M E M O R A N D U M 1998 07 03

TO: Mayor Owen and Councillors

COPY TO: K. Dobell, City Manager

T. Droettboom, Manager of Community Services

U. Watkiss, City Clerk

FROM:T. Phipps, Planner, Land Use and Development

SUBJECT: Arbutus Village Rezoning Application -

Questions Raised By Council at Public Hearing

At the close of Public Hearing for 4255 Arbutus Street, reconvened June 23, 1998, Councillor Chivario asked staff to respond to the following seven questions. Each question is addressed in terms of feasibility and from a policy perspective.

Question #1.Could a single level of parking be located at ground level, open to view, and with the tower above?

It is understood that grade level parking would be visible from each direction below the buildings. This is technically possible. It is common in Richmond, due to a high water table.

Staff advise that on the street side (along Nanton Avenue and Arbutus Street) this approach would be counter to the City’s approach to public realm treatment throughout the City, wherein development facing streets consists of active uses to enliven and beautify the street, and in this case provide 12 ground oriented dwellings. At grade parking facing Nanton Avenue would create detrimental urban design impacts, including:

(i) negative appearance of the building ground plain;

(ii) poor pedestrian streetscape along Nanton Avenue;

(iii)views from residences into 6 m (20 ft) building supports and parking garage from the south side of Nanton; and

(iv) increased height of the building.

Portions of the above-grade parking would also be calculated as floor area, reducing residential floor space accordingly.

The current proposal, including normal CPTED measures, allows a high degree of visibility into the first level of structured parking, including 45 of the 154 relocated spaces. Either way, the parking would be contained in a structure. In this very low crime environment, a well designed parking structure would better address both urban design and safety concerns.

Question #2. Could the City ensure retention of the shopping centre?

The City cannot require any business to remain open.

The current and proposed zoning of this site provides no other options for use of the shopping centre space other than uses common to shopping centres for which the existing development is designed. The current built form would not suit other uses such as offices, and Council must directly approve any change to the form of development. Therefore, it would be unlikely to be in an owner’s interest to pursue other uses of the site.

Nevertheless, although it would be unusual, it would be possible to discourage conversion to other uses by restricting the use of a specified portion of a site to a specific land use, such as Grocery Store, by way of a Sec. 219 Covenant. If Council wished to pursue this, an additional condition would be required.

Question #3.A clarification of the discussions heard from delegations as to whether this is a zoning issue or a by-law issue?

To make the changes proposed in this rezoning involves a by-law process the same as the process which resulted in the original by-law which applies to this site. Each rezoning constitutes a by-law change.

Question #4.Would affordable housing be able to be achieved within the framework of what was considered for the Public Hearing, should Council wish to consider it?

Council could introduce conditions affecting affordability through a Housing Agreement. Given the nature of discussions leading to staff recommendations on the application, introduction of such a public benefit would have to be assessed in terms of its value and effect upon project economics and Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) calculations, which were based on City amenity standards. The value of that public benefit would have to be deducted from the CAC calculations. Therefore, staff believe it would not be advisable to introduce this feature at this stage.

A rental or "affordable" housing component presented at meetings prior to submitting the application was not well received by neighbouring residents. Staff further pursued this question with the applicant but concluded that off-site options, utilizing CAC contributions would be preferable in this instance.

Question #5.Is there any information from the Vancouver School Board (VSB) as to the school capacity issue?

Rezoning applications are sent to the VSB staff for information. Usually no comments or projections are received.

In this case, school capacity was not an issue because the expectation of principally senior residents and those benefitting from abatable features would make a projection of increased enrollment unlikely.

Question #6.How could the City ensure that all residents are seniors or disabled?

A Housing Agreement could be required prior to enactment to restrict occupancy to households containing at least one member who is either 55 years of age or older, or has a certified mobility impairment.

Staff have not recommended this measure because adaptable housing features have broad applicability and benefits which we anticipate will in future be applied more broadly in the housing market. Housing for disabled persons is now being integrated in market and non-market developments.

In the long term, other age groups may also have greater housing needs.

Question #7.What happens if the developer sells the property after a rezoning is approved? Is there any possibility within the legal ability of this Council to ensure that should that occur, the rezoning does not go with the sale?

The approved by-law, preliminary form of development, and conditions of approval apply regardless of the owner. Enactment and approval of a form of development require any buyer to meet the same conditions. The City cannot tie zoning to any particular owner on any site.

T.W. Phipps

TWP\llc

R:\CC\INTERNET\CNCLSAVE\980707\UB1I.

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver