A2
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: October 17, 1995
Dept. File No. WB
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of Land Use & Development
SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 215 Covenant - 7116 Selkirk Street
Development Application Number DE400159
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Section 215 Covenant registered at the Vancouver Land
Title Office under Charge No. G89947 and amended under Charge No.
N98585 for 7116 Selkirk Street (Lot 17, Subdivision A of 2, Block
17A, District Lot 526, Plan 17919) be amended to allow a maximum
floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.60, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Land Use & Development and the Director of Legal
Services at no cost to the City.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of
the foregoing.
COUNCIL POLICY
There is no applicable Council Policy for this matter.
PURPOSE
This report seeks a Council Resolution to amend the Section 215 Covenant
respecting floor space ratio (FSR) provisions for lands located at 7116
Selkirk Street (Lot 17, Subdivision A of 2, Block 17A, District Lot 526,
Plan 17919). Since Council approved the terms of the original
covenants, any substantive alteration to the text requires a Council
Resolution.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The location of the site is shown on the attached Appendix "A" map.
This site is zoned RS-1 One-Family Dwelling District and developed with
a single-family dwelling approved under Development Permit Number 86831,
issued on April 9, 1980, and subject to the terms of two Section 215
covenants registered on title.
The covenants, volunteered by the property owner at the time of
subdivision, were entered into to provide a certain degree of view
protection to and from the nearby single-family dwellings, and to
preserve the large, estate-like amenities characteristic of the
immediate neighbouring properties. Similar covenants restrict
development on Lot 18 (immediately east of this site).In 1982, it was
determined that the original owner had not built in accordance with the
approved plans and the City initiated litigation proceedings. In 1984,
the owner applied for a development permit which, if approved, would
"validate" the deviations from the original approved plans. This
application was, however, put on hold pending resolution of the matter
of jurisdiction, given that the proposal violated the conditions of the
registered covenants. The matter was reported to City Council on
September 10, 1985, at which time Council, after considering the effect
of the changes on neighbouring properties, resolved to allow amendments
to the existing covenants.
The two covenants restricting Lot 17 now provide for the following:
(a) Lot 17 only to be developed with a single-family dwelling,
requiring design approval by the Director of Planning;
(b) the FSR not to exceed 0.424 (amended from 0.30 by Council
resolution September 10, 1985);
(c) the height not to exceed the lesser of one-storey or 5.000 m (16.40
ft.) mean height; and
(d) the easterly 5.508 m (18.07 ft.) of Lot 17, in perpendicular width,
not to be used, built on or developed with any building structures
(amended from 7.780 m [25.79 ft.] by Council resolution September
10, 1985).
DISCUSSION
The present owner of the site wishes to demolish the existing building
and construct a new single-family dwelling. The dwelling proposed in
the development application would comply with the height and view
restrictions of the covenants. However, the dwelling seeks the FSR of
the RS-1 District Schedule; the restriction on FSR imposed by the
covenant would not be met.
In order to minimize visual building bulk and comply with the height and
view restrictions of the covenants, the proposal is limited to a single-
storey with basement. Staff believe that the resulting form of
development, which is well under the outright height and above-grade FSR
limitations in the current RS-1 District Schedule, meets the original
intent of the covenants, particularly with respect to preserving
existing views and open space. Further, the floor area exceeding the
covenant restriction which relates to "gross" FSR (as opposed to above-
grade FSR) is largely developed as basement area, which will not
adversely affect neighbouring sites.
Simplified plans, including a site plan and elevations of the proposal,
have been included in Appendix "B".
The three neighbouring property owners deemed to be most affected by the
proposed development and beneficiaries of the current covenants (see
Appendix "A" map) were notified of the proposal and were asked to
comment on the proposed form of development and the proposed amendment
to the FSR limitation in the covenant. No objections were received.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development meets the restrictions prescribed by the
covenants with respect to height and view protection. Further, the
proposed development is well under the current by-law permitted height
and above-grade floor space ratio (FSR). While the proposed "gross"
floor space ratio (FSR) is greater than currently prescribed by
covenant, it meets the requirements of the RS-1 District Schedule and
the neighbouring property owners do not object to the new form of
development proposed on this site.
The Director of Land Use & Development believes the design of the
proposal is acceptable and meets the intent of the original covenants
and is therefore prepared to support the amendment to the floor space
ratio restrictions contained therein.
* * * * *