during renovations. Staff also feel that extending the
renovation period over a significant number of years will result in
increased maintenance costs, increased "eventual" renovation costs, and
decreased rental revenue over that period of time. There is also an
increasing danger to life safety and house fires, given the condition of
the wiring. In addition, many tenants are anxious to see renovations
completed so that they can enjoy upgraded living accommodation.
Concept Plan Options
Over the past 3 to 4 months, a number of concept plan options have been
reviewed by both staff and the Working Group. Consultants have been
hired to test and illustrate these concept plans and preliminary
economic analysis has been undertaken to compare in order of magnitude
the approximate returns which might be possible from the options. None
of the economic returns include the unencumbered land value of $18
million. No cash flow analysis has been done to take into account the
cost of borrowing money or holding properties while awaiting
redevelopment, or the different tax revenues which would be generated
from each option. Analysis of all options assumes that the City will
receive $900,000 for the prepayment of the lease for the Dr. Peter
Centre site. Based upon the parameters outlined above, the following
options have been analysed, as summarized in Appendix E.
1. Working Group Option (see principles and plans in Appendix C)
Based on principles adopted over the last year, the Working Group
supports an option which locates the Dr. Peter Centre and a new daycare
facility, retains all houses, and renovates the 165 existing units as
"affordable rental" housing. Other than the facilities, they do not
support any infill at this time or any parking other than that for the
facilities and private owners. Instead, they prefer to reserve the rear
yards for public open space, including both heritage and community
gardens. At their own initiative, the Mole Hill Living Heritage Society
(represented on the Working Group) has secured funding from the
Bronfman Foundation to pursue development of both heritage and community
gardens.
The Working Group would prefer to see renovations initially limited to
exterior maintenance and internal repair as required. More
comprehensive upgrading such as bathrooms would be undertaken as the
cash flow allows, possibly taking over 20 years. While this option does
not initially cost more than the site generates, it does not provide
improved living conditions in a timely manner, it will result in higher
management costs, and renovation costs will rise as the houses continue
to deteriorate over this extended period of time. To complete
renovations in a timely manner to a level supported by staff, money
would have to be borrowed from the Property Endowment Fund. If this was
done, it is estimated that it could result in a negative return of about
$4.0 million at the rental rates described for affordable rental
housing. Possible revenue from outside groups and facilities who are
prepared to take a house and pay for renovations could decrease this
loss.
If the lower renovation cost of $65/sq.ft. is used along with lower
rental rates, it is estimated that it would result in a negative return
in the order of $2 million. However, as noted earlier, this is not
based on a cash flow analysis and the actual costs to the City would be
greater.
2. Staff Option (see principles and plans in Appendix B)
Rather than invent an entirely new option, staff have tried to build on
the strengths of the Working Group's principles and concept. Dr. Peter
and daycare facilities remain the same and instead of adding a lot of
new development, social and economic diversity have been increased by
providing more diversity in unit types and tenure. Residential infill is
limited in scale and scope, recognizing shared objectives for open
space. The option is based on principles which incorporate Council's
previous resolutions as well as information learned through the process.
Rather than having all of the 165 existing units as "affordable rental"
as the Working Group suggests, approximately 100 could be reserved for
low-income and low-end-of-market rental. The remainder would be a
combination of single family houses for long term lease, infill
housing, and multiple conversion dwellings, all at market rates. Over
25% of all units would be suitably sized for families. In the end, a
balance is achieved with approximately of the housing for low-income
rental, for low-end-of-market, and for market housing. The majority
of the houses are maintained on their lots, with only two of the
non-listed houses demolished. One of these houses (at 1157 Pendrell in
conjunction with a relocation of 1147 Pendrell) would provide a site for
non-market housing. Approximately 50 small, self-contained units on
these and nearby sites would provide much improved accommodation for
current residents on fixed incomes, at a scale and design which would be
sympathetic to existing houses.
A central area is set aside for community gardens and is directly linked
to Nelson Park. Parking is provided for facilities and market housing,
with parking provided for low-income and low-end-of-market housing at
reduced requirements as allowed by the Parking By-Law. Heritage and
community gardens would be accommodated in existing on-site open space,
which would be minimally impacted by the possible addition of up to 10
infill houses. All renovations take place within the next five years and
this option will result in a return of approximately $4.0 million.
3. High Return Option (see plans in Appendix D)
An option that seeks to maximize the return has been developed by staff
to demonstrate what can be achieved within the Council resolutions.
Again, Dr. Peter and daycare facilities remain the same, with as many of
the houses as possible leased for 99 years and with the potential for
coach house infill. Additional market housing is accomplished by
redeveloping the 1147-1157 Pendrell sites with condominium units in a
two and one-half storey building. Houses at the Thurlow and Pendrell
corner are moved or demolished to make way for a non-market three and
one half storey building. Two houses on Bute Street, and two houses on
Comox Street are used to provide affordable rental renovations. In this
option, four houses are demolished, 2 or 3 additions are removed, and
all of the buildings at 1147 and 1157 Pendrell Street are demolished.
This option can be completed in 2 or 3 years. The approximate return of
this option has been estimated at about $7.0 million.
This option produces the most revenue, keeps the ongoing management of
the houses to a minimum, and reduces the risk of cost over-runs during
upgrading by keeping to a minimum the number of houses upgraded and
managed by the City. It also produces 62 new studio units that can be
rented at the shelter allowance, allows for heritage or community
gardens along the greenlink and behind the Watson House, and can be
completed quickly. However, this option is not recommended as it
demolishes up to 4 more unlisted houses than the staff option, moves one
C house, provides less space for heritage and community gardens,
provides no pedestrian/greenway treatments, dramatically changes the
character of the units for existing tenants and does not provide a good
diversity of housing types or locations for those tenants. The three
and one half storey studio apartment building on the corner of Thurlow
and Pendrell is a concern given the scale of the adjacent houses, but
with its location on Thurlow, it may be justified as a bookend to the
block.
Vancouver Heritage Commission Comments
The Heritage Commission has provided comments and a resolution for
consideration included as Appendix G.
Vancouver City Planning Commission Comments
The Commission has reviewed this report and will submit their comments
for consideration prior to The Standing Committee of Planning and
Environment.
Working Group Comments
The Working Group s comments are included in Appendix F.
Outstanding Work Items
In Phase II, staff will continue to work with the community to further
refine the concept plan into a plan for implementation. In this phase,
we will develop a plan and timing for renovation of houses and a
strategy to relocate existing tenants. We will look in detail at the
cost and level of renovations for each house, including the addition of
washrooms and the rehabilitation of interior and exterior heritage
features. It will be important to undertake some selective exploratory
work to better understand and preserve the heritage merit of the non-listed houses. We may select a couple of houses as test cases in
order to improve the accuracy of overall economic analysis of the block.
Since it is necessary to upgrade the houses adjacent to the new daycare,
this work item will need to be advanced to coincide with the daycare
construction. To preserve the heritage character of these houses staff
will need to define the level of interior and exterior renovation, as
well as a strategy for long term retention. At the same time, an open
space plan will be needed to detail the pedestrian laneway, internal
green links, community gardens, and heritage gardens.
Guidelines for infill housing opportunities based on the City's
RT-7 guidelines will be developed. Staff analysis of facility and
housing developments will also be required. In addition, staff will be
involved in making application for and supervising non-market housing
development.
The majority of the planning work will be undertaken by staff over the
next year, with ongoing involvement over the several years of renovation
and redevelopment. The public process will continue throughout the
planning program.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Both the Working Group and staff's concept plans are expected to benefit
resource depletion and landfill impacts by renovating the majority of
the buildings. Surface run-off will also be minimized by maintaining
large amounts of permeable surfaces.
CityPlan Implications
Both the Working Group and staff's concept plans will have a beneficial
effect of preserving ground-oriented units near Downtown and providing
greenways, community gardens and facilities. The staff option will also
increase the amount of family housing, incorporate innovative infill,
provide new forms of housing, enhance heritage features, and produce a
mixed community.
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Both the Working Group and staff's concept plans provide a range of
housing and services that are needed in the neighbourhood, Downtown, and
City. Badly needed health and daycare facilities are included and
community/heritage gardens incorporated. In staff s concept, a range of
housing type and tenure will allow for a mix of people and incomes.
Labour training programs are being investigated and will be included in
Phase II.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The unencumbered land value of this property is estimated to be $18
million. This value could produce an income stream of about $1
million/yr if invested at a 6% rate of return. However, this would not
provide public benefits such as the childcare facility, non-market
housing, public open space, greenway development, and a special needs
residential facility. Under the principles already established by
Council, preliminary analysis indicates the maximum return could be in
the order of $7 million. The option recommended by staff would result in
a return of approximately $4 million. This does not include any
potential revenue from selling banked heritage floorspace estimated at
$6-8 million.
Staff estimate that consultant funds of $45,000 and public process funds
of $5,000 will be needed for Phase II of planning for Mole Hill. Half of
these funds will be needed in 1997, with the Contingency Reserve Fund
being the source. The remaining $25, 000 would be included in 1998
departmental budgets. All staff for Phase II will come from existing
departmental resources.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommend that Council adopt staff's principles and concept plan
for development of Mole Hill as the basis for the next phase of
planning. It is also recommended that the next phase commence
immediately with funding of $50,000 for consultant and public process.
* * * *
Vancouver City Council Resolutions on Nelson Park
April 2, 1996
- That the block between Comox and Pendrell Streets, from Bute to
Thurlow Streets, be named "Mole Hill."
- That the Mole Hill lands be recognized as a City resource and that
the land not be sold in whole or part. Further, that leasehold
arrangements can be considered.
- That all existing residents will be accommodated on site as
renovation takes place.
- That the City's existing policy of mixed communities will be
maintained. Further, that priority be given to housing for low end
of market rental.
- That all the City-owned heritage-listed buildings ("A", "B" and
"C") be retained. Further, that the City's existing heritage
policies will apply. And further that, in the event that buildings
are moved or infill occurs, the existing scale and streetscape of
Mole Hill should be respected.
- That revenues for renovation of the housing will be generated from
the site. Further, that transfer of density policy may be used to
achieve value from the unused development potential of the site.
- That the policies of CityPlan will be used as the basis for
demonstration options, including innovative infill, new forms of
housing, community gardens, greenways, etc. Further, that lane
and/or street closures may be considered.
- That other options for use of the buildings and land will be
considered, such as daycare, hospices, parks and other facilities
that meet City needs.
- That staff will be asked to develop options for a labour training
program as the site is renovated.
- That staff report back on a public planning process.
Staff Principles for the Redevelopment of Mole Hill
1. As a priority, Monies generated by the site, including long term
leases should be used on the site including Comox Street and the
lane. This should continue until renovations and unit upgradings
are completed. In addition, we should investigate other potential
sources of funding.
2. Produce a reasonable return on the block, including some
consideration of heritage density.
3. Renovations to preserve city asset and minimize costs over long
term, recognizing heritage value where practical. Equivalencies
should be sought under the building by-law.
4. All renovations to respect heritage exteriors and be as sensitive
as possible to heritage features in the interiors.
5. Upgraded units to provide as many self-contained units as possible
given physical constraints.
6. All existing tenants accommodated on site.
7. A minimum of 96 units for low income and low end of market rental.
8. Accommodate Dr. Peter Centre on site.
9. Construction of a new daycare facility with a minimum of 25 spaces
plus 28 spaces of family daycare, some of which will be located in
existing houses.
10. Maintaining the listed heritage houses on their current sites; and
retaining additions, subject to ability to provide upgraded
accommodation without excessive costs.
11. Maximize the number of housing units on the block in existing
structures and in new infill buildings, within the limits defined
by the livability of the units, the heritage character of the
block, and objectives for housing, social, and economic diversity.
12. Housing Diversity - provide a variety of housing types and sizes in
existing buildings, concentrating on providing larger units
(suitable for families) in new infill.
13. Social Diversity - provide housing opportunities for a wide range
of people of all ages, including families with children.
14. Economic Diversity - preserve at least half of the housing for
lower incomes, but also provide housing opportunities for middle
and higher income groups.
15. All new development should respect the scale and be sympathetic to
the character of the existing houses.
16. Except for vacant sites, or sites made vacant by demolition, all
infill should be located in the rear yards. Where possible, a
minimum distance of 16 ft. should be achieved from existing
buildings.
17. Substantial trees should be retained in place if possible, or
replaced with more traditional species if endangered by new
development.
18. Where possible, try to maintain open space around the mid-block of
the lane and around the vacant "green link" to the park.
19. In open areas, priority should be given to community and heritage
gardens.
20. Incorporate the City Greenway on Comox Street.
WORKING GROUP PRINCIPLES
Houses on the Heritage Inventory:
Intent: Wherever possible, the intent is to retain all houses on the
heritage inventory in their current location.
Principle: All houses on the heritage inventory will remain in place
although some movement may occur on the lot.
Vote: 10 out of 10 - Carried Unanimously.
Houses not on the Heritage Inventory:
Intent: The intent is that all non-listed city-owned houses on the
block not including additions be retained, but may be moved on
the block.
Principle: That all non-listed City-owned houses, not including
additions, be retained on the block, but may be moved on
the lot.
Vote: 10 out of 10 - Carried Unanimously.
Demolition of Building Additions:
Intent: That demolition of building additions will only be considered
under certain situations. The additions at 1154 Comox Street,
1147 and 1157 Pendrell Street would be considered for
demolition.
Principle: That demolition of building additions will only be
considered if they are unable to provide safe and
adequate accommodation, they do not enhance the heritage
character, it is too expensive or not possible to bring
the addition up to fire and building codes, and if the
renovation would require further upgrades within a 20-30
year period. The additions at 1154 Comox Street, 1147,
and 1157 Pendrell Street would be considered for
demolition.
Vote: 10 out of 12 - Principle Adopted
Principle: If there is any loss of rental units through demolition
of housing additions, that the number of units be
replaced one for one.
Vote: 10 out of 10 - Carried Unanimously
Daycare Facility:
Intent: That 3 out of the 4 houses at 1127, 1129, 1133 and/or 1137
Pendrell Street can be considered to incorporate a new daycare
facility and retain houses for family daycare and housing
units.
Principle: That the current child care facility be replaced and has
the ability to directly access the link to Nelson Park
between 1126 and 1136 Comox Street, and take advantage of
houses which are appropriate for family daycare,
currently identified as 1127, 1129, 1133 and/or 1137
Pendrell Street.
Vote: 10 out of 11 - Principle Adopted
Dr. Peter Facility:
Intent: That the Dr. Peter Centre be located on Mole Hill. The design
of the facility will meet their program needs while being
sensitive to the community by fitting within the scale and
context of the block.
Principle: That the Dr. Peter Centre be located on the vacant
Thurlow site as shown in option "D-7" and this facility
be designed to minimize the impact on the south side of
the heritage B houses at 1114 and 1110 Comox Street.
Further consideration will be given to investigation of
encroachment into the lane and reducing impact on the 2
houses adjacent the facility.
Vote: 10 out of 12 - Principle Adopted
Principle: That the Dr. Peter Centre and Daycare facilities be
sensitive to the heritage houses.
Vote: 10 out of 10 - Carried Unanimously
Principle: That Dr. Peter and Daycare will be the only
non-residential uses on the site.
Vote: 10 out of 11 - Principle Adopted
Infill Housing:
Intent: That residential infill be sensitive to the heritage houses.
Principle: That the City's RT-7 and RT-8 guidelines be used as a
basis for infill guidelines to the site with the
intention of defining an appropriate scale, character,
and style similar to coach houses.
Vote: 12 out of 12 - Carried Unanimously
Housing Types and Mix:
Intent: That the current number of low-end rental and other forms of
non-market housing be reflected in the concept plan in the
current diverse form.
Principle: That there be a minimum of 165 affordable rental housing
units, similar to the current diverse mix in the
community including family or individuals with similar
income levels.
Vote: 9 out of 10 - Principle Adopted
Principle: That the relocation of existing tenants be minimized and
those who are moved because of renovations be able to
return to their original unit if they desire.
Vote: 10 out of 10 - Carried Unanimously
Lane Treatment:
Intent: That the lane serves community use by having open space,
access, and a pleasant atmosphere.
Principle: That the lane remain as a link between houses and
predominate as pedestrian use with the intent that a
minimum of 50% of open space behind the houses be
retained as public space.
Vote: 12 out of 12 - Carried Unanimously
Additional Principles:
Principle: That the Working Group accept the BC Woods Proposal to
build a daycare facility and that the footprint be
designed as indicated in the consultants "scheme B".
Further, that Mrs. Rivers and the rest of the
neighbourhood be notified about this proposal.
Vote: 13 out of 13 - Carried Unanimously
Principle: That the Working Group accepts the opportunity for infill
housing units at the western end of the block which does
not preclude the opportunities for consolidation of open
space at the centre and eastern part of the block.
Further, that the priority for infill housing is to
ensure that 165 units is allocated for low-end of market
housing and non-market housing on the block.
Vote: 10 out of 12 - Principle adopted
Principle: While opportunities for residential infill have been
discussed, there will be no infill at this point other
than the child care facility and Dr. Peter Centre.
Vote: 11 out of 12 - Principle Adopted
Principle: Recognizing the potential for public open space in the
lane, above ground parking spaces will only be provided
for daycare and private residences and underground
parking for Dr. Peter Centre.
Vote: 12 out of 12 - Carried Unanimously
Principle: Recognizing that the lane be designed for pedestrian
realm, where the car is permitted to intrude in a limited
way:
i. The width of the lane be narrowed to the minimum requirements for
emergency vehicle use,
ii. Traffic calming and other measures be used such as bollards, speed
tables, etc;
iii. A "safe link" between Nelson Park and the daycare and public open
space be provided.
Vote: 12 out of 12 - Carried Unanimously
Principle: In recognition of the unique historic importance of the
block of houses known as "Mole Hill", that it be
officially declared a municipal heritage area, and, That a Historic Area Planning Committee be struck to manage this
historic resource, and,
That a Master Plan and Infill Design Guidelines be developed
for "Mole Hill", and,
In recognition of the expressed wishes of the community, that
the continuity of the streetscapes and the integrity of the
blockfaces of this historic resource be preserved and
enhanced, with the intention that all of the existing houses
be retained, and,
In recognition of the block's living heritage, that a mix of
community uses be provided, including affordable daycare and a
site for the Dr. Peter Centre.
Vote: 9 out of 12 - Principles Adopted.
REMAINING APPENDICES on file in City Clerk's Office
* * * * *