CITY OF VANCOUVER
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
A Special Meeting of the Council of the City of Vancouver was held
on Tuesday, September 12, 1995, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber,
Third Floor, City Hall, for the purpose of holding a Public Hearing to
amend the Zoning and Development By-law and Heritage By-law.
PRESENT: Mayor Owen
Councillors Bellamy, Chiavario, Clarke,
Hemer, Kennedy, Kwan, Price
and Sullivan
ABSENT: Councillor Ip
Councillor Puil
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPRESENTATIVE: Ted Droettboom
CLERK TO THE COUNCIL: Gary MacIsaac
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
SECONDED by Cllr. Hemer,
THAT this Council resolve itself into Committee of the Whole,
Mayor Owen in the Chair, to consider proposed amendments to the Zoning
and Development and Heritage By-laws.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Items 1(a) and 1(b) were read into the record and considered
concurrently.
1(a) Rezoning: 1202-1292 West Georgia Street
(Lots 1-7, Block 31, D.L. 185, Plan 92)
An application by James K.M. Cheng Architects Inc. was considered
as follows:
The proposed rezoning, from DD Downtown District to CD-1
Comprehensive Development District, would:
- permit construction of two high-rise (35 storeys) residential
towers accommodating 471 units;
- permit construction of 17 three and one-half storey townhouse
units;
cont'd....
Clause 1(a) and (b) (cont'd)
- permit renovation of existing heritage building on Jervis
Street (Abbott House) to accommodate five dwelling units;
- limit maximum building height to 101 m (331.4 ft.);
- limit maximum density to 6.56 FSR (floor space ratio), which
includes a heritage density bonus of 0.30 FSR to be used on-
site, the balance (0.26 FSR) to be banked for possible future
transfer off-site; and
- require 621 off-street underground parking spaces.
The Director of Land Use and Development recommended approval,
subject to the following conditions proposed for adoption by resolution
of Council:
(a) THAT the proposed form of development be approved by Council in
principle, generally as proposed by James K.M. Cheng Architects
Inc. and stamped "Received City Planning Department June 20, 1995"
provided that the Director of Planning may allow minor 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 regard to the following:
i) submit complete "as found" documentation of the heritage
building in the form of drawings and photogrammetric
recording;
ii) submit a set of "restoration" documentation both "as found"
and archival (drawings, photos, specifications) describing
the work to be done on the heritage building, clearly
indicating those features which are to be retained,
restored, moved or removed;
iii) design development to the westerly tower base to provide
built form and detailing that respond to the scale and
detail of the heritage building;
iv) design development to the easterly tower base and facade to
provide detailing and a more pedestrian friendly treatment
to the Bute Street edge;
cont'd....
Clause 1(a) and (b) (cont'd)
v) design development to the open space and landscape edge on
West Georgia Street to more closely meet the Council-adopted
DD (except Downtown South), C-5, C-6, HA-1 and HA-2
Character Area Descriptions;
(NOTE: Heights of retaining walls at sidewalk level are to
be minimized.)
vi) design development to the Bute Street setback to ensure
compliance with the Council-adopted Triangle West
Streetscape Concept Plan with particular attention to the
vehicle access ramp in this location;
vii) design development to provide a period garden setting for
the heritage building, including the restoration/replication
of the garden stone wall gates, and railings, with
particular attention to the vehicle ingress/egress ramp to
Jervis Street;
viii) design development to ensure that the vertical clearance at
the parking entrances be 3.5 m (11.5 ft.) to provide for
truck access;
ix) design details to incorporate crime prevention through
environmental design (CPTED) principles (refer to Appendix D
of Manager's report - Police Department comments);
x) provision of recycling/garbage facilities to the
satisfaction of Engineering Services;
xi) provision of bicycle parking facilities in accordance with
Council-adopted Bicycle Parking Guidelines;
xii) submission of a detailed landscape plan in accordance with
the Council-adopted Triangle West Streetscape Concept Plan;
and
xiii) submission of an acoustical consultant's report assessing
noise impacts on the site and recommending noise mitigation
measures to achieve noise criteria.
cont'd....
Clause 1(a) and (b) (cont'd)
(c) THAT, prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the registered owner
shall, at no cost to the City:
i) execute a Section 215 agreement, to be registered against
the property, to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal
Services and the Director of Permits and Licenses, that
there will be no development until agreements satisfactory
to the Director of Legal Services have been entered into
providing all lands will be remediated to all applicable
statutes and no occupancy permit will be issued until all
lands have been remediated, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Legal Services;
ii) execute an agreement, to be registered against the property,
to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services, in
consultation with appropriate Department Heads, by which the
owner agrees to provide temporary protection for the
heritage building before and during construction on the
site, ensure that the building is not to be moved off site,
and that the occupancy of the new buildings shall be subject
to the completion and restoration of the heritage building;
(NOTE: This agreement will be cancelled when the heritage
work is complete.)
iii) execute a heritage revitalization agreement, to be
registered against the property, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Legal Services, in consultation with appropriate
Department Heads, by which the owner secures and agrees to
undertake the necessary restorative work to the existing
heritage building, noting that all future repairs and
renovations require a heritage permit, and that in the event
the heritage building is irreparably damaged the owner
further undertakes to conduct whatever necessary and
reasonable arrangements are needed to satisfactorily
replicate the heritage building;
iv) execute an agreement, to be registered against the property,
to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services, in
consultation with appropriate Department Heads, limiting
development on 1202-92 West Georgia Street to a maximum of
6.30 FSR as defined in the CD-1 By-law;
cont'd....
Clause 1(a) and (b) (cont'd)
v) execute an agreement, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Legal Services, to not discriminate against families with
children in the sale of residential units;
vi) consolidate the site;
vii) make suitable arrangements, to the satisfaction of
Engineering Services, for any new electrical and telephone
services to be undergrounded within and adjacent to the site
from the closest, existing suitable service point;
viii) designate the building at 720 Jervis Street (Abbott House)
under Schedule 'A' of the City's Heritage By-law;
(NOTE: Prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the
registered property owner will provide a letter
waiving future compensation demands for this
designation.)
ix) contribute to the City a community amenity contribution
totalling $2,247,159; and
x) execute an agreement, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Legal Services, to ensure participation in the City of
Vancouver public arts program, including the contribution of
$0.95 per sq. ft. ($10.23 per m›) of floor area totalling
$345,437.
1(b) Heritage By-law Amendment:
1202-1292 West Georgia Street
An application by the Director of Land Use and Development was
considered as follows:
The proposed amendment to Heritage By-law No. 4837 would designate
the existing Abbott House as protected Heritage Property.
The Director of Land Use and Development recommended approval of
this application.
cont'd....
Clause 1(a) and (b) (cont'd)
Staff Opening Comments
Mr. Dave Thomsett, Planner, advised this application proposes to
rezone a whole city block in the Triangle West portion of the Downtown.
A mixed-use building is permitted 6.0 FSR, but the rezoning is also
offering to retain and fully restore the Abbott House, which is a Class
'A' heritage building. This restoration and retention requires an
extra 0.56 FSR in order to make the proposal viable. Of this 0.56 FSR,
0.3 will be used in this development for a total FSR of 6.3 on the site
and 0.26 would be banked for transfer off-site.
Residential development is less size volumetrically than office
buildings because of a lower ceiling height. The height proposed is
331 feet. Some view blockage with developments located to the west
will occur, as would be the case with any development on the site.
Mr. Robert Lemon, Heritage Planner, advised that staff have not
received any objections to the designation of the Abbott House as a
result of their notification.
Applicant Opening Comments
Mr. James Cheng, architect, advised he is in total agreement with
the staff recommendations.
Correspondence
There was no correspondence received on this application.
Speakers
The Mayor called for speakers and the following registered
opposition to the proposed application:
- Ms. Estelle Fogell
- Ms. Debbie Barlow
- Mr. Gary Barclay
- Ms. Pamela Goddard.
cont'd....
Clause 1(a) and (b) (cont'd)
The foregoing opposed the application on one or more of the
following grounds:
- The towers are too high and their height should be limited to no
more than 300 feet;
- Density in the area is increasing, leading to more traffic
congestion;
- Not all persons in the area were notified of the proposed
changes;
- The developer should be required to provide community amenities;
- The report from staff indicate that community amenity
contributions were discussed by Council (In Camera). The
community should be permitted to be involved in this process;
- The development is aimed at the high-end of the housing market
and will result in the displacement of lower-income people.
There should be some onus on the developer to accommodate those
being displaced.
None of the foregoing speakers were opposed to the retention and
restoration of the Abbott House, and several indicated a desire for
this aspect of the proposal.
Applicant Closing Comments
Responding to a question from a member of Council concerning the
applicant's proposed plans for the interior of the Abbott House, Mr.
Cheng advised that initially, when looking at the Abbott House, the
only thing that was listed of significance was the stained glass
windows. Once it became apparent the exterior of the Abbott House is
worth preserving, attention has been aimed at restoring the exterior
and adding a garden to complement it. It is the intention to keep the
interior as much as possible, but it will be necessary to rip the
interior out and then rebuild it, due to the structural repair
requirements of the house.
In terms of amenities, the applicant is required to contribute
$2.2 million as a community amenity contribution to the City, plus a
$350,000 public art program, plus major open space, and gardens, so the
amenities will be much greater than the parking lot which exists on
this site at present.
cont'd....
Clause 1(a) and (b) (cont'd)
This development is also in keeping with Council's strategy of
reducing traffic congestion by encouraging residential development in
this area and reducing commuters. The application also provides for a
substantial amount of bicycle parking within the new residential
complex.
Staff Closing Comments
Staff offered no additional comments.
Council Decision
Prior to making a decision, several members of Council expressed
the view that staff need to reconsider their approach when notifying
residents about rezoning applications, as well as other City-related
issues. Members of Council also referred to a previously requested
report on waterfront tower height and Council expressed a desire to see
this report as soon as possible.
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
THAT this application be approved, subject to the conditions as
set out in this minute of the Public Hearing.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MOVED by Cllr. Price,
THAT the City Manager ensure that when the anticipated report
from the Housing Centre on housing affordability comes back, it deals
with the issues related to Triangle West and new neighbourhoods.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2. Balcony Enclosures and Acoustic Requirements
An application by the Director of Land Use and Development was
considered as follows:
The proposed amendments to various zoning District Schedules,
Official Development Plans and CD-1 Comprehensive Development
District By-laws, would either:
- not allow any of the permitted residential floor area to be
excluded from Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for enclosed balconies
except in buildings existing prior to April 23, 1985 in which
case the present regulations would apply; or
cont'd....
Clause No. 2 (cont'd)
- continue to permit a maximum of 8 percent of permitted
residential floor area to be excluded form Floor Space Ratio
(FSR) for balconies BUT to permit no more than half of
excluded floor area to be enclosed; or
- permit no more than 8 percent of permitted residential floor
area to be excluded from Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for enclosed
balconies.
The proposed acoustic amendments would delete the acoustic
requirement for balconies, terraces, patios, etc.
Amended Balcony Enclosure Guidelines and Policies are also
proposed.
The Director of Land Use and Development recommended approval of
this application.
Staff Opening Comments
Mr. Ralph Segal, Planner, provided background on this issue and
introduced the options before Council this evening.
In 1964, in order to improve livability in higher density multiple
dwelling developments, open balconies were excluded from FSR to a
maximum of eight percent of residential floor area. In the early
1980s, the City received numerous requests from owners of units in
existing buildings to enclose their balconies for reasons of poor
insulation and acoustics, air drafts and other interior problems. In
response, Council in 1985 adopted balcony enclosure guidelines by which
enclosed balconies would continue to be excluded from FSR.
Subsequently, in response to the development industry's request
for equity, Council permitted this exclusion to apply to new
construction, subject to adherence to the guidelines. Since then, new
buildings have, to an increasing degree, incorporated enclosed
balconies as additional interior space displacing the private open
space, the open balconies, for which the FSR exclusion had been
originally provided.
Since enclosed balcony space has been successfully marketed at the
full per square foot price of the rest of the dwelling unit, many
developers have been more and more aggressive in seeking the full eight
percent exclusion for enclosed balconies. This differs from a mix of
open and enclosed balconies that were anticipated when the exclusion
was first put in place.
cont'd....
Clause No. 2 (cont'd)
With the aid of photographs distributed to Council (on file in the
City Clerk's Office), Mr. Segal explained that enclosure of most or all
balconies bulks up buildings by filling in the volumes of open
balconies and intends to create less residential, more office-like
buildings. Exclusions from FSR are usually given to encourage
developers to provide facilities that are considered important for
livability but would likely not be provided without that incentive. In
this case, bonuses are being permitted when they the negative affect of
displacing the private open space for which the FSR exclusion was
intended.
Recommendation A1 would eliminate the FSR exclusion for enclosed
balconies except in the buildings existing prior to 1985, as per the
original intent of the balcony enclosure provisions. Alternatively,
should Council consider that enclosed balconies do have merit, A2 is
offered which states that no more than half of the excluded balcony
area may be enclosed. The third option, A3 is to simply allow outright
the full eight percent exclusion to be enclosed.
This application also proposes an acoustic amendment. At present,
acoustic requirements in many district schedules and CD-1 by-laws apply
to standards in both rooms within the unit as well as exterior
balconies and patios. As the current standard often requires balconies
to be enclosed, even when this is not desired, the proposed amendment
will delete this requirement. Mr. Segal also explained that amendments
are proposed to the balcony enclosure guidelines which would delete
provisions calling for easy conversion of enclosed balconies back to
open balconies, as well as adding several additional clauses which will
clarify the design intent in new construction.
Responding to a question from a member of Council, Mr. Segal
advised of an error in the memorandum dated July 18, 1995 from the City
Clerk, which referred this matter to Public Hearing. Recommendation A1
makes reference to excluding floor space ratio for enclosed balconies
except in buildings existing prior to April 23, 1995. This should read
April 23, 1985.
A member of Council enquired whether these guidelines would permit
a style of balcony sometimes referred to a french balconies. Mr. Segal
advised this style would not be permitted under the proposed
guidelines.
Council members also enquired whether thresholds will still be
required between the interior unit and the closed balconies. It was
confirmed the proposed guidelines still contain this threshold
requirement.
cont'd....
Clause No. 2 (cont'd)
Correspondence
All correspondence received prior to this matter being referred to
Public Hearing was included as Appendix E in the Council report. One
additional letter stressing the need for more open balconies in
Vancouver and another favouring option A2, were also received.
Speakers
The Mayor called for speakers for and against the application, and
the following addressed Council.
Mr. Hans Schmidt, representing the Society of Soundscape
Preservation, expressed concern with the proposed deletion of acoustic
requirements, on the grounds that if these requirements are deleted,
the City is simply accommodating the noise which exists and not
attempting to eliminate or reduce it. A greater emphasis should be
directed towards elimination of the source of noise.
Mr. Dugal Purdie, on behalf of the Urban Development Institute
(UDI), indicated his support for option A2 as it represents an
appropriate compromise. The UDI is strongly opposed to A1 as this
would affect proformas upon which construction was predicated upon.
Mr. Purdie urged Council to support recommendation A2 with an amendment
to exclude the applicability of the guidelines to enclosed space, as
the Institute believes the total design of the building should be left
with the architects and reviewed through the existing development
permit process, without the addition of guidelines.
Mr. Stuart Howard, on behalf of the Architectural Institute of
British Columbia (AIBC), lent his support to option A2, as it
represents a compromise position. AIBC would ultimately prefer option
5 as stated in its May 30, 1995 brief to Council, but is willing to
accept the compromise position. Mr. Howard suggested the Planning
Department is naive in its support of option A1 because apartments are
now significantly smaller in size and the continued requirement of an
open balcony would result in a small, unusable space.
cont'd....
Clause No. 2 (cont'd)
MOVED by Cllr. Kennedy,
THAT the City continue to permit a maximum of eight percent of
permitted residential floor area to be excluded from Floor Space Ratio
(FSR) for balconies, but to permit no more than half of excluded floor
area to be enclosed;
FURTHER THAT the requirement that thresholds be included in
enclosed balconies be removed.
- CARRIED
Councillors Chiavario, Kwan and Price opposed)
MOVED by Cllr. Kennedy,
THAT those District Schedules and CD-1 by-laws containing an
acoustic regulation be amended, to delete the acoustic requirement for
on-site open space (i.e., balconies, terraces, patios, etc.), generally
as outlined in Appendix A of the Policy Report dated June 6, 1995.
- CARRIED
(Councillor Sullivan opposed)
MOVED by Cllr. Kennedy,
THAT the Balcony Enclosure Guidelines and Policies, amended as
noted in Appendix B of the Policy Report dated June 6, 1995, to reflect
more practical utilization by residents, be approved.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MOVED by Cllr. Kennedy,
THAT Council advise the Planning Department that it supports
"French Balconies" where appropriate and that language be incorporated
in the balcony regulations and/or guidelines that would encourage their
provision.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3. 3150 Rosemont Drive (The Kopernik Lodge)
An application by Bernard Perreten Architects was considered as
follows:
The proposed amendment to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District
By-law No. 4580 would:
- allow some development to encroach into the front yard at the
eastern part of the site. The required setback of 6.1 m
would be reduced to 4.6 m to accommodate a previously
approved addition at the eastern end of The Kopernik Lodge,
an existing seniors care facility.
The Director of Land Use and Development recommended approval,
subject to the following conditions proposed for adoption by resolution
of Council:
(a) THAT the amendment to the form of development be approved by
Council in principle, in plans generally as prepared by Bernard
Perreten Architects and stamped "Received City Planning
Department, May 11, 1995", provided that the Director of Planning
may allow minor alterations to this amended form of development
when approving the detailed scheme of development as outlined in
(b) below.
(b) THAT, prior to approval by Council of the amended 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) mature landscaping to be maintained;
ii) remedial measures if previously required relocation and
enclosure of the garbage containers and related measures have
not satisfactorily mitigated odours and noise which were
nuisances for adjoining neighbours;
iii) provision of skylights in the second-storey of new
development; and
iv) design and exterior/rooftop installation of any ventilation
and kitchen exhaust equipment to be completed in a manner
that minimizes noises and odours for adjoining residents.
Summary of Correspondence
No correspondence was received on this application.
cont'd....
Clause No. 3 (cont'd)
Speakers
The Mayor called for speakers for and against the application, and
none were present.
MOVED by Cllr. Clarke,
THAT this application be approved, subject to the conditions as
set out in this minute of the Public Hearing.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Hemer,
THAT the Committee of the Whole rise and report.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPT REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MOVED by Cllr. Bellamy,
SECONDED by Cllr. Chiavario,
THAT the report of the Committee of the Whole be adopted, and the
Director of Legal Services be instructed to prepare and bring forward
the necessary by-law amendments.
- CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
* * *
The Special Council adjourned at approximately 10:05 p.m.