POLICY REPORT

BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT

Date: May 7, 1998

Author/Local: GMcG/7091

CC File No. PH361

TO: Vancouver City Council

FROM: Director of Central Area Planning on Behalf of Land Use & Development

SUBJECT:Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Designation - former Glen Hospital, 1036 Salsbury Drive

RECOMMENDATION

A.THAT Council authorize the City to enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement for the site at 1036 Salsbury Drive to: secure the long term protection of the former Glen Hospital; vary the RT-5 District Schedule to permit conversion of the heritage building into six units, construction of two infill one-family dwellings and construction of two infill multiple dwellings each containing four units; a floor space ratio increase over the whole site from 0.75 permitted to 1.03;

AND THAT Council designates the former Glen Hospital as Protected Heritage Property for which the Heritage Revitalization Agreement will fully compensate; and

B.THAT the Director of Legal Services bring forward for enactment the by-laws to authorize the Heritage Revitalization Agreement and an amendment to the Heritage By-law; and

C.THAT the Director of Legal Service prepares a registered agreement to secure the restoration of the former Glen Hospital.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A, B and C.

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 Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA), designation and a related registered agreement to secure the protection of the former Glen Hospital and to assist the owner with the hardship of restoring and protecting it by varying certain zoning by-laws.

BACKGROUND and SUMMARY

The former Glen Hospital is located at the corner of Salsbury Drive and Napier Street in the Grandview-Woodland neighbourhood (see map next page). It occupies a site, currently comprised of five parcels, zoned RT-5. The zoning permits five new two-family dwellings, if the heritage house was not retained. As an alternative, Stuart Howard Architects submitted Development Application DE402824 to revitalize the heritage site. They propose to:

·530·demolish the unsympathetic addition to the heritage house;·530

·530·retain, move, and restore the heritage house and convert it into a 6-unit multiple conversion dwelling;·530

·530·construct two compatible infill one-family dwellings;·530

·530·construct two compatible infill multiple dwellings each containing four units; and·530

·530·build one level of underground parking.·530

After carefully considering neighbourhood concerns and Council policy, the Director of Planning approved the application on February 25, 1998. The approval is subject to several changes and Council’s approval of the HRA, designation of the heritage building, and other conditions.

MAP

DISCUSSION

Heritage Value: John J. Miller built this large house at 1036 Salsbury Drive in 1908. For the past several decades the building has operated as the private Glen Hospital. It is listed in the ‘A’ category on the Vancouver Heritage Register and is significant because of its original owner, and its design and landscaping. Mr. Miller was a notary public, an auctioneer and had a reputation as a real estate promoter. He served as a City of Vancouver Alderman and was also the first president of the Vancouver Exhibition Association. He almost single-handedly started and ran the P.N.E. from 1908 to 1922. Miller Drive in Exhibition Park is named after him.

Mr. Miller’s mansion is one of the finest houses built in the area in the grand Edwardian years before the Great War. Raised high above the street corner on a pressed stone retaining wall, it still commands a strong presence in the neighbourhood. It is a very good example of the Queen Anne design with a superb turret and porch. There are many fine details on the house including the cast concrete block, one of its earliest known uses in Vancouver. The perimeter retaining wall is also built out of decorative concrete block.

Compatibility with Community Planning Objectives: The intent of the RT-5 District Schedule is "to encourage the retention of existing residential structures. In the RT-5 and RT-5N Districts emphasis is placed on the external design of all new buildings and additions being compatible with the historical character of the area, and on being neighbourly in scale and placement".

The proposed form of development fully meets the intent of the schedule. It preserves a significant heritage house and proposes new buildings that are compatible with the heritage building and surrounding neighbourhood.

Zoning Variances: To offset the hardship of retaining, moving and restoring the heritage building the proposed HRA would authorize several RT-5 zoning variances, including:

	Max. Permitted or Required	Proposed
Floor Space:	1,403 m² (15,103 sq. ft.)	1,936 m² (20,830 sq. ft.)
	0.75 FSR	1.03 FSR
Height (heritage house roof): (ridge of turret on heritage house):	10.7 m (35.10 ft.), 2.5 storeys	13.0 m (42.57 ft.) 3.0 storeys 15.2 m (49.75 ft.)
Height (worst case new building, Unit #7):	10.7 m (35.10 ft.) 2.5 storeys	11.0 m (36.16 ft.) 2.5 storeys
East Side Yard:(underground pkg.)	1.5 m (5 ft.)	0.4 m (1.25 ft.)
East Side Yard (Infill Multiple Dwellings):	1.5 m (5 ft.)	1.3 m (4.33 ft.)
Rear Yard: (to Unit #13 at Lane MD**)	7.7 m (25.10 ft.)	3.6 m (11.67 ft.)
Rear Yard: (to Unit #15)	7.7 m (25.10 ft.)	2.4 m (8.00 ft.)
Rear Yard: (to Unit #16)	7.7 m (25.10 ft.)	0.6 m (2.00 ft.)

** Infill Multiple Dwelling

Several RT-5 Guidelines relaxations are also required that the Director of Planning is able and prepared to support (see Appendix A ). The proposal complies with all Parking By-law regulations.

Condition and Economic Viability: While the original house underwent many unsympathetic alterations to convert the house to hospital use, the original structure, windows, fenestration and exterior character remain. Unfortunately, the previous owners, who used it as a hospital, removed most of the original interior features. The existing building will be moved forward on the site, but will retain its existing diagonal relationship with the corner. The owner will restore the exterior of the house and return the porch to its original configuration. Exterior elements lost will be recreated using historic photos.

The Manager of Real Estate Services is of the opinion that if this scheme is developed, as proposed the project feasibility will be similar to that of an unencumbered development on this site. The owner has agreed that these variances are adequate compensation for the obligations incurred under the HRA and designation, and is prepared to enter the Agreement.

Notification and Neighbourhood Issues: Staff notified the surrounding neighbourhood twice as part of the application review process. Forty-one property owners were notified when the application was originally submitted. Sixteen residents wrote in, three in support and 13 not in support including the Grandview-Woodlands Area Council.

After carefully considering the concerns raised, the Director of Planning approved the application subject to substantial changes and Council approval of the HRA and designation. The applicant redesigned the proposal, and submitted new drawings.

Staff renotified the surrounding neighbours; four responses were received citing seven issues. Staff addressed the first three issues regarding design by requiring the following refinements to the proposal:

·530·substitute vinyl siding with wood siding in keeping with the Guidelines that emphasize use of traditional building materials in the neighbourhood;·530

·530·substitute asphalt shingles with cedar shingles for the roofing on the heritage house; and·530

·530·redesign elements of the underground parking entrance to reduce visual and noise impacts and improve safety.·530

Staff addressed the four remaining issues in the various redesigns or felt that it was not reasonable to pursue them further. They include:

·530·the rear infill multiple dwelling building is located too close to the lane;·530

·530·the infill multiple dwelling buildings are too massive;·530

·530·the floor space increase will set a precedent; and·530

·530·the developer will make a "windfall profit".·530

The rear infill multiple dwelling building is located too close to the lane and will cause privacy and massing impacts on neighbours across the lane. In the previous redesigns, the applicant addressed this issue by reducing both the interior courtyard width and the Napier Street front yard setback. The building facades are now 3.6 m to 4.8 m (12 ft. to 16 ft.) from the lane. To further reduce privacy overlook and massing impacts on neighbours across the lane, staff required the applicant to remove all raised decks and reduce the scale of the building. The lane facade now appears as one and one-half storeys instead of three storeys (see Lane Elevation, Page 4, Appendix B). The shadow analysis shows no shadow impact on neighbours across the lane. Staff feel the current design is more neighbourly in scale and placement than what is permitted by the zoning. One and one-half storey infill dwellings are conditionally permitted with no rear yard setbacks.

The infill multiple dwellings are too massive. The proposal includes two infill multiple dwellings, each containing four units. The neighbour across the lane requested that each structure be separated into two to reduce the scale of the buildings. Staff investigated this approach and concluded it was not practical without reducing the floor space. Additional bulk would have to be added to the rear of the building to create the new side yard division. This would push the rear facades much closer to the lane, aggravating the problem of proximity to the lane noted above. In addition, the new side yard would be extremely long and narrow. With roof overhangs little light would penetrate this space. As an alternative, staff required the applicant to step the units in plan to visually break up the massing. (see plans & elevations, Appendix B).

The floor space increase will set a precedent. Only owners of sites on the Heritage Register can request heritage relaxation. Each heritage site is dealt with on a case by cases bases, judged on its own merit from both the proforma and design standpoint, and reported individually to Council.

The developer will make a "Windfall profit". As discussed above, Real Estate Services staff reviewed and supported the floor space increase requested. The additional density serves to compensate the owner for the cost of retaining and restoring the heritage building and will not provide the owner with a windfall profit.

Staff analysis concludes that the proposal provides a form of development that is compatible in scale and massing with the existing street scape and neighbourhood character. The majority of both the heritage and neighbourhood issues have been addressed in a way that improves the character of the proposal and lessens its impact on surrounding properties.

Vancouver Heritage Commission: At its February 2, 1998 meeting, the Vancouver Heritage Commission supported the zoning by-law relaxations requested by the applicant, including the floor space increase. The Commission also noted its support for the applicant’s original design which included flat roofs on the "town house" infill buildings. They felt this earlier design, helped make a contrast between the new construction and the heritage building and responded well to the surrounding context. The neighbourhood and the Director of Planning did not support this approach, because it was not consistent with the intent of the zoning and guidelines for the area.

HRA, Designation and Registered Agreement: The proposed HRA and designation would achieve the following:

·530·secure the ongoing maintenance and long term protection of the exterior of the heritage building;·530

·530·vary the RT-5 District Schedule, including the floor space, to allow the proposed form of development;·530

·530·require a Heritage Alteration Permit for future alterations to the exterior of the heritage and new buildings;·530

·530·require replication of the heritage and new building’s exteriors, if destroyed; and·530

·530·permit the City to install a heritage plaque on the heritage building.·530

The registered agreement, addressed in RECOMMENDATION "C", will ensure the heritage house is restored promptly.

CONCLUSION

The former Glen Hospital is a significant neighbourhood landmark that provides a sense of place and history to this part of the Grandview-Woodland neighbourhood. It is listed in the "A" category on the Vancouver Heritage Register. The requested floor space increase and other zoning variances will ensure the conservation of the heritage building is economically viable. Staff believe that the proposed revitalization scheme incorporates the additional density in a way that minimizes impacts on surrounding neighbours and is compatible with the street scapes. Therefore, staff recommend Council support the HRA and designation to protect this important heritage resource and facilitate its restoration through floorspace increase and other zoning variances.

* * * * *

APPENDIX A

Guideline Relaxations

List of RT-5 Guidelines the Director of Planning is able and prepared to relax:

	Permitted or Required	Proposed
Residential Unit Density	13	16
Height: Lane MD** (worst cast at Unit #13)	7.7 m (25.26 ft.) 1.5 storeys	10.8 m (35.37 ft.) 2.5 storeys
Height: Rear Yard Infill (at Unit #15)	7.7 m (25.26 ft.) 1.5 storeys	9.7 m (31.76 ft.) 2.5 storeys
Height: Rear Yard Infill (at Unit #16)	7.7 m (25.26 ft.) 1.5 storeys	10.4 m (34.10 ft.) 2.5 storeys
Front Yard: (to MCD*)	7.3 m (23.95 ft.)	6.1 m (20.04 ft.)
Front Yard: (to underground parking)	7.3 m (23.95 ft.)	5.5 m (18.00 ft.)
Front Yard: (to Units #9 & #10 of MD**)	7.3 m (23.95 ft.)	5.8 m (18.96 ft.)
Site Coverage: Rear Yard Infill	35.0%	41.7%
Site Coverage: Side Yard Infill	45.0%	52.9%
Rear Infill Separation (between MCD* & Unit #15)	4.9 m (16.00 ft.)	4.5 m (14.67 ft.)
Rear Infill Separation (between Unit #7 & Unit #14)	4.9 m (16.00 ft.)	4.7 m (15.33 ft.)

* Multiple Conversion Dwelling

** Infill Multiple Dwelling * * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver