POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

Date: August 25, 1998
Author/Local: MKemble/7702

RTS No. 33

CC File No. 113

TO:	Vancouver City Council
FROM:	Director of Central Area Planning on behalf of Land Use and Development in consultation with the City Building Inspector
SUBJECT:	Revised Balcony Enclosure By-laws, Policies and Guidelines

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT the Co-Director of Planning on behalf of Land Use and Development be instructed to make application to amend the applicable District Schedules of the Zoning and Development By-law, Official Development Plan By-laws (ODPs), and CD-1 By-laws to permit the existing FSR exclusion for enclosed balconies but require a minimum 0.6 m projection for enclosed balconies beyond the exterior building face, generally as outlined in Appendix A, and that the Balcony Enclosure Guidelines and Policies be amended, generally as outlined in Appendix B, including statements that require enclosed balconies include:

· at least 40 percent of exterior glazing to be openable;
· impervious floor surfaces and floor drainage;
· no heating; and
· a maximum of 2 m recess within the unit.

FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to prepare the necessary by-laws;

AND FURTHER THAT the application and by-laws be referred to a Public Hearing.

CONSIDERATION

As an alternative to A, the Director of Central Area Planning on behalf of Land Use and Development submits the following for CONSIDERATION:

B. THAT the Co-Director of Planning on behalf of Land Use and Development be instructed to make application to amend the applicable District Schedules of the Zoning and Development By-law, Official Development Plan By-laws (ODPs), and CD-1 By-laws to limit the section allowing the exclusion of permitted floor space from Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for enclosed balconies only for buildings existing prior to April 23, 1985, generally as outlined in Appendix A;

FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to prepare the necessary by-laws;

AND FURTHER THAT the application and by-laws be referred to a Public Hearing.

GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A, but submits B for CONSIDERATION as an alternative to A.

COUNCIL POLICY

Council policy pertaining to balconies includes the following:

· Balcony Enclosure Guidelines (last amended January 1996); and
· Zoning and Development By-law (certain zones), ODPs, and various CD-1's.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

As a means of encouraging provision of private open space amenities for all residents in multiple dwellings, a number of District Schedules, ODPs, and CD-1 by-laws provide for open balconies to be excluded from FSR, to a maximum of 8 percent of permitted residential floor area of the building. Enclosure of these balconies is permitted, to a maximum of 50 percent of the FSR exclusions (up to a maximum of 4 percent of permitted residential FSR), provided parameters defined in the Balcony Enclosure Guidelines are adhered to.

Contrary to Council’s intent, many developers are taking advantage of this exclusion clause to construct enclosed balconies that are marketed as “dens”. These areas are part of the developer’s pro-forma calculations, and contribute to the purchase price of the unit with the same value as interior floor area. Condominium consumers purchase this space in the mistaken belief that it can be altered in any way they choose. Some owners have illegally removed partitions and incorporated this space into other interior areas of the unit, creating ongoing enforcement problems for the City, in attempting to enforce conditions of the development permit. This situation has increased noticeably since January, 1996 when the Balcony Enclosure Guidelines were amended in response to, among other reasons, developers’ recommendations to delete requirements that the spaces not be heated and contain floor drains.

This report recommends keeping the existing maximum four (4) percent exclusion policy for enclosed balconies, subject to amended regulations and strengthened guidelines that address Council’s original intent to ensure these areas function as private open space amenity for each unit. These proposed amendments would make these areas less like conventional interior space, and more like an outdoor environment which was the original reason for the FSR exclusion. These amendments will also significantly reduce the potential for conversion and ongoing enforcement problems to a manageable level. The report also puts forward an option for Council to consider eliminating the FSR exclusion for enclosed balconies (maintaining the exclusion for open balconies) except for buildings existing prior to April 23, 1985.

BACKGROUND

Prior to the 1960s, most multi-family residential development in Vancouver did not provide balconies. In 1964, in an effort to encourage developers to construct balconies as a means of providing private open space for all multiple dwellings, Council introduced an FSR exemption for residential open balconies, to a maximum of 8 percent of the gross maximum residential floor area. In response to numerous instances of unauthorized enclosure of balconies and to acknowledge the desirability in numerous 1950's and 1960's era wood frame, single-glazed apartments for enclosure, Council in 1985 adopted the “Balcony Enclosure Guidelines” to control these enclosures on existing buildings. Subsequently, and primarily in response to the development industry’s request for equity, Council permitted enclosure of balconies for new construction, provided the balcony continued to be separate and distinct from the interior of the dwelling.

In 1995, in response to continued developers’ attempts in new construction to enclose virtually all of the 8 percent balcony exclusion and resulting excessive building bulk, Council amended the balcony enclosure policy to allow for a maximum of four (4) percent of the residential floor area to be excluded for enclosed balconies, with the remaining four (4) percent exclusion allocated to open balconies. At the same time, in response to developers’ concerns regarding construction difficulties, Council approved changes to enclosed balcony design guidelines that removed previous requirements for floor drains, demountable exterior glazing, and no heating provisions. Council also approved the deletion of the requirement for raised thresholds at enclosed balcony doors to allow for disabled access. The consequences of these changes has been to make enclosed balconies more like conventional interior space and thus easier to abuse in terms of the original intent for these spaces to function differently as private open space.

Since then, numerous new developments have incorporated enclosed balconies, usually up to the maximum four (4) percent permitted as excludable FSR, as extra floor space that is often virtually indistinguishable from other interior space (except for the interior glass partitions that separate the space from the rest of the suite) and with little resemblance to the open space amenity that was originally intended. In the worst examples, the glass partitions separating the enclosed balcony from the unit are illogically arranged so as to invite future removal by the residents (see photo, Appendix C, p.7).

On April 30, 1998, following a Council discussion of the matter, the Mayor instructed staff to report back to Council on relevant by-law and guideline amendments to “close the loopholes regarding balcony enclosures”.

Pertinent District Schedules, Official Development Plans (ODPs), and Comprehensive Development Districts (CD-1s): District Schedules and ODPs which allow up to a maximum 4 percent of the residential floor space to be excluded for enclosed balconies include: RM-3, RM-3A, RM-5, RM-5A, RM-5B, RM-5C, RM-6, C-1, C-2, C-2B, C-2C, C-2C1, C-3A, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8 and FC-1 District Schedules, and DD, DEOD, and SEGS Official Development Plans. In addition, many CD-1s including the megaprojects allow the same exclusion.

In these districts, the FSR regulation contains an exclusion, as follows:

“The following may be excluded in the computation of floor space ratio:

(a) enclosed residential balconies, provided that the Director of Planning first considers all applicable policies and guidelines adopted by Council and approves the design of any balcony enclosure subject to the following:

(i) the total area of all open and enclosed balcony or sundeck exclusions does not exceed eight percent of the residential floor area being provided; and

(ii) no more than fifty percent of the excluded balcony floor area may be enclosed.”

Benefits to Users of Enclosed Balconies: The purpose of an enclosed balcony is to afford the resident the year-round enjoyment of those uses to which an open balcony normally would be used in fair and warm weather. Given our generally mild and wet coastal climate, particularly in winter months, enclosing a balcony can significantly extend the usability of this amenity. It also functions as a space where indoor plants can be nurtured with less sensitivity to variable outside weather conditions. The space, if designed properly, can also provide a distinct contrast to other more finished and furnished areas of the unit, thus providing more variety within the unit. An enclosed balcony may also offer noise buffering in locations such as on arterial streets, and particularly within the lower storeys of development where units are more exposed to traffic noise and pollution.

Disbenefits to Users: Enclosed balconies, because they are excluded from floor space calculation, are limited in use by the development permit to interior amenity space only. Owners, having paid full market value for this space, often feel frustrated that they do not have the legal ability to remove walls to enable use of the entire interior portion of their unit in any way they choose particularly as has more recently occurred, when the space intrudes illogically into their usable living area. When the City is faced with taking enforcement action against illegal conversion of this space for other uses, considerable conflict may arise with owners who see no civic purpose served by such a constraint. In some recent cases, the inappropriate insertion of an enclosed balcony particularly into a smaller unit, has detrimentally affected the overall amenity of the unit.

Private Open Space Guidelines: In many areas of the city, especially in the downtown and the new megaproject developments, approved guidelines for residential livability call for the provision of private open space for each unit. For tower and other high density development, this is usually satisfied by providing access to open or enclosed balconies.

In other development areas of the city affected by noise from arterial traffic and the ALRT guideway, enclosed balconies are encouraged to mitigate noise impacts on adjacent units.

DISCUSSION

Concern has arisen with regard to the present policy on enclosed balconies, generated by a number of examples that clearly do not meet Council’s original intent for these areas tofunction as a distinct interior amenity area but with large openable exterior windows so that the space can be used in a manner similar to an open balcony when the resident so wishes. Such examples (see Appendix C) are set entirely within the main living areas of the units in some cases, with the same carpeting used in the living area extending into the balcony area, or after the fact removal of the interior walls/glass separations in violation of the floor area exclusion of the development permit.

Because these enclosed balcony areas have become so similar to other interior spaces, the rationale for their FSR exclusion as private open space similar to open balconies is no longer justifiable.

Staff believe there are two options to address current Council concerns regarding enclosed balconies.

Option 1 - Retain both the eight percent exclusion for balconies and the provision to enclose 50 percent of these, but strengthen the regulations and design guidelines to promote the appropriate use of these areas as private amenity space.

Pros · improved regulations and design guidelines would provide greater clarity to developers as to what is acceptable and reduce the occurrence of the examples that least meet Council’s intent;

· more usable private amenity space will continue to be encouraged as part of individual unit design and overall amenities of development; and
· acoustic benefit of enclosed balconies in our ever noisier urban environment would continue.

Cons · continuing extra administration and enforcement costs to the City;

· continuing misrepresentation by certain developers/real estate agents as to what these areas can be used for, causing complaints to the City from owners; and
· some existing projects made legally non-conforming as to the proposed minimum enclosed balcony projection regulation.

The proposed amendments to the zoning regulations and design guidelines, recommended by staff, are contained in Appendices A and B respectively. The principal recommended change to the zoning regulation would require a minimum projection of 0.6 m beyond the building face for enclosed balconies. The intent of this zoning amendment is to ensure that enclosed balconies are expressed as identifiable spaces that project beyond and are functionally separated from the other interior areas of the unit. Other recommended changes to the Balcony Enclosure Guidelines are intended to improve their usability as privateamenity space as originally envisaged by Council and include:

· creating a distinct identity for enclosed balcony areas within the unit plan that is differentiated from the main living areas of the unit;
· limiting the extent of any recessed portion of enclosed balcony areas within the unit to a maximum of 2 m;
· requiring at least 40 percent of the glazing to be openable to facilitate natural ventilation;
· requiring impervious floor surfaces (tile or concrete) and floor drainage provisions to facilitate indoor gardening and solarium use; and
· requiring enclosed balcony areas to be unheated so as to be closer to replicating an outdoor environment.

This approach would also diminish the incentive that presently exists for removing interior walls/glass in violation of approved DP plans. A proper exterior wall location, including insulation and vapour barrier, will be necessary at the “inside” perimeter of the enclosed balcony (see Appendix B, p.2). In administering the amended guidelines, it would be clear that the changes noted above would be an absolute requirement for these enclosed balcony areas to be considered as excludable floorspace. Staff acknowledge, however, that some continuing problems are likely to persist in administering and “after the fact” enforcement, but these will be considerably lessened from the current situation.

Option 2 - Retain the eight percent FSR exclusion for balconies, but delete the provision to enable enclosure of 50 percent of these. If a developer chooses to enclose balconies, this counts as floor area.

Pros · is a return to the original intent of providing FSR exclusions for open balconies;

· recognizes that enclosed balcony areas are part of the developers’ pro-formas, and should be included in FSR calculations as space which has a significant market value;
· allows the market to determine the provision and/or use of enclosed balconies, with purchasers free to use these areas in any way they choose (including future building renovations to incorporate the space as part of a larger living room area);
· relieves staff of an increasingly difficult and often unsuccessful development application review and enforcement task; and
· achieves some reduction in the visual bulk and mass of buildings assuming increased use of open balconies up to the 8 percent limit for excludable FSR.

Cons · approximate 4 percent loss in pro-forma value of developments, particularly for projects where CD-1 zoning has been approved on the assumption that enclosedbalcony space is FSR excludable;

· major project infrastructure costs recovery is partially based on assumption of future developer revenues from excluded balcony floor space;
· loss of acoustic benefit of enclosed balconies for units located on busy traffic arterials, (majority of units in downtown, half of units in low-rise C-2 development);
· likelihood that, without the FSR exclusion incentive, developers will not provide the private amenity space afforded in enclosed balconies that, when properly designed, do add to livability; and
· many existing projects made legally non-conforming as to FSR (see paragraph below as to implications).

Staff note that a variation of this option would be to eliminate the exclusion and add this amount (4 percent) to the FSR. While this has pros and cons, staff do not recommend this approach since it is doubtful that developers would allocate this additional area to enclosed balconies and would utilize the increased density without providing any public benefit or improved livability.

Buildings Existing Prior to Guidelines Approval: Council first adopted the Balcony Enclosure Guidelines on April 23, 1985. For reasons of equity and as originally intended by Council, staff support the retention of balcony enclosure provisions in existing buildings having development permits issued prior to April 23, 1985, the date of adoption of the Balcony Enclosure Guidelines. After the introduction of the Balcony Enclosure Guidelines, developments would have been purpose-designed to include all the enclosed balconies that should be enclosed and should not be permitted any further enclosures.

Implications for Owners of Legally Non-conforming Units: Council approval of either balcony enclosure policy option contained in this report will make some existing units legally non-conforming in respect of regulations: Recommendation A in terms of the minimum projection requirement, Consideration B in terms of FSR. With ongoing revisions to zoning regulations in the city, over the years a great number of properties have become legally non-conforming in some respect as to regulations (e.g., RS-1 sites). Redevelopment of these properties, should this be proposed or required in the case of fire damage, must usually
conform to the applicable zoning regulations. However, the Director of Planning does have the authority to relax these requirements under Section 568 of the Vancouver Charter, when the non-conformity is in respect of regulations. For minor amendments to unit layouts or fire damage repair, unless involving an entire building, staff would support relaxations under the above Charter provision. Staff do not believe there are any other substantive financial implications for owners (e.g., mortgage refinancing).

Enforcement Concerns: Permits and Licenses Division staff have expended considerable time to date on continuing enforcement issues related to a relatively small number ofresidential projects in the downtown (e.g., 1238 Seymour Street). While problems related to enclosed balcony usage are not yet of the same magnitude as illegal loft conversions partly because health and safety are not at stake, there is a significant potential for future enforcement problems to arise. Given the current trend towards smaller suite sizes, the incentives for developers to include enclosed balconies because of the FSR exclusion, and current ineffective regulations and guidelines, with the status quo, there will be a strong tendency for owners to continue to illegally remove balcony glass partitions so as to increase interior living space. The probability of catching these conversions is low, and further, when the City does discover them, inspectors will be in the difficult position of trying to enforce the by-law against a suite owner who was misled by the developer and who does not understand what public benefits are served by the City worrying about the interior configuration of suites. Staff believe, however, that the amendments recommended in this report will go a long way to reducing to a manageable level the abuse and enforcement problems.

Implications for Processing: More rigorous staff review of balcony enclosure proposals to ensure compliance with amended regulations and design guidelines (RECOMMENDATION A) will require additional staff time both at the development application and building permit review stages. On a per project basis this may amount to an hour or so of extra time for Plan Checkers and Development Planners. While overall this task will not likely require additional staff resources it will add to the process load. However, time spent at review stages should be compensated with less enforcement.

Industry Comments: Comments from the Architectural Institute of B.C. (AIBC), the Urban Development Institute (UDI) and Greater Vancouver Home Builders’ Association (GVHBA) are attached as Appendix D. Additional individual letters from developers and architects, if received, will be separately forwarded at a later date. In summary, comments from the three groups responding to date indicate:

· a split position on the two options, with the AIBC supporting Consideration B, the other two groups opposed to it; and
· two of the groups (UDI and GVHBA) supporting Recommendation A, but without additional regulations and guidelines.
·
CONCLUSION

In view of the problems encountered with enforcement and use of enclosed balcony areas that are excluded from floor space calculations in residential development, and their use for other purposes rather than as private amenity space for which the FSR exclusion had been intended, staff submit RECOMMENDATION A containing amendments to the present regulations and guidelines as contained in Appendices A and B. The revisions would ensure these areas function properly as the intended private amenity space within the dwelling unit,thus limiting abuse and cutting back on enforcement requirements.

Should Council wish to discourage enclosed balconies, staff submit for consideration, an alternative option (CONSIDERATION B) to eliminate the FSR exclusion for enclosed balconies, except for buildings existing prior to April 23, 1985, when the Balcony Enclosure Guidelines were first adopted by Council, and for which the present regulations would continue to apply.

APPENDIX A
Page 1 of 2

ENCLOSED BALCONY FSR EXCLUSION:
RECOMMENDED AND OPTIONAL AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT BY-LAW (INCLUDING CD-1 BY-LAWS) AND OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY-LAWS

RECOMMENDATION A
Should Council approve RECOMMENDATION A; amend the existing enclosed balcony floorspace exclusion sections of the following district schedules and by-laws by adding the following new clause:

“(iii) a minimum of two wall planes, being exterior glazed walls, shall extend a minimum of 0.6 m beyond at least one exterior wall of the building.”

CONSIDERATION B
Should Council approve CONSIDERATION B; eliminate the existing enclosed balcony floorspace exclusion sections of the following district schedules and by-laws except for buildings existing prior to April 23, 1985 to which the present exclusion provision would still apply.

By-laws to be amended under both Recommendation A or Consideration B

Zoning and Development By-law:

Section 4.7.4(a) of the RM-3, RM-3A, RM-5, RM-5A, RM-5B, RM-5C, RM-6, C-1, C-2, C-2B, C-2C, C-2C1, C-3A, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, FC-1, and MC-1 District Schedules.

Official Development Plan By-laws:

Downtown ODP - subsection 6(a) of section 3
Downtown Eastside/Oppenheimer District ODP - sections 4.5.3(a), 5.5.3(a), 6.5.3(a) and 7.5.3(a).
Southeast Granville Slopes ODP - section 6.3.5(a)

CD-1 By-laws:

CD-1 (229) 900 Burrard St (By-law No. 6421) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (252) 901-999 Beach Ave (By-law No. 6688) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (254) 1250 Melville St (By-law No. 6710) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (260) 1215-1239 W Georgia St (By-law No. 6731) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (265) International Village (By-law No. 6747) Section 7.4(a)
CD-1 (266) 1100-1300 Pacific Blvd (By-law No. 6757) Section 7.4(a)
CD-1 (271) 888 Pacific St (By-law No. 6787) Section 3.4(a)

APPENDIX A
Page 2 of 2

CD-1 (273) 833 Helmcken St (By-law No. 6817) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (287) 1255 Burrard St (By-law No. 7006) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (297) 1202-1398 Pacific Blvd (By-law No. 7156) Section 6.4(a)
CD-1 (304) 5709 Wales St (By-law No. 7173) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (308) 2455-2517 E Broadway (By-law No. 7193) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (310) 3550 Walker St (By-law No. 7189) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (312) 300 Cardero St (By-law No. 7200) Section 6.4(a)
CD-1 (314) 3421-3575 Euclid Ave (By-law No. 7204) Section 7.4(a)
CD-1 (316) 526-528 W Hastings St (By-law No. 7209) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (318) 1300 W Georgia St (By-law No. 7223) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (319) 1200 Alberni St (By-law No. 7224) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (321) 1601-1799 W Georgia St (By-law No. 7232) Section 6.4(a)
CD-1 (323) 750 Burrard St (By-law No. 7246) Section 3.5(a)
CD-1 (324) 800-1100 Pacific Blvd (By-law No. 7248) Section 6.4(a)
CD-1 (326) 2135 W 12th Ave (By-law No. 7317) Section 6.4(a)
CD-1 (328) 4066 Macdonald St (By-law No. 7337) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (329) 300 Robson St (By-law No. 7340) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (331) 1054-1098 Robson St (By-law No. 7381) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (336) 1575-1577 W Georgia St (By-law No. 7431) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (341) 2790 Vine St (By-law No. 7461) Section 6.4(a)
CD-1 (345) 910 Beach Ave (By-law No. 7531) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (346) 350 Robson St (By-law No. 7551) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (348) 34 West Pender St (By-law No. 7556) Section 3.4(a)
CD-1 (357) 2725 Arbutus St (By-law No. 7654) Section 5.4(a)
CD-1 (364) 501 Bute St (By-law No. 7681) Section 5.4(a)
CD-1 (365) 301 Jervis St (By-law No. 7677) Section 5.4(a)

APPENDIX B
Page 1 of 2

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS* TO BALCONY ENCLOSURE GUIDELINES

1. Add the following to Section 2 General Design Considerations, as a new sub-clause to the middle paragraph on page 2:

Balcony enclosures should:

“(e) be positioned, configured and finished to function similar to an open balcony (i.e. solarium or indoor garden) rather than as a den or bedroom.

(f) have their own discrete identity, and not intrude into the unit’s larger living space.

THIS OR THIS (CORNER)

NOT THIS

(g) be located so as to maximize acoustic buffering of the unit.”

*Note - Italics denotes amendments

APPENDIX B
Page 2 of 2

2. Amend the following clauses of Section 5.4.2 Balcony Enclosure Materials and Function, under sub-sections (3) and (4) on page 5 and a new sub-section (7) on page 6:

(3) In new construction, balcony enclosures should have a minimum single clear horizontal dimension of 1.8 m and a minimum area of 4.5 m², and if recessed, should extend no more than 2.0 m into the unit.

(4) Balcony enclosures should maximize glass area to admit natural light to the interior space beyond and have windows openable from the inside to facilitate natural ventilation, with at least 40 percent of the window area to be openable. Openable window area should be absolutely maximized to allow the space to be utilized in a manner similar to an open balcony whenever desired by the resident. Floor surfaces should be impervious such as tile or sealed/stained concrete, and should not be covered with wall to wall carpeting, to allow the space to be used as a greenhouse solarium (e.g., for interior gardening) or other amenity use, so that excess watering or other spills on the floor surface may be easily cleaned up. The space should be unheated and floor drainage should be provided**.

**Note - Re: no heating provision: Attention must be paid to establishing the proper exterior wall location (with i n s u l a ti o n a n d v a p o u r b a rrier at the “inside” perimeter of the enclosed balcony - see diagram below).

**Note - Re: floor drainage: Attention should be given to incorporating enclosed balcony drainage as a separate system from the remainder of the building.

* Note - Italics denotes amendments

APPENDIX C
Page 1 of 7

ENCLOSED BALCONIES: RECENT APPROVED/BUILT EXAMPLES

Note: Acceptability under RECOMMENDATION A is noted.

1015 PACIFIC BLVD. - “LANDMARK 33" (BUILT)

APPENDIX C
Page 2 of 7

ENCLOSED BALCONIES: RECENT APPROVED/BUILT EXAMPLES

Note: Acceptability under RECOMMENDATION A is noted.

1108 PACIFIC BLVD. - “AQUARIUS”

APPENDIX C
Page 3 of 7

ENCLOSED BALCONIES: RECENT APPROVED/BUILT EXAMPLES

Note: Acceptability under RECOMMENDATION A is noted.
1239 WEST GEORGIA STREET - “VENUS”

APPENDIX C

Page 4 of 7

ENCLOSED BALCONIES: RECENT APPROVED/BUILT EXAMPLES

Note: Acceptability under RECOMMENDATION A is noted.

928 RICHARDS STREET - “THE SAVOY”

APPENDIX C
Page 5 of 7

ENCLOSED BALCONIES: RECENT APPROVED/BUILT EXAMPLES

Note: Acceptability under RECOMMENDATION A is noted.

955 SEYMOUR STREET - “SPOT” (3RD. FLOOR)

APPENDIX C
Page 6 of 7

ENCLOSED BALCONIES: RECENT APPROVED/BUILT EXAMPLES

Note: Acceptability under RECOMMENDATION A is noted.

955 SEYMOUR STREET - “SPOT” (10^TH - 12^TH FLOORS - TOWER)

APPENDIX C
Page 7 of 7

ENCLOSED BALCONIES: RECENT APPROVED/BUILT EXAMPLES

INTERIOR VIEW OF ENCLOSED BALCONY (RECESSED INTO LIVING AREA OF UNIT)
1238 SEYMOUR STREET - “SPACE” (BUILT)

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver