CITY OF VANCOUVER

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

OCTOBER 22 AND NOVEMBER 17, 1998

A Special Meeting of the Council of the City of Vancouver was held on October 22, 1998, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber, third Floor, City Hall, to consider proposed amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law. Item 3 was not concluded; therefore, the Public Hearing reconvened on November 17, 1998, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber, third Floor, City Hall, with the same members present. (Councillors Bellamy, Clarke, Kennedy and Puil did not attend on October 22, so were ineligible to vote on November 17).

PRESENT:	Mayor Philip Owen Councillor Nancy A. Chiavario Councillor Alan Herbert Councillor Daniel Lee Councillor Don Lee Councillor Gordon Price Councillor Sam Sullivan
ABSENT:	Councillor Don Bellamy Councillor Jennifer Clarke (Sick Leave) Councillor Lynne Kennedy (Sick Leave) Councillor George Puil (Civic Business)
CLERK TO THE COUNCIL:	Nancy Largent

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

MOVED by Cllr. Don Lee,
SECONDED by Cllr. Daniel Lee,

THAT this Council resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mayor Owen in the Chair, to consider proposed amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law..

- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

3. REZONING: 2705-2735 West 10th Avenue

On October 22, 1998, City Council heard from 7 of 33 speakers registered for that meeting. Council then adjourned due to time constraints, and reconvened on November 17, 1998 to hear any further speakers. These meetings have been minuted concurrently for ease of reference.

An application by Brook Development Planning Inc. was considered as follows:

Summary: The proposed rezoning from RS-1A to CD-1 would permit the development of 27 dwelling units, of which 13 would be guaranteed rental.

The Director of Central Area Planning, on behalf of Land Use and Development, recommended refusal. However, if Council were prepared to approve the application, the following was submitted for consideration:

Consideration: If Council is prepared to approve the application, it is recommended that the draft CD-1 by-law be amended such that the floor space ratio be reduced to 1.25 and the maximum height be reduced to 10.7 m (35 ft.) and the following conditions be adopted by resolution of Council:

(a) THAT the proposed form of development be approved by Council in principle, generally as prepared by James Hancock Architects Inc., and stamped "Received City Planning Department, November 19, 1997", provided that the Director of Planning may allow alterations to this form of development when approving the detailed scheme of development as outlined in (b) below.

(b) THAT, prior to approval by Council of the form of development, the applicant shall obtain approval of a development application by the Director of Planning, who shall have particular regard to the following:

(i) design changes related to the reduction in FSR to 1.25 and the height to 10.7 m (35 ft.);

[NOTE: This condition will be void if Council maintains the CD-1 by-law at 1.54 FSR and 12.2 m (40 ft.)]

(ii) plans to show a clear separation between commercial and residential parking;

(iii) accommodation of access and addressing as outlined by Fire Services; and

(iv) design development to take into consideration the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environment Design (CPTED) having particular regard for:

· reducing opportunities for theft in the underground parking;

[Note to Applicant: Theft from auto is prevalent in the Vancouver area. Open exit stairs have shown to provide easy access to underground parking areas when they are visually accessible to non-residents. These exit stairs should be secured at street level. Open exit stairs from resident parking can be located in the semi-private open space where they can be watched by residents.]

· improving security and visibility in the underground parking in accordance with section 4.12 of the Parking By-law with consideration to painting the walls and ceiling of the parking garage white;

· clarification of access to underground parking for visitors;

[Note to Applicant: Electronic communication to residential units will be necessary as visitor parking appears to be located within the residential parking. Although visitor parking is not specifically designated, gate locations indicate it is secure. This placement is considered positive.]

· residential break and enter:

- ‘Exit’ stairs from the visitor underground parking should be routed to the exterior of the complex rather than to the courtyard;

- the townhouse on the west side of the development is at a high risk for break and enter. Opportunities can be reduced by deleting areas of concealment outside of doors, windows and patios and encouraging some surveillance from neighbours;

· improve defensibility and reduce opportunities for break and enter and nuisance on residential yards on the lane;

[Note to Applicant: Consideration should be given to increasing the setback of the town homes facing the lane and clearly defining them with low gates and fences. Lane units are most susceptible to break and enter and additional security should be considered. Having kitchen sinks face the windows improves surveillance and is considered positive.]

· clarification of height and type of gates at courtyard entrances;

[Note to Applicant: Townhouses with entrances at the courtyard must be equipped with electronic communication to the secured courtyard gates.]

· clarification of type and height of fence on the north and west sides of the development, as well as descriptions of the gates at the west side of the property; and

(c) THAT, prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the registered owner shall:

(i) consolidate lots 8, 9, and 10*, Block 21, D.L. 192, Plan 1003;

(ii) make arrangements for all electrical services to be undergrounded from the closest existing suitable service point;

(iii) execute a legal agreement satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services providing that owners will not discriminate against families with children in the sale of their property; and

(iv) execute a Housing Agreement and any other agreements necessary, to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services and the Manager of the Housing Centre, securing the appropriate number of residential units (to be determined in accordance with the approved FSR) as rental.

* Lot 11 has been deleted from application at the request of the applicant.

Also before Council was a memorandum from the Co-Director of Planning dated October 22, 1998 (on file), commenting on Councillor Sullivan's request for an ecological footprint analysis of the site.

Staff Comments

Rob Whitlock, Planner, reviewed the application, with reference to FSR, height, location and surrounding neighbourhood. It was originally submitted covering four lots, which have now been reduced to three at the applicant's request. Mr. Whitlock noted that staff are recommending refusal because the project would not qualify as a neighbourhood demonstration project, is contrary to Council's policy regarding Neighbourhood Visioning, and would constitute a precedent for further development. However, because of the value of the proposed guaranteed rental housing, the foregoing conditions were submitted for consideration should Council choose to approve the application. Mr. Whitlock noted that approval of these conditions would reduce the number of guaranteed rental units.

In response to a query, Larry Beasley, Co-Director of Planning, advised that ecological footprint analysis involves too many parameters for a useful site-by-site breakdown, and its usefulness applies to larger areas. Further experience may make it feasible for analysis of smaller sites.

Applicant's Comments

Chuck Brook, applicant, reviewed the application, referencing numbers and types of units, density, area topography and integration into the site and the surrounding area. Mr. Brook presented statistics indicating that there is a shortage of townhouse units suitable for families in the Kitsilano area, that the rental vacancy rate for such housing is extremely low, and that the proposed units would be comparatively affordable. Regarding the question of precedent, the three subject sites were purchased by the current owners in the 1960s, when land prices were much lower. It would be impossible to assemble a site at today's land prices which would equal the economics afforded by this application, which makes possible the high proportion of guaranteed rental.

Summary of Correspondence

Council received the following correspondence with respect to this application (as of November 17, 1998):

· For - 24 letters

· Opposed - 50 individual letters

- 101 individual form letters
- 1 petition with 276 signatures
- 1 form letter with 21 signatures.

Speakers

The following speakers opposed the application:

Greg Booth, 2900 Block West 10th Avenue
Stephanie Friedman, 2700 Block West 10th Avenue
Evan Scholnick, 2700 Block West 10th Avenue
Rod Grady, 2600 Block West 10th Avenue
Leah Whitehead, 3000 Block West 12th Avenue
Derek Applegarth, Upper Kitsilano Residents Association
Greg Webber, 3300 Block West 14th Avenue
Jan Pierce, 1900 Block Waterloo Street
Yvette Menzies (read letter from Markian Olynyk, 2100 Block West 10th)
Barbara Dill, 2400 Block West 6th Avenue
Mr. Tupper, 2700 Block West 11th Avenue
Joan Bunn, 2900 Block West 12th Avenue
Shelley Stewart, 3500 Block West 11th Avenue
Fred Galloway, 3500 Block West 11th Avenue
Doug Menges, 2700 Block West 10th Avenue
Paul Mercs, 2200 Block Stephens Street
Bert Loehner, 3000 Block West 14th Avenue
Donna Beaumont, 2500 Block West 10th Avenue
Susan Walsh, 2900 Block West 11th Avenue
Kathy MacLennan, 2700 Block West 10th Avenue
Lorne Whitehead, 3000 Block West 12th Avenue
Chris Overall, 3200 Block West 12th Avenue
Gordon Logan, 2700 Block West 10th Avenue

Following are some of the points made in opposition:

· densification of Kitsilano single-family areas should not be permitted until after the Kitsilano Neighbourhood Visioning process has been completed, in accordance with Council's existing CityPlan policy;
· "spot" rezoning should not be permitted; rather, rezoning should be done on an area-wide basis;
· it is not necessary to rezone sites in single-family areas to provide more multiple housing; there are ample sites available in C-2, which already permits such uses;
· the proposed development is too massive and will overpower the surrounding neighbourhood;
· this development will not fit well into the neighbourhood because it lacks front and back yards, which are characteristic of Kitsilano;
· landscaping will be lost; few trees will be retained on the site;
· the proposal purports to provide a family housing alternative, but the so-called "townhouse" units are too small for families, which usually require at least threebedrooms;
· there are rental housing vacancies throughout Kitsilano;
· parking and traffic congestion are already serious problems in the neighbourhood, and would worsen if this development were approved; concern was expressed for school children crossing busy streets;
· the owners of this property occupied one of the homes for many years, but are now being unneighbourly by seeking to change the ambience they themselves enjoyed, for profit;
· the public process was flawed; very few Kitsilano residents are aware of the proposed rezoning;
· the City is not behind in meeting its housing commitments to the Regional District; and
· if approved, this rezoning would set a very dangerous precedent, not just for the immediate area but throughout Kitsilano.

The following speakers supported the application:

Victor Vela, 2400 Block West 12th Avenue
Michael Crawford, 2200 Block West 12th Avenue
Darren Latosky, 700 Block Princess Street
Norman Sam, area resident
Vic Jang, 2100 Block West 5th Avenue
Richard Whitstock, area resident
Dale McClanaghan, 100 Block West Pender Street
Jerry Karvelis, 2100 Block Stephens Street
Mary Anna Karvelis, 2100 Block West 12th Avenue
George Cronopolus, 2600 Block Point Grey Road
Gary Dobbins, 2100 Block West 12th Avenue
Angelo Pappas, 2400 Block West 2nd Avenue.

Following are some of the points made in support:

· there is little rental housing available in Kitsilano, and even less which is suitable for families; this development would increase the available stock;
· the proposed townhouses are suitable for families, particularly because they are ground-oriented;
· Kitsilano has wonderful amenities, and many people would like to live there who are unable to afford single-family detached housing;
· this relatively affordable development would offer alternatives for single-parent families, for persons who grew up in the neighbourhood and wish to continue livingthere, and for seniors who no longer wish to maintain single-family homes;
· many of the speakers opposing this development are long-term property owners, who had the good fortune to buy in Kitsilano while it was still affordable;
· Kitsilano is currently a mixed-income neighbourhood, but without accepting such changes, it will become an enclave of the relatively well-to-do;
· this development is unlikely to create a precedent; land prices are currently so high that it would not be possible to assemble land for a development and still offer anywhere near the same proportion of rental units; and
· the project is well-designed, fits the site topography well, and will be a credit to the neighbourhood.

The Mayor called for any further speakers for or against the application, but none came forward.

Applicant's Closing Comments

Mr. Brook read a letter from Jeff Narod indicating that there is a shortage of rental accommodation on the west side of Vancouver. Regarding the issue of precedent, Mr. Brook reiterated that economics would likely preclude dedicated, purpose-built rental housing. Council has the right to consider one CD-1 rezoning application at a time, and should consider each application on its merits. There are very few opportunities to provide ground-oriented family housing away from the arterials.

Staff Closing Comments

Mr. Whitlock reminded Council that the application has been reduced to three lots, and now includes a total of 27 units, 13 of which would be guaranteed rental. Staff continue to recommend refusal. Approval of this application would set a precedent; and would occur before specific development parameters are set for Kitsilano. If Council chooses to approve the application at the reduced FSR recommended, Real Estate has calculated that five units could be rental. Mr. Whitlock also reviewed landscaping which could be saved or relocated, and suggested Council may wish to add a condition calling for a relocation plan. In response to a query. Mr. Whitlock indicated that the project was supported by the Urban Design Panel, although the Panel felt it was too dense. Mr. Whitlock also confirmed that the City is behind in its ground-oriented housing commitment to the Regional District.

In response to a query, Mr. Brook indicated that if the proposed FSR reduction were done on a pro forma basis, there would be five rental units, or if it could be done proportionately, there would be ten rental units.

Asked when the Neighbourhood Visioning process would be completed for Kitsilano,Mr. Beasley estimated it would be approximately three to four years.

Council Decision

Two members of Council favoured approval of the application. Guaranteed rental, ground-oriented family housing was viewed as a valuable benefit. Not only is there a lack of such accommodation, but the environmental consequences of families moving to outlying areas are negative. It would also provide for "aging in place", and would further the City's commitment to the GVRD to provide more ground-oriented housing. These members considered a precedent would not be set because land prices would likely preclude any land assembly offering a similar proportion of guaranteed rental.

However, the majority of Council did not favour approval. Although there was concern about the project's density, traffic, and landscaping and yards, for the most part, members were not unsympathetic to the proposed development. The guaranteed rental housing was considered a significant benefit for a number of reasons outlined by the members in favour of approval. However, there were two concerns which were felt to outweigh the benefit. First, a project of this nature should be considered in the context of Neighbourhood Visioning for Kitsilano, not in advance of it. It was suggested that if the developers were to participate in the visioning process, it would likely result in a worthwhile project satisfactory both to themselves and their neighbours. Second, the project would set a precedent for other developers. While the economics of this site are unusual, it is possible that, for example, adjoining neighbours on several parcels may see an opportunity to profit from a similar project.

MOVED by Cllr. Chiavario,

THAT the application be refused.

- CARRIED

(Councillor Sullivan and the Mayor opposed)

RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

MOVED by Cllr. Herbert,

THAT the Committee of the Whole rise and report.

- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

ADOPT REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

MOVED by Cllr. Don Lee,
SECONDED BY Cllr. Herbert,

THAT the report of the Committee of the Whole be adopted.

- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Special Council adjourned at 10:35 p.m.

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver