SUPPORTS ITEM NO.   4
                                                P&E COMMITTEE AGENDA
                                                DECEMBER 14, 1995    


                                   
                             POLICY REPORT
                           DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

                                            Date: November 28, 1995
                                            Dept. File No. 94035-TWP


   TO:       Planning and Environment Committee

   FROM:     Director of Land Use and Development

   SUBJECT:  CD-1 Rezoning - 2897 West 41st Avenue

   RECOMMENDATION

        THAT  the application  by Chandler/Rasmussen  Architects to  rezone
        2897 West 41st Avenue (Lot  C, Block 9, D.L. 2027, Plan  5519) from
        RS-1 to  CD-1, to  permit a main  floor dental office  with parking
        below and a dwelling unit above, be REFUSED.

   GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

        The General  Manager of  Community Services RECOMMENDS  approval of
        the foregoing.

   COUNCIL POLICY

   No Council Policy specifically addresses this proposal.

   PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

   This report  assesses an application  to rezone  one RS-1  zoned lot  to
   permit a 103.9 m› (1,118 sq. ft.) dental office with five parking spaces
   below and a 93.8 m› (1,010 sq. ft.) dwelling unit above.  The site is on
   an  arterial street in a  low density residential  area, primarily zoned
   RS-1. The proposed  height is 10.7 m (35 ft.) compared to 9.2 m (30 ft.)
   permitted in RS-1. The driveway would be from MacKenzie Street. The rear
   setback is 6 m less than RS-1 requires on the adjoining site.

   Although revised plans address most design concerns, Planning  staff see
   no evidence  of a lack of commercial or mixed use development or leasing
   opportunities  in the area.  To the  contrary, this type of rezoning may
   dilute nearby  commercial areas  with numerous underdeveloped  sites and
   where vacancies are common.  Staff recommend refusal.
                                      MAP



   THE ORIGINAL OF THIS  DOCUMENT CONTAINS DIAGRAM OR ILLUSTRATION  AT THIS
   POINT.


   DISCUSSION

   Use    The applicant  has  not  demonstrated that  there  is  a lack  of
   opportunity  to lease or  develop space for  the proposed use  in nearby
   commercially zoned districts in Kerrisdale and Dunbar.  To the contrary,
   there are numerous sites which have not been developed to the commercial
   development potential  of the existing  zoning.   It is also  common for
   commercial buildings in these districts to have vacancies.

   The applicant argues  that no office  space is available  for lease  for
   dental office  in the Kerrisdale  area, largely because  older buildings
   have insufficient  parking  to  meet  the  current  health  care  office
   standard. However, recent  commercial developments  in Kerrisdale  could
   have provided adequate  parking for this use if there  was a demand, and
   many  underdeveloped sites could  be redeveloped  for medical  or dental
   office.
                                     - 3 -

   Staff  have also received enquiries  proposing to rezone  nearby C-1 and
   CD-1 commercial sites to purely residential use, indicating a surplus of
   local-serving commercial zoning  in the area.  Therefore,  staff believe
   that  to increase commercial development  potential in this  area is not
   desirable.  Even if additional  commercial zoning became desirable, this
   particular  location  would  not  be  appropriate  because it  does  not
   contribute  to the  continuity of existing  commercial districts  and is
   only one block from a C-1 District.

   While not recommended,  should Council choose  to approve the  rezoning,
   staff  propose  that  all   forms  of  health  care  office   and  other
   professional office  with no  greater potential impacts  than a  dentist
   office such  as law,  accounting, engineering  and architecture also  be
   permitted.   Experience with a similar office use rezoning in Kerrisdale
   (5660, 5670 Yew Street)  indicates that this range of  office uses would
   likely be requested in future through  a CD-1 text amendment should  the
   dentist require  a larger office or  move for other reasons.   Including
   these uses now would avoid text amendments later.

   Form   The result of locating parking below the office space is to raise
   the building to 3-levels and  10.7 m (35 ft.), beyond the maximum  9.2 m
   (30 ft.) height limit of  RS-1 zoning on the adjacent property.  Ramping
   and turning requirements would preclude lowering the building to the RS-
   1 height limit of  9.2 m (30 ft.) while retaining adequate parking and a
   pitched roof.

   For safety reasons, and in the absence of a rear lane, the City Engineer
   requires that vehicular  access would  be from  MacKenzie Street  rather
   than 41st Avenue.  However, from a neighbourhood point of view, it would
   be preferable  to have the  office entry  from West 41st  Avenue.   This
   factor detracts from the suitability of the site for commercial use.

   The proposed rear setback is 6 m (20 ft.) less than would be required on
   the RS-1  site to the north and would intrude upon that dwelling and the
   CD-1 site to the east.  It is not possible to increase the rear set back
   further due to the configuration of the proposed parking.

   The  proposed form  of  development (see  Plans,  Appendix D)  has  been
   substantially revised since  the June 1994 Design Panel  review resulted
   in  unanimous non-support(see Appendix E).   The revised form, supported
   by  the Panel (August 1995), seeks  to create a residential character in
   the  building by  providing  a house-like  shape  with a  pitched  roof.
   However,  even with  the revised  and much  improved design,  the issues
   noted above  suggest the  form would  still not  conform to the  single-
   family context of the area.       - 4 -

   Comments of the Applicant  The applicant has been provided a copy of the
   report and submitted comments  as contained in Appendix D.   In response
   to these comments, staff  note that the applicant incorrectly  refers to
   the  adjoining development to the east as a 3-storey commercial building
   when it is  a multiple dwelling.   Also,  application drawings show  the
   main  floor level to be 0.9 m  (3 ft.) above grade, to provide clearance
   for underground parking, which  is, therefore, not fully below  grade as
   stated by  the applicant.  The comments also indicate that the applicant
   wishes to revise the requested maximum height to 9.7 m  (32 ft.) instead
   of 10.7  m (35 ft.) shown  in submitted plans.   It is unclear  to staff
   what  extent of  changes  in roof  form  this might  imply,  potentially

   detracting from the residential character.

   CONCLUSION

   Planning staff conclude  that the  land uses proposed  in this  rezoning
   offer no  public benefit.  The  result would be detrimental  to both the
   pattern  of commercial  and  residential  development  in this  part  of
   Kerrisdale.  The  proposed form  of development would  also be  somewhat
   incongruous within  its RS-1 context  with respect to  height, setbacks,
   and  a commercial driveway.   Staff are also  particularly concerned, if
   the  application is approved,  with the  message that  would be  sent to
   owners of many other residential properties on numerous similar arterial
   streets  across  the City,  given the  long  standing surplus  supply of
   commercially-zoned lands in  most parts of the City.  For these reasons,
   it is recommended that the rezoning be refused.  

   However, should Council wish to consider  a CD-1 rezoning of the site at
   Public Hearing, it is recommended that a broader range of office uses be
   included in  the draft CD-1 By-law,  as shown in Appendix  A, subject to
   conditions as contained in Appendix B.   The Sign By-law would also need
   to be amended to permit signage for the office; the Noise Control By-law
   amended to include this site  in Schedule B; and the Subdivision  By-law
   amended to remove this site from  the maps which accompany Schedule A of
   the Subdivision By-law.



                                *  *  *  *  *