City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of Community Planning on behalf of Land Use and Development
SUBJECT: Heritage Designation of 285 West 17th Avenue
 
 

RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

Council policy on heritage designation states, in part, that legal designation will be a prerequisite to accepting certain bonuses and incentives.

PURPOSE

This report seeks Council's support for the designation of the building at 285 West 17th Avenue as a Protected Heritage Property in exchange for zoning relaxations.

BACKGROUND and SUMMARY

Development Application DE402153 proposes the restoration and addition to an existing residential building located in the RS-2 zone. The building is listed on the Vancouver Heritage Register in the "C" evaluation category, and was legally converted to two units some time ago. The proposal seeks to maintain, but re-configure the existing two units within the heritage building, and construct a single-family dwelling infill building in the rear yard (See Appendix A). Three parking spaces are proposed in the rear yard, two enclosed and one surface stall. Other than the unit for the owners of the heritage building, all units are for rental accommodation. There are three existing large specimen trees on site, all of which will be retained.

The site is comprised of two legal parcels. Lot consolidation to create a 15 x 41.89 m (49.5 ft. x 137.45 ft.) site is required as part of the approval. The approval also includes a number of relaxations permitted under Section 3.2.5. and under the RS-2 District Schedule of the Zoning and Development By-Law. The Director of Planning has approved this application with conditions. Council's support for the designation of the heritage building is one of the conditions.

In response to the neighbourhood's concerns, the applicant revised the number of units proposed from four to three and significantly reduced the massing of the infill building. The results of the neighbourhoods response and subsequent changes are under the Notification section of this report.

DISCUSSION

Heritage Value:

Completed in 1910, this house is a good example of the Craftsman style. The house has a cross-gabled roof, an arched balcony opening in the second storey that is flanked by diamond shaped windows, decorative brackets and is clad in wood shingles. A random cut stone base and porch columns on the house are complemented by the stone retaining wall. The building is listed in the `C' evaluation category on the Vancouver Heritage Register, and it's value will increase given it's streetscape character, to become an attractive and valuable resource when restored.

Compatibility with Community Planning Objectives:

The property is located in the Riley Park area, and is zoned RS-2. The intent of the RS-2 zoning is as follows: "to maintain a single-family residential character of the District, but also to conditionally permit in some instances the conversion of large homes to contain additional accommodation, and some two-family and multiple-family dwellings". The Design Guidelines for RS-2 Infill sites stress the importance of maintaining and enhancing the physical character of the area.

The proposal meets the intent of the zoning by conserving a character building and permits the opportunity for additional housing, through the construction of the infill building.

Zoning Considerations:

The RS-2 District Schedule allows the Director of Planning to relax the yard setback provisions of Section 4.5.3 of this Schedule in the case of infill buildings. Section 3.2.5 of the Zoning and Development By-Laws, permits the Director of Planning or the Development Permit Board the flexibility to relax any provisions of a District Schedule, in the following areas:

"(a) where literal enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship in carrying out any restoration or renovation of a building or site on the Heritage Register, or

(b) Where Council determines that the proposed development would make a contribution to conserving a building or site designated by Council as Protected Heritage Property or a building or site on the Heritage Register."

Given that the proposed development will contribute to the conservation of a heritage building, and subject to designation of the property, the Director of Planning is prepared to relax the minimum site area required for an infill building, the floor space ratio as it relates to site size, and additional relaxations as described below:

RS-2 DISTRICT SCHEDULE REQUIRED/PERMITTED

PROPOSED
Min.Site Area - For Infill Site

929 m¾

(10,000 sq.ft.)

632.02 m¾

(6803.23 sq.ft.)
Min.Side Yard - East (Infill)

2.13 m

(7.00 ft.)

1.49 m

(4.88 ft.)
Min.Side Yard - West (Main)

1.5 m

(4.95 ft.)

0.91 m

(3.00 ft.)**
Min.Rear Yard - North (Infill)

7.65 m

(25.10 ft.)

0.61 m

(2.00 ft.) ***
Max.Floor Space Ratio *

0.60 FSR

379.21 m¾

(4081.94 sq.ft.)

0.75 FSR

474.02 m¾ *

(5102.25 sq.ft.)

* The Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is based upon what would be permitted on a site of this size, without a relaxation to allow an infill building. The Director of Planning is supportive of a relaxation to allow an infill building, and this application complies with the maximum permitted 0.75FSR for a site with an infill building.

** The proposed Side Yard represents the present location of the heritage building. All new additions to the building comply with the required setback.

*** The required Rear Yard setback is consistently relaxed when an infill building is proposed, in order to allow it's placement within the rear yard.

Staff note that should the owner decide to sell the half of Lot 19, he shares with the adjacent owner to the east, and a standard 10m (33ft.) wide site is created from the two half parcels, the resultant development along the street, including Lot 20, would be of two single family dwellings, and each would be eligible for future consideration to convert to two dwelling units.

Notification:

As part of the Development Application process, a sign was placed on the site and letters of notification were sent to 54 surrounding residents on March 27,1997. Of the notified households, six responses were received. All the responses were in opposition to the development. After meeting the neighbours who responded, staff concluded the concerns related to the density and massing of the development, number of units on the site (and the effect on the area by the increase in traffic), the proposed rental accommodation and the past poor management of the site.

The applicants were informed of the reaction from the neighbourhood and revisions were submitted that included a reduction in number of units from four to three, and changes to the scale of the infill building. It should be noted that the reduction in number of units to three, no longer required a relaxation from the Director of Planning for unit density. The only significant relaxation required was the relaxation of site area to allow an infill building. Staff re-notified the same 54 households on July 4,1997, based on the revised drawings and received 29 letters of opposition (one letter and a petition containing 28 names) restating the area's previous concerns.

The applicants were once again informed of the reaction from the neighbourhood and a public information meeting was arranged by the owner and applicants. Staff renotified the neighbourhood on October 23,1997, based on the revised drawing package to inform the area of the location and time of the public meeting. One resident attended the meeting and the City received a petition of 25 names all in opposition to the proposal. The concerns expressed were consistent with the previous responses regarding rental accommodation, number of units on site, the scale of the infill building and the form of development proposed within an area comprised of single building lots.

The applicants also submitted a petition that the owner circulated to the surrounding notified area, with 19 signatures of support, dated November 10,1997. It should be noted that 7 of the names were also on the petition of non-support received by the City after the October 23,1997 renotification.

Staff made their final assessment following this last set of revisions and determined that all of the neighbourhoods original concerns of parking and unit count had been responded to the extent that the proposal conformed with the zoning, with the exception of the infill building. With respect to the neighbours concern of rental tenure, the City does not have the authority, or the aspiration, to prohibit rental accommodation.

While acknowledging the objections of neighbours, staff concluded that the site configuration of the heritage building with the resultant wide side yard, could accommodate an infill building in the rear yard. The location of the heritage building on the site, with the 5.18m (17 ft.) wide side yard allows for the present massing on the street to be maintained. The retention of the trees and the location of the infill building in the rear yard, afford a limited view of the infill building from the street. On the basis of the heritage benefit of the proposal and it's general compliance with the intent of the RS-2 District Schedule, the Development Application was approved with the condition that Council supports the designation of the heritage house, and that the massing of the infill building be reduced to one and half storeys. The applicants responded with revised drawings on February 5,1998 ( see Appendix A). The resultant building appears as a one and half-storey structure from the lane, while maintaining the character of the building as seen from the street.

Conditions and Economic Viability:

The heritage building's exterior and structure are in sound and stable condition. The street- oriented facades, including opening the original porch, will be preserved and upgraded as they exist. Interventions to the rear of the building and the construction of the infill building, will be in keeping with the style, materials and detailing of the original house. In addition, the existing stone retaining wall at the front of the property will be restored.

The Manager of Real Estate Services has reviewed the applicants' final analysis for the latest set of plans, dated February 5,1998, and concluded that there is no excessive profit to the developer, and the requested relaxations are justified.

The owner has committed to designating the heritage building. Enactment of the By-Law will occur upon receipt of a letter from the owner waiving any future claim to compensation.

Comments of the Vancouver Heritage Commission:

The proposal was presented to the Vancouver Heritage Commission in April 1997, as a complete application. Subsequent reviews by the Commission did not occur, as staff concluded the Commission's support at an early stage. The Commission resolved the following:

CONCLUSION

The proposed development at 285 West 17th Avenue complies with the intent of the RS-2 District Schedule, with the exception of site area requirements for infill developments. There has been extensive opposition from the neighbourhood on this last issue, where they have cited the erosion of the single family character of the area through the construction of the infill building.

While acknowledging the areas concerns, staff have concluded that the single family scale of the area and the streetscape is enhanced through the retention of the heritage building, and construction of the infill building. The proposal is compatible with Council's long-term goal to protect heritage resources through designation. The requested site area relaxation and accompanying floor space ratio increase will ensure the conservation of the heritage building is economically viable. Therefore, it is recommended that Council amends Schedule A of the Heritage By-Law to designate the property at 285 West 17th Avenue as a Protected Heritage Property.

* * * * *

ph980408.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.

[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

Last modified: January 28, 1998
(c) 1998 City of Vancouver