SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 4
P&E COMMITTEE AGENDA
JUNE 22, 1995
POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING
Date: May 24, 1995
Dept. File No. TWP
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Associate Director of Planning - Land Use and Development
SUBJECT: CD-1 Rezoning Rationale - 705 West Broadway
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT in considering a rezoning application for 705 West
Broadway to accommodate the existing hotel and additional
development, Planning staff should, in accordance with usual
policy, seek public amenities generally equal in value to the
development potential that rezoning would confer to the site.
CONSIDERATION
B. THAT in considering a rezoning application for 705 West
Broadway to accommodate the existing hotel and additional
development, Planning staff should give a high priority to the
combined public benefits of West 8th Avenue residential
development and a public amenity, and disregard the increased
non-conformity of the hotel.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A
above and submits B as an alternative for Council's CONSIDERATION.
PURPOSE
This report seeks Council direction in assessing a proposed rezoning for
increased density at 705 West Broadway. In this instance, the existing
hotel exceeds the permitted FSR in the C-3A District. To consider a
further increase in density on this site staff would normally apply a
public amenity or heritage bonus analysis. The applicant disagrees with
this approach. There is no policy framework to provide an alternate
rationale. Therefore, staff have outlined alternate approaches for
Council's consideration.
BACKGROUND
Context The Holiday Inn was approved in 1972 with a density currently
calculated at 3.36 FSR on the site extending from West 8th Avenue to
West Broadway. The northerly portion of the site fronting West 8th
Avenue is developed with surface parking that is surplus to the needs of
the hotel. At the time, the C-3 zoning on the Broadway frontage
permitted a maximum FSR of 5.0 FSR, and the C-2 zoning of the 8th Avenue
frontage permitted 3.0 FSR. The hotel achieved its current non-
conforming density by utilizing development potential from both parts of
the site. The C-2 and C-3 Districts became C-3A in 1975. The most
significant change was a reduction in permitted FSR to a maximum of 3.0.
If the site could be subdivided to create northerly and southerly
parcels without providing the normal 6.0 m (20 ft.) east-west lane, the
portion of the site fronting West Broadway would have a density of 5.97
FSR, which would dramatically increase the existing non-conformity. By
comparison, adjacent C-3A zoned sites along West Broadway are permitted
an outright density of 1.0 FSR which may be increased, conditionally, to
3.0 FSR. Therefore, subdivision approval would be highly unlikely
without rezoning.
Of interest in the consideration of the current proposal is the October
1986 rezoning of a nearby site at 777 West Broadway from C-3A to CD-1
permitted a transfer of density from the adjacent site at 2440 Willow
Street, which fronts the same block on 8th Avenue which the Holiday Inn
proposes to develop. While increasing the density on the Broadway
frontage to 4.85 FSR, the 1.14 FSR permitted adjacent to 8th Avenue
results in a combined density of 3.0 FSR, equivalent to the maximum
density permitted under C-3A.
Proposed Rezoning The owner has applied for a CD-1 rezoning to permit
retention of the existing hotel at 5.97 FSR (site to be subdivided) and
development of the surface parking area to a density of 2.6 FSR (on its
own site) in a 4-storey building containing market dwelling units. The
combined density on the whole site would be 4.5 FSR. Two benefits are
proposed. First, the parking lot would be replaced by a development
which would improve the West 8th Avenue streetscape. Secondly, a 565 m›
(6,081.8 sq. ft.) assembly space would be made available for
neighbourhood use.
Benefit of Community Space The desirability of the proposed assembly
space as a public benefit will be evaluated by Vancouver Park Board and
Community Services staff, who will consider the following factors:
(i) the lack of an identified need for this facility;
(ii) the City's cost of equipping the facility;
(iii) the cost of facility maintenance;
(iv) the programming needs and costs;
(v) necessary City ownership and administrative structure;
(vi) suitability of location; and
(vii) extent of need and benefit to the general public.
Applicant's Rationale The applicant believes that eliminating the
parking lot and providing the 565 m› public assembly space offers
sufficient public benefit to justify support for a 4-storey market
residential development at a density of 2.34 FSR. He argues that the
value of this facility would exceed the value of a typical Community
Amenity Contribution in Downtown South or Burrard Slopes. Further, he
notes that proposed land use changes are themselves often of sufficient
benefit to justify a rezoning. These points are addressed below. Under
current policy and noting the hotel requires the full site area to West
8th Avenue to sustain its already non-conforming FSR, staff believe
these arguments offer insufficient justification for the proposed
density. Land use is not an issue.
ALTERNATE RATIONALES
The following headings identify the nature of public benefits normally
considered by staff and Council to favour a rezoning proposal. The
inclusion or absence of such benefits in the 705 West Broadway
application is noted.
Land Use Benefits If a change in land use, density or form of
development would improve the permitted pattern of development, or
generate at least as compatible and stable a long term transition among
zoning districts as presently exists, the change in land use itself may
present a reason to support a rezoning. For instance, the remainder of
a block may be zoned for larger scale developments than the site of a
proposed rezoning. The rezoning should not generate further pressure
for rezoning of adjacent lands by creating an incongruity of uses,
densities or building forms.
In retrospect, it is unfortunate that the original development did not
address the 8th Avenue streetscape in a more appropriate fashion. A
landscaping response would in itself only marginally improve the
compatibility of this parking area. Replacing the parking lot on the
northerly portion of the Holiday Inn site with a residential building
would improve the streetscape on West 8th Avenue and should be duly
credited in assessing site rezoning. Two- and a half-storey townhouses
developed at 0.6 to 0.75 FSR could be developed to create a more
compatible streetscape. A four-storey structure is not necessary.
The Holiday Inn site is not readily distinguished from many other C-3A
zoned sites along both sides of West Broadway from Vine Street to
Kingsway that extend or could be assembled to extend a full block in
depth (i.e., to West 8th or West 10th Avenue), except by the fact that
it presents a poor image to its neighbours to the north. Staff do not
believe this lack of neighbourliness should be seen as a positive factor
that in itself warrants further development beyond the density permitted
on this or other comparable sites.
To rezone this site to permit approximately 6.0 FSR on the West Broadway
fronting hotel portion of the site and 2.6 FSR on the north portion
raises the question of why the whole C-3A District should not be
increased to comparable densities, unless other public benefits justify
the proposed FSR increase. Without an area-wide analysis to determine
whether the area could sustain an approximate doubling of density, staff
would have serious concerns about street capacities and overcrowding of
buildings.
Policy Benefits Various Council policies provide for priority
processing and a Council predisposition to support applications
incorporating certain uses (e.g., non-market housing or rental units,
SNRF including community care facilities, daycare). Heritage retention
is also an explicit Council priority. In some instances, specific
public amenities have also been identified by staff and supported by
Council as desirable objectives to be achieved through rezonings. Even
if a rezoning application embodies one or more of these priority public
objectives, the density and form of the proposed development must
achieve sufficient compatibility with surrounding development if Council
approval is to be obtained.
Council policy also indicates that priority should be given to rezoning
applications that are submitted with evidence of having secured support
from the surrounding neighbourhood.
The rezoning application submitted for the Holiday Inn site does not
include any of the uses or public amenities encompassed by current
Council policy as being priority City objectives. The applicant has,
however, proposed an assembly space, to be made available for use by
Fairview Slopes residents, and indicated that local support for the
rezoning has been obtained on the basis of this local amenity.
Density Transfer Density may be transferred under Council's "Transfer
of Density Guidelines", from other sites within the central area.
Therefore, an applicant may purchase density to be used on this site if
there is a public purpose to be achieved.
Such a transfer could increase the density available on the site, as in
the recent case of 1098 Robson Street, where "banked" heritage density
bonus FSR was purchased from the former B.C. Hydro building. No density
from a "donor" site is proposed in this application.
Public Benefit Bonus When an applicant offers to provide a public
benefit such as retaining and upgrading a heritage building or where
there is a demonstrated need for creating a social, cultural or
recreational facility, the normal approach taken by Council has been to
support an increase in dwelling unit density or floor space sufficient
to offset the cost of developing that benefit, to ensure that the owner
is made neither better nor worse off. This "quid pro quo" approach
seeks to ensure that the value of the public objective to be provided by
the rezoning is equal to the value of the private benefits conferred by
the rezoning. Marginally greater densities may be supported if the
project will also achieve urban design advantages.
Staff believe this approach is appropriate in the case of the Holiday
Inn because the site's allowable density has already been more than
fully utilized by the existing hotel. Any additional density allowed
through rezoning is a "bonus" that should generally be matched by
"public benefits" of equal value. However, the applicant states that
this method offers insufficient density to make the project attractive
to the owner.
Multiple Benefits The public benefit bonus approach described above
does not preclude other benefits of a project from also contributing to
the rezoning rationale in addition to that justified by the FSR bonus.
For example, pedestrian oriented streetscape improvements to the hotel
frontage on West Broadway would also be a public benefit, any cost of
which exceeded the value of floor space gained could be factored into
the bonus calculation. Additional density could also be transferred to
the site from a suitable "donor" site.
CAC Equivalent The applicant contends that as long as the public
benefit of the rezoning has a value exceeding what would otherwise be
levied as a Community Amenity Contribution, it should be sufficient to
justify the maximum density considered physically compatible on the
site. Staff do not support this proposition as it discounts entirely
the existing development's non-conformity that would be exacerbated by
further site development. This is a completely different type of
rezoning which does not involve conversion of previously industrial or
commercial densities to residential densities with their inherent
servicing needs. Council
policy requires CAC payments to offset those needs. An amenity provided
as a public benefit of rezoning is a separate consideration.
CONCLUSION
In order to assess the merits of the rezoning application, staff are
seeking Council direction regarding the appropriate public benefit
rationale which should be used for this type of rezoning. Staff believe
that land use compatibility alone is an insufficient reason to support a
rezoning given the major precedent implications for other sites in the
Broadway corridor. To distinguish this site from other comparable sites
requires a rationale based on some combination of specific public
benefits. Previous applications which appear relevant suggest that the
cost of providing a specific and desirable public benefit should justify
a corresponding FSR increase. If other physical or policy benefits are
identified, these may also be factored into the "quid pro quo" pro forma
analysis.
* * *