POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE
Date: March 27, 1996
Dept. File No.: PF
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Directors of Central Area Planning, Community Planning, City
Plans and Land Use & Development, in consultation with Manager
of Housing Centre, Director of Permits & Licences, Director of
Environmental Health and Assistant Chief Fire Protection
Officer
SUBJECT: Live/Work and Work/Live: Vancouver Overview
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT Strategic Directions 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 in Appendix A
be endorsed, to guide consideration of Live/Work and Work/Live
in future planning work programs, as and when these occur.
Briefly these include:
8.1: general directions for all types of Live/Work or
Work/Live including eligibility for City affordability
initiatives, owner/tenant awareness of nature of
development; the need for consultation;
8.2: directions to enhance Commercial Live/Work, including a
possible future review of "homecraft" regulations;
8.3: directions to guide Commercial Work/Live (as part of
current work underway on "general live/work"); and
8.4: directions to enhance Industrial Live/Work (i.e., low
impact activities, as part of current work underway on
"general live/work").
B. THAT Strategic Directions 8.5.1 to 8.5.10 in Appendix A be
endorsed, regarding Industrial Work/Live.
8.5.1 to 8.5.10 include directions regarding: taking a CD-1
project approach; limiting the number of units to be approved
city-wide to 300 over 5 years; approaching Building By-law
issues; an occupancy limit; the design features required;
parking, loading, security solutions needed; monitoring;
entertaining projects in three mixed-use/industrial districts;
entertaining projects in M and I districts, in existing
building, rental only, up to 1.0 FSR; considering experimental
projects in M and I sites subject to various conditions. C .
T H A T
Strateg
i c
Directi
o n
8.5.11
i n
Appendi
x A be
endorse
d, to
enterta
in an
experim
ental
Industr
i a l
Work/Li
v e
project
, in
n e w
constru
ction,
of up
to 150
units
on the
Trilliu
m site,
subject
t o
conditi
ons.
D. THAT Strategic Directions 8.5.12 in Appendix A be endorsed,
regarding responding to other experimental Industrial
Work/Live proposals in new construction, on M and I sites.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A,
B, C, and D.
COUNCIL POLICY
Council policy regarding Live/Work and Work/Live accommodation is
currently embodied in the regulations of the Zoning By-law concerning
"homecraft", and the regulations and policies concerning "dwelling unit
in conjunction with artist studio" (a.k.a. artist live/work studios).
These are described in the accompanying Overview.
SUMMARY
At Council's request, in conjunction with the False Creek Flats
planning, a study entitled Live/Work and Work/Live: Vancouver Overview
has been completed and is on file with the City Clerk (limited
distribution to Council). The study is a broad policy review of what
the City is doing now, and could do in future, to respond to the growth
of home-based business.
This report summarizes the study findings and recommendations. Appendix
A to this report contains Strategic Directions to be used to guide
further City work, as and when it occurs.
A key finding is that the City is not standing in the way of home-based
work's role in the "new information economy," but rather is already
accommodating the predominant types of home-based business through its
homecraft and artist live/work studio provisions. The study identifies
further advances that could be made: reviewing current homecraft
regulations and processes to ensure work as well as possible for the
users and neighbours; and moving to permit Commercial Work/Live, a
combination of living with office or service businesses that have
employees, or on-site sales. The first item is not on any work program.
Work on the latter has already been directed by Council in its March
1995 resolution to investigate "general live/work," and will be reported
back later this year.The study addresses issues that are often debated
about the livability, safety, and "genuineness" of Live/Work and
Work/Live. Directions are suggested to address these issues, as we move
into new areas.
The question of whether "Industrial Live/Work" should be permitted on
industrial lands is also considered. The conclusion is that only
Industrial Work/Live (i.e., higher impact activities, and/or with
employees or sales), has any claim to be considered.
With respect to Industrial Work/Live, the study estimates the
theoretical maximum for Industrial Work/Live at 900 units over the next
15 years. It suggests considering up to 300 units over the next 5 years
(city-wide) on a CD-1 project rezoning basis, subject to stringent
conditions, and monitoring these before expanding the number of units.
On the question of areas where Industrial Work/Live could be considered,
the study supports considering projects in areas where land use policies
already include the use mix (Burrard Slopes IC-1 and IC-2, Cedar Cottage
MC-1, Brewery Creek IC-3); and on M and I districts subject to the same
limits as current for Class B artist live/work studios (i.e., existing
buildings, rental only, up to 1.0 FSR). The issue of whether to also
consider new, strata-titled Industrial Work/Live projects in M and I
districts, is discussed. It is recommended that an experimental project
of up to 150 units could be considered on the Trillium site. Other
experimental projects on the order of 75 to 150 units might be
considered on M and I lands, subject to a number of criteria and
conditions.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to convey to Council the Live/Work and
Work/Live: Vancouver Overview, to briefly describe its contents and
implications, and to request Council endorsation of the Strategic
Directions it contains. (Attached as Appendix A.)
BACKGROUND
1. Origins
In March 1995, Council approved changes to the artist live/work studio
policies directing staff to make some regulatory changes; to extend
artist live/work studio opportunities into more of the mixed-use zones;
and to put additional limits on them in industrial lands. At that time,
Council directed staff to report back on possible zoning and guidelines
for "general live/work" in mixed-use, Downtown and heritage zones. This
report back is anticipatedlater this year. Shortly after, proposals
came forward from Trillium and the McLean Group to consider "industrial
live/work" on False Creek Flats and the Grandview/Boundary sites,
respectively.
Council decided that a broad policy overview of live/work was needed,
and that no decision on rezoning for "industrial live/ work" would be
made until then. Therefore, staff undertook this study, concurrently
with the first stage of False Creek Flats planning.
2. Study Contents and Process
The Study outlines the nature of home-based work and future trends;
develops common labels for categories of live/work to cut through the
wide variety of terminology; and reviews how Vancouver is currently
responding through provisions of the Zoning and Development and Building
By-laws. Some unmet needs (quantitative and qualitative) in the six
categories of Live/Work and Work/Live are described. Approaches are
suggested to deal with a number of issues that must be faced if we
address these unmet needs. The conclusions of the study related to
Industrial Work/Live are described. Lastly, Strategic Directions are set
out which should guide any future work by City staff on Live/Work and
Work/Live. These strategic Directions are attached to this report as
Appendix A.
The study was done by a Planning Department staff team, assisted by
advice from other departments. Information sources included current
zoning and building by-laws; analysis of census data; a consultant study
on live/work trends; telephone, written and field research in Vancouver
and a number of other cities; meetings with members of the live/work
development community and potential users. In addition the previous
research and analysis regarding artist live/work studios has been
helpful.
DISCUSSION
1. Common Labels
To facilitate discussion, the study uses six categories based the type
of work activity (Commercial, Industrial, or Artist)--and whether
residential expectations take precedence over work needs, or vice versa
(Live/Work, and Work/Live, respectively). Figure 1 describes the types
of business that fit in each category, as well as how the City's current
regulations treat them.2. Vancouver's Response to Home-Based Work
On a number of occasions, Council has been urged to meet the needs of
the "new information economy," and in particular the growing trend for
home-based work. People have raised the question of whether City
regulations are standing in the way of entrepreneurial activities such
as software development, research, consulting, film and media
businesses, designers, artisans and craftspersons by not permitting
these to be combined with residential.
The study confirms that home-based businesses are indeed growing, with
occupations mainly in the area of professional, business,
health/social/recreation, administrative, finance/ insurance, and
personal services--as well as a limited amount of manufacturing. In
1991, about 6.7% of Vancouver workers worked mainly at home, up from
3.5% in 1981.
A key finding is that Vancouver zoning regulations are already open to
much of this activity. The existing "homecraft" provisions of the
zoning allow any occupation to be carried on in any dwelling unit
throughout the city, provided there are no "objectionable" impacts, and
no employees or on-site sales. A development permit is not required.
In addition to homecraft, artist live/work studios have also been
permitted in many areas. It may be worthwhile at some point for the
regulations and administration processes to be reviewed.
While recognizing that the City currently meets the needs of much home-
based work, the study also indicates there are some unmet needs the City
could address. Among them:
- the user (and neighbour) satisfaction with "homecraft" regulations
and administration processes should be reviewed as and when staff
is available;Figure 1. Categories of Home-Based Work
PERMITTED?
(ZDB = Zoning and Development By-law)
CATEGORY TYPES OF BUSINESS (BB = Building By-law)
Commercial office or service work with few or no ZDB: "homecraft" permits any occupation
Live/Work impacts, no employees, no sales (examples: without development permit in any dwelling
self-employed consultants, researchers, provided no employees, sales or
software developers, analysts, writers, "objectionable impacts"
accountants, secretarial services;
personal services such as hair stylists, BB: most office, retail and many service
music teachers, tutors, doctors, uses permitted in combination with
therapists, child daycare; contract residential (note: health regulations
workers, teleworkers; office bases for prohibit some, e.g., hair stylist, food
off-site services such as building and preparation, pet grooming)
landscape contractors, sales reps)
PERMITTED?
(ZDB = Zoning and Development By-law)
CATEGORY TYPES OF BUSINESS (BB = Building By-law)
Commercial above activities, but where employees are ZDB: not currently permitted; Council
Work/Live involved, plus resolution to investigate "general
retail sales and repair or other services live/work" regulations for mixed-use,
with frequent customer trade downtown, heritage zones
BB: as above
Industrial goods production or servicing involving ZDB: permitted as "homecraft" in dwellings
Live/Work lower impacts and no employees (examples: throughout the city, without development
some jewellers, garment making, small permit provided no employees, sales or
leather goods, some printing, computer or "objectionable impacts"
small good repair, some production and
recording studios) BB: if carried out under "homecraft", many
are not likely seeking business licenses or
renovation permits; if they did, some of the
work activities would be permitted but many
would not
Industrial goods production or servicing involving ZDB: not permitted currently
Work/Live higher impacts, employees, and/or sales
(examples: metal work, wood work, some BB: most would not be permitted currently
printing, some production studios)
Artist artists and craftspersons working in low- ZDB: permitted as "homecraft" in dwellings
Live/Work impact media or processes (examples: many throughout the city, without development
painters, graphics, photography and print permit; provided no employees, sales or
artists; some potters, carvers; some "objectionable" impacts; also permitted as
musicians) "dwelling unit accessory to Artist Studio
Class A"
BB: in the case of "homecraft" no business
license or renovation permit likely being
sought; however, residential is permitted
with "Artist Studio Class A"1
Artist artists and craftspersons working in ZDB: permitted as "dwelling unit accessory
Work/Live higher-impact media or processes to Artist Studio Class B"1
(examples: using amplified music, on-site
film processing, welding, woodworking, BB: residential permitted with "Artist
spray painting, fired ceramics, generally Studio Class B"1
using toxic or hazardous products)
1 Reflects recent changes in artist live/work policies that have not yet implemented
as regulations.
- investigations into allowing Commercial Work/Live should proceed,
pursuant to Council's 1995 instructions. This focuses on office and
personal service businesses that want to expand to have employees or
on-site sales. Several areas already have land use policies that
would support permitting this (e.g., Downtown South, Brewery Creek),
and ongoing planning in Victory Square, Gastown and other heritage
areas may also provide opportunities. In future, other neighbourhoods
will also likely identify places where this might occur during their
Neighbourhood Visioning processes;
- the Building By-law classification of some of the home-based, low-
impact "industrial" activities, should be reviewed as part of the
above work. Some of them may be having difficulty obtaining business
licences or renovation permits because of their occupancy
classification under the Building By-law; and
- opportunities to meet the small demand for "Industrial Work/Live"
could be provided. These are somewhat higher impact manufacturing or
non-personal service activities, and/or those that have employees or
sales. They are not currently permitted under the Zoning or Building
By-laws. The study estimates a maximum theoretical demand for 900
units over the next 15 years, city-wide.
The first item is not on any work program, at this time. The second and
third will be pursued by staff following Council's March 1995
instructions to investigate zoning and guidelines for what was then
called "general live/work." The fourth is discussed in more detail
below.
2. Issues Related to Live/Work and Work/Live
Throughout the public discussions on artist studio policies, and during
the process of this study, misgivings have been expressed about the
livability and safety of combining work and live activities, as well as
about the "genuineness" of live/work. In addition, the question of
whether to allow industrial lands to be used has been debated.
(a) Impacts
First and foremost, the study reveals that most of the demand is for
commercial or low-impact "industrial" live/work activities that do not
pose a problem. However, if we extend into permitting new types, the
study suggests several directions.First, we should recognize the need to
consult with neighbouring owners and residents before introducing uses
that may have impacts on them. We also suggest ensuring future owners
and tenants are aware of what is to be expected in a work/live
environment, through covenants and markers on the buildings.
Another important concern is the appropriate protection of the safety
and health of residents. Our current relaxations to permit living in
artist studios partly rely on restricting units to two residents.
Enforcing this may be difficult, as time goes on. Therefore, staff
recommend caution when extending into Industrial Work/Live, with its
higher impact activities. Specifically, there should be a physical
firewall-type, separation between the live and work areas.
Lastly, because of the time involved in changing complex regulations, we
propose that Industrial Work/Live be approached on a CD-1 project basis,
rather than through broad Bylaw changes.
(b) Continuation of Work and Live Activities
As changes occur in business fortunes and personal objectives, a
Live/Work person may stop working in their unit. Similarly, if and when
we allow Work/Live, a business owner may decide at some point that they
want to stop living on premises, and turn the whole unit over to work
activities.
Enforcing occupancy requirements is more difficult where the activities
share the same physical space, as with artist live/work studios. As we
move into Commercial Work/Live, we may have the same challenge. When we
can't guarantee that space will not become all-work or all-residential,
we should plan with that in mind, and ensure that other land use
policies are not inadvertently compromised. For example, we should not
locate space that might convert to all-residential where we require
continuous retail or service along the street, or above the residential
density limits set for various reasons.
In the case of Industrial Work/Live, staff feel the requirement for
physical separation of the live and work space noted above, will make
enforcement of the permitted work use easier, forestalling conversion.
As well, requirements described below for appropriate scale and
functional features of the work space will tend to encourage legitimate
use.(c) Using Industrial Lands
Recently-adopted Industrial Lands Policies call for retention of
industrial land for city-related or city-serving industry. However,
several development proponents have argued that "industrial live/work"
should be permitted.
One argument is that because modern industry is clean, residents won't
be impacted. This neglects two factors: that much city-serving
industry is still a nuisance to residents, as complaints and pressures
on businesses to curtail activities indicate; and that incorporation of
residential, even in the form of market "live/work" units, drives up
land values, and thus taxes, and further jeopardizes the businesses.
These are the fundamental reasons the remaining 5% of City land that is
industrially zoned needs to be protected from residential incursion.
The second argument suggests that industrial land should be used because
its cheaper prices can subsidize more affordable units. However,
experience shows that market live/work studio prices reflect the normal
condominium market, and land prices rise in response. In addition,
there is no argument for using cheaper land prices to subsidize units
for only a small segment of the population. Council has already
determined that providing affordable housing sites is not a criterion
for rezoning retained industrial lands.
The only rationale for using retained industrial lands is to provide for
work activities that are suitable (i.e., compatible) in an industrial
area and cannot be comfortably accommodated elsewhere. Of the six
categories, only Industrial Work/Live qualifies.
4. Industrial Work/Live: Conclusions
The theoretical maximum demand for Industrial Work/Live is 900 units in
2011, or about 60 units per year. (This may be an over-estimate with
respect to actual market. For comparison, estimated absorption in a
market study for San Francisco was about 20 units per year.)
Staff recommend considering proposals for Industrial Work/Live on a CD-1
rezoning basis. In order to gain experience, we should limit approvals
to 300 units over the next 5 years, and monitor the projects. Strict
criteria are proposed: among them physical separation of live and work
spaces (with fire wall); a ratio of 2/3 work space to 1/3 living space;
and provision of necessary functional features such as loading, freight
elevators, adequate door sizes, etc.In terms of locations, we should
entertain Industrial Work/Live in the areas where land use policies
already support industrial mixed-use: Burrard Slopes IC-1 and IC-2
Districts, Cedar Cottage MC-1 District, and Brewery Creek IC-3 District.
As well, we should consider Industrial Work/Live in other M and I
districts subject to the same limits as recently endorsed by Council for
Artist Live/Work Studios--i.e., in existing buildings, for rental only
(not strata-titled), and up to 1.0 FSR.
This leaves the issue of whether to entertain new, strata-titled
Industrial Work/Live projects in M and I districts. The three districts
noted above provide significant capacity (3,800 units). However,
Industrial Work/Live is an experimental concept, and may want to take
forms that are not possible under the regulations in these areas. In
particular, the larger industrial-type work spaces that are required may
result in less intensive development than those now occurring in these
areas. Industrial Work/Live may not be able to compete.
On the risk side, allowing some projects on M and I lands may result in
pressure to approve more. On the other hand, provided we adhere to the
number limits, the amount of industrial land used would be small--
perhaps 3 to 6 acres for 300 units. Monitoring will tell us if the
experiment is worthwhile before there is any extension beyond 300. A
requirement for projects to contribute to public benefits, perhaps
including an affordable housing contribution, could limit the land value
increases that might set off speculation elsewhere. Lastly, while
conversion to all residential is an issue, the stringent requirements
noted above mitigate against this.
Staff feel that an experimental project on M and I land would be the
best way to test real market interest in Industrial Work/Live. To
assess whether proposed locations are appropriate for the needs of the
development, we suggest some locational criteria that balance the future
users' work-related needs with their living needs. (See 8.5.10 in
Appendix A.) In terms of appropriate scope of project, we propose it be
big enough for users to share some facilities and feel some sense of
community. Based on research in other cities, we propose 75 units as
the minimum. However, in order to allow some of the 300-unit, 5-year
demand to be tried elsewhere, we suggest a maximum 150 units for any one
project.
Staff feel that the Trillium site, which has been examined in some
detail as part of the False Creek Flats planning process, meets the
locational criteria. We recommend that a proposal for up to 150 units
of Industrial Work/Live could be entertained on this site, should the
owner wish.If owners of other M and I sites wish to propose experimental
projects, they could apply provided the Industrial Work/Live is part of
a comprehensively planned project, with a minimum of 75 unit proposed;
and provided there are less than 300 units already in process for
rezoning. When the CD-1 application is made, staff would assess the
location based on the locational criteria, and report to Council early
for a decision on whether to continue to process the work/live component
of the application.
CONCLUSION
The study has shown that the City is well along the way in providing for
the types of living and working combinations that many people are
seeking. Strategic Directions are recommended to guide further
initiatives for Commercial Work/Live and Industrial Live/Work which will
be the subject of staff efforts, pursuant to Council's March 1995
directive to investigate "general live/work." Specific proposals on
locations, regulations, and guidelines will come forward in due course.
Staff also recommend consideration of Industrial Work/Live CD-1
proposals subject to a limit of 300 units over the next 5 years (city-
wide), stringent conditions on spatial configuration and features; and
monitoring. These projects should be considered in several areas where
land use policies already support them; and in M and I zones under
similar limits now applied to Artist Live/Work Studios there.
Finally, staff recommend consideration of up to 150 units in an
experimental Industrial Work/Live project, in new construction on the
Trillium site, should the owner be interested. Other experimental
projects on M and I lands may be considered in future, subject to the
300 unit 5-year limit, if they form part of a comprehensively planned
project and locational criteria.
* * *